This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An editor (Afteread) has recently made a slew of edits on Bogdanov Affair. By and large, these edits have been productive, but I'm concerned that some of the edits are injecting personal opinion rather than verifiable claims into the article. Perhaps a few more eyes on the page would be helpful. Phiwum ( talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs), evidently something of a long-term trouble-maker, is apparently trying to argue (at Talk:Hindu mythology) that Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact, because neither Dbachmann nor myself has a time machine to verify that Indra didn't exist, or actually slay a real dragon. A somewhat startling reversal of the burden of proof, it certainly makes for excellent entertainment. This hasn't got far, beyond the addition (swiftly reverted) of a bunch of highly tendentious {{ fact}} tags, but some more eyes would be appreciated, and the humour value certainly makes this worthwhile. Moreschi ( talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs) is indeed something of a long-term troublemaker. He has escaped being banned because he is pronouncedly un-aggressive and mostly confines himself to trolling talkpages. When I say trolling I refer to what I think is a deliberate show of naiveté bordering on complete lack of basic comprehension. He is taking the stance of Socrates, which is the stance of a four-year-old toddler, that if you put completely naive questions to people long enough sooner or later they realize that they really know nothing. This may be cool for a guru, a Zen master or a Greek philosopher, but it is of course in egregious violation of everything Wikipedia aims to be, and it is also an insult to the intelligence of every editor unfortunate enough to come across this user.
So, while BR isn't doing any positive damage, he has also failed to contribute or show a good faith interest in contributing to the project and I believe a community ban is well arguable at this point.
This is purely a question of user conduct, btw, because BR isn't making any points of content worth bringing up even on this board. -- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A far more interesting case is ICouldBeWrong ( talk · contribs). He is the exact opposite of BR in that he is displaying his intelligence openly, and I haven't quite figured him out, but I strongly suspect an attempt at camouflaging a Hindutva account. I have only very rarely encountered elaborate attempts at building "reputation" for a new account in making actual useful contributions in another area before turning to the actual agenda. The approach may be "intelligent" because you have plausible deniability, but then it never really works because you spend far too much time on unrelated items for the little effect you end up having on the actual issue. It's interesting to see people try this but one should not overestimate the damage they do. Hell, they even contribute good content even if it's only as part of their cover :) -- dab (𒁳) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Pleas esee Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy ( Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps introducing WP:OR with unreferenced "claraifications" for the vaguer parts of this vague piece of pseudo-science. Furthermore thye IP editor is claiming I have a WP:COI because of my materialist and skeptical user badges on my user page. Eyes needed. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes there have been claims that the concept of " Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide in Genocide: a sociological perspective by Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is a fringe theory? Any comments? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
After a relatively quiet period there's lots of dispute on this article once more. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
"Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory citation needed.-- Termer ( talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
{undent} Well, yes, Judith always is good at the UCS stuff. My statements were rather a specific response to Brangifer's comments. As somebody who does not consider the historicity of JC to be entirely settled but who is entirely unthreatened if it turned out that he did exist I felt a response was necessary. Judith has, as usual, cut nicely to the heart of the matter. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the Christ myth theory is there are WP:RS that show the idea is not exclusively the idea that Jesus didn't exist but that he has been mythologized so much little if anything remains of the actual man. You have Dodd, C. H. (1938) who said t could include reports of an "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name", Price called Wells a Christ-myth theorist in 1999 and 2002 even though Wells was accepting a historical 1st century teacher behind Q back in 1996, and Pike with his "Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin."
The list of supporters is little help either as even people like Schweitzer get confused and change their positions of who belongs where. For example, Schweitzer includes James George Frazer (who held there was a historical Jesus) with Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in 1931. Bromiley has similar problems as he mixes in Lucian and Bertrand Russell together with Wells. The debate is not if the non-historical position is fringe--we can all agree that is fringe but if the very term "Christ myth theory" is exclusively use in that manner and the WP:RS shows it is not.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of you may or may not remember some of the issues related to advocacy for chronic Lyme disease here awhile back (if not, Talk:Lyme disease and its archives bear mute witness). In any case, I've found myself in a bit of a back-and-forth with another editor at Under Our Skin, an article about a film which advocates one side of this political/medical controversy. The article appears generally untrafficked, so to break the cycle of back-and-forth I'd like to invite outside eyes and opinions. MastCell Talk 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In this article, it is being claimed that Plovdiv has a history going back 6000 years and is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities. Yet this claim is sourced to a single source that is primarily environmental, not archeological in focus, and hence off-topic and inappropriate. Even worse, the phrase is lifted verbatim from the source, and then cut-and-pasted twice in the article (firstly in the second sentence of the lead, then again in the history section). Further on, in the History section it is claimed that an established settlement existed in Plovdiv since the 7th millennium BC. This is sourced the Plovdiv Museum website (a dead link) and to two inaccessible Bulgarian language publications. These are exceptional claims, and exceptional claims require high-quality sources. If the claim that Plovdiv is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited city were reflected in the international academic consensus, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream English-language reliable sources that would reflect this consensus. This is clearly NOT the case here, the case here being one of "antiquity frenzy", fringe-POV pushing, WP:UNDUE and manipulation of WP:RS. The arguments put forth by the users that support these claims are even more outrageous [7], using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sarcasm, and sophistry. I brought this up on the article talkpage [8] and this [9] was the response I got. Any help in dealing with this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Athenean ( talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Back in September, I nominated Radon therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion because I felt that no article was better that that article. The result was a NAC keep for lack of grounds to delete. Since then, it's improvement has been decidedly underwhelming. Article essentially claims that radon therapy should be generally recognized as safe and effective. See talk page for brief discussion of "big pharma" (a hallmark of medical fringe theories and pseudoscience). Since radon hasn't seriously been used as a treatment since ~1970's (at least in the U.S.), the article needs some help (at a minimum; I think it should ideally be completely rewritten). -- Thin boy 00 @216, i.e. 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's now been gutted to due (apparent) copyvio and sourcing, and now basically a stub. Should we mark as resolved? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Having had some problems at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, I decided to see how many article reference or mention Menzies. A lot, it seems, see [11] - anyone want to help clear up any misusing him as a source? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed changes to the Tom Van Flandern article, here: Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion. Flandern's ideas have at times been labelled fringe, so any input from editors who watch this page would probably be appreciated. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit at the main article as the editor has a clear COI, and he had changed cited text. He has, as I ask him to, brought it to the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if someone less involved with the article took a look. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like the assembled masses to provide insight as to whether global warming scepticism is "fringe" as defined in Wikipedia. While this scepticism is not mainstream, there are nonetheless significant papers published by notable scientists in reputable academic journals ( here's one of the latest) and there is significant support within the scientific community. Therefore, I would classify global warming scepticism as a minority viewpoint. I ask in particular because two editors are apparently deadset (I'm trying to determine their exact position) against any statement from a global warming sceptic supporting Jim Inhofe, using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as their argument. Honestly, the argument that the article cannot include a quote from a (or any) sceptic supporting Sen. Inhfoe is just incredible to me. Madman ( talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the Global Warming or Climate Change skeptics I think it is counter productive to label them fringe. The term fringe is often used to establish preconceived ideas and lead people to believe one point of view before the research is done. Regardless of whether you call it fringe or not the same scientific process should be done to determine whether anything is true or not. Furthermore another big problem is the excessive coverage on the most controversial aspect of pollution. This is distracting the public from other important aspects of pollution that are not in dispute or shouldn’t be like the pollution of many lakes and rivers depriving the people of clean water to drink and deforestation. These things are clear and they need to be addressed yet they are being ignored. If more attention can be drawn to other aspects of this it could lead to productive activity rather than never ending debate and more pollution. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to take a strong view on this particular issue, not being an expert. But, the extent to which a sceptic is judged a crank or denialist or what have you depends on the evidence underlying the position to be denied. Generally, anyone denying established mathematical theorems is regarded as cranky in the mathematical profession. That is because of the rigour of mathematical proof, and because there is no empirical evidence required for mathematics. Anyone denying accepted science for which there is a great deal of disparate and different evidence, is rightly regarded as cranky, rather than sceptical. E.g. the weight of evidence on the age of the earth comes from so many different sources and disciplines that any other explanation is highly improbable.
Turning to global warming. What probability attaches to the empirical evidence we have? Scepticism about the long-term historical temperature may be justified because of of the Divergence problem. The short term historical record shows a recent increase in temperature, but what probability attaches to it being a trend, rather than noise? I don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, but looking at the temperature record does not suggest the recent 'trend' is a six standard deviation change or anything like that. I believe I could easily generate a random number sequence with similar characteristics.
Turning to the theoretical evidence. This seems stronger, but again, what probability attaches to it? If a very high one, why the need for empirical evidence at all? We don't check different triangles to see if the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees. The theory of triangles is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do this. From what I have read in the climate change literature (I mean academic peer-reviewed papers) there is considerable uncertainty about the climate models.
I'm not saying any of the theory is wrong, nor that the weight of probability does not support the current scientific consensus. What I am saying is that the probability of the current consensus being wrong is high enough that we shouldn't call a global warming sceptic a crank or a denialist, both of which are pejorative terms. I'm a GW sceptic, in that nothing I have read suggests strongly to me that there is a warming trend caused by human activity. Some of the evidence is compelling I admit - but not compelling in the way that the evidence for the age of the Earth is compelling. HistorianofScience ( talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
PS A site search of crank.net does not include any global warming sceptics. HistorianofScience ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The posts above took me to the policy page. I note that most of the page talks about fringe theories rather than scepticism. GW scepticism is not a theory. All scepticism is negative, anti-theory. A sceptic simply wants to be persuaded. Their job is to point out flawed logic or assumptions or methodology in other theories, not to promote their own. HistorianofScience ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
See above. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. yet there are those who deny the Cantor's mathematics [15]. There are those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust [16]. But they are surely in a quite different category from AGW secptics. HistorianofScience ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Taken from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How do we handle old history books and articles by members of the Greater India Society (e.g. Majumdar, Bagchi, see Greater India for a helpful explanation of where they were coming from)? Should ideas sourced to them be taken out completely on the basis that their scholarship was nationalistic and is now long superseded? Or do we need to take a more subtle approach? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, they are primary sources that can be cited as primary sources for the topics of Indian and particularly Bengali nationalism and cultural chauvinism. -- dab (𒁳) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with R.C Majumdar. Assorted Marxists and Islamophiles don't like him, but smearing him as a "Greater India society ideologue" or whatnot deserves even more contempt than this sentence would suggest. rudra ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
See here. Now, I don't know about these studies, but I do know sourcing a major statement in the lead with primary sources which negates a statement sourced with multiple secondary sources, and restating the reasoning behind the conclusions is a major red flag.
From:
Magnet therapy is considered pseudoscientific due to both physical and biological implausibility, as well as a lack of any established effect on health or healing.
To:
Magnet therapy was originally considered as pseudoscience, primarily due to inconsistent research findings. (same secondary sources source this statement as the previous)
However, more systematic research has confirmed that strong static magnetic fields from permanent magnets are able to constrict and dilate the walls of capillary blood vessels. This reduces inflammation and increases blood circulation respectively.[6] Static magnet therapy has potentially effective applications in relief of pain and swelling after sports injury and blunt trauma, as well as wound healing after surgery.[7][8]
It seems the latter paragraph is some primary sources strung together with a bit of OR. It looks like there could be something to these studies, but I'd like a to see a review from a reliable medical journal that supports these studies. Auntie E. 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I share the concerns voiced by Auntie E. and Fences and windows. It appears that Spades and an IP (possibly their's) is single handedly and as an SPA totally rewriting the article. I notice that I had previously reverted what at first appeared to be vandalism, but maybe I shouldn't have done that. It might have been the right thing to do.
What's not being dealt with properly is the difference between alternative medicine use and mainstream use. Previously the article dealt with alternative medicine use, but it looks like the SPA is mixing things up in a confusing manner. If it's proven to work, then it's not alternative medicine, yet there is still unproven and quackish use of magnets going on. The differences need to be made clear.
I have noted my concerns on the talk page there. More eyes are needed there pretty fast as the SPA is working fast. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=magnetic+field+%22bone+growth%22
wikimed script outputCount is 16 versus 16 Guo, X; Chan, YL; Cheng, JC; Burwell, RG; Dangerfield, PH (Nov 2005). "Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis--result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE". European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 14 (9): 862–73. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMID 16133084.
Stanosz, S; Wysocki, K (Sep 2004). "[The appreciation of bone growth factor in women with osteoporosis exposing on freetransition magnetic field]". Polski merkuriusz lekarski : organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego. 17 (99): 229–31. PMID 15628046.
Johnson, MT; Nindl, G (2004). "Noninvasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: current and emerging therapeutic potential". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 40: 469–74. PMID 15134003.
Markaki, AE (Aug 2004). "Magneto-mechanical stimulation of bone growth in a bonded array of ferromagnetic fibres". Biomaterials. 25 (19): 4805–15. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMID 15120527.
Linovitz, RJ; Bernhardt, M; Green, D; Law, MD; McGuire, RA; Montesano, PX; Rechtine, G; Salib, RM; Ryaby, JT; Faden, JS; Ponder, R; Muenz, LR; Magee, FP; Garfin, SA (1 Jul 2002). "Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study". Spine. 27 (13): 1383–9, discussion 1389. PMID 12131732.
Hanft, JR; Landsman, A; Surprenant, M. "The role of combined magnetic field bone growth stimulation as an adjunct in the treatment of neuroarthropathy/Charcot joint: an expanded pilot study". The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 37 (6): 510–5, discussion 550-1. PMID 9879046.
Mitchell, MJ. "Radiation-induced changes in bone". Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 18 (5): 1125–36, quiz 1242-3. PMID 9747611.
Linder-Aronson, A; Rygh, P; Lindskog, S (Dec 1996). "Tissue response to space closure in monkeys: a comparison of orthodontic magnets and superelastic coil springs". European journal of orthodontics. 18 (6): 581–8. PMID 9009422.
McCleary, VL; Aasen, GH (1991). "Low magnetic field effects on embryonic bone growth". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 27: 205–17. PMID 2065156.
Papatheofanis, FJ (Mar 1989). "Short-term effect of exposure to intense magnetic fields on hematologic indices of bone metabolism". Investigative radiology. 24 (3): 221–3. PMID 2753637.
Dormer, KJ; McGee, M; Hough, JV; Shew, RL (Nov 1986). "An implantable hearing device: osseointegration of a titanium-magnet temporal bone stimulator". The American journal of otology. 7 (6): 399–408. PMID 3812640.
Dunn, AW (Dec 1984). "Electrical stimulation in treatment of delayed union and nonunion of fractures and osteotomies". Southern medical journal. 77 (12): 1530–4. PMID 6390697.
Haupt, HA (Jan 1984). "Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis". Southern medical journal. 77 (1): 56–64. PMID 6364371.
Smith, RL (Dec 1983). "Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on bone growth and articular cartilage". Clinical orthopaedics and related research (181): 277–82. PMID 6641061.
Reddy, GN (Oct 1983). "A variable pulse-burst electromagnetic generator for electrical stimulation of biological systems". Journal of biomedical engineering. 5 (4): 336–9. PMID 6632846.
Reddy, GN; Tuai, GL. "A pulsed electromagnetic stimulator for bone-growth studies". Medical instrumentation. 17 (5): 347–50. PMID 6646021.
I was also concerned about reasoning from plausibility, not necessarily in a negative way but you have to be careful. I'm pushing the improved predictive value of literature but you want to reason from the known, not the lack of knowledge and AFAIK these isn't much known about this and it doesn't obviously require that accept alws be ignored. ( corrections appreciated) Confirmation bias, or reasonaing along the lines of "this has to work" has been a problem.
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to provide my response to your shared concerns regarding the changes to the Magnet Therapy article. It was not my intention to drastically change Magnet Therapy from "pseudoscience" to "proven medical treatment". As noted in my response on Talk:Magnet_therapy, Magnet Therapy more closely fits an experimental medicine phase. It is not clearly proven, nor unproven. Dosage parameters and applications as a therapeutic method are not agreed upon. However specific health effects (beyond "pain relief") have been proven and repeated, and a general consensus exists for the theory of its mechanism of action (affecting ion channels).
My disapproval is strongest for the opening description used in the original version of the article, which states:
This statement is completely false based on several hundred studies that can be found on PubMed focusing on the health effects of Static Magnetic Fields (SMF).
To prove my point, consider the evidence supporting SMF effects on blood microcirculation. This is blood flow in capillaries. Fences and windows stated I was "cherry-picking positive results". Fences also adds that, "the studies done so far are poor and lack dosing information so are mostly uninterpretable." I cited 3 studies and 1 article specifically in relation to SMF research on microcirculation. To some, it may appear to be cherry-picking, however the cumulative evidence is overwhelming.
I'd like to post a list of research studies found on PubMed specifically centering on SMF effects on blood microcirculation and capillaries. Nearly every one of these studies states specific dosage (magnetic field strength used, exposure time, etc.), and have noted significant effects as compared to control groups. This information alone disproves the original article's opening introduction claiming "physical and biological implausibility" and "lack of any established effect on health". These are ALL the studies I could find. If you find more, please bring them to my attention.
Understand I am not here to "vandalize" the article. The article, as was written, is severely biased. It omits a vast amount of information. Far worse, several of the reviews and primary research studies cited in the article are completely unrelated to magnetic therapy. (see my Response in Talk:Magnet_therapy)
I welcome future discussion and assistance to help avoid confusing Magnet Therapy as "mainstream medicine", which apparently my writing was faulty of. However, to balance the equation in an unbiased manner, the Magnet Therapy article needs to be re-written to convey the current status of related research and reviews (both positive and negative), its current (unproven) usage, and the potential applications being investigated. ( Spades07 ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Research on Static Magnetic Field Effects on Microcirculation and Capillaries
Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Luedemann S, Brix G, Dellian M, Berghaus A, Strieth S (September 2009). "Static magnetic fields impair angiogenesis and growth of solid tumors in vivo". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 8 (18): 1756–62. PMID 19633422.
Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Dellian M, Luedemann S, Griebel J, Bellemann M, Berghaus A, Brix G (June 2008). "Static magnetic fields induce blood flow decrease and platelet adherence in tumor microvessels". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 7 (6): 814–9. PMID 18340115.
Morris CE, Skalak TC (January 2008). "Acute exposure to a moderate strength static magnetic field reduces edema formation in rats". American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 294 (1): H50–7. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00529.2007. PMID 17982018.
Brix G, Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Dellian M, Griebel J, Eichhorn ME, Andrā W, Bellemann ME (January 2008). "Static magnetic fields affect capillary flow of red blood cells in striated skin muscle". Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994). 15 (1): 15–26. doi: 10.1080/10739680701410850. PMID 17952798.
Morris CE, Skalak TC (August 2007). "Chronic static magnetic field exposure alters microvessel enlargement resulting from surgical intervention". Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985). 103 (2): 629–36. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01133.2006. PMID 17478604.
Gmitrov J (August 2007). "Static magnetic field effect on the arterial baroreflex-mediated control of microcirculation: implications for cardiovascular effects due to environmental magnetic fields". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 46 (3): 281–90. doi: 10.1007/s00411-007-0115-2. PMID 17530271.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (July 2007). "Effects of 12 mT static magnetic field on sympathetic agonist-induced hypertension in Wistar rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 28 (5): 369–78. doi: 10.1002/bem.20307. PMID 17330852.
Gmitrov J (March 2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi: 10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578.
Gmitrov J (March 2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi: 10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578.
Xu S, Tomita N, Ikeuchi K, Ikada Y (March 2007). "Recovery of Small-Sized Blood Vessels in Ischemic Bone Under Static Magnetic Field". Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM. 4 (1): 59–63. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nel055. PMC 1810364. PMID 17342242.
Li Z, Tam EW, Mak AF, Lau RY (2007). "Wavelet analysis of the effects of static magnetic field on skin blood flowmotion: investigation using an in vivo rat model". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 21 (1): 61–8. PMID 17354615.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2005). "Effects of neck exposure to 5.5 mT static magnetic field on pharmacologically modulated blood pressure in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (6): 469–80. doi: 10.1002/bem.20115. PMID 16108042.
Okano H, Masuda H, Ohkubo C (April 2005). "Decreased plasma levels of nitric oxide metabolites, angiotensin II, and aldosterone in spontaneously hypertensive rats exposed to 5 mT static magnetic field". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (3): 161–72. doi: 10.1002/bem.20055. PMID 15768432.
Mayrovitz HN, Groseclose EE (January 2005). "Effects of a static magnetic field of either polarity on skin microcirculation". Microvascular Research. 69 (1–2): 24–7. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2004.11.002. PMID 15797257.
Morris C, Skalak T (January 2005). "Static magnetic fields alter arteriolar tone in vivo". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (1): 1–9. doi: 10.1002/bem.20047. PMID 15605401.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2003). "Effects of static magnetic fields on plasma levels of angiotensin II and aldosterone associated with arterial blood pressure in genetically hypertensive rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (6): 403–12. doi: 10.1002/bem.10139. PMID 12929159.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (February 2003). "Anti-pressor effects of whole body exposure to static magnetic field on pharmacologically induced hypertension in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (2): 139–47. doi: 10.1002/bem.10092. PMID 12524681.
Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C, Okano H (April 2002). "Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 23 (3): 224–9. PMID 11891752.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2001). "Modulatory effects of static magnetic fields on blood pressure in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 22 (6): 408–18. PMID 11536282.
Okano H, Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C (1999). "Biphasic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 20 (3): 161–71. PMID 10194558.
Xu S, Okano H, Ohkubo C (1998). "Subchronic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 12 (4): 383–9. PMID 9706489.
Ohkubo C, Xu S (1997). "Acute effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 11 (3): 221–5. PMID 9239515.
Gmitrov J, Ivanco I, Gmitrová A (1990). "Magnetic field effect on blood pressure regulation". Physiologia Bohemoslovaca. 39 (4): 327–34. PMID 2150561.
Lud GV, Demeckiy AM (1990). "Use of permanent magnetic field in reconstructive surgery of the main arteries (experimental study)". Acta Chirurgiae Plasticae. 32 (1): 28–34. PMID 1694619.
Just wikified this and took out a large number of potentially BLP-violating examples. It seems to be a valid technique - google scholar gives a few hits - but the article is currently unreferenced and it does seem that a lot of really daft and unverified ideas can attach to the field. Has anyone any expertise in this area, or can help find an expert? I'm not sure that there's a relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
An essay entry I found. It is about a concept that I am told is "salient" and also "the key to unlock the secrets of advanced kung fu". -- dab (𒁳) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
excellent work, and quick! Pure wiki kung fu. -- dab (𒁳) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
it turns out it should probably all be merged into Neijia. See also pushing hands, Silk reeling. -- dab (𒁳) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The way I understand it, Nei Jing and Nei Jia are not synonymous: Nei Jing is the skill and Nei Jia are the schools teaching this skill. For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is still one single topic. -- dab (𒁳) 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I also spent some more time tending this corner and I think it's reasonably ok, albeit poorly referenced in general. But there is Internal alchemy which is completely inacceptable in its nonchalant conflation of Taoism and Hermeticism. -- dab (𒁳) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone un-redirected Nei Jing, so I re-redirected it. Please watchlist. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at this after I left it alone for a couple of months. A classic WP:FRINGE case, not all-out lunatic, but as mad as you can get and still be scholarly reviewed. In fact rather similar to the problems we see at New Chronology (Rohl). There are a number of polite reviews but nobody would even dream of subscribing to the core thesis. There are the usual problems with presenting the topic duly, i.e. accurately without creating the impression that anyone is taking it at all seriously, as usual further complicated by a couple aficionado editors who want the theory seen presented in the best light that is at all arguable. -- dab (𒁳) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The academese used to write this IP edit makes it rather hard to figure out what is actually being proposed here, but I think it could use some attention. Moreschi ( talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Entirely sourced to conspiracy websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, and UFO literature. Article infobox asserts this "location" is "active". Criticism is ghettoized (and largely OR, since no reliable sources appear to give this topic any attention). Ripe for cleanup. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've put it to question wheter this counts as a WP:RS at the appropriate message board. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A lot of material about Marian apparitions appears to be quite credulously presented. A short list from what I briefly encountered today:
The attention of some FTN regulars to this topic area is desperately needed. A lot of secular and skeptical authorities have written about the general phenomena and most of the notable apparitions. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is excessive skepticism, it is undisputed that these apparitions are "real" in the sense that people do experience them. Not even the Roman Catholic Church claims anything beyond this, other than that it is a matter of Faith to choose to interpret such experiences as divine, so there is nothing fringy about it, it's just human religious experience. Creating separate "secular view" sections would appear as of the lady-protests-too-much kind. It is perfectly straightforward to treat visionary experience as a secular (neurological) topic beginning to end, no "however" clauses are necessary. -- dab (𒁳) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
User:William S. Saturn seems to be an ideologically-motivated user with no regards for WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Recently he unilaterally moved the page "Iran and state terrorism" to a new POV-tainted called State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime [25] without filling a request for move, seeking a consensus, or initiating any discussion at all, to the dismay of other editors. [26] Further, he made a bunch of questionable edits, as outlined by another user here. [27] He has also been edit-warring on Iraq War to add Iran as a combatant of the war. [28] Given his history of edit-warring, POV-pushing and stubbornness, I really don't wish to get engaged in an edit-war with this person, and appreciate it if the other editors here could share their thought on how to handle such an editor, and keep an eye on these pages. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime" is not a fringe theory so much as a political opinion, or a politically biased choice of vocabulary in discussing recent headlines. Try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
If I may say so, Iran and state terrorism is an appaling example of "zomg NPOV" weasling gone wrong. How many perpetrators of state terrorism can you have per state? That's right, just the state itself, otherwise it wouldn't be state terrorism. Hence "Iran and state terrorism" is a silly title. -- dab (#56435;) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
More editorial and administrative eyes would probably be useful at House of Numbers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a film that espouses AIDS denialism, and it has proven quite popular as a forum for accounts which espouse a similar agenda (currently, Sarcher70 ( talk · contribs) is up to 5RR or so). Anyhow, more eyes would probably help ensure that the site's policies are not getting trampled in the rush to prove that HIV is harmless. MastCell Talk 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Transcendental Meditation movement of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi proposes that the group practice of meditation advanced techniques, the TM-Sidhi program, leads to two separate phenomenon. First, they assert that practitioners spontaneously rise off the ground in the first stage of a three stage progression toward full flying. They have demonstrated this phenomenon and outside observers say that it appears to be ordinary hopping.
Second, the movement asserts that even this first stage of Yogic Flying is sufficient to create a field of coherence which radiates out to affect the surrounding population of non-practitioners and protect them from negativity, including everything from crime and accidents to bad weather and pollen. They call this the Maharishi Effect (ME) and say that it makes communities and even nations invincible through a mechanism comparable to the Meissner Effect, and which is propagated through quantum consciousness. They, and no one else, have conducted dozens of scientific studies which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. At least three of those studies have received outside notice and comment, almost all of which is skeptical of the hypothesis and some of which say that the studies were flawed. The theory and practice have been called "pseudoscience". One of the proponents, John Hagelin, appeared in the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? and received an Ig Nobel Prize for his research. Some editors assert that it is not a fringe theory since it has been published in peer reviewed journals and has received popular attention. Other editors, including myself, say that there is no sign of it being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
For the purposes of this guideline, would it be correct to categorize Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect as fringe theories? If it is, how much weight should be given to studies of the effect conducted by members of the movement which have not received comment in any secondary sources? Will Beback talk 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have always thought that people will need to be really desperate for a guru before choosing to follow this one. I don't think this falls under "fringe theory" so much as pseudoscience, similar to other quasi-religious topics like Scientology etc. The fact that they apparently managed to get some of this stuff into peer-reviewed journals (on what?) might actually raise (not lower) this topic to the status of "fringe theory", but I would be hesitant to go so far to call something a fringe theory just because some scholars were annoyed enough to note they think it is nonsense. For all practical purposes, this is just pseudoscience of the quantum-mysticism type. -- dab (𒁳) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
it turns out that problems these article suffer is apparent WP:COI editing on the part of Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs). Apart from this, there appear to be a number of good editors already giving attention to the article. This should be comparatively easy to fix. -- dab (𒁳) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
ah, his may be more complicated than I thought. Apparently, the TM topics have a history of years of dispute and meatpuppetry. Anyway, I am confident a vigorous burst of input from some regulars on this board will work wonders.
For the record, the "Yogic flying" is indeed hopping. The hopping is sold as the "first stage" of levitation. The TM people do not claim that they have gone beyond that stage yet. They just hope that if they keep hopping, they might one day achieve levitation ( from the horse's mouth; Group practice of Yogic Flying, YogicFlyingChannel). So, there are no fringe claims that anyone is in fact levitating, and thus nothing to be falsified. -- dab (𒁳) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
you are right, there is a phenomenological claim, quite apart from the ideological bizarreness, and that phenomenological claim was examined and failed to be found with any statistical relevance. That's just bad research and can be debunked as such, no problem. -- dab (𒁳) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
of course we should discuss these studies. But we should discuss them for what they are, within our WP:FRINGE guideline, i.e. we should discuss them, making clear that they hold no water. -- dab (𒁳) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what all the busy noise is about here. The Maharishi Effect and Yogic Flying are obviously both fringe theories/topics. There are reliable sources that document claims about both. Those reliable sources should be used ( in proper proportion) in the appropriate on-topic articles, just as we do with any other far afield topic or view. That's what the OP was asking and most of the discussion here is neither here nor there to his question. Vassyana ( talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course the ME hypothesis is the fringiest of the fringe. It has exactly zero acceptance in mainstream science. Those contending that getting a paper published means anything other than the paper getting published either completely misunderstand, or are deliberately misrepresenting what the peer review process is and means. None of these studies are ever cited by any non-TM Org related researcher, except when they are being dismissed as utter nonsense, data manipulation and the work of crackpots. Fladrif ( talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Simonm223, you are right that my choice of words was unfortunate. Emotionally loaded words tend to direct attention away from the main points being made. I have gone back and corrected those words in my statement just above and would appreciate it if the editors who are engaged in this conversation would re-read the substantive argument and respond in like manner (without the loaded words). ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation: The studies, as far as I can see, have been published in some second tier sociology journals (such as Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law etc) and the scientific community has not bothered to look into the claimed physical principle of the Maharishi Effect. It doesn't really help to confuse such different fields, and refer to "scientific publications", "scientific discourse", "scientific discussion" etc as in some of the above comments. Abecedare ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that our TM article does not cite the most authoritative source on the subject:
which concluded:
Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.
Overall, we found the methodological quality of meditation research to be poor, with significant threats to validity in every major category of quality measured, regardless of study design.
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage overhealth education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients; RR was not superior to biofeedback in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients
Our TM article reaches almost the opposite conclusion based on quote mining and synthesis of primary sources; really needs to be rewritten. Abecedare ( talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) PS: It actually does cite the above review in the middle of Medical research subsection, and then tries to "balance" it by misrepresenting the conclusions of a later paper. Abecedare ( talk) 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
indeed. it is my experience that the way forward in such situations is to ignore the talkpage bickering and cut right to the chase, locating the most authoritative references. It is always a waste of time to tell editors they are being incivil, as this invariably degenerates in a schoolyard fight over who was incivil first, to the point where the actual question is buried and forgotten. The recommended course is to, whenever somebody begins to discuss civility, go straight to the relevant sources and compile a no-nonsense account of their take on the situation. In this case, Abecedare has done the honours. We shall now include these references and structure the article to reflect the mainstream judgement they establish. -- dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Fladrif no, and that is your misunderstanding and mischaracterization. However, I no longer feel it necessary to address your rude, uncivil comments and often untrue statements, nor to attempt to explain to any other editors whose language is consistently offensive. I've made my points here and they rest on the policy and guidelines. ( olive ( talk) 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Two other articles that need attention:
Wikipedia really needs to start scrutinizing medical claims as it (in theory) deals with WP:BLP issues, because such hokum propagated through wikipedia has a similar chance of doing real world harm. Abecedare ( talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with
uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be
rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results
An important point that no one here or in the WP guidelines has yet discussed is that secondary sources, including even systematic, quantitative meta-analyses, are subject to methodological weaknesses and biases just as primary peer-reviewed sources can be. Editors are not generally in a position to make that decision about a review. However, when third parties publish critiques, they need to be aired in the article. Evidence that the AHRQ review had multiple weaknesses nullifying a variety of its conclusions has been mentioned before in published articles and in various WP talk pages. If the group of editors here wants seriously to create better WP articles, then this qualification of secondary sources needs to be integrated into the guidelines. For certain purposes, secondary sources may legitimately supersede primary sources, but the opposite is also be true in some cases. I do not have time to lead a modification of these guidelines, but if some of you would take on that worthwhile task, it would benefit the quality of many WP articles. ChemistryProf ( talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it absolutely hilarious that ChemistryProf appears to argue that because many people think "1. Not an accurate source of info", Wikipedia should include more reports on fringe "research " advocating the "Maharishi Effect". It is appalling that only 61% of "those asked" were aware that Wikipedia should under no circumstances be cited as a primary source. We should aim at raising this figure to at least 90% by linking to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia more often. For your reading convenience:
This page in a nutshell: You should not use Wikipedia by itself for primary research (unless you are writing a paper about Wikipedia). |
Regarding ChemistryProf, if this user is really associated with "professional societies" involved in studies on Wikipedia, perhaps now would be a good time for him to begin familiarizing himself with the project fundamentals, the project aims and the project's scope. As for "37. information controlling coup.", it is true we lose quite some good editors because of WP:Experts are scum, but I am convinced that User:Ararat arev and many many others we have taken great pains to remove from the project would also gladly sign under "37." Understand this, as long as the "information controlling coup" has a clue and serves WP:ENC, this is actually what we are trying to achieve here. For the alternative, go there.
Quite frankly, because of the consistent failure to grok a point exhibited by the user, I begin to be annoyed by the grandiose "university professor, researcher, and author/editor". On Wikipedia, you are what you show you are capable of. If you want to wave around your real-life honours, you should at least go for {{ User committed identity}}. -- dab (𒁳) 11:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is the right place for this, if not send me to NPOV. An editor has noted on the talk page that the POV of the article seems to lack due criticism. This is not something I know about, but I'm hoping someone who watches this page does. Auntie E. ( talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots of spurious stuff in this article about a self-styled "stem cell expert". I'm going to attempt some radical article-surgery, but this will probably need more eyes. See this web page for more info. Looie496 ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this article makes some audacious claims with little in the way of analysis or rejoinders. It relies almost completely on primary source documents. Here are some choice quotes:
“ | Some emigrants from the remaining islands in the Atlantic settled on new islands to the east which later consolidated into what is now the district of the Abyssinian highlands and lands somewhat to the north. Atlantis perished through flooding and submergence in 9,564 BC. | ” |
“ | The second root race was colored golden yellow. Hyperborea included what is now Northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Northern Asia, and Kamchatka. The climate was tropical because Earth had not yet developed an axial tilt. | ” |
“ | The Lemurian root race began 34 1/2 million years ago, in the middle of what was then believed to be the Jurassic; thus, the people of Lemuria coexisted with the dinosaurs. The first three subraces of the Lemurians reproduced by laying eggs, but the fourth subrace, beginning 16 1/2 million years ago, began to reproduce like modern humans. | ” |
We need to find some meta-analysis of this racist, (pseudo)scientistic theosophical doctrine. Anyone up for some serious reading on where Blavatsky got her ideas and how much of this mythology she or other theosophists actually believed?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Good call. We can focus on making a good article out of The Secret Doctrine, as that does appear to satisfy WP:N. We need to add some inline citations to that article to bring it up to standards. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the Root Race concept is sufficiently significant in Theosophy to merit its own article. Of course it's a ludicrous "theory", but is historically significant. It was also developed and modified by later writers. I don't actually think the article is all that bad. As long as you read it as a potted summary of B's theories, it's informative and useful. You don't have to believe that the "second root race" was "yellow", to find it a valuable piece of information - should you want to impress your friends with your knowledge of theosophical lore. I think it's absolutely fndamental not to confuse describing historical theories with promoting them. Otherwise we'd be deleting articles on stories from Greek mythology on the grounds that they are "fringe" beliefs. Paul B ( talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This article on some ancient Indian tribal group is up for deletion. A quick viewing shows the likelihood of extreme nonsense (e.g. the need for a map of Jutland in the article). Mangoe ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
we need a
WP:GOTRA guideline for more efficient processing of these. I cringe at the thought of trying to clean this up single-handendly, against the active resistance of hundreds of Indian editors each protecting the article on his own family name.
The Jat gotras appear to be particularly bad, what with the constant Scythian legends thrown in. If we can clean out these, we should be in a position to tackle the rest. Therefore, bold Wikipedians, I give you {{
Gotras of Jats}}:
-- dab (𒁳) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks Simon. Of course my comment wasn't meant to be in any kind of opposition to dab and Spaceman's heroic efforts in these fields. As a contribution to a sources discussion, can I ask if we have agreement that the 19th century colonial administrator Edgar Thurston is never sufficient on his own. Also outdated: History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon, first published 1938. It's cited by 7 articles and many more link to the Joon bio. The bio says he "is" a historian but since it also says his son, an army major, was killed in 1940, I think it's very unlikely the father is still living. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll echo Abecedare's comments on this one, it's not a question of notability as much as verifiability; the editorial issue is not restricted to drive-by vandals either. Most often, the "owners" of these works of fiction are established editors with 2000+ edits who operate through multiple socks on different gotras to push their POV giving the appearance of multiple editors (e.g. this case of a sockmaster with 4+ socks of 2000+ contribs). In a lot of cases, this kind of nonsense stays within the walled gardens so extensive damage isn't done to the 'pedia and it's easy to ignore (while it's a very absurd way to look at things, it helps me retain my sanity). However, the fact that they've been allowed to do this emboldens these warriors and you soon find this benign tumor suddenly turning malignant and the creepers get out of the walled gardens to cause problems in general. Take the case of Category:Places named after Gujjars (at CfD currently), now this has a list of a few in it that are entirely unsourced and a cursory search doesn't confirm anything; this goes on to give misinformation about topics like Ambala and Gujarat that are more important to the readers of the encyclopaedia than these random assortment of gotras. Also take a look at Kshatriya, I had to full-protect a horrible page because of further crap being added in. This page has 500+ views per day and 79 watchers. Compare that to a random gotra -- Dhetarwal which has less than 30 watchers (likely one or two) and less than five views per day on average. But both articles compete with each other on the % of junk within. However in terms of raw crap index, the Kshatriya page wins easily.
Given the above, I think we need to approach the topic from a different angle. Start with the broad groups and then move down to the gotras. Addressing the gotras, while necessary, has minimal benefit because no one really reads them other than the casteists themselves, while articles like Kshatriya etc have a much broader audience and has a greater potential to do damage. I'd suggest the following steps to address the caste/clan/gotra cruft:
Order of focus:
The other part of the activity is to qualify the sources, most of the articles in a caste category are single sourced to something written by a caste "historian" and we should address that particular work before getting into clean up of the related set of articles. If there are a few people ready to take on this task in a structured manner, we can create a project space for this under Wikiproject India and deal with it. Opinions? cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I like your exposition of the problem. Regarding the sources, they almost invariably start out with Tod, and a handful of other 19th century British ethnographers. Sometimes, a more recent work by a caste historian (i.e. a member of the caste in question who has written a book about his own caste, most of the time in Hindi or Punjabi). I would further note that this problem is mainly seen at Kshatriya caste gotras, and to a lesser degree Brahmin gotras. The Brahmin gotra articles are a pathetic mess, but they usually do without all the crazy fantasies My suggestion would be:
Compare to the hair-rising cruft we get in Rajput or Punjabi/Jat Kshatriya articles to the comparatively polished Iyer or Brahmin communities. There is a lot of Brahmin listcruft (e.g. List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames) but at least it appears the Brahmin family historians do not indulge in "pure Aryan bloodline confirmed by eminent historians" type narratives. Based on this, I think we can say that the root category of this entire problem is Category:Punjabi tribes. -- dab (𒁳) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
From Zang-fu: "A growing number of social scientists are referring to Chinese Medicine as a mature scientific system, noting that science in general is socially constructed, rather than evidence-based.[1]" Can someone look into this? I can't address it now. Sifaka talk 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
( 2 edit conflicts)
The page is full of {{fact}} templates which is always a bad sign. While there appears to be some legitimate concern about this, the page at the current is a mess, e.g. "charging that the HAARP could be seeking ways to destroy or disable enemy spacecraft" "Other theorists extended the power of HAARP: "HAARP... can change weather patterns over whole continents, jam global communications systems, disrupt mental processes, manipulate the earth’s upper atmosphere." (emphasis mine) Nil Einne ( talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Experiencing a teensy bit of self-doubt over a contentious edit so I want to provide a diff that encapsulates it for review. [40]
My issue is with the use of two pieces of somewhat purple prose: 1) "Vibrating Palm was revealed to the world by Kah Wah Lee in the February, 1972 issue of Black Belt Magazine."
And 2) "This was the first published articles to address the Vibrating Palm with details of the technique and scientific/conceptual explanations." (referencing an IKF article).
The first example is simply a matter of peacock words. That's not the main area of my self-doubt. The second is the one on-topic for the fringe theories noticeboard.
A lot of work has gone into the touch of death article to address this mythical technique from a neutral and, above all, rational perspective. Most serious martial arts research tends to discount Qi techniques as being an outmoded belief at best and fraud at worst. The touch of death appears, upon scrutiny, to have mainly fictional sources, literally fictional as very few references to such Dianxue can be found outside of Wuxia novels prior to the second half of the 20th century.
I deleted this paragraph twice partially because of the peacockery in the first half and partially because of the suggestion in the second half that there were scientific explanations available for the fictional technique of the "Vibrating Palm".
Unfortunately high quality references are hard to come by in the martial arts community. The magazines mostly hire freelancers and they are not peer-reviewed academic journals by any definition of the word. Bullshido is not a WP:RS because it's a web forum. Heck, it's hard enough just keeping it from getting AfD'd. Am I being too harsh excising this paragraph? At least one other editor on the page thinks so - and said as much on the talk page. As it involves fringe claims I thought I'd see what you guys think. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor of Gas chamber is repeatedly reinserting passages denying the use of gas chambers in Nazi death camps. WP:RSN has soundly rejected the sources, and WP:POVN has rejected the editors assertion of a lack of neutrality by not including these claims. Please give opinions on the whether these inclusions are fringe. Example edit: [41]. Hohum ( talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor Professional Assassin ( talk · contribs) is now blocked indefinitely. Assertions that gas chambers did not exist in Nazi extermination camps are fringe. Assuming that the issue has been discussed before, I'm closing this thread as resolved. (Non-admin closure.) Cs32en Talk to me 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling this would sort itself out pretty quick. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
not so much a case of WP:FRINGE but of WP:TIGERS. We do tend to be able to deal with these rather more effectively. -- dab (𒁳) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been a proposal to make large changes to this article, and some overtagging in response to my revert of those changes. I reverted as they were fairly large changes and not discussed. More eyes, review and discussion would be welcome at the article talk page. Verbal chat
Parts of that wording is a quote, so put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Problem solved. Since its the mainstream POV, our policies regarding weight and undue allow require giving it prominence. Normally such wording is just plain commonsense, as in "the earth is round", but since some people question it (of course supporters of quackery will always dispute such statements...duh..!), attribution and putting it in quotation marks solves the problem. That it should be removed because it's a POV is a nonsense argument, since much content here is by nature a POV and has to be sourced, and in very controversial situations we can attribute such statements. Interestingly enough, if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here....
Read our policies folks:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Could use some attention. Dougweller ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
For the past 2 years or so, a dynamic IP user has been adding information to the North American Aerospace Defense Command article. The consensus on the talk page is that this info is misleading and highly POV, and does not belong. I restored the pre-POV version, including unrelated info that the IP removed, last month. Today, the IP has again re-added his POV material, including badly formatted citations which are generally out of context, per this diff.
The IP user signed one of his posts as "Dean Jackson", so I decided to look his name up on Google. Well, out of many different people, I found this link. He's not citing his own "report", but he is adding the same sources, and making the same conclusions. From Dean Jackson's website - DNotice Corrects Wikipedia On NORAD's Monitoring Capabilities Of American Skies On 9/11 at http://dnotice.org/ From another website Dean Jackson is a writer and 9/11 researcher in Washington, DC. His website, DNotice.org provides rigorous analysis of major issues concerning government malfeasance.
He has posted copious defenses of his material on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command over the past year and a half, much of it repetive! He does not link to his own sites or works in WP, but much of what he posts is OR or Synthesis. His apparent premise is that that NORAD lied about not tracking and watching civilian air trafic within the US, and so therefore this proves they were in on the 9/11 attacks, as the had to know about it, but did't stop it.
