Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Latest comment: 20 hours ago by 109.66.58.30 in topic intifada
    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.


    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:
    Article alerts


    Articles for deletion

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Peer reviews

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Evolution of human intelligence

    edit

    Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] 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

    Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Helmuth Nyborg

    edit

    This IP [2] 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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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

    Rasashastra

    edit

    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

    Some ufo edits

    edit

    Could someone please check this edit[5] which uses the fringe journal Journal of Scientific Exploration as well as the edits on Roswell by the same editor, User:Mcorrlo [6]. 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

    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
    I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.
    Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feldenkrais method at RSN

    edit

    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
    Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Rajiv Dixit

    edit

    Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too.[7] Thanks Orientls (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Expect more new editors coming to support Hancock after a recent tweet

    edit

    Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Which articles might this affect? Zanahary 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    National Post on climate change at RSN

    edit

    Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Family Constellations

    edit

    Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [8] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Abd-ru-shin

    edit

    This is about [9]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    List of common misconceptions

    edit

    Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Could someone look at these changes for Phoenix Lights please

    edit

    [10] I don't think they are right but I'd like another opinion, and am trying to deal with a complicated CU right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Just took a look -- the flares are absolutely discussed in the cited source. Removed the newly added tags. Feoffer (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    intifada

    edit
    Not a WP:FRINGE matter, discuss it on the relevant article Talk page(s).

    I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the terminology used in an Arabic article related to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising here in wikipedia.

    Recently, I a Wikipedia editor made an edit eich says the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is refrenced as "intifada" in an Arabic. However, historically, the event has been described in Arabic as "tamrrod." For instance, in an article from Yad Vashem, the event is referred to as "تمرّد (tamrrod)," where it is stated that "أصبح تمرّد غيتو وارسو رمزا لمقاومة اليهود للنازيين," translating to "The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion became a symbol of Jewish resistance to the Nazis."

    https://www.yadvashem.org/ar/holocaust/about/third-stage-the-final-solution/warsaw-ghetto-fate.html

    The reason for my inquiry stems from the concern that this terminology choice may lead to misinterpretations or politically charged comparisons. I recently encountered an individual who used this article to draw parallels between the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and the Palestinian experience under occupation. This comparison, as articulated by British novelist Howard Jacobson, can be seen as a distortion of historical events and a form of moral manipulation.

    I would appreciate it if you could provide insight into the decision to hide the political context behind calling that event "انتفاضة" (intifada) instead of "تمرد" (tamrrod) in the article regarding the word intifada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.30 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply