Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 25 February 2017

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.

Knanaya

Richard M. Swiderski materials used in the article is disputed frequently by various people from the community, the most recent edits that show a substantial differences in facts by sticking to our acceptable content polices seen are 1, 2. The first one excludes any inclusion of the Swiderski material, maybe a non-cooperative or bold approach. The second one looks like inclusionism. Both this edits originates from multiple statements on the inaccuracy of the material used and with complaints of its non-neutrality due to its fringe nature. The article is protected multiple times for edit warring, there also seems a strong resentment from community members and often annoying statements of "Failure or refusal to "get the point". The problem from history seems to be present for 5 years. Somewhere in the middle there is a truth behind this problem. Major complaints I am able to understand are Misplaced Pages:Fruit of the poisonous tree, Misplaced Pages:Do not create hoaxes, Misplaced Pages:Beware grandstanding text and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content. The personalisation of the issue also fails to honor anything related to Misplaced Pages:Negotiation and to a certain extend appropriate Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and good faith is seen lost in its history. I think its a better time now to edit out inconsistencies and incorporate neutral materials. Certain neutral materials I found are wedding customs, history-short version, a theological college thesis paper. As I bring this matter to the noticeboard, I vote for less overclassification of this christian group and avoidance of including overly speculative sections as authoritative evidences.

The Swiderski article is a scholarly source. Do you have anything written by a scholar that contradicts him? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

This is about the pseudoscience pusher Robert Sungenis, see the WP:PROFRINGE edit at . Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue with Robert Sungenis is not WP:PROFRINGE, but WP:BLP. I have placed a complaint on the BLP noticeboard.The editors may consider Robert Sungenis fringe, but this does not mean they get to do their own original research to state so (WP:NOR). The version I posted is fair and balanced relative to WP:BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=764563259). I am willing to work with them on what they consider fringe theories. See BLP noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the WP:BLPN topic was the first one, so we will continue our discussion there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is no longer just a BLP issue. It has spilled over into naked advocacy for The Principle. The account in question is trying to promote this movie along with Sungenis's weird beliefs almost as if they were the ones running a publicity campaign. .

More help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Now moving on to the film page! jps (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This led me to Michael Voris which has a lot of work that probably should be done on it. Yikes! jps (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The user who commented second in this thread has now been indeffed: . jps (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I decided to try out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Voris. I am having a hard time understanding how Misplaced Pages can possibly host a biography of this particular fringe person. jps (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Principle (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• see also Talk:Robert_Sungenis#Similar_to_ID_and_creationism Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• See Talk:Robert_Sungenis#RfC_re_geocentrism Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller (aide)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Stephen Miller (aide)#Note on false claims as to whether claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election — specifically, "tens and thousands of illegal voters" being "bused-in to New Hampshire" — should be described plainly as "false" (as many sources do) or as "widely rejected and described as false by mainstream sources and watchdog groups" (a phrasing advocated by some editors). Comments are welcome. Neutrality 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alkaline Diet

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

Some questions about POV, fringe-iness and sourcing bound-up in recent edits. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Discussion is at Talk:Alkaline_diet#Potential_bias. II | (t - c) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

article on Daniel E. Friedmann

Daniel E. Friedmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article on a religious fringe writer. Needs watching. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor, Reconcilian (talk · contribs), is an SPA whose edits all promote Friedmann (who I've seen described as a "reconcillian") and this is possibly an autobiography or an article written by someone connected to the subject. Here we have a British Columbia IP address adding something by Friedmann, who lives in BC, followed by edits by Reconcilian. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed most of the material which was promotional. It is questionable to me whether his self-published books warrant any mention whatsoever since the two "public interest stories" from the Canadian press seem to not rise above the flash in the pan kind of coverage we generally say isn't good enough for Misplaced Pages to mention. At the very least, we shouldn't be WP:SOAPboxing or going into any depth about his peculiar ideas whatsoever since no one seems to have noticed beyond the two niche reports. jps (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

America's 60 Families

This article currently is up for GA review. The current review process and discussion over this issue is over at Talk:America's 60 Families/GA1.

The first question I have is "Is it a fringe theory?". It seems all parties agree that the book is "absolutely conspiracy-minded", in this case about the USA being a plutocracy. I understand that conspiracy theories would fall under Fringe Theories, but this one in particular seems to have some acceptance or at least some credibility. To be clear the conspiracy theory is not that money has undue influence in US politics, but that money has total control of politics in the USA.

The second question I have is "Do fringe theory works require special treatment to fulfill NPOV criteria?". There's no comment in WP:Fringe specifically about fringe theory works which are notable. I looked around and found a notable creationist book article: The Genesis Flood. It seems to relevantly discuss the relation of the fringe book with the mainstream view. In my estimation a similar treatment would be necessary to pass GA NPOV criteria in the America's 60 Families article. However I am not sure and am hoping veterans of dealing with Fringe issues could help out clarifying.

