Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Shortcuts WP:FTN WP:FT/N 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: 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. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The article Strong gravitational constant appears to be a non-notable fringe theory in which the strong interaction should be treated like gravity. On the notable hand, there are one or two mainstream articles on this (mainly Salam & Sivaram 1993) which got a few citations before interest dried up. On the fringe hand, this vague strong/gravity connection is apparently a component of User:fedosin's previously-AfD'ed cosmology ideas (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter). I voted against my own AfD on this article (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant) because of the Salam connection, thinking there might be a worthwhile article about that; but Fedosin wants the article to continue being about his own theory. See the AfD page for details on Fedosin's sources. Bm gub (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat my call for help. Can a third party with WP:FRINGE experience come take a look at this article? Bm gub (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the closing admin on the AFD for an explanation, but I think we're headed for DRV on this one. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I don't think the article is an obvious WP:FRINGE deletion candidate, because there's a stub's worth of notable content. Unfortunately the notable content has the same name as the pet theory of four or five fringe authors, including the COI editor.Bm gub (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have time to review this article? At a glance, it looks like it needs a rewrite from a WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request that editors keep a precautionary eye on this one. Petecarney (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. It may take years for the first results of physical and epigraphic studies to become available. Right now the sourcing is a bunch of stories containing initial comments from archaeologists and other scholars who haven't had much (if any) access to the codices in question and blog postings. • Astynax ^talk 03:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page editors constantly take down POV notice when dispute as not been resolved. No negative information about city of any kind is allowed to remain.

Wrong noticeboard for your complaint, but it's the right noticeboard to note your fringe view that Gainesville is a hotbed of redneck racism and intolerance, which is totally uncited. Horologium (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at the Race and crime article? It seems to me to be attempting to present what is at best fringe science as mainstream. The currant major contributor is asking for others to offer mainstream alternatives to the theory, but personally I think that this would be giving it more credibility than it deserves. It uses the term 'race' in a widely-varying (but never defined) manner, assumes that 'IQ' is a real measure of an objective 'intelligence', and generally lacks any objectivity in its presentation of data. In short, it is pushing a minority POV based on dubious racist biologically-determinist theories, wile taking no account of the overwhelming scientific consensus that such theories are unsupportable, and not based on valid science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not alternative becuase there is no connection between race and crime. Correlations between socioeconomic status and ethnicity tied into crime yes. This article as it stand an utterly unacceptable Fringe View point not even notable as fringe. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let differentiate between crime rates and theories. That crime rates differ is not disputed. The theories explaining them are disputed.Miradre (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic WP:SYNTH the article is picking very selective in it presention of data to advance a none-existent viewpoint. This is not one of those articles. Race and Crime in the United States works. Race and Crime in the United Kingdom works. The social construction of race cross cultrally does not work. This material duplicates existing material any way. There is no cohesive topic of Crime and Race to merit its own article because no one takes the idea seriously The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many studies on worldwide racial crime rates and proposed explanations. Obviously an important and notable topic.Miradre (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, no there arent really becuase cohesive idea of "race" outside of America ::it get much more murky. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also studies (such as the UK Home Office one which you conveniently ignore) that disprove this theory. If the topic is notable, then provide neutral reliable sources that say so. In any case, a 'notable theory' isn't necessarily a notable scientific one, as this purports to be - it isn't recognised by mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facapalm meant Euro-america. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sure like to see more information on this topic rather than less. Liberals like me aren't afraid of race-crime statistics because we can show how powerful culture is in determining behavior (e.g. crime). Let's just balance the information we don't like with information we do like, and let the best explanation of the race-crime correlation win. I'm confident that it's the liberal, egalitarian, cultural explanation that gets the best coverage in reliable sources. Leadwind (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate that a race-crime correlation exists, you first have to demonstrate the 'race' exists. Since it is clearly a social construct rather than a biological fact (actually, 'crime' is as well), there is no reason to even discuss the topic as science. If one wishes to discuss it as politics, I'd suggest that the best explanations aren't 'liberal, egalitarian, cultural' so much as 'Marxist, egalitarian, economic' ones. The issue is actually largely about the one thing that nobody seems to acknowledge - social class - which in turn largely determines what both 'race' and 'crime' are. You cannot discuss such subjects in a way that assumes any of the correlations are 'objective' in such a context. Hence, any article treating 'race and crime' as a legitimate scientific subject is doomed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can certainly study statistics for purely social constructs. One example being income and occupations. No one would argue that these concepts are biologically real. But it is still possibly to study differences in income for different occupations. So even if race as concept was rejected as a biologically reality, it would still be possible to discuss crime differences for different races, just as one can for other groups, and have an article on this. Let us also note that the topic is discussed here: Miradre (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could start by writing the lead based on reliable sources rather than no sources as at present. Then we could establish whether this is a scientific or fringe view. TFD (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw WP:ANI#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page - this looks relevant to a couple of fringe articles on British Israelism and Young Earth Creationism]]. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 4#Category:Paranormal places. This category is very old. I think it's a safe bet that the conclusion will result in retention of the category but there might be reason to argue for a les credulous name. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a lot of articles in that category are entirely cited to unreliable sources such as Weird NJ. Example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Road (New Jersey) (it seems this article was created by an admin who doesn't believe in the WP:NPA policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has just been brought to my attention -- can't work out if it's completely off-the-wall, or simply impenetrably written -- though discussion in the article body, about proposals made in the French Wikipedia, aren't exactly promising. Enjoy! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. Searching in JSTOR is not promising; GBooks returns a few hits. At the very least it probably should be Somatosensory rehabilitation if it is retained. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is legitimate medical stuff relating to a relatively new method for treatment of neuropathic pain, but the article was written by somebody whose native language is French, and the rendering into English is at the Google-Translate level. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the section above on the article on race & crime, I had a look at the US version of the article, and it badly needs work. For example, this section consists entirely of some dubious statistics sourced to a publication of the New Century Foundation ("dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation"). The New Century Foundation publication is also repeatedly used as a source in other sections. The article also gives fringe views like this one WP:UNDUE weight. These are just a couple of glaringly obvious problems I noticed from glancing at the article; there are likely to be many other problems that need work. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look bad. New Century Foundation is an advocacy group so should not be used in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went by and quickly removed the bits that had been sourced to the New Century Foundation pub. The article is still badly in need of work. Among other things, this section, this section, and this section sound like really flaky theories...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The report, from the New Century Foundation, as a source have been removed from the article. Please explain why. Reports from advocacy groups are not prohibited. It certainly passes a relevancy and notability criteria since it is widely cited in this area. The statistics of the report are from official statistics and reports in the scientific literature. If there is disagreement with a figure, then an opposing view should be stated with a source. Just attacking the author and not the content is a not valid ad hominem attack. As such, I propose the report should be added back. Not as WP:Truth but as notable view in this area.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source was not used to present a white supremacist view but to source facts. The report is obviously not a reliable source for facts since it is published by a group thatr has a vested political interest in making those facts appear in a particular way. This is really very basic.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The views of political advocacy groups are of course not prohibited in WP. As a notable view in this area it should be included. Making it clear where the report are citing official statistics and scientific studies and where it argues for a policy. The New Century Foundation considers Asians to have higher inteligence than whites and welcomes Jews so it certainly does not fit any standard stereotype of white supremacism or neo-nazism.Miradre (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian/Jew argument is really bad - on par with the classic "Im not a racist many of my friends are Jews/black". First you'd have to argue that the view is notable, as anything other than a fringe POV. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is for example a figure regarding the risk of being in prison, based on official statistics, a fringe view? Miradre (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the statistics are 'official', find them in a mainstream source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The raw numbers are for not obvious, or maybe for obvious, reasons difficult to interpret. They are not adjusted for the population sizes of different groups, and clump whites and Hispanics together, and so on. What the report does in this regard is simply to make the numbers clearer. Only the US seems to present to the public such difficult to understand crime figures. All other countries I have looked at report crime rates so that they can be understood easily, like crimes/year/100,000 people in a group.Miradre (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want to present the official statistics, but instead the New Century Foundation's interpretation of them? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they are qualified to make such interpretations of "difficult to understand crime figures"? Do you have evidence that they do this in a way that ensures an accurate presentation of the data, rather than in a way that suits their 'advocacy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of special interest groups, think-thanks, and similar organizations include research in their reports. That is not disallowed in Wikipedia. The articles contain numerous such reports. The attribution should have been clearer but otherwise I see no reason for excluding this view.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of special interest groups do research. Whether this research is of sufficient credibility to use in an article comes down to edit-page consensus, and failing that there is WP:RSN and other appropriate sections of Wikipedia. That you see no reason to include research that supports the POV you are clearly pushing is neither here nor there. This isn't an advocacy website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither should views be excluded per WP:NPOV. If you are scientifically right, would it not be better to show that the report is wrong instead of simply excluding is? Miradre (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious area so sources should be of good quality, i.e. peer reviewed academic or similar. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Miradre, there is no requirement to provide scientific refutations of the fringe arguments of random racist websites. That you continue to support such self-evidently biased sources says little for any claims you once had to be editing in a neutral manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the case closed. I have already started adding other sources for the data and arguments that should be less susceptible to being rejected simply because who the author is. I will no longer argue for this source.Miradre (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People will be keeping close watch on it, at least I'm sure Cordelia and Andy will although I will be on wikibreak. Too much prominence to Jensen's views is an issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another major problem with the article, it seems to me, is its very narrow focus. There are a lot of other very important topics that one might expect to find covered in an article on Race and crime in the United States; a historical perspective on the topic is completely missing for example. (Some relevant topics missing from the article include: People v. Hall, slave codes, lynchings, segregation, the American mafia, and undoubtedly many others). Also, a number of the sections in the current article still present egregiously fringe theories. I'm also going to be mostly wikibreaking, so I hope that there will be some more eyes on this article...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several IPs editing this today adding either copyvio videos showing what they think are earthquake lights (but not mentioned in the video) or blogs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV article written as though he was genuine. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as lacking neutrality/balance, but frankly I have doubts that Chapman meets WP:N in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre (talk · contribs) is working very hard to make it look like the racist theories of J. Philippe Rushton as laid out in his self-published Race, Evolution and Behavior have scholarly currency outside of the small group of scholars who have received funding from the Pioneer Fund for which Rushton is president. Miradre is currently pushing a source written by a graduate student in criminology who describes evidence in favor of the theory as "mixed" when researchers with expertise in the area have in fact unanimously rejected it as a prime example of scientific racism and pseudo science. This needs immediate attention by editors willing to read abit about the backgrund of Rushton and the reception of his theories about human evolution by scholars who actually know about evolution. The articles affected are Race and crime, Race and crime in the US and Race, Evolution and Behavior. This is egregious pov pushing that needs to be kept in check.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you have against the Encyclopedia. Here are the lead editors: [1][2] Certainly not a proven theory, and very controversial, but there are several peer-reviewed articles supporting the theory. No, not all of the researchers are connected to Pioneer Fund.Miradre (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly not a proven theory, and very controversial..." It sounds like you agree that this is a fringe theory. aprock (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same regarding the theory that racial differences in IQ are partly genetic. This does not preclude that this the the most common theory among IQ researchers when they are asked anonymously.Miradre (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate this claim, Miradre? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look here Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Later_favorable_studies. Many peer-reviewed studies have found support for various aspects of the theory. Even for the studies where Rushton is the lead author, there are usually several other different co-authors, so there is a rather large group of people of who have researched and found support for the theory.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing editors to a part of the article on Rushton's book that you have selectively written or rewritten from your own point of view. [3] Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is, I added to the criticisms sections also...[4].Miradre (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miradre, try to focus. I'm talking about the claim you made here on this noticeboard that, racial differences in IQ being partly genetic is "the most common theory among IQ researchers when they are asked anonymously." The link you posted says nothing about that. Do you have any facts to substantiate your claim that this is the most common theory. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book)#Synopsis.Miradre (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A survey from 1984? Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one ever done. My point is not that this proves what the scientific consensus is currently. What is shows is that the partially genetic theory is not fringe.Miradre (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The study you link to refutes your claim. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? " "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation"Miradre (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So later university textbooks on this subject by experts are irrelevant in your view? They somehow do not represent the mainstream? Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What textbooks? There is no consensus in this area but an ongoing debate regarding the role of genetics.Miradre (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The textbooks are in the references of many of the articles that you have been editing, and I'm sure you must have noticed the authors—Loughlin, Mackintosh, Flynn, Sternberg, Jencks, etc Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about articles and books, not textbooks. There are as many such articles and books by hereditarians.Miradre (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mackintosh's book is a textbook, "Human intelligence"; the "Handbook of intelligence" is an encyclopedia. Your responses seem just to illustrate Maunus' point. Anyway Newyorkbrad is going to propose a motion on the Requests for clarification page which could clear all of this up. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. Even Sternberg and Mackintosh agree there is controversy and differing opinions on this.Miradre (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have differing opinions which are controversial. It seems that such ideas when held up as explanatory theories might well be considered WP:FRINGE. aprock (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if you are talking with a proponent he/she will think his theory is the right one. Again, the only poll done found that the most common theory among IQ researchers were the paritally genetic one.Miradre (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre is misrepresenting the sources. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.Miradre (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing how a single question from a survey lends substantial insight into a book published 11 years later. aprock (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One author, one view, one researcher. A survey, many views. many researchers. The last give a better understanding of the what it more common view in the field.Miradre (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loughlin and Mackintosh wrote that there is insufficient evidence to make any claim about genetics. Their work is published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The second abridged edition of Rushton's book was self-published and 50 pages long. The survey you mention was originally just a short paper of less than 10 pages. On wikipedia editors are asked to be very careful about evaluating sources. That's why we have WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two things here. Rushton's r/K theory and the theory that IQ is partially genetic. Regarding the first, again see Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Later_favorable_studies. Regarding the second, see for example this:[5][6] Miradre (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused or not, my own feeling at the moment is that it is best to wait for Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators to formulate a motion that clarifies discretionary sanctions, including topic bans. That would apply in particular to WP:ARBR&I. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of this article appears to be some of the worst WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time, in a rather bald attempt to mitigate the widespread condemnation of the topic's claims. This does not appear to be WP:DUE and therefore is not WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again see Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Later_favorable_studies. Consdiering all the authors there are a considerable group of researchers agreeing with the theory.Miradre (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section does not demonstrate "a considerable group of researchers agreeing with the theory" -- it shows that Rushton and his collaborators, Figueredo (in conjunction with assorted collaborators) & a single paper paper by Kanazawa agrees with the theory. "considerable"? I don't think so. In any case this is utterly irrelevant to the WP:WEASEL in the lead -- which does not discuss these "Later favorable studies". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forget some lead names. Anyhow, if one count all the researchers who have written these papers, not just the lead name, you get a considerable group who agrees with Rushton in peer-reviewed papers. But I agree, the lead should be changed to mention the favorable research, it seems unduly biased by only mentioning criticism against the book.Miradre (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at the last names of the researchers who have written peer-reviewed papers agreeing with the theory:

• Kanazawa
• Templer
• Veselka
• Schermer
• Petrides
• Cherkas
• Spector
• Vernon
• Erdle
• Irwing
• Booth
• Bons
• Ando
• Hur
• Barbaranelli
• Figueredo
• Vasquez
• Brumbach
• Schneider
• Sefcek
• Tal
• Hill
• Wenner
• Kirsner
• Jacobs
• Charles
• Egan
• Voracek

Around 28 researchers. Hardly fringe.Miradre (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's done by counting, is it? Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A high count certainly helps.Miradre (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is WP:OR. It is not possible to evaluate primary sources and that is not how wikipedia is edited. Please read this. Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Presence amply demonstrated.Miradre (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article falls under far more stringent rules than other wikipedia articles, because of the ArbCom case. You have been given an official notification of those special rules, which include in particular WP:ARBR&I#Single purpose accounts. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied regarding SPA at the AE case. Since you are now diverting to other issues, I take it that you are no longer wish to argue that this is a fringe theory?Miradre (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this thread is not to establish whether a theory is fringe or not. Maunus' initial statement seems correct on all points. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those 25 are prominent in their own right? I could put together larger numbers, and more prominent names, supporting all sorts of lunacy. And as NONE OF THIS IS CITED IN THE LEAD IT IS STILL UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO MY ORIGINAL POINT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Hrafn, please don't shout :) Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply immediately above. But I agree the lead should be changed. It should also mention these supporting studies.Miradre (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre appears to be proposing tendentious edits to an article covered directly by WP:ARBR&I, breaking several of the principles laid down by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which principles?Miradre (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has accumulated quite a bit of material based upon WP:FRINGE, WP:SELFPUB and/or very-outdated sources (some old, but quite a bit newly introduced). I've attempted to prune much of it out, but further scrutiny may be desirable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]