Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 18 December 2014

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.

Joseph P. Farrell

One of the legions of authors from Adventures Unlimited Press ... any thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source for him. Should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's a magnet for fringe theories editors so the AfD will probably fail. BlueSalix (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie, BlueSalix, and Goblin Face: I saw the results of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Farrell and have a related question pertaining to this author. I have seen references to or material cited to Farrell in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Kecksburg UFO incident, Nazi UFOs, and Die Glocke; however, there is no coverage of the author, his books, or his claims in "reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". As an example, the following passage appears in the Other published theories section of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories:

Joseph P. Farrell's LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy (2011) attempts to show multiple interests had reasons to remove President Kennedy: The military, CIA, NASA, anti-Castro factions, Hoover's FBI and others. He concludes that the person that allowed all of these groups to form a "coalescence of interests" was Vice President Lyndon Johnson. ISBN 978-1-935487-18-0

The only way to cite this material is to cite the primary source. Per WP:FRINGE (WP:ONEWAY) and/or WP:REDFLAG, is this permitted? - Location (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read one of Farrell's books (Reich of the Black Sun, about money laundering in Europe). Approximately half of the endnotes he used as sources in it were to a Geocities website that claimed its information came from an 10,000 year old Visigoth warrior it had channeled. I think any source linked to Farrell should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dulce Base

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

I'm going to stop reverting an insistent IP that keeps inserting a plug for a book that's so obscure and unreliable its pages consist of b&w xerox copies spiral bound together. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Info on Hamilton here , he writes "I don't see how you can help avoid the spiritual and psychic connections. All ET lifeforms have been known to communicate telepathically, and may have precognitive abilities. Their awareness might be greater than ours when it comes to matters of the spiritual universe." Nuff said. We shouldn't be citing him on Misplaced Pages. Goblin Face (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed it - self-published book by an IT specialist seriously fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:RSOPINION. Relevant, because he's responsible for 90% of all material on Dulce. Seems self-evident, since his material is quoted and referenced by every writer on the subject. 121.72.200.237 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This and Paul Bennewitz need to be merged, if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Atlantis

Attempt to remove 'allegory' and 'pseudohistory' from lead by an SPA, I think more participants are required. See Talk:Atlantis#Allegory, pseudo-history. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several new editors on the article talk page whose only interest is promoting the idea that Atlantis was real. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Con

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

Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What I find is three local media "news of the weird" articles, a couple of blog hits of the same ilk, and a very passing reference in a book. Make of it what you will. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the one book reference again it actually has enough for a very stubbish article. Not sure what to make of notability, though. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman

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

911 CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no. There really doesn't even seem to be a narrative of his involvement in the 9/11 stuff. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:911ct

List of "notables" in this is rather sketchy, plus the template seems to be dropped on the page on anyone who ever expressed a 9/11 doubt. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be a form of spam to draw attention to the 911 conspiracy cause, but I'm not sure what to do about it. - Location (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:BLP/N for further discussion there. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

John Coleman (author)

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

One-world government CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have sufficient independent sources to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted too. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alien hair analysis

• Bill Chalker
• Peter Khoury Incident

Can someone review these article about UFOs, alien abduction, and DNA analysis of alien hair (!) and and see if they need to be deleted, merged, or if they can be re-written and sourced in compliance with WP:FRINGE? A quick search found only coverage in the usual UFO/conspiracy website, but given that Chalker's book was published by a mainstream publisher there may be legitimate reviews and debunking buried underneath. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduced Peter Khoury Incident to what RS will support. It still may not meet notability guidelines. Bill Chalker may meet notability requirements, but the article would have to be greatly reduced (I see a huge list of non-notable passing mentions in the refs) and written in an objective tone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also look into Antônio Vilas Boas. A few good sources and a lot of fringe sources. And the infobox is definitely being used as an NPOV workaround. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Then he had an urge to go to the bathroom. He realized that his penis felt very painful. Standing in the bathroom, he pulled back the foreskin and found two thin blond strands of hair wrapped tightly around.": Quite creative. Logos (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Peter Khoury for deletion. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have to appreciate that they forced him to mate with them. Apparently the hairs had both "Chinese type" DNA and "Basque/Gaelic" DNA , which cannot be explained. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

