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:

Heart is not a pump is plausible and has a scientific basis

At Talk:Anthroposophic medicine#Heart Hgilbert claims that "the heart is not a pump" is plausible and has a scientific basis because there is one book of one MD supporting it and one positive review of the book has been published with peer-review.

Here is the review. It should be noted that O'Leary is Furst's co-worker and they co-authored an article on the subject "the heart is not a pump", so support from O'Leary seems a walled garden and does not pass WP:FRIND. Do note that even according to the mentioned review, it is an axiom of medical science that the heart is a pump, so my claim is that "the heart is not a pump" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh brother. I thought I'd seen it all, but this takes the dog biscuit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. You think "How can someone come up with something more crazy and wrong than this", then it happens. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, more Steiner bollox advanced by our chief resident POV-pusher in this area. Exceptional claims needs exceptional sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen that editor before somewhere. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion on the article page.

First of all, Steiner claimed merely that the heart did not act merely as a mechanical pump; that its mechanism was more sophisticated than this.

Second of all, I am merely suggesting that the article should not completely deny that there is some scientific thought (Furst presents very extensive sources and research that make it evident that this is not merely his idea) that supports this idea. Springer is not a fringe press, and the The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia is a respectable peer-reviewed journal. HGilbert (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just say that there is no mainstream scientific basis for the theory. That is still true, even if you want to bring in such fringe sources, Hgilbert.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Imho, now Furst's view is fringe. As noted by WP:FLAT any new insight which starts as fringe could become minority view, mainstream view, majority view and consensus view. But according to WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not the place for advancing such speculations. So, there are two problems with using Furst as a source: first is that it is still a fringe, or if you do not like that word, provisional research, which has yet to be recognized as valid by peers. Not everything that passes peer-review is valid, see Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. So, Furst as a source is either fringe or marginal view. The second problem has been noted by Shibbolethink, namely that Furst's view does not coincide with Steiner's view. About Hgilbert's argument, there is a difference between "the heart is not a pump" and "the heart is not wholly a pump" (or "the heart is more than a pump"). I'm not sure that it can be verified that Steiner supported the later, instead of the former. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have a problem with works that pass WP:RS with flying colors -- a book published by an academic publisher (Springer) and an article in a fully mainstream medical journal -- being termed "fringe". Fringe would seem to be that which is not accepted into the mainstream. Or, otherwise expressed, by WP standards, the fact that these publishers deem this work mainstream enough to publish makes them WP:RS, not fringe sources. This remains a minority view, of course, and I do not suggest that it should be presented as anything but that.

Since you apparently did not read it there, I copy below my response on the article talk page to the claim that Furst's work does not support Steiner's idea. @Shibbolethink probably had not looked at Furst's actual work when making this claim, as quite large sections of the book (including several whole chapters) are devoted to exactly this.

• Actually, Furst discusses the capillary circulation in detail from page 13 on. For example, he mentions that De Langen further suggested that “the capillary is like a tiny, incomplete heart, which exerts pressure on the blood passing through it, hereby propelling it and furthering and regulating the filtration,” and that the sum total of the placental capillaries act as a “peripheral heart” which drives the circulation (p. 28; cf. pp. 67ff). Chapter 15 includes a rich discussion of the history of theories of capillary pressure which makes it evident that the idea has been given empirical support by various researchers. On page 176, Furst proposes that the conflicting observation can be resolved only when the blood is assumed not to be an inert fluid “pumped” around the circuit by the heart but a “self-moving” agent with flow directly coupled to the metabolic needs of working muscles. HGilbert (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, peer-review and respectable publishers are not enough. O'Leary seems to think that Furst's theory will in time overthrow the virtually unanimous consensus that the heart is a pump. But, we're not there yet, it remains a speculation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This guy gets it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

In response to a comment on the talk page from an editor who couldn't adds category I added it for him. It was "Fictional languages" and almost immediately removed as being a PoV category. A bit odd as that seems the mainstream PoV so seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For anyone else who didn't already know (like me), apparently this was the language on the golden plates with god's message that Joseph Smith found and translated into the Book of Mormon. I don't know about that category I guess. WP:RNPOV gives this example: Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else." But you wouldn't really be able to present both sides with a category, so I'm not sure. —PermStrump(talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Because some consider the language non-fictional and some consider it fictional, I feel the "Fictional language" category is inappropriate. It is properly discussed in the article, but the category is controversial and adds nothing to the article. These kinds of characterizations are common in religious articles and ultimately found to violate WP:NPOV. Bahooka (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

UltimatelY? I see that Creationism is in Category:Pseudoscience. That's a controversial category, will you pop over there and remove it? All pseudoscience has some believers, so do we get rid of the category? Categories are navigational aids and people interested in fictional languages should be able to find this one. Once again, the fact that some people believe in it is irrelevant. There's very little that you won't find some people believing in. Once again this is a mainstream encyclopedia and there's no reason to avoid categories that reflect the mainstream view. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to state it is a disputed language, then fine, it is. But to state definitively that it is a fictional language along the lines of the Klingon language (which is also in that category), then no, I still think that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bahooka (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But it isn't disputed, other than by Mormons. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and, as the Reformed Egyptian article states, "No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief." To make allowance for the Mormon view in the categorization, as if that view had some sort of parity with the mainstream view, would go counter to WP:UNDUE. I do agree the language isn't fictional in the same way as Klingon is, but it's fictional for all that. (And we don't even have a category for Disputed languages, probably for good reasons.) Bishonen | talk 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict) The question isn't whether anyone believes it. The question is what the consensus is among the best sources (WP:RS/WP:FRINGE). If what's given in the article is any indication ("From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian"), fictional seems more or less appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If no mainstream scholars think it is a real language it is a fictional language in the WP sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It has to be referred to as fictional by reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, why is Creationism in Category:Pseudoscience, anyway? As the hatnote indicates, the associated pseudoscience is Creation science. The category page says "the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience", which is not the case with the Creationism article. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. "Fictional language" states that "Fictional languages are constructed languages created as part of a fictional setting, for example in books, movies and video games." With respect to Reformed Egyptian, it was not really a "constructed" language in the same way that fictional languages usually are. It is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and there is a very brief parchment of sample text, but there is no constructed grammar or even vocabulary that has been deciphered from what exists. It's not even clear if it is meant to be seen as a new "language", or rather just Egyptian written in a different ("reformed") script. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Category:Pseudohistory and Category:Spurious languages or Category:Linguistic hoaxes might work better, in the absence of a term and category along the lines of "pseudolinguistics." Although Reformed Egyptian is (by any academic standard) fake and its creators ought to have known that, they stuck with the idea it was historical and so have the majority of its students. They're wrong, Klingon is more historical than Reformed Egyptian by merit of having actual speakers at any point in history -- but works dedicated to studying it wouldn't not be stocked in the fiction section of any library. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that Category:Spurious languages is a better fit than Category:Fictional languages. Still not a perfect fit, but much better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that spurious language is a slightly better description. Bahooka (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - more of a general note than a specific vote: We need to be careful about treating matters of religious belief as pseudoscience. We should not be putting Category:Fiction on books of scripture, nor should we put Category:Pseudoscience on Transubstantiation and Ex nihilo even though these unquestionably violate the laws of physics. WP:Pseudoscience and WP:Fringe apply to religious topics only when there are purported scholars/scientists abusing, or pretending to use the scientific method in order to support their beliefs. That's why Creation science is in the Pseudoscience category, but Creation myth is not. As for Reformed Egyptian, I don't know for certain if there has been any abuse of science related to that, but my gut feeling is that its categorization should be consistent with Adamic language. ~Awilley (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Book of Mormon mentions "reformed Egyptian" (capitalized that way) once, saying "none other speak it." So it is, somehow, the language of Lehi and Nephi and his family. There are a couple of examples of "X, being translated, is Y." Place names and personal names are often presumably in reformed Egyptian as well. And there is the Anthon transcript, which might be categorized as an undeciphered writing system, though it might also be categorized as a hoax. Although the argument is over, I wanted to second Awilley's opinion. Deliberate insults to people's belief systems are disrespectful and inappropriate.

Articles like this are valuable for believers who want an objective and neutral set of facts about their beliefs. So it does Wikipedia a disservice if Mormon readers come to Reformed Egyptian, find it categorized as fictional, and turn away from the article. If peoplpe's beliefs are respected they will learn and they will think. Roches (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - might "pseudo-history" or "purported langauges" be a more appropriate category than "fictional languages". It surely represents an ahistorical perspective on ancient Egyptian writing. The "historical methods" related to "Reformed Egyptian" are entirely bogus and the belief in this purported language is only attested to by a single, not particularly big religious group. The fact that we give deference to this group's feelings on this matter reflects a US-centric bias in Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Isn't this pretty simple? I mean, what do the experts in the field, the philologists say? Specifically, philologists specializing in historical Semitic linguistics? It's basically the same situation as the various hoax runestones out there (i.e. Kensington Runestone)—well, with a highly influential and powerful religious group defending it. It sounds to me the solution is to add it to a new category, [[category:Mythic languages]], which should include Adamic language and other languages that exist solely in bodies of myths. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthon Transcript

On a related note, the sourcing in this article is quite dubious. —PermStrump(talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the science of GMOs

There is an RfC at WP:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms which is aiming to arrive at a cross-encyclopedia wording on the question of the scientific consensus on GMO food safety. Some of the considerations may cross into the realm of WP:FRINGE and so might be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

new article on E. Raymond Capt

see my comments at on the talk page about his credentials and some debunking of his credentials at [1]. I've reverted bogus claims twice tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster

Over at loch ness monster, we've got a user repeatedly edit-warring to present cryptozoology in a positive light. The same user has made various anti-academic statements, including anti-global warming comments elsewhere, so this is hardly a surprise. Still, the article needs more eyes. Cryptozoology creep has long been a problem on Wikipedia and we really need more of a stern effort to relegate it to specific sections of articles per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "cryptid". The term may have begun with cryptozoology, but it's useful (and in common use), and I've never understood it to lend any sort of [pseudo]scientific credibility. To call something a cryptid is to immediately remove scientific credibility, not claim it. It's just an animal whose existence is unsupported by science, but has been claimed to exist. I'm quite far from up on the field up cryptozoology, though. What am I missing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looked at the talk page. No need to start a parallel thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Simply indicating that I think some cryptozoology material isn't so necessarily pseudoscientific. I have a few pages assembled of shorter lists of articles from various cryptozoology sources, and the material in those sources indicates field in general includes not only the dubious animals like Nessie but also the recent animal discoveries in Vietnam etc. It also includes animals which exist but are "out of place" where found, some of which are probably broadly scientific as well. Unfortunately, I have at least one other prospectus page to finish first, and am going to renew efforts on the Bibliography of encyclopedias pages as well, but the Cryptozoology Prospectus page based on the works I've consulted should be up in a few weeks. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Cryptozoology is universally dismissed as a pseudoscience. Not only does it fail to bother with the scientific method, earning the ire of biologists it attempts to associate itself with, but it completely disregards the field of folkloristics as a whole. There are no shortage of reliable sources out there simply referring to it as a pseudoscience. There's a huge difference between biologists in the field describing a new species or one that was thought to be extinct and the total lack of methodology of cryptozoologists, for example.

Right now, as I've said above, we've got a real mess on our hands all over Wikipedia with cryptozoology stuff, specifically terminology and approach, rampantly violating WP:UNDUE and in many cases outright promoting cryptozoology (despite WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). This is probably because we don't have many users here with a background in folkloristics that regularly edit (the articles are almost always on the topic of folklore, rather than fringe biology stuff), otherwise this stuff would have presumably been swatted long ago. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Grin's Report

Apologies if this is not the correct venue. The article François Grin currently consists mainly (in terms of number of words) of discussion of a report advocating the use of Esperanto, a report variously called "the Grin report" or "Grin's report". In 2013 an article at Grin Report was deleted per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grin Report. It was re-created at the same title a few weeks later and then speedily deleted. In 2014 essentially the same article was created at Grin's Report; it was also speedily deleted.

Last month (May 2016) User:Alekso92 added the thrice-deleted content to the biographical article with this edit. Apparently the content exists on Wikia.

The AfD did not contend that the theory is fringe per se, but was unable to find independent sources to establish notability. User:I JethroBT did, however, find two brief mentions of the report in presumed reliable sources. Also, User:DGG suggested prior to the deletion discussion that "Grin Report" be merged to "François Grin", which in effect Alekso92's edit has accomplished.

Currently "François Grin" cites the Grin report itself, as well as a petition and an article about Esperanto, but does not cite any third-party sources describing the report.

My own opinion is that brief mention of the report may be due in the article about its author, but attempts to smuggle back in the same deleted content without establishing its notability or its acceptability (i.e. non-fringe status) among language planning authorities or scholars is inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Esperanto is not a fringe subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Grin's Report is not "Esperanto"; it is an economic analysis of Esperanto versus English or other languages as a European lingua franca. Cnilep (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Of interest

This AfD may be of interest to folks who lurk here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britt Marie Hermes. Montanabw^(talk) 03:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Been following it already - there was also an associated item at WP:BLPN that's already been archived here. Seems like the AfD is going to resolve to keep, which I was glad to see. I'm kind of annoyed DGG even opened that AfD. It happened that I noticed that article when it was in draft, so I had it on my watchlist even then. And DGG himself participated in the AFC process for that article! The author of the article is a new Wikipedia user, and this is their first article creation. They were very diligent and brought it up to snuff through several rounds of rejection. So it gets accepted (by, notably, a different editor than DGG) and DGG just comes back and puts an AfD on the thing two weeks later. It's this type of shit that really sours new editors on contributing to Wikipedia. I know DGG has been around a million years here and has two billion edits or something but cheesuz christ on a cracker, come on. --Krelnik (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krelnik: Agreed. Although not quite BITEing, it's close. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This AFD just closed with KEEP, as expected. There seemed to be a consensus that the article still needs some copyediting and other work, though. That seems to be happening. --Krelnik (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination)

This AFD is related to the Integral theory (Ken Wilber) articles that have come up on this noticeboard recently. jps nominated EnlightenNext for deletion a few weeks ago and it completely flew under the radar, so SwisterTwister just renominated it and I figured I'd mention it here, so the same thing doesn't happen again. —PermStrump(talk) 23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been adding many Integral Thought-related articles to WikiProject Alternative Views and nominating some for PROD or deletion along the way - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed and appreciated that. Thanks. :) It feels a little anticlimactic they've been deleted/redirected more or less uncontested. Do you think one day someone is going to realize it and try to recreate all of them? —PermStrump(talk) 21:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gidley - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Jack_Schwarz

FYI to those who might know more about this guy, Jack Schwarz. He does not seem notable, but the list of books in the article is impressive looking. I detect fringe and promo issues all over. Delta13C (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow that thing is a mess - uncited claims, inconsistent citation style in different sections, ridiculous claims. --Krelnik (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have come across Jack Schwarz being referenced in many books, "The Holographic Universe" being one of them. Those references clearly need some work. Probrooks (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Need some eyes

I've been trying to remove the worst sources and unsourced items from List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia and List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada‎ as well as rewording the remaining entries to a NPOV. A SPA completely reverted me on the first and some IPs have re-added some unsourced and poorly sourced items to the second. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify - these articles a full of various alleged ghost stores posted in a way that assumes they are all true. That's clearly not a proper encyclopedic tone and the assumption that ghosts are real is clearly a fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a look at a random source and found that Fantasmas en la Candelaria looks to have been published... by the Mayor of Bogota's office? And its references section includes citations of deviantart and a Stargate site? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, while I tend not to like redlinks in lists myself, it's not a hard rule that every entry in a list have its own article, and this doesn't necessarily seem like one that that would apply to. In fact, it seems like a sort of list that can serve to hold descriptions of decently sourced examples that wouldn't qualify for their own article. Of course, they shouldn't be presented as true and would need to be well sourced (and I appreciate that at least many of those you removed were not). But if there were some that had decent sources without their own article, they should probably be restored and the language tweaked rather than just removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Melanin theory

More eyes will be appreciated: recent editing has been problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted again. Another edit to the page and the user should just be taken to ANV/AN3. I'm not convinced this isn't just trolling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's a troll, they should be banned for that. If they actually believe what they're posting, they shoud still be banned for being an idiot.50.134.25.41 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the evidence availability all over the project would indicate that being an idiot does not lead to banning. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding wording at Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

FYI: There is a spirited discussion going on in an RFC on the Talk page regarding this intelligent design guy - should the fact that ID is regarded as pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede of this BLP? --Krelnik (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought

This may be slightly off-topic for this forum, but I've seen the editors who post here to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOT the board for a re-assessment of the GA military history bio article in question; there is not an issue or question raised which would fix into the subject matter of this board. Kierzek (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

While I'll admit that "fringe theories" seems a bit remote and unrelated to the subject matter, I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with soliciting input from a wider variety of editors, since the article has so far been commented on mainly by editors who write military biographies, which seems to have its own separate standards regarding sourcing and details such as I heave never seen before. From what I have seen, apparently the same editors write and rate these articles. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with mentioning here that editors take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1. While improved since the GAR of that article commenced, there are still questions as to reliable sourcing and unencyclopedic detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's relevant for FTN. WP:MILHIST seems to be like a twilight zone of minority views on obscure military history. —PermStrump(talk) 16:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with K.e. that the article could use some edits for concision, but must say, with an obtuse post like yours I don't need to write anymore.Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

After skimming the article in question, I thought K.e.coffman was doing their best to explain why it's relevant to this noticeboard without POV pushing, despite that if any of us would just be blunt, it might garner some more interest from editors who otherwise think they don't know enough about military history to weigh in. So if those attempts were obtuse, I'm just gonna be blunt... What we're not saying is that this is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of Nazi WP:FANCRUFT that apparently seems to meet the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic. —PermStrump(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Now this follow-up post of yours carries some thought, to which I can say, okay, fair enough; but for the "Nazi" insertion; if you knew the members of the Military History board involved with the article in question and their work, then you would know that is not applicable, to say the least. AustralianRupert has written some fair minded ideas which should be considered therein. Kierzek (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Information about Nazis is history, not WP:FANCRUFT. This particular leader is someone I have never heard of. He seems to have been passed over by the historians. The article does rely on few sources, but there are only a few English-language sources on this person, and not many more German ones. Some parts of the article, like Strachwitz's rehabilitation program, are perhaps not encyclopedic. But the movements and operations of a divisional commander in World War II are inherently encyclopedic. Removing content from the article would be a disservice because it is not readily available elsewhere. Military history articles on Wikipedia tend to be long, but they tend to be well-written. For example, the article is detailed, but it is consistently detailed, with no undue weight given to a particular stretch of time. So I think the article still qualifies for the "broad" criterion for GA status. Roches (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Future life progression, yep

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Future_life_progression Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look and ended up nominating it for deletion. —PermStrump(talk) 16:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lemuria (continent)

I've reverted a fringe editor here once, could someone else explain to him about reliable sources and original research so they don't think it's just me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Élizabeth Teissier

No action required, but just thought readers here would be interested in the dismissal of a lawsuit in France over an astrologer's BLP, covered on the Wikimedia blog here. Also, that same BLP has just been translated to English (here - Élizabeth Teissier) thanks to Adam Cuerden. --Krelnik (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was not aware of this case. Delta13C (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

MKUltra subproject 119

At MKUltra, an SPA IP added this: [2] Would this be considered WP:COATRACKING the fringe claims made at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That IP is a sockpuppet of Unemployed Golfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See his disruption on multiple IPs on psychotronics, see the bottom of the talk page Talk:Psychotronics#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou_sockpuppeting_and_vandalism_of_this_article

HealthyGirl (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI; the material added to MKUltra was cited to a book by Colin A. Ross who claimed to be able to emit magic energy beams from his eyes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I find this user problematic, he's got 100s of IP addresses as he admits "Also remember anyway, that since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages" [3]. He is now commenting on the deletion of articles on this IP 87.6.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), admins need to be informed about this. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Edit filter? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• In testing at filter 773, crude but is getting them bang to rights (for now). Log only for a mo to test, but I think this could grab them pretty well -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)