Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
The line about the sting operation violations WP:DUE and WP:NPOV because it mentions a singular event in the person's life as an intro to the biography as a whole ie. the whole life of the person. The lede should be in due weight with the article has a whole. The line is giving the operation undue weight. I think it should be moved to the section about the operation. The line about critics view is also out of wikipedia norms and is also undue. Further, this line is unreferenced at least at this occurrence while it is a controversial sentence. Without a reference, it may be prone to WP:SYNTH. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Roxy the dog: I had posted to talk page, you did not care to respond here. I waited around 3 days and then made the revert and you were quick to revert on the article. Still, in all good faith, I'm asking you to respond to the above concerns that I have pointed out or I will have to revert back as consensus is established on talk page, not in edit summaries. I have an understanding that continuous reverts while not caring to respond on the talk page may get you blocked. As per wikipedia criteria, the sentences do not belong in lede. Your edit summary that they are supported by the body text is invalid because they are not WP:DUE in the lede. We have to take extra care in Biographies of living persons not to push a point of view based on singular events to the areas such as the intro. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing regarding limiting what is in the lead in the manner you suggest in either WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Also, regarding WP:NPOV in general, calling out psychic mediumship claims as BS is not a POV issue. WP:FRINGE is about not give such views credence, and appropriately challenging them with mainstream information where such is available in RS is valid. Regarding WP:SYNTH, I added the citations there, although I do not think this is actually necessary. RobP (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rob if you don’t see it, perhaps you need to read the policy in context to sentences you restored on the page. You do understand that if you restore a sentence or revert it back in, you are doing it under your own responsibility and should be ready to back it up with policy. Just because it has references, doesn't mean it should become the intro of the article. As bilby states, it is really odd to mention a failed sting operation in the intro of the article - it is just POV pushing. We are not debating psychic mediumship claims here. I'm not talking about whether the subject is authentic about his claims or not, neither have I asked to remove negative (referenced) claims from the article all together. That is not even the topic of our discussion in the intro so let’s not move the goal posts and stick to what you and Roxy restored in the lede section.
You have misquoted WP:FRINGE here as there is no misrepresentation of reference here. We are talking about whether or not it is due to keep this sentences a part of the lede while in fact they should be covered in the body. As per WP:DUE, due weight should be given. In the intro, this should be applied even more strictly. There was a sting operation (a singular event), which was reported.... while it may be fine to mention it in the article, it does not mean it's also a notable enough part of the subject's life to be mentioned in the lede (especially if it was a failed operation).
I see nothing in the Wiki guidelines you linked that specify what is (or is not) acceptable in the lead. If I'm wrong, please point out the specific text I am missing. What I have read in other WP guidelines concerning the lead, is that it should be a summary of important points from the main text. IMHO, having a special report in the NYT magazine on an effort to expose one fits that bill perfectly. Also, as I read it, the sting was not totally a "failed" operation; Fraser interacted with the team that came undercover to expose him (even being photographed with them), never using his claimed abilities to confront any of them. Also, I just looked at the original version of this article, and see that the sting was mentioned in the lead from the very beginning. That fact alone does not make it correct to do so, however, I suspect that the sting against him being reported on by the NYT magazine was the impetus for someone writing the article in the first place. It was likely justification for the subject to be notable enough for a WP article at all. In summary, I agree with the original author of this article that this sting and resulting NYT magazine article are worthy of mention in its lead. Off topic, @MkNbTrD0086:, I find it interesting that your editing history apparently shows this is the only article you have ever touched. Or am I wrong? I am wondering if you need to declare a COI here? RobP (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By "failed" I mean that Fraser did not take the bait and select one of the people for whom a false social media profile had been created. If a target of a sting does not take the bait, the sting is unsuccessful. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While understanding wikipedia guidelines is your own responsibility (just like I do it myself by reading them through), instead of searching for you to point out the text you are missing, it is obvious from what you said you already understand about the guideline "What I have read in other WP guidelines concerning the lead, is that it should be a summary of important points from the main text". Focus here on the word important points. WP guidelines concerning the lede, as you said, say that it should be a summary of important points. Not about trivia or singular events. That would make the article biased and POV. Here, the sting operation is clearly a one time event in Fraser's life by some non notable skeptics who failed (as Bilby explains). It's there in the body, but I dont see how wikipedia policy gives any kind of importance to this event so much so to be included in the lede. Since you are reverting back this content, the WP:BURDEN of proving this importance and WP:DUE is on you. If you cant do that, the content cant be included as wikipedia policy and then consensus dictates content (as far as I read wikipedia policies). "It was there first" does not make it wiki worthy. You do understand that WP:BLP articles need more strict editing than other articles you may be used of. You can read the concerned policies like yourself, like I started doing so that we can be on the same page.
Not confronting any one (which means inaction on part of Fraser) does not imply any proof of whether he has any powers or not. It is inconclusive and which makes it a failed sting. If you imply on your own saying "as I read it", it becomes WP:SYNTH (your own analysis of the source) which is original research.
I'm newer than you but I am probably just as educated if not more and am not some one with more edits on wikipedia than you but that does not give your comment more weight or allow you to make ad hominem comments to discredit my comment. I do not have any conflict of interest. And I have not even asked to remove any negative criticism from the article for or against the subject. What I have asked is to make the intro sensible. Perhaps you need to declare if you have a WP:POV here so that it is easier to understand if there's any POV pushing.
Since you do not assume good faith, I think it's harder to discuss this without a neutral mediator. I shall be moving this debate to Dispute resolution. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the topic of discussion here. It is already in the body. Here, the problem is including it in the lede which is kind of biased reporting and flaunts WP:BLP criteria. Anyway, I have started a content dispute so that we can talk this over clearly with some help of more experienced users. I have invited User:Rp2006 to comment. Rob, if you still insist on keeping this in the lede, glad to respond to your arguments based on which you want to include this content in the lede. I shall wait on your comment on WP:DRN. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no personal attack in my comment. Wikipedia encourages building consensus and this is what I understand that involving more experienced uninvolved contributors from a neutral noticeboard is totally OK! It will only reflect badly on you if you break rules or make statements which you cannot back up with sources. I don’t need to accuse you. I am happy to discuss content only. Unfounded accusations do backfire sometimes, so kindly avoid and focus on editing. I find it odd that you are the one who reverted but you are also the one least interested in discussing your revert. I invite you to reply me on the dispute resolution noticeboard on the content dispute so that we may develop a consensus. More experienced users than me and you are of course invited without saying. If you are not going to reply, consensus may still be developed among the rest of us. So you see, that's just process, not an attack. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
