This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A bad article, mainly OR, at least one dodgy source, criticism removed today. Dougweller ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Richard Milton (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable ( Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Possibly pointy AFDs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This has had a section on the fringe interpretation of these stone reliefs (which is that they show electricity) with the section heading 'PseudoEgyptology' which Reddi has changed to 'Interpretation'. I think this might be confusing, as the Egyptologists' interpretation is of course something quite different. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I think the section header should make it clearer that it's a fringe interpretation. Of course, the title itself is a fringe name for ordinary reliefs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.
Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 ( talk • contribs)
Texe Marrs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis:
It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller ( talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Tritype seems to be a subcategory of the fringe theory Enneagram of Personality. One SPA editor Raa18123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing "Katherine Chernick Fauvre's" explanation of the Enneagram with a standalone article, removing a PROD at one point, and later an Orphan tag. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please revert this pseudophysicist promoter on sight:
140.252.83.232 ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is his second account:
140.252.83.232 ( talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I just came upon this article. I believe it has a substantial amount of useful content but needs a different title, and would appreciate if others would comment; see Talk:Levels of consciousness#Concerns about title. Looie496 ( talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
People are adding all kinds of Original Research to 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. Some of the how-to advice is dangerous to the public health. Please watchlist it! Speciate ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone ignoring this because they agree or because they disagree? Will Timony, Ph.D ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Will Timony, Ph.D: you should probably make less of an issue about being "insulted", or "attacked", or "being the only one following policy". You should take a breath and then try to see the merit in what others try to tell you, even if they don't attach academic degrees to their wiki usernames. I am glad that you agree that "Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality". But then you go on to object to perfectly straightforward statements like "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss". I find this a completely unremarkable description of the concept. Of course it can be tweaked or rephrased, but you do not make clear how you think it is objectionable to begin with. What else, do you suppose, was the philosopher's stone? You also admit to doing things like "I have been only changing the fringe views to say 'proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe'". How does this agree with your statement that you accept that the spiritual interpretation is valid? It is unacceptable to label discussion of spiritual aspects of alchemy as "the fringe view", because it is not a fringe view, and you have failed to show that it is. In fact you have agreed that it is not earlier in your post, right before you went back to calling it "the fringe view". It is one thing to remove poor content or sub-standard references or bad editing due to people over-enthusiastic about discussing these spiritual aspects. It is quite another thing to imply, as you just did, that this discussion per se falls under WP:FRINGE.
For the sake of argument, let's say you accept that I have a good overall grasp of the topic, and have made valid contributions in the past, and also that I am very well aware of policy and willing to defend it. I also commend you for removing "non-existent sources and random web pages". It still isn't clear to me what you try to argue is the core of the problem here. You say the only thing you object to is "that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline", while you accept that it has both spiritual and proto-scientific aspects. Consequently, what you need to object to are attempts to present alchemy as a primarily spiritual discipline, while you should be unperturbed by discussion of alchemy as a spiritual discipline just as long as nobody denies it also had proto-scientific aspects. Which aspect people will find more interesting, and consequently worth researching and covering, is an entirely subjective judgement. I can assure you that there are very quotable authors, first and foremost Carl Jung, who were indeed of the opinion that alchemy was primarily spiritual. But I would never claim that this is the only view on the subject, it is just one notable and quotable view. -- dab (𒁳) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this article needs a little balance, and I do not know where to begin... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Strauss-Howe generational theory seems to be based almost entirely on the writings of its proponents. It looks to me like pseudo-something-or-other. If, as claimed, Al Gore likes it, maybe it is actually 'notable', but this doesn't justify the long-winded waffle IMO. I'm tempted to suggest an AfD, but perhaps others can take a look, with an eye to reducing it to the facts, such as they are... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a pov fork from Out-of-place artifact with sentences such as " There is of course no explanation as to what it was or how it got inside the block of coal millions of years ago." It was created by the block evading editor Liveintheforests ( talk · contribs) when he was evading his block by using the account IntelligentUniverse ( talk · contribs). Dougweller ( talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Needs some attention. There's some edit-warring going on there with one editor trying to say that some scientists like this nonsense, and refusing to accept sources from non-mathematicians. Dougweller ( talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.
198.202.202.22 ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay ( talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This problem is still going on. 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the consensus of astronomers at Columbia University, the preferred version of the article at tired light is this one: [6]. Please support well-cited science scholarship and prevent the self-promotion of certain individuals who are not behaving with scholarly integrity.
128.59.171.194 ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
can someone have a look at recent edits and my talk page and that of good faith newbie being called a vandal. dead battery or i would be home instead of in a field on my iPad. wqa i think when i can. no tildes in wikiedit so sinebot do your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
A new Liveintheforests article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be appreciated at Reactionless drive. I removed what appeared to be undue emphasis on a proposed reactionless drive which cited a Facebook photo album. It was a long text starting starting with:
A little while later, CowlishawDavid ( talk · contribs) added the content back in. Reverts followed; I'm now on the threshold of 3RR so I shall step back from the article. All comments & suggestions welcome... bobrayner ( talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not a corporation with unlimited recources. Please do a search on "David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes), and you will find me all over the map, still longing for reality, rather than "belief". Last update on that dedicated subject (a now defunct server, efforts are now archived in Europe) = http://archive.go-here.nl/open.org/davidc/update34.htm CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a class of machines that has a unique operating theory, that has been duplicated and tested, though NOT via standard publication, due to the irrational prejudice.
The archived (now static) website is a source of information on mechanical descriptions, theory, and history. I have not, and will not seek outside financing due to the history of these types of devices, though I have accepted a small (unsolicited) financial assistance from a former forum contributor when I ran it, who had met me in person during a theme gathering I held at my residence. He will own the first prototype once testing is performed, and I have a duplicate built (my way to repay him, also not solicited by him).
If the facebook link detailing the latest in a long line of variants is deemed offensive, I will be happy to remove it, if it will stop the unrelenting attempts to totally erase 15 years of research and world wide collaboration.
Clearly I have a "dog in the fight" but as the inventor of an entirely new class of machines (that are now public domain), and webmaster for a multi-year public forum and research sharing site, who better to explore and explain it?
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This guy Cowlisha is at it again, putting crackpot theories into the article, unsupported by sources or cites. He also adds self-promotion and soap-box ranting. We could use more eyes on the article or on him. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Early Discovery of Rockall - clearly COI issues here, and it looks to me like an AfD on OR grounds, but perhaps someone more familiar with fringe topics could take a look at this. Ben Mac Dui 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The re-titled articles ( Early discovery of the Faroe Islands etc.) have now gone through AfD and been deleted. Perhaps some admin could tidy up by deleting the redirects at Early Discovery of the Faroe Islands etc. ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this subject, please put the article on your watch list. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And this one, an old IP who no longer edits under their account and ignored WP:NOR, claims someone who teaches American Indians in the movies is an expert on this subject, that a book written in 1994 was actually written in 2005, etc. And who would have a 3RR warning if a mysterious IP hadn't shown up to reinstate his edit. Dougweller ( talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The British homeopaths have decided to declare this "homeopathy awareness week" (presumably because they are unworldly so felt left out by "world homeopathy awareness week"). The Wikipedia article is being widely cited as a source of balanced information, with predictable results (see Cjwilky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). This is one of our better articles on pseudoscience so please help me watch it and push back against chipping away by agenda accounts. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors have suggested this source is not usable for the pseudoscience page or is unreliable. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (my emphasis)
I am one of the editors who finds this source inappropriate for the claims that QuackGuru wishes to make in the Pseudoscience article. This paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and cognitive distortion and would be a very good source for that. However, the authors make general and unsupported claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience that are a) tangential to the research or even to psychology in general and b) apply only to quackery and not the whole field of pseudoscience. No other good sources have been located to support these extremely broad claims. While this source is reliable within it's domain and is welcome for use in the section on the psychology of pseudoscience, it is unsuited as the sole basis for claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience except in the more narrow case of quackery (for which many superior references exist).
You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Joja lozzo 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Rovasscript ( talk · contribs), Rovosaman ( talk · contribs). No comment necessary (I hope). -- dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
So should these guys be considered fringe? I know that in the field itself they are considered as such, but what about on Wiki? From what I can see, some of the articles related to them present a viewpoint skewed in their behaviour (there was one in particular, for Davies I think, that said that the Tel Dan Stele challenged his hypotheses and it made it sound like only a few fringe people believe it is real, whereas (in reality) only a baby handful of people actually believe that it is fake or misinterpreted). I will admit right now that I am a centrist, and like most people in this field, I rather dislike these fellows. Given proper sourcing though, I feel I can edit neutrally. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Claims | Measurable effects can be seen on an entire society when a small number of people in the society practice various forms of Transcendental Meditation. |
---|---|
Related scientific disciplines | Astronomy, Psychology |
Year proposed | 1960 |
Original proponents | Maharishi Mahesh Yogi |
Subsequent proponents | Maharishi University of Management, Natural Law Party, David Lynch, John Hagelin, David W. Orme-Johnson |
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts) |
Back in January 2010, a now-vanished user added a pseudoscience infobox to the Maharishi Effect section of the TM-Sidhi program article. [7] There was no discussion of the infobox at the time, though there have been occasional threads on the talk page touching on pseudoscience and the article is within WP: WikiProject Rational Skepticism. An editor has now objected to the infobox. Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Pseudoscientific Concepts box? Any thoughts? Are these boxes commonly used? Will Beback talk 23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
We have reliable source that support the use of the term for example "YOGIC FLIGHT Yogic flight is an ability claimed by those who study the philosophy of transcendental meditation (TM) and its offshoot TM Sidhi." from Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313355073. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The scientific community is publishing the TM technique research, James. It is also listing the ME effect research in the ISI. How do you explain that? Are all of those researchers, universities, grants being controlled by the few, so called TM researchers? Rhetorical questions. ( olive ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
J. Philippe Rushton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A WP:SPA on this topic is claiming that Rushton's racial claims have academic credibility and that criticism of him is just "an opinion based on the a priori assumption that it is incorrect". I've just had it brought to my attention that I've already overstepped WP:3RR on this article (by 47 minutes) -- so am disallowed to participate further, except on talk. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the talk page for the Essiac entry. Essiac is an herbal tea that is promoted as a cure for cancer and other illnesses. The article itself accurately reflects the fact that no evidence supports these claims and no medical organizations endorse it, but on the talk page, people have posted recipes for how to make your own at home. Obviously it's not normally acceptable to delete other users' comments from talk, but I was wondering if it would be OK in this situation, given that they have nothing to do with improving the article and they might be seen as accepting or promoting Essiac.
It's entirely possible that I am over-reacting and nothing needs to be deleted, but I thought it worth bringing some attention to it here in case there are others who share my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some eyes on this page. One editor appears to be trying to prove a WP:POINT by removing any mention of the fringe theory about water ionizers' affects on health because the primary studies they want add has been rejected. Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Bringing here for wider attention an issue I have just seen at WP:NORN. The article subject seems to be a promoter of pseudoscience ideas; certainly the idea that earthquakes are being deliberately caused is pretty odd. Article has been through 4 AfDs. It just might be notable conspiracy theory, but it doesn't look all that notable or well sourced to me. Physicists around? Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
President Bush's vicious nationwide attack on whistleblowers comes to Berkeley via an all-too-obliging city council mayor, and police department
Since becoming a Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab whistleblower in 1991 I have worked diligently and effectively for the past six years as an independent scientist, to educate the global community on radiation issues both locally and internationally. The dark legacy of Dr. Strangelove, former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Director Edward Teller, is the fact that the University of California will forever be known as "the University that poisoned the world." The University of California has turned Planet Earth into a Death Star.
The problems with my cars and the Berkeley Police Department started after I did a presentation on radiation and depleted uranium on September 11, 2005 for Physicians for Social Responsibility.
When I left the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in 1991 I was told, "You're in a police net for the rest of your life," and to a reasonable person it seems I have been. I have been subjected to car theft, damage to personal property, the University of California/Homeland Security Special - "gangstalking," and very frequently experienced documents missing from my home. My daughter was kidnapped when she was 13 facilitated by the University of California and Livermore Lab, and I did not see her for 5 years.
On three occasions in the past several years my cars have been towed by Berkeley Police Department using selective enforcement the timing of which coincided with major radiation disclosures I have made. Some would think they were related since the Berkeley Police Department "Red Squad" was actively killing the Free Speech Movement in the '60s and I have observed them covertly spying on demonstrations recently.
Leuren Moret Berkeley
My own thought is that we have three different issues with this article, which should be addressed separately.
(1) Is Leuren Moret notable enough for an article? I think not; if someone who agrees wants to nominate the article for deletion and point me there, I'll show up.
(2) If she is notable (or in the interim while the deletion discussion goes on), is the fringe nature of her stances reflected reasonably in the article? Here, I think the article is in good shape. All facts seem correct, and are cited to sources. Puffery has been removed. The article refers to Moret's "crusade"; her specific fringe beliefs about the 2011 Japanese earthquake are stated, but clearly as opinion rather than fact. Do others agree?
(3) Are reliable sources used in establishing her notability, her opinions, her background? On this issue I'm not clear. Sure, the minutes from the Berkeley CEAC are unimpeachable. But the Tehran Times and a conspiracy-laden personal website are used to source some of Moret's quotations and public stances. I guess I'm okay with propaganda machines and fringe websites for sourcing what are clearly fringe claims; it's sort of like quoting a homeopathist about what a homeopathic remedy is supposed to do. But I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia's general tolerance for such sources, and I'd definitely appreciate some others' thoughts here.
I know this noticeboard is only technically concerned with (2), but as Pgallert notes, talk page discussion has not progressed. Thoughts? Moishe Rosenbaum ( talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There is currently controversy in the University of London surrounding this individual's publications. In these circumstances, when serious ethical questions have been raised and his scholarship placed in doubt, is it permissible to cite his work as a reliable source on wikipedia? Mathsci ( talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In researching my paternal blood line I came upon your article about a Flavio Gioia Italian mariner and navigator reputed to have perfected the magnetic compass. While I am unsure of this mans contributions in maritime navigational instruments; there is no doubt in my mind the man Flavio Gioia existed. It would be a difficult pill for anyone to swallow when being told by some neophyte that ones ancestor is simply a figment of their familial imaginations! Flavio Gioia's decendants come from a long line of the Gioia family; which includes Di Gaetano and Bologna blood. My paternal grandmother Concetta Bologna ni Di Gaetano was a Gioia on her mothers side and consistently spoke about Flavio as a distant maternal relative. Certainly; the Gioia name is a prominant Italian Amercican surename of whom many I have met. Therefore; it seems obvious that such a man going by the name of Flavio Gioia existed. As to whether or not he actually had anything to do with perfecting the magnetic compass I am unsure of; and so seems the case with historians as well because they obviously cannot make up their minds as to whether or not such a man existed. Perhaps they should speak with contemporary Gioia family members to put this matter to rest once and for all?
Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. Noformation Talk 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ages in Chaos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I got involved in this article a couple of years back, but had forgotten it until it came up on my watchlist. The article is mostly a recap of the author's, Immanuel Velikovsky's, claims with only a tiny section on the end, mentioning the complete evisceration of these claims. Also, as another editor pointed out, most of this section is criticism of Velikovsky's claims generally, rather than specific criticism of this book. I am therefore going to nominate the article for merger into the author's article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed merger of the two above articles which have so much overlap there is little point in keeping them separate. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Gus W. Weiss ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
New article on a possibly- notable individual suffers from a lack of proper sourcing. The citations currently in use include rense.com, Alex Constantine's 911review.org and SciForums.com...beyond that it's a paid NYT obit and a primary source from the CIA. Fringey stuff, and it needs a good look.
I'm headed out the door, so I can't perform due diligence. Hopefully some of you will be willing to check in on this article. — Scien tizzle 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good work, everyone...the article is much improved! — Scien tizzle 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Would someone be able to take a look at the UFO Phil article? Practically everything that has been written about this guy (from his own website to newspaper articles) is tongue-in-cheek, but the article presents too many of his claims as facts. I highly doubt that he was actually born in Roswell, for example. I'm not even sure if Phil Hill is his real name.
This is probably more of an " in-universe" issue than a fringe theories issue, but I figured this would be the best place to ask for assistance. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Big rewrite by an IP, latest version has removed all sources and all mention of his book Forbidden Archeology. Hopefully this will be replaced as without it it clearly fails NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Back in 1981 Thompson wrote a book titled Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science (available online here. One of Thompson's followers is attempting to foist the following quote on us as a description of the book:
attractive quality of this book is that Thompson writes as a scientist about science with a clarity, accuracy, and objectivity that should engender respect both from scientists and from those whose religious persuasions are other than his own. . . . Scientists reading the book need not feel betrayed by Thompson, for he shows throughout both a respect and love for good science. Because he loves science, he is pained by its contradictions and seeks its intelligibility in a larger context...
On balance, I think this book is a very valuable addition to the current literature in science and religion. Thompson's choice of examples from science that seem to upset contemporary scientific paradigms is superb. They are all relevant. They are carefully explained and in one book. Many come from quite recent developments (including punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould) which I have not outlined in this review. These examples form test cases that must be applied to any philosophy of religion that claims adequacy to represent science. The process theologian or Thomist, for example, can examine how process philosophy or Thomism can handle the puzzles and anomalies arising in science that seem to discredit current scientific explanation, as well as compare the success of such philosophies with one derived from the Bhagavad-gita.
I don't have access to the full review, and I have concerns -- both as to whether the above, heavily-ellipsised, passage is an accurate reflection of the review as a whole, and also whether the author is competent to evaluate the scientific (as opposed to philosophical or mathematical -- he's listed as "a Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College") merits of the work. Certainly citing discussion of " punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould" as a positive seems somewhat naive (at least in hindsight), given the pervasive creationist misrepresentation of their work. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has AfDed this article. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be renewed problems on this page and the associated article Criticism of evolutionary psychology. This relatively new subject is not universally accepted and there have been a series of critiques of certain aspects of the theory. Some of these for example were summarised in an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Stephen Downes here. Since the topic area is controversial, I am posting here, because of a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science. It would be good if more eyes could look at what appear to be attempts to rewrite the article so that readers get the impression that all criticisms might have been invalidated. My own feeling is that it is inappropriate for wikipedia editors to use primary sources to make arguments for or against the different facets of this subject: the area is far from being black and white. Some aspects of the theory are not controversial, whereas others are. At present there seems to be a mismatch between the two wikipedia articles and the Stanford article: that seems to be a problem. Mathsci ( talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
SPA IP at Leonora Piper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seeking to add fringe POV giving credibility to communication with the dead. IP has since created an SPA user account: Apollion888 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the express purpose of furthering this aim. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Xythianos is an aggressive Iranian nationalist [18] who insists on pushing a Persian-nationalist POV over at Ancient history. For example, he insists on replacing the mention of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea from the timeline, and replacing them with Battle of Thermopylae, for no other reason than the latter is a Persian victory. Thermopylae was indeed significant (not so much because it was a Persian victory but rather due to its effect on Greek morale), but it is eclipsed by Salamis and Plataea, which were the strategically decisive engagements that ended once and for all the Persian attempts to conquer Greece. He also inflates the contributions of ancient Persia to science and technology using empty peacock generalizations and extravagant claims based on outright source falsification [19] (the source clearly credits the Babylonians, not the Persians). Now, I'm not opposed to some mention of Persian technology in the article, but not like this, not with this user's attitude and not with this type of source falsification. I've tried to discuss things with him, the results can be seen in the first diff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 03:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A new editor is inserting some rather strange claims from a reasonably prominent British creationist. The articles involved are:
The claim is:
McIntosh declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible, however there are nanomachines necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even tries to demonstrate it with examples that the chemical bonds between nucleotides require an extra free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular machines. He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to happen. Further on he points out that after living organism dies and these machines cease working, the DNA starts falling apart even while still being exposed to extra energy. Thus, he believes natural selection has no power to create new functional structures.<ref>McIntosh, A.C.: Functional Information and Entropy in living system, pp.115-126, Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering , Vol 87 of WIT Transactions on Ecology and the environment, Editor Brebbia C.A., WIT Press, 2006.</ref>
Discussion of McIntosh & the claim can be found at Talk:Objections to evolution#Add. "Too specific" or actual argument not welcome?. I'm concerned about adding such a claim without some sort of evaluation from mainstream science as to what the claim actually means, and whether it is credible (and/or merely making the commonplace seem miraculous). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [22] [23] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.-- Stephfo ( talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Those interested in fringe articles and editors may be interested in this RfC/U. Dougweller ( talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This topic has many contradictory statements. This doesn't have any citation to prove that. Those statements were removed multiple times, but someone is adding those purposefully to damage the reputation of the other political party over there, thus providing some false information in Wikipedia(which is not acceptable). Wherever the citation needed is asked, please provide the appropriate citation, or else please remove those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinnam ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2011
Acolytes of Thompson are attempting to mitigate the evisceration of his notable Vedic creationism work, by adding lengthy sections on his all-but-ignored work, cited to the very few 'science & religion' sources that actually paid any attention to them (and generally gave them a more favourable review than the scientists gave his more notable work). Some extra scrutiny may be needed. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
...And are now citing Theta: The Journal of the Psychical Research Foundation for information on one of them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
User:MissionNPOVible ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), having been thoroughly disruptive on Intelligent design, is now turning their attention to Wedge strategy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mainly pushing the claim that (numerous prominent sourcing to the contrary), ID isn't religious. More scrutiny would be valuable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd Pye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.
Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 20 May 2011.
I have since removed all the OR and primary sourced junk [24]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We have an WP:SPA on this article edit-warring to have the uncited (and most probably POV- WP:Synthesis) claim that "This criticism, however, overlooks the fact that Meyer spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design." I'm WP:3RRed out -- so if somebody else can take a look (the SPA seems completely uninterested in discussing the issue). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotected for 3 days as an ip joined in following the 3rr warning. Vsmith ( talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Simply awful! For example, it acts as if there weren't severe methodological, statistical, and other flaws in Rhine's work (the original Zener cards were partially transparent; the statistics were done as if the zener cards were randomised completely, when they weren't shuffled between cards, etc. 86.179.72.113 ( talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a bait-and-switch? Most of the supposed "alternative" treatments are, in fact, conventional or experimental conventional treatments. 86.179.72.113 ( talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Completely unsourced bio unabashedly heroicizing the subject and promoting the profound nature of A Course In Miracles. Contains flowery musings such as, "...the thoroughness and accuracy of the concordance produced by Wapnick was fully on a par with some of the more thorough concordances already used for the Christian Bible." It also reports a copyright lawsuit over ACIM as centered around "the disputed claim that Jesus Christ is the author of the material" rather than all too human squabbling between authors and publishers. Wrap it up with a book list that goes on for miles, and you can see it's an article in dire need of help. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Over the last month I've been working in a determined way to improve a number of articles on 5th & 6th century European history topics, & have been surprised to see a number of these articles use the works of Settipani as a source. I never heard of this guy before, & finally took the time to look into him & his ideas about Descent from antiquity. To say I'm underwhelmed at what I found is to put it mildly: he's just another computer geek & amateur historian, like me & countless contributors to Wikipedia. In many of these articles, his works are cited in the same breath with standard references such as Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft -- or as the only source for the article -- for example, Ecdicius & Felix (consul 511), & as a rather egregious example, Ennodius. To make matters worse, a preliminary investigation suggests these citations are all due to the efforts of a currently banned user.
While I can see the point of mentioning his theories in the articles about people who form these genealogical chains into antiquity -- some of which are clearly more speculative than others -- I don't see how it helps Wikipedia's reliability for articles to cite his works so frequently (a search on his name turns up 317 mentions), so I'd like to remove him from various articles as I encounter them, & have accumulated more reliable sources -- similar to what I've done with Odoacer, & several of the Visigothic kings of the 6th century. Thoughts? Arguments that Settipani is not a fringe author/source? -- llywrch ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
An AfD on this relatively minor creationist has just closed as "no consensus, but let's do this again!" Given the large amount of, in my opinion questionable, material that has been added to this article to keep it from being deleted, I have raised an RFC on the topic at Talk:Leonard R. Brand#RFC: Third party coverage. You may wish to express an opinion. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand's main promoter is now trying to get the following two quotes from Brand into the article:
The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist isn't a difference in the scientific data, but a difference in philosophy - a difference in the presuppositions...
In my approach, I retain the scientific method of observation and experimentation, but I also allow study of Scripture to open my eyes to things that I might otherwise overlook and to suggest new hypotheses to test. This approach is not just a theory; some of us have been using it for years with success.
(The second one, in spite of the fact that he's clinging to a widely falsified hypothesis) I have suggested that these claims fall well foul of the 'unduly self-serving' clause of WP:ABOUTSELF. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing edit war in the article on Ito calculus. There's a section on differentiation in Ito calculus, which is not found in the standard textbooks on the subject. It seems as though some single-purpose accounts are using wikipedia to promote this point of view. The author of the original paper even links to the wikipedia page from his website.
The paper on which this result is based has 0 citations on MathSciNet, a major resource for mathematics research. Google scholar lists 5 citations, though I can verify that the author of the original paper was involved in at least three of these. The other two are duplicates of a paper in a language I cannot read. SimonL ( talk) 09:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm here... Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has had trash added recently, which I've removed a few times [27], by the now-blocked User:Chronocrator. But the same junk has been added by 92.100.183.168 ( talk · contribs). Metric expansion of space also applies, but is currently at peace William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The conflict level on Leonard R. Brand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gotten to a sufficient level that I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to take a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on the article. I am therefore requesting that any WP:FTN regulars who have the time (and particularly any with expertise in Creationism, or who have better grace under fire than I do) to take an interest. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Both created by the same editor. I have been working on Exoconsciousness removing copyvio, stuff sourced to a self-published book by a Ruth Hardcastle, and material that is only about Hardcastle. When I finished I ended up with three sentences, the only reliably sourced one having just a brief mention of the subject, and a lot of links which I suspect are about Hardcastle and not the subject. I'd like a sanity check on what I've done and any comments as to whether it should go to AfD. Terri Donovan Mansfield is a BLP article starting with "Terri Donovan Mansfield is a recognized Ambassador of Peace". Virtually all the sources seem to be to material by her. My initial thoughts were that she might be notable, but I don't see any real news coverage for her or anything else, but maybe someone can find some. Dougweller ( talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Telepathic plants, anyone? As used by a former "Interrogation Specialist with the CIA" (no citation provided, naturally) for lie detection, at the 'Backster School of Lie Detection' - the "longest running polygraph school in the world" (nope, no citation for that either). Prime grade bullshit. As a BLP, I could probably delete half of it as a policy violation anyway. Anyone see any reason why an AfD isn't the obvious course of action though? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This article seems very rose tinted in its description (a proponent currently edits the article mostly), is there anyone with an interest in fringe medicine to have a look at it? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Puff pieces. I've done a bit to improve these, but there's still some promotional language, like "The Faculty promotes the academic and scientific development (What does that mean? Science has come down firmly against it.) of homeopathy and ensures standards (Puffery!) in the education and training in homeopathy of dentists, doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, podiatrists, veterinary surgeons (But don't tell DEFRA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/17/pet-remedies/ ) and other statutorily-registered healthcare professionals."
Also, none of the masses of criticism they've received appears. I've at least added in a little context about homeopathy, but these were a whitewash, and will probably become so again if not watched.
Peter Fisher will need major rewrites to satisfy WP:FRINGE. 86.183.39.212 ( talk) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A single-purpose account account has besieged the talk page for nearly a week attempting to overturn overwhelming consensus against including a mention that Gov. Perry attended a Bilderberg conference in 2007. The clear consensus is that the event is neither notable nor are their significant RS linking Perry to any issues relating to his attendance. Another concern is that even a passing mention of the conference in the article will give a foothold to let theorists expand it into something more.
The SPA alleges that several blogs are enough notability and alleges Wikipedia censorship, etc. for not permitting "the truth" to be published The fact that the meeting was closed to the press is a major issue for the editor and the editor repeatedly calls it a secret meeting in Turkey. He also alleges that Perry violated the Logan Act by attending a meeting with other foreign notables and that Perry is involved in some sort of Manchurian candidate conspiracy with CNN and other unnamed actors.
I request that editors who are familiar with fringe theories and cabals take a look at the four lengthy discussion sections and suggest how we can put this to rest or find a reasonable compromise.
Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The article on this conspiracy theory advocacy group spends all its time on explaining their theories and nothing on criticism of what is a quite controversial group. Mangoe ( talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My bullshit sensor went off about 1/3rd of the way through the lede on this one. According to the article this EHF therapy is an amazing panacea. I'm not sure what to do with it, since the proponent of it seems to be notable, but the article is so severely biased that it's almost un-salvageable. Gigs ( talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You too can copy advertising material from a fringe medical practitioner and get it on Wikipedia! 86.174.101.101 ( talk) 23:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Impressively, every single source fails to back its claims. How do you even manage to do that? 86.174.101.101 ( talk) 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:ANI:
Thought I'd repost this here as it is in FTN's bailiwick. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We have two IPs and an account, one of the IPs being clearly the named account, adding fringe and original research to this article. I can't keep reverting, so more eyes are needed. Dougweller ( talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Of all the major alternative medicines, this is probably the one that's most criticism-free. There is a mention of the heavy metals being intentionally added to some remedies, but very late in the article. =/ 86.177.230.127 ( talk) 13:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh my freaking god. A brief mention at the end is the only indication that INTENTIONALLY EATING GODDAMN MERCURY might be a bad idea. But it's alright, it's only WESTERN Medicine that says that.
Actual quotes:
“ | Traditionally it is believed that when mercury is properly prepared, it balances all three doshas (humours of the body), has a soothing effect on the body, prevents disease and old age. It is claimed to nourish all the vital parts of the body and increases the strength of the eyes. It is a vrisya (aphrodisiac), balya (tonic), snigdha (anointing), rasayana (rejuvenative), vrana sodhana and ropana (wound cleaner and healer), and krimighna (antimicrobial). it is believed that when it compounded with any herb it heightens the medicinal properties. Mercury is also said to give a firm physique, a stable mind, and to be the best destroyer of disease. Furthermore, It is considered holy because it is the semen of Lord Shiva. | ” |
“ | Rasa Shastra is a very individualized system of medicine that requires immense proficiency to be practiced safely and effectively. Perhaps the most important factor in the efficacy of a treatment is the nature of the practitioner. It is said that one must first have undergone a thorough personal and spiritual purification before the ability to work with the transformative effects of herbal and metallic remedies is attained. Rasa Shastra is not easily adjusted to address the health needs of large numbers of people, but is capable of providing access to the most powerful healing tools of the plant and mineral kingdoms. | ” |
86.177.230.127 ( talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Argument on the talk page about RS, WEIGHT, & how much is fringe. — kwami ( talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Fringe, wanders all over the place, unreliable sources, etc. Up for AfD but who knows what will happen. Dougweller ( talk) 10:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Damned uncited, and reads like a personal essay. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently proposing that:
be merged into:
Any input would be welcome. Discussion can be found at Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky/Archive 3#Merger proposal. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I want to ask for some neutral opinions regarding this alternative name. I've inserted 8 different reliable sources that support this view, but someone reverted me with the edit summary "Rvv Fringe views". I don't agree at all with his edit, so we need a third party to settle the conflict ( SamiraJ ( talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
Could use some eyes. I'm being 'strongly advised to back off'. Dougweller ( talk) 09:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across Nordic aliens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- a poorly sourced article on an obscure (and likely non-notable) offshoot of fringe UFO claims (which are well into the fringes of my own area). Regulars may wish to take a look. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I got to here from Nordic aliens. It's a mess, mainly by the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
All the (solely general) references given for this article appear to be WP:FRINGE, from advocates of this idea, and would appear to fail WP:MEDRS. What should be done about this article? Is the topic sufficiently notable fringe that it should be balanced with the scientific view? Or should it simply be WP:AFDed? It's well outside my area of expertise, so I'm not really in a position to assess how notable it is. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
And editor has been trying to push a fringe theory about an alleged Hungarian Runic script, stating it as if it is an established fact. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas and Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription. User Rovasscript has added this fringe theory and links to a site supporting the theory Alsószentmihály inscription [36], as well as Szarvas inscription [37], Karaite Judaism [38], Jews in the Middle Ages [39], Crimean Karaites [40], Khazars [41], and Kabar [42]. I doubt this theory is notable enough to even be listed, let alone as an established fact. Edward321 ( talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has real problems with telling people Mercury is a good thing to eat, because Ayurvedic practitioners say so.
From Mercury (element) [A Good Article!]
“ | Mercury in the form of one of its common ores, cinnabar, remains an important component of Chinese, Tibetan, and Ayurvedic medicine. As problems may arise when these medicines are exported to countries that prohibit the use of mercury in medicines, in recent times, less toxic substitutes have been devised. | ” |
From Samskara (ayurvedic)
“ | In ayurveda, toxic ingredients, which sometimes include heavy metals such as mercury, are purified using a process of prayer and pharmacy. Some practitioners believe that both are necessary to transform the toxicity though a pharmacological study on aconite showed that only the washes are necessary to render the substance non-toxic. [Aconite example given, then...] More general scientific evidence that ayurvedic medicine impurities and ingredients such as heavy metals may be rendered nontoxic is not available, and case reports describe adverse effects of these substances. | ” |
From Rasayana, we get simple lies about Ayurveda NOT containing mercury
“ | Because of negative publicity and cost factor, the use of the classical rasayana formulas has declined considerably, and most of the preparations available now have herbal ingredients with a couple of mineral and animal products. The non-availability and wild life protection act has made the use of musk, amber and parts of wild-life animals, nearly impossible. | ” |
From Shilajit:
“ | Shilajit, also known as shilajit, mumijo, and momia,
[1] is used in the
Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine.
, Shilajit is a rasayana material and is an adaptogen, due to its proven citation needed ability to increase resistance and support the adaptation of the body and its inner workings to a variety of chemical, biological, and physical stressors. [2] unreliable source? The composition of Shilajit has been investigated numerous times in both India and the former USSR, and depends on the location where it is found. It has been reported to contain at least 85 minerals in Ionic form, including triterpenes and aromatic carboxylic acid, as well as humic acid and fulvic acid. [3] [4] [5] |
” |
Check out the sources for that. They're pretty awfful, including a site wanting to sell you the stuff.
List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda gives us an entire chart of unsourced medical claims. Example:
Andrographis paniculata | Green chirayta | Yavatika | For malaria fever, enlargement of liver, chronic and obstinate fever, dropsy, edema, constipation, and infant disorders such as diarrhoea, colic, vomiting.
Used as an appetiser. |
From Triphala, claims cited with reference only to a fringe textbook.
“ | In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, Triphala is used for: | ” |
From Chyawanprash:
“ | Chyawanprash, also spelled chyavangysha, chyavanaprash, chyavanaprasam and chyawanaprash, is an ancient Ayurvedic health tonic, widely used in India, as a rejuvenative, energizer and immunity booster. It is often called "the elixir of life" due to its numerous nutritional properties and benefit to the body. | ” |
From
Adaptogen, we get a lot of health claims, with no sources whatsoever.
“ | Panax ginseng, for example, is an adaptogen that has shown an "overall normalizing effect". citation needed [...] Many adaptogens contain polysaccharides that have been reported to stimulate immune system components and have immune system enhancing benefits. citation needed Polysaccharide-rich plants and mushrooms have a long history of use in traditional practices such as Chinese medicine. In addition to stimulating the immune system, they are used to increase vital energy and considered qi tonics. Adaptogens that contain polysaccharides include: American ginseng, Asian ginseng, astragalus, Cordyceps, eleuthero, licorice, lycium, prince seng, Lingzhi/Reishi, rhaponticum, and shatavari.[1] | ” |
As I think you'll agree, Ayurveda has spread its tendrils all over Wikipedia, getting away with blatant advertising. Something should be done.
86.182.184.39 (
talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Making a new subsection to make this easier. I've done a couple, other people have done some, and we've fixed quite a number. Here's what left.
So, it's a start, but two really problematic articles left. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The article isn't too bad, but has three major problems. It's an awkward one because the science behind historical ayurveda was very advanced for its time, but its continued use now that modern medicine is available is kind of like using Copernicus' epicycles as part of your spaceship calculations.
1. This quote is simply awful, but removing it would be worse. We need better sources to discuss it.
“ | Western neutrality is disputed medicine has ayurveda classified dubious as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. [9] | ” |
However, fixing the other problems should sort this:
2. It fails to include sufficient criticism of the modern-day practice. There's some criticism of the heavy metal content (I removed some special pleading and cherry picking), but that's a very narrow focus of criticism, and the inclusion of that narrow focus seems to have acted to isolate the practice from any more general criticism.
3. The criticism is only in the last section. By hiding all the criticism at the end, it means that anyone who only reads part of the article will be misled. Giving the article a proper WP:LEAD, which summarises ALL points should fix this. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Is Terminalia arjuna at all salvageable? 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Also Panchakarma.
To give samples:
From Terminalia arjuna:
“ | Terminalia arjuna (Neer maruthu in Tamil & Malayalam) is a medicinal plant of the genus Terminalia, widely used by ayurvedic physicians for its curative properties in organic/functional heart problems including angina, hypertension and deposits in arteries. According to Ayurvedic texts it also very useful in the treatment of any sort of pain due to falls, ecchymosis, spermatorrhoea and sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea.It is thought to be a useful astringent, cooling, aphrodisiac, cardiotonic, tonic and is used for ulcers, leucorrhoea, diabetes, cough, tumour, excessive perspiration, asthma, inflammation and skin disorders etc. [10] Arjuna bark (Terminallia arjuna) is thought to be beneficial for the heart. This has also been proved in a research by Dr. K. N. Udupa in Banaras Hindu University's Institute of Medical Sciences , Varanasi (India). In this research, they found that powdered extract of the above drug provided very good results to the people suffering from Coronary heart diseases., [11] [12] | ” |
As usual, it fails the miracle cure test. If what was claimed to be proven really was proven, it would be much more widely used than just in a fringe practice.
From
Panchakarma:
“ | In order to stay healthy and fit one should carry out Panchakarma methods as a way of cleansing and servicing the body. The greatest benefit of this system is preventing possible serious illness due to 'Srothas Avarodha' obstruction of channels or ducts. | ” |
“ | A Panchakarma Specialist is someone who specializes in Panchakarma therapies of all kinds. Post Graduate in the field of Pnachakarma makes a ayurvedic physician a specialist in the field of Panchakarma. There are many institutions in India which imparts Post Graduation courses in Panchakarma.
The Panchakarma therapies are highly specific and require years of hands-on clinical training and experience to be effective. Without the proper training in Ayurvedic Medicine, these therapies cannot be administered properly and may even aggravate or worsen the person's condition. [Emphasis original] |
” |
Both are proposed for deletion. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 07:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Uncited and inaccurate text is being added by the usual "Muller was trying to destroy Hinduism" party. I have already pushed 3RR, though I think this is now essentially vandalism. However, extra input would be appreciated. Paul B ( talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Are these really the unambiguous good that the articles paint them to be? 86.179.217.124 ( talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Went through a lot more articles.
Lots and lots of copyvio, and even more promotional essays, often signed by the creators, in the articles.
I've dealt with pretty much all of them, but, ye gods, it's pretty clear noone has ever checked up on this topic before, or they'd have caught this stuff. Worried that the Ayurvedic worldview isn't as clear anymore - Dosha turned out to be almost entirely copyvio; I found a revision I could revert to, but it lost a lot of (copyvio) content. it'd be good if Ayurveda could be improved to clearly explain the five-element, three-dosha, seven-dhatu ideas (key word: clearly), because the only halfway clear explanation on Wikipedia was copyvio. 86.182.20.107 ( talk) 12:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [ [43]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated as it involves a fringe theory. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is a slight dispute over at
Emotional Freedom Technique; extra eyes, or any suggestions on how to improve the article, would be welcome.
bobrayner (
talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't even try to describe it: this new article has to be seen to be believed. The only question is whether it should be reduced to a two-sentence stub or deleted entirely. I am also wondering whether it may be a recreation of a previously deleted article, but I couldn't find an AfD for it. Looie496 ( talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
PROBABLE SOCK: Bcsadhak ( talk · contribs) - because it's NOT AT ALL suspicious that the users first and only edit oi to remove a template warning the page was copyvio. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Do editors agree that the new Category Cross-quarter days is unnecessary, and tending to promotion of fringiness? And indeed the category Quarter days is unnecessary. For info, quarter days were important in European calendars from the Middle Ages onwards, coinciding roughly with the equinoxes and solstices, and linked to Christian holidays. There are also festivals occurring between the quarter days, but identifying them as "cross quarter days" is surrounded by much unfounded supposition. I cleared a lot of that out of the article, and am now dismayed to see a category founded. And we see Chinese festivals now assimilated to the European ones, which is weird given that Cross-quarter days is a subcategory of Christian festivals and holidays. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Needs a year-overdue AfD-mandated merge done, avoiding merging in any of the unsourced or marketing claims. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed this section per WP:UNDUE and because whoever Lias is, his ideas don't seem to have been reported elsewhere and he himself doesn't seem important enough to have his ideas reported in the article, he is apparently someone that was found just to add a postscript to Salibi's book which promotes a fringe theory that the place names of the Bible refer to places in Arabia. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
For those of you who remember the Kamboja fancruft mess we had a couple of years ago (parts of which we still do), it might be cropping up again, only it now extends to Atlantis and Egypt. — Spaceman Spiff 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Done a fair bit of work to defringe this. Not thrilled with the sources for the remaining section on Ayurveda - would much rather have actual historians or even primary sources for the history of use than a herbal company, but it MAY be good enough for now. See what you think? 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion on whether these studies of the dog whisperer amount to fringe theories? These have previously been deleted as "self-published" and again as "original research" and it is now suggested that they are "fringe theories":
The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.
A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries. [13]
In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals. [14]
A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes. [15]
In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression. [16]
Sources:
Per Wikipedia rather than google, such research studies/articles are primary sources, unless they are published in reviews or meta analysis, and in this case possibly veterinary textbooks or other more academically driven publications. We can't in an encyclpedia interpret research and use those interpretations as references/sources for claims made in an article. ( olive ( talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
W&M
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).formulary
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
dead link
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A bad article, mainly OR, at least one dodgy source, criticism removed today. Dougweller ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Richard Milton (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable ( Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#Possibly pointy AFDs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This has had a section on the fringe interpretation of these stone reliefs (which is that they show electricity) with the section heading 'PseudoEgyptology' which Reddi has changed to 'Interpretation'. I think this might be confusing, as the Egyptologists' interpretation is of course something quite different. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I think the section header should make it clearer that it's a fringe interpretation. Of course, the title itself is a fringe name for ordinary reliefs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.
Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 ( talk • contribs)
Texe Marrs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis:
It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller ( talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Tritype seems to be a subcategory of the fringe theory Enneagram of Personality. One SPA editor Raa18123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing "Katherine Chernick Fauvre's" explanation of the Enneagram with a standalone article, removing a PROD at one point, and later an Orphan tag. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please revert this pseudophysicist promoter on sight:
140.252.83.232 ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is his second account:
140.252.83.232 ( talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I just came upon this article. I believe it has a substantial amount of useful content but needs a different title, and would appreciate if others would comment; see Talk:Levels of consciousness#Concerns about title. Looie496 ( talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
People are adding all kinds of Original Research to 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. Some of the how-to advice is dangerous to the public health. Please watchlist it! Speciate ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone ignoring this because they agree or because they disagree? Will Timony, Ph.D ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Will Timony, Ph.D: you should probably make less of an issue about being "insulted", or "attacked", or "being the only one following policy". You should take a breath and then try to see the merit in what others try to tell you, even if they don't attach academic degrees to their wiki usernames. I am glad that you agree that "Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality". But then you go on to object to perfectly straightforward statements like "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss". I find this a completely unremarkable description of the concept. Of course it can be tweaked or rephrased, but you do not make clear how you think it is objectionable to begin with. What else, do you suppose, was the philosopher's stone? You also admit to doing things like "I have been only changing the fringe views to say 'proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe'". How does this agree with your statement that you accept that the spiritual interpretation is valid? It is unacceptable to label discussion of spiritual aspects of alchemy as "the fringe view", because it is not a fringe view, and you have failed to show that it is. In fact you have agreed that it is not earlier in your post, right before you went back to calling it "the fringe view". It is one thing to remove poor content or sub-standard references or bad editing due to people over-enthusiastic about discussing these spiritual aspects. It is quite another thing to imply, as you just did, that this discussion per se falls under WP:FRINGE.
For the sake of argument, let's say you accept that I have a good overall grasp of the topic, and have made valid contributions in the past, and also that I am very well aware of policy and willing to defend it. I also commend you for removing "non-existent sources and random web pages". It still isn't clear to me what you try to argue is the core of the problem here. You say the only thing you object to is "that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline", while you accept that it has both spiritual and proto-scientific aspects. Consequently, what you need to object to are attempts to present alchemy as a primarily spiritual discipline, while you should be unperturbed by discussion of alchemy as a spiritual discipline just as long as nobody denies it also had proto-scientific aspects. Which aspect people will find more interesting, and consequently worth researching and covering, is an entirely subjective judgement. I can assure you that there are very quotable authors, first and foremost Carl Jung, who were indeed of the opinion that alchemy was primarily spiritual. But I would never claim that this is the only view on the subject, it is just one notable and quotable view. -- dab (𒁳) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this article needs a little balance, and I do not know where to begin... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Strauss-Howe generational theory seems to be based almost entirely on the writings of its proponents. It looks to me like pseudo-something-or-other. If, as claimed, Al Gore likes it, maybe it is actually 'notable', but this doesn't justify the long-winded waffle IMO. I'm tempted to suggest an AfD, but perhaps others can take a look, with an eye to reducing it to the facts, such as they are... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a pov fork from Out-of-place artifact with sentences such as " There is of course no explanation as to what it was or how it got inside the block of coal millions of years ago." It was created by the block evading editor Liveintheforests ( talk · contribs) when he was evading his block by using the account IntelligentUniverse ( talk · contribs). Dougweller ( talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Needs some attention. There's some edit-warring going on there with one editor trying to say that some scientists like this nonsense, and refusing to accept sources from non-mathematicians. Dougweller ( talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.
198.202.202.22 ( talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay ( talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This problem is still going on. 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the consensus of astronomers at Columbia University, the preferred version of the article at tired light is this one: [6]. Please support well-cited science scholarship and prevent the self-promotion of certain individuals who are not behaving with scholarly integrity.
128.59.171.194 ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
can someone have a look at recent edits and my talk page and that of good faith newbie being called a vandal. dead battery or i would be home instead of in a field on my iPad. wqa i think when i can. no tildes in wikiedit so sinebot do your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)
A new Liveintheforests article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be appreciated at Reactionless drive. I removed what appeared to be undue emphasis on a proposed reactionless drive which cited a Facebook photo album. It was a long text starting starting with:
A little while later, CowlishawDavid ( talk · contribs) added the content back in. Reverts followed; I'm now on the threshold of 3RR so I shall step back from the article. All comments & suggestions welcome... bobrayner ( talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not a corporation with unlimited recources. Please do a search on "David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes), and you will find me all over the map, still longing for reality, rather than "belief". Last update on that dedicated subject (a now defunct server, efforts are now archived in Europe) = http://archive.go-here.nl/open.org/davidc/update34.htm CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a class of machines that has a unique operating theory, that has been duplicated and tested, though NOT via standard publication, due to the irrational prejudice.
The archived (now static) website is a source of information on mechanical descriptions, theory, and history. I have not, and will not seek outside financing due to the history of these types of devices, though I have accepted a small (unsolicited) financial assistance from a former forum contributor when I ran it, who had met me in person during a theme gathering I held at my residence. He will own the first prototype once testing is performed, and I have a duplicate built (my way to repay him, also not solicited by him).
If the facebook link detailing the latest in a long line of variants is deemed offensive, I will be happy to remove it, if it will stop the unrelenting attempts to totally erase 15 years of research and world wide collaboration.
Clearly I have a "dog in the fight" but as the inventor of an entirely new class of machines (that are now public domain), and webmaster for a multi-year public forum and research sharing site, who better to explore and explain it?
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This guy Cowlisha is at it again, putting crackpot theories into the article, unsupported by sources or cites. He also adds self-promotion and soap-box ranting. We could use more eyes on the article or on him. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Early Discovery of Rockall - clearly COI issues here, and it looks to me like an AfD on OR grounds, but perhaps someone more familiar with fringe topics could take a look at this. Ben Mac Dui 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The re-titled articles ( Early discovery of the Faroe Islands etc.) have now gone through AfD and been deleted. Perhaps some admin could tidy up by deleting the redirects at Early Discovery of the Faroe Islands etc. ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this subject, please put the article on your watch list. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And this one, an old IP who no longer edits under their account and ignored WP:NOR, claims someone who teaches American Indians in the movies is an expert on this subject, that a book written in 1994 was actually written in 2005, etc. And who would have a 3RR warning if a mysterious IP hadn't shown up to reinstate his edit. Dougweller ( talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The British homeopaths have decided to declare this "homeopathy awareness week" (presumably because they are unworldly so felt left out by "world homeopathy awareness week"). The Wikipedia article is being widely cited as a source of balanced information, with predictable results (see Cjwilky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). This is one of our better articles on pseudoscience so please help me watch it and push back against chipping away by agenda accounts. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors have suggested this source is not usable for the pseudoscience page or is unreliable. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (my emphasis)
I am one of the editors who finds this source inappropriate for the claims that QuackGuru wishes to make in the Pseudoscience article. This paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and cognitive distortion and would be a very good source for that. However, the authors make general and unsupported claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience that are a) tangential to the research or even to psychology in general and b) apply only to quackery and not the whole field of pseudoscience. No other good sources have been located to support these extremely broad claims. While this source is reliable within it's domain and is welcome for use in the section on the psychology of pseudoscience, it is unsuited as the sole basis for claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience except in the more narrow case of quackery (for which many superior references exist).
You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Joja lozzo 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Rovasscript ( talk · contribs), Rovosaman ( talk · contribs). No comment necessary (I hope). -- dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
So should these guys be considered fringe? I know that in the field itself they are considered as such, but what about on Wiki? From what I can see, some of the articles related to them present a viewpoint skewed in their behaviour (there was one in particular, for Davies I think, that said that the Tel Dan Stele challenged his hypotheses and it made it sound like only a few fringe people believe it is real, whereas (in reality) only a baby handful of people actually believe that it is fake or misinterpreted). I will admit right now that I am a centrist, and like most people in this field, I rather dislike these fellows. Given proper sourcing though, I feel I can edit neutrally. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Claims | Measurable effects can be seen on an entire society when a small number of people in the society practice various forms of Transcendental Meditation. |
---|---|
Related scientific disciplines | Astronomy, Psychology |
Year proposed | 1960 |
Original proponents | Maharishi Mahesh Yogi |
Subsequent proponents | Maharishi University of Management, Natural Law Party, David Lynch, John Hagelin, David W. Orme-Johnson |
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts) |
Back in January 2010, a now-vanished user added a pseudoscience infobox to the Maharishi Effect section of the TM-Sidhi program article. [7] There was no discussion of the infobox at the time, though there have been occasional threads on the talk page touching on pseudoscience and the article is within WP: WikiProject Rational Skepticism. An editor has now objected to the infobox. Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Pseudoscientific Concepts box? Any thoughts? Are these boxes commonly used? Will Beback talk 23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
We have reliable source that support the use of the term for example "YOGIC FLIGHT Yogic flight is an ability claimed by those who study the philosophy of transcendental meditation (TM) and its offshoot TM Sidhi." from Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313355073. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The scientific community is publishing the TM technique research, James. It is also listing the ME effect research in the ISI. How do you explain that? Are all of those researchers, universities, grants being controlled by the few, so called TM researchers? Rhetorical questions. ( olive ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
J. Philippe Rushton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A WP:SPA on this topic is claiming that Rushton's racial claims have academic credibility and that criticism of him is just "an opinion based on the a priori assumption that it is incorrect". I've just had it brought to my attention that I've already overstepped WP:3RR on this article (by 47 minutes) -- so am disallowed to participate further, except on talk. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the talk page for the Essiac entry. Essiac is an herbal tea that is promoted as a cure for cancer and other illnesses. The article itself accurately reflects the fact that no evidence supports these claims and no medical organizations endorse it, but on the talk page, people have posted recipes for how to make your own at home. Obviously it's not normally acceptable to delete other users' comments from talk, but I was wondering if it would be OK in this situation, given that they have nothing to do with improving the article and they might be seen as accepting or promoting Essiac.
It's entirely possible that I am over-reacting and nothing needs to be deleted, but I thought it worth bringing some attention to it here in case there are others who share my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate some eyes on this page. One editor appears to be trying to prove a WP:POINT by removing any mention of the fringe theory about water ionizers' affects on health because the primary studies they want add has been rejected. Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Bringing here for wider attention an issue I have just seen at WP:NORN. The article subject seems to be a promoter of pseudoscience ideas; certainly the idea that earthquakes are being deliberately caused is pretty odd. Article has been through 4 AfDs. It just might be notable conspiracy theory, but it doesn't look all that notable or well sourced to me. Physicists around? Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
President Bush's vicious nationwide attack on whistleblowers comes to Berkeley via an all-too-obliging city council mayor, and police department
Since becoming a Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab whistleblower in 1991 I have worked diligently and effectively for the past six years as an independent scientist, to educate the global community on radiation issues both locally and internationally. The dark legacy of Dr. Strangelove, former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Director Edward Teller, is the fact that the University of California will forever be known as "the University that poisoned the world." The University of California has turned Planet Earth into a Death Star.
The problems with my cars and the Berkeley Police Department started after I did a presentation on radiation and depleted uranium on September 11, 2005 for Physicians for Social Responsibility.
When I left the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in 1991 I was told, "You're in a police net for the rest of your life," and to a reasonable person it seems I have been. I have been subjected to car theft, damage to personal property, the University of California/Homeland Security Special - "gangstalking," and very frequently experienced documents missing from my home. My daughter was kidnapped when she was 13 facilitated by the University of California and Livermore Lab, and I did not see her for 5 years.
On three occasions in the past several years my cars have been towed by Berkeley Police Department using selective enforcement the timing of which coincided with major radiation disclosures I have made. Some would think they were related since the Berkeley Police Department "Red Squad" was actively killing the Free Speech Movement in the '60s and I have observed them covertly spying on demonstrations recently.
Leuren Moret Berkeley
My own thought is that we have three different issues with this article, which should be addressed separately.
(1) Is Leuren Moret notable enough for an article? I think not; if someone who agrees wants to nominate the article for deletion and point me there, I'll show up.
(2) If she is notable (or in the interim while the deletion discussion goes on), is the fringe nature of her stances reflected reasonably in the article? Here, I think the article is in good shape. All facts seem correct, and are cited to sources. Puffery has been removed. The article refers to Moret's "crusade"; her specific fringe beliefs about the 2011 Japanese earthquake are stated, but clearly as opinion rather than fact. Do others agree?
(3) Are reliable sources used in establishing her notability, her opinions, her background? On this issue I'm not clear. Sure, the minutes from the Berkeley CEAC are unimpeachable. But the Tehran Times and a conspiracy-laden personal website are used to source some of Moret's quotations and public stances. I guess I'm okay with propaganda machines and fringe websites for sourcing what are clearly fringe claims; it's sort of like quoting a homeopathist about what a homeopathic remedy is supposed to do. But I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia's general tolerance for such sources, and I'd definitely appreciate some others' thoughts here.
I know this noticeboard is only technically concerned with (2), but as Pgallert notes, talk page discussion has not progressed. Thoughts? Moishe Rosenbaum ( talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There is currently controversy in the University of London surrounding this individual's publications. In these circumstances, when serious ethical questions have been raised and his scholarship placed in doubt, is it permissible to cite his work as a reliable source on wikipedia? Mathsci ( talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In researching my paternal blood line I came upon your article about a Flavio Gioia Italian mariner and navigator reputed to have perfected the magnetic compass. While I am unsure of this mans contributions in maritime navigational instruments; there is no doubt in my mind the man Flavio Gioia existed. It would be a difficult pill for anyone to swallow when being told by some neophyte that ones ancestor is simply a figment of their familial imaginations! Flavio Gioia's decendants come from a long line of the Gioia family; which includes Di Gaetano and Bologna blood. My paternal grandmother Concetta Bologna ni Di Gaetano was a Gioia on her mothers side and consistently spoke about Flavio as a distant maternal relative. Certainly; the Gioia name is a prominant Italian Amercican surename of whom many I have met. Therefore; it seems obvious that such a man going by the name of Flavio Gioia existed. As to whether or not he actually had anything to do with perfecting the magnetic compass I am unsure of; and so seems the case with historians as well because they obviously cannot make up their minds as to whether or not such a man existed. Perhaps they should speak with contemporary Gioia family members to put this matter to rest once and for all?
Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. Noformation Talk 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ages in Chaos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I got involved in this article a couple of years back, but had forgotten it until it came up on my watchlist. The article is mostly a recap of the author's, Immanuel Velikovsky's, claims with only a tiny section on the end, mentioning the complete evisceration of these claims. Also, as another editor pointed out, most of this section is criticism of Velikovsky's claims generally, rather than specific criticism of this book. I am therefore going to nominate the article for merger into the author's article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed merger of the two above articles which have so much overlap there is little point in keeping them separate. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Gus W. Weiss ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
New article on a possibly- notable individual suffers from a lack of proper sourcing. The citations currently in use include rense.com, Alex Constantine's 911review.org and SciForums.com...beyond that it's a paid NYT obit and a primary source from the CIA. Fringey stuff, and it needs a good look.
I'm headed out the door, so I can't perform due diligence. Hopefully some of you will be willing to check in on this article. — Scien tizzle 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good work, everyone...the article is much improved! — Scien tizzle 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Would someone be able to take a look at the UFO Phil article? Practically everything that has been written about this guy (from his own website to newspaper articles) is tongue-in-cheek, but the article presents too many of his claims as facts. I highly doubt that he was actually born in Roswell, for example. I'm not even sure if Phil Hill is his real name.
This is probably more of an " in-universe" issue than a fringe theories issue, but I figured this would be the best place to ask for assistance. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Big rewrite by an IP, latest version has removed all sources and all mention of his book Forbidden Archeology. Hopefully this will be replaced as without it it clearly fails NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Back in 1981 Thompson wrote a book titled Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science (available online here. One of Thompson's followers is attempting to foist the following quote on us as a description of the book:
attractive quality of this book is that Thompson writes as a scientist about science with a clarity, accuracy, and objectivity that should engender respect both from scientists and from those whose religious persuasions are other than his own. . . . Scientists reading the book need not feel betrayed by Thompson, for he shows throughout both a respect and love for good science. Because he loves science, he is pained by its contradictions and seeks its intelligibility in a larger context...
On balance, I think this book is a very valuable addition to the current literature in science and religion. Thompson's choice of examples from science that seem to upset contemporary scientific paradigms is superb. They are all relevant. They are carefully explained and in one book. Many come from quite recent developments (including punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould) which I have not outlined in this review. These examples form test cases that must be applied to any philosophy of religion that claims adequacy to represent science. The process theologian or Thomist, for example, can examine how process philosophy or Thomism can handle the puzzles and anomalies arising in science that seem to discredit current scientific explanation, as well as compare the success of such philosophies with one derived from the Bhagavad-gita.
I don't have access to the full review, and I have concerns -- both as to whether the above, heavily-ellipsised, passage is an accurate reflection of the review as a whole, and also whether the author is competent to evaluate the scientific (as opposed to philosophical or mathematical -- he's listed as "a Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College") merits of the work. Certainly citing discussion of " punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould" as a positive seems somewhat naive (at least in hindsight), given the pervasive creationist misrepresentation of their work. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has AfDed this article. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be renewed problems on this page and the associated article Criticism of evolutionary psychology. This relatively new subject is not universally accepted and there have been a series of critiques of certain aspects of the theory. Some of these for example were summarised in an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Stephen Downes here. Since the topic area is controversial, I am posting here, because of a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science. It would be good if more eyes could look at what appear to be attempts to rewrite the article so that readers get the impression that all criticisms might have been invalidated. My own feeling is that it is inappropriate for wikipedia editors to use primary sources to make arguments for or against the different facets of this subject: the area is far from being black and white. Some aspects of the theory are not controversial, whereas others are. At present there seems to be a mismatch between the two wikipedia articles and the Stanford article: that seems to be a problem. Mathsci ( talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
SPA IP at Leonora Piper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seeking to add fringe POV giving credibility to communication with the dead. IP has since created an SPA user account: Apollion888 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the express purpose of furthering this aim. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Xythianos is an aggressive Iranian nationalist [18] who insists on pushing a Persian-nationalist POV over at Ancient history. For example, he insists on replacing the mention of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea from the timeline, and replacing them with Battle of Thermopylae, for no other reason than the latter is a Persian victory. Thermopylae was indeed significant (not so much because it was a Persian victory but rather due to its effect on Greek morale), but it is eclipsed by Salamis and Plataea, which were the strategically decisive engagements that ended once and for all the Persian attempts to conquer Greece. He also inflates the contributions of ancient Persia to science and technology using empty peacock generalizations and extravagant claims based on outright source falsification [19] (the source clearly credits the Babylonians, not the Persians). Now, I'm not opposed to some mention of Persian technology in the article, but not like this, not with this user's attitude and not with this type of source falsification. I've tried to discuss things with him, the results can be seen in the first diff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 03:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A new editor is inserting some rather strange claims from a reasonably prominent British creationist. The articles involved are:
The claim is:
McIntosh declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible, however there are nanomachines necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even tries to demonstrate it with examples that the chemical bonds between nucleotides require an extra free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular machines. He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to happen. Further on he points out that after living organism dies and these machines cease working, the DNA starts falling apart even while still being exposed to extra energy. Thus, he believes natural selection has no power to create new functional structures.<ref>McIntosh, A.C.: Functional Information and Entropy in living system, pp.115-126, Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering , Vol 87 of WIT Transactions on Ecology and the environment, Editor Brebbia C.A., WIT Press, 2006.</ref>
Discussion of McIntosh & the claim can be found at Talk:Objections to evolution#Add. "Too specific" or actual argument not welcome?. I'm concerned about adding such a claim without some sort of evaluation from mainstream science as to what the claim actually means, and whether it is credible (and/or merely making the commonplace seem miraculous). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [22] [23] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.-- Stephfo ( talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Those interested in fringe articles and editors may be interested in this RfC/U. Dougweller ( talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This topic has many contradictory statements. This doesn't have any citation to prove that. Those statements were removed multiple times, but someone is adding those purposefully to damage the reputation of the other political party over there, thus providing some false information in Wikipedia(which is not acceptable). Wherever the citation needed is asked, please provide the appropriate citation, or else please remove those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinnam ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2011
Acolytes of Thompson are attempting to mitigate the evisceration of his notable Vedic creationism work, by adding lengthy sections on his all-but-ignored work, cited to the very few 'science & religion' sources that actually paid any attention to them (and generally gave them a more favourable review than the scientists gave his more notable work). Some extra scrutiny may be needed. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
...And are now citing Theta: The Journal of the Psychical Research Foundation for information on one of them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
User:MissionNPOVible ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), having been thoroughly disruptive on Intelligent design, is now turning their attention to Wedge strategy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mainly pushing the claim that (numerous prominent sourcing to the contrary), ID isn't religious. More scrutiny would be valuable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd Pye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.
Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 20 May 2011.
I have since removed all the OR and primary sourced junk [24]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We have an WP:SPA on this article edit-warring to have the uncited (and most probably POV- WP:Synthesis) claim that "This criticism, however, overlooks the fact that Meyer spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design." I'm WP:3RRed out -- so if somebody else can take a look (the SPA seems completely uninterested in discussing the issue). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotected for 3 days as an ip joined in following the 3rr warning. Vsmith ( talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Simply awful! For example, it acts as if there weren't severe methodological, statistical, and other flaws in Rhine's work (the original Zener cards were partially transparent; the statistics were done as if the zener cards were randomised completely, when they weren't shuffled between cards, etc. 86.179.72.113 ( talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a bait-and-switch? Most of the supposed "alternative" treatments are, in fact, conventional or experimental conventional treatments. 86.179.72.113 ( talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Completely unsourced bio unabashedly heroicizing the subject and promoting the profound nature of A Course In Miracles. Contains flowery musings such as, "...the thoroughness and accuracy of the concordance produced by Wapnick was fully on a par with some of the more thorough concordances already used for the Christian Bible." It also reports a copyright lawsuit over ACIM as centered around "the disputed claim that Jesus Christ is the author of the material" rather than all too human squabbling between authors and publishers. Wrap it up with a book list that goes on for miles, and you can see it's an article in dire need of help. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Over the last month I've been working in a determined way to improve a number of articles on 5th & 6th century European history topics, & have been surprised to see a number of these articles use the works of Settipani as a source. I never heard of this guy before, & finally took the time to look into him & his ideas about Descent from antiquity. To say I'm underwhelmed at what I found is to put it mildly: he's just another computer geek & amateur historian, like me & countless contributors to Wikipedia. In many of these articles, his works are cited in the same breath with standard references such as Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft -- or as the only source for the article -- for example, Ecdicius & Felix (consul 511), & as a rather egregious example, Ennodius. To make matters worse, a preliminary investigation suggests these citations are all due to the efforts of a currently banned user.
While I can see the point of mentioning his theories in the articles about people who form these genealogical chains into antiquity -- some of which are clearly more speculative than others -- I don't see how it helps Wikipedia's reliability for articles to cite his works so frequently (a search on his name turns up 317 mentions), so I'd like to remove him from various articles as I encounter them, & have accumulated more reliable sources -- similar to what I've done with Odoacer, & several of the Visigothic kings of the 6th century. Thoughts? Arguments that Settipani is not a fringe author/source? -- llywrch ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
An AfD on this relatively minor creationist has just closed as "no consensus, but let's do this again!" Given the large amount of, in my opinion questionable, material that has been added to this article to keep it from being deleted, I have raised an RFC on the topic at Talk:Leonard R. Brand#RFC: Third party coverage. You may wish to express an opinion. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand's main promoter is now trying to get the following two quotes from Brand into the article:
The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist isn't a difference in the scientific data, but a difference in philosophy - a difference in the presuppositions...
In my approach, I retain the scientific method of observation and experimentation, but I also allow study of Scripture to open my eyes to things that I might otherwise overlook and to suggest new hypotheses to test. This approach is not just a theory; some of us have been using it for years with success.
(The second one, in spite of the fact that he's clinging to a widely falsified hypothesis) I have suggested that these claims fall well foul of the 'unduly self-serving' clause of WP:ABOUTSELF. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing edit war in the article on Ito calculus. There's a section on differentiation in Ito calculus, which is not found in the standard textbooks on the subject. It seems as though some single-purpose accounts are using wikipedia to promote this point of view. The author of the original paper even links to the wikipedia page from his website.
The paper on which this result is based has 0 citations on MathSciNet, a major resource for mathematics research. Google scholar lists 5 citations, though I can verify that the author of the original paper was involved in at least three of these. The other two are duplicates of a paper in a language I cannot read. SimonL ( talk) 09:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm here... Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has had trash added recently, which I've removed a few times [27], by the now-blocked User:Chronocrator. But the same junk has been added by 92.100.183.168 ( talk · contribs). Metric expansion of space also applies, but is currently at peace William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The conflict level on Leonard R. Brand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gotten to a sufficient level that I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to take a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on the article. I am therefore requesting that any WP:FTN regulars who have the time (and particularly any with expertise in Creationism, or who have better grace under fire than I do) to take an interest. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Both created by the same editor. I have been working on Exoconsciousness removing copyvio, stuff sourced to a self-published book by a Ruth Hardcastle, and material that is only about Hardcastle. When I finished I ended up with three sentences, the only reliably sourced one having just a brief mention of the subject, and a lot of links which I suspect are about Hardcastle and not the subject. I'd like a sanity check on what I've done and any comments as to whether it should go to AfD. Terri Donovan Mansfield is a BLP article starting with "Terri Donovan Mansfield is a recognized Ambassador of Peace". Virtually all the sources seem to be to material by her. My initial thoughts were that she might be notable, but I don't see any real news coverage for her or anything else, but maybe someone can find some. Dougweller ( talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Telepathic plants, anyone? As used by a former "Interrogation Specialist with the CIA" (no citation provided, naturally) for lie detection, at the 'Backster School of Lie Detection' - the "longest running polygraph school in the world" (nope, no citation for that either). Prime grade bullshit. As a BLP, I could probably delete half of it as a policy violation anyway. Anyone see any reason why an AfD isn't the obvious course of action though? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This article seems very rose tinted in its description (a proponent currently edits the article mostly), is there anyone with an interest in fringe medicine to have a look at it? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Puff pieces. I've done a bit to improve these, but there's still some promotional language, like "The Faculty promotes the academic and scientific development (What does that mean? Science has come down firmly against it.) of homeopathy and ensures standards (Puffery!) in the education and training in homeopathy of dentists, doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, podiatrists, veterinary surgeons (But don't tell DEFRA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/17/pet-remedies/ ) and other statutorily-registered healthcare professionals."
Also, none of the masses of criticism they've received appears. I've at least added in a little context about homeopathy, but these were a whitewash, and will probably become so again if not watched.
Peter Fisher will need major rewrites to satisfy WP:FRINGE. 86.183.39.212 ( talk) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A single-purpose account account has besieged the talk page for nearly a week attempting to overturn overwhelming consensus against including a mention that Gov. Perry attended a Bilderberg conference in 2007. The clear consensus is that the event is neither notable nor are their significant RS linking Perry to any issues relating to his attendance. Another concern is that even a passing mention of the conference in the article will give a foothold to let theorists expand it into something more.
The SPA alleges that several blogs are enough notability and alleges Wikipedia censorship, etc. for not permitting "the truth" to be published The fact that the meeting was closed to the press is a major issue for the editor and the editor repeatedly calls it a secret meeting in Turkey. He also alleges that Perry violated the Logan Act by attending a meeting with other foreign notables and that Perry is involved in some sort of Manchurian candidate conspiracy with CNN and other unnamed actors.
I request that editors who are familiar with fringe theories and cabals take a look at the four lengthy discussion sections and suggest how we can put this to rest or find a reasonable compromise.
Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The article on this conspiracy theory advocacy group spends all its time on explaining their theories and nothing on criticism of what is a quite controversial group. Mangoe ( talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My bullshit sensor went off about 1/3rd of the way through the lede on this one. According to the article this EHF therapy is an amazing panacea. I'm not sure what to do with it, since the proponent of it seems to be notable, but the article is so severely biased that it's almost un-salvageable. Gigs ( talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You too can copy advertising material from a fringe medical practitioner and get it on Wikipedia! 86.174.101.101 ( talk) 23:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Impressively, every single source fails to back its claims. How do you even manage to do that? 86.174.101.101 ( talk) 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:ANI:
Thought I'd repost this here as it is in FTN's bailiwick. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We have two IPs and an account, one of the IPs being clearly the named account, adding fringe and original research to this article. I can't keep reverting, so more eyes are needed. Dougweller ( talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Of all the major alternative medicines, this is probably the one that's most criticism-free. There is a mention of the heavy metals being intentionally added to some remedies, but very late in the article. =/ 86.177.230.127 ( talk) 13:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh my freaking god. A brief mention at the end is the only indication that INTENTIONALLY EATING GODDAMN MERCURY might be a bad idea. But it's alright, it's only WESTERN Medicine that says that.
Actual quotes:
“ | Traditionally it is believed that when mercury is properly prepared, it balances all three doshas (humours of the body), has a soothing effect on the body, prevents disease and old age. It is claimed to nourish all the vital parts of the body and increases the strength of the eyes. It is a vrisya (aphrodisiac), balya (tonic), snigdha (anointing), rasayana (rejuvenative), vrana sodhana and ropana (wound cleaner and healer), and krimighna (antimicrobial). it is believed that when it compounded with any herb it heightens the medicinal properties. Mercury is also said to give a firm physique, a stable mind, and to be the best destroyer of disease. Furthermore, It is considered holy because it is the semen of Lord Shiva. | ” |
“ | Rasa Shastra is a very individualized system of medicine that requires immense proficiency to be practiced safely and effectively. Perhaps the most important factor in the efficacy of a treatment is the nature of the practitioner. It is said that one must first have undergone a thorough personal and spiritual purification before the ability to work with the transformative effects of herbal and metallic remedies is attained. Rasa Shastra is not easily adjusted to address the health needs of large numbers of people, but is capable of providing access to the most powerful healing tools of the plant and mineral kingdoms. | ” |
86.177.230.127 ( talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Argument on the talk page about RS, WEIGHT, & how much is fringe. — kwami ( talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Fringe, wanders all over the place, unreliable sources, etc. Up for AfD but who knows what will happen. Dougweller ( talk) 10:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Damned uncited, and reads like a personal essay. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently proposing that:
be merged into:
Any input would be welcome. Discussion can be found at Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky/Archive 3#Merger proposal. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I want to ask for some neutral opinions regarding this alternative name. I've inserted 8 different reliable sources that support this view, but someone reverted me with the edit summary "Rvv Fringe views". I don't agree at all with his edit, so we need a third party to settle the conflict ( SamiraJ ( talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
Could use some eyes. I'm being 'strongly advised to back off'. Dougweller ( talk) 09:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across Nordic aliens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- a poorly sourced article on an obscure (and likely non-notable) offshoot of fringe UFO claims (which are well into the fringes of my own area). Regulars may wish to take a look. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I got to here from Nordic aliens. It's a mess, mainly by the same editor. Dougweller ( talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
All the (solely general) references given for this article appear to be WP:FRINGE, from advocates of this idea, and would appear to fail WP:MEDRS. What should be done about this article? Is the topic sufficiently notable fringe that it should be balanced with the scientific view? Or should it simply be WP:AFDed? It's well outside my area of expertise, so I'm not really in a position to assess how notable it is. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
And editor has been trying to push a fringe theory about an alleged Hungarian Runic script, stating it as if it is an established fact. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas and Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription. User Rovasscript has added this fringe theory and links to a site supporting the theory Alsószentmihály inscription [36], as well as Szarvas inscription [37], Karaite Judaism [38], Jews in the Middle Ages [39], Crimean Karaites [40], Khazars [41], and Kabar [42]. I doubt this theory is notable enough to even be listed, let alone as an established fact. Edward321 ( talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has real problems with telling people Mercury is a good thing to eat, because Ayurvedic practitioners say so.
From Mercury (element) [A Good Article!]
“ | Mercury in the form of one of its common ores, cinnabar, remains an important component of Chinese, Tibetan, and Ayurvedic medicine. As problems may arise when these medicines are exported to countries that prohibit the use of mercury in medicines, in recent times, less toxic substitutes have been devised. | ” |
From Samskara (ayurvedic)
“ | In ayurveda, toxic ingredients, which sometimes include heavy metals such as mercury, are purified using a process of prayer and pharmacy. Some practitioners believe that both are necessary to transform the toxicity though a pharmacological study on aconite showed that only the washes are necessary to render the substance non-toxic. [Aconite example given, then...] More general scientific evidence that ayurvedic medicine impurities and ingredients such as heavy metals may be rendered nontoxic is not available, and case reports describe adverse effects of these substances. | ” |
From Rasayana, we get simple lies about Ayurveda NOT containing mercury
“ | Because of negative publicity and cost factor, the use of the classical rasayana formulas has declined considerably, and most of the preparations available now have herbal ingredients with a couple of mineral and animal products. The non-availability and wild life protection act has made the use of musk, amber and parts of wild-life animals, nearly impossible. | ” |
From Shilajit:
“ | Shilajit, also known as shilajit, mumijo, and momia,
[1] is used in the
Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine.
, Shilajit is a rasayana material and is an adaptogen, due to its proven citation needed ability to increase resistance and support the adaptation of the body and its inner workings to a variety of chemical, biological, and physical stressors. [2] unreliable source? The composition of Shilajit has been investigated numerous times in both India and the former USSR, and depends on the location where it is found. It has been reported to contain at least 85 minerals in Ionic form, including triterpenes and aromatic carboxylic acid, as well as humic acid and fulvic acid. [3] [4] [5] |
” |
Check out the sources for that. They're pretty awfful, including a site wanting to sell you the stuff.
List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda gives us an entire chart of unsourced medical claims. Example:
Andrographis paniculata | Green chirayta | Yavatika | For malaria fever, enlargement of liver, chronic and obstinate fever, dropsy, edema, constipation, and infant disorders such as diarrhoea, colic, vomiting.
Used as an appetiser. |
From Triphala, claims cited with reference only to a fringe textbook.
“ | In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, Triphala is used for: | ” |
From Chyawanprash:
“ | Chyawanprash, also spelled chyavangysha, chyavanaprash, chyavanaprasam and chyawanaprash, is an ancient Ayurvedic health tonic, widely used in India, as a rejuvenative, energizer and immunity booster. It is often called "the elixir of life" due to its numerous nutritional properties and benefit to the body. | ” |
From
Adaptogen, we get a lot of health claims, with no sources whatsoever.
“ | Panax ginseng, for example, is an adaptogen that has shown an "overall normalizing effect". citation needed [...] Many adaptogens contain polysaccharides that have been reported to stimulate immune system components and have immune system enhancing benefits. citation needed Polysaccharide-rich plants and mushrooms have a long history of use in traditional practices such as Chinese medicine. In addition to stimulating the immune system, they are used to increase vital energy and considered qi tonics. Adaptogens that contain polysaccharides include: American ginseng, Asian ginseng, astragalus, Cordyceps, eleuthero, licorice, lycium, prince seng, Lingzhi/Reishi, rhaponticum, and shatavari.[1] | ” |
As I think you'll agree, Ayurveda has spread its tendrils all over Wikipedia, getting away with blatant advertising. Something should be done.
86.182.184.39 (
talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Making a new subsection to make this easier. I've done a couple, other people have done some, and we've fixed quite a number. Here's what left.
So, it's a start, but two really problematic articles left. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The article isn't too bad, but has three major problems. It's an awkward one because the science behind historical ayurveda was very advanced for its time, but its continued use now that modern medicine is available is kind of like using Copernicus' epicycles as part of your spaceship calculations.
1. This quote is simply awful, but removing it would be worse. We need better sources to discuss it.
“ | Western neutrality is disputed medicine has ayurveda classified dubious as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. [9] | ” |
However, fixing the other problems should sort this:
2. It fails to include sufficient criticism of the modern-day practice. There's some criticism of the heavy metal content (I removed some special pleading and cherry picking), but that's a very narrow focus of criticism, and the inclusion of that narrow focus seems to have acted to isolate the practice from any more general criticism.
3. The criticism is only in the last section. By hiding all the criticism at the end, it means that anyone who only reads part of the article will be misled. Giving the article a proper WP:LEAD, which summarises ALL points should fix this. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Is Terminalia arjuna at all salvageable? 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Also Panchakarma.
To give samples:
From Terminalia arjuna:
“ | Terminalia arjuna (Neer maruthu in Tamil & Malayalam) is a medicinal plant of the genus Terminalia, widely used by ayurvedic physicians for its curative properties in organic/functional heart problems including angina, hypertension and deposits in arteries. According to Ayurvedic texts it also very useful in the treatment of any sort of pain due to falls, ecchymosis, spermatorrhoea and sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea.It is thought to be a useful astringent, cooling, aphrodisiac, cardiotonic, tonic and is used for ulcers, leucorrhoea, diabetes, cough, tumour, excessive perspiration, asthma, inflammation and skin disorders etc. [10] Arjuna bark (Terminallia arjuna) is thought to be beneficial for the heart. This has also been proved in a research by Dr. K. N. Udupa in Banaras Hindu University's Institute of Medical Sciences , Varanasi (India). In this research, they found that powdered extract of the above drug provided very good results to the people suffering from Coronary heart diseases., [11] [12] | ” |
As usual, it fails the miracle cure test. If what was claimed to be proven really was proven, it would be much more widely used than just in a fringe practice.
From
Panchakarma:
“ | In order to stay healthy and fit one should carry out Panchakarma methods as a way of cleansing and servicing the body. The greatest benefit of this system is preventing possible serious illness due to 'Srothas Avarodha' obstruction of channels or ducts. | ” |
“ | A Panchakarma Specialist is someone who specializes in Panchakarma therapies of all kinds. Post Graduate in the field of Pnachakarma makes a ayurvedic physician a specialist in the field of Panchakarma. There are many institutions in India which imparts Post Graduation courses in Panchakarma.
The Panchakarma therapies are highly specific and require years of hands-on clinical training and experience to be effective. Without the proper training in Ayurvedic Medicine, these therapies cannot be administered properly and may even aggravate or worsen the person's condition. [Emphasis original] |
” |
Both are proposed for deletion. 86.183.39.90 ( talk) 07:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Uncited and inaccurate text is being added by the usual "Muller was trying to destroy Hinduism" party. I have already pushed 3RR, though I think this is now essentially vandalism. However, extra input would be appreciated. Paul B ( talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Are these really the unambiguous good that the articles paint them to be? 86.179.217.124 ( talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Went through a lot more articles.
Lots and lots of copyvio, and even more promotional essays, often signed by the creators, in the articles.
I've dealt with pretty much all of them, but, ye gods, it's pretty clear noone has ever checked up on this topic before, or they'd have caught this stuff. Worried that the Ayurvedic worldview isn't as clear anymore - Dosha turned out to be almost entirely copyvio; I found a revision I could revert to, but it lost a lot of (copyvio) content. it'd be good if Ayurveda could be improved to clearly explain the five-element, three-dosha, seven-dhatu ideas (key word: clearly), because the only halfway clear explanation on Wikipedia was copyvio. 86.182.20.107 ( talk) 12:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [ [43]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated as it involves a fringe theory. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is a slight dispute over at
Emotional Freedom Technique; extra eyes, or any suggestions on how to improve the article, would be welcome.
bobrayner (
talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't even try to describe it: this new article has to be seen to be believed. The only question is whether it should be reduced to a two-sentence stub or deleted entirely. I am also wondering whether it may be a recreation of a previously deleted article, but I couldn't find an AfD for it. Looie496 ( talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
PROBABLE SOCK: Bcsadhak ( talk · contribs) - because it's NOT AT ALL suspicious that the users first and only edit oi to remove a template warning the page was copyvio. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Do editors agree that the new Category Cross-quarter days is unnecessary, and tending to promotion of fringiness? And indeed the category Quarter days is unnecessary. For info, quarter days were important in European calendars from the Middle Ages onwards, coinciding roughly with the equinoxes and solstices, and linked to Christian holidays. There are also festivals occurring between the quarter days, but identifying them as "cross quarter days" is surrounded by much unfounded supposition. I cleared a lot of that out of the article, and am now dismayed to see a category founded. And we see Chinese festivals now assimilated to the European ones, which is weird given that Cross-quarter days is a subcategory of Christian festivals and holidays. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Needs a year-overdue AfD-mandated merge done, avoiding merging in any of the unsourced or marketing claims. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed this section per WP:UNDUE and because whoever Lias is, his ideas don't seem to have been reported elsewhere and he himself doesn't seem important enough to have his ideas reported in the article, he is apparently someone that was found just to add a postscript to Salibi's book which promotes a fringe theory that the place names of the Bible refer to places in Arabia. Dougweller ( talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
For those of you who remember the Kamboja fancruft mess we had a couple of years ago (parts of which we still do), it might be cropping up again, only it now extends to Atlantis and Egypt. — Spaceman Spiff 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Done a fair bit of work to defringe this. Not thrilled with the sources for the remaining section on Ayurveda - would much rather have actual historians or even primary sources for the history of use than a herbal company, but it MAY be good enough for now. See what you think? 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion on whether these studies of the dog whisperer amount to fringe theories? These have previously been deleted as "self-published" and again as "original research" and it is now suggested that they are "fringe theories":
The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.
A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries. [13]
In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals. [14]
A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes. [15]
In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression. [16]
Sources:
Per Wikipedia rather than google, such research studies/articles are primary sources, unless they are published in reviews or meta analysis, and in this case possibly veterinary textbooks or other more academically driven publications. We can't in an encyclpedia interpret research and use those interpretations as references/sources for claims made in an article. ( olive ( talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
W&M
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).formulary
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
dead link
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)