Any help in resolving this matter would be appreciated, as it has been going on for some time. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An editor (Afteread) has recently made a slew of edits on Bogdanov Affair. By and large, these edits have been productive, but I'm concerned that some of the edits are injecting personal opinion rather than verifiable claims into the article. Perhaps a few more eyes on the page would be helpful. Phiwum ( talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs), evidently something of a long-term trouble-maker, is apparently trying to argue (at Talk:Hindu mythology) that Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact, because neither Dbachmann nor myself has a time machine to verify that Indra didn't exist, or actually slay a real dragon. A somewhat startling reversal of the burden of proof, it certainly makes for excellent entertainment. This hasn't got far, beyond the addition (swiftly reverted) of a bunch of highly tendentious {{ fact}} tags, but some more eyes would be appreciated, and the humour value certainly makes this worthwhile. Moreschi ( talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
BalanceRestored ( talk · contribs) is indeed something of a long-term troublemaker. He has escaped being banned because he is pronouncedly un-aggressive and mostly confines himself to trolling talkpages. When I say trolling I refer to what I think is a deliberate show of naiveté bordering on complete lack of basic comprehension. He is taking the stance of Socrates, which is the stance of a four-year-old toddler, that if you put completely naive questions to people long enough sooner or later they realize that they really know nothing. This may be cool for a guru, a Zen master or a Greek philosopher, but it is of course in egregious violation of everything Wikipedia aims to be, and it is also an insult to the intelligence of every editor unfortunate enough to come across this user.
So, while BR isn't doing any positive damage, he has also failed to contribute or show a good faith interest in contributing to the project and I believe a community ban is well arguable at this point.
This is purely a question of user conduct, btw, because BR isn't making any points of content worth bringing up even on this board. -- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A far more interesting case is ICouldBeWrong ( talk · contribs). He is the exact opposite of BR in that he is displaying his intelligence openly, and I haven't quite figured him out, but I strongly suspect an attempt at camouflaging a Hindutva account. I have only very rarely encountered elaborate attempts at building "reputation" for a new account in making actual useful contributions in another area before turning to the actual agenda. The approach may be "intelligent" because you have plausible deniability, but then it never really works because you spend far too much time on unrelated items for the little effect you end up having on the actual issue. It's interesting to see people try this but one should not overestimate the damage they do. Hell, they even contribute good content even if it's only as part of their cover :) -- dab (𒁳) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Pleas esee Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy ( Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps introducing WP:OR with unreferenced "claraifications" for the vaguer parts of this vague piece of pseudo-science. Furthermore thye IP editor is claiming I have a WP:COI because of my materialist and skeptical user badges on my user page. Eyes needed. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes there have been claims that the concept of " Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide in Genocide: a sociological perspective by Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is a fringe theory? Any comments? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
After a relatively quiet period there's lots of dispute on this article once more. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
"Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory citation needed.-- Termer ( talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
{undent} Well, yes, Judith always is good at the UCS stuff. My statements were rather a specific response to Brangifer's comments. As somebody who does not consider the historicity of JC to be entirely settled but who is entirely unthreatened if it turned out that he did exist I felt a response was necessary. Judith has, as usual, cut nicely to the heart of the matter. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the Christ myth theory is there are WP:RS that show the idea is not exclusively the idea that Jesus didn't exist but that he has been mythologized so much little if anything remains of the actual man. You have Dodd, C. H. (1938) who said t could include reports of an "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name", Price called Wells a Christ-myth theorist in 1999 and 2002 even though Wells was accepting a historical 1st century teacher behind Q back in 1996, and Pike with his "Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin."
The list of supporters is little help either as even people like Schweitzer get confused and change their positions of who belongs where. For example, Schweitzer includes James George Frazer (who held there was a historical Jesus) with Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in 1931. Bromiley has similar problems as he mixes in Lucian and Bertrand Russell together with Wells. The debate is not if the non-historical position is fringe--we can all agree that is fringe but if the very term "Christ myth theory" is exclusively use in that manner and the WP:RS shows it is not.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of you may or may not remember some of the issues related to advocacy for chronic Lyme disease here awhile back (if not, Talk:Lyme disease and its archives bear mute witness). In any case, I've found myself in a bit of a back-and-forth with another editor at Under Our Skin, an article about a film which advocates one side of this political/medical controversy. The article appears generally untrafficked, so to break the cycle of back-and-forth I'd like to invite outside eyes and opinions. MastCell Talk 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In this article, it is being claimed that Plovdiv has a history going back 6000 years and is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities. Yet this claim is sourced to a single source that is primarily environmental, not archeological in focus, and hence off-topic and inappropriate. Even worse, the phrase is lifted verbatim from the source, and then cut-and-pasted twice in the article (firstly in the second sentence of the lead, then again in the history section). Further on, in the History section it is claimed that an established settlement existed in Plovdiv since the 7th millennium BC. This is sourced the Plovdiv Museum website (a dead link) and to two inaccessible Bulgarian language publications. These are exceptional claims, and exceptional claims require high-quality sources. If the claim that Plovdiv is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited city were reflected in the international academic consensus, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream English-language reliable sources that would reflect this consensus. This is clearly NOT the case here, the case here being one of "antiquity frenzy", fringe-POV pushing, WP:UNDUE and manipulation of WP:RS. The arguments put forth by the users that support these claims are even more outrageous [7], using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sarcasm, and sophistry. I brought this up on the article talkpage [8] and this [9] was the response I got. Any help in dealing with this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Athenean ( talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Back in September, I nominated Radon therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion because I felt that no article was better that that article. The result was a NAC keep for lack of grounds to delete. Since then, it's improvement has been decidedly underwhelming. Article essentially claims that radon therapy should be generally recognized as safe and effective. See talk page for brief discussion of "big pharma" (a hallmark of medical fringe theories and pseudoscience). Since radon hasn't seriously been used as a treatment since ~1970's (at least in the U.S.), the article needs some help (at a minimum; I think it should ideally be completely rewritten). -- Thin boy 00 @216, i.e. 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's now been gutted to due (apparent) copyvio and sourcing, and now basically a stub. Should we mark as resolved? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Having had some problems at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, I decided to see how many article reference or mention Menzies. A lot, it seems, see [11] - anyone want to help clear up any misusing him as a source? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed changes to the Tom Van Flandern article, here: Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion. Flandern's ideas have at times been labelled fringe, so any input from editors who watch this page would probably be appreciated. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit at the main article as the editor has a clear COI, and he had changed cited text. He has, as I ask him to, brought it to the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if someone less involved with the article took a look. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like the assembled masses to provide insight as to whether global warming scepticism is "fringe" as defined in Wikipedia. While this scepticism is not mainstream, there are nonetheless significant papers published by notable scientists in reputable academic journals ( here's one of the latest) and there is significant support within the scientific community. Therefore, I would classify global warming scepticism as a minority viewpoint. I ask in particular because two editors are apparently deadset (I'm trying to determine their exact position) against any statement from a global warming sceptic supporting Jim Inhofe, using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as their argument. Honestly, the argument that the article cannot include a quote from a (or any) sceptic supporting Sen. Inhfoe is just incredible to me. Madman ( talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the Global Warming or Climate Change skeptics I think it is counter productive to label them fringe. The term fringe is often used to establish preconceived ideas and lead people to believe one point of view before the research is done. Regardless of whether you call it fringe or not the same scientific process should be done to determine whether anything is true or not. Furthermore another big problem is the excessive coverage on the most controversial aspect of pollution. This is distracting the public from other important aspects of pollution that are not in dispute or shouldn’t be like the pollution of many lakes and rivers depriving the people of clean water to drink and deforestation. These things are clear and they need to be addressed yet they are being ignored. If more attention can be drawn to other aspects of this it could lead to productive activity rather than never ending debate and more pollution. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to take a strong view on this particular issue, not being an expert. But, the extent to which a sceptic is judged a crank or denialist or what have you depends on the evidence underlying the position to be denied. Generally, anyone denying established mathematical theorems is regarded as cranky in the mathematical profession. That is because of the rigour of mathematical proof, and because there is no empirical evidence required for mathematics. Anyone denying accepted science for which there is a great deal of disparate and different evidence, is rightly regarded as cranky, rather than sceptical. E.g. the weight of evidence on the age of the earth comes from so many different sources and disciplines that any other explanation is highly improbable.
Turning to global warming. What probability attaches to the empirical evidence we have? Scepticism about the long-term historical temperature may be justified because of of the Divergence problem. The short term historical record shows a recent increase in temperature, but what probability attaches to it being a trend, rather than noise? I don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, but looking at the temperature record does not suggest the recent 'trend' is a six standard deviation change or anything like that. I believe I could easily generate a random number sequence with similar characteristics.
Turning to the theoretical evidence. This seems stronger, but again, what probability attaches to it? If a very high one, why the need for empirical evidence at all? We don't check different triangles to see if the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees. The theory of triangles is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do this. From what I have read in the climate change literature (I mean academic peer-reviewed papers) there is considerable uncertainty about the climate models.
I'm not saying any of the theory is wrong, nor that the weight of probability does not support the current scientific consensus. What I am saying is that the probability of the current consensus being wrong is high enough that we shouldn't call a global warming sceptic a crank or a denialist, both of which are pejorative terms. I'm a GW sceptic, in that nothing I have read suggests strongly to me that there is a warming trend caused by human activity. Some of the evidence is compelling I admit - but not compelling in the way that the evidence for the age of the Earth is compelling. HistorianofScience ( talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
PS A site search of crank.net does not include any global warming sceptics. HistorianofScience ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The posts above took me to the policy page. I note that most of the page talks about fringe theories rather than scepticism. GW scepticism is not a theory. All scepticism is negative, anti-theory. A sceptic simply wants to be persuaded. Their job is to point out flawed logic or assumptions or methodology in other theories, not to promote their own. HistorianofScience ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
See above. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. yet there are those who deny the Cantor's mathematics [15]. There are those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust [16]. But they are surely in a quite different category from AGW secptics. HistorianofScience ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Taken from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How do we handle old history books and articles by members of the Greater India Society (e.g. Majumdar, Bagchi, see Greater India for a helpful explanation of where they were coming from)? Should ideas sourced to them be taken out completely on the basis that their scholarship was nationalistic and is now long superseded? Or do we need to take a more subtle approach? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, they are primary sources that can be cited as primary sources for the topics of Indian and particularly Bengali nationalism and cultural chauvinism. -- dab (𒁳) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with R.C Majumdar. Assorted Marxists and Islamophiles don't like him, but smearing him as a "Greater India society ideologue" or whatnot deserves even more contempt than this sentence would suggest. rudra ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
See here. Now, I don't know about these studies, but I do know sourcing a major statement in the lead with primary sources which negates a statement sourced with multiple secondary sources, and restating the reasoning behind the conclusions is a major red flag.
From:
Magnet therapy is considered pseudoscientific due to both physical and biological implausibility, as well as a lack of any established effect on health or healing.
To:
Magnet therapy was originally considered as pseudoscience, primarily due to inconsistent research findings. (same secondary sources source this statement as the previous)
However, more systematic research has confirmed that strong static magnetic fields from permanent magnets are able to constrict and dilate the walls of capillary blood vessels. This reduces inflammation and increases blood circulation respectively.[6] Static magnet therapy has potentially effective applications in relief of pain and swelling after sports injury and blunt trauma, as well as wound healing after surgery.[7][8]
It seems the latter paragraph is some primary sources strung together with a bit of OR. It looks like there could be something to these studies, but I'd like a to see a review from a reliable medical journal that supports these studies. Auntie E. 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I share the concerns voiced by Auntie E. and Fences and windows. It appears that Spades and an IP (possibly their's) is single handedly and as an SPA totally rewriting the article. I notice that I had previously reverted what at first appeared to be vandalism, but maybe I shouldn't have done that. It might have been the right thing to do.
What's not being dealt with properly is the difference between alternative medicine use and mainstream use. Previously the article dealt with alternative medicine use, but it looks like the SPA is mixing things up in a confusing manner. If it's proven to work, then it's not alternative medicine, yet there is still unproven and quackish use of magnets going on. The differences need to be made clear.
I have noted my concerns on the talk page there. More eyes are needed there pretty fast as the SPA is working fast. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=magnetic+field+%22bone+growth%22
wikimed script outputCount is 16 versus 16 Guo, X; Chan, YL; Cheng, JC; Burwell, RG; Dangerfield, PH (Nov 2005). "Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis--result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE". European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 14 (9): 862–73. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMID 16133084.
Stanosz, S; Wysocki, K (Sep 2004). "[The appreciation of bone growth factor in women with osteoporosis exposing on freetransition magnetic field]". Polski merkuriusz lekarski : organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego. 17 (99): 229–31. PMID 15628046.
Johnson, MT; Nindl, G (2004). "Noninvasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: current and emerging therapeutic potential". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 40: 469–74. PMID 15134003.
Markaki, AE (Aug 2004). "Magneto-mechanical stimulation of bone growth in a bonded array of ferromagnetic fibres". Biomaterials. 25 (19): 4805–15. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMID 15120527.
Linovitz, RJ; Bernhardt, M; Green, D; Law, MD; McGuire, RA; Montesano, PX; Rechtine, G; Salib, RM; Ryaby, JT; Faden, JS; Ponder, R; Muenz, LR; Magee, FP; Garfin, SA (1 Jul 2002). "Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study". Spine. 27 (13): 1383–9, discussion 1389. PMID 12131732.
Hanft, JR; Landsman, A; Surprenant, M. "The role of combined magnetic field bone growth stimulation as an adjunct in the treatment of neuroarthropathy/Charcot joint: an expanded pilot study". The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 37 (6): 510–5, discussion 550-1. PMID 9879046.
Mitchell, MJ. "Radiation-induced changes in bone". Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 18 (5): 1125–36, quiz 1242-3. PMID 9747611.
Linder-Aronson, A; Rygh, P; Lindskog, S (Dec 1996). "Tissue response to space closure in monkeys: a comparison of orthodontic magnets and superelastic coil springs". European journal of orthodontics. 18 (6): 581–8. PMID 9009422.
McCleary, VL; Aasen, GH (1991). "Low magnetic field effects on embryonic bone growth". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 27: 205–17. PMID 2065156.
Papatheofanis, FJ (Mar 1989). "Short-term effect of exposure to intense magnetic fields on hematologic indices of bone metabolism". Investigative radiology. 24 (3): 221–3. PMID 2753637.
Dormer, KJ; McGee, M; Hough, JV; Shew, RL (Nov 1986). "An implantable hearing device: osseointegration of a titanium-magnet temporal bone stimulator". The American journal of otology. 7 (6): 399–408. PMID 3812640.
Dunn, AW (Dec 1984). "Electrical stimulation in treatment of delayed union and nonunion of fractures and osteotomies". Southern medical journal. 77 (12): 1530–4. PMID 6390697.
Haupt, HA (Jan 1984). "Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis". Southern medical journal. 77 (1): 56–64. PMID 6364371.
Smith, RL (Dec 1983). "Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on bone growth and articular cartilage". Clinical orthopaedics and related research (181): 277–82. PMID 6641061.
Reddy, GN (Oct 1983). "A variable pulse-burst electromagnetic generator for electrical stimulation of biological systems". Journal of biomedical engineering. 5 (4): 336–9. PMID 6632846.
Reddy, GN; Tuai, GL. "A pulsed electromagnetic stimulator for bone-growth studies". Medical instrumentation. 17 (5): 347–50. PMID 6646021.
I was also concerned about reasoning from plausibility, not necessarily in a negative way but you have to be careful. I'm pushing the improved predictive value of literature but you want to reason from the known, not the lack of knowledge and AFAIK these isn't much known about this and it doesn't obviously require that accept alws be ignored. ( corrections appreciated) Confirmation bias, or reasonaing along the lines of "this has to work" has been a problem.
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to provide my response to your shared concerns regarding the changes to the Magnet Therapy article. It was not my intention to drastically change Magnet Therapy from "pseudoscience" to "proven medical treatment". As noted in my response on Talk:Magnet_therapy, Magnet Therapy more closely fits an experimental medicine phase. It is not clearly proven, nor unproven. Dosage parameters and applications as a therapeutic method are not agreed upon. However specific health effects (beyond "pain relief") have been proven and repeated, and a general consensus exists for the theory of its mechanism of action (affecting ion channels).
My disapproval is strongest for the opening description used in the original version of the article, which states:
This statement is completely false based on several hundred studies that can be found on PubMed focusing on the health effects of Static Magnetic Fields (SMF).
To prove my point, consider the evidence supporting SMF effects on blood microcirculation. This is blood flow in capillaries. Fences and windows stated I was "cherry-picking positive results". Fences also adds that, "the studies done so far are poor and lack dosing information so are mostly uninterpretable." I cited 3 studies and 1 article specifically in relation to SMF research on microcirculation. To some, it may appear to be cherry-picking, however the cumulative evidence is overwhelming.
I'd like to post a list of research studies found on PubMed specifically centering on SMF effects on blood microcirculation and capillaries. Nearly every one of these studies states specific dosage (magnetic field strength used, exposure time, etc.), and have noted significant effects as compared to control groups. This information alone disproves the original article's opening introduction claiming "physical and biological implausibility" and "lack of any established effect on health". These are ALL the studies I could find. If you find more, please bring them to my attention.
Understand I am not here to "vandalize" the article. The article, as was written, is severely biased. It omits a vast amount of information. Far worse, several of the reviews and primary research studies cited in the article are completely unrelated to magnetic therapy. (see my Response in Talk:Magnet_therapy)
I welcome future discussion and assistance to help avoid confusing Magnet Therapy as "mainstream medicine", which apparently my writing was faulty of. However, to balance the equation in an unbiased manner, the Magnet Therapy article needs to be re-written to convey the current status of related research and reviews (both positive and negative), its current (unproven) usage, and the potential applications being investigated. ( Spades07 ( talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Research on Static Magnetic Field Effects on Microcirculation and Capillaries
Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Luedemann S, Brix G, Dellian M, Berghaus A, Strieth S (September 2009). "Static magnetic fields impair angiogenesis and growth of solid tumors in vivo". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 8 (18): 1756–62. PMID 19633422.
Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Dellian M, Luedemann S, Griebel J, Bellemann M, Berghaus A, Brix G (June 2008). "Static magnetic fields induce blood flow decrease and platelet adherence in tumor microvessels". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 7 (6): 814–9. PMID 18340115.
Morris CE, Skalak TC (January 2008). "Acute exposure to a moderate strength static magnetic field reduces edema formation in rats". American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 294 (1): H50–7. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00529.2007. PMID 17982018.
Brix G, Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Dellian M, Griebel J, Eichhorn ME, Andrā W, Bellemann ME (January 2008). "Static magnetic fields affect capillary flow of red blood cells in striated skin muscle". Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994). 15 (1): 15–26. doi: 10.1080/10739680701410850. PMID 17952798.
Morris CE, Skalak TC (August 2007). "Chronic static magnetic field exposure alters microvessel enlargement resulting from surgical intervention". Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985). 103 (2): 629–36. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01133.2006. PMID 17478604.
Gmitrov J (August 2007). "Static magnetic field effect on the arterial baroreflex-mediated control of microcirculation: implications for cardiovascular effects due to environmental magnetic fields". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 46 (3): 281–90. doi: 10.1007/s00411-007-0115-2. PMID 17530271.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (July 2007). "Effects of 12 mT static magnetic field on sympathetic agonist-induced hypertension in Wistar rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 28 (5): 369–78. doi: 10.1002/bem.20307. PMID 17330852.
Gmitrov J (March 2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi: 10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578.
Gmitrov J (March 2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi: 10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578.
Xu S, Tomita N, Ikeuchi K, Ikada Y (March 2007). "Recovery of Small-Sized Blood Vessels in Ischemic Bone Under Static Magnetic Field". Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM. 4 (1): 59–63. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nel055. PMC 1810364. PMID 17342242.
Li Z, Tam EW, Mak AF, Lau RY (2007). "Wavelet analysis of the effects of static magnetic field on skin blood flowmotion: investigation using an in vivo rat model". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 21 (1): 61–8. PMID 17354615.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2005). "Effects of neck exposure to 5.5 mT static magnetic field on pharmacologically modulated blood pressure in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (6): 469–80. doi: 10.1002/bem.20115. PMID 16108042.
Okano H, Masuda H, Ohkubo C (April 2005). "Decreased plasma levels of nitric oxide metabolites, angiotensin II, and aldosterone in spontaneously hypertensive rats exposed to 5 mT static magnetic field". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (3): 161–72. doi: 10.1002/bem.20055. PMID 15768432.
Mayrovitz HN, Groseclose EE (January 2005). "Effects of a static magnetic field of either polarity on skin microcirculation". Microvascular Research. 69 (1–2): 24–7. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2004.11.002. PMID 15797257.
Morris C, Skalak T (January 2005). "Static magnetic fields alter arteriolar tone in vivo". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (1): 1–9. doi: 10.1002/bem.20047. PMID 15605401.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2003). "Effects of static magnetic fields on plasma levels of angiotensin II and aldosterone associated with arterial blood pressure in genetically hypertensive rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (6): 403–12. doi: 10.1002/bem.10139. PMID 12929159.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (February 2003). "Anti-pressor effects of whole body exposure to static magnetic field on pharmacologically induced hypertension in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (2): 139–47. doi: 10.1002/bem.10092. PMID 12524681.
Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C, Okano H (April 2002). "Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 23 (3): 224–9. PMID 11891752.
Okano H, Ohkubo C (September 2001). "Modulatory effects of static magnetic fields on blood pressure in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 22 (6): 408–18. PMID 11536282.
Okano H, Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C (1999). "Biphasic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 20 (3): 161–71. PMID 10194558.
Xu S, Okano H, Ohkubo C (1998). "Subchronic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 12 (4): 383–9. PMID 9706489.
Ohkubo C, Xu S (1997). "Acute effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 11 (3): 221–5. PMID 9239515.
Gmitrov J, Ivanco I, Gmitrová A (1990). "Magnetic field effect on blood pressure regulation". Physiologia Bohemoslovaca. 39 (4): 327–34. PMID 2150561.
Lud GV, Demeckiy AM (1990). "Use of permanent magnetic field in reconstructive surgery of the main arteries (experimental study)". Acta Chirurgiae Plasticae. 32 (1): 28–34. PMID 1694619.
Just wikified this and took out a large number of potentially BLP-violating examples. It seems to be a valid technique - google scholar gives a few hits - but the article is currently unreferenced and it does seem that a lot of really daft and unverified ideas can attach to the field. Has anyone any expertise in this area, or can help find an expert? I'm not sure that there's a relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
An essay entry I found. It is about a concept that I am told is "salient" and also "the key to unlock the secrets of advanced kung fu". -- dab (𒁳) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
excellent work, and quick! Pure wiki kung fu. -- dab (𒁳) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
it turns out it should probably all be merged into Neijia. See also pushing hands, Silk reeling. -- dab (𒁳) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The way I understand it, Nei Jing and Nei Jia are not synonymous: Nei Jing is the skill and Nei Jia are the schools teaching this skill. For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is still one single topic. -- dab (𒁳) 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I also spent some more time tending this corner and I think it's reasonably ok, albeit poorly referenced in general. But there is Internal alchemy which is completely inacceptable in its nonchalant conflation of Taoism and Hermeticism. -- dab (𒁳) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone un-redirected Nei Jing, so I re-redirected it. Please watchlist. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at this after I left it alone for a couple of months. A classic WP:FRINGE case, not all-out lunatic, but as mad as you can get and still be scholarly reviewed. In fact rather similar to the problems we see at New Chronology (Rohl). There are a number of polite reviews but nobody would even dream of subscribing to the core thesis. There are the usual problems with presenting the topic duly, i.e. accurately without creating the impression that anyone is taking it at all seriously, as usual further complicated by a couple aficionado editors who want the theory seen presented in the best light that is at all arguable. -- dab (𒁳) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The academese used to write this IP edit makes it rather hard to figure out what is actually being proposed here, but I think it could use some attention. Moreschi ( talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Entirely sourced to conspiracy websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, and UFO literature. Article infobox asserts this "location" is "active". Criticism is ghettoized (and largely OR, since no reliable sources appear to give this topic any attention). Ripe for cleanup. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've put it to question wheter this counts as a WP:RS at the appropriate message board. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A lot of material about Marian apparitions appears to be quite credulously presented. A short list from what I briefly encountered today:
The attention of some FTN regulars to this topic area is desperately needed. A lot of secular and skeptical authorities have written about the general phenomena and most of the notable apparitions. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is excessive skepticism, it is undisputed that these apparitions are "real" in the sense that people do experience them. Not even the Roman Catholic Church claims anything beyond this, other than that it is a matter of Faith to choose to interpret such experiences as divine, so there is nothing fringy about it, it's just human religious experience. Creating separate "secular view" sections would appear as of the lady-protests-too-much kind. It is perfectly straightforward to treat visionary experience as a secular (neurological) topic beginning to end, no "however" clauses are necessary. -- dab (𒁳) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
User:William S. Saturn seems to be an ideologically-motivated user with no regards for WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Recently he unilaterally moved the page "Iran and state terrorism" to a new POV-tainted called State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime [25] without filling a request for move, seeking a consensus, or initiating any discussion at all, to the dismay of other editors. [26] Further, he made a bunch of questionable edits, as outlined by another user here. [27] He has also been edit-warring on Iraq War to add Iran as a combatant of the war. [28] Given his history of edit-warring, POV-pushing and stubbornness, I really don't wish to get engaged in an edit-war with this person, and appreciate it if the other editors here could share their thought on how to handle such an editor, and keep an eye on these pages. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime" is not a fringe theory so much as a political opinion, or a politically biased choice of vocabulary in discussing recent headlines. Try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
If I may say so, Iran and state terrorism is an appaling example of "zomg NPOV" weasling gone wrong. How many perpetrators of state terrorism can you have per state? That's right, just the state itself, otherwise it wouldn't be state terrorism. Hence "Iran and state terrorism" is a silly title. -- dab (#56435;) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
More editorial and administrative eyes would probably be useful at House of Numbers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a film that espouses AIDS denialism, and it has proven quite popular as a forum for accounts which espouse a similar agenda (currently, Sarcher70 ( talk · contribs) is up to 5RR or so). Anyhow, more eyes would probably help ensure that the site's policies are not getting trampled in the rush to prove that HIV is harmless. MastCell Talk 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Transcendental Meditation movement of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi proposes that the group practice of meditation advanced techniques, the TM-Sidhi program, leads to two separate phenomenon. First, they assert that practitioners spontaneously rise off the ground in the first stage of a three stage progression toward full flying. They have demonstrated this phenomenon and outside observers say that it appears to be ordinary hopping.
Second, the movement asserts that even this first stage of Yogic Flying is sufficient to create a field of coherence which radiates out to affect the surrounding population of non-practitioners and protect them from negativity, including everything from crime and accidents to bad weather and pollen. They call this the Maharishi Effect (ME) and say that it makes communities and even nations invincible through a mechanism comparable to the Meissner Effect, and which is propagated through quantum consciousness. They, and no one else, have conducted dozens of scientific studies which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. At least three of those studies have received outside notice and comment, almost all of which is skeptical of the hypothesis and some of which say that the studies were flawed. The theory and practice have been called "pseudoscience". One of the proponents, John Hagelin, appeared in the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? and received an Ig Nobel Prize for his research. Some editors assert that it is not a fringe theory since it has been published in peer reviewed journals and has received popular attention. Other editors, including myself, say that there is no sign of it being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
For the purposes of this guideline, would it be correct to categorize Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect as fringe theories? If it is, how much weight should be given to studies of the effect conducted by members of the movement which have not received comment in any secondary sources? Will Beback talk 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have always thought that people will need to be really desperate for a guru before choosing to follow this one. I don't think this falls under "fringe theory" so much as pseudoscience, similar to other quasi-religious topics like Scientology etc. The fact that they apparently managed to get some of this stuff into peer-reviewed journals (on what?) might actually raise (not lower) this topic to the status of "fringe theory", but I would be hesitant to go so far to call something a fringe theory just because some scholars were annoyed enough to note they think it is nonsense. For all practical purposes, this is just pseudoscience of the quantum-mysticism type. -- dab (𒁳) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
it turns out that problems these article suffer is apparent WP:COI editing on the part of Littleolive oil ( talk · contribs). Apart from this, there appear to be a number of good editors already giving attention to the article. This should be comparatively easy to fix. -- dab (𒁳) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
ah, his may be more complicated than I thought. Apparently, the TM topics have a history of years of dispute and meatpuppetry. Anyway, I am confident a vigorous burst of input from some regulars on this board will work wonders.
For the record, the "Yogic flying" is indeed hopping. The hopping is sold as the "first stage" of levitation. The TM people do not claim that they have gone beyond that stage yet. They just hope that if they keep hopping, they might one day achieve levitation ( from the horse's mouth; Group practice of Yogic Flying, YogicFlyingChannel). So, there are no fringe claims that anyone is in fact levitating, and thus nothing to be falsified. -- dab (𒁳) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
you are right, there is a phenomenological claim, quite apart from the ideological bizarreness, and that phenomenological claim was examined and failed to be found with any statistical relevance. That's just bad research and can be debunked as such, no problem. -- dab (𒁳) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
of course we should discuss these studies. But we should discuss them for what they are, within our WP:FRINGE guideline, i.e. we should discuss them, making clear that they hold no water. -- dab (𒁳) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what all the busy noise is about here. The Maharishi Effect and Yogic Flying are obviously both fringe theories/topics. There are reliable sources that document claims about both. Those reliable sources should be used ( in proper proportion) in the appropriate on-topic articles, just as we do with any other far afield topic or view. That's what the OP was asking and most of the discussion here is neither here nor there to his question. Vassyana ( talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course the ME hypothesis is the fringiest of the fringe. It has exactly zero acceptance in mainstream science. Those contending that getting a paper published means anything other than the paper getting published either completely misunderstand, or are deliberately misrepresenting what the peer review process is and means. None of these studies are ever cited by any non-TM Org related researcher, except when they are being dismissed as utter nonsense, data manipulation and the work of crackpots. Fladrif ( talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Simonm223, you are right that my choice of words was unfortunate. Emotionally loaded words tend to direct attention away from the main points being made. I have gone back and corrected those words in my statement just above and would appreciate it if the editors who are engaged in this conversation would re-read the substantive argument and respond in like manner (without the loaded words). ChemistryProf ( talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation: The studies, as far as I can see, have been published in some second tier sociology journals (such as Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law etc) and the scientific community has not bothered to look into the claimed physical principle of the Maharishi Effect. It doesn't really help to confuse such different fields, and refer to "scientific publications", "scientific discourse", "scientific discussion" etc as in some of the above comments. Abecedare ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that our TM article does not cite the most authoritative source on the subject:
which concluded:
Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.
Overall, we found the methodological quality of meditation research to be poor, with significant threats to validity in every major category of quality measured, regardless of study design.
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage overhealth education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients; RR was not superior to biofeedback in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients
Our TM article reaches almost the opposite conclusion based on quote mining and synthesis of primary sources; really needs to be rewritten. Abecedare ( talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) PS: It actually does cite the above review in the middle of Medical research subsection, and then tries to "balance" it by misrepresenting the conclusions of a later paper. Abecedare ( talk) 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
indeed. it is my experience that the way forward in such situations is to ignore the talkpage bickering and cut right to the chase, locating the most authoritative references. It is always a waste of time to tell editors they are being incivil, as this invariably degenerates in a schoolyard fight over who was incivil first, to the point where the actual question is buried and forgotten. The recommended course is to, whenever somebody begins to discuss civility, go straight to the relevant sources and compile a no-nonsense account of their take on the situation. In this case, Abecedare has done the honours. We shall now include these references and structure the article to reflect the mainstream judgement they establish. -- dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Fladrif no, and that is your misunderstanding and mischaracterization. However, I no longer feel it necessary to address your rude, uncivil comments and often untrue statements, nor to attempt to explain to any other editors whose language is consistently offensive. I've made my points here and they rest on the policy and guidelines. ( olive ( talk) 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Two other articles that need attention:
Wikipedia really needs to start scrutinizing medical claims as it (in theory) deals with WP:BLP issues, because such hokum propagated through wikipedia has a similar chance of doing real world harm. Abecedare ( talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with
uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be
rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results
An important point that no one here or in the WP guidelines has yet discussed is that secondary sources, including even systematic, quantitative meta-analyses, are subject to methodological weaknesses and biases just as primary peer-reviewed sources can be. Editors are not generally in a position to make that decision about a review. However, when third parties publish critiques, they need to be aired in the article. Evidence that the AHRQ review had multiple weaknesses nullifying a variety of its conclusions has been mentioned before in published articles and in various WP talk pages. If the group of editors here wants seriously to create better WP articles, then this qualification of secondary sources needs to be integrated into the guidelines. For certain purposes, secondary sources may legitimately supersede primary sources, but the opposite is also be true in some cases. I do not have time to lead a modification of these guidelines, but if some of you would take on that worthwhile task, it would benefit the quality of many WP articles. ChemistryProf ( talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it absolutely hilarious that ChemistryProf appears to argue that because many people think "1. Not an accurate source of info", Wikipedia should include more reports on fringe "research " advocating the "Maharishi Effect". It is appalling that only 61% of "those asked" were aware that Wikipedia should under no circumstances be cited as a primary source. We should aim at raising this figure to at least 90% by linking to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia more often. For your reading convenience:
This page in a nutshell: You should not use Wikipedia by itself for primary research (unless you are writing a paper about Wikipedia). |
Regarding ChemistryProf, if this user is really associated with "professional societies" involved in studies on Wikipedia, perhaps now would be a good time for him to begin familiarizing himself with the project fundamentals, the project aims and the project's scope. As for "37. information controlling coup.", it is true we lose quite some good editors because of WP:Experts are scum, but I am convinced that User:Ararat arev and many many others we have taken great pains to remove from the project would also gladly sign under "37." Understand this, as long as the "information controlling coup" has a clue and serves WP:ENC, this is actually what we are trying to achieve here. For the alternative, go there.
Quite frankly, because of the consistent failure to grok a point exhibited by the user, I begin to be annoyed by the grandiose "university professor, researcher, and author/editor". On Wikipedia, you are what you show you are capable of. If you want to wave around your real-life honours, you should at least go for {{ User committed identity}}. -- dab (𒁳) 11:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is the right place for this, if not send me to NPOV. An editor has noted on the talk page that the POV of the article seems to lack due criticism. This is not something I know about, but I'm hoping someone who watches this page does. Auntie E. ( talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots of spurious stuff in this article about a self-styled "stem cell expert". I'm going to attempt some radical article-surgery, but this will probably need more eyes. See this web page for more info. Looie496 ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this article makes some audacious claims with little in the way of analysis or rejoinders. It relies almost completely on primary source documents. Here are some choice quotes:
“ | Some emigrants from the remaining islands in the Atlantic settled on new islands to the east which later consolidated into what is now the district of the Abyssinian highlands and lands somewhat to the north. Atlantis perished through flooding and submergence in 9,564 BC. | ” |
“ | The second root race was colored golden yellow. Hyperborea included what is now Northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Northern Asia, and Kamchatka. The climate was tropical because Earth had not yet developed an axial tilt. | ” |
“ | The Lemurian root race began 34 1/2 million years ago, in the middle of what was then believed to be the Jurassic; thus, the people of Lemuria coexisted with the dinosaurs. The first three subraces of the Lemurians reproduced by laying eggs, but the fourth subrace, beginning 16 1/2 million years ago, began to reproduce like modern humans. | ” |
We need to find some meta-analysis of this racist, (pseudo)scientistic theosophical doctrine. Anyone up for some serious reading on where Blavatsky got her ideas and how much of this mythology she or other theosophists actually believed?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Good call. We can focus on making a good article out of The Secret Doctrine, as that does appear to satisfy WP:N. We need to add some inline citations to that article to bring it up to standards. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the Root Race concept is sufficiently significant in Theosophy to merit its own article. Of course it's a ludicrous "theory", but is historically significant. It was also developed and modified by later writers. I don't actually think the article is all that bad. As long as you read it as a potted summary of B's theories, it's informative and useful. You don't have to believe that the "second root race" was "yellow", to find it a valuable piece of information - should you want to impress your friends with your knowledge of theosophical lore. I think it's absolutely fndamental not to confuse describing historical theories with promoting them. Otherwise we'd be deleting articles on stories from Greek mythology on the grounds that they are "fringe" beliefs. Paul B ( talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This article on some ancient Indian tribal group is up for deletion. A quick viewing shows the likelihood of extreme nonsense (e.g. the need for a map of Jutland in the article). Mangoe ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
we need a
WP:GOTRA guideline for more efficient processing of these. I cringe at the thought of trying to clean this up single-handendly, against the active resistance of hundreds of Indian editors each protecting the article on his own family name.
The Jat gotras appear to be particularly bad, what with the constant Scythian legends thrown in. If we can clean out these, we should be in a position to tackle the rest. Therefore, bold Wikipedians, I give you {{
Gotras of Jats}}:
-- dab (𒁳) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks Simon. Of course my comment wasn't meant to be in any kind of opposition to dab and Spaceman's heroic efforts in these fields. As a contribution to a sources discussion, can I ask if we have agreement that the 19th century colonial administrator Edgar Thurston is never sufficient on his own. Also outdated: History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon, first published 1938. It's cited by 7 articles and many more link to the Joon bio. The bio says he "is" a historian but since it also says his son, an army major, was killed in 1940, I think it's very unlikely the father is still living. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll echo Abecedare's comments on this one, it's not a question of notability as much as verifiability; the editorial issue is not restricted to drive-by vandals either. Most often, the "owners" of these works of fiction are established editors with 2000+ edits who operate through multiple socks on different gotras to push their POV giving the appearance of multiple editors (e.g. this case of a sockmaster with 4+ socks of 2000+ contribs). In a lot of cases, this kind of nonsense stays within the walled gardens so extensive damage isn't done to the 'pedia and it's easy to ignore (while it's a very absurd way to look at things, it helps me retain my sanity). However, the fact that they've been allowed to do this emboldens these warriors and you soon find this benign tumor suddenly turning malignant and the creepers get out of the walled gardens to cause problems in general. Take the case of Category:Places named after Gujjars (at CfD currently), now this has a list of a few in it that are entirely unsourced and a cursory search doesn't confirm anything; this goes on to give misinformation about topics like Ambala and Gujarat that are more important to the readers of the encyclopaedia than these random assortment of gotras. Also take a look at Kshatriya, I had to full-protect a horrible page because of further crap being added in. This page has 500+ views per day and 79 watchers. Compare that to a random gotra -- Dhetarwal which has less than 30 watchers (likely one or two) and less than five views per day on average. But both articles compete with each other on the % of junk within. However in terms of raw crap index, the Kshatriya page wins easily.
Given the above, I think we need to approach the topic from a different angle. Start with the broad groups and then move down to the gotras. Addressing the gotras, while necessary, has minimal benefit because no one really reads them other than the casteists themselves, while articles like Kshatriya etc have a much broader audience and has a greater potential to do damage. I'd suggest the following steps to address the caste/clan/gotra cruft:
Order of focus:
The other part of the activity is to qualify the sources, most of the articles in a caste category are single sourced to something written by a caste "historian" and we should address that particular work before getting into clean up of the related set of articles. If there are a few people ready to take on this task in a structured manner, we can create a project space for this under Wikiproject India and deal with it. Opinions? cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I like your exposition of the problem. Regarding the sources, they almost invariably start out with Tod, and a handful of other 19th century British ethnographers. Sometimes, a more recent work by a caste historian (i.e. a member of the caste in question who has written a book about his own caste, most of the time in Hindi or Punjabi). I would further note that this problem is mainly seen at Kshatriya caste gotras, and to a lesser degree Brahmin gotras. The Brahmin gotra articles are a pathetic mess, but they usually do without all the crazy fantasies My suggestion would be:
Compare to the hair-rising cruft we get in Rajput or Punjabi/Jat Kshatriya articles to the comparatively polished Iyer or Brahmin communities. There is a lot of Brahmin listcruft (e.g. List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames) but at least it appears the Brahmin family historians do not indulge in "pure Aryan bloodline confirmed by eminent historians" type narratives. Based on this, I think we can say that the root category of this entire problem is Category:Punjabi tribes. -- dab (𒁳) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
From Zang-fu: "A growing number of social scientists are referring to Chinese Medicine as a mature scientific system, noting that science in general is socially constructed, rather than evidence-based.[1]" Can someone look into this? I can't address it now. Sifaka talk 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
( 2 edit conflicts)
The page is full of {{fact}} templates which is always a bad sign. While there appears to be some legitimate concern about this, the page at the current is a mess, e.g. "charging that the HAARP could be seeking ways to destroy or disable enemy spacecraft" "Other theorists extended the power of HAARP: "HAARP... can change weather patterns over whole continents, jam global communications systems, disrupt mental processes, manipulate the earth’s upper atmosphere." (emphasis mine) Nil Einne ( talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Experiencing a teensy bit of self-doubt over a contentious edit so I want to provide a diff that encapsulates it for review. [40]
My issue is with the use of two pieces of somewhat purple prose: 1) "Vibrating Palm was revealed to the world by Kah Wah Lee in the February, 1972 issue of Black Belt Magazine."
And 2) "This was the first published articles to address the Vibrating Palm with details of the technique and scientific/conceptual explanations." (referencing an IKF article).
The first example is simply a matter of peacock words. That's not the main area of my self-doubt. The second is the one on-topic for the fringe theories noticeboard.
A lot of work has gone into the touch of death article to address this mythical technique from a neutral and, above all, rational perspective. Most serious martial arts research tends to discount Qi techniques as being an outmoded belief at best and fraud at worst. The touch of death appears, upon scrutiny, to have mainly fictional sources, literally fictional as very few references to such Dianxue can be found outside of Wuxia novels prior to the second half of the 20th century.
I deleted this paragraph twice partially because of the peacockery in the first half and partially because of the suggestion in the second half that there were scientific explanations available for the fictional technique of the "Vibrating Palm".
Unfortunately high quality references are hard to come by in the martial arts community. The magazines mostly hire freelancers and they are not peer-reviewed academic journals by any definition of the word. Bullshido is not a WP:RS because it's a web forum. Heck, it's hard enough just keeping it from getting AfD'd. Am I being too harsh excising this paragraph? At least one other editor on the page thinks so - and said as much on the talk page. As it involves fringe claims I thought I'd see what you guys think. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor of Gas chamber is repeatedly reinserting passages denying the use of gas chambers in Nazi death camps. WP:RSN has soundly rejected the sources, and WP:POVN has rejected the editors assertion of a lack of neutrality by not including these claims. Please give opinions on the whether these inclusions are fringe. Example edit: [41]. Hohum ( talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor Professional Assassin ( talk · contribs) is now blocked indefinitely. Assertions that gas chambers did not exist in Nazi extermination camps are fringe. Assuming that the issue has been discussed before, I'm closing this thread as resolved. (Non-admin closure.) Cs32en Talk to me 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling this would sort itself out pretty quick. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
not so much a case of WP:FRINGE but of WP:TIGERS. We do tend to be able to deal with these rather more effectively. -- dab (𒁳) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been a proposal to make large changes to this article, and some overtagging in response to my revert of those changes. I reverted as they were fairly large changes and not discussed. More eyes, review and discussion would be welcome at the article talk page. Verbal chat
Parts of that wording is a quote, so put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Problem solved. Since its the mainstream POV, our policies regarding weight and undue allow require giving it prominence. Normally such wording is just plain commonsense, as in "the earth is round", but since some people question it (of course supporters of quackery will always dispute such statements...duh..!), attribution and putting it in quotation marks solves the problem. That it should be removed because it's a POV is a nonsense argument, since much content here is by nature a POV and has to be sourced, and in very controversial situations we can attribute such statements. Interestingly enough, if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here....
Read our policies folks:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Could use some attention. Dougweller ( talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
For the past 2 years or so, a dynamic IP user has been adding information to the North American Aerospace Defense Command article. The consensus on the talk page is that this info is misleading and highly POV, and does not belong. I restored the pre-POV version, including unrelated info that the IP removed, last month. Today, the IP has again re-added his POV material, including badly formatted citations which are generally out of context, per this diff.
The IP user signed one of his posts as "Dean Jackson", so I decided to look his name up on Google. Well, out of many different people, I found this link. He's not citing his own "report", but he is adding the same sources, and making the same conclusions. From Dean Jackson's website - DNotice Corrects Wikipedia On NORAD's Monitoring Capabilities Of American Skies On 9/11 at http://dnotice.org/ From another website Dean Jackson is a writer and 9/11 researcher in Washington, DC. His website, DNotice.org provides rigorous analysis of major issues concerning government malfeasance.
He has posted copious defenses of his material on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command over the past year and a half, much of it repetive! He does not link to his own sites or works in WP, but much of what he posts is OR or Synthesis. His apparent premise is that that NORAD lied about not tracking and watching civilian air trafic within the US, and so therefore this proves they were in on the 9/11 attacks, as the had to know about it, but did't stop it.
Any help in resolving this matter would be appreciated, as it has been going on for some time. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)