Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:16, 18 February 2015

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.

Manuel Rosa, possible socks

An article on this fringe Christopher Columbus researcher (an IT help desk worker at Duke University) has been recreated after being AfD'd years ago. It needs eyes. For some of the history of Rosa's visits here, see and . See also Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo which may have been created by Rosa editing as blocked editor User talk:Colon-el-Nuevo, a known puppet master. Certainly this new article has been edited by an IP from Duke University and another from Miami, where Rosa is around now.. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And . Rosa's blog? Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Silicon Valley secessionism

Granted this article has 3 (and only 3) references from fairly mainstream sources, it still comes across as Fringe. And I'm saying this as someone that lives in this region. Additional input would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha, well found, Scalhotrod. We read that "The concept has been advocated by a number of notable individuals, including prominent figures" (no source specified); and of all these notable and prominent personages, one (1) redlinked person is named: one speech he gave was greeted warmly and enthusiastically (sourced). Except that it wasn't, because the cited source says nothing about anything beyond "warmly". Article needs a fine-toothed comb, or maybe just a machete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In Wired the main proponent named by the article claims the word secession is wildly exaggerated. See also this article. Our writedown needs some work. Sources galore, but they do not seem to say what our article says. Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary and Kleuske for commenting. Although I am an Inclusionist, I am still left wondering if this article needs work or tagging for AfD. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject ia at best borderline in Notability. The real problem is that it is patently FRINGE and the article does not reflect that. Leaning towards AfD... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so its FRINGE presented as Mainstream? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Two stories recently on CNN about Silicon Valley and LSD: ONE, TWO, wonder if it's related. The Silicon Valley article does not mention it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

...and there are stories about swingers in Silicon Valley too, but I'm not sure what that or LSD have to do with seceding. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Burzynski clinic

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

Stanislaw Burzynski and his son are up in front of the Texas Medical Board, and this is resulting in a lot of spamming of social media by his supporters. One of them has posted this: https://wikipediaburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-antineoplastons-fact-checked-corrected/ - a quick read showed nothing that we need to change, but in the spirit of at listening respectfully to all points of view, even if they are demonstrably wrong, it is worth at least checking it just in case we have something actually wrong rather than simply stating a truth that believers find unwelcome. It's also worth watchlisting the article as there's no doubt that as the court dates loom, fans and shills will be all over us. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy

Since the reason for this AfD is mainly FRINGE/GEVAL violations, I figure I should leave a note here. Manul ~ talk 01:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Energy_quality and Emergy

Incredibly detailed and incomprehensible articles about Energy quality and Emergy. It is obviously fringe and may have some historical significance, but the articles present these ideas as current science. The ideas seem to be from Howard T. Odum. Bhny (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some more weirdness- Energy flow (ecology) Open system (systems theory) Ecological energetics Maximum power principle Bhny (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kill it, kill it with fire. Many of these are possibly plausible redirects for other things. Second Quantization (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Gold Wars

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

This looks like a pretty clear case of WP:PROFRINGE gold buggery. The sources are almost certainly Fringe. At one point the article had been turned into a redirect to Gold Standard but this was reverted without explanation. My inclination is to redirect this to Gold bug. Thoughts? Ping Bobrayner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I favor converting it back to a redirect. Google results for "Gold Wars" don't turn up anything that looks like mainstream commentary. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No issues with that. It was the original author who reverted the redirect back to the their article though, so it may make some sense to go to AFD, proposing a redirect just to prevent drama. Ravensfire (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The original author may also have a considerable COI. S/he claims to hold the copyright to the book cover just uploaded. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That could just be from being a fairly new user and not understanding how they need to upload images like that and just went with the easiest option. Of course, since they uploaded it to commons, I suspect it will be deleted fairly quickly as a copyright violation. Ravensfire (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be. In any event the article has been sent to AfD... Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gold Wars. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gunung Padang Megalithic Site - an Indonesian version of the alleged Bosnian pyramids

Just pruned it a lot, needs work but even more needs to be added to watch lists. See this. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Eco-imperialism" and related conspiracy theories

There are ongoing disputes about the viewpoint of this article and several related articles. See the main discussion here: Talk:Eco-imperialism#NPOV. Jarble (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Environmental justice#Environmental elitism appears to be similarly biased. This section should be paraphrased unless we can verify that its assertions are accurate. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Biological transmutation

An article that could probably do with attention from WP:FTN regulars... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten. I only worked with what was already in the article so feel free to add more. I'd also suggest that the page should really be a redirect to Transmutation of species and the article moved to Biological transmutation (Louis Kervran) or a similar title. Sunrise (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, a "Further reading" section I removed (the majority of which is fringe content) has been reverted back in by an IP. Sunrise (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

After notability is established fringe articles should describe the full absurdity of the proponents claims - however absurd. In doing so we must avoid presenting these materials in a way that lends false credibility to the topic. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Transmutation of species has absolutly nothing to do with Biological transmutation84.106.11.117 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an implausible redirect (it's certainly the first thing I thought of when the name appeared here). AFAIK it's the only place that "transmutation" occurs as generally understood terminology in biology. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that only one person really has ever become famous for proposing this idea, so a redirect is appropriate: . jps (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I know that DNA breaks down (mutates) over time, but this is akin to alchemy... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the bio now as well, though I guess some reverts might be pending. The list of his works could probably be trimmed further. Also, in relation to this topic, I came across the Secret Life of Plants article which could also use some work. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been an issue for at least three years: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_secret_life_of_plants_-_chris_bird jps (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The redirect/merge seems like the best solution. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Shape Effects Phenomenon