World Wireless System

Help wanted at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power transmission technology (see also Wardenclyffe Tower). The article is filled with original research, speculation, synthesis, lengthy quotes and quite a few primary sources. Any help trimming and copy editing the article so that it conforms to WP:FRINGE would be appreciated.- MrX 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This article is a disgrace. I'm reading up on Tesla's work, and plan to help edit the article in the near future. GLPeterson who wrote World Wireless System has been WP:PUSHing this material at several other articles, and has an ANI complaint against him. I just finished rewriting more of his WP:FRINGE Tesla stuff at Wireless power. --Chetvorno 16:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any way this article can be trimmed or copy-edited. It is an unrealized and untested theory that appears to depend on luminiferous ether and a misinterpretation of the ionosphere. At best it contains a few paragraphs worth of usable information that could be included in Wardenclyffe Tower or Nikola Tesla. This article, however, appears to be a candidate for AfD. Roches (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would go along with that. GLPeterson originally created this article as a WP:POVFORK from Wardenclyffe Tower so he could spread his theories, and Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who agrees with us, has suggested merging it back in.--Chetvorno 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I recently edited a lot of similar WP:FRINGE Tesla material by GLPeterson out of the Wireless power article, and he is constantly reinserting it, so I could use some help on that page reverting it. I think it is time GLPeterson had some sanctions against him. --Chetvorno 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wireless power bothers me even more than World Wireless System (WWS), so I'll try to help with that too. Deletion of the WWS article would affect legitimate efforts to balance the NPOV content, but I think it's the best way to keep the subject in proportion to its notability. If it's an article, I can only foresee point-by-point conflict over whether any of the hundreds of claims should be included. Roches (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Exorcism as Pseudoscience

There is some controversy on the Exorcism article as an editor is attempting to label the practice a form of pseudoscience. See the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the title of the thread unless you make an entry indicating you are doing it. The change had a POV tone to it. I would prefer to keep the discussion neutral and oriented on policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Exorcism is clearly a religious practice, and as such should not be labeled a pseudoscience. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not make scientific claims. It makes claims that are certainly non-scientific and may be anti-scientific, but that's a separate issue. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Trying to stretch 'pseudoscience' to cover every belief that can't be justified through science is highly questionable (and arguably unscientific...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Though, that said, specific forms may well come under pseudoscience (or, more properly, pseudomedicine)> E.g. "I cast out the demon of Cancer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page, but the above comment does seem to me to raise the issue of what some might consider overuse in some of the charismatic/pentecostal/non-denominational Christian groups, which I seem to remember now have been said to have rather unusually quick recourse to this procedure. I have a feeling that this topic could probably easily be spunout into multiple articles, and it might make sense to describe it as pseudoscientific in some particular instances or spinout articles, but I don't think in general that it is used in the west as pseudoscientific. Regarding African cults of affliction and similar groups, those would probably be different cases. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Some recent questionable IP activity at this article; may need eyes. Alexbrn 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This was semi-protected temporarily, but now that's lifted the problematic edits have resumed. More eyes needed. Alexbrn 13:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not returned and there is nothing wrong with my contributions. They are properly sourced and relevant. To give some examples:

1: Your idea is that peer reviewed articles co-authored by the subject of a wikipedia article may not be mentioned is in error. One may even use the subjects homepage or his self-published book to source statements by him or her. These are co-authored papers published in peer reviewed journals. I'm not using them to source anything beyond their existence.

example 2: There is a section about Rowan University. They are clearly involved with BLP. As there was no coverage after 2002 I have updated that section with more recent information. Using the University Annual Report to show that BLP is funding their research is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing unreliable about these reports. I chose not to use any of these sources for their involvement:

• 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blacklight-power-returns-with-more-lab-validation/
• 2009 http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100205191449/http://njbiz.com/article.asp?aid=78895
• 2008 http://venturebeat.com/2008/12/11/blacklight-power-lands-first-license-agreement-for-electricity-from-water/
• 2008 http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/21/blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-claims-of-a-new-renewable-energy-source/
• 2014 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/14/blacklight-power-validation-by-rowan-university-video/
• 2010 http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2392/have-the-rowan-university-hydrino-findings-been-replicated-elsewhere
• etc

The test reports published on the company website are obviously not usable either. This however doesn't mean it is not allowed to document their involvement. The funding provides valuable context to whatever official publications may appear in the future. It is perfectly neutral to state that BLP spend $600,000 on research grants.

example 3: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The most important aspect is that there are prominent published sources debunking the claims. The collection of childish remarks offers no added value beyond this.

example 4: It is also acceptable to document who the investors are in the funding section of the article.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

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

New media section gives undue weight to content sourced to a conspiracy TV show. New Incidents section synthesizes a list of "targeted individuals" based on Press TV coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience

Please see this article. Problems with editor inserting fringe sources into the lead, he is also using the talk-page as a forum. Regarding near-death studies due to lack of interest I will attempt to fix this also. Goblin Face (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ike Altgens

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

Ike Altgens is currently a good article nominee at Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations#World history. While I think the subject is worthy of a stand-alone article, there are various issues with sourcing that violate WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO. First, there are a number of fringe sources that lend undue weight to an alleged controversy regarding his photograph (e.g. Trask, Fetzer, Groden, Marrs). Secondly, primary source material from the Warren Commission is used to synthesize support for the alleged controversy. Thirdly, there are a couple YouTube videos that appear to violate our copyright policy. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed Location's excellent concerns and suggestions, and I would like to know what else I can/should be doing to get this once-Featured Article (under admittedly less stringent 2007 standards) over the GA hump. TIA. :) —ATinySliver/ 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hum

Here we have a bunch of similar phenomenon discussed in what at first glance seems a sober article. I got there because it has turned up at the HAARP article (and I'm sorry to have to say this, but the feds are looking to transfer this to some academic group, so it may get switched back on again, raining fresh fringiness from the skies). There are forks off it of various locales. The title is a bit of a problem, but not sure what could be done that's better. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Background hum or Natural background hum might work. The first title doesn't seem to be in use right now. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Known in the UK as low frequency noise. Some is down to tinnitus, some apparently not. The article as-is contains crankery. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: the literature always seems to refer to it as low frequency noise, but tabloids call it The Foo Hum (for different values of Foo). It is exploited by wind farm opponents. I redirected but was reverted (I have left a note on the user's talk page explaining that the title is WP:OR and the content represents a rather one-sided view of something whihc, in the literature, is not called this. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, there you have it. The title is WP:OR, the content is redundant to infrasound (this is a WP:POVFORK, basically, but fanbois are determined not to have redirect, instead demanding AfD (even though no deletion is necessary). Hence Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hum. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Qigong fever

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

This popped up in the New Pages feed. There's one sentence at the end that acknowledges that qi may not be a scientific concept ("Prof. He Zuoxiu (b.1927) stood as ardent opponent of qigong practices, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific."), but other than that it's entirely in-universe, wth sentences like:

Powerful trigger for widespread of the qigong vogue was made by Yan Xin 严新 (b.1949, Sichuan), whose activity was tested in several scientific laboratories of Beijing: researchers at Qinghua University publicized results of experiments showing that Yan's "external qi" had changed the molecular structure of water at a distance of 2,000 km.

Kolbasz (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

George Gurdjieff

I have removed a chunk of the really gross bloat and promotional link spam from George Gurdjieff although the article remains highly promotional. If history is any guide the followers will shortly launch an attempt to restore all or most of it. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor insisting that we cannot refer to Madoc as the "legendary Prince Madoc" at Cronica Walliae

See Talk:Cronica Walliae where User:Doug Coldwell says "The word "legendary" has been taken out of the article since the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript. The exact wording is furnished from Llwyd's manuscript for reference. The book itself can be obtained in a University of Wales reprint by Professor Ieuam M. Williams as was previously published by David Powel's 1584 book Historie of Cambria. The issue is not about truth, but if it has been published previously by a relaible source -> see WP:TRUTH. There are no references that Llwyd's Cronica Walliae is a fictional work, but there are several references by reliable sources that his manuscript is a historical work.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript, NOT a debate on the validity of Madoc.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

See British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 edited by Brendan Bradshaw, Peter Roberts "It was Humphrey Lhuyd who, in his ‘Cronica Walliae’ (c. 1559), first publicised the legend that the Welsh prince Madog ab Owain Gwynedd (fl. 1170) had sailed across the Atlantic and discovered America." I've used a source he did to say 'supposed', but this is probably better. There's also The new companion to the literature of Wales - Page 176 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WoMYAAAAIAAJ

