Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Erie Stone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to! Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional knowledge. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.

Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rajiv Dixit (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too.[2] Thanks Orientls (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which articles might this affect? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Family Constellations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about [4]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jordan Peterson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A guy who denies that there is such a thing as climate, and still there are users who think he is not a climate denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three users all arguing that a known far-right personality is a centrist? Looks more like a matter for AE. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's edit warring at Dosha. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the first sentence does not seem to be as concerning as the entire Principles section, based on a book that "reveals to us the secret powers of the body, breath, senses, mind and chakras". Reconrabbit 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]