This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
We have several articles that have repeatedly been subject to paranoid editing -- directed-energy weapon is one of them, and it is currently in the midst of an episode. Additional input would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.
To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.78.205 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013
During the FA try on this article it was suggested that Sarmila Bose be used as a source, I discounted her as a source as she is, in my opinion fringe. So I was then asked to post here. Bose is a known revisionist historian with regards to the Bangladesh Liberation War. In one paper she claimed the Pakistani army had committed no rapes, in another she says, a few thousand at most. She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00 men on the ground, it was 90,000. The generally accepted figure for rapes in this conflict is 200,000, with a high estimate of 400,00. There is an academic consensus the war was a genocide, Bose say it was not one. Is this author fringe? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In answer to my own question, in her 2005 article, Bose does not say there were no rapes. She is reporting on a series of specific case studies. She says no rapes by Pakistani soldiers were reported by eyewitnesses interviewed in these studies. These are the actual words:
No rape of women by Pakistan army found in the specific case studies: In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the few specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in the popular narrative the allegation of rape is often clubbed together with allegation of killing. Rape allegations were made in prior verbal discussions in some cases and in a published work on one of the incidents. However, Bengali eyewitnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place in these cases. While rape is known to occur in all situations of war, charges and counter-charges on rape form a particularly contentious issue in this conflict. The absence of this particular form of violence in these instances underlines the care that needs to be taken to distinguish between circumstances in which rape may have taken place from those in which it did not.
In other words she clearly says that rape "always" occurs in such wars, implicitly accepting that it did happen, but is saying that the mantra, as it were, that has become established in this instance - of rampaging rapes and murders combined - is not supported by the evidence of these specific case studies. Paul B ( talk) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Supplement to this: DS argues that Bose is fringe because "She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00[0] men on the ground, it was 90,000." I don't know where DS gets this statistic, though the same claim appears on this blog [1]. However, Bose is quoted as saying that the West Pakistani deployment comprised "34,000" combat troops plus "another 11,000 men" in support roles (making 45,000). The 90,000 figure is arrived at by combining "54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces". It's clear that "paramilitary" forces are not included in Bose's figures, so in reality we have a discrepancy between 54,000 and 45,000, which could be explained in any number of ways, and is, in any case, largely irrelevant to the issue, since even if she did make a mistake errors can be found in almost any work if you look hard enough. Paul B ( talk) 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So where do we stand on this? As stated 200,000 is the generally accepted figure for the mass rapes, see Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia D'Costa Routledge pp120-121 "Although the exact number of rapes is still heavily disputed, the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months". With Bose we have one paper saying none (in a few case studies, so not really usefull?). And I do not know what figure she gives in her book, has anyone looked? Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ademar José Gevaerd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enjoy.
jps ( talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Been tagged since the beginning of this year. What shall we do?
jps ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Integral ecology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So far down the rabbit hole. Did you know that this is an emerging field of study?
jps ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you're keeping track, I did some weeding of a garden. Will there be backlash?
Could use some additional eyes at Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Studies_in_peer-reviewed_journals to see if I am misrepresenting things. I feel like I am getting some wikilawyer-stonewalling about if WP:PRIMARY studies by proponents of TM meet reliable sourcing guidelines, with the other editor claiming that since these are "social sciences" things like WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a prolific academic publishing material on the dangers of vaccines. Much of his works seems sufficiently new there is little or no mainstream reaction to it. Not sure how/if fringe guidelines apply ... ?
James H. Fetzer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There seems to be an issue with having the lead of this article about a well-known conspiracy theory proponent actually say he is a conspiracy theory proponent.
Discussion has not been fruitful.
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's getting very soupy on the Talk page. Maybe someone else can make sense of odd accusatory rants like these. I'm at a loss. LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the article taking a fringe pro-matriarchy position? Or even a fringe anti-matriarchy position? Is everything in there relevant? Specifically for now, what about the use of Scalingi, P. L. (1978). The scepter or the distaff: The question of female sovereignty, 1516-1607. The Historian, 41(1), 59. This is a perfectly acceptable academic article, but... Scalingi uses "gynecocracy", and sometimes "government by women" to talk about the debate in the C16 about whether queens could rule (at all). Does this have anything to do with matriarchy? (Given that the debate assumed monarchical government, and even the maintenance of male-preference primogeniture, so that, as in contemporary UK, a country would have a queen for a while, followed by a king.) Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have recently attempted to improve this article. I may need some help on this as I am not sure about some of the sources an IP has raised (some seem reliable, some do not). Please see the talk page for the Dean Radin article. Any input please appreciated. Dan skeptic ( talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So we learn from our article on Sotai, a kind of posture therapy. The article is long on words but short on good sources; and there doesn't seem to be much out there. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
According to Dr. Masunaga (founder of Zen Shiatsu), who has assigned psychological functions to the Functional Circles, the meridian of the gallbladder stands on behalf for the function of short-time decisions: "Do I go to the right or to the left?"
I see a couple of us have edited this article, me and User:LuckyLouie. Having reverted the addition of art and writing as psychotechnologies by an IP twice I realised that the paragraph the IP was adding to was copyvio, so reverted to an earlier version. A big problem is that even as a stub the article is about two different subjects, "any application of technology for psychological purposes" and "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome". We can't have an article about two such separate concepts, and I'm not at all sure that the latter isn't fringe, although I see books mentioning the phrase. Any suggestions? Dougweller ( talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and qi#scientific investigation articles are obvious targets.
jps ( talk) 11:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Some sourcing issues and their effect on neutrality being discussed here; wise eyes very welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on the talk page over this article on Oxford Bibliographies by Simon Payaslian. It revolves around the Bosnian genocide, Payaslian figures it began in 91, the guy arguing that Payaslian is fringe says it began in 92, the start of the war. However people have been indicted for crimes of genocide in 91 "Krajisnik... Was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992" Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic Duke p288. Yearbook of the United Nations 2006 p1489. "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" Given that the genocides had obviously started in 91, else why were people indicted for it? Is it fringe for Payaslian to say the genocide ran from 91-95? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Please weigh in on the appropriateness of an acupuncturist editing acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine here: User talk:Middle 8#Acupuncturist. My opinion is that the user's input on the talk page would be welcome, but their WP:ADVOCACY in the article itself is very, very problematic. jps ( talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I so totally dominate those articles. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just agree to stop editing in article space and we can close this thread now. The evidence is clear. You have a conflict of interest with respect to acupuncture. Read WP:COI. jps ( talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek outside advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. In this case it has become an extension of the article talk page with the same editors making the same arguments. I am closing this thread, and I strongly advise the editors involved to go to WP:DR and follow the advice given there. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks, jps ( talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) The following WP:TAGTEAM is going to be difficult to work with, I can see:
We need some people that can see their way to explaining why a source that has been roundly criticized here, here, here, here, here, and here should probably not be trumpeted as evidence that "ACUPUNCTURE WORKS! OMG!". This is bad. Really bad. Why aren't there people working on these pages? jps ( talk) 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I'll repeat what I said to JPS on my user talk page: I actually agree that it's possible that acu will -- despite the blinding issues -- eventually be recognized by sci consensus to be all or nearly all placebo. But your attempts to depict the literature as such are premature. If you were right you wouldn't have to prevaricate about sources (and editors) that disagree. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 04:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ernst is a reliable source for criticizing fringe theories.
jps (
talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
My quick review of this conflict does not support jps's interpretation of the situation. While these two subjects (TCM and acupuncture) have a high potential for misbehavior the editors identified don't seem to be doing it. Less heat, more light. focus on sources and clear language, not editors. jps's enthusiasm for finding problematic material is laudable, but finding trouble where only the potential exists isn't a very scientific approach. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
STOP! Paraphrasing of 2006 source from Ernst
(outdent) Hidden. Not meaning to be peremptory, but this issue is minor and in this context distracting. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 07:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
"able to focus different types of radiation alike to magnifying glasses, including the types of radiation coming from biological objects" Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Advocated an anti-cancer diet which included oil and vitamin pills. Apparently:
her method starts to be well-acknowledged by some mainstream scientists
Although the article has a stab at skepticism, it doesn't quite strike home. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"Kombucha tea has been promoted as a cure-all for a wide range of conditions including baldness, insomnia, intestinal disorders, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and cancer". (says the American Cancer Society). A new account is minimizing the documented dangers associated with Kombucha - more eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you need to eat and drink to survive? Apparently not. Do you need to have reliable sources to back claims inserted into Wikipedia articles? Apparently not.
Recent edits could benefit from a wider consensus. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Over on Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, a new editor is very keen on including a review of said book by Neil Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by NARTH, a so-called "ex-gay" therapy organisation that offers treatment to try and change people's sexual orientation, a process considered to be at best unscientific and at worse abusive by a number of prominent professional mental health organisations including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.
The Journal of Human Sexuality seems to me to be in the same ball-park when it comes to sexology and study of human sexuality as, say, publications of the Institute for Creation Research—far on the fringe. I am posting here to seek clarification: is the Journal of Human Sexuality a valid source for critiques of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why given the WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policies? Thanks. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
And he is not amused as you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.
(C/P: Talk: Rupert Sheldrake#Chopra on skepticism in Wikipedia)
jps ( talk) 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Relatedly, perhaps: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Found this when looking at recent edits to Mummy about commercial mummification. Looks like fringe rather than just some weird religion as "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Promotional and we probably don't need 2 articles. Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Found some old fringe stuff about the Lenape being Vikings at Timeline of pre–United States history and similar stuff added at Norumbega today. It would be useful if people could put these articles on their watchlist as I suspect it will return. Dougweller ( talk) 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Etherians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should such an article exist?
jps ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Citations to fringe journals being added with the assertion "The lead should indicate that there is indeed scientific evidence of PK activity". User seems intent on righting this great wrong. LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor is proposing a substantially different version of this article example diff which, from what I can see, presents significant fringiness issues concerning one of the most prominent channellers. I gather from the discussion thus far that this may be resolved satisfactorily but it bears watching. Mangoe ( talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The altmed practice of "cleansing" the colon, promoted for its supposed health benefits. The article needs more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's important here that policy and guidance is observed. The policy that particularly applies to colon cleansing can be found in WP:PSCI. This is a pseudoscientific/quack (and dangerous) practice according to the reliable sources which we are obliged to use prominently (and QuackWatch in this context is very much a high-quality RS). We must not give false balance to fringe claims. I'm frankly astonished to find push-back against this. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A series of recently proposed edits seem to indicate an attempt to reduce the appropriate portrayal of HIV/AIDS denialism as fringe. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope I'm not intruding here (will revert if asked to), but an illustration of what OP talks about can be seen in the wiki entry LewRockwell.com. The website has repeatedly published articles promoting the Duesberg hypothesis (and indeed hosted conferences on AIDS where Duesberg presented his views) that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and does not cause AIDS; we have RS documenting LRC's promotion of these views. In 2010, User:MastCell cited RS documenting LRC's publishing of AIDS denial articles n order to characterize the website's science articles (which also featured claims that vaccines cause autism) as "fringe" ( 1). This consensus lasted three years, but now User:Srich32977 and others keep deleting attempts to clarify the fringe nature of AIDS denial and another science published and promulgated by LRC. (e.g. ( 2). Steeletrap ( talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I (MrBill3) was referring to the discussion on the talk page of the article. If someone could take a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. The discussion has become tedious with points being made repeatedly and as I said it seems there is an underlying purpose to give undue weight to HIV/AIDS denialists. In particular by an IP who signs as Peter the Roman. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Klarer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please read her biography.
jps ( talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.
An editor claimed "I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Wikipedia." [4]. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Pseudoscience. The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. It was the understanding of editors that no final version had been published. However, the source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.
Abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness." [5]
Text from the source: "The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience." [6]
More text from the source: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." [7]
Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the ' Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.
Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.
The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS. That is not the question when the text is obviously sourced. The issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. [this message by QuackGuru - removed elaborate sig as it was corrupting the page]
I checked the article history. This deleted text for no good reason. And then even more text from the demographics section was deleted from the article. The text should not have been deleted from the article. If the text was not about demographics then why wasn't it moved to another section of the article? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Several articles on the deformed Paracas skulls are based partially or largely on work by this fringe writer, who clearly fails WP:RS for this subject. They are, at least, Paracas culture, Artificial cranial deformation, and Elongated human skulls. Brien Foerster, a co-author of the source used, is also mentioned - for more about him, see [8] and [9] (lost technologies all over the world). He runs tours with Lloyd Pye [10] - the Starchild skull guy. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across this while looking at an old FT/N entry on questionable sexuality statements and articles. Well, it's still questionable, worse than questionable. It's nothing more than an elaboration of Tripp's queer theory speculations, which as far as I can tell nobody else has any use for. Taking this to AFD isn't going to succeed, but I'm thinking that WP:UNDUE should be invoked and this relegated to a one sentence mention in the main article, if that. Mangoe ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Rongxiang Xu and a walled-garden of related articles ( Organ regeneration science , Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science, Regenerative substance , etc ) have been created by User:Crimsonreports as apparently entirely promotional, POV and in many cases infringing. I'm not really familiar with the area, but suspect that they're WP:FRINGE as well. I've redirected some to the biography, which seemed the longest and best referenced of the lot. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the relevant discussion has stalled, I'd like to request an assistance on whether pre-1750s claims about Shusha should have the same certainty and weight as the 1750s foundation. Particularly, the article currently asserts that prior to the 1750s Shusha has been not only a settlement, but already an Armenian town with fortress. Meanwhile, the sources that indicate the town and fortress of Shusha were founded by Panah Ali Khan in the 1750s include (largely referred to in the article and/or talkpage):
One of the issues is that nothing indicates that Panah Khan destroyed an earlier fortress to build a new one, but some apparently fringe sources say that the earlier fortress was ceded to him. The article cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Raffi who specifically say that Shusha was founded on an empty and uninhabited place. Also, as it was already noted at talk, there is a separate, small settlement nearby called Shushikent or Shosh, with which some fringe sources possibly confuse Shusha. Brandmeister talk 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to support the request for the community involvement in the disputes in the article about Shusha. The problem is that there are two conflicting versions of the foundation of the town. One is supported by most academic sources and encyclopedia, and the others is less popular. At the moment the minority view is presented as a fact in the article, and is given an undue weight. I would like to ask for the uninvolved editors to provide their opinions and help resolve the dispute. Grand master 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I see we have a number of articles discussing this "compendium of mystical knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane."
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association
And quite a few more [12] (some are about the musical type of record). Some of these are ok, others need work, eg the first 2 and the PBMA). Dougweller ( talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made a cut at fixing up the main article, which surely needs more work and better organization. Note that I've been able to make use of a major new academic reference on theosophy for this, which we will probably want to refer to elsewhere. Unfortunately it's insanely expensive. Mangoe ( talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The mention of akashic records is probably the least problem in this apparently-written-by-a-follower article on a notorious Philippine cult. There is good info out there but a better starting point is Ruben Ecleo, which though more fact-based is hampered by the confusion between the father and son, both leaders of this cult and both in serious political and legal trouble. I would be tempted to roll this all into the PBMA article in order not to have three articles on the two leaders (Sr., Jr., and disambig) but if someone else would like to take a quick look and offer an opinion I would be grateful for the advice. Mangoe ( talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to tell how accurate this is. If I follow this correctly, this is something that was dreamed up by the early theosophists and then glommed onto by a bunch of modern New Agers including Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Benjamin Creme. It may have some actual Indian antecedents. It's rather disorganized and seems to have included a bunch of stuff on other figures in one of these groups whose relevance is unclear. A large chunk of it seems to have been written by someone familiar with the material and I am not (yet) concerned about how factual it is, but it's rather hard to make sense of, and I haven't gone through the sources. Mangoe ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a problem here other than the usual problems with Hindu mythological figures. Mangoe ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This one had a hit, with a classic "reference to a nonexistent page" citation. I've removed the material pending someone supplying an authentic reference. Mangoe ( talk) 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ is a legitimate reference: a section titled "What are the Akashic Records?" begins on page 11 of what is apparently the original 1908 edition. The article itself on Dowling is fairly terrible otherwise. Mangoe ( talk) 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
has been newly created and is categorizing a number of fringe articles. The category itself seem to violate WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 22#Category:Censorship of science. Mangoe ( talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"believed to cure many rare diseases by the use of natural herbs" Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(Add) So a handful of press pieces on this practice which, so they relate, might "possibly provide cure for complicated diseases like cancer and AIDS, and at a very low cost"; yet nothing reliable. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Where Troy Once Stood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has quite a few history and archaeology categories, but is clearly fringe. These were removed by User:Ultra Venia and reverted by User:Antiphus, both edits I'm sure in good faith and with reasoned edit summaries. I don't these books like this should have one history or archaeology category, let alone 20. This may be one of those situations where policy forces us to misrepresent a subject, but as I haven't run across this before I'd like to know what others think. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
“Kitty is one of the leading Naturopathic Herbalist in the UK. She has been a regular contributor to What Doctors Don’t Tell You and The Herbal Review.”
A BLP with fringe overlap. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Request to change the editors of Santilli's article where Santilli is going on about "continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists" and reverting his edits. Dougweller ( talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I know this is likely unpopular given Lamarr's beauty, but I think (and verifiable sources confirm or question) that she no more invented WiFi (or anything related to it) than the whomever thought up the wheel invented the motor car. I've been accused of using original research and yet, the entire claim is based on unreliable sources (albeit a lot of them) and most if not all of those sources derive from the same source. Although there are many smoking guns (earlier patents and use in Germany during 1914-18 war) the primary source seems to stem from a patent filed in 1941 (Lamarr in her married name and George Antheil). Another smoking gun (I don't know how many you need) is in Lamarr's own words where she fails to even describe the "invention" to a reporter - perhaps she was just playing dumb, but we can't know for sure. The evidence strongly suggests she didn't have so much as a clue what the spread spectrum was or how it worked. There's a slightly cynical view from a reputable patent attorney published here: http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/ although as I've been at pains to point out elsewhere, this isn't the only elephant in the room. At least one academic has written about this in his book which I have cited elsewhere but the chapter is here: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/spread_spectrum.html.
Citing a patent is, to me, a poor example of proving invention. Many inventors (myself included) don't have our names listed on our inventions for any number of reasons. Mine have been mostly professional - so although I know I invented something (as do others) so far as the patent is concerned, I had no part in it and that crown goes to another. The "original research" here might be to question how Lamarr came up with the idea - I have my own hypothesis and that's all it is because all the witnesses are long dead. However, assigning the entire technological development of everything from spread spectrum to WiFi, CDMA, Bluetooth etc. to one single - parallel development noted on a long-forgotten patent is an insult to the memory those who actually did do the work; and whose names ARE available.
It's easy to dismiss this as me bitching or cry original research, but ask yourself first: why would I go to all this trouble? There's lots of slavish copies of the same old recycled story of Hollywood legend being secret inventor. The truth is rather less glamorous - but should we really ignore it because it's unpleasant?
The thing with patents is not unlike the reason that Jocelyn Bell Burnell [1] (a lady I am enormously in awe of) didn't receive a nobel for her discovery of pulsars.
I'm hesitant to address this issue directly as it's almost like committing thought crime (so deep this meme is embedded in popular culture). Yet the published evidence is clear. The patent exists; Lamarr's name is on it: but the technology claimed in the invention (spread spectrum) existed long before that and was well and widely understood. Smidoid ( talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's time we re-visit the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" article and have opened an RfC to that effect. Please join in that discussion:
SteveBaker ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Tina Resch claiming that the article runs afoul of WP:BLP due to inclusion of material regarding the subject's alleged psychic powers being defined as a hoax by multiple reliable sources such as Terence Hines, Kendrick Frazier, Joe Nickell, James Randi, etc. LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two, yes two, RFCs concerning statements about the sex of Gabriel. Please see Talk:Gabriel#Gabriel's Sex/Gender for the epic saga. I am posting here because the issue of Gabriel being female has been called fringe before, and seems confined to New Age type circles, so perhaps some experts on those things can assist in the dispute. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Need to bring this to attention here. Problems are:
Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's what's really happening. The neutrality of the Sheldrake article was overturned by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash the Sheldrake page in violation of NPOV. Opponents of Sheldrake seem incapable of rationally judging what constitutes balanced presentation of his work. Though it's already been repeatedly explained to Barney, WP:FRINGE clearly has no applicability. Sheldrake's article is about his life and his views. The task of editors is to present those views and responses to them fairly. Given his fringe status, to discuss his views on a page devoted to, say, ontogeny would indeed be inappropriate. To prevent a balanced discussion of his views on his own page is scandalous. It is indeed difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion on the talk page, but the real difficulty is translating problems raised on that page into changes in the article, and this is because Barney and friends revert every edit that would restore balance.
The credulity trap is precisely the problem. Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices are proven wrong.
I was banned for three days because I was seeking to restore a description of an experiment conducted by neuroscientist Steven Rose that was intended to falsify Sheldrake's hypothesis of long-range causation among organisms but instead seemed to verify it. Given their fear of science, it was inevitable that the anti-Sheldrake editors would revert the edit. I was blamed for the edit war only because I was acting alone in the face of a tag-team determined to keep any mention of real science out of the Sheldrake article.
As I demonstrate on the NPOV noticeboard, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article, Barney's previous complaint against me for edit warring was not only frivolous but based on an obvious falsehood, one that Barney himself should have seen. Alfonzo Green ( talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
To discuss the man's views in his article we need good sources. Is there any specific proposal to improve the article using good sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC ( talk) 13:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
These were clinical trials run in the early 2000s in Germany. There is some debate about whether/how their suggestions about the effectiveness of acupuncture should be included. More eyes welcome. (Also posted to WT:MEDRS.) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is littered with primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself are not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The mass policy violations have continued. The concerns about the coatrack information raised at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials have been ignored. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether BLPs of practitioners of fringe medicine is within the scope of this noticeboard, but I could use some eyes on Debasish Kundu, a researcher of Spagyric Homeopathy. The article is very promotional and reads like a resume. I did find some citations from him on Google Scholar India, but much of what is in this article seem to be accolades from- and associations with- organizations that are fringe themselves. - Mr X 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
(For those not watching; please consolidate responses there) WT:MED#Is Acupuncture a form of pseudoscience? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie started out by deleting large portions of the article, and is demanding that he recreate it from the ground up, apparently without interference from the earlier editors ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [15]). I'd rather let others with more knowledge of the subject deal with this person.
Maybe they have a lot to bring to this topic, but they know nothing about collaborative editing, ownership, and edit warring. They aren't listening to advice. Here are some relevant links. Their contributions is a good place to start:
Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The other discussion is located at AN/I. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Orrerysky has created Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. Besides other problems, File:Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson.jpeg, uplifted by User:Wavyinfinity seems to be copied from [19]. I see one of the editors above is posting about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Crothers on Facebook. [20] so we can expect more SPAs. Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Orrerysky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
None of this user's edits to articlespace in cosmology that I reviewed are worth keeping. Please keep an eye. jps ( talk) 23:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Oparin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think we could use some editors cleaning a bit of this article. Did you know that this Lysenkoist is considered "the Charles Darwin of the 20th Century"? I didn't either.
jps ( talk) 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You might not think an IP claiming the Ainu are white (despite the genetics) is being fringe, but he's basing this on a real crackpot, Edo Nyland [24] who thinks all languages are descended from Basques - he just sent me the link. He's also adding the Japanese to the Turanid race article claiming they are 'Turanese' (and the Mongols). Dougweller ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
In the article on the Insite supervised injection site in Canada there is a section called #Research. In three paragraphs is says that "the site has been the focus of more than thirty studies, published in 15 peer-reviewed journals" gives some examples of findings from CMAJ, NEJM and Addiction. One of these articles is from the Lancet and it states that the number of "overdose deaths have dropped 35% in the Insite area since it opened, much more than a 9% drop elsewhere in Vancouver". This last study is then critiqued by a organization called Drug Free Australia (DFA) in the two following paragraphs. (They urged Lancet to retract the article in a letter to the journal [25] The letter was published [26] and got a reply from its authors in the same issue [27]. Lancet have not retracted the article. Drug Free Australia also accused the scholars of scientific misconduct. The University of British Columbia subsequently investigated the matter and concluded that the research was stringent and solid. [28].) The last paragraph of the section is also from Drug Free Australia and presents their view. A view that is contrary to what studies in peer-reviewed journals found and is presented in the thee first paragraphs of the section.
I have tried to chunk most of these three paragraphs. For a number of reasons including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. Editor Minhpie say that it should stand, as the critique echoes concerns that a number of (political) organizations have with supervised injection sites and thus that their "research" is needed for balance. (Drug Free Australia, REAL Woman of Canada and similar believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to suppress negative findings of certain abuse related programs and confabulate positive findings about the same to sway public opinion. They claim that these researchers, editors-in-chiefs, reviewers, excreta - just like them - have a political agenda and that's why the Lancet and other peer-reviewed papers publish what they do.) Minphie also claim that "medical" doesn't apply as it rather is a social outreach program then something bio-medical. While DFA might not be MEDRS, the contrarian view presented in the latter paragraphs is attributed to DFA and DFA is a reliable source for the views of DFA and thus there is no problem with the reliability of sources neither, Minhpie claims.
So how to view this? Steinberger ( talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is essentially one big list and the primary contributor, User talk:Chalquist, seems heavily invested in the subject. It was voted for deletion six years ago, albeit with not much input. -- MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This article was previously the subject of an AFD discussion. I think it should be again! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrapsychology. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I just started an AFD for Ecopsychology: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopsychology -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This journal, which seems to be on the fringe, is currently at AfD and the discussion could use some more input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There's discussion ongoing on the talk page of this article -- user Seppi333 is promoting what seems to me to be an implausible reading of WP:FRINGE, and it would be nice to have one or two more opinions. -- JBL ( talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe website used as a source for around a dozen articles about Indian history. The site publishes pseudoarchaeology with a religious agenda, and the theories that it promotes has no support among historians. It makes the claim that there was a " Hindu colonisation of America", basically a South Asian version of the crackpot Gavin Menzies' equally ridiculous ideas about the Chinese in the Americas. It alleges that "The largest temple in Mexico City was the temple of Lord Shiva, the War God of the Mexican whom the Spanish invaders found entwined by golden snakes" and that "the Astec calendar known as the Astec Chakra of the Hindu Astronomers. It is the foundation stone of Hindu culture in America. The ancient Americans believe in the four Hindu ages (Yugas or cycles).."
There are more fringe articles on the site. One claims that Ancient Troy had contact with Mesoamerica, while another claims that the Phoenicians were Indian. There's even one that links together Atlantis, the Celts, a psychic named Edgar Cayce, Ancient Egypt, and the "Goddess Danu". Thoughts?-- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the only one left. I'm bringing it here as it appears to have a lot of fringe in it and no reliable sources. As an example, the first source is a technical support guy. [29]. I'm not sure what to do with this. Dougweller ( talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Terence_McKenna#Thought ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This section looks like a lot of promotion and original research to me. Is there anyone here who has the time to go through and figure out which of these ideas has received independent notice and which are the sole provenance of McKenna's speculations?
