|
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 John Traynor (Royal Marine)
- 2 Integral Institute
- 3 John A. McDougall
- 4 List of candidate planets by an index that is calculated by one person
- 5 Rick Alan Ross - deprogrammer
- 6 NUCCA
- 7 Randall Fontes
- 8 Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology
- 9 Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
- 10 Time slip
- 11 Brainwave entrainment
- 12 Esoteric astrology
- 13 Ganzfeld experiment
- 14 Scientific consensus
- 15 DNA teleportation
- 16 Answers in Genesis
John Traynor (Royal Marine)
I am not sure if he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Problem with the article is that his alleged miracle of being cured is presented as factual. Only religious or fringe books endorsing miracles as genuine seem to mention this guy. Seems to be a serious lack of reliable sources. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- HealthyGirl: Did you notice this WP:Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine)? —PermStrump(talk) 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Article is in serious violation of WP:Fringe. I can't be bothered to deal with this anymore. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Odd posting. Traynor is believed by some pious Catholics to have experienced a "miracle cure" in the waters at the shrine of Lourdes. Article is reliably sourced to mainstream book/articles that discuss the cure as something that some of the faithful believe happened. I am not claiming that taking the waters at Lourdes cures anyone, only that bringing this particular article to WP:Fringe is decidedly odd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Article is in serious violation of WP:Fringe. I can't be bothered to deal with this anymore. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- The sources are not all reliable, for example Paul Glynn is a priest who argues miracles are real. The Guardian piece which has a single line dedicated to Traynor also treats the miracle as factual. There is no evidence this 'miracle' ever occurred. Traynor was probably a fraud. No critical/skeptical coverage of his claims exists. The article is endorsing his fringe claims as factual. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. One of the sources is a book by Paul Glynn, a Catholic priest noted for his post-WWII reconciliation work with Japan. But the book I was referring to was is Lourdes, A Modern Pilgrimage by the noted travel writer, journalist and biographer Patrick Marnham. I am at a loss to understand HealthyGirl's odd position on sources in re: the John Traynor article, or why she has dragged it to this discussion board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, belief in literal miracles is clearly fringe in the sense that, for example, literal bilocation is physically impossible and only fringe theorists propose otherwise. That's not to say that the entire religion is "fringe". Only one literal interpretation of it. jps (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Saying 'its physically impossible' is not an argument for fringe material when the counter is 'God can do it if he wants to'. Miracles are *miracles* and not subject to earthly explanation or evidence. If you could evidence a miracle, it wouldnt be a miracle, it would be science. So in that aspect they are not 'fringe'. People who try to explain miracles with scientific methods are clearly fringe or pseudoscience, but very few religious people actually do that. Miracles are not put forth as any sort of science. I suppose there might be miracles which would be considered 'fringe miracles' even amongst the religious (bilocation would probably be one). But given Catholic belief states that every Catholic is the recipient of transubstantion (a literal miracle) multiple times in their lives... To get back to the original post: a book written by the religious that claims a miracle of healing is factual is not fringe. Healing miracles are one of the most common and widespread miracles there are. Millions and millions of people in various religions trek to sacred spots to pray for healing, and (allegedly) some are answered. I would expect someone who claims to the be the recipient of a healing miracle to show up in religious books. Because those are the people who believe in it. Now if someone was suggesting there was a scientific basis for a man regaining the use of his legs, that would possibly be fringe. But that is not the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- We go by reliable sources, not wishful thinking. If the counter to a point that bilocation is physically impossible is that God does what God wants to, then the claim is fringe because no WP:MAINSTREAM academic (be they secular or religious) seriously makes that claim. People who believe that miracles literally happen are adopting pseudoscientific arguments, we have no disagreement there. The fact that millions and millions of people may believe in fringe theories is immaterial. Millions and people believe the Earth is the center of the universe, for example.
- If a religious person claims that faith healing is occurring, such claims are subject to skeptical inquiry. The best that has ever been done is to point out the vague and unsubstantiated aspects to such claims. However, most true believers in such nonsense tend to go one further. It is at this point that they start to engage in wishful thinking and pseudoscience. Honest practitioners of faith do not fight the plain contradiction with physical fact, they let the mystery lie. Dishonest believers argue that God is a literal presence with physical powers that can be measured. See creationism and related religious-based pseudoscientific arguments. Belief in literal miracles to the extent that one claims that, for example, measurable supernatural action is the only possible explanation, is necessarily a pseudoscientific enterprise.
- Also, to be clear, transubstantiation is couched in Catholic theology by association with unobserverable Aristotlian "substance" and therefore it is not a literal miracle in the physical (or the Aristotlian "accidents") sense. No Catholic believes that the particles of bread if examined under a microscope would turn out to be literal human somatic cells.
- jps (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- User:Only in death has this exactly right: "All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all Catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'." As do all believers in all faiths. User:HealthyGirl was incorrect to categorize (the question of whether a miracle took place is separate) that a miracle took place at Lourdes as a Fringe theory. The belief in miracles by the world's large, ancient, and mainstream religions is by definition mainstream, not fringe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Saying 'its physically impossible' is not an argument for fringe material when the counter is 'God can do it if he wants to'. Miracles are *miracles* and not subject to earthly explanation or evidence. If you could evidence a miracle, it wouldnt be a miracle, it would be science. So in that aspect they are not 'fringe'. People who try to explain miracles with scientific methods are clearly fringe or pseudoscience, but very few religious people actually do that. Miracles are not put forth as any sort of science. I suppose there might be miracles which would be considered 'fringe miracles' even amongst the religious (bilocation would probably be one). But given Catholic belief states that every Catholic is the recipient of transubstantion (a literal miracle) multiple times in their lives... To get back to the original post: a book written by the religious that claims a miracle of healing is factual is not fringe. Healing miracles are one of the most common and widespread miracles there are. Millions and millions of people in various religions trek to sacred spots to pray for healing, and (allegedly) some are answered. I would expect someone who claims to the be the recipient of a healing miracle to show up in religious books. Because those are the people who believe in it. Now if someone was suggesting there was a scientific basis for a man regaining the use of his legs, that would possibly be fringe. But that is not the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, belief in literal miracles is clearly fringe in the sense that, for example, literal bilocation is physically impossible and only fringe theorists propose otherwise. That's not to say that the entire religion is "fringe". Only one literal interpretation of it. jps (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. One of the sources is a book by Paul Glynn, a Catholic priest noted for his post-WWII reconciliation work with Japan. But the book I was referring to was is Lourdes, A Modern Pilgrimage by the noted travel writer, journalist and biographer Patrick Marnham. I am at a loss to understand HealthyGirl's odd position on sources in re: the John Traynor article, or why she has dragged it to this discussion board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Faith healing via magical action of Our Lady of Lourdes is just as much pseudoscience as is any other faith healing claim. WP:MAINSTREAM refers to experts, and experts in the natural, physical, and medical worlds are basically in agreement that literal miracles of the sort argued for by true believers in many faiths simply do not happen. To argue otherwise is necessarily in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Just because major religions accommodate beliefs in fringe theories, doesn't mean that they are insulated from the injunction to write a serious encyclopedia. jps (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Integral Institute
Slowly but surely, we're climbing that mountain.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Institute
jps (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is Ken Wilber notable? The sourcing looks alright on first glance, but it's mainly one book by Visser and a handful of possibly trivial mentions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised to find a decent amount of hits for him in news an academic journals 2 days ago when this first went up (I searched "'ken wilber' integral"), but I didn't look into deep enough to check the quality of many of the sources or how many were definitely talking about this Ken Wilber. A few were definitely him though. Apparently he's buds with Deepak Chopra and some people in Hollywood, so I guess that's why. I mean, and because his ideas have merit. :-P But seriously I think he's at least notable enough that people have written criticism of him in independent reliable sources. PermStrump(talk) 15:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- The story here is that practitioners and acolytes of Integral theory (Ken Wilber) arrived at Wikipedia very early on and constructed a massive WP:Walled garden of articles on the subject which up until relatively recently were ruthlessly guarded from attempts at clean-up. I occasionally try to go into that and related articles and weed whack with varying degrees of success (search the FTN archives). I question whether we really need Template:Integral thought anymore. Many of the linked articles are redirects or lack links back to Ken Wilber's stuff owing to WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised to find a decent amount of hits for him in news an academic journals 2 days ago when this first went up (I searched "'ken wilber' integral"), but I didn't look into deep enough to check the quality of many of the sources or how many were definitely talking about this Ken Wilber. A few were definitely him though. Apparently he's buds with Deepak Chopra and some people in Hollywood, so I guess that's why. I mean, and because his ideas have merit. :-P But seriously I think he's at least notable enough that people have written criticism of him in independent reliable sources. PermStrump(talk) 15:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- In any case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Esbjörn-Hargens. jps (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasuhiko Kimura. jps (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I might need to take back what I said about Ken Wilber having enough notability for people to criticize him. It seems like that might all be in-universe too. I was glad for the context, jps because I was confused about how all of this existed. It seems like Ken Wilber and his ideas only needs one page at most. —PermStrump(talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I had the interesting experience of coming to Wikipedia in learn about Wilber in 2007, seeing a version roughly like this (note the extended criticism), and then coming back a year or two ago and being surprised at how positive it was (and noticing that trend across related articles). Looks like the criticism section was removed wholesale here. Honestly just didn't feel like taking the plunge to sort out a bunch of articles that I wasn't entirely sure about and don't know all that much about, but I'm glad others are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- This looks to be an interesting summary of his popularity (and then not). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- And here is a post about managing the articles on Wikipedia posted to kenwilber.com by a sock puppeteer. Fun. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time telling what's inside the "walled garden" and what are the things outside of the walled garden that Wilber claims to be associated with. For example, I associate transpersonal psychology with woo and Wilber associates his integral theories with transpersonal psychology. So is transpersonal psychology within his wall garden or is Wilber's integral theory woo that branched off of woo and created its own walled garden? This is an honest question. It seems like anytime I'm trying to edit a legitimate article about psychology, somehow I end up on an article that associates itself with transpersonal psychology. Just the other day I wanted to edit some poorly sourced woo on either Child development or Developmental psychology and clickede a link to Prenatal and perinatal psychology, which I ended up posting about here a few threads up. So is prenatal and perinatal psychology related to Wilber's walled garden too? —PermStrump(talk) 15:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Wilberites commandeered a number of pages over a period of years that were related to integral theory. These included transpersonal psychology, many of the pages on yoga, holism, quantum mysticism, and even subjects such as transdisciplinarity. That you are having a hard time figuring out where the walls of the garden are is a testament to their subsequent decay. In articles that got more attention, Wilber's ideas have been quickly excised. In articles that are more obscure, the garden seems to remain. jps (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time telling what's inside the "walled garden" and what are the things outside of the walled garden that Wilber claims to be associated with. For example, I associate transpersonal psychology with woo and Wilber associates his integral theories with transpersonal psychology. So is transpersonal psychology within his wall garden or is Wilber's integral theory woo that branched off of woo and created its own walled garden? This is an honest question. It seems like anytime I'm trying to edit a legitimate article about psychology, somehow I end up on an article that associates itself with transpersonal psychology. Just the other day I wanted to edit some poorly sourced woo on either Child development or Developmental psychology and clickede a link to Prenatal and perinatal psychology, which I ended up posting about here a few threads up. So is prenatal and perinatal psychology related to Wilber's walled garden too? —PermStrump(talk) 15:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Steve McIntosh
Related to the above:
- Now & Zen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Steve McIntosh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anyone think these articles deserve a place in Wikipedia? I almost put them up for deletion, but hesitated. jps (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- jps, I'm thinking 'No' for Steve. Haven't looked into the other one yet. From what I can tell, these are the independent sources cited in the article that I was able to verify (not counting local news reports):
- 1. "Zen and the art of shut-eye maintenance", Forbes, November 30, 1998
- 2. The War On Partisanship, National Journal, Dec 2015
- I couldn't access the full text to verify these references:
- 1. "Cool Zen Tools", GQ, December 2000
- 2. "Beyond the Culture Wars: an Unconventional Summit on the Future of the Right", National Journal, July 16, 2015
- 3. The Next Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution, by Walter Truett Anderson, St Martin’s Press
- Works by Steve McIntosh that weren't published by an integral-affiliated or Unification Church-affiliated publishing house:
- 1. Evolution's Purpose: An Integral Interpretation of the Scientific Story of Our Origins, SelectBooks 2012
- 2. "Integral Politics and the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture", Tikkun Magazine, 2008
- FWIW Ebscohost says the GQ thing is an "inset" in another article called, "Time Out!", so to me sounds like it might just be an ad for the alarm clock. I requested it from libs for fun. I have no idea how reliable of a source National Journal is. Or what the reputations are of Tikkun Magazine or SelectBooks. The only additional independent source I found in my own search was a passing mention in this LA Times article.
- TLDR: At most, there are 5 independent sources that cover McIntosh and 2 of his works were published by seemingly independent publishers. Even if we assume the 3 that aren't easily accessible online are legit, do you think 5 sources passes WP:NBIO? I don't participate in AFDs on people usually. —PermStrump(talk) 01:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion
In addition to the article Integral Institute, there is an article integral theory (Ken Wilber), a navbox {{Integral thought}}. I would suggest that it is worth taking a close look at the articles linking to the article integral thought, via what links here. In at least some cases, integral theory is linked from "mainstream" articles, probably in violation of WP:FRINGE. In other cases, we have walled garden articles that probably should be merged. We don't need dozens of articles on so-called "integral theory". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- There are whole categories of this stuff, that could do with a serious source check - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sławomir Biały, good point. Except Integral Institute and Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and BLP's for other integral "thought leaders", so far all of the wikilinks I've clicked on in the past few days had already been redirected to Wilber's BLP. But from what I've learned from the discussion here, I won't be shocked to find out there are tons more. Imagine my surprise yesterday to learn that the California Institute of Integral Studies was a real place that's actually accredited by WASC. I'm still kind of confused about that. —PermStrump(talk) 16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have mentioned this before, but perhaps it bares repeating: accreditation in the United States is a private peer-review enterprise. Universities and colleges in the regional associations accredit themselves and that is what stands for the means by which federal funds are disbursed (per law). There is no Ministry of Education in the US that dictates which schools are accredited and which are not, perhaps much to the chagrin of those of us who would like to see more consistency in the way this process unfolds. Essentially, the main goal of accreditation is not to determine whether the academic rigor or subject material offered by the school is legitimate or not, but rather that the school is actively and seriously working to fulfill its own mission statement. In this way, explicitly pseudoscientific schools can and do get accredited in the US. When schools are not accredited it is usually because the school did not bother to attempt to receive accreditation which, in spite of its mealy-mouthed-ness, is still a considerable undertaking requiring resources invested and committees willing to jump through hoops to prove that the school is living up to its own standards. Accreditation should be treated like peer review. Lack of it is a huge WP:REDFLAG, but the simple fact that a school is accredited just says that the school has mustered the resources in time, money, and influence to convince a group of visiting administrators that the school was working towards the goals it set out for itself. Nothing more and nothing less. Accreditation says nothing in and of itself as to how legitimate the education at a college or university actually is. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sławomir Biały, good point. Except Integral Institute and Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and BLP's for other integral "thought leaders", so far all of the wikilinks I've clicked on in the past few days had already been redirected to Wilber's BLP. But from what I've learned from the discussion here, I won't be shocked to find out there are tons more. Imagine my surprise yesterday to learn that the California Institute of Integral Studies was a real place that's actually accredited by WASC. I'm still kind of confused about that. —PermStrump(talk) 16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Template Deletion Discussion
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24#Template:Integral_thought is now live.
jps (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
List of integral thinkers and supporters
List of integral thinkers and supporters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This could use some intelligent reworking.
jps (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program.
jps (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Two more articles up for deletion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Visser.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext.
You know the drill.
jps (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Other potentially problematic biographies
This list was taken from the above biography. Not all of these biographies are problematic, but many are.
- Michel Bauwens
- Don Edward Beck
- Robert A. McDermott
- Jorge Ferrer
- Jordan S. Gruber
- Wouter Hanegraaff
- Rod Hemsell
- John Heron
- David C. Lane
- Joe Perez
- Wayne Teasdale
- Lawrence Wollersheim
- Michael E. Zimmerman
jps (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
John A. McDougall
promotes a series of faddish weight loss diets which have found little favour with health professionals. The article is under constant assault from IPs (and lately a fresh account) wanting to remove criticism. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I had to revert twice in 10 minutes, lots of different IP's removing unsourced claims. I filed a RPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The same IP has been deleting criticisms on the Alain de Botton article. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- RPP successful, filing one for Alain de Botton. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
List of candidate planets by an index that is calculated by one person
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI (2nd nomination).
Please comment.
jps (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross - deprogrammer
Ross is a deprogrammer known for his part in the Jason Scott case.
1) Am I correct in assuming "deprogramming", "brainwashing", "cults", etc in the context of this BLP are all WP:FRINGE?
2) If so, are we currently presenting enough of the larger context and fringe nature of the worldview that Ross works within?
I brought up these questions at Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Fringe_issues, where we agreed that a WP:FTN discussion would help.
Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) is arguing to change his article to present him as an expert in "cults", and to de-emphasize his "deprogramming" work as much as possible. The current talk page is almost entirely about various such proposals.
3) Are there similar articles where these issues have been given more attention that we could use as guides? --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just read over the discussion from April 22 through May 8th, and I have to say I agree with Rick. Descriptives about him in most sources refer to him primarily as a "cult expert" or some variation thereof. The fact that he initially gained recognition as a deprogrammer is worth mentioning, but that doesn't mean his other work doesn't deserve due weight. For instance, Will Smith would open with "Willard Carroll "Will" Smith, Jr. '(born September 25, 1968) is an American rapper." if we applied this standard to his article.
- His participation at the talk page might be part of his marketing work (who could argue that editing one's own wikipedia article isn't marketing work?), but that fact doesn't necessarily make him wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum I read somewhat further, and I have to say that his claim that the Jason Scott case is not his primary claim to notability is spurious. It is. All of the other media attention he has received has come as a direct result of his participation therein. Without it, he would almost certainly not have gotten enough media coverage to satisfy GNG. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've addressed any of the FRINGE issues at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a WP:FRINGE subject, IMHO. However, it's a well documented one and it's not as fringe as (for example) the Flat earth society. Nor is it fringe in the same way. It's fringe because it's applied psychology based almost entirely upon the work of a small group of psychologists and a small subset of psychological theories that tends to operate outside of the mainstream of psychology. I don't believe there is a consensus among psychologists that the methods used by deprogrammers and the theories behind their work are accurate, but I don't believe there's widespread consensus that they're not, either. In other words, it's fringe, but not in the pejorative sense. That being said, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. The article should fall under the discretionary sanctions imposed upon fringe subjects IMHO, as well as BLP standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Social influence, persuasion techniques culminating in undue influence, is not a fringe theory. There is much research on the subject and undue influence has been ruled upon in court proceedings. Calling it "fringe" is a POV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a POV. I said above that it relies "...almost entirely upon the work of a small group..." and that's what I meant. Almost all of modern psychology is based on well-proven and well-documented theories at its most basic level. The same is true of Loop quantum gravity in physics. However, just like LQG, this work is fringe because it is done on the edges (read "fringes") of mainstream science, and is done by a small and extensively self-referential group. As I said above, this is not fringe in the pejorative sense, but in the most neutral sense. I might be wrong (I'm writing off the top of my head, based on what I know about a subject that is not a primary interest of mine), but that would be due to my mis-remembering facts, not due to any bias on my part. In truth, I think this is a laudable field worth pursuing. Calling my statements POV is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications, especially on the FRINGE issues. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants: Excuse me. I should have been more specific. My point was how Ronz is now trying to use "FRINGE issues" to leverage his POV at my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine. I can see how one could make the case that Ronz is pushing a POV, given that I agree with you about the lead paragraph. However, bear in mind that Ronz has been here since 2005 at least and has more experience editing WP than most of the rest of us combined. If he argued with a suggestion of mine, I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd try to see things from his perspective so as to better address the situation, instead of accusing him of POV pushing (even if he accused you of it first) and focusing on that. His POV is informed by over a decade of editing WP, and is worth listening to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have acted in good faith, but Ronz really has become a condescending bully at my bio. And according to Wikipedia records he has had problems over the years editing. I have repeatedly brought up the issue of civility when he has been rude. Ronz wants his POV at my bio. I am what he says I am.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You claim you are acting in good faith, then immediately accuse Ronz of being a bully? Also, note that wikipedia requires us to not only edit in good faith, but to assume good faith on the part of others. Has it occurred to you that Ronz simply vociferously disagrees with you? You might gain more traction if you could figure out why he disagrees, rather than trying to win the argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate your sentiment and I agree with the principle. But after some time Ronz has repeatedly behaved badly. I came to my conclusion based upon his behavior. Perhaps you are right. But he seems dug into a POV. Ronz makes claims about me as if he knows me. It's a bit weird.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- You claim you are acting in good faith, then immediately accuse Ronz of being a bully? Also, note that wikipedia requires us to not only edit in good faith, but to assume good faith on the part of others. Has it occurred to you that Ronz simply vociferously disagrees with you? You might gain more traction if you could figure out why he disagrees, rather than trying to win the argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have acted in good faith, but Ronz really has become a condescending bully at my bio. And according to Wikipedia records he has had problems over the years editing. I have repeatedly brought up the issue of civility when he has been rude. Ronz wants his POV at my bio. I am what he says I am.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a POV. I said above that it relies "...almost entirely upon the work of a small group..." and that's what I meant. Almost all of modern psychology is based on well-proven and well-documented theories at its most basic level. The same is true of Loop quantum gravity in physics. However, just like LQG, this work is fringe because it is done on the edges (read "fringes") of mainstream science, and is done by a small and extensively self-referential group. As I said above, this is not fringe in the pejorative sense, but in the most neutral sense. I might be wrong (I'm writing off the top of my head, based on what I know about a subject that is not a primary interest of mine), but that would be due to my mis-remembering facts, not due to any bias on my part. In truth, I think this is a laudable field worth pursuing. Calling my statements POV is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Social influence, persuasion techniques culminating in undue influence, is not a fringe theory. There is much research on the subject and undue influence has been ruled upon in court proceedings. Calling it "fringe" is a POV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a WP:FRINGE subject, IMHO. However, it's a well documented one and it's not as fringe as (for example) the Flat earth society. Nor is it fringe in the same way. It's fringe because it's applied psychology based almost entirely upon the work of a small group of psychologists and a small subset of psychological theories that tends to operate outside of the mainstream of psychology. I don't believe there is a consensus among psychologists that the methods used by deprogrammers and the theories behind their work are accurate, but I don't believe there's widespread consensus that they're not, either. In other words, it's fringe, but not in the pejorative sense. That being said, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. The article should fall under the discretionary sanctions imposed upon fringe subjects IMHO, as well as BLP standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've addressed any of the FRINGE issues at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) The problem is that RAR is notable for his deprogramming and the high profile cases involved in that. However given the passing of time, that is not substantially all of his work. As Wikipedia works off of reliable sources, and his other accomplishments just do not have the weight (in sources) of his former career, any article will understandably be slanted towards his former job rather than his latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't know about anyone else, but for a while a thought he was the same person as the other Rick Ross. This Rick Alan Ross is almost only famous as a
n ex-cult member turnedcult deprogrammer as far as I can tell. I like his website for debunking other cult stuff because he always cites his sources well and from my experience, he always represents his sources well, so when his website comes up in a google search, I tend think it's a good place to start off research... FWIW. What else is he known for? —PermStrump(talk) 16:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)- Thank you. But I am not an ex-cult member. The Cult Education Institute is a widely known database launched 20 years ago and a nonprofit tax-exempted educational charity and online library (member of ALA and NJLA). The edits suggested at the Talk page of my bio are supported by many reliable sources. Rather than only stating under Occupation "Deprogrammer" the suggested edits would reflect the fact that I am a cult intervention specialist ("deprogrammer"}, court expert and author. I am not suggesting that the Scott case or my ongoing deprogramming work be ignored. But that is not why I am sought as an expert and frequently interviewed. Isn't historical context/perspective important to maintain NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 May 2016
- I don't know about anyone else, but for a while a thought he was the same person as the other Rick Ross. This Rick Alan Ross is almost only famous as a
Can someone address the FRINGE concerns please? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hah sorry. Maybe can you rephrase or give specific examples? I'm not sure what exactly the question is. —PermStrump(talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you asking if it's a fringe view that cults have the capacity to brain wash people and if other people are able to deprogram the brainwashing? —PermStrump(talk) 17:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you asking if we should use the term new religious movement rather than cult? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're all jumping ahead. I guess then that you all agree that there are fringe issues here and we need to go to the next step and determine how to present them properly (if they are not already).
- So do we agree that it is indeed a fringe viewpoint that "cults have the capacity to brain wash people and if other people are able to deprogram the brainwashing?"
- As for the use of "cult", it appears meaningless beyond a derogatory classification to encourage bias and assumptions based upon that bias. New religious movement seems more descriptive, though it appears Ross is fairly indiscriminate on how he applies the word "cult". --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- "Appears Ross is fairly indiscriminate on how he applies the word 'cult'". This is a false statement. I am very specific and focused about the use of this word. There is an entire chapter of my book devoted to "Defining a Destructive Cult" with copious footnotes. I propose that there is a nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult based upon Lifton's three core criteria in his paper "Cult Formation." [1]. Many groups called "cults" don't fit these criteria.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Although I am not particularly familiar with the way RAR uses the word "cult", I have some familiarity with NRMs in general, and I am aware that there are still today, well after the term new religious movement became the politically-correct standard term for such groups, regular usage of the word "cult" to specifically relate to those groups which engage in the greatest and most frequent usage of what might be called "coercive persuasion" or similar terms. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- "Appears Ross is fairly indiscriminate on how he applies the word 'cult'". This is a false statement. I am very specific and focused about the use of this word. There is an entire chapter of my book devoted to "Defining a Destructive Cult" with copious footnotes. I propose that there is a nucleus for the definition of a destructive cult based upon Lifton's three core criteria in his paper "Cult Formation." [1]. Many groups called "cults" don't fit these criteria.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, there's no lack of RSs here, so I say we put statements about the effects and nature of brainwashing and deprogramming into the sources' voices. There's already some criticism there, so that's all that really needs to be done, IMHO. Also, New Religious Movement is a better term for being more neutral, but cult is bound to be clearer to most readers. I think we should use both: define the groups as NRMs, but also mention that they're called "cults" and refer to them as cults whenever it's clear that they meet the strictest definition. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wait I was just clarifying what you were asking. I'm not sure if I think the belief that people can be brainwashed is a fringe view. I never really thought about it. I have a feeling that the mainstream public opinion might be different than the scientific view, which would need to be contextualized differently than even fringier fringe, but I have to research more. Stefan Molyneux's wife had sanctions put on her license to practice psychology in Canada for encouraging her patients to "deFOO" (sever ties from their family). I'm still looking for sources, but I'm pretty sure that there was discussion about that being a component of brainwashing, though now I'm not positive if that was only in the popular press or if it came from the board of psychology. —PermStrump(talk) 18:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- See the writings of Edgar Schein, Benjamin Zablocki, Robert Cialdini, Robert Jay Lifton, Stanley Milgram, Leon Festinger and Philip Zimbardo. There is quite a bit of research on influence, undue influence and cognitive dissonance. The ability of one person to gain undue influence over another person is matter of law in court.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Brainwashing is a distinct subset of cases of undue influence. Therefore, proving that undue influence is well covered in the literature does not prove that brainwashing is well covered in the literature. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Brainwashing" is a word used in popular culture to describe what is technically called thought reform by Lifton or coercive persuasion by Schein. Lifton's book is a study of "brainwashing" [2]In a court proceeding the net result of coercive persuasion techniques would legally be called undue influence.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Brainwashing is a distinct subset of cases of undue influence. Therefore, proving that undue influence is well covered in the literature does not prove that brainwashing is well covered in the literature. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- See the writings of Edgar Schein, Benjamin Zablocki, Robert Cialdini, Robert Jay Lifton, Stanley Milgram, Leon Festinger and Philip Zimbardo. There is quite a bit of research on influence, undue influence and cognitive dissonance. The ability of one person to gain undue influence over another person is matter of law in court.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oh wait I was just clarifying what you were asking. I'm not sure if I think the belief that people can be brainwashed is a fringe view. I never really thought about it. I have a feeling that the mainstream public opinion might be different than the scientific view, which would need to be contextualized differently than even fringier fringe, but I have to research more. Stefan Molyneux's wife had sanctions put on her license to practice psychology in Canada for encouraging her patients to "deFOO" (sever ties from their family). I'm still looking for sources, but I'm pretty sure that there was discussion about that being a component of brainwashing, though now I'm not positive if that was only in the popular press or if it came from the board of psychology. —PermStrump(talk) 18:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Are you asking if we should use the term new religious movement rather than cult? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you asking if it's a fringe view that cults have the capacity to brain wash people and if other people are able to deprogram the brainwashing? —PermStrump(talk) 17:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is helpful for the ongoing discussion of this BLP to be fragmented into three different places (the article talkpage, the BLP noticeboard, and here). On the substance of the WP:FRINGE issue, I am not sure what the discussion here is seeking to achieve in terms of the article content. Some people may have one from of Mr. Ross's activities and "worldview" and some may have a different view, but the relevant question here is how this affects what we say in the BLP about him? Editors should also bear in mind that unlike the usual "fringe theories being pushed" situations discussed on this noticeboard, in this case we are talking about the BLP of an individual who probably would just as soon not have an article at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Though the subject's behavior has not been optimal, he has valid concerns, especially regarding the first sentence. There is stiff opposition to changing it. The article needs more experienced hands. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really my field, psychology, but, from what little I am able to understand, RAR has been, in the past, one of the primary players in the area of brainwashing, which, again, from what little I understand of this, is more or less a specific variant of operant conditioning, much like Stockholm syndrome. I am not myself really sure that "brainwashing" qualifies as fringe in the field of psychology, and am not myself sufficiently knowledgable about it to say anything one way or another. Since then, the individual has, apparently, been more regularly discussed in the broad field of "cultish" NRMs, a field which includes brainwashing in its history but also deals with more broad social, psychological, and cultural issues as well. I'm not sure I would say Ernest Hemingway is most notable for The Sun Also Rises, although that argument would seem to me to bear many of the same features as the one about whether RAR is "most notable" for deprogramming. Maybe an RfC, involving all the relevant specialties around here, might be useful? John Carter (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- But I'll repeat my question from above: what specific issue relating to the content of the article would be addressed in this RfC, as opposed to a general (and contentious and likely inconclusive) broader theoretical discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess one question for an RFC would be, should the first sentence say more than "Rick Alan Ross is an American deprogrammer." I think that would be a good place to start. That doesn't involve this noticeboard though. —PermStrump(talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think, like the above, an RfC, at least a first one, might deal with one or more possible variations on the first sentence of the article, and/or the nature and structure of the lede. I personally think that maybe in addition to the one PermStrump proposes above might be "Rick Alan Ross is a noted expert in the field of cults, who gained early notoriety for his involvement in controversies related to deprogramming" or something similar. I also think maybe the lede could be expanded to four paragraphs, the first a summary, the second about his early professional work, etc. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Honestly, I'm surprised that there's even opposition to changing it. I respect Ronz, but I really don't understand his position on the lead. IMHO, it should obviously be changed. See my first post, above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. I took that position on the talk page and ran into a wall of opposition, no point in pursuing it. To be fair, the subject's aggressive conduct did not help. Also agree, this is not the place to discuss that, not sure the point of this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess one question for an RFC would be, should the first sentence say more than "Rick Alan Ross is an American deprogrammer." I think that would be a good place to start. That doesn't involve this noticeboard though. —PermStrump(talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the great discussion. I'd like to leave this (how to handle the fringe issues properly in the article) in others' hands. I've still a number of BLP/NPOV concerns (the poor sources, the lack of depth in the recent sources, WP:NOTNEWS, how we balance the heavily- and well-documented deprogramming work and outcome with the lightly- and poorly-documented work since. However, this isn't the venue if we can get the fringe issues fairly settled. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why not just change the lead sentence the way Rick wants? I don't see how that could be interpreted as damaging to the article, as it would be factual. The rest of his suggested changes can be passed up, per WP:WEIGHT as you have pointed out. But the lead -as it stands- is factually inaccurate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Make the changes to to the lead. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. And Ronz has had input on the nature of the change, as well. I believe the current version of the lead sentence is a good compromise between both sides. In fact, I think it's damn near as good as could possibly be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Make the changes to to the lead. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
NUCCA
Deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_25#NUCCA. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- A fringe sourced article almost entirely to pro-chiropractic sources, yet editors are happy with this. Disappointing outcome. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Randall Fontes
Blatant fringe problems. Apparently notable for claiming plants have consciousness. Problem is, only fringe sources have been cited for this claim. For example there is a section that says "This Report supports the possibility that plants may respond to human consciousness as contended by Cleve Backster", the reference for this is Bird Tompkins authors of the pseudoscientific book The Secret Life of Plants, this is hardly reliable. The article also uses psychic websites like this [3] which are entirely unreliable. A large chunk of this article may have to be deleted. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am going through the sources on this article one by one so far there was a personal interview with Dean Radin used as a source and a psychic website arguing that chakras release psychic energy, to be honest I do not think anything of these sources are reliable. This article may qualify for afd. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll see what I can do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I didn't want to TNT it completely, but I removed two sections. If anyone else feels like they should TNT it, you probably should, if no one brings this up for AFD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for this, problem is the article still has unreliable references and I can't locate any reliable ones. I think it should be deleted, last AFD was 2010 and was a keep but only four voters. It might be worthwhile re-submitting. I do not object to fringe claims if they are notable or covered in decent sources, but this guy almost seems to be a nobody. I can't locate any decent sources that describe his work. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Need somebody with High Beam to check the first 6 refs. Old news coverage, may or may not be in-depth or specific to Fontes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it would be a very good idea to get some of those with access to pretty much any subscription services at WP:RX to look at this one. I, unfortunately, already have one request there, and think it would look strange to add another one myself, so will defer to others in that regard. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll submit it. I have access to EBSCO Information Services and PubMed, but I don't think there will be anything there. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- LuckyLouie: I'm not sure if the references have been edited since you made that comment. Are these the 6 references you're referring to:
- San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle - Sunday January 6, 1974, Book Review By John White "Relation of Plants and Mankind"
- The Daily Review - Friday, August 5, 1977, By Glennda Chui "Castro Valley men probe the secret life of plants" Hayward, California
- The Press Democrat - Sunday. September 31, 1972, By Staff Writer "talk nice to plants....they may be listening!" Santa Rosa, California
- Steven Halpern, Louis M. Savary (1985) "Sound health: the music and sounds that make us whole" Harper & Row, pg. 46
- Ocala Star-Banner - Thursday, July 7, 1977, Sixth sense By Dr. Van Nuys "What's This About Plants That Communicate?" Ocala, Florida
- San Francisco Examiner - Monday, March 28, 1977, Ivan Sharpe "E. Bay pair prove that plants lead secret lives"
- If they exist, I can most likely access them through the library at work. Just wanted to make sure I'm looking for the right articles. —PermStrump(talk) 21:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- LuckyLouie: I'm not sure if the references have been edited since you made that comment. Are these the 6 references you're referring to:
- I'll submit it. I have access to EBSCO Information Services and PubMed, but I don't think there will be anything there. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it would be a very good idea to get some of those with access to pretty much any subscription services at WP:RX to look at this one. I, unfortunately, already have one request there, and think it would look strange to add another one myself, so will defer to others in that regard. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Need somebody with High Beam to check the first 6 refs. Old news coverage, may or may not be in-depth or specific to Fontes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Yes, thanks. The article cites an awful lot of personal biographic info to these sources. I'd like to know if they are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I found the articles on this site, but it looks a bit suspicious. These articles would definitely need to be confirmed if they exist or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- That website is registered to Randall Fontes. I do not believe it is reliable for a number of reasons. It supports the pseudoscientific experiments of Cleve Backster without acknowledging any of the criticisms of those experiments. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Darn! I only have online access to the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner back to 1985. :( I'll request sources 1-4, and 6 the from the library. Not #5 because it's a book, so I'd have to show up at the library to get it and... I'm not going to do that. I probably won't hear anything about the articles until the end of next week at the earliest, and that's assuming they exist. The librarians will stop looking after 30 days. At that point, I think it would be safe to assume that whatever they haven't found by then doesn't exist, but we'll probably all have forgotten about this by then. ThePlatypusofDoom, did they say how long it would take to find out if they're approving your request? —PermStrump(talk) 00:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- That website is registered to Randall Fontes. I do not believe it is reliable for a number of reasons. It supports the pseudoscientific experiments of Cleve Backster without acknowledging any of the criticisms of those experiments. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@PermStrump: I have an article about him. Send me an email if you want it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- ThePlatypusofDoom: Which one is it? Does it make you think he's notable enough for an article? I thought this was definitely a hoax at first, because those articles on ebdir.net seemed really suspicious, even before HealthyGirl said it's registered to Randall Fontes. But now I'm second guessing myself. That book The Secret Life of Plants really does mention Fontes's research, which I was surprised to find was true. Someone on youtube uploaded the full length movie of documentary based on the book. That link should start the video at 33 minutes 30 seconds with a guy wearing a blue button-down and he's introduced as Randy Fontes around 33:36. (No, I didn't watch 33 minutes of it to find him. :-P I knew what scene I was looking for based on this youtube video that looks like someone's first foray into video editing.) For the sake of discussion, let's assume we know that this YT video is the real documentary, Fontes is in it for a couple of solid minutes talking about his research. I'm not suggesting we use the YT video as a source, but hypothetically the documentary would be another point towards Fontes's notability I guess? Regardless, it makes me think there's a chance that the article in the San Fransisco Chronicle that reviews the book might actually exist and it might actually mention Fontes. And then that makes me think maybe the others are legit too. We shall see though. —PermStrump(talk) 00:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump: Email me, I'll forward it to you. I don't have your email address, so I can't send it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Although it doesn't make me confident that he is notable, it makes me doubt it even more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am unconvinced that most of these sources discuss Fontes in depth. His only rise to 'fame' appears to be his replication attempts of Cleve Backster's experiments, but run search terms on "Cleve Backter" and "Fontes", nothing reliable comes up on any search engine, nothing on Google books, nor JSTOR or any academic book cites this guy. I don't think he is notable enough. Note that he is mentioned on this article Plant perception (paranormal), a redirect might be possible if no sources are found. HealthyGirl (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'll try searching a college library that I have access to, but I don't think that there will be anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm just going to be bold and list it at AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Random comment; did you know that Ear candling is a thing? I didn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- A) Ew. B) No. —PermStrump(talk) 01:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly yes, I follow the world of quackery with some interest. There are more forms of bullshit than mere man can comprehend. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Random comment; did you know that Ear candling is a thing? I didn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology
The article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology has recently been created. I'm a bit suspicious, because searching for "nyambo" and "salt" doesn't return results that confirm the claims made in the article. Could some other editors take a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
- Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I found this article in a shocking state - for example, it claimed that "On January 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court elected to pass over OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto, and let stand the Court of Appeals ruling, effectively ending the lawsuit giving the farmers a partial victory." That's rubbish. Monsanto won the case (e.g. Reuters), the farmers merely got a legally binding promise for Monsanto not to do something they never did anyway. See Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser where the "accidental" contamination claim was withdrawn and tests subsequently showed that 95%-98% of the crop was infringing.
Incidentally, the Reuters piece summarises the dispute nicely:
- "Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the company's chief litigation counsel.
- "The lower courts agreed there was no controversy between the parties," McClain added, "and the Supreme Court's decision not to review the case brings closure on this matter."
- OSGATA President Jim Gerritsen said he was disappointed in the high court's refusal to hear the case.
- "The Supreme Court failed to grasp the extreme predicament family farmers find themselves in," said Gerritsen, a Maine organic seed farmer. "The Court of Appeals agreed our case had merit. However, ... safeguards they ordered are insufficient to protect our farms and our families."
Appealing to the fact of lower court allowing the case, as some kind of rebuttal to the actual outcome? Er, right. These folks are very obviously using the bogeyman of prosecution for accidental contamination, which never has happened and apparently never will, as a Trojan horse to try to strike down seed patents altogether, something which is openly acknowledged within the crunchy community (e.g. [4]).
I do not know if this group is notable at all, or if the article should simply be a redirect tot he court case. The court case article, and several related ones, also need a careful review because this kind of spin is rampant wherever Monsanto is discussed on Wikipedia, as I think we all know. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Time slip
A deletion review OK'd the article to be recreated without the poorly-sourced "paranormal phenomenon" content, but now Time_slip#Paranormal is back. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Retrocognition, it is the same as Time Slip but only has fringe sources. I believe we should redirect retrocognition to Time Slip. HealthyGirl (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, the Time slip article now correctly focuses on the fictional narrative device. Retrocognition seems to be a subset of Extrasensory perception, so should be merged to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Also see the discussion on the talk page for the Time travel in fiction article, there is a possibility of merging Time slip into that article, I think it is about time we made some progress on this. Users are voting on the talk-page [5]. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Brainwave entrainment
- Brainwave entrainment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Binaural beats ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I-Doser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While brainwave entrainment (BWE) does seem to be at least a legitimate concept within RS, the topic area is also rife with fringe claims and our article on it seems full of OR. Anybody familiar with this topic area? Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Esoteric astrology
Not actually a tautology, it seems. Replete with Truths stated in Wikipedia's voice. Formerly a merge and redirect to Alice Bailey, I'm unsure if anything is salvageable from the more recent content. CIreland (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed all the content which was sourced only from Bailey's own books, basically as an unsourced plot summary. Doesn't leave much. I wonder if this is notable bollocks after all? Guy (Help!) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- The book by Bailey might be notable, I don't know, but I have been through a few reference works relating to the occult, new age, etc., and don't remember seeing this mentioned even as a separate article in any of them. I haven't checked any specifically astrological reference works, however. At this point, though, I tend to agree that there is probably sufficient cause to maybe AfD this article based on the lack of sufficient coverage to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Ganzfeld experiment
- Edits from problematic IP address who wants to insert into the lead the opinion that only skeptics have a problem with Ganzfeld experiments and that they have been replicated. Claims in his edits that it is "vandalism" and pseudo-skeptic POV to assert otherwise. TreeTrailer (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Scientific consensus
There's been some disagreement over adding the term scientific consensus to part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. More eyes from folks here familiar with scientific consensus and fringe theories would be appreciated at the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
DNA teleportation
doh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I cleaned up the opening couple sentences, but still needs work. -ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis
Stumbled upon the article for Answers in Genesis a few weeks back and noticed giant sections that rely almost entirely -- or entirely -- on primary sources. I removed a big section, but it's been restored. I'd welcome additional eyeballs to gauge the situation according to best practices. Talk:Answers in Genesis#Big sections with only primary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- In related news, the WP:RNPOV-violating brigade does not like it when you identify the facts about the age of the Earth/Universe and common descent at both this article and Ken Ham. Help at those two locations would be appreciated as it seems that there are a number of conservative Christians convinced that these ideas are just "opinions" and not facts. jps (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- And so it goes. jps (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)