Meic Stephens - 1998 - ‎Snippet view -"The work, entitled Cronica Walliae, was written in 1559 and began with the 'Description of Wales', a section written ... It was Llwyd who first referred to the legend of *Madoc and provided the first clear exposition of the theory of the Early British ." I didn't say that Llywyd's work was fiction. It was historical but incorporated legends. As the article says, he believes the Welsh were from Troy. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Brought this up at WP:NPOVN as Coldwell continues to remove any suggestion this wasn't historical and writes about it as though it was. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Energy (esotericism)

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

This article is subject to frequent- drive-by tagging with no engagement on Talk. It may require semiprotecting to get the anon(s) to engage and explain their problem. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

For those who are interested, there is discussion about the intersection of BLP and FRINGE going on in the Talk page, and editing, of the article above. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

More concrete question now. Griffin advocates the use of laetrile to treat cancer and has engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism. My understanding of the intersection of BLP and PSCI is that WP should simply and directly provide the scientific consensus on these issues. Two users, Atsme and Srich32977 disagree, for reasons explained by them here. The current content is:

Cancer and AIDS denial In 1974, Griffin wrote and published the book World Without Cancer and released it as a documentary video; its second edition appeared in 1997. In the book and the video, Griffin asserts that cancer is a metabolic disease facilitated by the insufficient dietary consumption of laetrile. He contends that "eliminating cancer through a nondrug therapy has not been accepted because of the hidden economic and power agendas of those who dominate the medical establishment" and he wrote, "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health". Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer. Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it".

Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile. He does not sell laetrile himself.

Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies". The foundation expanded its mission in March, 2002 to include disseminating information about other medical conditions, and it changed its name to The Cure Research Foundation. In 2010, Griffin engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism, claiming that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "doesn't exist" and that antiretroviral medications (rather than the HIV virus) cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

references

1. ^ Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). "Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
2. "Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10.
3. "New Library Books". Books (Grand Forks Herald). 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
4. Nightingale SL (1984). "Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy". Public Health Rep 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606. PMID 6431478.
5. Landau, Emanuel, Ph.D. (July 1976). "World without Cancer; the Story of Vitamin B17" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health 66 (7): 696. doi:10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a. ISSN 0090-0036. Retrieved 2008-03-05.
6. Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
7. Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). "Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve"? Media Matters for America. (Noting that Griffin is an AIDS denier who believes the government shot down Flight 93 on 9/11.)

Thoughts?

• The crux of the argument I've seen lurking at the page seems to be that the two users do not think PSCI applies (correct me if I'm wrong) at least in the context of laetrile because it is a BLP article and not the article on laetrile. NPOV in terms of fringe topics does require that if a claim is presented in an article and it is a fringe idea, we need to document not only that is is a fringe idea, but also be sure to not bury that detail. It doesn't matter where that occurs. Otherwise we risk violating NPOV and BLP by failing to accurately describe the person and what they are known for. NPOV and BLP do not allow us to exclude what may appear to be negative content simply because it may be negative. We definitely want appropriate sources to describe the ideas or claims of the person (WP:PARITY). However, when we're describing the claims and not the person themselves, we are distancing ourselves from worrying about BLP and just simply sticking to stating a specific claim and stating what the actual scientific consensus is on that idea followed by whether the idea has any merit at all. If someone really was just hyper-vigilant about BLP issues, then all that needs to be done is to qualify the claims as conspiracy theories, fringe, etc. rather than the person to avoid even the thought of BLP issues (which I don't see currently). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I guess this is my area of particular interest, as a skeptic looking at cancer quackery in particular, so I will check it our. Please give me 48 hours or so to get up to speed. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Rense and Rense.com

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

While I do see mention in reliable sources, I am wondering if either Jeff Rense or Rense.com (which redirects to the first) have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects to warrant a stand-alone article. Relevant guidelines are Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)/WP:ENTERTAINER and Misplaced Pages:Notability (media)/WP:BROADCAST. Related to this, there appears to be some discussion regarding the reliability of www.rense.com in the Archives. - Location (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article on Rense describes how he worked for several TV stations, including in an on-screen role, and he has also hosted broadcast radio programs. That seems to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, especially as he worked for media that meet WP:BROADCAST. The notability of a person does not affect the reliability of any content they have produced. Roches (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENTERTAINER does not appear to cover local television reporters and anchors, but a radio host might be covered under "opinion makers". I'm not sure if it would be necessary for his program to pass WP:RPRGM first. - Location (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There's only one subject, hence the redirect, but this is quite prominent whacknuttery. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution