Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Flynn effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More race and intelligence shenanigans here. Brand-new account and IP tag-teaming to include decidedly WP:PROFRINGE content sourced to J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen: [1][2][3]. Experienced editors are invited to take a look. Generalrelative (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for my revert was not only about the content that's been removed in the past ten days. When I said in my edit summary that Generalrelative's edits are opposed by consensus, I also was referring to others' views about all the various sources about the Flynn effect that Generalrelative has removed as "fringe", including these, these, these this, this, and the most recent example. It's about ten sources total, and most of these sources don't discuss race. Some of the removed sources, such as this one [4] don't seem remotely controversial.

Including the older examples, these removals have been opposed by at least five different people, and Generalrelative is the only person removing these sources. The Flynn effect is one of the topics where his mass removals have received media attention, and people commenting outside of Wikipedia don't regard the removals as reasonable either. Wikipedia is being mocked for its rejection of these sources. Is the view of the community that these removals were appropriate, and all ten of the sources can't be used?

Also, ElPollosi and Publius Obsequium should be notified of the discussion, as they are the most recent editors to challenge these removals. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ElPollosi has been blocked as a sock-puppet and vandal [5]. They were also using the sock Dimmlerthegreat [6] and 2 others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Obsequium should be reported at WP:ANI. They have caused major issues on many WP:Fringe related articles going back a month or so. The user doesn't listen to advice and their edits take time to clean-up and revert. This isn't just happening on one or two articles, it's a pattern of behaviour on about 9 or 10 articles. The user doesn't use article talk-pages and keeps blanking their own talk-page in mid conversation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly false and quite the smear. In fact I have followed all advice given. Publius Obsequium (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Obsequium was deleting RS critique of the antisemitic ‘culture of critique’ books years ago. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was 7 years ago but if I recall my reasoning correctly, I think it was an unfair criticism, as whatever you may think of Mac Donald, he is obviously an evolutionary psychologist. Publius Obsequium (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at my edit I see I have the explanation that this was due to group selection not being discredited. Not sure why this is at all relevant, except that Zeno wants to smear me Publius Obsequium (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What gets called “fringe” Seems quite subjective, also. It seems to be whatever you personally disagree with Publius Obsequium (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to smear you. Unfortunately your behaviour and editing is disruptive, it is best to discuss this at ANI [7] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various fringe and unreliable content that fails WP:MEDRS has been added to the Hypnotherapy article in the "Uses" section. I have trimmed some of it down but there is still work to do here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it fail? Be specific Publius Obsequium (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding primary sources, integrative medicine pseudoscience and fringe journals that are not med indexed. Before you add a source please check out the quality of the journal and if there is any consistent evidence for such content. We are not going to cite fringe journals or claims with weak evidence. Your editing is problematic and is the reason why pretty much every edit you have made has been reverted by other editors. I suggest reading WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS. You also made bad edits on Joseph of Cupertino and many other articles pushing all kinds of fringe claims. It's tiring for experienced users having to clean up your bad editing that has spilled out on many articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trofim Lysenko (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

[8] "agronomist and scientist" - does that make sense? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this alternative I created by moving around already existing references to arguably more appropriate places:

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко; Ukrainian: Трохи́м Дени́сович Лисе́нко, romanized: Trokhym Denysovych Lysenko, IPA: [troˈxɪm deˈnɪsowɪtʃ lɪˈsɛnko]; 29 September [O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a key figure in the Soviet science establishment, commonly described as "[a]n ill-educated agronomist with huge ambitions, [...] [who] failed to become a real scientist, but greatly succeeded in exposing of the “bourgeois enemies of the people.”^[1][2] He was a strong, ideologically motivated proponent of Lamarckism, and rejected Mendelian genetics such as Darwinism overall in favour of his own idiosyncratic, pseudoscientific ideas later termed Lysenkoism ^[3][4][5] (this being a set of ideas now widely held to have been responsible for much of the Holodomor).^[6]

Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to take a look at this article, which I believe is problematic in many way as it romanticises a legendary folklore as history. As TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) is aware, unfortunately a lot of India-related articles on Wikipedia are a victim of this. I would like to see this being dealt with, as majority of the information is not from reliable sources at all. It seems to be a way of presenting legends in the guise of a reliable historical article, and this is very clear to see for those who are familiar with the romanticisation of historical conflicts in India. Muydivertido (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service: Conquest of Sylhet (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New stuff goes to the bottom, BTW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what the issue is here, what in particular do you think is "fringe"? Lostsandwich (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [9] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new user has just created this article Macrobiotics and is removing sourced content from Macrobiotic diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion [10] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a WP:BLAR since the macrobiotic diet article is the same topic. (Add: but TruthIan  – Yeah, I know – is repeatedly reverting. Needs attention from NPOV-aware editors.) Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Talk:Genealogy of Jesus#Set something straight. Why does it pertain to WP:FTN? Because the guru of a WP:FRINGE cult should not be WP:CITED inside the article about a mainstream idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner’s Christology was, however, quite heterodox, and hardly compatible with official church doctrine.²² Among the eccentricities of Steiner’s esoteric Christianity was the notion of two different Jesuses being involved in the incarnation process – the “Nathanic” and “Solomonic” Jesus – born to separate pairs of parents that were both named Mary and Joseph, and belonging to two different lines of descent from David.²³ The association of Christ with the “light-bringer” Lucifer was undoubtedly another controversial point, accompanied by a reinvention of Satan in terms of the Zoroastrian divine antagonist, Ahriman. Breaking with the official dogma of existing churches did not matter, however, for in the early 1920s Steiner’s movement established its own church, the “Christian Society” (Christengemeinschaft), with new sacraments, new liturgies, and new ecclesiastical arrangements.²⁴

— Asprem, PhD thesis, p. 507

This is the quote from Asprem. Source: [11]. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Johnson, Marshall D. (2002). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-57910-274-6. Retrieved 26 June 2024. The text is available at Google Books.

First published as Johnson, Marshall D. (1969). Black, Matthew (ed.). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-521-07317-2. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that both WP:RS explicitly deride Steiner's claim of the two Jesus kids. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Galileo affair (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Motion is relative, and it was just about Galileo's opinions, so the Church was right. See also Conservapedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Galileo was condemned is a tricky story, probably it was because of politics rather than science or religious dogma. And, yup, while he boldly posited a hypothesis which later turned out to be true, it does not mean that he offered enough evidence, according to the scholarly customs of his age. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten into a bit of a disagreement about whether Mormon apologetics are WP:DUE in this article, and would appreciate additional eyes to let me know if I'm out of line. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon aplogetics should be mentioned, but never as WP:THETRUTH. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stumbled upon Life of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830. The article repeatedly uses wikivoice to say Smith was actively transcribing from plates, which isn't in agreement with mainstream scholarship about languages, angels, etc. If I remove all of the obviously fringe content, I'm afraid there won't be much left. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [12] Doug Weller talk 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP [13] that has a history of making POV edits on race and intelligence articles is reverting well sourced content on the Helmuth Nyborg article sourced to Danish news sources. Nyborg ‎is a well known far-right activist who attends neo-nazi and white nationalist events and meetings. For example, Nyborg has attended the Scandza Forum (Guide to Kulchur) as Hope Not Hate have noted [14]. For background, there is some information about the Scandza Forum here with other sources. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further background, the source I added is this source [15]. It was written in Danish but it can easily be translated. It definitely passes WP:RS. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have followed up at Talk:Helmuth_Nyborg#Far-right. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Curtis Dunkel 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some eyes, perhaps. Recent edits seem to have added undue fringe material about "purification" of mercury to the Toxicity section. Brunton (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check this edit[16] which uses the fringe journal Journal of Scientific Exploration as well as the edits on Roswell by the same editor, User:Mcorrlo [17]. Also see their talk page for warnings about using the minor edit tick box and other problems. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Erie Stone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to! Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional knowledge. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]