Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.183.140.3 (talk) at 21:02, 13 July 2011 (→Satoshi Kanazawa: Are his works regarded as possibly fringe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:

    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

    Leuren Moret

    Bringing here for wider attention an issue I have just seen at WP:NORN. The article subject seems to be a promoter of pseudoscience ideas; certainly the idea that earthquakes are being deliberately caused is pretty odd. Article has been through 4 AfDs. It just might be notable conspiracy theory, but it doesn't look all that notable or well sourced to me. Physicists around? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a physicist, but I did want to speak up here to agree with you. I think notability is a real concern - I know it survived 3 out of the 4 AFDs - but if you really dig into the Google news hits, none of the articles are about her, they merely mention her in passing. It's also worth noting that the sources are almost all obscure internet-only sites.
    I was combing through the gnews hits was to see if I could find any reliable sources that were questioning her theories or calling her a crackpot, and I found none. I think she's basically beneath notice of reliable science stories. Does anyone have any more sources about Moret? Her claims really smack of fringe conspiracy pseudoscience theories; it would be nice to be able to say so in the article. I'm tempted to bring it to AFD again with a thorough explanation of why I don't think the coverage of Moret amounts to substantial, independent and reliable, but it survived an AFD so recently that I won't be doing that any time soon. Anyhow, this could probably use some attention from someone more experienced than me, so I'll stop blathering. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at this, and I'm really not convinced that this individual is notable in any real sense. In the article's current state, the main claim seems to be that she is "educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials" but I, for one, would need some fairly substantial sources to back up such a exceptional (yet vague) claim. I have checked journal archives with no success, but have found results in a news archive. LM has commented extensively on the Japan nuclear crisis and a number of other nuclear events. She is described variously as
    Independent Scientist/DU Radiation Expert (Atlantic Free Press, Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre call for International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, claiming "9/11 was a False Flag Operation by an international War Crimes Racketeering Organization, to provide a pretext to engage in Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) [...] and to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy")
    world renowned geoscientist and authority on depleted uranium (Mehr News Agency, "The genetic future of the Iraqi people for the most part, is destroyed [...] The long- term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence. Iraq is a toxic wasteland. Anyone who is there stands a good chance of coming down with cancer and leukemia. [...] "the (Iraq) environment now is completely radioactive.")
    nuclear authority (Pacific Free Press, Nuke Ammo Fired in Mid-East Could Kill More than Fat Man and Little Boy"
    "An independent radiation specialist, who has worked in 46 countries as a professional geo-scientist. An expert witness on Depleted Uranium weaponry at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Tokyo, she was also appointed as an expert witness on DU for the Canadian Parliament and has published on HAARP, weather-modification, tectonic warfare, mind-control, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and scientific issues related to 9/11." (Atlantic Free Press, The Science and the Politics of 9/11 Conference To Be Held in Madison, Wisconsin, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be holding its first conference, "The Science and the Politics of 9/ What's Controversial, What's Not", at the Radisson Madison from August 3-5 in Madison, Wisconsin.")
    Of 28 total results, these are the best; the oldest results I can see are from 2002, but those mention LM as being on Berkeley's environmental commission (in local press/newswires). In 2003, she was advocating that ""Nanoscience will be used to implement the Pentagon's global plan, which is to take out 50 percent of the world's population", but the geophysicist/nuclear expert business didn't appear until an article she wrote for the Japan Times in 2004 ("Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette") where the article blurb describes her as " a geoscientist who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory on the Yucca Mountain Project, and became a whistle-blower in 1991 by reporting science fraud on the project and at Livermore. She is an independent and international radiation specialist, and the Environmental Commissioner in the city of Berkeley, Calif. She has visited Japan four times to work with Japanese citizens, scientists and elected officials on radiation and peace issues."
    I have 2 concerns: first, that these are not particularly reliable sources (aside from the Japan Times, although I don't know how they check their author bios). They appear to be similar to published newswire or press releases, and I suspect they have not done much background work to verify whether the subject's claims are true. "World-renowned" "nuclear authority" are very serious claims, and I have seen absolutely nothing which backs them up in any way, nor have I found anything which confirms any of the other claims made about the subject. This is my other concern: LM presumably says she is a nuclear authority, sources with little or no fact-checking (or no interest in reducing puffery or hyperbole) back it up, and it proliferates throughout the Internet. That is the impression I am getting here.
    Likewise, the coverage in GBooks, GScholar and GNews all seems to originate from extremely fringe sources, but I don't feel she is a notable fringe (speaker? scientist?). I have found not one source which comments on her, or is a critique or review of her work.
    There does seem to be a profile of her in a book called Warrior Mothers - Stories to Awaken the Flames of the Heart by Thais Mazur (Rising Star Press), which is a series of profiles about female activists. It's out of print, and seems to be available in 10 US libraries, so may be difficult to obtain.
    I also came across a letter published in the East Bay Express on 27 December 2006. Obviously I can't guarantee it came from the subject (although it is signed by someone of that name):

    President Bush's vicious nationwide attack on whistleblowers comes to Berkeley via an all-too-obliging city council mayor, and police department

    Since becoming a Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab whistleblower in 1991 I have worked diligently and effectively for the past six years as an independent scientist, to educate the global community on radiation issues both locally and internationally. The dark legacy of Dr. Strangelove, former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Director Edward Teller, is the fact that the University of California will forever be known as "the University that poisoned the world." The University of California has turned Planet Earth into a Death Star.

    The problems with my cars and the Berkeley Police Department started after I did a presentation on radiation and depleted uranium on September 11, 2005 for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

    When I left the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in 1991 I was told, "You're in a police net for the rest of your life," and to a reasonable person it seems I have been. I have been subjected to car theft, damage to personal property, the University of California/Homeland Security Special - "gangstalking," and very frequently experienced documents missing from my home. My daughter was kidnapped when she was 13 facilitated by the University of California and Livermore Lab, and I did not see her for 5 years.

    On three occasions in the past several years my cars have been towed by Berkeley Police Department using selective enforcement the timing of which coincided with major radiation disclosures I have made. Some would think they were related since the Berkeley Police Department "Red Squad" was actively killing the Free Speech Movement in the '60s and I have observed them covertly spying on demonstrations recently.

    Leuren Moret Berkeley


    I honestly do not think it would be wise to make any assertions about the subject without absolutely cast-iron sources (by which I mean top-rank newspapers and journals, which we can guarantee have not taken information about LM from random Internet sites, less reliable news articles or Wikipedia, without thoroughly fact-checking them before publication.) --Kateshortforbob talk 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the lengthy post; I must learn brevity![reply]
    I think you are correct. I did a lexis-nexis academic search on "Leuren Moret" limiting the search to major world publications, and got only 4 hits. Three were in articles about the documentary "Blowin' in the wind". In all news publications, there are 29 hits. I've checked about 1/3 of those, and I do not see what I would say is significant coverage in reliables sources about her--there are numerous passing mentions and quotes by her, and some of the standard blurbs "about the author" for things she has written. No hits in ISI Web of Science in author or topic, nor in Health Source. Google scholar does not find any article written by her in academic journals. So it appears to me that she is a pundit, with a sensationalist slant, who's been been quoted in a number of reliable sources. I'm not sure there would be any problem bringing it up at AFD again, the last round did not involve many editors, and the discussion was a bit limited. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a reference to a book which has its own Wikipedia article: Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, maybe this is the "cast-iron" source Kateshortforbob is looking for. Please do not bring up the article on AfD again as Mrs Moret clearly passes WP:GNG.
    I have furthermore rewritten this stub, and I believe that for now every single assertion is backed by the references. I do contest the view that only "major world publications" are eligible as sources for WP articles: Tehran Times is perfectly suitable for issues concerning Iran. What I did not find yet are reliable sources saying that Moret's views are fringe. I'll be working on it later today. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see exactly three mentions of Moret's name in the book you refer to looks like a trivial mention to me. Also, the article on the book doesn't establish its notability as far as I can see, just a couple of reviews in very minor publications. Oh, and the title of the article in the Tehran Times is "Globalists attempting to depopulate the world". So much for WP:RS. Why, exactly do you think she meets WP:GNG? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because multiple, independent, reliable sources have printed in-depth coverage about her views. Whether or not you agree with the Tehran Times is entirely inconsequential, but even if we don't want to accept sources from the Axis of Evil there is still the Sydney Herald, the Daily News, and the book. --Pgallert (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The mention in the book is brief and trivial; it does not help establish notability. The story in the Sydney Herald uses her as a source for opinion; it's not a profile or a story about her; this does not establish notability. The Wikipedia article on the Tehran Times says that it calls itself "the voice of the Islamic Revolution". This doesn't sound reliable or neutral to me; it sounds fringe. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more, somewhat technical comment: As her biography is certainly not fringe, and her (admittedly odd) views are not covered in the article due to unavailability of reliable sources, I believe this is the wrong forum to discuss her BLP stub. --Pgallert (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What forum would you recommend? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation would be some discussion about sources on the article's talk page, just to see if we can reach consensus, and ask for some more opinions, but my inclination is to bring it back up at AFD. No rush, but I'm not seeing sources that establish notability in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not really a discussion developing on that talk page; the questions have been there since March. Maybe someone from this forum could offer an opinion there? --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard because the argument all seems to be about it. I'm not a regular here at FRINGE but I would assume that as long as a biography only states an individual's fringe opinion and does not make the transition to postulate that fringe as fact, then the biography itself is not fringe. Feel free to trout slap me if I'm wrong. --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not feel'n the notability for an article, which is too bad as I think a bio on her would go a long way towards manageing some of the puffery in her author bios. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, someone has removed the notability tag I put on the article. I really think non-notable, and the WP bio is being used to promote this pseudoscience and conspiracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vakkalagadda

    This topic has many contradictory statements. This doesn't have any citation to prove that. Those statements were removed multiple times, but someone is adding those purposefully to damage the reputation of the other political party over there, thus providing some false information in Wikipedia(which is not acceptable). Wherever the citation needed is asked, please provide the appropriate citation, or else please remove those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinnam (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2011

    Essiac

    I'm a bit concerned about the talk page for the Essiac entry. Essiac is an herbal tea that is promoted as a cure for cancer and other illnesses. The article itself accurately reflects the fact that no evidence supports these claims and no medical organizations endorse it, but on the talk page, people have posted recipes for how to make your own at home. Obviously it's not normally acceptable to delete other users' comments from talk, but I was wondering if it would be OK in this situation, given that they have nothing to do with improving the article and they might be seen as accepting or promoting Essiac.

    It's entirely possible that I am over-reacting and nothing needs to be deleted, but I thought it worth bringing some attention to it here in case there are others who share my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If the recipes cannot be used in the article (and they cannot), they have no business being on the talk page, per WP:NOT#FORUM - I'd delete them, and leave a note explaining why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there does seem to be some genuine debate about what the "correct" ingredients of this magic mix actually are, so it may be better not to be too drastic. It is a legitimate topic of talk page debate. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There really was just one recipe that was problematic, and I just removed it. The ingredients are a legitimate talk page topic, but this was HOWTO material, which does not belong. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Water ionizer

    Would appreciate some eyes on this page. One editor appears to be trying to prove a WP:POINT by removing any mention of the fringe theory about water ionizers' affects on health because the primary studies they want add has been rejected. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    left user a note, after your note about editwarring. I'm gonna guess they are not interested in what we suggest they do for the article, but want 'truth' to rule. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard L. Thompson

    Big rewrite by an IP, latest version has removed all sources and all mention of his book Forbidden Archeology. Hopefully this will be replaced as without it it clearly fails NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't time to look at it carefully but it looks as though Forbidden Archeology is back. 2 editors, one an IP spa. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, even the old version seems to be problematical -- I'm seeing little in the way of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- most of it seems to be unsourced, sourced to affiliated websites, or to material on Michael Cremo, rather than Thompson. But I'm not seeing any evidence to date that the new version is any improvement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Satoshi Kanazawa

    There is currently controversy in the University of London surrounding this individual's publications. In these circumstances, when serious ethical questions have been raised and his scholarship placed in doubt, is it permissible to cite his work as a reliable source on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are his works regarded as possibly fringe, or would this question be better addressed to wp:RSN? 212.183.140.3 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=439322917"