Probably a good faith effort by a new editor, but fails WP:RS as the journal is published by Scientific Research Publishing and of course fails our notability criteria. I'm busy, could someone else take a look and see if it should to AfD? And keep an eye on Pyramid power as the new editor added material to that saying it had been scientifically proven. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, AfD it should be: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shape Effects Phenomenon. jps (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Bioinitiative Report

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

We probably should deal with this article. What are the independent sources which discuss this self-published study?

jps (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Paleo*

Some edits are currently underway on Paleolithic diet, which has longstanding problems. Relatedly, we also have an article Paleolithic lifestyle, which seems built on rather shaky/fringey foundations. Could these articles be merged maybe? Thoughts? Alexbrn 06:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab

The article on PEAR seems to have been heavily edited to reduce the "this is pseudoscience" angle. But there's so many edits in 2015 by about three editors I'm not sure what's valid edit and what's not. I'd suggest some expert eyes assess its current state. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like sources such as poetsandengineers.com, www.opensciences.org, and www.scientificexploration.org have been introduced to water down the criticism, e.g. PEAR's work is merely "controversial" and only among "critics". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Low frequency noise

• Low frequency noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Hum as a title is blatant WP:SYNTH, no source uses it. A BBC article uses "the hum" uncapitalised in scare quotes and that's as close as it gets. The article has a history of being used to advance fringe views but is much improved of late. I removed some classic WP:FRINGE red flags like the claim that "those who cannot hear it" (i.e. the vast majority of people) and "some experts" (i.e. the ones published in reputable journals) are skeptical of its existence as a physical reality. I also moved it to low frequency noise which is the title used in an official British Government document, so at least has the distinction of being used by a reliable source without scare quotes.

You can guess what happened. Move reverted, removals of unreliable sources and weasel words reverted.

I have no patience with such idiocy, especially since there is a clear consensus in the AfD - even among some of the keep !voters - that there was a problem with the title and/or content, and a strong majority against the status quo. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing this come up a few times, but was there ever a conversation you could link to that pretty much hashed out that "the hum" and whatever variants was a fringe description or minority view at best? I get the feeling the current conversation you started has been had before, I'm not finding a lot in my quick glance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hum has some pretty robust views against the content then, and significant support for the idea that the title is WP:SYN, at least to my eyes. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident

Extra eyes would be appreciated on the article as this just appeared on the front page of the Telegraph newspaper. The usual suspects are likely to be all over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vitalism = Pseudoscience....or not?

A rather aggressive editor has decided that the Vitalism article should no longer be included in Category:Pseudoscience. It's been there for a long time, until a few days ago when it was removed without regard to context or the sources in the article. I restored the status quo version and explained why to that editor. No problem.

Now another editor (who previously has defended pseudoscientific subjects) has aggressively undone my restoration and proclaimed that he and the other editor constitute a consensus, using very condescending language ("none of what you say makes sense to me, so I leave YOU out of the discussion"). There has been no discussion on the article's talk page.

He is also fighting a straw man in his comments and here. No one has tried to classify those scientists as pseudoscientists in that article, so he's tilting at windmills of his own creation.

It is still in the "Obsolete scientific theories" category. I suspect the best solution would be to have it in both categories (which has been the case for a long time), since they both apply. Without the PS category, which is backed up by sources in the article, we are ignoring vitalism's current status.

I am not edit warring and I'm not getting anywhere on his talk page, so more eyes and opinions need to be focused on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm. He reverted my restoration of the category, referring to his Talk page ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullrangifer is wrong to claim that I have addressed him in this way ("none of what you say makes sense to me, so I leave YOU out of the discussion") - my talk page shows that I said "WHAT IF" I were to say this, (since you have dismissed my reasons as a "straw herring" or whatever).

The reason is quite clear - Vitalism is an important part of the history of science that was upheld until recently by some grade A scientists, such as Pasteur and Faraday, and some considerable philosophers such as Driesch and Bergson. It is still in use in psychology - at least in some metaphorical or virtual way - as in Freud's libido. It follows that the entire subject can not be called pseudoscience. The article is categorised as Obsolete science, and this is clearly indicated and explained in the article. Likewise, genuinely pseudoscientific presentations may be presented as such. But the whole idea of a life-force has had a respectable history in science, and so the entire article may not be so categorised. Redheylin (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullrangifer is also wrong to say that I have "aggressively undone my restoration and proclaimed that he and the other editor constitute a consensus". I have not been aggressive at all: I have not told him that I am going to ignore his reasons - he has done that to me. I have not said "ridiculous" and "nonsense" to Roxy the Dog - it is he who has said that to me. Both editors have keen personal interest in labelling things "pseudoscience", while I am an editor who has contributed to a wide range of science articles (certainly including a few early theorists of vitalism) without any trouble or reversions except with a few subjects that are the target of unreasonable ideologists of the Randi persuasion. To say that I have "previously defended pseudoscientific subjects" is untrue also - it is no more than an attempt to pre-judge the question, for which no solid reason has been presented apart from an over-zealous general skepticism that lacks perspective or awareness of the history of ideas. Redheylin (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution