Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31

Gua Sha

Gua Sha - Describes a form of therapy in which the skin is scraped by sharp-objects to "let out the disease". Implausible and insufficiently referenced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31

Animal-assisted therapy

A new editor, Charles danten (talk · contribs), added a large criticism section to the article back in December which I moved to the talk page. The editor has now rewritten the section as a proposal on the article talk page here. While once again I think there is a great deal that can be used from this proposal, it still violates NPOV and NOT, and OR as well. (Yes, I'm hoping that an explanation of the problems isn't needed, but apparent from the proposal. I'll explain, later, if needed, but don't have the time at this moment.)

Are editors available that could help rewrite and incorporate the information into the article, while helping explain the applicable policies and guidelines to this new editor? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I zapped the entire "Early Relationships" section. It was a bunch of nonsense about Catholic saints and Aztecs. I think the next section ought to go as well. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There were also some sections in the main article based on an unreliable source which I have removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie- would you mind reviewing the latest edit done by User:Montanabw who seems to have undone a great deal of our changes. His rationale for reverting was that I had deleted cited sections. My rationale was that these sections were either irrelivant or based on unreliable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk)

I'm quite happy now with the state of this article. I think it's time to remove the fringe tag. Any comments? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm late to the party here. The article does need some work overall, and better sourcing, but that's a separate issue. It has had some material removed where it seems (by lack of reverts) that Sal, IR, Ronz, and myself did agree. Ronz, who I am viewing as mostly neutral in this discussion, asked me to do a piece by piece reversion, so I did, restoring some deleted content that is sourced, and seems potentially verifiable via other sources, but there seems to be a remaining disagreement whether the whole concept of Animal-Assisted therapy is fringe pseudoscience. My position is that AAT is well within the mainstream of other alternative therapies, I compared it to acupuncture as an example. One editor (I forget who) said that acupuncture was also pseudoscience, which I think is a little over the top. I think there's a distinction between alternative medicine and "pseudoscience." There is also a disagreement over use of two books as sources, essentially the works seem to pass WP:RS but may be questionable per MEDRS (though this is based solely on a cursory analysis that one book was written for a mainstream audience no one has yet actually examined the book) I have determined that a copy of the one most in contention can be found at my local library and I will go check it out and take a look at it directly, but it will take a few days as I am busy in real life. But essentially I'm concerned that the overall tone of the debate is to simply substitute one POV (that AAT is fringe pseudoscience) for the previously too-uncritical version that started. I'm all for good sourcing, but I'm concerned that it was at the expense of premature deletion of material that is probably verifiable via multiple sources and the removal of a source that may well be suitable for the article. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Donna Eden

This page appears to be a vanity page associated with a non-notable alt-med practitioner. Apparently she is associated with Applied kinesiology, however that article makes no reference to her role in it's history. What's the best way to propose this entire article for deletion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been two unsuccessful attempts at deletion so far, both of them back in 2008. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...never heard of her. Weird....WebMD has a short bio.[1] I normally consider WebMD a reliable source. Why would they call her a "pioneer in the field of energy medicine". This seems pretty fringe-y. Is this user generated content or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is just her potted autobiography and not an objective statement of her qualification and notability. In my opinion she is a non-notable fringe-theory advocate. Does anybody know why the two previous deletions failed? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to the 2 deletion discussions.[2][3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass just rolled back the delete proposal. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination)? 86.** IP (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This doctor was also mentioned in the AfD, he also appears non-notable and his article appears to be a small puff piece Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Siegel_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Charmstone

New-age nonsense combined with blatent mis-statments concering other religions, e.g. "The worship of the Black Stone as a charmstone is of particular importance to Islam". --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This got caught in a train wreck of a move of crystal power. Charmstones are real-world artifacts, but they are archaeological, not woo-woo. I'm going to stub the article and redirect all the bogus redirects. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Quantum Mind

Boy do we need a few more eyes at Quantum mind. Please come by and take a look. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't one of more eyes on a page. The problem is that there is an editor who is edit warring, FTN is not the right place for user edit warring discussions, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring is. I've already posted there. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

oops, sorry if I went to the wrong place. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, it's often hard to decouple fringe theory promotion from other bad behaviors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)

For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that this article, and a buch of others seem to be clustered around the WP:Fringe nexus of New_Thought, also did you notice the references in the AFD talk page to "The Watkins List", a list of the 100 most spiritually infulential individuals which puts Bernie Siegel higher than the pope! --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem with pseudo-notable people. You know, the people just notable enough to have a few references, but not sufficient references to actually make any sort of article. 86.** IP (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems these non-notable people are frequently backed up with smalll mentions in newspaper clippings or standard non-front page coverage Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think Siegal is notable. Maybe I'm dating myself, but I can remember when he used to be all over the television on major talk shows pushing his new age flapdoodle. This, as I recall was in the early days of AIDS when people were desperate for a way to cope. He was really kind of the flavor-of-the-month media guru for a while there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding here, per my observations at the AFD and subsequent discussion at my talk page. I think it's a mischaracterization to refer to these clippings as small mentions, when many of them constitute rather copious coverage of his public engagements, and some include biographical content. Nor do guidelines state a necessity for front page coverage. There are also multiple reviews of his books provided, from sources like the LA and NY Times. The inclusion of this under 'Fringe theories' seems inappropriate to me, given that substantial coverage at least satisfies WP:AUTHOR. I understand its inclusion here, based on the discussion at [[4]], yet enough non-controversial sources exist to render the list in question superfluous. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which criteria of WP:AUTHOR is satisfied? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied here [5]. More generally speaking, the number of reliable sources and duration and depth of coverage all indicate notability. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've become more convinced that the issues current issues with the article are potentially solvable and the deletion isn't the only option. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

src: 40.media.tumblr.com

Creative visualization

The article on Creative visualization makes use of some highly suspect sources. I'm not sure that this is suitable for an AFD since it refers to a not uncommon topic in the new-age belief-system. Is there anything else we can do to get this cleaned up a bit? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Have put a bit in the header about informing interested editors

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

The article documents the claims of conspiracy proponents, but this gives them undue weight since they are a fringe position among historians. The article needs more balance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems to be a pretty good catalogue of conspiracy theories. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your concern a bit more clearly. Are you saying the entire article is undue weight? And Wikipedia is not concerned about "balance," but about maintaining a neutral point of view. -- The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I only skimmed it, but the article only seems to explain the fringe viewpoints. I don't see where mainstream viewpoints are explained. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They're in there (search the phrase "Warren Commission" on the page), although not to the extent of section-by-section explanations such as seen in Moon landing conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Oswald's marksmanship section, for example. There's a one sentence explanation of the Warrent Commission's finding and then a 5 sentence explanation of the conspiracy viewpoint. The History Channel (or maybe Science or Discovery Channel) ran a two hour documentary where they had a sharp shooter fire off 3 accurate shots in the amount of time that that Oswald did. Things like that should be explained in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find an 'official' link for the documentary, but here's a blog post about it.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy view (originated from author Craig Roberts in a book called 'Kill Zone') in the "Oswald's marksmanship" section is cited to conspiracy website called "Strike the root.com", definitely not a WP:RS. The best thing to do would be to find a more reliable secondary source for Robert's view, summarize it rather than employ dramatic quotes, and attribute it suitably (e.g. "According to author Craig Roberts..."). The way it's written now the conspiracy view sounds factual and somewhat conclusive. So, yes, there are some problem areas in the article. I think they could be resolved with better sourcing and more dispassionate writing rather than adding a bunch of rebuttal material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reclaiming History almost certainly passes muster and is an excellent source for anybody wishing to debunk madcap Kennedy theories. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found reliable sources to improve the Oswald's marksmanship section to better explain the fringe view in relation to the main view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi has the exact references to the section in the Warren Comission which points out that Oswald was indeed a marines sharp-shooter and that other marksmen working for the Warren Commission were able to duplicate and improve over Oswald's performance using mobile targets. Not relevant I know, I guess I'm just geeking out on it all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those who believe that the article needs lots of work. There are too many assertions presented as fact and too many sources that are self-published or border on self-published (i.e. websites of prominent conspiracy theorists). If anyone cares to check my edit history in the article, they will see that I have attempted to start various sections with the official Warren Commission findings followed by the divergent views of conspiracy theorists, expressed in accordance with WP:RSOPINION (i.e. with attribution to clarify what is opinion). On this, could I get some more feedback as to whether the published works of conspiracy theorists considered reliable sources for their opinions? Location (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing neutral articles about fringe topics is very difficult. We need to be careful not to turn the article into a litany of "he said/she said" claims and debunkings. Our primary job in such articles is to describe to our readers what it is that the conspiracy theorists believe... and while it is appropriate to also discuss what mainstream sources say about those beliefs, it is not our job to convince our readers that those beliefs are either true or untrue. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ehn. Yes, and no. Our job is to describe the CT's beliefs, but also to point out when it contradicts known facts or scientific reality. For things like the CIA-killed-Kennedy theory, there's not really anything to support or dispute it. Others, like claiming the Zapruder film was faked/altered are pretty clearly wrong. -- The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Classical Elements in Platonic Solids

In the article platonic solid there's a rather bizarre final column in the table under combinitorial properties. I'm sure that some esoteric traiditon somewhere may have associated the solids with these "elements", however I fail to see the mathematical relevance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It was uncited, and the article on tetrahedron for instance didn't mention it at all, so I yanked it. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal from the maths section. I think that table was probably general and moved there. However it is not uncited, the full business is given in the history section and alluded to in the lead. It is from Plato's Timaeus, the chap who the solids were named after and there has been lots about that in other places. A search of the article or use of google can find or fix things like this fairly easily. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Iberogast

Not sure what to make of this: It's an mostly unsourced medical article about a herbalism topic which claims to be able to cure Irritable Bowel Syndrome and dyspepsia, however the references suggest that this formulation has only been studied on rats. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The MMID listing shows references to clinical studies, e.g., one cited in this article reviewing Gastroesophageal reflux disease treatments. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:MEDRS#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies.2C_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies. - this is basically an advert. I've proposed deletion. 86.** IP (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New Testament Christian Churches of America

Eyes needed. New user trying to POV push. Thanks! B^e----C_ritical 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The user appears to be trying to edit war, since it is a user being disruptive I would recommend bringing it to ANI if he continues to refuse to try and reach a consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

William A. Tiller

William A. Tiller, this page appears to be describing a relatively unknown physicist whose research seems to have only been cited in WP:FRINGE sources. Does not appear to be notable. I'm considering AFD prposal. Is this appropriate? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of many mainstream criticisms can help establish notability. Check if he meets WP:ACADEMIC. For the moment I've removed the Energy material as it seems undue as it is based purely on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller? 86.** IP (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he's theoretically notable (but there still are no good sources found), I've stubbified. Watchlist this for now. 86.** IP (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

The Ghost Cop

This overly credulous article (which accepts the author's word that he consults on cold cases) couled use a skeptical eye or two. Phiwum (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The author didn't actually claim anything about cold cases, the information just wasn't in the source, so I assume it was just OR. I've tidied the article up and removed the copyright violation that was present; some text was directly copied from a (poor) source. The sourcing is generally pretty poor, it's possible he isn't notable but I haven't done a full search yet. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked google news, including the archives. I have friends with more coverage than him. Hell, I get slightly more coverage. 86.** IP (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the author may have been paid to write it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter and WP:AN#Expewikiwriter. 86.** IP (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Osteopathy

Osteopathy seems to be very light on critical opinions and appears to repesent the issue as far more main-stream than this editor thought it was. Anyone have opinions on the article? 110.175.198.4 (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There might indeed be a NPOV issue here. As I understand the issue, mainstream medicine does not recognize the pholosophical principles of osteopathy. Osteopathy is considered to be a form of alternative medicine whose efficiacy has yet to be proven. I'd say that the article leads heavily towards a pro-osteopathy POV. I think the article would benefit from some reliable critical sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that osteopathic medicine in the United States has essentially evolved into a variety of mainstream medicine, with some schools and hospitals attached to major public universities, and (as that article notes) little continued use of osteopathic manipulative medicine. This may vary from country to country, as the existing osteopathy article and its sub-articles indicate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Aye. There's a definite America/Everywhere else divide on this one; it might be best to have a disambiguation page. 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case in the UK. It is regulated however I've heard GPs dismiss it as little more than an "expensive massage". Perhaps then I might say that the article probably shows the subject in a mainly US-centric bias. --Salimfadhley (talk)

I personally think that the divide is so major - In the U.S. there's very little difference from a G.P., in other parts of the world, it's a variant on quacky chiropractic cures - that it'll need some major care to neither belittle the more-or-less mainstream status in the U.S. (and Canada?), nor to make them sound too mainstream elsewhere.

Basically, around the turn of the 20th century, Osteopaths in America decided to enter the medical mainstream, gave up, so far as I'm aware, all the quackery, and are just trained in giving a good massage as well, which is arguably not necessarily that bad of thing. Elsewhere... not so much. 86.** IP (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jumping on the bandwagon, osteopaths in the US are basically doctors whose profession have a somewhat embarassing history of unscientific medicine (not in Canada, I think here they're "closer to their roots" so to speak). Their sole distinction from mainstream practitioners now is a slightly greater emphasis on manipulation of joints, bones and muscles. Outside of the US they're very, very different from MDs, probably closer to chiropractors or naturopaths. Might be worth having two pages, but definitely worth having a strong distinction between the US and the rest of the world. Have fun sourcing that though WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice the bluelink above, there is already a separate article entitled Osteopathic medicine in the United States.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

State of Fear?

Can people add this to their watchlist? 86.** IP (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The article does not seem to be so bad. Do you have a spesific concern? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to go into it too much, since they're pretty obviously done in good faith, but there's been a few questionable edits of late which had the effect of stripping criticism, now reverted, and it'd be good to have a few more eyes, in case they continue. 86.** IP (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Amit Goswami

Is this fellow notable? 86.** IP (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He appears to be one of the more prominent quantum flapdoodleologists [10] - which probably means yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, something needs done with ther page, which limits criticism solely to external links. 86.** IP (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to see a pattern here: A number of otherwise non-notable scientists who become quantum-woo promotors. Their claim to notability is based on publications (mainly in their early life which are largely irrelivant to their current occupation), and a brief appearance in "What the Bleep". --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Monarch programming

Says it's a scientific method originated by a "dark priest of Babylonian cabal of the Illuminati", but the subject doesn't appear to be notable in any reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be trimming back the external links section; even a claim like that is almost enough to get it speedied. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Onuphrius

This article on a forest hermit contained a dubious claim about a gender change which was referenced to a photographer's blog and to a church website which is completely inaccessible. I've yanked it due to a complete absence of book hits, but if someone can find a legitimate hagiographic source I'm willing to reconsider. Anyway this was tagged as LGBT so there's likely to be pushback. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre denial

The article deals with fringe theories by denialists of the event, yet I feel that the article does not comply with WP:FRINGE by providing undue weight to these views. A large number of the sources were added from a previously deleted article [11], which was written by User:Arimasa aka Arimasa Kubo, someone who runs a denialist website in real life. Furthermore, a disproportionate number of the material derive from one single denialist, Shudo Higashinakano, who was successfully sued for libel over the event, even thought there are numerous schools of thought in Japan regarding the massacre. The "photographic anaylsis" section is the most troublesome, as it borderlines WP:OR.--PCPP (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nisim International

The usual cosmetics woo. But it was written by a paid editor (same one as wrote the Ghost Cop article above), so it may be best to judge notability carefully first. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Iberogast again

It's been unprodded, since aparently one can't advertise products that have been around a while. So, I suppose the question is: is this salvageable, or shall we go to AfD? 86.** IP (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've applied my magic de-puffing powder to it, and reduced it to an encyclopaedic article - which is to say not much at all, after removing unsourced claims that it does anything useful, a list of ingredients that tells you nothing, and a huge collection of links to the manufacturer. Whether an AfD is merited I'll leave to others to judge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The last cite was also being incorrectly used (it is a search engine result). I have removed it, it appears to have been placed to give the impression that it has been validated; I don't know if it has or not but this source is not the correct one to show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced medical claim. AfD is the best way to go. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that this product is both notable and clinically effective [[12]], and that ample sourcing exists for an article on it. Retracting my call for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting messages claiming that this is proven to work, from human trials (in obscure natural health journals in German), and thus cannot be considered a fringe theory, but instead must be considered proven to work. Can someone with access to the necessary journals do a review? 86.** IP (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

While the analysis was over a relatively small number of pooled individuals (196 Iberogast, 592 total), it seems fine for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Kashmir

Editor adding fringe material here with dubious sources and dubious English. I've reverted twice, more being added, would like some help sourcing this properly. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mundane astrology

I think that at some point in the past this page had a WP:PARITY section or at the very least had a statement or two pointing out that astrology is not based in fact. At this point the page lacks any sort of criticism and presents astrology as if it were real. Might it be worth integrating the scientific evaluation section from the main astrology article? 24.9.28.228 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That would mean, if you are correct, that the Astrology article on Wikipedia and any related topics on Wikipedia would have to be destroyed because it presents Astrology "as if it were real?" If 'astrology' is not based in fact then what you are saying here is to destroy all the Wikipedia pages, even on fictional characters because they are not real? SEE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White. Of course, this is ridiculous because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I suggest if you are interested in an Parity article that you write one where you can state your case that Astrology is not real or based in fact. On Wikipedia, the Astrology article is real enough and is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Otherwise, your view on the page is entirely POV.Eagle Eye 22:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia and there's no reason not to have an article on it. Snow White is referred to as a fictional character and so it's ok, if Snow White were referred to as an actual person then we would have a problem. The mundane astrology article presents astrology as if it were a real physical phenomenon and that's the issue. Saedon (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks to me to be nothing but a POV-fork of our existing Astrology article, with all of the criticism taken out: It should probably go for AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking. Would support delete if proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I considered an AFD as well but thought that maybe there actually was a difference between mundane and regular astrology. Going over it now I agree with ATG and would support as well. Saedon (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that it is a subtopic: 'Western' astrology as applied to natural events, politics etc - but any policy-reflecting subtopic would have to follow Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, and not present it as factual. If there are sources which can demonstrate that this is a genuine subtopic within astrology, we might do better to stubify the article, removing any claims to effectiveness, and other unsourced material (e.g. the 'Planets and areas of life' section, which lacks any inline sourcing), and balancing it by adding the appropriate material on pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll support either option. I don't care that much about this page, it barely gets any editing traffic and it just happened to be that I noticed a blog being used as a source by an editor who didn't seem to get the problem, but that issue seems over so I'm not gonna get too involved past this point. Saedon (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While the current article isn't great I think the article is salvageable. Whilst there are sourcing and OR issues I think these can be resolved by the removal of the relevant sections and a tightening up of the sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether it's useful to salvage it - if the subject only has minor differences with standard astrology, we should merge; otherwise we're just making maintenance twice as difficult with no reader benefit. 86.** IP (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I could see how the page could be condensed into a single paragraph and merged into astrology. Should I request a merger? SÆdon^talk 22:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an AfD already in progress: [[13]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks, didn't see that. SÆdon^talk 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

For those not watching the AfD, it just closed with a finding of merge to Astrology. Anyone a little more expert at Astrology want to tackle that? 86.** IP (talk)

History_of_astrology#Mundane_astrology is the more appropriate target, so I merged the material to there, with expansion encouraged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

There are a number of estimations regarding the deaths resulting from the disaster. The WHO puts the number at 4,000 and is probably the most official account. The lead also includes estimates from a few Green and anti-nuclear groups that have releases reports estimating 25-200 thousand deaths. A recent Russian publication was translated in the New York Academy of Sciences. It was not peer reviewed by them and was just a straight translation. This publication has put the total deaths from the disaster at 985 000, a figure much higher than any previous estimates. It's methodology has been criticised by many scientists. Whether to include this in the lead has been discussed at the talk page and it has been described as Fringe by some participants. Nuclear is not my area of expertise so someone with more knowledge in this area can help decide how much weight this article should be given in the article, in particularly the lead.

• Link to New York Academy of Sciences translation [14] pdf
• Some of the criticism [15] [16]
• A positive review [17]
• The book also has its own Wikipedia article Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

AIRcorn (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami?

For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I had been checking topics associated with the What the Bleep Do We Know!? movie. This topic seems to be a WP:FRINGE nexus. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller (2nd nomination)

For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The admin User:David_Eppstein closed it as speedy keep. He appears to have ignored that the arguments are actually substantially different in this AfD and is also ignoring my question on his talk page User_talk:David_Eppstein#Speedy_Keep. He appears to have also decided to involve himself in the article now as well. I reverted a bold addition and created a talk page section outling my concern but User:David_Eppstein has reverted this [18] and has stated on his own talk page that he will not discuss it further [19]. It seems it will be necessary to take it to DRV since the arguments raised are substantially different from the first AfD so I don't see how speedy keep applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think DE did right in his close. The keep was speedy because it came 1 week after an almost unanimous keep AfD. This is a repeated attempt to remove an article on someone who is a notable physicist because of his admittedly weird views on the paranormal. Weird though they are, it does not make less notable in his primary profession. I would expect a very similar rapid result at Deletion review. If an AfD were started 6 months from now, which does not require their permission, and would be a more reasonable course than deletion review, I cannot imagine any other close than keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll hold off the deletion review then, but it seems that the arguments were different. In the first AfD the lack of sources to make an article with was not commented on. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominator's statement from first nomination: "No good sources; he doesn't seem to reach basic standards of notability". Nominator's statement from second nomination: "... there don't seem to be sources for William A. Tiller ... Notability requires verifiable evidence". Looks like identical arguments to me. But, as several editors have said, if you are convinced there is a difference then DRV is the place to make your case. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States

People with to much time and little patience with superstition and the like may want to visit Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States. While I don't debate the validity of the category as such, many articles in it seem to be placed there without any support for it in the actual article, e.g. Boston Athenæum and USS Olympia (C-6). If the subject isn't notable for being reportedly haunted, and that aspect isn't discussed in the articlen then it shouldn't be in this category either.

Probably the same can be done with similar cats for other countries of course... Fram (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to assess the problem, I went through the Ns. Half of them needed removed. Wouldn't surprise me if this is representative. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been through some of the others: not as bad as half, but probably a quarter to a third. A large chunk of these seem to have been added by a single user in July-August 2011. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

...or maybe a couple of users. Take a look here starting on November 19. Some of these are OK; many are not. Also some sourcing to dubious fringey sites, which I haven't attempted to deal with on this pass. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On using TV series for justifying these claims

Please consider Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using Ghost Adventures as a source for hauntings for discussion of a TV show as an authority on hauntings. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

a little worried that there seems to be an effort to remove the graphic showing most climate scientists agree global warming is happening from an article that's 95% quotes from climate change deniers. 86.** IP (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This page has long been a source of concern for me, since by it's very framing it gives undue weight to what is a minority view within climate science. The article gives very little impression of the standing or importance of these individuals within the science of climatology. Furthermore any finding this page would hardly be given the impression that these dissenters were a tiny minority within climatology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are significant questions on the article talk page about the accuracy and reliability of the chart, and that this is an attempt to bypass the usual content dispute resolution process through forum shopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sacred geometry

Anyone interested in this topic? Needs references, cleaning up, possibly expansion. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

The AAH is still getting considerable traffic from new accounts. The latest issue, and one that should be addressed with more outside input, is the inclusion of a long laundry list of alleged "supporting claims" for the hypothesis. I recently first reorganized the material to juxtapose claims with rebuttals, then outright removed The problems with including this list at all are two-fold:

• First, it takes up a massive amount of space in the article, about 24,000 characters (see the diff here). This is far too much for a theory that's essentially dismissed by the paleoanthropological community.
• Second, it takes the form of an ugly back-and-forth. Initially the list was separated into a "pro" and much longer "con" section (an approach discouraged by MOS:STRUCTURE). The net result is three-fold; those issues that have actually attracted the attention of scholars are pretty thoroughly rebutted; those issue that are not rebutted (because real scientists have better things to do) linger and give undue weight to the idea that the AAH actually has merit (when really it's just ignored); and third, there is a lot of incentive for people to use primary sources that explicitly don't discuss the AAH to rebut the claims (see for instance, citations 1 and 2, 45, 46 and 47 in the pre-trimmed version).

The thought process by proponents appears to be "we should tell both sides and let the reader decide". I think this is illegitimate, unduly promoting a viewpoint that is explicitly stated as not widely accepted by most scholars [20], [21], [22]. It produces a longer, sprawling, almost unreadable article with most of the content taking the form of "proponents say this but critics point out that they are wrong because of this, this, this, this and this." A short article that spends most of its time on history and reception rather than an ugly and ultimately zero-sum discussion seems far, far more appropriate. Many of the accounts supporting the idea are new, some focus almost solely on this article and very few appear to appreciate our content policies and guidelines such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Further community input would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The AAH is getting considerable traffic from several accounts, some old some new. What WLU refers to as the "long laundry list" has been present in the article literally for years, until arbitrarily removed by him 14:33, 28 March 2012, that is, two days ago. The list contains arguments that have been advanced in support of the AAH, together with rebuttals. Nobody objects to reasonable reorganisation of this material, but WLU has decided it must be omitted altogether.

He tells us that " 'we should tell both sides and let the reader decide'... is illegitimate, unduly promoting a viewpoint that is explicitly stated as not widely accepted". This is quite funny, as it amounts to an admission that he has lost the argument. In fact there are plenty of good reasons why the AAH is not accepted, and of course they must be presented. Rebuttals can hardly be presented, however, if there is no credible statement of what they are intended to rebut. WLU's choice of "a short article that spends most of its time on history and reception" would mean that anyone who came across the AAH elsewhere and turned to wikipedia for enlightenment would conclude that the mainstream attitude was blind unreasoning hostility. Thus WLU's overt POV-pushing on this issue would have exactly the opposite effect to what he intends. If I merely wanted to advance support for the AAH (which I don't) I'd be happy to let WLU have his way. But I rather wish to defend the principle of NPOV on wikipedia, wherever that leads, so I'm asking for support on that basis. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Longevity never argues for continued presence, and I have been complaining about that list for a very long time February 2012, August 2010, September 2009.

The reasons why the AAH is rejected is presented, just not at the detail of individual features. It's comparative anatomy, there are many explanations for the appearance of specific traits (most are better accepted than "aquatic adaptation"), all traits must be explained twice (i.e. lacks parsimony), Morgan's status as an outsider, and more. There's actually many, many reasons why the AAH isn't accepted, but right now, in this version, they are presented quite generally.

If the page reads as hostile then the solution is rewording; it's not to go into incredible detail on each claim-counterclaim. Pages like creationism and intelligent design don't look like the index to creationist claims on talk.origins, and they shouldn't. The AAH page shouldn't look like Jim Moore's Sink or Swim page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the AAH has been rejected by science is not supported by the relevant literature, and certainly the claim that there are better explanations for how humans evolved is just empty rhetoric unless those explanations can be pointed to or at least articulated. Of course the AAH is not universally accepted, but that does not mean it has no support or that it should be compared with Creationism. Hypotheses remain valid until data, observation or experiment weaken their claims. The AAH remains a valid scientific hypothesis (despite the shrill protests of some editors). In fact Australia's most respected expert on human evolution, Colin Groves, professor of biological anthropology at Australia's leading university (ANU), is on record as stating that the idea has a sophistication that requires it to be considered within the wider range of theories on human evolution. Phillip Tobias, perhaps the most respected expert on human evolution in the world, has also supported the idea being taken seriously and has recently contributed to a book on the subject which also included contributions from Elaine Morgan, Marc Verhaegen, Michael Crawford, and many other experts from leading and well respected institutions from all over the world (including the American Museum of Natural History). Incredibly, this book has been deemed an unreliable source (because it was not peer reviewed - but what book is?) by the very same editor who then insisted that polemic websites and unreferenced, unacademic and un-peer-reviewed blogs were reliable sources (because they were critical of the AAH). In other words, this accusation of extreme fringe (and a comparison to Creationism) is being used to stack the cards against the AAH, so that readers are unlikely to have an unbiased view of it. I haven't seen anyone argue that criticism of the AAH should not be included in the article, but the idea that the article should paint the hypothesis in the very worst light goes against the very principles of Wikipedia I would have thought. A good starting point for balance in this article would be to include reference to the most recent scholarly work, and to get rid of the web-blogs and polemic websites. The claim of fringe science is unsupported by the relevant data (there is no universally accepted alternative to the AAH) and therefore we should instead relay to readers what has been written in reliable sources both for and against the AAH. Simple, no?Yloopx (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In its current form the page reads as utterly hostile. WLU says "There's actually many, many reasons why the AAH isn't accepted, but right now, in this version, they are presented quite generally". The reasons are not actually being credibly presented at all. There's just a procession of adverse comments, much of it unsourced, or from assorted scientists and quasi-scientists, many failing the criteria for WP:RS. The reader is deprived of the most elementary information as to what AAH advocates base their case on, such as bipedalism, skin and breath control. If I came to it as a completely uninformed reader, I'd recognise it as a hatchet job, feel disappointed that wikipedia had again fallen victim to the thought police, and go and buy Morgan's books so as to find out what the case was. The sad thing about such frenzied POV-pushing is that it's so counter-productive. Readers of any intelligence recognise a rant when they see one. It's wikipedia itself that's the loser. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What adverse comments are unsourced? Keeping in mind the lead doesn't require sources, so I'm specifically asking about unsourced comments in the body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In the paragraph "The hypothesis" , there's "but generally the evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by land-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development", where "equally well" is probably an exaggeration of the views even of the most determined of the critics. For nearly all the adaptations concerned there is no single agreed alternative theory. Critics can honestly say that they're not convinced by AAH, but they can't honestly say that they've united on a better story. The official line can be summed up as "we don't know", which may well be the right answer to give now, but it leaves the door to AAH open.

By "quasi-scientists" I particularly meant scientists with no qualifications in relevant disciplines, such as Ellen White, who freely admits in her paper to knowing next to nothing about the AAH itself. And Jim Moore obviously.

And by "failing the criteria for WP:RS" I meant failing the criteria for WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

When WLU above says "If the page reads as hostile then the solution is rewording", is he going to assist in doing that, or cooperate with others who wish to do so? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree with WLU. Rhetoric about "balance" and "fairness" is always advanced as a reason to give cranks, quacks and loonies a soapbox to stand on and proclaim their nonsense all the louder. It's fallacious reasoning, since ignoring obvious total crap is already the fair and balanced thing to do, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. -- SMcCandlish   Talk=> ??¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So you agree with gutting the article with the comment removing most of the specific claims and rebuttals leaving only general theoretical issues, so it says practically nothing about what the hypothesis claimed but has a whole lot on people saying in general they don't think it is right with no details. Why do people keep trying to remove articles like this altogether instead of trying to develop them? The article does not now say anything of any substance about why anybody would have considered it in the first place. That is just simply wrong for something calling itself an encyclopaedia. The aquatic ape hypothesis is notable. It should be described properly. That is primary. That it is not mainstream and the reasons for it not being accepted generally are secondary. Fringe is a guideline, not a policy, NPOV is the policy of which fringe is a part of undue. How is it reasonable as far as undue is concerned to remove practically every single thing that a notable topic was about except its title and just report that a whole lot of people who disagree with it? Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Having a series of claims and rebuttals sounds like a poor way to structure an article. The article already has a description of the hypothesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad structure is a reason to try and structure better, not to delete whole-scale. As far as I can see the article does not list a single thing the hypothesis was supposed to explain. At least Conservapedia give some details about Relativity even if they say it has been repeatedly contradicted by experiment. And amazingly they actually give more details about what the aquatic ape hypothesis was about in three short paragraphs than we do in the whole article we have. I think the attitude here towards things people don't like is extremely harmful to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Have put my ideas about this sort of thing at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suppression_of_content_about_fringe_ideas. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently ongoing on the AAT's Talk page concerning how to improve it. Given how strongly you feel about the presentation of the Aquatic Ape Theory on Wikipedia, perhaps it would behoove you to participate in that discussion, rather than discussions here or elsewhere that are not likely to improve the article. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern was with the environment for editing, not that particular article which anyway is not one I'm particularly interested in. Why should I try building on a swamp instead of trying to drain it? Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be offering unconstructive criticism. You haven't given a solid suggestion of what you think should be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Develop cited and notable content rather than deleting it. Please lay off the 'you' thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories should be suppressed (by which I assume you mean "don't describe the theory in detail"). That's why they're fringe theories. Wikipedia shouldn't be making fringe theories appear more prominent, popular, or unjustly persecuted, we should be representing them as non-accepted. Most of the focus should be on cultural, historical and societal aspects, since fringe theories by definition lack mainstream support and accepted factual content. The notable parts of fringe theories are the cultural impacts, not their flawed factual contents. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that aquatic ape hypothesis article has had any details well and truly suppressed. Your conception of an encyclopaedia differs considerably from mine. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think wikipedia should make a case for a theory? How much detail should we include for a theory, particularly when the last line of the lead of the article pretty much has to be "but most scientists do not accept the theory"? I see 24,000 characters describing nitty-gritty claims of a non-accepted hypothesis as a waste of time and a form of undue weight because even if every claim has a counter-claim, the overall impression is that there is a lot of support and debate for the idea. That's false in the case of the AAH, since there is almost no debate within the appropriate scholarly community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(<-) The question of whether this theory is notable seems independent of the question of whether it is correct. If we are to have an article on the theory at all, it would be perverse not to give some account what the theory actually says. An accurate and objective summary of a theory is not, in itself, endorsement. We should of course also report what its status is within current mainstream science. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we deal with a theory that is notable (i.e. popular attention) but seen as largely incorrect? Isn't that what WP:FRINGE is meant to do? Also, the theory is there (it says that the AAH is about water being a driver of human evolution), it's the lines of evidence that (allegedly, but don't actually) support the theory that are now missing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cusop Dingle is exactly right. Let us assume that the mainstream is of the opinion that a given theory is total and utter fiction... OK... so let us structure the article the way we do for articles about works of fiction... here is how we typically structure such articles:

After a brief introduction, one the central sections of such articles is usually a solid summary or outline of the basic plot of the work. The better articles are fairly thorough... and yet also avoid going into exhaustive plot detail (no need to get bogged down in trivia). The article then moves on to a new section to discuss how the work of fiction was received by literary critics.

We can (and should) use the same structure in articles about notable Fringe theories... first we should give a solid "plot" summary (a broad outline of what proponents of the theory say)... we should be thorough, but avoid getting bogged down in trivia and detail... and then we should move on to discussing what the critics say about it.

Remember that our goal is to explain 1) what the theory is and 2) how it was received... in that order. It is not our job to convince the reader that the theory is accurate, nor is it our job to convince the reader that the theory is inaccurate. We let others (our sources) do that. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I find WLU's views difficult to understand here. Of course we should describe a fringe theory if it is notable enough to be included here. If the theory is not of the batshit-looney variety of fringe, then this should include those arguments that have been advanced to support it. We have to understand why people have found arguments plausible - even those that have been completely disproven. After all we can't effectively include rebuttals unless we know what is being rebutted. This is - or should be - what we do with obsolete theories such as phlogiston, miasma and Luminiferous aether. We should also look at the cultural context. For example we are told that the AA hypothesis is seen as "feminist", but learn next to nothing of why that is. Knowledge of details such as this helps to explain why some theories become popular with some groups, and why that might think their rejection is ideologically motivated. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, when the theory is seen as wrong, isn't an accurate summary of necessity one that conveys how wrong the theory is? Isn't an appropriate article one in which the neutral reader leaves the page with a sense that the theory is unsupported?

Paul, I've expanded my comment above which hopefully makes things a bit clearer. The theory is simple, the degree of detail for the lines of evidence are a more complex question. Part of my frustration is because I was generally the editor who had to deal with every new claim put onto the page. Unlike phlogiston, miasma and aether, the AAH still has active proponents who keep moving the goalposts (as in "sure, you've debunked this point, but you didn't debunk this new one!!!) all without any change of opinion or further acceptance from the mainstream scientists. I've suggested on the talk page instead a limited list of the more prominent claims (3-4 of them) hoping to build consensus that including a small number of rebutted claims is adequate but there is general agreement to prevent the list from expanding further (unless there's an indication it's gaining traction among mainstream scientists). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Koolakamba

This article on a legendary chimp-gorilla hybrid could use some attention from editors on this noticeboard. This might be a helpful source. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu (again)

This article seems to have acquired an unsourced history and chronology (which seems to be peppered with POV US-centric trivia). The references are dismal, all but a few skeptical links fail WP:MEDRS. Most statements are not sufficiently referenced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this was also posted to NOR/N. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article are mainly due to the disruptive influence of one single-subject editor who seems to be intent on using the article for advocacy. I wonder if FT/N readers might be willing to review the article history & talk pages and advise whether some other measures may now be warranted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I must disagree on a minor point; I don't think the problem is a single editor, per se. What usually happens is that an advocate appears, makes a few fringey edits, perhaps advertises their own shiatsu business/method, then after getting reverted a few times they go away. 1-2 months later, some new advocate appears; rinse and repeat. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Contrast shower

Just reverted a whole ton of addition of claims from alt-med providers and the like. Anyone want to see if we can do anything with the sources to back up the "it is claimed that" bits? Really, this article should've been deleted last AfD... 86.** IP (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Skumin syndrome

The "multiple issues" tag is well-used here. The article is nonsensical in several places, and seems to mix together reliable sources which may not support what they are being used to reference with some clearly non-rs fringe sources. I think it would particularly benefit from the attention of any editors with a medical background or Russian language skills. a13ean (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, Vitruvian Man in the background of Skumin's portrait is never a good sign. At the very least this needs to be reorganized, never mind the fringe issues. BTW the article on artificial heart valves is probably contaminated with this (judging from the references) and at any rate needs some brutal copyediting. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I spent a while trying to go through the original sources to see if there was anything worth keeping in an article. I've since given up and made an AfD. I'll take a look at the artificial heart valves article next. a13ean (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dvorak keyboard

Lots of promotion; isn't much of this debunked, e.g. [23]? 86.** IP (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones

Once again there is an attempt to use material from the creationist Don Patton[24] (a diploma mill PhD) in this article. Not just the YouTube video, but the rest that looks cited actually comes from this self-published web page.[25]. The IP address has ignored my post on their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the IP has replied at my talk page. The PhD is really irrelevant, as having a PhD in education wouldn't make him a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops again, the web page is Dennis Swift's, another creationist that we've discussed before I think at RSN. Self-published, not a reliable source. There's a reference to Charroux (mispelled) but no page number so it can't be verified and would have to be attributed if we actually knew what it says, but I don't think the IP has actually read the sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I added WP:PARITY and refs to the "Impact" section of the article if anyone would like to check my wording and make sure it sounds good. SÆdon^talk 02:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Going down the rabbit hole

Instructions for play: Start at a mainstream Alternative medicine article. Open up the strangest-sounding and foreign-language "See also" links. Repeat as needed, but you'll usually find something awful within a few clicks. Continue digging until you lose faith in humanity.

There is a serious point to this: here's what I found, what do we do now? Unsure how to move forwards

• Equine Shiatsu Seems awfully fringy, and I suspect it was mainly written to get in those external links. Prod, afd, or merge?

• I just proposed deletion on this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tokujiro Namikoshi Founder of Shiatsu. No references.
• Tui na Unreferenced fairly crap article. Notable?
• Zen Shiatsu another unreferenced piece of crap povfork.

Prodded

• Meridian Shiatsu Unreferenced for the last year; I've prodded it.
• Movement Shiatsu "Bill Palmer's published research into child development claims that the primitive actions through which infants learn to move and coordinate their body develop along the lines of the Six Divisions, which are traditional combinations of upper body and lower body meridians in Traditional Chinese Medicine" (prodded)
• Tadashi Izawa Unreferenced biography. Prodded.

Looking at Tui na as our next point, we get to Naprapathy, and from there to one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia, Naprapathtreatments. Ugh. We also get Nihon Kaifuku Anma (prodded crap).

Varma Kalai... Getting pretty bad, with it being created BY THE GODS THEMSELVES.

Gua Sha... has a section on how it's important to learn the difference between scraping open your child's skin for medicine, and for child abuse, and how doctors must avoid crying abuse when people use this on their children. I'm done. 86.** IP (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Two can play at this game --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• George de la Warr
• Postural Integration
• Watsu (funny how Shiatsu seems to be another Fringe nexus!)
• Breema a non-notable yoga variant
• Metamorphic Technique a non-notable reflexology variant
• Chromotherapy like aromatherapy but with colours! yay!
• Colorpuncture an ultra-fringe combination of colour-therapy and accupuncture!

I found an easier way to play this game. Start with the "what links" page for a major alt-med article[26]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup in those links but keep em' coming. SÆdon^talk 01:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Physical factors affecting microbial life

Over at the new article Physical factors affecting microbial life, Paul venter (talk · contribs) is laudably creating a decent article with sections on exactly what the title of the article states. But curiously the first sentence states, "A large number of medical procedures aim to control or destroy microbial pathogens by the use of drugs or chemicals, whether allopathic or homeopathic." No further mention of homeopathy is made in the article, though it is possible he intends to expand on that (I don't see how, but that's another point). I initially removed the "allopathic or homeopathic" language as superfluous because the sentence originally stated this was an aim of conventional medical procedures, a word now purged from the lead, and was reverted. I tried again and was reverted again, this time being accused of provocative editing: diff. I don't see how homeopathy has anything to do with physical factors affecting microbial life. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article's editor seems very short tempered on this topic. I've tried to point him to policy pages. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please confine discussions of this article to the article's talk page, so that interested parties can participate. Paul venter (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not try to confine discussions which are a legitimate use of this board for the function for which it was designed. Paul B (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Being that homeopathy doesn't actually kill microbial life (unless we're talking about microbial life that dies in water) I'd say there's no reason to mention it, especially if there's nothing mentioned about it later in the article (but it likely doesn't warrant any mention). The term "allopathic" shouldn't be used either as it is a POV term coined by the founder of homeopathy. Not that this really matters since there's no point mentioning it if there's nothing to which to contrast it, but for future reference a better terminology is "science based medicine" or "evidence based medicine."

Also, this board exists specifically to solicit opinion on fringe topics so Rkitko made no mistake in bring this to a wider audience. SÆdon^talk 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the superb response, all. Your replies and engagement in a discussion with Paul V were much more than I had time to handle at that moment. My hope is that Paul V is now aware of the relevant policies and guidelines from your comments. Much appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

?ostre

This article on a probably fictitious Germanic goddess is caught between claiming that there was such a goddess and the admission that it was probably all accidentally made up by Bede, with further assistance from Jacob Grimm. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bennewitz

Did you know that "Air Force Counterintelligence" is behind a "disinformation campaign" to suppress the evidence of a UFO-related somethingorother? Neither did I! - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the crap, I found a citation for some of the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the page still need tags or is the problem fixed with what you removed? I don't see anything in particular that I would dispute, unless I'm missing something. SÆdon^talk 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Much improved. Untagged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

186.221.209.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - An SPI edit-warring to marginalize mainstream view, add undue weight to fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean WP:SPA. And watch out for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I meant SPA. I was probably thinking of the other Sao Paulo IPs I'd seen making similar edits to other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

World Healing Day

The main website for this seems to be [27]. Some of it seems to be promoting Tai Chi. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggsting that Tai Chi is a fringe theory? How so? Is psychoanalysis also a fringe theory? Meditation? -- GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All three are within the scope of this board. And the article is simple promotion of an event and needs to be rewritten or deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was created by a now blocked spam account: User_talk:Worldtaichiday, I have wikified the content but I don't think it's notable (google doesn't give me anything, no google news either). I've prodded it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Biochemic cell salts

Biochemic cell salts - more pseudoscientific woo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it. The ratio of warning tags to actual words of content was rapidly approaching parity, and without mainstream coverage or a WP:MEDRS on whether or not the stuff actually works, it's simply impossible to give it neutral, encyclopædic coverage. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this is not AfD material. I find the stub quite neutral, and though virtually lacking in citations, its content is not such that requires deletion. -- GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what leads to deletion, it was the lack of the existence of reliable sources that caused it to be deleted; there article had no potential of being reliably sourced ever. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of RSs that could have been used to improve the sourcing of the article. Look here. -- GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at these during the AfD, if you look at the individual books I think you will conclude that none are reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Manuka Honey

I'm concerned that some of the sources used are non WP:MEDRS compliant. FYI, This is an expensive type of honey which has been shown to display some antibacterial properties in in-vitro studies. As I understand things, Manuka Honey has not been shown effective against any medical condition, however it is often marketed by health-food shops as a cure-all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty balanced now after changes by Agricolae. Added to my watchlist since it appears to have a history of making undue medical claims IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On a closer examination there are still major issues with the undue nature of text. I am looking at the studies and will refactor the text accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention its most important property, which is its remarkable flavor. (That's OR, unfortunately.) Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree - it's really tasty stuff. It's such a shame that proponents resort to nonsensical claims concerning this delightful product. Speaking of nonsensical claims: Health effects of honey. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to fix the atrocious description of the science and some basic structure, not the UNDUE and MEDRS issues, per se. I did just add a little about the taste of it, but the sources aren't the best (one self-published, the other from someone calling themselves 'Crescent Dragonwagon'). Can I suggest we move this to the article's Talk page or someone will be yapping about us conspiring behind people's backs again? Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Root race

Root race article needs to be sorted out. It is presented as factual and there are no third party references, the concept is little known outside of Theosophy, so an overview or criticism will be hard to find. Martin Gardner did a couple of pages on the root race concept in his book on pseudoscience but that is about it. As it currently stands the Root race article is only using Theosophist sources mainly from Powell or Leadbeater. I noticed the root race concept is already discussed in detail on the Blavatsky article, so I was thinking a redirect. But any opinions needed. GreenUniverse (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: this article has now been replaced by a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Geographical centre of Earth

This seems like a nonsense / crank idea: An article about finding the "centre of the earth" on a two dimensional map. Sure we can find the geometric centre of any 2d shape, but does this acquire new notability when applied to a map? I suspect not --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like original research due to the creator of the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder... if you use a map that places North America on the right side instead of the left (so that the map centers on the Pacific, as opposed to the Atlantic... as seen here) won't the geographical "center of the earth" change? I would certainly assume it would, but I could be wrong. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is mathematically possible to identify a spot on the globe which minimizes the average surface distance to every land point, and I would imagine that said point is roughly where indicated. That said, the articles on the various centers of various countries and continents show a lot of disputation; the USA stands as one of the few undisputed cases. Also, most of the centers are actually centroids, and of necessity there is a second centroid on a globe opposite the usual case, because dividing "lines" are great circles. Anyway, given the degree of documentation for such centers in general, I don't think there is a problem with notability, but the Great Pyramid thing probably can be clipped out entirely as irrelevant fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict)This is basically how we (human) defined the map (probably as per international date line?). So this centre will change as our defined map changes. There are bunch of such articles at Geographical centre. I would suggest keep only if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Abhishikt (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The only mathematical sense I can make of the concept is the following: a probability measure (in this case the probability that a given surface point is on land) on a solid spherical and convex body (the earth) defines unambiguously a point in the interior of the sphere. That, however, is only marginally more meaningful than the article itself. Far more significantly all the references are either outdated, unreliable or self-published. The first reference is to a book written in the late 19th century by the Scottish astronomer royal who made statements about pyramidology that earned him a bad reputation amongst egyptologists. The second is to an article in a creationist blog which is not by the claimed author (the blog is run by the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas and discusses unpublished documents of the ICR). The rest concerns unreviewed claims of Holger Isenberg, who might or might not have some connection with the creator of the article. He appears to run a site called "Mars News." [28] So dubious mathematics and dubious sources. I do not see how the article can survive in any form whatsoever. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By some "odd" coincidence, the main author of article happens to share the name of one of individuals who calculated point. Ravensfire (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the quality of the math, it doesn't matter. It could be complete nonsense as long as it's notable nonsense. In this case, the original 1864 calculation may be notable, if it earned a notable person a bad reputation among his scholarly peers, but this might be a case where the converse of WP:ONEEVENT applies - that the calculation is only notable as it relates to the author and his career and not on its own. All of them since then are not. An ICR source talking about an ICR Technical monograph is not independent coverage. A calculation that can only be found via the Way Back Machine is certainly not notable, and a calculation that has only been self published by a fringe author on his own web page doesn't qualify either, and the use of both are WP:OR violations. That the author appears to be identical to the editor only adds {{WP:COI]] concern to an already hopeless scenario. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd be right to keep the article on this nonsense if it were notable nonsense, but check the sources the guy uses. Pure shit, top to bottom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, regarding the claimed "mathematical content": WP cannot publish nonsense mathematics, no matter how individual editors wikilawyer. But, regardless of that, the sources are the problem here. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia can. Wikipedia contains all kinds of nonsense - just look at all of the pages on astrology. Agricolae (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Just to amplify this, there is a town in Kansas that has been broadly reported in the national media as the Geographic center of the contiguous United States. That this was determined by balancing a cardboard cutout of a two dimensional map on a pencil point and hence has little mathematical accuracy does not prevent its presentation as a cultural meme. Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It also seems a bit arbitrary, the article even states that "Using a Pacific-centric map (more commonly used in Japan, China and Australia) moves the "center" off-center", so it's all a matter of choosing which map you choose and what you have on the left and right etc. I somehow doubt this is notable though I haven't checked. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter, unless you are using an actual map rather than plotting on the surface of a sphere - the answer to the question of the point or points representing the shortest distance from all points of land on the surface of a sphere should not change depending on how one chooses to represent that sphere in two dimensions. The claim that it does change suggests that the whole technique is flawed - certainly the unreferenced claim in the figure legend is flawed. Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What I gather from the article is that they are basically saying that in the european form of the map (presumably with some standard projection) used if you gave all the land equal weight, and then tried to balance it somewhere then it would balance at pyramid in Giza. I fail to see how this could possibly be notable. I suspect these sources [29] will list historical opinions by different cultures of where the center of the world was believed to be but not actually say X is the location because of the assumptions needed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if we get into historical notions, there is quite a body on that - Jerusalem, Mecca, etc. That could actually be a notable topic as a cultural concept, rather than a mathematical or modern geographical one. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that centrality as a metaphor for cultural importance sounds like a legitimate topic, however the discussion has convinced me that the mathematical and esoteric claims related to geographic centrality have no notability at all. Unless we have objections I'd like to move to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am ambivalent - I suspect that the concept of a Geographic Center of the Earth (or World) has been written about enough to represent notability. A quick search reveals scholarly mention of the concept in Mayan cosmology, its placement in Athens by the Greeks, in Jerusalem and at Mecca (which were really more than metaphoric - the medievals believed that one or the other of these was the actual geographic center, such as seen in the classic T and O maps). I also see the term being used to refer to the site of intersection of the prime meridian with the equator, and scientific analysis of the actual center (i.e. middle) of the earth with regard to magnetism and rotation. I think this namespace could be home to a viable article, but the one it currently hosts isn't it. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The geographical center of North America is in North Dakota, but Lebanon Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 states. -- GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence the use of the word 'contiguous', but again, this is just where, when they made a cardboard cutout of a 2-dimensional map and placed it on a pointed object, it balanced. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some new sources have been added to this article. It's recently been de-PRODed. This article seems to increasingly concern itself with esoteric aspects of egyptology. It's not about geometry at all! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany Johnson AFD or CSD?

This article was referred to me on my talk page by a concerned editor. It appears to concern a non-notable radio-paranormalist. I think it's sufficiently bad to be worthy of an AFD, however this might also be a candidate for speedy deletion since the links appear to be mostly nonsense. (One of them is a link to pokemon.com) --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a CSD to me. -- GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fails notability, not to mention credibiity. Fringe nonsense at best, CSD-suitable. --Seduisant (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as CSD under A7, G11. Can try AfD if declined. --Seduisant (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by Alexf. --Seduisant (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

David Juliano

Completey non notable paranormal researcher, has published nothing apart from one self published book. Can not find any references apart from his own website about him, article filled with original research and claims which are probably not true. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's scary (pun intended) is that this guy has gotten mentions in a number of Halloween-themed news stories over the years:

• 1.Web Winners , The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2006 Sunday, BUSINESS; Pg. E06, 357 words, Reid Kanaley, Inquirer Columnist
• 2.Virtual Haunts for Your Inner Goblin. The New York Times, October 30, 2003 Thursday, Section G; Column 3; Circuits; Pg. 3, 795 words, By LISA NAPOLI
• 3.This one's a scream; Mantua asks whether cemetery sounds are supernatural. The Philadelphia Inquirer, NOVEMBER 28, 2004 Sunday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY & REGION; Pg. B03, 898 words, Wendy Ruderman INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
• 4.In Pursuit of Spirits Doing Time in the Afterlife. The New York Times, October 29, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section E; Part 2; Page 42; Column 1; Leisure/Weekend Desk , 2247 words, By MARGARET MITTELBACH and MICHAEL CREWDSON
• 5.Looking into things that go bump in the night, South Jersey Ghost Research investigators are on call to check out region's wayward spirits. The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 28, 2002 Monday CITY-D EDITION, LOCAL NEWS; Pg. B04, 1194 words, Edward Colimore Inquirer Staff Writer
• 6.Time for hayrides, haunted houses; There are many ways in South Jersey to get in the Halloween spirit - not all scary. The Philadelphia Inquirer, SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Sunday N-CAMDEN EDITION, NEIGHBORS CAMDEN; Pg. CH01, 891 words, Jake Wagman INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
• 7.Home study course in spirit hunting is certifiable. Copley News Service, October 6, 2003 Monday, WASHINGTON WIRE; TODAY'S SCENE, 1984 words, Scott LaFee Copley News Service
• 8.Jersey Devil: Masterpiece of Franklin's ghostwriting? Philadelphia Inquirer, October 31, 2005 Monday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY; Pg. B01, 817 words, By Frank Kummer; Inquirer Staff Writer

LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems not - CSD refused. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated this as an AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

Appears to be a very minor variant of energy medicine: Claims that "Healing can be achieved through manipulation of complementary (or polarized) energies" - which sounds remarkably similar to what just about every energy medicine proponent claims. This looks like yet another candidate for merge into Energy Medicine. Would anybody care to offer a second opinion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I proposed this article for deletion today: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polarity_therapy --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented at the AfD. Lots of sound and fury here, but I think it all signifies nothing. Moreschi (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance

Purports to describe a set of military countermeasures against bio-terrorism used from the 2nd World War onwards, however the sources seem to imply that this is a newer development. I'm slightly concerned that it might be a hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to worry when a GBooks search gives exactly four hits, two of which are for the same document. GScholar gives exactly one hit out of Ft. Detrick. I think this is a synthetic term as I get no hits anywhere that deign to define this phrase. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur - this seems to have been a military neologism that never caught on. It might actually refer to a real concept. I'm sure modern armies take bio-terrorism seriously, however the attempt to show it as a historical military practice seems incredible to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a classic Fringe Theory but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the West. The tidbit about the Russians searching for poisoned wells in WWII is followed by a bunch of passing mentions of epidemiological concerns in various obscure Eastern Europe docs. Could be a merge, but where I don't have a clue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a foreign term which has been badly translated? Is there some kind of military history / technology wikiportal we could refer this whole thing to? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history might be one place. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

A couple of dedicated SPA redlink accounts doggedly pursuing insertion of SELFPUB and non-notable material praising Ryden, lending credibility to her supposed ability to get messages from God, and puffing up the importance of her supporters - oblivious to the encyclopedia's requirement for independent secondary sources. See Talk:Vassula_Ryden#cdf-tlig.org_website and WP:ANI#True Life in God: Possible Vandalism?. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton

Regulars may wish to weigh in on John F. Ashton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the related AfD. Article on a minor creationist, written mainly from the creationist viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FTN stalker: As the article expander, I wouldn't mind another pair of eyes, although Hrafn has found it necessary to raise sudden and (often) easily dismissed objections to the article. Perhaps someone could straighten us both out about the proper application of policy to this debate. JJB 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is a complete nightmare and has been stuffed with terrible references. I think it has not been demonstrated that the references actually exist to create a decent article and WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF were not met. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know it's already TLDR, but please read most of the AFD so that you can see where several prongs of AUTHOR have been met essentially unrebutted; sorry, but I don't know how to take your comment as more than a knee-jerk otherwise. PROF 3 also appears to be met and PROF 1 is still arguable. AFD is not about decent articles (that comes later), it's about WP:N. To argue that none of the criteria (also including GNG and BASIC) have been met requires dealing with each criterion separately, which nobody has done. JJB 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely TLDR. I've reviewed some of the sources which were attached to the article. None of them seemed particularly suitable. I've not got the patience to digest a seven-pronged article based on a novel meta-theory of cumulative notability. Feel free to simplify the argument for my benefit. Why not just show one or two reliable secondary sources which substantially cover this subject. I don't need to see seven convoluted arguments, just one or two good sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I said WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF have not been satisfied based on reading the AfD. WP:GNG has not been met either. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that this AFD has reached deadlock. JJB does not feel that it's his responsibility to try to present his case in a manner that other editors can easily understand, and I'm totally fine with that. I've invited our fellow editors to vote on whether to end the discussion. Do please weigh in as you see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement about me is incorrect. JJB 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

• The AfD ended as 'no consensus' and all scientific criticism of Ashton and his creationist views has been scrubbed from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like JJB is back at it with his walls of text and obscuring arguments approach. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As advised, the scrubbing was done by User:David Eppstein, who has a different view of balance than you two (or I) do. I do invite editors to the RFC you placed at Talk:John F. Ashton. I do like to give my full view when you invite me to comment. Please feel free to demonstrate any obscuring arguments, as I am not in a mood to contend with very much right now. Interesting that I clicked here to respond to Hrafn and got to respond to two of you. JJB 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This page has been moved into JJB's userspace. You can find it here: User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cold spot

Although the lead makes it clear the term is specific to the ghost busting crowd, the article descends into in-universe mode, e.g. the explanation of Why Cold Spots Form wraps fringe theories within fringe theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you can't write "It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots" when there is absolutely no evidence that there are ghosts - or that there are actually cold spots as defined in the article - and even if there were, there is certainly no evidence that ghosts might be the cause - let alone what the mechanism for their formation might hypothetically be. This article needs to be heavily rewritten with a more encyclopedic view. "People who claim that there are ghosts that cause cold spots find it difficult to explain why they do so.". -- Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk o contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. The first sentence says it all: It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots. I removed the section as undue, both books were self-published. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The page appears to be full of self published content. See WP:LSP for a list of some self publishers. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the scientific statement in the lead saying this whole thing is WP:Complete bollocks is terrible synthesis -- probably because they couldn't find a scientist who could be bothered to state that cold spots (along with millions of other superstitions, urban myths etc) are bollocks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed a fair bit of stuff, and deleted some repetition. More could go. I left an orphaned ref, but the article is hardly worse. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From a scientific perspective, the most directly important complaint is that a hypothetical entity that could create useful energy by reducing the temperature of the ambient air around itself would be in flagrant violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This isn't synthesis because the RS says that no process whatever is capable of doing what the paranormal investigators claim - and that obviously includes "ghosts". SteveBaker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis is in that while the source says "no process whatever", it is not explicitly addressing the Cold Spot. An editor has linked it to the topic by making the connection that "no process whatever" includes the Cold Spot idea (as small as that leap is). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've heard two interpretive schools of thought on this. #1 is that once an article makes scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream, an explanation of how the fringe claim differs from the mainstream understanding of the topic is required by WP:FRINGE. #2 is that scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream but have not been addressed by the mainstream automatically fall below the minimum standard of notability and should be deleted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what the source states is "1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work." & "2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body." (emphasis original) Given that neither cold spots nor the ghosts purported to produce them have ever been scientifically observed, it would not seem possible to state definitively that the former is the "sole result" of the latter. I therefore cannot see the source as even making a general statement on a set of phenomena that would clearly and unambiguously include the purported phenomenon of cold spots. It would seem highly likely that the purported phenomenon is too vague and poorly defined to be amenable to a rigorous thermodynamic debunking. 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haunted house#Possible causes

Can someone take a look at the sources used in this section? It looks to me that it's using one pseudo-science to debunk another.

Creaking floor-boards, sure. CO Poisioning, seems plausible. ... But Ionizing radiation? EM Field Exposure? That can't be right.

The references for that section are all print sources. Judging by the titles of the references they're probably fringe publications, but I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure.

APL (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good find, unreliable sources are being used to make rather dubious claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What you have done to the article is not helping, now theres no explanations left. Your right you are not familiar with the publications. The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity. The other explanation that is currently held by researchers is that these "hauntings" are caused by known physical energies. No not "non-physical", we are talking here about known physical energies. As far as I can see there is nothing mystical or magical about this at all. GreenUniverse (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please. Cite reliable sources for claims not the unreliable sources that were being used. The claims of Telepathic communication from Michael Persinger are not well documented and are completely undue. Claims that they can cause hallucinations etc should be cited to reliable sources. FYI, you are constantly under "EM Exposure", i.e light. Also calling it physical energies implies that there are non-physical energies. I've also removed some of the primary sourced claims in Michael Persinger which were added to an unreliable journal and a self published source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using this. Or this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. Please see my comments on the talk page of the Haunted House article. I am confused over this issue, lets say a notable parapsychologist publishes a book on hauntings and advocates a specific theory, then these sources are not reliable at all and can not be used? Take for example the book on poltergeists by Alan Gauld which discusses specific theories on hauntings, can we quote from that book, or there 100% has to be a third party source to mention his theories? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The EM Field stuff is back in the article. Referenced with this lovely document. APL (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the field well enough to judge whether mentioning a particular theory would give it undue weight... but, given the nature of the subject, if we are going to mention a particular theory we should attributed it (in the text) so readers know who says what. I have added such. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the stuff about Persinger has just been tagged again. The reason for this is that it is a primary source, I think some third party coverage is needed to back up his claims? Is that right? GreenUniverse (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the stuff about Persinger a primary source? Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The material which begins "According to Michael Persinger..." is sourced to Michael Persinger. It is a primary source as the source given is Michael Persinger himself stating what he thinks. A secondary source would be a source that is not written by Persinger and which summarizes the original thought of the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia defines "Primary". Secondary sources can contain author conclusions and thought and attributing a source to its author does not make the source Primary. (question: would I be correct in assuming that you are from a science background... if so, please note that Wikipedia uses the definitions of Primary and Secondary that are common in the Humanities and not the definitions of those terms common in the Sciences... this has caused confusion in the past so I thought I should point it out). Even if we use the scientific definition and consider the source Primary... Our policy is that Primary sources are allowed... as long as we are careful not to misuse them (please see WP:PSTS). In this case we are not misusing the source. I am not trying to say that the material should not be removed (I don't know enough about the topic to make that call)... just that you are using the wrong policy to justify removing it. If Presinger is pseudo-scientific hokum, I would suggest that you look at WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE) as a more appropriate policy based justification for removal. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. (I am doing a PhD in theoretical physics so you are correct with that) I will query at WP:OR to try and get a somewhat rigorous definition of primary, secondary etc for the future. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we are, original research articles are considered primary: Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary-source articles about randomized experiments, including randomized controlled clinical trials in medicine. Also: Be careful of articles published in disreputable fields or disreputable journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem that User:APL and User:IRWolfie- are alluding to is that a "varying electromagnetic field" is an electromagnetic wave - which is what physicists call: "electromagnetic radiation". Which can be gamma rays, radio waves, visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, microwaves and X-rays - and technically includes something a mundane as someone waving a magnet around or turning some source of electricity on or off!

So statements like "The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity." have to be read with great care.