This noticeboard has very few concerns like this one as far as I have seen. This is GA NPOV criteria as opposed to inclusion in wikipedia. This is about a fringe theory work as opposed to an about a fringe idea. Also this is about the USA being a plutocracy, rather than pseudoscience or creationism, I have not seen this type of conspiracy theory here before. --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The ne answer to the second point is clearly no, Fringe theories do not have special criteria to meet to be GA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A good article on a book about a fringe theory must provide proper context for the fringe theory. If the article doesn't do that, it's not good. Arguable whether this is "special" or not. I would say it's the same for any work, but if a work is not about a fringe theory, then this sort of framing isn't at all necessary from an editorial standpoint. jps (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The first point is difficult to say because I don't know what the historical context has been for the actual scholarship of the book, what the current status of the academic evaluation of the book's primary claims are, and whether there are any active advocates trying to make the case the book is making. Today, network theory would be the place where such "interconnectedness" would be studied. If anyone has attempted to validate the book, it would be nice to know. The current article is silent on the subject. If no one attempted to validate the work, then it might just be an idea from the past that no one cites anymore. WP:FRINGE tends to be au courant. We don't say that N-rays or Giordano Bruno's more wacky beliefs are fringe theories as these ideas have no present-day advocates, though there are lessons we can learn when looking at current-day fringe theories by learning from those (in)correct ideas of the past. jps (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not a Fringe Work / Theory - The book was published by a major publishing house, and has been endorsed by two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient Robert Caro (in 1995, and again in 2016), by former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (in 1937 and 1938), by one of TIME's "100 Most Influential Americans of the 20th Century" Ralph Nader (in 1974 and, again, in 1983), was the subject of a convention speech to the American Political Science Association by the Solicitor General of the United States, and was positively reviewed at the point of publication in the scholarly journal Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and in Kirkus Reviews. This isn't a UFO e-zine or a self-published pamphlet on Morgellon's Disease. If mainstream people and institutions affirm the work it is, by definition, mainstream (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean it represents a consensus viewpoint or that it's non-controversial). DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion (also made at the article talk page): What seems to be missing from the article in question is discussion about the book's influence (which is different from, but related to its "reception"). If one googles "60 families control world" you find that lots and lots of fringe theory websites repeat the claims that were (first?) made in the book... indeed many of these websites directly quote it. This book has obviously influenced an entire genre of fringe theories (question: did it perhaps start that genre?) In other words... whether the book itself should be classified as "Fringe" is perhaps a side issue... it certainly had an influence on subsequent fringe theories - and that seems like something our article should discuss. I would suggest that a section on the book's "Influence" be created. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, keeping in mind that a media audit is WP:OR and that InfoWars, etc. are non-RS, can you recommend any sources that discuss its influence in the fringe? DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head... I suggested the section not because I know the topic and can help, but in the hopes that some other wikipedian (one who does know the topic and the relevant sources) would be inspired to help. I fully agree that it would be Original Research to say that the book influenced the modern conspiracy websites without a source that discussed the influence... no matter how obvious the connection might be. Of course we need sources.

That said... I do have a suggestion for where to start looking for sources: Try "Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies" by Christopher Hodapp. I have not (yet) read it, so... no, I don't know if Hodapp directly addresses the book in question... but I do know that some of his other "for dummies" books (such as his one on Freemasonry) trace similar conspiracy theory claims, and discuss where they originated, and how they developed over time... so... I suggest it as a possibility. I would then look at his bibliography, and go on from there. Sure... It is possible that this will be a dead end... but it would be worth it to find out. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The index and contents are viewable on Amazon so just checked. No mention of either Ferdinand Lundberg or the book America's 60 Families. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to check as a demonstration of due diligence before we close this angle of inquiry. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

Needs eyes again. Among other things, I'm not sure about the addition of a number of quotes from Fomenko himself. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not really happy with the newest developments in the article. The user apparently on a crusade against academics who are not able to disprove everything Fome nko ever wrote, only selected statements.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Napoleon Hill and New Thought Movement

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

Napoleon Hill is the author of the 1937 best-selling self-help book, Think and Grow Rich. I'm having great trouble weeding through the massive amount of New Age and self-help mentions of Hill to find some authoritative, scholarly histories/biographies on him that put is work in a historical context. A gizmodo article about Hill is being questioned for reliability at RSN, and the context that he was strongly influenced by the New Thought movement (especially Law of attraction (New Thought) is being questioned. New Thought and the related articles look like they are suffering from the lack of scholarly sources, and proper weight to such sources, as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a proper way to handle iffy sources and claims. Avoid them. And it is better to "dele" poorly sourced claims than to keep them in while awaiting "real sources" IMO. Collect (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If any real sources exist, they seem very hard to find. In the meantime we have to contend with the pov of the Napoleon Hill Foundation, Hill's grandson, people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion of success (as the New York Times paints Hill here), and people who want to sell their own "secrets of success". --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: It's your opinion about the other Hill sources, that they are "people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion." And the New York Times piece is clearly an opinion piece. We can't use that either. Whatever opinions that writer has, they don't belong in a biography on Misplaced Pages. And right now you seem to be forum shopping since you've got an open case on RSN. Your opinion of the Foundation is wide of the mark since they have his personal papers, manuscripts and other written records that Hill left behind. That's like saying, nobody can use the papers in a presidential library, or in a deceased author's papers for information because you think they are biased. I don't think you understand the work of historians and biographers. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't use that either. This isn't the venue to discuss such matters, but thanks for making my point for coming here for help. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Equine-assisted therapy

Right now, the topic itself does not have much in the medical literature like most CAM topics. This has come up at FTN before.

There's was talk page discussion here on three sources where the the first meta-analysis was fairly critical of certain uses of equine related therapy treatments, primarily that complementary or adjunct treatments should not divert from mainstream treatment resources due to poor study designs, lack of efficacy, etc. The second was more positive while still saying research is lacking, but it wasn't an independent source and was weighted as such. The third was pretty conclusively not reliable at all.

That conversation was a year ago, but editors have since been slowly trying to add in content arguing the content should be balanced between the sources by introducing weasel words (i.e. "some researchers") to the first source's overall statement that the practice should not divert medical resources. Others include saying that the practice is a complementary treatment in addition to regular treatment when the first source clearly indicates it cannot be recommended as an actual treatment at this time. There are also some issues with quoting like scare quotes too.

The main issue in that overall summary diff of the current problems is if it can really be called a complementary treatment without making it appear efficacious in violation of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of efficacy found in the meta-analysis even after a year of not having consensus for it. Eyes are welcome on all the other areas too though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just noticed that this article has totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap.

Help!

jps (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted and I'll give it a good once over when I get the chance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OMG, it's that time again. The article is a running problem ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's obviously the right theory, just look at all the blowholes around here.

Oh wait, they're blowhards. Nevermind then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• This board 50 years ago: of course lizards are dinosaurs - it's right there in the name!
• This board 100 years ago: they doubt the effectiveness of my radium tincture! What fools.
• This board 200 years ago: they deride the expellation of bad humours!
• ...

But with you fine scholars and science having finally reached the point where we know all there is to know, I'm certain this time will be different. Rush and correct Attenborough before gullable readers are persuaded by his nonsense. 107.77.193.113 (talk)

There's probably also a sock problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What the funny smelling IP doesn't seem to get is that while they're absolutely right, that's exactly what WP is going for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, will you guys piss off with the sock puppet bullshit? Just because more than one person perceives that an idea is being raped by academic stupidity, it doesn't make them the same person! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, it proving resistant to improvement. I tried removing the reams of text built on primary source but they've gone right back in ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(add) Looking at the history it's apparent the article had a major re-write a few weeks ago which had the effect of watering-down criticism, giving the "theory" a big free-hit in its own primary-sourced section, and introducing a fair amount of OR and SYNTH. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The description 'totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap' says more about your prejudices than it does about the article. A large part of the article is critical. Do read before you hit the delete button. Chris55 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The stated goal of the re-write was to attempt "to present both sides fairly". The trouble is this falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. The fringe theory is given a lot of space to itself and a lot of reinforcing material (with OR and SYN problems) so as to present this as merely a dispute among scientists, or as the lede now mildly observes "The idea remains controversial". In fact it should be readily apparent what the fringe theory is and what the mainstream theory is, and how the fringe theory is rejected by the mainstream. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

My new favorite fringe theory ("Lunar wave proves the Moon is actually a HOLOGRAM")

My new favorite fringe theory:

Also see: --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that proves the moon landing hoax. I´ll update that article right away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, I must have been imagining all that moonbounce ham radio crap that I did years ago, or it's a pretty solid hologram.Roxy the dog. bark 11:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's real. It happens every time I plug in my hair drier, which must be on the same circuit as the hologram projector. Sorry about that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What article are you discussing, or are you saying we need an article on this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory making the rounds of crank sites and is fairly thriving on Youtube. It hasn't made it into any articles yet because there's no reliable sources for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cnut the Great has a lot to answer for. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So why are we talking about it then?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it brings a new paradigm. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can somone close this irrelevance it's not about the project, or how to improve it, and Misplaced Pages is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the Fringe theories noticeboard. An editor alerting us to a brand new fringe theory is hardly irrelevant, even if we're having fun with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

New source for cryptozoology

Paleontologist Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths which is already on GBooks in preview. Anyone editing relevant articles should take a look. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Globster

Nominated this for deletion per Misplaced Pages:109PAPERS. Given that the oogie-boogie sites are already discussing it, the people of this noticeboard may want to keep some eyes on the article. Narutolovehinata5 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nessie needs some serious trimming

The Daily Mail RS flap has now turned up on Loch Ness monster, because the DM was the venue for at least two of hoax photos. As tends to be the case, every little bit of Nessiana has had to be included, and in particular the 2001 DM/Edwards incident has gotten stuck in a time warp in which the hoax admission hasn't happened yet, at least not until the last sentence. That incident needs to be cut to the bone, but the whole thing needs some considerable compression. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution