Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Dark Complected Man

Dark Complected Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another article linked to the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The only information that I can found about this person in reliable sources is Louie Steven Witt's testimony about sitting next to a "Negro man". Given the lack of discussion about "Dark Complected Man" or this part of Witt's testimony in secondary reliable sources, should this be redirected to Umbrella Man or put up on Afd? Is anyone else able to find reliable sources about this person? Thoughts? Location (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just not notable enough for a dedicated article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Complected Man - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion continues here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Dark_Complected_Man. jps (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Coyame UFO incident

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

Would somebody look at this article and remove all the stuff that isn't reliably sourced? After you do that, will there be anything left?

jps (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Significantly cleaned up. Better late than never. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Close encounter

Close encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP keeps adding weird "Transology" stuff. Hynek's first three classifications are notable and cited to reliable enough sources. The rest of the article is a magnet for bizarre cruft from fringe sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't finish my edit summary there, but neither www.thenightsky.org or www.theblackvault.com meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I reverted to your last edit. Location (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes would be helpful as I would prefer not to run up against the 3RR. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

They're IP hopping to avoid 3RR, and edit warring. [1] - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for the article to be semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Menemen

Article of Menemen. Massacre on Turks happened in this town under Greek occupation in 1919. Greek sources speak of mutual excesses but a western commission who traveled to the area disagrees. They found it one sided. User:Alexikoua disagrees and is doing revisionism on this page by using one Greek source. [[2] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. Then changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [3] Is adding massacres committed on Greeks by Turks while removing or rewording events the other way, rewords sources. Accuses multiple times who disagree with it, wants to ban. I had user reported here [4] with no result. Claims that different sources refer to the same events. Endless biased behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This might be a job for WP:NPOVN. It's not so much a case of fringe sources but biased selection of sources leading to a PV article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix this and move it to there? Thanks. Dunderstrar (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was gonna say, wp:NPOVN job. It can't be fringe case.Alexikoua (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dunderstrar, just re-raise the matter in the appropriate forum. We will close the discussion here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2008 Turkey UFO sightings deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Turkey UFO sightings.

I'm going to keep working my way through these slowly.

jps (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Tired Light

Licorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne.

The old anti-semetic fringe physics promoter is baaaack.

Please go through the contributions of 96.228.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if there are any problems.

Sympathetic admins who are watching this page may wish to take note.

jps (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In lieu of breaking 3RR, I've now referred the case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #96.228.244.95. jps (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)

This article has a variety of fringy sources and the books are pretty fringy in general. I encourage analysis in seeing if this article qualifies as a fringe theory along with its sources in its deletion review. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The_Law_of_One_.28Ra_material.29. jps (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit of off-wiki coordination at the L/L Research forum dedicated to promoting the Ra material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There also seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a reliable, independent source [5]. This has led to removal of even basic questioning of the verifiability of IONS, for example: [6]. jps (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill

Fringe New WOrld Order pushing film. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, we are getting very inexperienced editors arguing to keep it with arguments such as "Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability." and " The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows."(while admitting lack of reviews). Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Barry Smith (preacher) - more of a New World order article than a biography

By one of the above editors. Full of New World Order stuff, microchipping people, etc., much of it not relating directly to Smith other than he writes/talks about it. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Harbinger Group#Connections with the CIA

The conspiracy-minded have linked this company, of which George H. W. Bush was a founder, to the CIA and the usual shenanigans. Lengthy quotes from dubious sources. A fresh set of eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks! -Location (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Badly written. I've done some trimming, more to be done and I may have done slightly too much. I think John Loftus is ok as a source, attributed (which he is). We need to say something about the allegations. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "MadCow Morning News" a reliable source? Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing ball: John Simkin of Spartacus Educational posts a biography of Porter Goss that has a photo of Goss and others alleged by the CT community of having shady backgrounds.[[7] Don Bohning in a 2008 Washington Decoded article states that he calls Goss who vehemently denies that he is in the photo.[8] Simkin replies in the comment section that the origin for that claim is not him but Daniel Hopsicker in Mad Cow Morning News. Sure enough, that claim is in the aforementioned Mad Cow Morning News article.[9] Not only is there enough here to cast doubt on the reliability of Hopsicker, it is another example of why Simkin and Spartacus Educational should not be considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. -Location (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And David Ratcliffe is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If people could take a look at the deletion discussion for the image in this section, I'd appreciate it. I'm guessing it's from a conspiracy site and that it's just someone's supposition that we're seeing Bush (not to mention I'm not seeing the significance of a picture of him just looking down from an oil rig), but I haven't found a possible source. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

MRA fringe material

A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men".

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men.

jps (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fringe material like [10] or [11] or [12] or [13] or even the many sources cited at Domestic violence against men or Androcide etc. FWIW, I'm not even an MRA! So :P to you too :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This kind of protestation mirrors many we've seen here. No different than creationism, vaccine denial, race and intelligence true believers, etc. jps (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that "violence against men" is in some sense a spurious concept? I fail to see any analogy to creationism, 'vaccine denial' or 'race and intelligence'. Clearly it is a real and legitimate topic. The question is what weight to give it and how it to be understood in a broader context of gender-directed violence. Paul B (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's spurious. Compare someone who is writing about "vaccine dangers" or "correlations between race and intelligence". It's the same under-the-radar synthetic misuse of legitimate sources. Is it interesting to study in the broader context of violence gender dynamics? Yes. Does this mean that "violence against men" is a systematic occurrence? No. There is essentially zero academic support for such a claim. That's the categorical idiosyncrasy being promoted here. There simply isn't a way to distinguish between violence and specific "violence against men". This is in stark contrast to the vast literature on misogynistic violence. MRAs may be upset that there is a difference, but they have to prove their case outside of Wikipedia, not through synthetic categorization. ("See? Wikipedia shows instances of violence against men!") jps (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Individual editors may be guilty of synth on specific occasions in any topic, but you are, I think, confusing separate issues. Subjects such as "vaccine dangers" or "correlations between race and intelligence" are, in themselves, legitimate topics for articles, since they are of course widely discussed. You seem to be conflating that with the separate question of whether there are in fact dangers of vaccines or race differentials in innate intelligence. Violence against men is undeniably real. Whether it is useful to create an article listing all the different types of it is another question. There is systematic violence specifically directed against men in many cases (usually by other men). There is also domestic violence against men by abusive partners (male and female). Is there anything useful to say about the connection between the two? Maybe, maybe not I would agree in this case that an all inclusive category may not be useful, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Categories are there to help find related topics. I don't find it difficult to imagine that someone would want to look at different types of violence against men. I don't think Synth applies in such cases, since categories are just lists. They are not making an argument. Let's recall what you claimed: "A men's rights activist is insisting that there are "academic sources" which show that there is a legitimate topic to study regarding "violence against men". Whether he's a "men's rights activist" or not seems to be disputed. But of course he's right, there are "academic sources" on violence against men. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You may believe this, but it's actually not true. A great number of sources, including several I just posted here, specifically describe these instances as "gender-based violence", that is targeted at men and boys because of their gender. Those same sources discuss exactly that one can distinguish between violence (such as violence perpetrated due to a gang war, or violence done by combatants against combatants), and gender-based violence. That your own world view doesn't align with this is no reason to impugn the sources - none of which come from the MRA. Anyway, your mind seems made up, no matter what sources say, so I agree with Brainy J there may be no good reason to engage with you anymore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's responses such as this which show that you simply are unable or unwilling because of your ideology to accept that a man can be targeted for gender-based violence but it's not an instance of "violence against men" (that is, people attacking men because they are men). There is simply no instance of that kind of thing. There are instances of violence against communities that target men for certain kinds of violence and women for other kinds of violence, but that's not the same thing. You have shown zero support for your MRA-advocacy in the academic literature. jps (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of quotes from the literature that I posted elsewhere: "To be sure, this targeting of men specifically is itself a form of gendered violence."; " I argue that gender-based violence against men (including sexual violence, forced conscription, and sex-selective massacre) must be recognized as such, condemned, and addressed by civilian protection agencies and proponents of a ‘human security’ agenda in international relations."; "That the gender-selective mass killing and "disappearance" of males, especially "battle-age" males, remains a pervasive feature of contemporary conflict is not open to dispute. Indeed, its frequency across cultures and conflict types marks it as a possibly definitional element of contemporary warfare, state terrorism, mob violence, and paramilitary brigandage". I guess I'm confused, if men are specifically selected out of a group and killed or subject to sexual humiliation, and academics call this gender-based violence, how exactly is this not "people attacking men because they are men"? I'm afraid the literature is against you on this, and not surprisingly, you haven't been able to marshal any literature of your own to back up your bizarre POV. The fact that VAM is different from and manifests itself in different ways and places than VAW is true, but it doesn't mean VAM doesn't exist as a topic of serious study.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that USAID and the UN were fringe organizations! "Men and boys also experience sexual violence, increasingly documented in conflict countries and especially when gender identity conflicts with gender norms." "Working with Men and Boy Survivors of Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Forced Displacement" And please stop your personal attacks of calling the editor a MRA, when he has repeatedly said he is not one: "Also, please stop running around accusing anyone who disagrees with your particular POV as an MRA, I'm not an MRA, I don't identify as an MRA, and I have not read deeply the literature of the MRA nor do I spent time haunting the MRA websites."-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those sources speak to a categorical indicator that there is such a distinct identifier of when violence is directed at men qua men. If you can't figure that out, then you probably aren't competent enough to be making editorial decisions such as this. jps (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, harsh, man. Whatever. You're clearly not amenable to discussion on this. Bye.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

When a couple having an affair with each other is murdered by the jilted lover, is that Violence against heterosexuals? When a gunman goes on a rampage in a rural US postoffice with no racial minorities present, is that Violence against white people? The point is that "violence against a group" is a statement about violence directed against the group because of the group identity. This has not been demonstrated to exist for "violence against men". jps (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are some reliable sources which describe the crimes of Aileen Warnous as gender based violence against men, but I agree, in general, it seems hard to find reliable sources which describe specific crimes or attacks as gender based violence against men. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that hard, if you look.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating the confusion here. If a couple have a row and the man hits the woman is that "violence against women"? You betcha! If a couple has a row and the woman hits the man is that "violence against men"? Apparently not, according to you. That's a double standard, pure and simple. if a series of individual acts can be systematically examined and placed in a conceptual category by reliable sources than yes, it exists in discourse. That does not mean that every example of violence against heterosexuals, short people, fat people etc is usefully categorised as such. I confess I am astonished by the anger, virulence and need to deny the concept displayed here. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you ignore sources, yes that's true. Keep your blinders on and keep believing that no sources discuss gender-based violence against men. You really DONT want it to be true, however, which is why you've resorted to personal attacks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and creationists insist that my blinders are on towards discussion of intelligent design in the "sources". Your concern trolling, however, needs to be called out. You are using Wikipedia to advance your agenda. That's the long and the short of it. It's not hard for people to see who look at your contributions. jps (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise/exit-strategy here would be to have some kind of article about "Violence targetted against specific groups" (which probably already exists in some form or another) - which could break out into the existing articles about violence against specific groups when corresponding subsections of the main article become too large (eg for the Violence against Women article). This would be a place to collect any notable materials - and if indeed the section on violence specifically against men becomes sufficiently substantial, then we can fork it's own article in a natural manner. Violence specifically directed to men undoubtedly does happen in one form or another - it's not uncommon (for example) for an invading army to haul off men and boys of fighting age and shoot them all...which you'd have to say was undoubtedly violence specifically directed towards men by virtue of their gender and nothing else. Issues of scope and notability can be more naturally handled in an umbrella article where less notable material can be collected as a small part of a larger discourse. SteveBaker (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We used to have a Violence against men article, but it was moved to Domestic violence against men. I think we should put our heads together and do some research to build a new Violence against men article, given as a starting point some of the literature here. In any case, the current discussion underway concerns the category of Category:Violence against men - topic categories are meant to group articles around a general topic, which the current category does quite nicely, but some are calling it to be deleted since they think it's all MRA propaganda. I'm quite confused as to why, however, given the sources I've provided to date...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rima Laibow

This is by the editor who created Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, now at AfD (where it has a couple of fans who insist that it is notable but can't find sources). As a BLP it has some bad sources, eg last.fm. It also simply promotional and pov, eg ", she met Maxim Chyrdakov a young man who as a pilot encountered a UFO. She was asked to exmine him to assertain the thruthfulness of his account. She verified that he appeared genuine". Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurgan

Need help with a Turkish POV warrior who keeps adding Paleolithic Continuity, Starostin, Altaic crap that is altogether irrelevant to the article. Has already broken 3RR again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you realize your claims are purely racist and unscientific POV? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Talking with your mirror image again? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a sharp tongue with no arguments. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And just because I made this edit, you think I am Turkish? What a racist guy. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)