This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Mothman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit-warring IP now with a brand new user account wishing to add material connecting Mothman to 9/11, all sourced to message boards at Mothmanlives.com, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to take this one on in my place? I grow a little weary of trying to strip the infinitude of health claims that inevitably descends on a supposedly medicinal herb. Can't we make a guideline setting out what counts as the minimal standards for health claims and such? 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is potentially a big problem, if we have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on "medicinal" plants and a significant proportion contain medical claims unsupported by any MEDRS. Waiting for them to be reported here and then dealing with them adhoc may not be efficient. I'd happily do a systematic review of all these articles - but where's the best place to start? Category:Medicinal plants is unlikely to be complete; Withania somnifera isn't in it. bobrayner ( talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, I've begun a quick survey. Here's a list of everything I found in just the first 40 results from a search for "medicinal plant cancer" which actually claims to cure cancer. Not going to fix them, as someone should probably watchlist before removing the claims.
Stated to cure cancer, or very nearly
Strongly implied to cure cancer
"May cure cancer"
"Being studied for", without strong implications
Potential problems, but somewhat balanced (basically, anything that looked too complicated for a quick check)
Other
On the upside, a search that finds about 50% almost certainly bad material is pretty specific. On the downside, holy crap: This search gives over 500 results, and if that pattern holds...
86.184.85.227 (
talk) 13:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
These should probably be nuked from orbit
That search is, of course, the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of plants which are claimed to be used for other ailments. Months ago I cleaned up Red raspberry leaf which supposedly had a dozen different benefits for pregnant women and nursing mothers... bobrayner ( talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please watchlist this - people keep trying to add in a study showing it can cure cataracts... when you damage a chick embryo's eyes with steroids then rub diluted Chyawanprash on them before the cataracts start. This is hardly a study that shows anything about real world use. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on this one too; there's an unsourced, probably original research rant that's been getting readded. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Major OR and synth: Tries to use modern medicine taking patient's pulse to justify pre-scientific claims. 86.182.191.108 ( talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there sufficient non-advocacy sources on this for an article to be made, or should this be prodded as too fringe to e reasonably discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.20.197 ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 September 2011
I've checked the first 20 results for "medicinal plant diabetes". Here's the results. Of course, some of these could be valid (but I suspect not).
There is some overlap between this and the previous list.
Apparently cures everything
Said outright to cure or treat diabetes
Said to maybe cure or treat diabetes
Formerly said one of above (cleaned because of previous survey)'
Other questionable claims
Maybe alright?
...Not looking good. 86.178.192.40 ( talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This really is one of the worst articles I've seen. 86.178.192.40 ( talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Really? Here's two sections of it.
“ |
Lactose MythMisunderstanding has surrounded this aspect of camel's milk. Many sufferers of lactose intolerance can tolerate camel's milk, yet lactose is present in the milk. Composition charts show a range of 3.3 to 5.0% lactose (cow's milk has a range of 3.7-5.1%, sheep milk is 4.6-5.4% and goat milk is 4.1-4.7%). The human digestive system can tolerate camel's milk because its proteins are shorter, making them easier to digest. While a cow is a ruminant with four stomachs, a camel is a modified mono-gastric (one stomach with separated compartments) and so is far more compatible with the human digestive system. A camel is said to ruminate without being a ruminant. DiabetesStudies in India and Tunisia support anecdotal evidence from Bedouin and camel herding communities that have long recognised the milk's ability to treat diabetes. Although more research is required to attain the efficacy of this claim,it is believed that an insulin-like protein present in the milk, which does not get destroyed in the acid environment of the stomach, passes to the lower intestine where it can be absorbed and utilised by the body. This translates to 52 units of insulin being present in a quart of camel milk. If studies are proved to be correct camel milk would be the first effective oral insulin treatment for diabetes. |
” |
First of all, lactose is a sugar; the length of proteins is meaningless. Secondly, they seem to be trying to claim that lactose intolerance is a myth, that camel milk's fiiiine despite containing lactose. Thirdly, human milk would cause lactose intolerance in lactose intolerant individuals. You (generally) aren't born lactose intolerant, but the ability to digest lactose goes away as you age.
As for diabetes, I like how they have no idea if it even works, but give exact values for self-treatment use anyway. 86.176.216.50 ( talk) 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"They were proved to be medical spectacles due to his studies and the human needs for re-correcting eye problems in the 3rd Millennium as well as for the techniques used in their production." Huh? Really? Not sure where to go with this mixture of Forteana and questionable archaeology. There is what looks to be a real "scholarly" reference, but all I can say is that if this is what Iranian scholarship looks like, I would view it all with a jaundiced eye. So to speak. Mangoe ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This keeps getting edited to readd nonsense and special pleading, pclaiming that it's perfectly safe - Ayurveda can detoxify heavy metals (through magic, apparently). It also keeps having the notes about the high contamination with heavy metals removed from the lead, despite WP:LEAD saying all sections should be summarised. Please watchlist. 86.182.20.197 ( talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hate to keep bringing stuff up, but this has a whole TON of claims based on very flimsy evidence. I don't doubt that some of the claims should stand - phramacological drugs have, indeed, been made based on mushrooms, but there's a lot of stuff that's in vitro or worse, and thus, at best, horribly premature to be on Wikipedia. 86.182.20.197 ( talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:
This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B ( talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.
The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.
It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:
The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:
That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word [1 1] [1 2] [1 3] [1 4] [1 5] [1 6] [1 7] [1 8].
Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at
Thanks. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This guy is pretty clearly notable for his involvement in the art world, including a scandal or two which the present version of the article boldly whitewashes. His pseudoscientific endeavors dominate the article at the moment, however. Mangoe ( talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article had been inserted with as many as 5 parapraphs describing the Church accordinly to an academic case study by Joy Tong. There are as many as 12 mentions of "according to Tong", "According to informants to Tong","Tong's study observed".
I feel that while it is OK to make mention of Tong's study, but to have so many paragraphs dedicated to his study is not reasonable in a factual report. Besides, how can you ascertain that Tong's report is not bias and NPOV? Already I had digged out an contradicting view by Tong and an Straits Times article regarding the teaching. (I had included this in the article)
There are concerns of UNDUE weight mentioned in the Talk page, but it seems that it is not truly been answered.
Thanks in advance, J0hn 0316 ( talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Awful, WP:COATRACK of an article, using a minor connection with Andy Warhol to jusrtify praising pseudoscience instead. I've tried to fix the latter a bit, but I suspect this is borderline WP:ONEEVENT 86.176.222.119 ( talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring this article up with this project. Personally I feel it has a strong apologist tone and may use quote mining to undermine the research that invalidates astrology as well as the frequent use of fringe sources to counter mainstream ones. The individual sign articles are also problematic for a variety of reasons. I've made a small improvement, but more eyes are definitely needed. -- Daniel 17:36, 2 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, I came across this quite incidentally after leaving messages on your talk pages. Why don't you be more constructive by raising your issues directly on the astrology talk-page? Are we supposed to guess what your concerns are?? Andy - do you think I'm not attempting to generate a more encyclopaedic tone? It's just difficult. Editors who have studied the subject are accused of being advocates, and on the other side of this there is a barrage of new editors, emotively flared up by your post Daniel, thinking that the repression of the astrology argument is the only way to preserve the integrity of scientific knowledge.
Let me tell you what I think, frankly, since this seems to be the place to gossip behind the scenes - there are too many hidden agendas by editors viewing other editors with suspicion. We are losing sight of the most valuable thing that WP has to offer - free and open access to relevant information that the interested reader wants to know. It is true that the astrology page is currently over-emphasising the science controversy by comparison to the cultural and popular interest, but that's because there is much work to be done and few who are willing to do it. And yes, Daniel, the individual sign articles are very problematic - I have put hours of my life that I'll never get back again trying to improve that content, which is an embarrassment to WP - so it doesn't help to have to spend extra hours arguing against your suggestions for taking the pages backwards instead of forwards. If you care, why don't you roll up your editorial sleeves, dig out some books you are not really interested in (as I do) and spend your weekends laboriously adding content to pages that you realise are in too poor a shape to ignore? Here is my motive for contributing to WP - I spent too long in my life unable to access good, credible information on the subjects I wanted to study. I am idealistic about WP, not astrology. If you want to improve the article don't just moan from the sidelines about what other editors are failing to do. Fix it. Contribute content (with appropriate references, marked up in the laborious style that WP demands). Gosh - took me only 3 minutes to write this whinge, as opposed to the several days it can take me to create a piece of content that another editor might want to run their cursor over and delete in a second. (And Judith, the History of astrology doesn't need more 'eyes' on it - it needs more 'contibutors', with text-book in hand). Sorry that I don't understand [sigh] why you all feel so worn out by what other editors are doing-- Zac Δ talk! 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Just, ugh. I particularly like the use of bold text. 86.176.218.96 ( talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Natib Qadish seems to be more about modern Canaanite religions than anything else, and is mostly original research. It may be that it should simply be a redirect. Certainlyu Great Mother of the Gods seems to be just Mother Goddess by another name. Dougweller ( talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"The first six books are said to be scribed by Egyptian writers shortly after the exodus called the "Bronzebook". The last five books are collectively called "Coelbook" and is said be authored by Celtic priests written around the time that the New Testament was being created." And other amazing stuff, if anyone wants an article to work on..... Actually, it's an interesting issue, as the only sources I can find using Google Books and GScholar are from people promoting it. Most of the the books I've found and checked so far are published by 'Your Own World Books' which is run by one of the authors, Marshall Masters. Dougweller ( talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Notable explorer and actually did lot worthwhile but also very much fringe in both his religious beliefs and his beliefs about Peruvian archaeological sites. Particularly pov when it comes to his religious beliefs. Dougweller ( talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Some substantial changes in the last 2 days to this article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
if anyone is interested, there appears to be a lot of fringe science/pseudoscience on Dewey_B._Larson. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to get a minor point sorted, what could "cognate with the Indo-Scythians" mean? Does it mean that the Kambojas are assumed to be identical with Indo-Scythians? That they were a group of Indo-Scythians? All I can see to be commonly agreed is that the Scythians probably lived in central or south-west Asian and probably spoke Iranian languages. Or Scythian is the word by which the Greeks and Romans knew the Iranians - no because they also knew the Persians well. If someone can describe the situation clearly without making nationalistic claims, would be appreciated. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is just getting worse and worse, with editors claiming hat stating the source's negative evaluation of the claim the article makes is POV - so that they can use a source saying there's no evidence that something works, to say it can be used for that purpose. [4]
Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls. 86.177.230.221 ( talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it today,
it's only getting far worse. This is an abomination.
86.178.194.188 (
talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is undergoing attempts to shove all negative material to the end of the article, and keep it from being summarised in the lead. Keep an eye on it. A couple of us are considering trying to get this article to a state where it could reasonably be nominated for GA, but, at the moment, it's a battle just to keep it from getting worse again. 86.176.74.179 ( talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fatima de Madrid seems to be the creation of a women's science advocacy group, out of heaven knows what material. I cannot find anything on this Hypatia of Moorish Spain. Some other eyes would be useful in this deletion discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 ( talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I have moved this page to list of plants used in herbalism. Hopefully this will help to get a better focus on things. Mangoe ( talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Whitewash keeps happening, letting his crank theories stay in, but removing all criticism of them. 86.182.19.180 ( talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that 212.219.xx.xxx keeps deleting all criticism of Pivar. [6] [7]. I don't have the book in question; I didn't add the book in question. It wouldn't surprise me if, as the IP said on the talk page, the page number for calling Pivar pseudoscience is different from the one given; but the IP,, instead of trying to better summarise Pigalucci's views, decided to delete all criticism of Pivar's theory,. which has 0 acceptance in biology. Either this is a notable crank theory, and criticism can be found to describe it, or it's not a notable crank theory, and this article is a WP:COATRACK, trying to use a trivial mention of Pivar's work with Warhol to claim notability for his crankery. And it is crankery: you will find no peer-reviewed biology based on it. However, based on Pivar's website and Pivar's book (the only sources in the section on his crank theories that he's complaining about me removing), he wants to keep in a section bigger than the rest of the article combined promoting his crank theory. Here's my change. I also removed a brief mention in the section on his life, but the source didn't even mention his crank theories.
Just to be clear here, here's the only thing that could even be considered reference to his crank theories in any non-primary source:
“ | A menagerie of stuffed animals, also on the second floor, further evidence of Mr. Pivar's fascination with the natural world. | ” |
[a bit later]
“ | Mr. Pivar's early interest in insects and their metamorphosis eventually led him to focus on exploring human embryonic development. | ” |
Former
use in the article, which is arguably copyvio, due to being so near the way it's phrased by the NWT :
Article:
“ | Pivar has a deep fascination with the natural world, his early interest in insects and their metamorphosis led him to explore human embryology | ” |
This in the middle of an article describing his interesting home, which does not have any further elaboration or even direct reference to him having a new theory about human embryonic development. It does not justify giving over the vast majority of the article to primary sources.
As for my IP changing, like most British internet users, I have a dynamic IP provided by British Telecom's internet service. (I also have been having some problems with it - it resets a lot of late) There is nothing I can do about that. I have said this many times, but can't very well say it every time. 86.184.86.157 ( talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
AFD result was keep, so this article is going to need a lot of anti-fringe care. Mangoe ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Should probably be AfD'd, about 7000 ghits does not show a term (which serves only as a neologism for a combination of two relatively minor quack diagnostic tools) is widespread; appears to have minimum takeup. 86.178.194.188 ( talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I set it up. You ever try to do that as an IP? It's not fun. Managed in the end, though! =) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology. 86.176.217.241 ( talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the usual brave maverick idiot. 86.176.222.245 ( talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
List_of_plants_used_as_medicine#G - Seriously, this article is a bad joke. Most of the sources say that evidence is lacking, or even that they don't work for the conditions, but in a huge POV-push, the article claims that it can be used to treat that disease ANYWAY.
This really is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 ( talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Lemon grass appears to be another super cancer-killer. Cymbopogon is not too terribly bad but the species articles are more questionable. Mangoe ( talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Another plants list with lots of questionable medical claims. Mangoe ( talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we are getting a bit out of hand here. Are these synonyms, or not?
Mangoe (
talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with all these medical claims is clearly proving to be a major problem. I propose to set up a joint task force under the appropriate Wikiprojects to go over these and also get rid of some of the content forking of the main articles (e.g. multiple lists of plants, are
Phytotherapy and
herbalism different, what about western traditional herbalism and modern alternative systems such as
homeopathy ...). We need specific standards about what claims can included and how they can be characterized. Probably there are other things to be hashed out.
Herbalism is under the following projects:
and this seems like a good starting point. I've never been involved in a task force and I don't know how one sets up a joint force or even if it can be done.
Do other people think this is a good idea, and would be willing to help out? Mangoe ( talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
IP seeking a "balanced view" of the scientific acceptance of telepathy inserting own views into the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the FTN community. 86.185.3.153 ( talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where to start, or if this is even fringe. This just seems like the most likely place to discuss it. The article has no independent sources or footnotes, just some internal links that all look promotional. This might be a non-notable neologism, or possibly a personal essay. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? At the very least, I think the heavy emphasis on anti-vaccinationists (and the attempt to relabel some of the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement mere "vaccine critics") is problematic, but what's the point of the article in the first place? 86.185.3.153 ( talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attempts to assert fringe 'science' as fact - and not even following the sources cited. The whole article needs input from neutral contributors. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know that User:IRWolfie- seems to be deleting Energy Catalyzer into oblivion. Great fun. Whoohoo -- POVbrigand ( talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Mostly written from the perspective of fringe theory practitioners, which gives excessive weight to their views. 86.** IP ( talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
While clearly a notable subject, the article rather focuses on antivaccinationist and pre-vaccination viewpoints. It wouldn't take much work to get this up to shape, but I've been editing way too much today. =) 86.178.198.186 ( talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How on earth has this obvious WP:POVPUSHing WP:QUOTEFARM lasted as long as it apparently has? If someone wants to start an AfD nomination page (IPs can't create new pages), I'll document why it should be deleted. 86.182.21.252 ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Since it was discussed here. 86.** IP ( talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be compelte rubbish, but others might want to take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Weird one. It has a lot of big quotes from contemporary material, which, while fascinating in their awfulness, aren't contextualised. 86.** IP ( talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Are these a pair of WP:POVFORKs? I particularly like the see also at the top of Climate change denial. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This extremely problematic article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a more paranoid version of Continuity of Operations Plan, which is pretty paranoid to begin with. Sourcing is extremely problematic, as it all seems to come from highly WP:POV paranoia sites. At least, that's my impression; I'd feel better if someone else would take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested prod. 86.** IP ( talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Fringe neo-Pagan religious article which is mainly about Canaanite religion, not Natib Qadish itself. I brought it up at WP:NORN but I think it's relevant here also, if not just delete this. Dougweller ( talk) 08:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I was a little surprised to find that this fringe science online publication has not been listed here before. The article and the talk page have recently been semiprotected because of trolling by ipsocks of banned user Bookworm44. The disruption seems to have spilled over elsewhere. [9] Perhaps more watchers of this noticeboard could follow what is going on there. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been in communication with the actual owners of the Journal of Cosmology website, and I think it's best that the article entry for the Journal of Cosmology is deleted from wikipedia, they agreed, infact they even see the article on wiki as an attack against them and an ongoing problem, theres arguements on there everyday on the article for JOC on wiki, it aint neutral, and it really is just copping up problem after problem, it isnt a mainstream journal, and to be honest doesnt have many references. I suggest we all have a vote and nominate it for deletion. Would be best that way. 212.219.63.252 ( talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No further comment. 86.** IP ( talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Milan Tutorov is a Serbian author. I don't much about him. One of his books is Banatska rapsodija: istorika Zrenjanina i Banata (Aurora publishing house, Novi Sad, 2001). I haven't read the book, but I couldn't find any information to confirm this book is a WP:RS.
Based on this book User:PANONIAN created an article on the Avar noble Buta-ul, ruling Banat and Bačka in the 8th century AD. I initiated an AfD having in mind WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE, and later also WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK (this article has been used also to promote the existence of this lord and his realm in other articles and templates). Some users have attempted to rescue the article. However in the current version, while there's no widely accepted translation and interpretation of the only primary source, an inscription written in Greek alphabet and probably a Turkic language, Milan Tutorov's interpretation stands out as the most prominent view, accounting for about half of the "Interpretations" section and a map (and with 7 footnotes referring to the same two pages of his book). I tagged the section for lack of neutrality, invoking WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and also explaining the problem. User:PANONIAN disagreed, endorsing the current version and the inclusion of Tutorov's views.
The inscription was found in 1799 on a golden vessel contained in a large hoard.
The text in Greek letters: BOYHΛA.ZOAΠAN.TECH.ΔYΓΕTOIΓH.BOYTAOYΛ.ZΩAΠAN.TAΓPOΓH.HTZIΓH.TAICH
Transliterated: bouēla zoapan tesē dygetoigē boutaoul zōapan tagrogē ētzigē taisē
Milan Tutorov's "translation" (provided by User:PANONIAN): The great župan Buta-ul, ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa.
Apparently this interpretation is somehow derived from two other "translations" (apparently also WP:FRINGE, also I'm not sure if those books are WP:RS):
Meszäros 1915, 20: Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß. Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß)-Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes.
G. Supka 1916, 13. Župan Buila, Fürst (Taidschi) von Dügetoigi Großžupan Butaul, Taidschi von Tagrogi und Itschigi (Utschugi)
To me all these "translations" look
pseudoscientific. What do you say? What's to be done about it?
Daizus (
talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Can people review this to see if it still has NPOV issues? If not, I'm considering doing a full peer review, then pushing it for GA. 86.** IP ( talk) 12:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This is for information although some might have intended to edit further if it was kept. Someone objected that there was not a clear consensus for delete so the closing Admin agreed to change his decision. AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. Dougweller ( talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be better named Anti-vaccination movement to reflect its fringe status? "Vaccine controversy" makes it sound like there's a valid, scientific controversy. It's a weasel term.
This article is also rather strongly biased towards (some of) the anti-vaccination claims, citing them without any effective rebuttal. 86.** IP ( talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring going on about the consensus over whether this is a hoax on the part of Morton Smith. We have a firm citation saying that scholars agree that it's a hoax, but there is considerable resistance on the part of one person as to letting the article say this. Mangoe ( talk) 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki? Editors want to remove, "Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis," which I'm not against as long as a proper presentation is still kept in the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki?" -- Ronz ( talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion over whether to change the name of the article. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a hoax, right? Barely-readable, with claims of supposedly documented people turning into light 86.** IP ( talk) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article which was deleted but then undeleted is up for deletion nomination again. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
New article, no really good sources. Eyes, please. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This might interest someone. Dougweller ( talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Any evidence for anything in this long, uncited article being true, particularly the praise heaped on it at the end? 86.** IP ( talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This had stalled a bit, so I removed the stuff cited to the self-published source, and the obviously promotional, making-stuff-up [1] source. Please join in the talk page discussion, there's lots of attempts to add it back in, claiming it's fine (even when it's obviously inaccurate and POV-pushing) 86.** IP ( talk) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Here are two specific criticisms I've see of the UMD Med center that publishes this website:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The second begins specifically examining the UMD center, with criticism from researchers at UMCP. Mangoe ( talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Some eyes on this article over the next couple days would be good. We have an IP that has been on the TP in the past asserting a POV problem. I've responded to his talk page message but may be quite busy of the next couple days and won't be able to discuss much. Noformation Talk 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 17#Category:Out-of-place artifacts. Mangoe ( talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
[deleted] See below for less sweary version 86.** IP ( talk) 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit close. Since when is 18 policy-based delte votes to 15 mainly WP:ILIKEIT keep votes = keep? "No consensus" I could buy, "Delete" would be correct. Keep is bullshit. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
For those don't know, there are some major discussions taking place at the astrology article regarding its characterization as pseudoscience, as well as the use of astological publications to comment on mainstream scientific publications. Noformation Talk 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I know most people here are already aware of the situation, but for those of you who don't follow AN/I, the Men's rights article is currently in the eye of a shitstorm. Things are somewhat calm at the moment, but there is heavy off-wiki canvassing by men's rights activists on reddit, among other places. Check ANI for the thread, and check out the page for what's currently going on. Noformation Talk 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
An autism origin theory which may have been a flash in the pan. I think it will survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprinted brain theory because it has citations in real literature, but given that they are all about three years old I get the impression that nobody cared. The article doesn't mention this, of course. I refuse to get caught up in the autism etiology madness but people may want to keep an eye on this one. Mangoe ( talk) 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the AfD, I think there is a false premise operating here. Primary sources should be avoided in top-level articles such as autism, but the more specific the topic of an article, the less reason there is for avoiding primary sources. There is still of course a need that sources be reputable. I'm pretty sure Doc James agrees with this way of thinking. Looie496 ( talk) 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why the book "The imprinted brain" by Badcock [16] and its book reviews have been ignored. I understand even less why the 2010 article "A meeting of minds" in Nature Medicine by Nicola Jones has been ignored (Nature Medicine (2010) 16, pages 353–355, doi:10. 1038/nm0410-353 [17]). This is a three page report on the research of Badcock and Crespi. It contains a series of evaluations by a number of outside experts in the field, including comments from Simon Baron-Cohen. For those without access to Nature Medicine, I have temporarily placed a copy of the report at http://mathsci.free.fr/Mind.pdf. The summary reads, "The idea that autism and psychosis are two ends of a common spectrum is stirring up debate among geneticists and psychiatrists alike. It's controversial, but thanks to advances in comparative genomics, this hypothesis is now testable." So Looie496's statement that the theory is uncontroversial seems to be WP:OR. Mathsci ( talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Only way to get this awful, awful blot on Wikipedia fixed. 86.** IP ( talk) 06:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell this is a class assignment at Western Washington University. According to the course description, it is designed to teach students how to "evaluate controversial claims and attempt to explain why people might believe weird things such as UFOs, ESP and ghosts". Students have chosen to work on fringe articles according to an
assignment list. However I see edits by the students like
this and
this that appear to be using fringe sources in an attempt to promote the fringe view of such subjects. Maybe part of their assignment is to make controversial edits and be reverted? Not sure this is the best use of Wikipedia. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article puts an obscure theory on equal footing with quantum theory - one of them has to go... have a look at this, please. Ratzd'mishukribo ( talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested prod. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Prod was contested, apparently because the contester didn't notice that the only good sources were used merely for background information. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Dubiously-named article (can a photo be an astronomical observation?) making WP:REDFLAG claims as supposedly the first photo of a "mutual" (whatever that is) UFO. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Close encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be a lot of primary-sourced claims in this article. I'm not equipped to figure out exactly which of these Close Encounters of the X Kind beyond the first three are includable and which are not.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
List of vegetable oils ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See the good faith post at WP:RSN about the quality of sources. I am really worried about the health claims made in the article. It's part of the wider problem of medicinal herb articles, and shows that it could extend to virtually all our articles on plants and foodstuffs. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Sri Chand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are obvious problems with this article including, but not limited to, basic arithmetic.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is just getting ridiculous. I love how airily they dismiss core Wikipedia policies, which their beloved 13 pages of denialist arguments with no mainstream response allowed can't possibly violate. 86.** IP ( talk) 02:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This fellow notable? 86.** IP ( talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The only critical voice is a psychic, who says rumpology is ridiculous - try psychic powers instead.
One needs to ask: Is this a joke? One possibly based on real crankery, but... 86.** IP ( talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably better known as the creationist pundit Vox Day. Main editor? Theodore Beale. 86.** IP ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Lengthy in-universe Theosophy article. Particularly annoying for its overuse of bold text. Of course we, quite rightly, have long articles on many religious concepts. Usually we can cite them to theologists, including academic theologists and official bodies of churches etc. This is a bit different to my mind. The sheer quantity of info only of interest to Theosophists and perhaps some New Agers might be a problem. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The fringe articles The_Secret_Life_of_Plants and The_Secret_Life_of_Plants_(film) seem to be in need of a look at for possible fringe. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Plant_perception_(paranormal) also needs some serious attention. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Much wishful thinking on the part of cryptozoology enthusiasts. For example, Bloop is a hydrophonic sound cataloged by by NOAA. This list categorizes it as a cryptid and identifies it as a "Gigantic creature/Unconfirmed sound". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Another level-headed person who's either informed or ready to learn would be welcome to keep an eye on African American Vernacular English and its discussion page. The former routinely attracts stupidity (if not blatant racism), but [fingers crossed] it's going through a quiet patch. Dealing with stupidity is straightforward (if tiresome); fringe, quasi-scientific beliefs held by the well-intentioned are another matter. Please see this for the latest challenge. Possibly I was on the bitey side in my first response (it had been a tiring day). And my interlocutor is polite enough.
The anonymous writer makes one parenthetical comment that may baffle: I've seen the bias shown towards Dr. Smith in these discussion for[u]ms. This is Ernie Smith; to judge for yourself the bias shown against him, see this talk page archive.
(I normally wouldn't post here and instead would ping Ƶ§œš¹ about it, but he's away on a long break.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A cold fusion-like scheme, this seems to have attracted some media attention from the unwary, and therefore has some chance of surviving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. Like most such articles it is heavily burdened with primary sources, though there is one good reference from Discovery.com here which spells out the prospects of this quite well. Obviously we need to keep an eye on it. Mangoe ( talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like the deletion discussion hit a nerve. It may be time to get more serious administrative action involved. 128.59.171.194 ( talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Others seem to really dislike the way the article was first written. 128.59.171.194 ( talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've bumped this thread to the bottom of the page, because I've suggested a different approach to handling some of the problems identified. Our best references on this topic address it as a social and economic phenomenon – the most reliable sources address the E.C. as a (troubled) business venture – and skirt the scientific and technical aspects of it. It therefore might make the most sense to cover the Energy Catalyzer within our (newish) article on the device's inventor, Andrea Rossi, who has previously been involved in a couple of other now-defunct alternative-energy-related business ventures.
I invite, encourage, and welcome a discussion of a possible merger at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#This article could be merged.... TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades suggestion is the right thing to do. It should be done regardless of the peanut gallery. 76.119.90.74 ( talk) 04:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is definitely fringe and written in an advocate's tone. I don't know anything about the subject so I don't know how to help in rewriting. Noformation Talk 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Rauscher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently being owned by User:Dreadstar who is making arguments about "consensus" that are borderline incoherent.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
POV fork of ghost? Or perhaps it started life as something else, and later got a bunch of fringy stuff tacked onto it (sourced to places like this). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There are some extraordinary claims on this page about " extraordinary spiritual phenomena" including "stigmata, corporeal oil profusion" etc. & there is an ongoing debate concerning reliable sources. Dougweller ( talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [ [18]]):
The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.
The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.
Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [ [19]]. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have some POV issues. In the Body of Work section, some dubious claims are made and although they are attributed to the author, I feel like a balancing source might be beneficial. Thoughts? Noformation Talk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is scheduled to end anytime now, but some people here may be interested in Talk:Oxfordian_Theory_–_Parallels_with_Shakespeare's_Plays#Poll_regarding_redirect.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.
I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [ [20]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to need being looked over with a fine tooth come for fringe. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In this article, a claim is made that if the reliable sources are not proven to be not fringe, and anyone questions them (providing no sources for their claim) that the claims are barred as "fringe." As AFAICT, WP:FRINGE does not appear to cover such a claim, I am asking here.
Claims in the body of the article add up to a large number of deaths. The sources are RS (been shown as such at RSN) and those opposed to the figures have not provided RS competing figures (as I suggested many times per WP:NPOV). Rather they suggest that all such numbers are not "mainstream views" and are "fringe."
[21] shows one opinion - that we should only write truth in Wikipedia, and that Jimbo has that position (argumentum ad Jimbonem, I rather think).
Another [22] says
And also [23] posits:
Another
[24]:
Which might have some validity if reliable sources (other than editors) made the assertion that the RS sources are "fringe", I suppose. The problem is that those editors seem to feel the onus is on anyone who makes claims based on the body of the article to "prove" that the RS sources are not fringe <g>. Is it possible to do such - that is, in any article with cites making claims and not having cites making opposing claims that the RS sources must also be shown to be "not fringe" as long as an editor says they are "fringe"?
When those editors do not provide RS sources showing that claims made in the body of the article are not mainstream, and the vast majority of academic cites use the references in the body of the article, it is up to me to "prove" that the claims are mainstream (as far as a range goes)? Is it required that to use sources requires that other sources explicity call them "mainstream" ? And is their use of WP:FRINGE reasonable here? BTW, I expect those cited to give their spirited defence <g>. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump (269) Tentontunic (262) placing me in a measly 6th place -- while Paul and TFD together have 1600 edits. For Fascism ... I am number 3 - with many of them occuring when working with R-41 on reducing some of the irrlevant stuff. For which he gave me a barnstar. If improving an article requires writing on the talk page, so be it. TFD and R-41 are both well ahead of me on that one, by the way. Holodomor? You have to be kidding! I am not even in the top 20 editors on that talk page, for gosh sakes! (I suspect I am not even in the top fifty - making that claim about as ill-founded as imaginable) Meanwhile I found one editor who has made over a thousand edits to a single article, 600 to another article, and lots of edits to a number of other articles as well <g>. And others whould note that I am currently near 20K edits on enWiki alone. Cheers - but I leave the noting of edit counts for others to the observer. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to have quite a bit of OR, but I don't have time right now or the resources to deal with this (and related articles). Probably no one else here does, but I didn't want to just ignore it. Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet another POV-fork of Global warming controversy, and one that has nothing but synthesis and original research to back it. I swear, there's like a dozen articles covering the same basic content. Do we really need this one? 86.** IP ( talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks as if I'm going to be drawn into an edit war with users Ghmyrtle and Wilfridselsey on this page. It started when I pointed out that the article was drawing attention to the fringe theory and giving a citation that refuted it, which is essentially contrary to Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories - if we refute one we'd have to refute them all. Both users insisted the reference should remain, initially disputing that Oppenheimer's theory on the origin on the English language wasn't "fringe" at all (hmm...)
Wilfridselsey insisted the Victorians had thought Britons spoke German. I asked for a reference, he supplied what turned out to be an anti-German political propaganda leaflet from the First World War. I said this wasn't really good enough and he supplied Googlebooks pointers to various late 18th and early 19th Century works speculating on race and language. I said that while these weren't worth much, they could be mentioned as representing an earlier view. I put in a sentence in a previous section on sources mentioning earlier race/language speculation with a couple of citations supplied by Wilfridselsey. Ghmyrtle immediately reverted, putting back the Oppenheimer reference, in spite of the fact that Wilfridselsey had been attempting to argue the view was not modern.
Whenever I have removed the reference to Oppenheimer's fringe theory, Ghmyrtle has reverted the change and put it back in. Wilfridselsey on the talk page has returned to defending Oppenheimer's theories as worthy of inclusion. I removed the Oppenheimer reference again, but before long my reversion will be reverted again, I have no doubt. Part of the problem is that too few people know enough about linguistics to see quite why the theory is fringe in the first place. Paul S ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is in a bad way, and I'd like to get keen, non-partisan editors to clean it up. In other words I'm calling for volunteers, or else advice on where to go (no snide suggestions please).
The article sets out the various errors in the BoM - they include matters such as the presence of horses, silkworms and domestic pigs in the Americas before Columbus, the use of iron, the idea that American Indian languages were descended from Hebrew and Egyptian, and much more. It should be enough merely to list these, but as it stands the article gives far more space to rebuttals - thus we are told, by Mormon apologists, how when the Book of Mormon says horses it really means some other animal (ditto silkworms and pigs), how copper can sort of rust just like iron, and so on. It's embarrassing, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute (at least it does if we want something that can stand as a reference anyone other than believers).
So I'm asking, (1) am I correct in thinking that the apologists' refutations of facts are fringe and shouldn't be covered, and (2) where or how can I ask for a concerted clean-up of the article?
PiCo ( talk) 07:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I went through and deleted the most egregious OR from the articles, but they are still pretty bad. The amount of copy-pasted content in the articles really demonstrated the need to combine them as well. eldamorie ( talk) 14:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Only significant change since I last looked is the closing down and blocking of all attempts to fix this, and the removal of all tags noting problems. What's it going to take to get this festering boil lanced? 86.** IP ( talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Such discussions have proved to be nothing but WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, complete with archival of threads and attempts to attack other people. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Repeated insertions of unsourced or inadequately sourced personal interpretations of facts and theories tending to promote the fringe Legitimist POV on articles about the defunct French throne and/or its order of succession are ongoing by Emerson 07 and his apparent sockpuppets (e.g. 112.198.79.106 and 112.198.81.179). He initially ignored Jimbo's edits & warning about fringing. I have stopped requesting sources, protesting, deleting and correcting these edits temporarily, here and at Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist), History of the French line of succession and Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, in order to refrain from edit-warring. However, that has left the fringe insertions and their POV distorting the article in question. Please review the following diffs:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight ( talk • contribs)
For info, I have opened an RfC on whether the above article should have a quote to illustrate the opinion of every scientist listed. I think it's of interest to this board, as the article is a controversial one and climate change denial is a very visible fringe theory that we want to get right. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I ran across this recently, adding it to my watchlist because of the obvious WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. I've always avoided the lengthy discussions on when and how "pseudoscience" can be used within an article, but I think it should be applied to this. What do others think?
Looks like the article needs a total rewrite with a very close eye to NPOV and FRINGE, rather than it's current de-emphasis of the fringe elements. Others want to take a look? -- Ronz ( talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
True but conversely just because it meets fringe does not automatically mean it is pseudoscience which seems where this argument is going. Pseudoscience, Fringe science, and Protoscience all fall under fringe but the later two do follow the scientific method. For example, the Pro-Clovis theory is still fringe but it is NOT Pseudoscience but rather Fringe science; furthermore continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all fringe science ideas that eventually became mainstream. Fringe in wikipedia terms simply means not part of the mainstream--nothing more nothing less; it does NOT automatically translate as pseudoscience.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We have multiple sources saying it is pseudoscience, and those sources have been somehow overlooked or removed. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The entire 'Treatment of pests and weeds' section is unreferenced . . . and absolutely ridiculous. Deploy the ashes of an incinerated mouse when Venus is in Scorpius? Spray the ashes of weed seeds with the clear urine of a sterile cow, the urine having been exposed to the full moon for 6 hrs? Who makes this stuff up? And we are debating whether this is pseudoscience? Agricolae ( talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've found source (no time to re-locate it just now, unfortunately) that says that the Nazis basically took Steiner's material and peeled all the woo-woo off. If that's true then there is a major WP:SYNTH problem lurking here in that we can't assume that material from different times and places adds up to a commonly held system. Mangoe ( talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Awful, credulous article. 86.** IP ( talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
MIT offers a lecture on Cold Fusion: "Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments".
This lecture clearly propagates the notion that cold fusion experiments yield excess heat, ie cold fusion is real.
Is cold fusion still fringe or is it becoming protoscience ?
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
We have no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to preliminary research. If it escapes into the MSM, then we have to deal with it because our hand is forced, as we can see with the ongoing Energy Catalyzer rubbish. Ideally in the latter case we would just ignore it until the thing came to some sort of resolution, but there's too much precedent for not waiting, and therefore we are stuck with some sort of speculative article. But with research that isn't generating a lot of publicity, we can wait until something really substantive is produced. Sure, people research cold fusion because it would be wonderfully convenient if it could be pulled off; but it's no concern of ours until they come up with some results that are generally accepted. Mangoe ( talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This list User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers seems like a BLP issue. BLP applies to user space. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is: "Is ENEA a mainstream research institute ?"- If "NO" then why are they cooperating in the
ITER project. If "YES" then why does the PRESIDENT of ENEA state: "Government programs ... have proved the existence of this phenomenon".
Kindly explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ?
I guess all the pathological skeptics currently go through a moment of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy it. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Luigi Paganetto is a professor of economics. [39] He is not an expert on physics or chemistry, so I have no idea why POVbrigand is citing him here or anywhere else on wikipedia as if he were an expert in that area. That has already happened in the article cold fusion and will only mislead readers. Mathsci ( talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, if ENEA is endorsing this, it means that they aren't a reliable source. When this thing starts producing commercial power, then it will be proven and the considerable consensus against cold fusion will be overturned. The long sequence of questionable demonstrations does not cut it. All of the little teaser "someone might buys this" don't cut it. When it produces significant power in a situation not controlled by its inventor, then it can be treated as a proven concept. Right now it's still in the "probably a scam" state. Mangoe ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Mothman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit-warring IP now with a brand new user account wishing to add material connecting Mothman to 9/11, all sourced to message boards at Mothmanlives.com, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to take this one on in my place? I grow a little weary of trying to strip the infinitude of health claims that inevitably descends on a supposedly medicinal herb. Can't we make a guideline setting out what counts as the minimal standards for health claims and such? 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is potentially a big problem, if we have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on "medicinal" plants and a significant proportion contain medical claims unsupported by any MEDRS. Waiting for them to be reported here and then dealing with them adhoc may not be efficient. I'd happily do a systematic review of all these articles - but where's the best place to start? Category:Medicinal plants is unlikely to be complete; Withania somnifera isn't in it. bobrayner ( talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, I've begun a quick survey. Here's a list of everything I found in just the first 40 results from a search for "medicinal plant cancer" which actually claims to cure cancer. Not going to fix them, as someone should probably watchlist before removing the claims.
Stated to cure cancer, or very nearly
Strongly implied to cure cancer
"May cure cancer"
"Being studied for", without strong implications
Potential problems, but somewhat balanced (basically, anything that looked too complicated for a quick check)
Other
On the upside, a search that finds about 50% almost certainly bad material is pretty specific. On the downside, holy crap: This search gives over 500 results, and if that pattern holds...
86.184.85.227 (
talk) 13:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
These should probably be nuked from orbit
That search is, of course, the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of plants which are claimed to be used for other ailments. Months ago I cleaned up Red raspberry leaf which supposedly had a dozen different benefits for pregnant women and nursing mothers... bobrayner ( talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please watchlist this - people keep trying to add in a study showing it can cure cataracts... when you damage a chick embryo's eyes with steroids then rub diluted Chyawanprash on them before the cataracts start. This is hardly a study that shows anything about real world use. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on this one too; there's an unsourced, probably original research rant that's been getting readded. 86.178.193.2 ( talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Major OR and synth: Tries to use modern medicine taking patient's pulse to justify pre-scientific claims. 86.182.191.108 ( talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there sufficient non-advocacy sources on this for an article to be made, or should this be prodded as too fringe to e reasonably discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.20.197 ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 September 2011
I've checked the first 20 results for "medicinal plant diabetes". Here's the results. Of course, some of these could be valid (but I suspect not).
There is some overlap between this and the previous list.
Apparently cures everything
Said outright to cure or treat diabetes
Said to maybe cure or treat diabetes
Formerly said one of above (cleaned because of previous survey)'
Other questionable claims
Maybe alright?
...Not looking good. 86.178.192.40 ( talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This really is one of the worst articles I've seen. 86.178.192.40 ( talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Really? Here's two sections of it.
“ |
Lactose MythMisunderstanding has surrounded this aspect of camel's milk. Many sufferers of lactose intolerance can tolerate camel's milk, yet lactose is present in the milk. Composition charts show a range of 3.3 to 5.0% lactose (cow's milk has a range of 3.7-5.1%, sheep milk is 4.6-5.4% and goat milk is 4.1-4.7%). The human digestive system can tolerate camel's milk because its proteins are shorter, making them easier to digest. While a cow is a ruminant with four stomachs, a camel is a modified mono-gastric (one stomach with separated compartments) and so is far more compatible with the human digestive system. A camel is said to ruminate without being a ruminant. DiabetesStudies in India and Tunisia support anecdotal evidence from Bedouin and camel herding communities that have long recognised the milk's ability to treat diabetes. Although more research is required to attain the efficacy of this claim,it is believed that an insulin-like protein present in the milk, which does not get destroyed in the acid environment of the stomach, passes to the lower intestine where it can be absorbed and utilised by the body. This translates to 52 units of insulin being present in a quart of camel milk. If studies are proved to be correct camel milk would be the first effective oral insulin treatment for diabetes. |
” |
First of all, lactose is a sugar; the length of proteins is meaningless. Secondly, they seem to be trying to claim that lactose intolerance is a myth, that camel milk's fiiiine despite containing lactose. Thirdly, human milk would cause lactose intolerance in lactose intolerant individuals. You (generally) aren't born lactose intolerant, but the ability to digest lactose goes away as you age.
As for diabetes, I like how they have no idea if it even works, but give exact values for self-treatment use anyway. 86.176.216.50 ( talk) 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"They were proved to be medical spectacles due to his studies and the human needs for re-correcting eye problems in the 3rd Millennium as well as for the techniques used in their production." Huh? Really? Not sure where to go with this mixture of Forteana and questionable archaeology. There is what looks to be a real "scholarly" reference, but all I can say is that if this is what Iranian scholarship looks like, I would view it all with a jaundiced eye. So to speak. Mangoe ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This keeps getting edited to readd nonsense and special pleading, pclaiming that it's perfectly safe - Ayurveda can detoxify heavy metals (through magic, apparently). It also keeps having the notes about the high contamination with heavy metals removed from the lead, despite WP:LEAD saying all sections should be summarised. Please watchlist. 86.182.20.197 ( talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hate to keep bringing stuff up, but this has a whole TON of claims based on very flimsy evidence. I don't doubt that some of the claims should stand - phramacological drugs have, indeed, been made based on mushrooms, but there's a lot of stuff that's in vitro or worse, and thus, at best, horribly premature to be on Wikipedia. 86.182.20.197 ( talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:
This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B ( talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.
The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.
It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:
The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:
That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word [1 1] [1 2] [1 3] [1 4] [1 5] [1 6] [1 7] [1 8].
Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at
Thanks. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This guy is pretty clearly notable for his involvement in the art world, including a scandal or two which the present version of the article boldly whitewashes. His pseudoscientific endeavors dominate the article at the moment, however. Mangoe ( talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article had been inserted with as many as 5 parapraphs describing the Church accordinly to an academic case study by Joy Tong. There are as many as 12 mentions of "according to Tong", "According to informants to Tong","Tong's study observed".
I feel that while it is OK to make mention of Tong's study, but to have so many paragraphs dedicated to his study is not reasonable in a factual report. Besides, how can you ascertain that Tong's report is not bias and NPOV? Already I had digged out an contradicting view by Tong and an Straits Times article regarding the teaching. (I had included this in the article)
There are concerns of UNDUE weight mentioned in the Talk page, but it seems that it is not truly been answered.
Thanks in advance, J0hn 0316 ( talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Awful, WP:COATRACK of an article, using a minor connection with Andy Warhol to jusrtify praising pseudoscience instead. I've tried to fix the latter a bit, but I suspect this is borderline WP:ONEEVENT 86.176.222.119 ( talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring this article up with this project. Personally I feel it has a strong apologist tone and may use quote mining to undermine the research that invalidates astrology as well as the frequent use of fringe sources to counter mainstream ones. The individual sign articles are also problematic for a variety of reasons. I've made a small improvement, but more eyes are definitely needed. -- Daniel 17:36, 2 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, I came across this quite incidentally after leaving messages on your talk pages. Why don't you be more constructive by raising your issues directly on the astrology talk-page? Are we supposed to guess what your concerns are?? Andy - do you think I'm not attempting to generate a more encyclopaedic tone? It's just difficult. Editors who have studied the subject are accused of being advocates, and on the other side of this there is a barrage of new editors, emotively flared up by your post Daniel, thinking that the repression of the astrology argument is the only way to preserve the integrity of scientific knowledge.
Let me tell you what I think, frankly, since this seems to be the place to gossip behind the scenes - there are too many hidden agendas by editors viewing other editors with suspicion. We are losing sight of the most valuable thing that WP has to offer - free and open access to relevant information that the interested reader wants to know. It is true that the astrology page is currently over-emphasising the science controversy by comparison to the cultural and popular interest, but that's because there is much work to be done and few who are willing to do it. And yes, Daniel, the individual sign articles are very problematic - I have put hours of my life that I'll never get back again trying to improve that content, which is an embarrassment to WP - so it doesn't help to have to spend extra hours arguing against your suggestions for taking the pages backwards instead of forwards. If you care, why don't you roll up your editorial sleeves, dig out some books you are not really interested in (as I do) and spend your weekends laboriously adding content to pages that you realise are in too poor a shape to ignore? Here is my motive for contributing to WP - I spent too long in my life unable to access good, credible information on the subjects I wanted to study. I am idealistic about WP, not astrology. If you want to improve the article don't just moan from the sidelines about what other editors are failing to do. Fix it. Contribute content (with appropriate references, marked up in the laborious style that WP demands). Gosh - took me only 3 minutes to write this whinge, as opposed to the several days it can take me to create a piece of content that another editor might want to run their cursor over and delete in a second. (And Judith, the History of astrology doesn't need more 'eyes' on it - it needs more 'contibutors', with text-book in hand). Sorry that I don't understand [sigh] why you all feel so worn out by what other editors are doing-- Zac Δ talk! 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Just, ugh. I particularly like the use of bold text. 86.176.218.96 ( talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Natib Qadish seems to be more about modern Canaanite religions than anything else, and is mostly original research. It may be that it should simply be a redirect. Certainlyu Great Mother of the Gods seems to be just Mother Goddess by another name. Dougweller ( talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"The first six books are said to be scribed by Egyptian writers shortly after the exodus called the "Bronzebook". The last five books are collectively called "Coelbook" and is said be authored by Celtic priests written around the time that the New Testament was being created." And other amazing stuff, if anyone wants an article to work on..... Actually, it's an interesting issue, as the only sources I can find using Google Books and GScholar are from people promoting it. Most of the the books I've found and checked so far are published by 'Your Own World Books' which is run by one of the authors, Marshall Masters. Dougweller ( talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Notable explorer and actually did lot worthwhile but also very much fringe in both his religious beliefs and his beliefs about Peruvian archaeological sites. Particularly pov when it comes to his religious beliefs. Dougweller ( talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Some substantial changes in the last 2 days to this article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
if anyone is interested, there appears to be a lot of fringe science/pseudoscience on Dewey_B._Larson. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to get a minor point sorted, what could "cognate with the Indo-Scythians" mean? Does it mean that the Kambojas are assumed to be identical with Indo-Scythians? That they were a group of Indo-Scythians? All I can see to be commonly agreed is that the Scythians probably lived in central or south-west Asian and probably spoke Iranian languages. Or Scythian is the word by which the Greeks and Romans knew the Iranians - no because they also knew the Persians well. If someone can describe the situation clearly without making nationalistic claims, would be appreciated. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is just getting worse and worse, with editors claiming hat stating the source's negative evaluation of the claim the article makes is POV - so that they can use a source saying there's no evidence that something works, to say it can be used for that purpose. [4]
Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls. 86.177.230.221 ( talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it today,
it's only getting far worse. This is an abomination.
86.178.194.188 (
talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is undergoing attempts to shove all negative material to the end of the article, and keep it from being summarised in the lead. Keep an eye on it. A couple of us are considering trying to get this article to a state where it could reasonably be nominated for GA, but, at the moment, it's a battle just to keep it from getting worse again. 86.176.74.179 ( talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fatima de Madrid seems to be the creation of a women's science advocacy group, out of heaven knows what material. I cannot find anything on this Hypatia of Moorish Spain. Some other eyes would be useful in this deletion discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 ( talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I have moved this page to list of plants used in herbalism. Hopefully this will help to get a better focus on things. Mangoe ( talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Whitewash keeps happening, letting his crank theories stay in, but removing all criticism of them. 86.182.19.180 ( talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that 212.219.xx.xxx keeps deleting all criticism of Pivar. [6] [7]. I don't have the book in question; I didn't add the book in question. It wouldn't surprise me if, as the IP said on the talk page, the page number for calling Pivar pseudoscience is different from the one given; but the IP,, instead of trying to better summarise Pigalucci's views, decided to delete all criticism of Pivar's theory,. which has 0 acceptance in biology. Either this is a notable crank theory, and criticism can be found to describe it, or it's not a notable crank theory, and this article is a WP:COATRACK, trying to use a trivial mention of Pivar's work with Warhol to claim notability for his crankery. And it is crankery: you will find no peer-reviewed biology based on it. However, based on Pivar's website and Pivar's book (the only sources in the section on his crank theories that he's complaining about me removing), he wants to keep in a section bigger than the rest of the article combined promoting his crank theory. Here's my change. I also removed a brief mention in the section on his life, but the source didn't even mention his crank theories.
Just to be clear here, here's the only thing that could even be considered reference to his crank theories in any non-primary source:
“ | A menagerie of stuffed animals, also on the second floor, further evidence of Mr. Pivar's fascination with the natural world. | ” |
[a bit later]
“ | Mr. Pivar's early interest in insects and their metamorphosis eventually led him to focus on exploring human embryonic development. | ” |
Former
use in the article, which is arguably copyvio, due to being so near the way it's phrased by the NWT :
Article:
“ | Pivar has a deep fascination with the natural world, his early interest in insects and their metamorphosis led him to explore human embryology | ” |
This in the middle of an article describing his interesting home, which does not have any further elaboration or even direct reference to him having a new theory about human embryonic development. It does not justify giving over the vast majority of the article to primary sources.
As for my IP changing, like most British internet users, I have a dynamic IP provided by British Telecom's internet service. (I also have been having some problems with it - it resets a lot of late) There is nothing I can do about that. I have said this many times, but can't very well say it every time. 86.184.86.157 ( talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
AFD result was keep, so this article is going to need a lot of anti-fringe care. Mangoe ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Should probably be AfD'd, about 7000 ghits does not show a term (which serves only as a neologism for a combination of two relatively minor quack diagnostic tools) is widespread; appears to have minimum takeup. 86.178.194.188 ( talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I set it up. You ever try to do that as an IP? It's not fun. Managed in the end, though! =) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology. 86.176.217.241 ( talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the usual brave maverick idiot. 86.176.222.245 ( talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
List_of_plants_used_as_medicine#G - Seriously, this article is a bad joke. Most of the sources say that evidence is lacking, or even that they don't work for the conditions, but in a huge POV-push, the article claims that it can be used to treat that disease ANYWAY.
This really is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 ( talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Lemon grass appears to be another super cancer-killer. Cymbopogon is not too terribly bad but the species articles are more questionable. Mangoe ( talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Another plants list with lots of questionable medical claims. Mangoe ( talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we are getting a bit out of hand here. Are these synonyms, or not?
Mangoe (
talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with all these medical claims is clearly proving to be a major problem. I propose to set up a joint task force under the appropriate Wikiprojects to go over these and also get rid of some of the content forking of the main articles (e.g. multiple lists of plants, are
Phytotherapy and
herbalism different, what about western traditional herbalism and modern alternative systems such as
homeopathy ...). We need specific standards about what claims can included and how they can be characterized. Probably there are other things to be hashed out.
Herbalism is under the following projects:
and this seems like a good starting point. I've never been involved in a task force and I don't know how one sets up a joint force or even if it can be done.
Do other people think this is a good idea, and would be willing to help out? Mangoe ( talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
IP seeking a "balanced view" of the scientific acceptance of telepathy inserting own views into the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This may be of interest to the FTN community. 86.185.3.153 ( talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where to start, or if this is even fringe. This just seems like the most likely place to discuss it. The article has no independent sources or footnotes, just some internal links that all look promotional. This might be a non-notable neologism, or possibly a personal essay. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? At the very least, I think the heavy emphasis on anti-vaccinationists (and the attempt to relabel some of the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement mere "vaccine critics") is problematic, but what's the point of the article in the first place? 86.185.3.153 ( talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attempts to assert fringe 'science' as fact - and not even following the sources cited. The whole article needs input from neutral contributors. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know that User:IRWolfie- seems to be deleting Energy Catalyzer into oblivion. Great fun. Whoohoo -- POVbrigand ( talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Mostly written from the perspective of fringe theory practitioners, which gives excessive weight to their views. 86.** IP ( talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
While clearly a notable subject, the article rather focuses on antivaccinationist and pre-vaccination viewpoints. It wouldn't take much work to get this up to shape, but I've been editing way too much today. =) 86.178.198.186 ( talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How on earth has this obvious WP:POVPUSHing WP:QUOTEFARM lasted as long as it apparently has? If someone wants to start an AfD nomination page (IPs can't create new pages), I'll document why it should be deleted. 86.182.21.252 ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Since it was discussed here. 86.** IP ( talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be compelte rubbish, but others might want to take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Weird one. It has a lot of big quotes from contemporary material, which, while fascinating in their awfulness, aren't contextualised. 86.** IP ( talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Are these a pair of WP:POVFORKs? I particularly like the see also at the top of Climate change denial. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This extremely problematic article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a more paranoid version of Continuity of Operations Plan, which is pretty paranoid to begin with. Sourcing is extremely problematic, as it all seems to come from highly WP:POV paranoia sites. At least, that's my impression; I'd feel better if someone else would take a look at it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested prod. 86.** IP ( talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Fringe neo-Pagan religious article which is mainly about Canaanite religion, not Natib Qadish itself. I brought it up at WP:NORN but I think it's relevant here also, if not just delete this. Dougweller ( talk) 08:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I was a little surprised to find that this fringe science online publication has not been listed here before. The article and the talk page have recently been semiprotected because of trolling by ipsocks of banned user Bookworm44. The disruption seems to have spilled over elsewhere. [9] Perhaps more watchers of this noticeboard could follow what is going on there. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been in communication with the actual owners of the Journal of Cosmology website, and I think it's best that the article entry for the Journal of Cosmology is deleted from wikipedia, they agreed, infact they even see the article on wiki as an attack against them and an ongoing problem, theres arguements on there everyday on the article for JOC on wiki, it aint neutral, and it really is just copping up problem after problem, it isnt a mainstream journal, and to be honest doesnt have many references. I suggest we all have a vote and nominate it for deletion. Would be best that way. 212.219.63.252 ( talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No further comment. 86.** IP ( talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Milan Tutorov is a Serbian author. I don't much about him. One of his books is Banatska rapsodija: istorika Zrenjanina i Banata (Aurora publishing house, Novi Sad, 2001). I haven't read the book, but I couldn't find any information to confirm this book is a WP:RS.
Based on this book User:PANONIAN created an article on the Avar noble Buta-ul, ruling Banat and Bačka in the 8th century AD. I initiated an AfD having in mind WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE, and later also WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK (this article has been used also to promote the existence of this lord and his realm in other articles and templates). Some users have attempted to rescue the article. However in the current version, while there's no widely accepted translation and interpretation of the only primary source, an inscription written in Greek alphabet and probably a Turkic language, Milan Tutorov's interpretation stands out as the most prominent view, accounting for about half of the "Interpretations" section and a map (and with 7 footnotes referring to the same two pages of his book). I tagged the section for lack of neutrality, invoking WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and also explaining the problem. User:PANONIAN disagreed, endorsing the current version and the inclusion of Tutorov's views.
The inscription was found in 1799 on a golden vessel contained in a large hoard.
The text in Greek letters: BOYHΛA.ZOAΠAN.TECH.ΔYΓΕTOIΓH.BOYTAOYΛ.ZΩAΠAN.TAΓPOΓH.HTZIΓH.TAICH
Transliterated: bouēla zoapan tesē dygetoigē boutaoul zōapan tagrogē ētzigē taisē
Milan Tutorov's "translation" (provided by User:PANONIAN): The great župan Buta-ul, ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa.
Apparently this interpretation is somehow derived from two other "translations" (apparently also WP:FRINGE, also I'm not sure if those books are WP:RS):
Meszäros 1915, 20: Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß. Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß)-Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes.
G. Supka 1916, 13. Župan Buila, Fürst (Taidschi) von Dügetoigi Großžupan Butaul, Taidschi von Tagrogi und Itschigi (Utschugi)
To me all these "translations" look
pseudoscientific. What do you say? What's to be done about it?
Daizus (
talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Can people review this to see if it still has NPOV issues? If not, I'm considering doing a full peer review, then pushing it for GA. 86.** IP ( talk) 12:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This is for information although some might have intended to edit further if it was kept. Someone objected that there was not a clear consensus for delete so the closing Admin agreed to change his decision. AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. Dougweller ( talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be better named Anti-vaccination movement to reflect its fringe status? "Vaccine controversy" makes it sound like there's a valid, scientific controversy. It's a weasel term.
This article is also rather strongly biased towards (some of) the anti-vaccination claims, citing them without any effective rebuttal. 86.** IP ( talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring going on about the consensus over whether this is a hoax on the part of Morton Smith. We have a firm citation saying that scholars agree that it's a hoax, but there is considerable resistance on the part of one person as to letting the article say this. Mangoe ( talk) 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki? Editors want to remove, "Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis," which I'm not against as long as a proper presentation is still kept in the article. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki?" -- Ronz ( talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion over whether to change the name of the article. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a hoax, right? Barely-readable, with claims of supposedly documented people turning into light 86.** IP ( talk) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The article which was deleted but then undeleted is up for deletion nomination again. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
New article, no really good sources. Eyes, please. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This might interest someone. Dougweller ( talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Any evidence for anything in this long, uncited article being true, particularly the praise heaped on it at the end? 86.** IP ( talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This had stalled a bit, so I removed the stuff cited to the self-published source, and the obviously promotional, making-stuff-up [1] source. Please join in the talk page discussion, there's lots of attempts to add it back in, claiming it's fine (even when it's obviously inaccurate and POV-pushing) 86.** IP ( talk) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Here are two specific criticisms I've see of the UMD Med center that publishes this website:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The second begins specifically examining the UMD center, with criticism from researchers at UMCP. Mangoe ( talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Some eyes on this article over the next couple days would be good. We have an IP that has been on the TP in the past asserting a POV problem. I've responded to his talk page message but may be quite busy of the next couple days and won't be able to discuss much. Noformation Talk 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 17#Category:Out-of-place artifacts. Mangoe ( talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
[deleted] See below for less sweary version 86.** IP ( talk) 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit close. Since when is 18 policy-based delte votes to 15 mainly WP:ILIKEIT keep votes = keep? "No consensus" I could buy, "Delete" would be correct. Keep is bullshit. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
For those don't know, there are some major discussions taking place at the astrology article regarding its characterization as pseudoscience, as well as the use of astological publications to comment on mainstream scientific publications. Noformation Talk 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I know most people here are already aware of the situation, but for those of you who don't follow AN/I, the Men's rights article is currently in the eye of a shitstorm. Things are somewhat calm at the moment, but there is heavy off-wiki canvassing by men's rights activists on reddit, among other places. Check ANI for the thread, and check out the page for what's currently going on. Noformation Talk 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
An autism origin theory which may have been a flash in the pan. I think it will survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprinted brain theory because it has citations in real literature, but given that they are all about three years old I get the impression that nobody cared. The article doesn't mention this, of course. I refuse to get caught up in the autism etiology madness but people may want to keep an eye on this one. Mangoe ( talk) 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the AfD, I think there is a false premise operating here. Primary sources should be avoided in top-level articles such as autism, but the more specific the topic of an article, the less reason there is for avoiding primary sources. There is still of course a need that sources be reputable. I'm pretty sure Doc James agrees with this way of thinking. Looie496 ( talk) 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why the book "The imprinted brain" by Badcock [16] and its book reviews have been ignored. I understand even less why the 2010 article "A meeting of minds" in Nature Medicine by Nicola Jones has been ignored (Nature Medicine (2010) 16, pages 353–355, doi:10. 1038/nm0410-353 [17]). This is a three page report on the research of Badcock and Crespi. It contains a series of evaluations by a number of outside experts in the field, including comments from Simon Baron-Cohen. For those without access to Nature Medicine, I have temporarily placed a copy of the report at http://mathsci.free.fr/Mind.pdf. The summary reads, "The idea that autism and psychosis are two ends of a common spectrum is stirring up debate among geneticists and psychiatrists alike. It's controversial, but thanks to advances in comparative genomics, this hypothesis is now testable." So Looie496's statement that the theory is uncontroversial seems to be WP:OR. Mathsci ( talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Only way to get this awful, awful blot on Wikipedia fixed. 86.** IP ( talk) 06:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell this is a class assignment at Western Washington University. According to the course description, it is designed to teach students how to "evaluate controversial claims and attempt to explain why people might believe weird things such as UFOs, ESP and ghosts". Students have chosen to work on fringe articles according to an
assignment list. However I see edits by the students like
this and
this that appear to be using fringe sources in an attempt to promote the fringe view of such subjects. Maybe part of their assignment is to make controversial edits and be reverted? Not sure this is the best use of Wikipedia. -
LuckyLouie (
talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article puts an obscure theory on equal footing with quantum theory - one of them has to go... have a look at this, please. Ratzd'mishukribo ( talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested prod. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Prod was contested, apparently because the contester didn't notice that the only good sources were used merely for background information. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Dubiously-named article (can a photo be an astronomical observation?) making WP:REDFLAG claims as supposedly the first photo of a "mutual" (whatever that is) UFO. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Close encounter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be a lot of primary-sourced claims in this article. I'm not equipped to figure out exactly which of these Close Encounters of the X Kind beyond the first three are includable and which are not.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
List of vegetable oils ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See the good faith post at WP:RSN about the quality of sources. I am really worried about the health claims made in the article. It's part of the wider problem of medicinal herb articles, and shows that it could extend to virtually all our articles on plants and foodstuffs. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Sri Chand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are obvious problems with this article including, but not limited to, basic arithmetic.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is just getting ridiculous. I love how airily they dismiss core Wikipedia policies, which their beloved 13 pages of denialist arguments with no mainstream response allowed can't possibly violate. 86.** IP ( talk) 02:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This fellow notable? 86.** IP ( talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The only critical voice is a psychic, who says rumpology is ridiculous - try psychic powers instead.
One needs to ask: Is this a joke? One possibly based on real crankery, but... 86.** IP ( talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably better known as the creationist pundit Vox Day. Main editor? Theodore Beale. 86.** IP ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Lengthy in-universe Theosophy article. Particularly annoying for its overuse of bold text. Of course we, quite rightly, have long articles on many religious concepts. Usually we can cite them to theologists, including academic theologists and official bodies of churches etc. This is a bit different to my mind. The sheer quantity of info only of interest to Theosophists and perhaps some New Agers might be a problem. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The fringe articles The_Secret_Life_of_Plants and The_Secret_Life_of_Plants_(film) seem to be in need of a look at for possible fringe. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Plant_perception_(paranormal) also needs some serious attention. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Much wishful thinking on the part of cryptozoology enthusiasts. For example, Bloop is a hydrophonic sound cataloged by by NOAA. This list categorizes it as a cryptid and identifies it as a "Gigantic creature/Unconfirmed sound". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Another level-headed person who's either informed or ready to learn would be welcome to keep an eye on African American Vernacular English and its discussion page. The former routinely attracts stupidity (if not blatant racism), but [fingers crossed] it's going through a quiet patch. Dealing with stupidity is straightforward (if tiresome); fringe, quasi-scientific beliefs held by the well-intentioned are another matter. Please see this for the latest challenge. Possibly I was on the bitey side in my first response (it had been a tiring day). And my interlocutor is polite enough.
The anonymous writer makes one parenthetical comment that may baffle: I've seen the bias shown towards Dr. Smith in these discussion for[u]ms. This is Ernie Smith; to judge for yourself the bias shown against him, see this talk page archive.
(I normally wouldn't post here and instead would ping Ƶ§œš¹ about it, but he's away on a long break.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A cold fusion-like scheme, this seems to have attracted some media attention from the unwary, and therefore has some chance of surviving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. Like most such articles it is heavily burdened with primary sources, though there is one good reference from Discovery.com here which spells out the prospects of this quite well. Obviously we need to keep an eye on it. Mangoe ( talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like the deletion discussion hit a nerve. It may be time to get more serious administrative action involved. 128.59.171.194 ( talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Others seem to really dislike the way the article was first written. 128.59.171.194 ( talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've bumped this thread to the bottom of the page, because I've suggested a different approach to handling some of the problems identified. Our best references on this topic address it as a social and economic phenomenon – the most reliable sources address the E.C. as a (troubled) business venture – and skirt the scientific and technical aspects of it. It therefore might make the most sense to cover the Energy Catalyzer within our (newish) article on the device's inventor, Andrea Rossi, who has previously been involved in a couple of other now-defunct alternative-energy-related business ventures.
I invite, encourage, and welcome a discussion of a possible merger at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#This article could be merged.... TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades suggestion is the right thing to do. It should be done regardless of the peanut gallery. 76.119.90.74 ( talk) 04:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is definitely fringe and written in an advocate's tone. I don't know anything about the subject so I don't know how to help in rewriting. Noformation Talk 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth Rauscher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently being owned by User:Dreadstar who is making arguments about "consensus" that are borderline incoherent.
76.119.90.74 ( talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
POV fork of ghost? Or perhaps it started life as something else, and later got a bunch of fringy stuff tacked onto it (sourced to places like this). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There are some extraordinary claims on this page about " extraordinary spiritual phenomena" including "stigmata, corporeal oil profusion" etc. & there is an ongoing debate concerning reliable sources. Dougweller ( talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [ [18]]):
The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.
The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.
Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [ [19]]. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have some POV issues. In the Body of Work section, some dubious claims are made and although they are attributed to the author, I feel like a balancing source might be beneficial. Thoughts? Noformation Talk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is scheduled to end anytime now, but some people here may be interested in Talk:Oxfordian_Theory_–_Parallels_with_Shakespeare's_Plays#Poll_regarding_redirect.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.
I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [ [20]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to need being looked over with a fine tooth come for fringe. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In this article, a claim is made that if the reliable sources are not proven to be not fringe, and anyone questions them (providing no sources for their claim) that the claims are barred as "fringe." As AFAICT, WP:FRINGE does not appear to cover such a claim, I am asking here.
Claims in the body of the article add up to a large number of deaths. The sources are RS (been shown as such at RSN) and those opposed to the figures have not provided RS competing figures (as I suggested many times per WP:NPOV). Rather they suggest that all such numbers are not "mainstream views" and are "fringe."
[21] shows one opinion - that we should only write truth in Wikipedia, and that Jimbo has that position (argumentum ad Jimbonem, I rather think).
Another [22] says
And also [23] posits:
Another
[24]:
Which might have some validity if reliable sources (other than editors) made the assertion that the RS sources are "fringe", I suppose. The problem is that those editors seem to feel the onus is on anyone who makes claims based on the body of the article to "prove" that the RS sources are not fringe <g>. Is it possible to do such - that is, in any article with cites making claims and not having cites making opposing claims that the RS sources must also be shown to be "not fringe" as long as an editor says they are "fringe"?
When those editors do not provide RS sources showing that claims made in the body of the article are not mainstream, and the vast majority of academic cites use the references in the body of the article, it is up to me to "prove" that the claims are mainstream (as far as a range goes)? Is it required that to use sources requires that other sources explicity call them "mainstream" ? And is their use of WP:FRINGE reasonable here? BTW, I expect those cited to give their spirited defence <g>. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump (269) Tentontunic (262) placing me in a measly 6th place -- while Paul and TFD together have 1600 edits. For Fascism ... I am number 3 - with many of them occuring when working with R-41 on reducing some of the irrlevant stuff. For which he gave me a barnstar. If improving an article requires writing on the talk page, so be it. TFD and R-41 are both well ahead of me on that one, by the way. Holodomor? You have to be kidding! I am not even in the top 20 editors on that talk page, for gosh sakes! (I suspect I am not even in the top fifty - making that claim about as ill-founded as imaginable) Meanwhile I found one editor who has made over a thousand edits to a single article, 600 to another article, and lots of edits to a number of other articles as well <g>. And others whould note that I am currently near 20K edits on enWiki alone. Cheers - but I leave the noting of edit counts for others to the observer. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to have quite a bit of OR, but I don't have time right now or the resources to deal with this (and related articles). Probably no one else here does, but I didn't want to just ignore it. Dougweller ( talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet another POV-fork of Global warming controversy, and one that has nothing but synthesis and original research to back it. I swear, there's like a dozen articles covering the same basic content. Do we really need this one? 86.** IP ( talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks as if I'm going to be drawn into an edit war with users Ghmyrtle and Wilfridselsey on this page. It started when I pointed out that the article was drawing attention to the fringe theory and giving a citation that refuted it, which is essentially contrary to Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories - if we refute one we'd have to refute them all. Both users insisted the reference should remain, initially disputing that Oppenheimer's theory on the origin on the English language wasn't "fringe" at all (hmm...)
Wilfridselsey insisted the Victorians had thought Britons spoke German. I asked for a reference, he supplied what turned out to be an anti-German political propaganda leaflet from the First World War. I said this wasn't really good enough and he supplied Googlebooks pointers to various late 18th and early 19th Century works speculating on race and language. I said that while these weren't worth much, they could be mentioned as representing an earlier view. I put in a sentence in a previous section on sources mentioning earlier race/language speculation with a couple of citations supplied by Wilfridselsey. Ghmyrtle immediately reverted, putting back the Oppenheimer reference, in spite of the fact that Wilfridselsey had been attempting to argue the view was not modern.
Whenever I have removed the reference to Oppenheimer's fringe theory, Ghmyrtle has reverted the change and put it back in. Wilfridselsey on the talk page has returned to defending Oppenheimer's theories as worthy of inclusion. I removed the Oppenheimer reference again, but before long my reversion will be reverted again, I have no doubt. Part of the problem is that too few people know enough about linguistics to see quite why the theory is fringe in the first place. Paul S ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is in a bad way, and I'd like to get keen, non-partisan editors to clean it up. In other words I'm calling for volunteers, or else advice on where to go (no snide suggestions please).
The article sets out the various errors in the BoM - they include matters such as the presence of horses, silkworms and domestic pigs in the Americas before Columbus, the use of iron, the idea that American Indian languages were descended from Hebrew and Egyptian, and much more. It should be enough merely to list these, but as it stands the article gives far more space to rebuttals - thus we are told, by Mormon apologists, how when the Book of Mormon says horses it really means some other animal (ditto silkworms and pigs), how copper can sort of rust just like iron, and so on. It's embarrassing, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute (at least it does if we want something that can stand as a reference anyone other than believers).
So I'm asking, (1) am I correct in thinking that the apologists' refutations of facts are fringe and shouldn't be covered, and (2) where or how can I ask for a concerted clean-up of the article?
PiCo ( talk) 07:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I went through and deleted the most egregious OR from the articles, but they are still pretty bad. The amount of copy-pasted content in the articles really demonstrated the need to combine them as well. eldamorie ( talk) 14:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Only significant change since I last looked is the closing down and blocking of all attempts to fix this, and the removal of all tags noting problems. What's it going to take to get this festering boil lanced? 86.** IP ( talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Such discussions have proved to be nothing but WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, complete with archival of threads and attempts to attack other people. 86.** IP ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Repeated insertions of unsourced or inadequately sourced personal interpretations of facts and theories tending to promote the fringe Legitimist POV on articles about the defunct French throne and/or its order of succession are ongoing by Emerson 07 and his apparent sockpuppets (e.g. 112.198.79.106 and 112.198.81.179). He initially ignored Jimbo's edits & warning about fringing. I have stopped requesting sources, protesting, deleting and correcting these edits temporarily, here and at Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist), History of the French line of succession and Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, in order to refrain from edit-warring. However, that has left the fringe insertions and their POV distorting the article in question. Please review the following diffs:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight ( talk • contribs)
For info, I have opened an RfC on whether the above article should have a quote to illustrate the opinion of every scientist listed. I think it's of interest to this board, as the article is a controversial one and climate change denial is a very visible fringe theory that we want to get right. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I ran across this recently, adding it to my watchlist because of the obvious WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. I've always avoided the lengthy discussions on when and how "pseudoscience" can be used within an article, but I think it should be applied to this. What do others think?
Looks like the article needs a total rewrite with a very close eye to NPOV and FRINGE, rather than it's current de-emphasis of the fringe elements. Others want to take a look? -- Ronz ( talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
True but conversely just because it meets fringe does not automatically mean it is pseudoscience which seems where this argument is going. Pseudoscience, Fringe science, and Protoscience all fall under fringe but the later two do follow the scientific method. For example, the Pro-Clovis theory is still fringe but it is NOT Pseudoscience but rather Fringe science; furthermore continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all fringe science ideas that eventually became mainstream. Fringe in wikipedia terms simply means not part of the mainstream--nothing more nothing less; it does NOT automatically translate as pseudoscience.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We have multiple sources saying it is pseudoscience, and those sources have been somehow overlooked or removed. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The entire 'Treatment of pests and weeds' section is unreferenced . . . and absolutely ridiculous. Deploy the ashes of an incinerated mouse when Venus is in Scorpius? Spray the ashes of weed seeds with the clear urine of a sterile cow, the urine having been exposed to the full moon for 6 hrs? Who makes this stuff up? And we are debating whether this is pseudoscience? Agricolae ( talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've found source (no time to re-locate it just now, unfortunately) that says that the Nazis basically took Steiner's material and peeled all the woo-woo off. If that's true then there is a major WP:SYNTH problem lurking here in that we can't assume that material from different times and places adds up to a commonly held system. Mangoe ( talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Awful, credulous article. 86.** IP ( talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
MIT offers a lecture on Cold Fusion: "Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments".
This lecture clearly propagates the notion that cold fusion experiments yield excess heat, ie cold fusion is real.
Is cold fusion still fringe or is it becoming protoscience ?
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
We have no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to preliminary research. If it escapes into the MSM, then we have to deal with it because our hand is forced, as we can see with the ongoing Energy Catalyzer rubbish. Ideally in the latter case we would just ignore it until the thing came to some sort of resolution, but there's too much precedent for not waiting, and therefore we are stuck with some sort of speculative article. But with research that isn't generating a lot of publicity, we can wait until something really substantive is produced. Sure, people research cold fusion because it would be wonderfully convenient if it could be pulled off; but it's no concern of ours until they come up with some results that are generally accepted. Mangoe ( talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This list User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers seems like a BLP issue. BLP applies to user space. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is: "Is ENEA a mainstream research institute ?"- If "NO" then why are they cooperating in the
ITER project. If "YES" then why does the PRESIDENT of ENEA state: "Government programs ... have proved the existence of this phenomenon".
Kindly explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ?
I guess all the pathological skeptics currently go through a moment of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy it. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Luigi Paganetto is a professor of economics. [39] He is not an expert on physics or chemistry, so I have no idea why POVbrigand is citing him here or anywhere else on wikipedia as if he were an expert in that area. That has already happened in the article cold fusion and will only mislead readers. Mathsci ( talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, if ENEA is endorsing this, it means that they aren't a reliable source. When this thing starts producing commercial power, then it will be proven and the considerable consensus against cold fusion will be overturned. The long sequence of questionable demonstrations does not cut it. All of the little teaser "someone might buys this" don't cut it. When it produces significant power in a situation not controlled by its inventor, then it can be treated as a proven concept. Right now it's still in the "probably a scam" state. Mangoe ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)