I don't doubt that this statement is true. If you stick someones' head into a microwave oven then, yes, there will certainly be some "fault in brain activity" as their brains are cooked. We know that Photosensitive epilepsy can be caused by strobe lights, and one of the symptoms of that is a bunch of weird sensations that we might describe as a "hallucination". The trouble is that while the statement is doubtless true - it's only germane to feelings of being haunted if those exact kinds of "varying EM fields" happen to be present in the house at sufficient energy to cause these effects.

In essence, the author of that paper is guilty of a serious synthesis - which should have been caught by peer reviewers and shot so full of holes that it have never been published. He's saying:

1. Brains are affected by varying EM fields.
2. If there is a varying EM field present, then this explains the feelings of haunting in that house.

The trouble is that not all varying EM fields produce these kinds of effect, we know that staring out of the window (and thereby exposing yourself to visible light - a "varying EM field") doesn't cause any damage or hallucination whatever. There is zero evidence presented in the paper that the very specific EM fields that these "researchers" are measuring are of the right intensity and frequency to have any measurable effect on the brains of their supposedly hallucinating subjects. Which means that this entire paper is premium grade bullshit.

To use a simple analogy, it's like saying "People have been killed by machines with wheels in them" (like getting run over by a car or mangled in a horrible meat-grinder incident) - and from that deducing the statement: "Therefore we can explain this otherwise inexplicable death because there happened to be a hotwheels toy in the room". That explanation would be laughed at by any reasonable person - and that's why we're all laughing at this paper.

This source is pure pseudoscientific bunkum - the only question is: Under which Wikipedia guideline should it be excluded (or at least judiciously hedged and explained) so that our article no longer contains blatant untruths.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest everyone read WP:NPOV (and especially WP:Undue weight)... when dealing with fringe topics (such as ghosts), whether a source contains pseudoscientific bunkum may not matter as much as whether that bunkum represents a significant viewpoint. In other words... if enough of the people who are searching for a "scientific explanation" for hauntings believe Presinger's theory (and note that I said "if"), then to cover the topic accurately and with neutrality we should mention it (whether it is bunkum or not). If, on the other hand, his theory represents the view of a tiny minority of those searching for a scientific explanation for hauntings, then we can omit it on the grounds that mentioning his theory at all gives it Undue Weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fair play but have you read this though? French, C.C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R.E. (2009). The "Haunt" Project: An attempt to build a "haunted" room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45, 619-629.

"Recent research has suggested that a number of environmental factors may be associated with a tendency for susceptible individuals to report mildly anomalous sensations typically associated with "haunted" locations, including a sense of presence, feeling dizzy, inexplicable smells, and so on. Factors that may be associated with such sensations include fluctuations in the electromagnetic field (EMF) and the presence of infrasound." Nothing controversial here, I see no reason why this shouldnt be included. Also see Ghostly magnetism explained GreenUniverse (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the study by Chris French, it explains the fringe position and provides a study on it. I think this is a good compromise. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question round the billionth

Shakespeare Authorship Question has picked another suspiciously skilled and knowledgeable SPA today, Wightknightuk (talk · contribs). Possibly a sock, possibly not, but either way determinedly a proponent of the time-honoured principles of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Discretionary sanctions are in place so this could use some administrative eyes just in case he keeps refusing to get the message. Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am gratified to have been described as 'skilled and knowledgeable'. Thank you.

Unlike [Moreschi] I have no dog in this fight. I support no particular authorship candidate but I feel the issue is important and some of the rhetorical techniques used (by all sides) are particularly unmeritorious. The tone of debate also, including certain comments to which I have been subjected today, leaves a very great deal to be desired!

This is not an SPA. This issue is the first that has prompted me to become involved in Wikipedia. I have contributed (briefly) to the debate today, observing all necessary protocols and principles. I was disappointed to have been greeted with discourtesy and disrespect.

Any attempts to persuade the editors with logic and reason, to suggest amendments and achieve consensus by conciliation, fell on deaf ears. I was instructed that I should take "take (my) complaints to any relevant board [Paul B]" which I found inconsistent with Wikipedia's underlying values and objectives.

Having said that, I have taken [Paul B] at his word and initiated a request for Mediation. This, in my humble opinion, raises significant issues for Wikipedia over the extent to which an active group, even representing as they do a majority position, may properly use their influence to suppress the referencing on Wikipedia of relevant, independent third-party material. For those of you reading this who may be wondering to which particular 'fringe' publication I might be referring, I will tell you - it is the New York Times.

If you wish to follow the case or participate in relevant debate then you will find further details [[30]]. I have no intention of making any further attempts to edit the article in question until the mediation is resolved or the character of the editorial community that controls the article has changed.

Courtesy and a lack of profanity in any further exchanges would be very greatly appreciated.

wightknight 23:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is unfortunately one of those nasty WP:TIGERS corner cases. The problem, good sir, is that it is actually impossible not to have a dog in the fight on SAQ. Either you follow the mainstream consensus (the Stratfordians), or you follow the fringe theorists (the rest). Now, of course, one could also be undecided on the issue, but that is also not the mainstream academic position and it is precisely that mainstream academic position that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. Neutrality here is entirely false. As Dbachmann used to put it, we do not write Penguin via argument between penguins and non-penguins, and this is in many ways exactly the same problem. Moreschi (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's impressive that such a new editor found this board so quickly. It's also striking that the method of argument replicates that of so many previous editors:

• The demand for ritualised politeness so formal that it would have impressed the court of Louis VIV.
• The instant wounded moral outrage at anything that can be considered un-PC (i this case the wholly unwarranted pieties about the the analogies to the Holocaust article and the eyes-rolled-up-to-heaven pronouncements about "courtesy and lack of profanity"). The finest example of that was user:Smatprt's instant moral outrage when I said he was "blind" to some issue - because I was belittling and denigrating the unsighted community, including his unsighted friend.
• The attritional mode of argument - endless repetition of the same points and claims to be guided by WP policies and systems, to which florid deference is shown. Talk space is filled with the same points repeatedly in an attempt to wear down opposition in way that cannot be 'faulted' because of visibly rhetorical deference to policies.

The disingenuous nature of this approach is all too obvious to experienced editors in this area -- and the agenda is equally clear: mix up mainstream attribution studies with the fringe theories in order to make the latter seem like a reasonable extension of the former. Responses on the talk page may well seem curt, but that is because this is a familiar and very very often repeated pattern/tactic. As WP:FLAT says "At the present time, Wikipedia does not have an effective means to address superficially polite but tendentious, long-term, fringe advocacy." Paul B (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@[Moreschi] Thank you for your more constructive response on this issue.

My 'personal opinion' for what it is worth, is that the issue of who was the principal author of the Shakespeare canon should be determined by the same standards of academic rigour as any similar question of literary history. From my limited, but growing, review of the relevant evidence, it appears that no particular side is able to deliver a 'knockout blow' and there is an increasing number of agnostics who are interested to see more, and more rigorous, academic work undertaken. The recent document produced by the Shakespeare Authorship Trust provides good evidence of the existence of the debate, although not necessarily the quality of the arguments employed in that debate.

This is where I feel the article in question is faced with something of a dilemma. It is either a page which proposes to weigh to a nicety the various theories in support of the authorship candidates, in which case Stratford Shakespeare must rank first and the others beneath him will appear more or less preposterous, in turn (or not according to one's particular perspective and prejudices). But that process itself gives credibility to the Question, which it seems is antithetical to the Stratfordian position.

However, [Paul B] today stated that "this article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians" in which case the anti-Stratfordian position (and in this I concede that there is an argument that the agnostic viewpoint may also be viewed as anti-Stratfordian, although I do not necessarily accept that the rationale of that interpretation should prevail) is more than a "fringe theory". Indeed, if the article is about the argument between the Stratfordians and the non-Stratfordians as [Paul B] says, then it demands for its very existence the vital and thriving form of its very nemesis. The one cannot exist without the other.

So there you have it, a rhetorical dilemma, which may explain part of the great difficulty that this page has been experiencing.

Other solutions naturally present, but I would just say that it would be unwise to make assumptions about the credibility or good faith of any author without first making full and proper enquiry of all the available evidence. But then, I suppose that is exactly my point.

wightknight 00:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@ [Paul B] WP:FLAT is not a justification to be rude. I presume that by Louis VIV you meant Louis XIV?

As a point of information, I came across this page by chance when researching Wikipedia's policies and definitions of 'fringe theories'. It was serendipity, no more no less. I'm sure there must be an appropriate conspiracy to explain the coincidence. However, if your concern is to talk about me outside my knowledge then I am sure the internet is sufficiently vast to afford you that opportunity.

Respectfully, simply because someone holds a different view to you does not mean that you can suggest that their arguments are disingenuous. Very respectfully, your post is substantially off point. I have set out my position and I have substantiated with referenced material and a logical argument. I have no agenda other than to see the Shakespeare Authorship Question represented properly on Wikipedia. If you wish to engage with the argument then kindly do so on its terms.

I apologise for being polite. It is an unfortunate consequence of long habituation to the exercise of consideration towards others.

wightknight 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known WP:FRINGE issue that is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, see WP:ARBSAQ. Actionable proposals, with suitable sources, should be made at the article talk page. There is no need to spread the issue to two noticeboards since there has been no response (other than changing the subject) to the explanations at the article talk. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to debate who wrote Shakespeare's works. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you begin here. All the answers to your questions can be found multiple times in the 27 pages of archived discussions. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia