Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here. The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained. Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here. To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page. Sections older than 12 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact. Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Integral Thought

There's a walled garden of articles linked to Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / {{Integral thought}}, the contents of which read like the Sokal paper. I cannot tell if this is normal psychobabble, or fringe nonsense. All I can tell is that it makes grandiose claims and includes weapons grade arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We tried to clean house from these articles a few months back. Turns out there is a rather large group of transhumanists watching these articles. Integral Transformative Practice is particularly awful. jps (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, should Integral education be a redirect? jps (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Transformative Practice

jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral education.

jps (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Corbett Report

Has anyone heard of this guy and his rather fringey podcast and blogs? I am thinking of AFDing it, but I thought maybe some of you might have ideas though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Have I heard of it? Yes. Is it notable? Doubtful. I don't think it's popped up on the radar of the WP:RS literature. Or, at least, I can't find any sources. jps (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Up for AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see I missed the AFD. Let me just say in this case the system has made wrong decision. Corbett works with Sibel Edmonds. I don't expect a response. GangofOne (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can always ask for a WP:DRV or ask the deleting administrator to userfy a copy of the article if you think you can bring it up to a standard where it would pass the problems outlined at the AfD. jps (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of 9 fringe archaeology books in Antiquity Magazine

This is great - I ran across What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods which mentions that section in Antiquity Magazine with 9 reviews of fringe books which are here. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake - "but he is a biologist" again

Viewers of this board may be interested in the latest attempt to shoehorn "biologist" into the lead as the primary descriptor of the purveyor of "telepathic dogs" . feel free to join the conversation at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the talkpage about changing some of the text related to Sheldrake's background. jps (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nigma Talib

I am concerned that the sources used in the article Nigma Talib are not reliable because they give undo prominence to fringe theories, like alternative medicine, naturopathy, adrenal fatigue, and functional medicine. Basically, many of the articles cited are from magazines and "features" in tabloid-style news papers, which seem to be promoting the article's subject and her private naturopathy practices. I found evidence that these articles may be the result of a PR campaign paid for by Nigma Talib. At least one of the authors of a cited source also writes for a online make-up store which appears to have a business relationship with the subject:

• https://www.victoriahealth.com/editorial/skin-problems

There is also a glaring violation of WP:BOOKSTORE in sourcing Amazon.co.uk bestsellers on a narrow category in mentioning the subject's book in the article.

I believe the current discussion on that pages's talk Talk:Nigma_Talib#Notability provides the most detailed information about my concerns. I hope more editors can chime in on this debate.

Thank you! Delta13C (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigma Talib. jps (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerology

The section on "Numerology in science" seem to take a different subject which tends to make the fringe material look less so. How to handle it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It is something of a misnomer, but it's undeniable that the word "numerology" is used in such contexts, and entirely as a criticism. It may be worth emphasizing this. A similar thing is when scientists use the word "magical" or "miraculous". [1]. jps (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

2004 Mexican UFO incident

2004 Mexican UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you think? Should this be a stand-alone article?

jps (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not pass WP:EVENT and its various subsections. Given that there is some coverage, merge and redirect to UFO sightings in Mexico. - Location (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirected and merged to UFO sightings in Mexico. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted; should be discussed with wider participation. Logos (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect is the best approach for the reasons stated above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Law of One (The Ra Material)

• The Law of One (The Ra Material) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone know if this nonsense is covered in good sources anywhere? My searches are drawing a blank ... wonder if another (!) trip to AfD may be in order? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The last AfD closed more than a year ago due to the grumpiness of the administrators rather than taking seriously the complaints of those who think this work is probably too obscure to deserve a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Any new AfD nomination would have to explain this situation clearly. jps (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No surprise that Alexbrn's searches drew blank, as he was also objecting the inclusion of a book's wikipedia link in Roswell UFO incident article. Salimfadley did the job: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material) Logos (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the editors who commented on the 3rd mentioned that new sources had been found to attest to the notability of this subject. Does anybody know which sources he/she might have been referring to? From what I can tell all of the sources in this article are either fringe/occult sites of no particular importance or alternatively are primary sources (e.g. google books links) which can attest to the content of the book but not it's importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Some users tend to manipulate WP:Fringe guideline to overrule other primary policies like WP:Verify and WP:NBOOK primary policy WP:VERIFY and the guideline WP:NBOOK. This behaviour's one of reflections is even about the article Fringe theory. It's kind of an obsession; because even though "Fringe theory" concept has no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty of its dedicated "protectors" in wikipedia. jps was quite honest about that in the past: [2] Logos (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably better to WP:FOC than start spouting off about "some users". And yes, WP:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (The Ra Material) is now open for business. Still wondering if this stuff has been discussed in any respectable sources to allow us to write something neutral ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing "some users" past key issues into the scene does not violate WP:FOC. It's like probing the judgemental abilities of an adminship candidate. If an editor is not able to evaluate the issues neutrally and demonstrating some real bias, then other editors may need to know it. Logos (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In general opening an argument by asserting, in essence, that one has the fine judgement that one's opponents lack, is fairly weak. Back to the point: do these supposed strong sources mentioned in prior AfD's actually exist? If so where are they? Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Are we in deletion discussion? Or in FT noticeboard? They are mentioned in previous deletion discussions and in talk page archives of the article. Logos (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We are in both places at once. I did look over the prior discussions and nothing stood out as being a really strong source. Indulge me: what's the very best one that was mentioned in your view? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's your problem, you're not systematic; you pour all wp policies & guidelines into the pot and come up only with the miracoulous WP:FRINGE. Let's get back to the basics then;

1-Trivial coverage of a topic/book in independent, reliable, third-party sources warrants a stub in wikipedia.

2-For a topic to be able to grow past a stub/summary, there should be some extended non-trivial coverage in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

3-For neutrality, there should be some critical commentary about the topic in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

So, the law of one article/books satisfies clause 1 definitely; there are plenty of sources mentioning the law of one books briefly (i.e. trivial coverage). It doesn't matter whether those are new-agey, spiritualist, or "woo-woo" sources; the only prerequisite is "independent, reliable, third-party". Clause 2 is also satisfied by Kinney's article about the law of one books in Gnosis magazine. Some editors may argue that it's not enough. Then there are below sources;

Klimo, Jon (1987). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 203. ISBN 9781556432484.

Wicherink, Jan (2008). "The law of One" (PDF). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. pp. 193–197. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.

Hastings, Arthur. With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channelingl. Holt Rinehart and Winston (March 1991). p. 60. ISBN 9780030471643.

Andrew Ross (1991). Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. Verso. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-86091-567-6. Retrieved 6 February 2013.

Kinney's article contains some critics, therefore clause 3 is also satisfied. Finally, nearly all of the content in the law of one article are from mainly Kinney's article/commentary in Gnosis magazie. So, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is also not violated. Logos (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I do recall that it was the Kinney article upon which the hat was hung. I'm not convinced that User:Logos is not somehow conflicted when it comes to this subject. jps (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny indeed; what can I do to convince you that I am not related to llresearch or authors of the the law of one books? Logos (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jay Kinney in Gnosis Magazine is our supposed RS!? Holy mackerel, he just happened to be the owner, editor, and publisher of that magazine and is author of that piece, so it's effectively a WP:SPS as well as lacking WP:FRINDependence. The opinion that WP is currently carrying includes his writing "the system is worth at least a few minutes' attention for its sophisticated version of the general doctrine of higher worlds" which sounds like promotional bilge. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gnosis was a magazine and you say that it is self published? Have you forgotten the tinfoil on your head? Logos (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No I said Kinney's piece (cited by you) was, since he owned and edited the the magazine. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that clearcut with Gnosis case. Kinney may have started gnosis as some sort of self-publishing, but later on it seems that the Lumen Foundation became an established publisher within 3 years. Then Richard Smoley had become its managing director. WP:SPS refers to the definitions in Self-publishing. Logos (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

break

Wrong again; have I mentioned WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND part of it in above clauses? No, WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND are not governing guidelines/pieces with regards to this topic. It's like the difference between "roswell (ufo incident)" and "the day after roswell" articles. The law of one article is about the law of one books; we don't need some "fine works of scholarship"/"fine works of religious scholarship" to "examine the irrational nature" of the topic/books. Logos (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, the article we have now is not really about books at all, it about the content of those books (which are available outside the books), the "general doctrine of higher worlds", aliens and the like. It's a WP:COATRACK on the books, which themselves are not notable either. Unless we can find some decent sources I think this will need deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So, how does an article about a book should look like? It should contain some summary of the content also. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you can explain how the subject passes WP:BK if that's the angle you're taking. That's actually a much more stringent notability guideline. Self-published books such as this one essentially never pass. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-published?? You were one of the contributors to this article; you should have realised it's being the opposite before. The books were published by Schiffer Publishing. Logos (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but the waters were sufficiently muddied at previous AfDs by long screeds such as the above to prevent careful analysis by the closing administrator. The newbie mistake of immediately renominating was swatted down from on high. jps (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to convince me of anything. However, I have noticed how much of a champion you are of this particular article which is very, very strange. You also seem prone to ownership as seen in your attack (and violation of WP:OUTING) of an IP on the article page. jps (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked that IP user's edits? Those edits would eventually turn the article into a big-fat nonsense (just like in the past), and as a result, it would be deleted easily. That IP user didn't seem to have the minimum required knowledge of wp policies & guidelines. What would you do; adopt? Logos (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the IP wasn't problematic. I'm saying that you seem to have a peculiar attachment to the article (just look at your userpage!) and you definitely violated WP:OUTING which is a pretty big sin here at Wikipedia. Don't worry, I won't be reporting you. jps (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big sin in wp to have a peculiar attachment to the article; in the end I started editing wp just to create that law of one article. Sure it may seem to you as problematic, but don't worry I am not, or wouldn't be, offended. Maybe you should report me, so that official procedures may reveal the truth; that IP user also seems to have been editing only the law of one article. In fact, that user may have the real COI issue. Logos (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you want to be reported. From what I'm seeing the current arbcom will speedily hand down a site ban to any editor who has done anything that looks like WP:OUTING. Is the article covered by WP:ACDS? Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't take this as some kind of threat. Logos (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think technically the article would be under discretionary sanctions, but I don't think that's relevant to the WP:OUTING issues. If you're concerned about it, WP:AN or WP:ANI is probably the place where this would be properly dealt with. Maybe. But dramaboards often result in more heat than light. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be concerned about the WP:SPA nature of your account, but in other venues you actually do some good contributions. I don't know why you are so attached to this particular book, but you have been one of the most successful dedicated users at keeping this material in Wikipedia that I have seen. For that alone you should probably be given some sort of award. jps (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPA is just another essay, and you're exaggerating my dedication. When you look at the history of the law of one article, you will see that I was stalled after the deletion of the 1st article (ra (channeled entity)). Then some guys created the article with some other name, and my contribution was limited, I was only participating in deletion discussions. As you see, it's not only me who may be considered as peculiarly attached to these books. So, even if it is deleted, most probably somebody will recreate it: [3] [4] Logos (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see the alarm gets rung in an online forum dedicated to evangelizing this stuff on the web. Sigh. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't check the dates of those posts; the last post was on 17th of october. Alarm may not get rung in those forums just the same time as it gets rung in antifringe task force/front. Sigh. Logos (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

World Wireless System

Need help at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power scheme to transmit electric power long distances through the air, culminating in his unsuccessful Wardenclyffe Tower power transmitter.

Recently there seems to be repeated efforts [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] to reinsert WP:FRINGE theories, noted in this previous Noticeboard complaint [10], which were previously cleared out of the article. Based on WP:OR WP:pseudoscience interpretations of Tesla's debunked 100 year old claims, they say Tesla actually achieved wireless power transmission.

Would like outside editors, particularly those that have some experience with Tesla, to look at future edits. Please put it on your watchlists. Considering how much attention Tesla gets in the WP:FRINGE movement, it is important to get his articles right. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations

Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is heavily reliant on a single source for information about the exam contents, which comes from the naturopathic organization which administers the exam (www.nabne.org). Can we verify claims by a naturopathic organization on what it puts on its own licensing exams? Since this is a known WP:FRINGE topic, I am not sure how to proceed. The article seems to give undo prominence to the content of the exam. A while back, I was able to find third-party sources discussing the exam, but they do not provide detail of its contents because the exam seems to be unavailable for external review. I reflected this situation in the section "Performance and quality," but perhaps that is not the right place for this info either. Delta13C (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My short answer is that I think the material and sourcing is fine per WP:PSTS. A longer answer is that this should all be organized differently. The main article should be North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE), the organization that administers the exam. Material about their exam, the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), should be contained within it. Given the number of governmental bodies that rely on the NABNE's administration of the NPLEX and mention one or the other or both on their official websites, I think NABNE/NPLEX is notable enough for inclusion. - Location (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Suicide of Vince Foster

Suicide of Vince Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It'd be appreciated if a 3rd opinion could stop by the Suicide of Vince Foster article & talk page. There's currently a dispute between me & @ScrapIronIV: there as to the reliability & relevance of certain sources, and whether a certain section should be kept and, if kept, where it should be placed. See talk page for details.

For those not familiar, there are conspiracy theories that Vince Foster was actually murderered, or that there was otherwise some kind of cover-up. The section in question has a source which attacks a Clinton ally as not certified for handwriting analysis related to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard, and another website which states as fact various beliefs of the cover-up camp. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to add more sources? There are plenty. Scr★pIron^IV 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to the dispute on the talk page. The bottom line is that this edit should be reverted. - Location (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit off-topic: It doesn't appear that any conspiracy theorists have yet made the connection that medical examiner James L. Luke was involved not only in the Vince Foster case but that of Dorothy Kilgallen, too. I've just tied the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the Clinton Body Count, so I'll start taking orders for my book once I figure out how H.W and W. are involved. You heard it here on Wikipedia first! - Location (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Bee pollen

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

Proposed content:

Bee Pollen has been known to provide therapeutic, health benefits, and help with wound healing.

Abstract from the source:

Bee pollen is a valuable apitherapeutic product greatly appreciated by the natural medicine because of its potential medical and nutritional applications. It demonstrates a series of actions such as antifungal, antimicrobial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, hepatoprotective, anticancer immunostimulating, and local analgesic. Its radical scavenging potential has also been reported. Beneficial properties of bee pollen and the validity for their therapeutic use in various pathological condition have been discussed in this study and with the currently known mechanisms, by which bee pollen modulates burn wound healing process.

I don't think the source should be used per MEDRS and FRINGE, but I'd like to hear from editors that are more familiar with such publications. Maybe RSN would be a better venue for discussion? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Properly given, the proposed source is this:

• Komosinska-Vassev K, Olczyk P, Kaźmierczak J, Mencner L, Olczyk K (2015). "Bee pollen: chemical composition and therapeutic a:pplication". Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2015: 297425. doi:10.1155/2015/297425. PMC 4377380. PMID 25861358. 

So, it's in EBCAM, pretty much the fringeist junk journal out there. I wouldn't touch that source with a bargepole. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edward Group

I'm concerned about this article Edward Group promoting a fringe advocate. It does not seem to be written from NPOV. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Delta13C (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the account who started this article was violating WP:SOAP. The mention from the New York Times seems to not speak to notability of the person, per se. I'm leaning toward AfD. jps (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Make sure it meets WP:BIO. If there are any sources that notice his fringe viewpoints, they should be included in the article. I'll try to set aside some time to look closer. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All I could find is http://deltafarmpress.com/blog/quackery-serious-business-dr-group , which I don't have access to. --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it is clearly a blog, we can disregard it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a clear WP:BLP violation to me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Group --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

deltafarmpress.com appears to be a reliable source for farming information, and the author of the article is editor for the site, though appears to only contribute in a blog column. If the article survives AfD, I'll discuss it further as a potential source. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Uriella

Uriella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a biographical article about a living Swiss religious leader: The entire sprawling article is referenced to a single (German) source. Can anybody make sense of this apparent nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) --16:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

She leads the "Fiat Lux" UFO cult, but does not appear to be very notable even within the UFO bubble. Tha article is a coatrack for the cult, so the question is: is the Fiat Lux cult notable itself? The current article is obviously not suitable for WP whatever the answer to that question is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The article lacks academic sources, however there are a few: [11], [12], [13] so the single German source (www.relinfo.ch, is apparently something called "The Evangelical Unit" of the Reformed Churches of German-speaking Switzerland) could be removed and it could be cleaned up considerably. I would also move the article to Fiat Lux (religion), since the community appears to be more notable than the person (Uriella). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Following the move to Fiat Lux (religion), I've trimmed out the "Reformed Churches" sources, added RS sources to the article, and copyedited appropriately. This can be further expanded using the academic sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Keleman

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Keleman - appears to be a non-notable chiropractor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)