Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 219: Line 219:
== Dean Mamas at Tired Light ==
== Dean Mamas at Tired Light ==


Note that at [[Tired light]] a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where Dean Mamas comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including Dean Mamas) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet.
Note that at [[Tired light]] a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where Dean Mamas comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including Dean Mamas) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to [[WP:COIN]].


[[Special:Contributions/198.202.202.22|198.202.202.22]] ([[User talk:198.202.202.22|talk]]) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/198.202.202.22|198.202.202.22]] ([[User talk:198.202.202.22|talk]]) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 30 May 2011

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Soren Lovtrup

    Soren Lovtrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    Resolved
     – Article Deleted after discussion Noformation (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This embryologist appears to have written a lot of rather WP:FRINGE-sounding material about evolution, including in the notorious pseudoscience-peddling journal Rivista di Biologia. Most of the article is cited to primary sources. I'm probably looking at AfDing it, but thought I'd post it for comment here first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. His work is well sourced from many science journals. He suscribes to the macromutation theory of evolution similar to Richard Goldschmidt, it is a shame he has been quoted mined by creationists, but his work is not Fringe, it may not be mainstream but he is a well respected scientist. Also note he wrote the book Epigenetics : A treatise on theoretical biology which even C. H. Waddington claimed was a "refreshing" and "rewarding" book which will reward the reader with a "great deal of information" concerning evolution. Stephen Gould also had positive things to say about Lovtrup's work and Lovtrup is mentioned in 100s of articles and books on evolution. Liveintheforests (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he didn't want to be quotemined by creationists, then why did he submit his work to a creationist rag like Rivista di Biologia? You have failed to address the lack of third-party sourcing (though from WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden‎, I'd question whether you know what "third-party sourcing" means). Hopeful Monster notes that "Goldschmidt's thesis however was universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, Macromutation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is wholly unsourced, and probably deserving of closer attention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability needs to be established, then after that it needs reducing to what can be established from good sources. Good for biography doesn't necessarily equate to good for science. For example, articles in science magazines would be appropriate. Even if we think he is a pseudoscientist he could still be notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rivista di Biologia is not a creationist journal, well respected evolutionists have written in it such as Goodwin and P. Saunders. They are evolutionists who question Neo-Darwinism, in the late 80's a number of scientists questioned the role of Neo-darwinism and some of them proposed new mechanisms for evolution instead of natural selection and micromutations, this has nothing to do with creationism. The fact that you call Rivista di Biologia a "creationist rag" shows your non-neutral side of this discussion, you know alot about wikipedia rules, but the one you never seem to apply to is WP:NPOV. Considering i created and wrote the Soren Lovtrup article, il deal with it, i already spent 12 hours on it, Hrafn you have a history of adding notability tags to wikipedia articles without trying to improve them yourself. Please look at the current sources on the Lovtrup article, you will see third party sources there, il put up another four later. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to be more rigorous with your sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further references for Lovtrup
    The user Hrafn is a self-described "darwikinist" (whatever that is) Im guessing something to do with Dawkins.
    Here he is:
    Hrafn's abusive posts about intelligent design
    "Hrafn - "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." So Hrafn has not even read Michael J. Behe's Darwin's black box but claims Behe is an "incompetent crank", nothing else needs to be said, this user has broken WP:NPOV he is not neutral regarding anything to do with evolution, and i strongly suggest he stays away from some of these articles. It must be pointed out Lovtrup is not a "Creationist" or "Intelligent design" proponent, he simply challenges the micromutation theory of evolution, he is an evolutionist with a PHD not a "crank".
    Here is your hereo Richard Dawkins - "Even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in prefering it over all rival theories" - Close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, Darwin said it so it must be right! All other theories of evolution are false and thought up by "cranks"! Sound familiar?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 May 2011

    Thank you Liveintheforests for this:

    1. Further pile of WP:PRIMARY sources, that do nothing to establish notability
    2. Furious defence of Rivista di Biologia, whose editor was until recently, creationist Giuseppe Sermonti, whose contributors have included ID creationists Jonathan Wells & John A. Davison, as well as WP:FRINGE figures such as Rupert Sheldrake. I would also note that I'm not alone in having a low opinion of it.
    3. Equally furious, and mostly highly irrelevant, set of ad hominem attacks against me.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hrafn has broken WP:NPOV, he spends his time deleting any scientist on wikipedia who opposes neo-darwinism. "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." - Anyone who opposes the modern evolutionary synthesis is a "crank" to him, he refuses to accept any evidence, his eyes are closed - Hes made his mind up. Biased user. Topic ban on these related topics? Who does this user think he is? He seems to think he owns wikipedia and is an authority on evolution, look how well referenced the Lovtrup article is. Hrafn is now taking part in WP:VAN.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liveintheforests clearly has no understanding of the meaning of WP:NPOV, WP:VAND or WP:AGF to be making such ludicrous accusations. I have challenged the notability of some of their pet projects and have made the blindingly obvious point that material written by the topics themselves are not third party sources. Neither is in violation of Wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    1. Delete Macromutation as an unsourced WP:CFORK of Hopeful Monster
    2. Rename Hopeful Monster to Macromutation
    3. Merge the small amount of third-party sourced material in Soren Lovtrup into that article.

    Thoughts? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Actually, we might be able to achieve 1&2 by a WP:USURPTITLE procedure. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

    • More than enough information on the Lovtrup article, you only want it deleted becuase of your agenda you have broken WP:NPOV, Macromutation is not the same as Hopeful monster. You have a poor undertanding of evolution. And this is boring now. Lovtrup is referenced in many science journals, an a level genetics textbook, a newscientist magazine article and book from peter bowler etc all third party references. You may dislike Lovtrup becuase of your own personal beliefs, but it really is showing now and this is in violation of wikipedia rules.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    1. Hopeful Monster is (i) a subtopic of Macromutation & (ii) the most well-known subtopic of it.
    2. Macromutation is currently wholly unsourced -- so needs to be replaced with sourced material.
    3. The only sourced material we have is Hopeful Monster. The logical conclusion is therefore to replace Macromutation with Hopeful Monster (under the former title)
    4. The only third-party information we have on Soren Lovtrup is on his Macromutation claims. It therefore makes sense to roll this material into the new Macromutation article.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovtrup is well referenced

    Many reliabled third party sources here:

    Why does Hrafn deny all of this? And keep putting notability tags on the page? Liveintheforests (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Liveintheforests for confirming that you don't "know what 'third-party sourcing' means" -- Lovtrup's own writings CANNOT be a third-party source on the topic of Lovtrup himself. Hood et al and Bowler barely mention Lovtrup, which leaves just the Journal of Evolutionary Biology & New Scientist reviews as potentially substantive third party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there are Lovtrups own writings included (own writings are found on almost every wiki page) - All which have been peer reviewed from journals in the case of lovtrup. They may be some primary sources but reliable ones, third party references include:
    • Review of Lovtrup's book in the New Scientist, Oct 15, 1988 - Probably the most detailed review on the internet, from a respected evolutionist.
    • Kathryn E. Hood, Carolyn Tucker Halpern, Gary Greenberg, Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics, 2010, p. 70, This source mentions Lovtrups and his macromutation theory of evolution and how it is similar to the hopeful monster theory. Two whole sentences -- NOT "significant coverage" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • onlinelibrary reference
    • http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho28.htm - by Gert Korthof - (lol) you just deleted this reference from the article (to try and make out there are less third party references). WP:SPS, not appropriate for WP:BLP HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • Lovtrup is also referenced by the geneticists Waddington and P. Saunders, Waddington reviewed Lovtrups book
    • There are other references for Lovtrup on Google books, you refuse to look.
    • Looking on google scholar will reveal Lovtrup has published 100s of scientific papers, peer reviewed by many well known scientific journals. You have been proven wrong, there are both primary and third sources on the article, what you are doing, needs to stop now and you just have to accept this. Liveintheforests (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

    — WP:GNG

    Significant third-party coverage is REQUIRED for notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistake

    KillerChihuahua has removed a third party reference claiming:

    "Remove reference which is not about subject at all, but about work on finches by Grant"

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf

    Click on the link above, scroll down to page 3 of 5.

    Soren lovtrups book and work is reviewed in great detail with much description about Lovtrups theory of macromutation by W.Dohle in the Journal of evoltionary biology on page 3. What does this show? It shows that Killer is not even reading the references (he hasn't gone further than the first line which is actually a seperate review of another book), hes just eager to get these sources deleted. It also appears that this edit can not be undone now either and has done be done manually, i am not happy about what is going on here, no respect at all, users here are not even reading the references, they are making big mistakes, the source was third party. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a duplicate complaint of one made, and answered, on Talk:Soren Lovtrup. Please place any additional comments there. Liveintheforests, please don't spam the same thing on multiple pages; this is difficult for others to follow and may be a violation of Forumshopping. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted close case

    This article has been deleted now and you can close this case, but as you can see there was actually other third party sources out there, nobody bothered to look though except me:

    http://ep.physoc.org/content/59/3/261.full.pdf+html - Review of Lovtrup's work from C. H. Waddington a developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology - not at all a "crank", though Hrafn would probably call him a "crank" as outside of science he was influenced by the process philosophy of Whitehead.Liveintheforests (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there, I just left you a message on your talk page but also wanted to comment here that you should really avoid making this a personal issue. Hrafn is a long term experienced contributor to Wikipedia and I would ask that you assume good faith that he is doing his best to make Wikipedia articles as good as they can be. You can both disagree over what the article/Wikipedia should be like but it does not have to get personal. There are rules here and he is simply pointing them out to you. Noformation (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lloyd Pye

    Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

    Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone

    Qur'an and science

    A bad article, mainly OR, at least one dodgy source, criticism removed today. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Milton (author)

    Richard Milton (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable (Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be too little information available about him to justify and article and it should be deleted. TFD (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also delete:
    J. Francis Hitching
    Gordon Rattray Taylor
    Michael Pitman

    No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is NOT the "unsourced" board, or the Requests for Deletion board. Please follow proper deletion procedure, Liveintheforests. Do not spam this board with WP:POINT violating posts. Remember that if you push this far enough, you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Liveintheforests, you've been told this before and I'll give you another chance to absorb it. It is long past time for you to STOP accusing other editors of vandalism simply for disagreeing with you. Since you haven't understood what the word means on Wikipedia yet, I'll direct you to WP:VAN so you can read up on it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Avro Manhattan

    Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New AFDs from Liveintheforests - taken to ANI as possibly pointy

    See WP:ANI#Possibly pointy AFDs. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He ended up blocked for a week. His edits may need reviewing. He described a review of a book by Richard Milton as a positive review. Luckily I was able to find it on the web, and it says Milton needs to read up on his geology and biology, see [1] (he also takes the reviewer's mention of 2 other books and calls the 3 a series on that basis, but that's not as heinous). I'd appreciate it if someone would check to see if my rewrite[2] is fair to the source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Finnic mythologies&Finnic peoples

    Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies". European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141. ISBN 9780195143614. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

    states among other things

    by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.

    The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The questions have been already addressed @ WP:RSN.--Termer (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW The leading Hungarian publisher Akadémiai Kiadó has a series of scholarly books on "Uralic mythologies." --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dendera light -- and Reddi

    This has had a section on the fringe interpretation of these stone reliefs (which is that they show electricity) with the section heading 'PseudoEgyptology' which Reddi has changed to 'Interpretation'. I think this might be confusing, as the Egyptologists' interpretation is of course something quite different. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I think the section header should make it clearer that it's a fringe interpretation. Of course, the title itself is a fringe name for ordinary reliefs. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes the title of the article is already about the fringe interpretation, which is really the only thing that makes the relief notable. I've laid out the interpretation in the lede. Perhaps the conventional interpretation could be expanded more. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't know if I can do that, I'll ask. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital

    There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.

    Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 (talk • contribs)

    This is a difficult situation, and I am unsure what is the best course of action here. On the one hand, the old version of the article appears to be sourced mainly to a self-published source, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does, however, contain references to LA Times articles, which would likely be reliable sources if they back up the information in the text. On the other hand, the text which you have copied and pasted into the articles, 82.123, is directly from the document "A Brief History" on the CSUCI page, which says, right there on the page "THE MATERIALS LOCATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE COPYRIGHTED. THEY ARE INTENDED FOR CI EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USER WHO REPRODUCES THEM IN ANY WAY, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES WILL BE SUBJECT TO LAWFUL PROSECUTION." I really fail to see what about that statement is unclear. In addition to the university's prohibition, Wikipedia cannot accept material copyrighted to others without appropriate permission from the copyright owner. I would be inclined to revert to an older version of the article without either of these additions. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've reverted to a version prior to both these problematic additions. Eyes would be welcome to see if this was the correct move. --Kateshortforbob talk 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Texe Marrs

    Texe Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dean Mamas at Tired Light

    Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where Dean Mamas comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including Dean Mamas) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

    198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=431688856"