jps ( talk) 11:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
COMETA ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time making heads or tails out of this. It kinda reminds me of the Disclosure Project only French and from the 1990s. Anyway, it's being trumpeted in the lede of UFO right now, so I think we could use some help. I'm going to santize the lede of UFO, but would appreciate someone with better French skills than myself work on the article on COMETA. -- jps ( talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Has anybody checked the sources for this article? They are all rubbish. I'm starting to think that what we have here is bordering on a hoax, or at least an article that blurs the line between dishonesty and incompetence. I've removed some of the dead links, and now there's very little to support the claims of the article. I'm thinking we are ready for an AFD. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
An unsourced advert for one man's self-published research project. The closest thing we have to notability was that it was (allegedly) mentioned once in the X Files, but not episode data is given. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
According to whoever wrote this article - Bill Clinton was interested in UFOs and even issued an executive order to change the classification rules of UFO-related secrets. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
To round out our discussion of UFO articles for the week:
Cheers,
jps ( talk) 02:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Another weakly sourced report of a UFO flap. This one has (apparently) been mentioned in a TV show and a book about UFO flaps. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Supposedly a "team of scientists" consisting of prestigious physicists and a parapsychologist found that telekinetic powers unleashed by an emotionally distraught secretary were the cause of spinning picture frames and electrical failures in an office. Sourced to German language parapsychology books and a sensationalistic article in Der Speigel. Try as I may, I can't find any reliable, objective sources with which to transform this into a viable, encyclopedic article. Options are to redirect it to the main poltergeist article or send it to AfD. Or I may have missed something. LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
An "anti-autism" diet that has recently had some mainstream press coverage in the UK. I have just expanded the article a bit, and it may be worth watchlisting this and/or taking a look over it. Thanks, Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look? This is not really my field at all, but it does not look like a fully credible article.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion about how to present an opinion about 'flu vaccination, and its claimed link to Alzheimer's. Could benefit from more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Eyes are needed on Rupert Sheldrake; the regular eyes are no longer there. vzaak ( talk) 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any arbitration cases dealing with massive and extended off-site canvassing from proponents of fringe theories? How Wikipedia can deal effectively with such a situation is an interesting question. Wikipedia suffers when editors need to spend more time on one article being targeted from off-site. A possible outcome is that the non-canvassed editors will drop out from exhaustion, which would set a very bad precedent. vzaak 20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead paras of Narconon have been moving steadily away from the idea that it's a Scientology organisation with a fringe theory of drug rehabilitation, towards giving the reader (or at least, the reader who doesn't read the rest of the article) the impression that it's a mainstream drug abuse treatment programme. I'm attempting to move it back, input from experienced editors would be appreciated. -- 82.44.96.198 ( talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Should List of government responses to UFOs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) even exist? Some of the items on this list are articles we have previously discussed as possibly fringe. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Same problem - IPs repeatedly deleting sourced content from lede. I suspect it is probably the same person, IP-hopping. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) states that
"Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus used lodestones, or naturally magnetized pieces of the mineral magnetite, to treat conditions such as epilepsy, diarrhea, and hemorrhage." and that "Nikola Tesla is often considered by historians to be the father of modern electrotherapy because of his research into electromagnetism. His methods and patents in the early 1900s for the Tesla coil [1]" that were used for power distribution transformers were also used for electromagnetic medical devices". -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
UFOs beam death rays at helpless Brazilian citizens, a super secret military task force is assembled, someone commits suicide. I don't see anything here worth saving. LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
TK cell therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I wish the researchers behind this sort of thing every luck in their project, I think we all understand the gravity of articles which present highly speculative cures for cancer. Could somebody with a more biomedical background assess the validity of this article? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing attempt to recast the Koch brothers' global anthropogenic denial as "skepticism". This is inaccurate, and inconsistent with our sources, but they're edit-warring and ignoring citations. MilesMoney ( talk) 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Abstract: Click and read the abstract
Here are relevant literature examples from my own library
-- Cyrinus ( talk) 06:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|}
more references added to my talk page:
King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat
Parkinson’s Disease Vibration Therapy in PD
-- Cyrinus ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"Some music therapists argue that evidence on the effectiveness of vibroacoustic therapy is lacking. In his own work with autistic adults and children, Ari Amir, a master’s student at NYU’s Nordhoff-Robbins Center for Music Therapy, has found that listening to and creating music can produce physical results. But vibroacoustic therapy, he says, “is considered as a form that may help but hasn’t been clinically proven to help so far." Biology professor Carol Shoshkess Reiss at NYU’s School of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief at The Journal of DNA & Cell Biology, goes a step further. “It’s quack work, absolutely quackery,” said Reiss. “I did a web search in PubMed, which is the accepted review site for peer-reviewed publications, and in the last twelve years there has been not one paper on this.” While Reiss doesn’t feel the treatment could be of any medical harm, she does worry about a patient’s financial “waste”."
User:Cyrinus has been campaigning to keep this article, however I believe the end result has been to draw yet more attention to the aspects of this article which originally concerned us. This is starting to fit the pattern of almost all fringe medical claims - a WP:Coatrack of very suspect sources which have included NASA patents, unpublished theses and and FDA approvals.
@Cyrinus, In one paragraph on this page you explain that VAT is traditionally considered to be a form of music therapy. A few lines later you insist that VAT is completely different to music therapy. Please stop and consider the effect this kind of inconsistency has on other editors! I'd urge you to end this campaign. By all means work within the policy to find acceptable sources which might help us save the article, but please work within the policy rather than constantly seeking to bend the rules! -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-- re-posted Cyrinus ( talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
"noted business consultant, author, media commentator and speaker" and author of UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry which is currently up for an AFD right now. I strongly suspect that this subject may be insufficiently notable to pass WP:BLP and WP:GNG. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks.
Just declined a
WP:A10 on this, as it is quite a different thing to the prenatal procedure
Vibroacoustic stimulation.
I, erm, don't really know where to start with this article, and need a whole lotta help.
Pete aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, now we have real problem here. I was just going to suggest that AfD might be a better option, as it means a re-creation can be tagged WP:G4. Which is still what I would suggest. Vibroacoustic stimulation is simply a test of fetal health used in evidence-based medicine. It's now been page-moved to Vibroacoustic therapy, the reason why we're here. I'll try restoring Vibroacoustic stimulation without using the sysop buttons, though I suspect there might be cut-and-past move problems. Pete aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a more basic COI SPAM problem, with the editor repeatedly inserting spam links to his own website. Amazing how many people have never heard of the Streisand effect! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html We are talking about a therapy form - not evidence based medicine. how did wiki approved pemf? Cyrinus ( talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyrinus ( talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
All of these sources appear to be Self-published or sourced to non-accredited research organizations. At best we could use these sources to clarify what proponents of VAT have claimed, but they do not give us anything which clears the hurdle of the Medical Reliable Sources policy.
The first link (Fibromyalgia study) is a small non-blinded study which appears to be hosted on the website of a private clinic which offers this service. It's precisely the kind of source that the policy advises us to not use to back up biomedical claims.
Many of the same concerns hold true for the second link: It's a single page on a website for Rett Syndrome carers. The page is mostly a compilation of references to other studies, plus some comments about VAT and Music Therapy, written by a music therapist. It's not actually saying all that much beyond the opinion of the author that VAT is a good thing.
The third link appears to be some kind of blog run on behalf of an individual or organization who is promoting VAT. As such it's clearly not much use as a WP:MEDRS.
I'd say that if these really are the highest quality sources available to us then we are definitely looking at an WP:AFD nomination. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Article now at WP:AfD here. (My apologies to Kolbasz, Salimfadhley, and VQuakr for my comments above that might appear to be snarky.) -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"
Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined. Cyrinus ( talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Cymatic therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be almost exactly the same thing as Vibroacoustic therapy but invented by a British Guy in the 1960s. Coincidentally it also has an AFD active right now. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic therapy (2nd nomination). -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Is chelation therapy is a fringe treatment or a legitimate treatment for mercury poisoning. Could anybody more familiar with this topic kindly review this section? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with medical expertise please take a look at Tumor Treating Fields? To my layman's eye, it looks a lot like a Rife Machine.
Here are some links that may be of interest:
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/536.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.44.2.115/pdf
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=573260
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Of note, the device's approval was controversial within the FDA ( [37]), in part because the key clinical trial submitted by the manufacturer failed to show any benefit of TTF over standard medical care. (The trial had several other substantial methodologic flaws as well, which are probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard). Interestingly, with longer follow-up there was a suggestion that survival was actually better with standard care than with TTF (see Fig. 2 here). Nonetheless, the device was approved because relapsed gliobastoma is a highly lethal condition where even the best standard therapies are highly unsatisfactory. In that setting, and given the evident safety of TTF, the device was approved as a "last resort" with a rationale that boils down to what's-the-harm?
While it's fairly unusual for a device to be approved on the basis of a single clinical trial—especially a clinical trial which failed to show superiority to standard care—there is another randomized Phase III trial underway which will hopefully clarify the value of this approach. MastCell Talk 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
We have several articles that have repeatedly been subject to paranoid editing -- directed-energy weapon is one of them, and it is currently in the midst of an episode. Additional input would be useful. Looie496 ( talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.
To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.78.205 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013
During the FA try on this article it was suggested that Sarmila Bose be used as a source, I discounted her as a source as she is, in my opinion fringe. So I was then asked to post here. Bose is a known revisionist historian with regards to the Bangladesh Liberation War. In one paper she claimed the Pakistani army had committed no rapes, in another she says, a few thousand at most. She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00 men on the ground, it was 90,000. The generally accepted figure for rapes in this conflict is 200,000, with a high estimate of 400,00. There is an academic consensus the war was a genocide, Bose say it was not one. Is this author fringe? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In answer to my own question, in her 2005 article, Bose does not say there were no rapes. She is reporting on a series of specific case studies. She says no rapes by Pakistani soldiers were reported by eyewitnesses interviewed in these studies. These are the actual words:
No rape of women by Pakistan army found in the specific case studies: In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the few specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in the popular narrative the allegation of rape is often clubbed together with allegation of killing. Rape allegations were made in prior verbal discussions in some cases and in a published work on one of the incidents. However, Bengali eyewitnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place in these cases. While rape is known to occur in all situations of war, charges and counter-charges on rape form a particularly contentious issue in this conflict. The absence of this particular form of violence in these instances underlines the care that needs to be taken to distinguish between circumstances in which rape may have taken place from those in which it did not.
In other words she clearly says that rape "always" occurs in such wars, implicitly accepting that it did happen, but is saying that the mantra, as it were, that has become established in this instance - of rampaging rapes and murders combined - is not supported by the evidence of these specific case studies. Paul B ( talk) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Supplement to this: DS argues that Bose is fringe because "She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00[0] men on the ground, it was 90,000." I don't know where DS gets this statistic, though the same claim appears on this blog [1]. However, Bose is quoted as saying that the West Pakistani deployment comprised "34,000" combat troops plus "another 11,000 men" in support roles (making 45,000). The 90,000 figure is arrived at by combining "54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces". It's clear that "paramilitary" forces are not included in Bose's figures, so in reality we have a discrepancy between 54,000 and 45,000, which could be explained in any number of ways, and is, in any case, largely irrelevant to the issue, since even if she did make a mistake errors can be found in almost any work if you look hard enough. Paul B ( talk) 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So where do we stand on this? As stated 200,000 is the generally accepted figure for the mass rapes, see Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia D'Costa Routledge pp120-121 "Although the exact number of rapes is still heavily disputed, the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months". With Bose we have one paper saying none (in a few case studies, so not really usefull?). And I do not know what figure she gives in her book, has anyone looked? Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ademar José Gevaerd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enjoy.
jps ( talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Been tagged since the beginning of this year. What shall we do?
jps ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Integral ecology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So far down the rabbit hole. Did you know that this is an emerging field of study?
jps ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you're keeping track, I did some weeding of a garden. Will there be backlash?
Could use some additional eyes at Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Studies_in_peer-reviewed_journals to see if I am misrepresenting things. I feel like I am getting some wikilawyer-stonewalling about if WP:PRIMARY studies by proponents of TM meet reliable sourcing guidelines, with the other editor claiming that since these are "social sciences" things like WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a prolific academic publishing material on the dangers of vaccines. Much of his works seems sufficiently new there is little or no mainstream reaction to it. Not sure how/if fringe guidelines apply ... ?
James H. Fetzer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There seems to be an issue with having the lead of this article about a well-known conspiracy theory proponent actually say he is a conspiracy theory proponent.
Discussion has not been fruitful.
LuckyLouie (
talk) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's getting very soupy on the Talk page. Maybe someone else can make sense of odd accusatory rants like these. I'm at a loss. LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the article taking a fringe pro-matriarchy position? Or even a fringe anti-matriarchy position? Is everything in there relevant? Specifically for now, what about the use of Scalingi, P. L. (1978). The scepter or the distaff: The question of female sovereignty, 1516-1607. The Historian, 41(1), 59. This is a perfectly acceptable academic article, but... Scalingi uses "gynecocracy", and sometimes "government by women" to talk about the debate in the C16 about whether queens could rule (at all). Does this have anything to do with matriarchy? (Given that the debate assumed monarchical government, and even the maintenance of male-preference primogeniture, so that, as in contemporary UK, a country would have a queen for a while, followed by a king.) Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have recently attempted to improve this article. I may need some help on this as I am not sure about some of the sources an IP has raised (some seem reliable, some do not). Please see the talk page for the Dean Radin article. Any input please appreciated. Dan skeptic ( talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So we learn from our article on Sotai, a kind of posture therapy. The article is long on words but short on good sources; and there doesn't seem to be much out there. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
According to Dr. Masunaga (founder of Zen Shiatsu), who has assigned psychological functions to the Functional Circles, the meridian of the gallbladder stands on behalf for the function of short-time decisions: "Do I go to the right or to the left?"
I see a couple of us have edited this article, me and User:LuckyLouie. Having reverted the addition of art and writing as psychotechnologies by an IP twice I realised that the paragraph the IP was adding to was copyvio, so reverted to an earlier version. A big problem is that even as a stub the article is about two different subjects, "any application of technology for psychological purposes" and "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome". We can't have an article about two such separate concepts, and I'm not at all sure that the latter isn't fringe, although I see books mentioning the phrase. Any suggestions? Dougweller ( talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and qi#scientific investigation articles are obvious targets.
jps ( talk) 11:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Some sourcing issues and their effect on neutrality being discussed here; wise eyes very welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on the talk page over this article on Oxford Bibliographies by Simon Payaslian. It revolves around the Bosnian genocide, Payaslian figures it began in 91, the guy arguing that Payaslian is fringe says it began in 92, the start of the war. However people have been indicted for crimes of genocide in 91 "Krajisnik... Was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992" Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic Duke p288. Yearbook of the United Nations 2006 p1489. "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" Given that the genocides had obviously started in 91, else why were people indicted for it? Is it fringe for Payaslian to say the genocide ran from 91-95? Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Please weigh in on the appropriateness of an acupuncturist editing acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine here: User talk:Middle 8#Acupuncturist. My opinion is that the user's input on the talk page would be welcome, but their WP:ADVOCACY in the article itself is very, very problematic. jps ( talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I so totally dominate those articles. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just agree to stop editing in article space and we can close this thread now. The evidence is clear. You have a conflict of interest with respect to acupuncture. Read WP:COI. jps ( talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek outside advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. In this case it has become an extension of the article talk page with the same editors making the same arguments. I am closing this thread, and I strongly advise the editors involved to go to WP:DR and follow the advice given there. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks, jps ( talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) The following WP:TAGTEAM is going to be difficult to work with, I can see:
We need some people that can see their way to explaining why a source that has been roundly criticized here, here, here, here, here, and here should probably not be trumpeted as evidence that "ACUPUNCTURE WORKS! OMG!". This is bad. Really bad. Why aren't there people working on these pages? jps ( talk) 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I'll repeat what I said to JPS on my user talk page: I actually agree that it's possible that acu will -- despite the blinding issues -- eventually be recognized by sci consensus to be all or nearly all placebo. But your attempts to depict the literature as such are premature. If you were right you wouldn't have to prevaricate about sources (and editors) that disagree. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 04:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ernst is a reliable source for criticizing fringe theories.
jps (
talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
My quick review of this conflict does not support jps's interpretation of the situation. While these two subjects (TCM and acupuncture) have a high potential for misbehavior the editors identified don't seem to be doing it. Less heat, more light. focus on sources and clear language, not editors. jps's enthusiasm for finding problematic material is laudable, but finding trouble where only the potential exists isn't a very scientific approach. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
STOP! Paraphrasing of 2006 source from Ernst
(outdent) Hidden. Not meaning to be peremptory, but this issue is minor and in this context distracting. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 07:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
"able to focus different types of radiation alike to magnifying glasses, including the types of radiation coming from biological objects" Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Advocated an anti-cancer diet which included oil and vitamin pills. Apparently:
her method starts to be well-acknowledged by some mainstream scientists
Although the article has a stab at skepticism, it doesn't quite strike home. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
"Kombucha tea has been promoted as a cure-all for a wide range of conditions including baldness, insomnia, intestinal disorders, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and cancer". (says the American Cancer Society). A new account is minimizing the documented dangers associated with Kombucha - more eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you need to eat and drink to survive? Apparently not. Do you need to have reliable sources to back claims inserted into Wikipedia articles? Apparently not.
Recent edits could benefit from a wider consensus. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Over on Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, a new editor is very keen on including a review of said book by Neil Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by NARTH, a so-called "ex-gay" therapy organisation that offers treatment to try and change people's sexual orientation, a process considered to be at best unscientific and at worse abusive by a number of prominent professional mental health organisations including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.
The Journal of Human Sexuality seems to me to be in the same ball-park when it comes to sexology and study of human sexuality as, say, publications of the Institute for Creation Research—far on the fringe. I am posting here to seek clarification: is the Journal of Human Sexuality a valid source for critiques of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why given the WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policies? Thanks. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
And he is not amused as you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.
(C/P: Talk: Rupert Sheldrake#Chopra on skepticism in Wikipedia)
jps ( talk) 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Relatedly, perhaps: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Found this when looking at recent edits to Mummy about commercial mummification. Looks like fringe rather than just some weird religion as "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Promotional and we probably don't need 2 articles. Dougweller ( talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Found some old fringe stuff about the Lenape being Vikings at Timeline of pre–United States history and similar stuff added at Norumbega today. It would be useful if people could put these articles on their watchlist as I suspect it will return. Dougweller ( talk) 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Etherians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should such an article exist?
jps ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Citations to fringe journals being added with the assertion "The lead should indicate that there is indeed scientific evidence of PK activity". User seems intent on righting this great wrong. LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor is proposing a substantially different version of this article example diff which, from what I can see, presents significant fringiness issues concerning one of the most prominent channellers. I gather from the discussion thus far that this may be resolved satisfactorily but it bears watching. Mangoe ( talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The altmed practice of "cleansing" the colon, promoted for its supposed health benefits. The article needs more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's important here that policy and guidance is observed. The policy that particularly applies to colon cleansing can be found in WP:PSCI. This is a pseudoscientific/quack (and dangerous) practice according to the reliable sources which we are obliged to use prominently (and QuackWatch in this context is very much a high-quality RS). We must not give false balance to fringe claims. I'm frankly astonished to find push-back against this. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A series of recently proposed edits seem to indicate an attempt to reduce the appropriate portrayal of HIV/AIDS denialism as fringe. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope I'm not intruding here (will revert if asked to), but an illustration of what OP talks about can be seen in the wiki entry LewRockwell.com. The website has repeatedly published articles promoting the Duesberg hypothesis (and indeed hosted conferences on AIDS where Duesberg presented his views) that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and does not cause AIDS; we have RS documenting LRC's promotion of these views. In 2010, User:MastCell cited RS documenting LRC's publishing of AIDS denial articles n order to characterize the website's science articles (which also featured claims that vaccines cause autism) as "fringe" ( 1). This consensus lasted three years, but now User:Srich32977 and others keep deleting attempts to clarify the fringe nature of AIDS denial and another science published and promulgated by LRC. (e.g. ( 2). Steeletrap ( talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I (MrBill3) was referring to the discussion on the talk page of the article. If someone could take a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. The discussion has become tedious with points being made repeatedly and as I said it seems there is an underlying purpose to give undue weight to HIV/AIDS denialists. In particular by an IP who signs as Peter the Roman. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Klarer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please read her biography.
jps ( talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.
An editor claimed "I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Wikipedia." [4]. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Pseudoscience. The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. It was the understanding of editors that no final version had been published. However, the source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.
Abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness." [5]
Text from the source: "The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience." [6]
More text from the source: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." [7]
Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the ' Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.
Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.
The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS. That is not the question when the text is obviously sourced. The issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. [this message by QuackGuru - removed elaborate sig as it was corrupting the page]
I checked the article history. This deleted text for no good reason. And then even more text from the demographics section was deleted from the article. The text should not have been deleted from the article. If the text was not about demographics then why wasn't it moved to another section of the article? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Several articles on the deformed Paracas skulls are based partially or largely on work by this fringe writer, who clearly fails WP:RS for this subject. They are, at least, Paracas culture, Artificial cranial deformation, and Elongated human skulls. Brien Foerster, a co-author of the source used, is also mentioned - for more about him, see [8] and [9] (lost technologies all over the world). He runs tours with Lloyd Pye [10] - the Starchild skull guy. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across this while looking at an old FT/N entry on questionable sexuality statements and articles. Well, it's still questionable, worse than questionable. It's nothing more than an elaboration of Tripp's queer theory speculations, which as far as I can tell nobody else has any use for. Taking this to AFD isn't going to succeed, but I'm thinking that WP:UNDUE should be invoked and this relegated to a one sentence mention in the main article, if that. Mangoe ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Rongxiang Xu and a walled-garden of related articles ( Organ regeneration science , Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science, Regenerative substance , etc ) have been created by User:Crimsonreports as apparently entirely promotional, POV and in many cases infringing. I'm not really familiar with the area, but suspect that they're WP:FRINGE as well. I've redirected some to the biography, which seemed the longest and best referenced of the lot. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the relevant discussion has stalled, I'd like to request an assistance on whether pre-1750s claims about Shusha should have the same certainty and weight as the 1750s foundation. Particularly, the article currently asserts that prior to the 1750s Shusha has been not only a settlement, but already an Armenian town with fortress. Meanwhile, the sources that indicate the town and fortress of Shusha were founded by Panah Ali Khan in the 1750s include (largely referred to in the article and/or talkpage):
One of the issues is that nothing indicates that Panah Khan destroyed an earlier fortress to build a new one, but some apparently fringe sources say that the earlier fortress was ceded to him. The article cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Raffi who specifically say that Shusha was founded on an empty and uninhabited place. Also, as it was already noted at talk, there is a separate, small settlement nearby called Shushikent or Shosh, with which some fringe sources possibly confuse Shusha. Brandmeister talk 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to support the request for the community involvement in the disputes in the article about Shusha. The problem is that there are two conflicting versions of the foundation of the town. One is supported by most academic sources and encyclopedia, and the others is less popular. At the moment the minority view is presented as a fact in the article, and is given an undue weight. I would like to ask for the uninvolved editors to provide their opinions and help resolve the dispute. Grand master 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I see we have a number of articles discussing this "compendium of mystical knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane."
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association
And quite a few more [12] (some are about the musical type of record). Some of these are ok, others need work, eg the first 2 and the PBMA). Dougweller ( talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made a cut at fixing up the main article, which surely needs more work and better organization. Note that I've been able to make use of a major new academic reference on theosophy for this, which we will probably want to refer to elsewhere. Unfortunately it's insanely expensive. Mangoe ( talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The mention of akashic records is probably the least problem in this apparently-written-by-a-follower article on a notorious Philippine cult. There is good info out there but a better starting point is Ruben Ecleo, which though more fact-based is hampered by the confusion between the father and son, both leaders of this cult and both in serious political and legal trouble. I would be tempted to roll this all into the PBMA article in order not to have three articles on the two leaders (Sr., Jr., and disambig) but if someone else would like to take a quick look and offer an opinion I would be grateful for the advice. Mangoe ( talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to tell how accurate this is. If I follow this correctly, this is something that was dreamed up by the early theosophists and then glommed onto by a bunch of modern New Agers including Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Benjamin Creme. It may have some actual Indian antecedents. It's rather disorganized and seems to have included a bunch of stuff on other figures in one of these groups whose relevance is unclear. A large chunk of it seems to have been written by someone familiar with the material and I am not (yet) concerned about how factual it is, but it's rather hard to make sense of, and I haven't gone through the sources. Mangoe ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a problem here other than the usual problems with Hindu mythological figures. Mangoe ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This one had a hit, with a classic "reference to a nonexistent page" citation. I've removed the material pending someone supplying an authentic reference. Mangoe ( talk) 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ is a legitimate reference: a section titled "What are the Akashic Records?" begins on page 11 of what is apparently the original 1908 edition. The article itself on Dowling is fairly terrible otherwise. Mangoe ( talk) 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
has been newly created and is categorizing a number of fringe articles. The category itself seem to violate WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 22#Category:Censorship of science. Mangoe ( talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"believed to cure many rare diseases by the use of natural herbs" Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(Add) So a handful of press pieces on this practice which, so they relate, might "possibly provide cure for complicated diseases like cancer and AIDS, and at a very low cost"; yet nothing reliable. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Where Troy Once Stood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has quite a few history and archaeology categories, but is clearly fringe. These were removed by User:Ultra Venia and reverted by User:Antiphus, both edits I'm sure in good faith and with reasoned edit summaries. I don't these books like this should have one history or archaeology category, let alone 20. This may be one of those situations where policy forces us to misrepresent a subject, but as I haven't run across this before I'd like to know what others think. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
“Kitty is one of the leading Naturopathic Herbalist in the UK. She has been a regular contributor to What Doctors Don’t Tell You and The Herbal Review.”
A BLP with fringe overlap. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Request to change the editors of Santilli's article where Santilli is going on about "continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists" and reverting his edits. Dougweller ( talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I know this is likely unpopular given Lamarr's beauty, but I think (and verifiable sources confirm or question) that she no more invented WiFi (or anything related to it) than the whomever thought up the wheel invented the motor car. I've been accused of using original research and yet, the entire claim is based on unreliable sources (albeit a lot of them) and most if not all of those sources derive from the same source. Although there are many smoking guns (earlier patents and use in Germany during 1914-18 war) the primary source seems to stem from a patent filed in 1941 (Lamarr in her married name and George Antheil). Another smoking gun (I don't know how many you need) is in Lamarr's own words where she fails to even describe the "invention" to a reporter - perhaps she was just playing dumb, but we can't know for sure. The evidence strongly suggests she didn't have so much as a clue what the spread spectrum was or how it worked. There's a slightly cynical view from a reputable patent attorney published here: http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/ although as I've been at pains to point out elsewhere, this isn't the only elephant in the room. At least one academic has written about this in his book which I have cited elsewhere but the chapter is here: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/spread_spectrum.html.
Citing a patent is, to me, a poor example of proving invention. Many inventors (myself included) don't have our names listed on our inventions for any number of reasons. Mine have been mostly professional - so although I know I invented something (as do others) so far as the patent is concerned, I had no part in it and that crown goes to another. The "original research" here might be to question how Lamarr came up with the idea - I have my own hypothesis and that's all it is because all the witnesses are long dead. However, assigning the entire technological development of everything from spread spectrum to WiFi, CDMA, Bluetooth etc. to one single - parallel development noted on a long-forgotten patent is an insult to the memory those who actually did do the work; and whose names ARE available.
It's easy to dismiss this as me bitching or cry original research, but ask yourself first: why would I go to all this trouble? There's lots of slavish copies of the same old recycled story of Hollywood legend being secret inventor. The truth is rather less glamorous - but should we really ignore it because it's unpleasant?
The thing with patents is not unlike the reason that Jocelyn Bell Burnell [1] (a lady I am enormously in awe of) didn't receive a nobel for her discovery of pulsars.
I'm hesitant to address this issue directly as it's almost like committing thought crime (so deep this meme is embedded in popular culture). Yet the published evidence is clear. The patent exists; Lamarr's name is on it: but the technology claimed in the invention (spread spectrum) existed long before that and was well and widely understood. Smidoid ( talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's time we re-visit the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" article and have opened an RfC to that effect. Please join in that discussion:
SteveBaker ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Tina Resch claiming that the article runs afoul of WP:BLP due to inclusion of material regarding the subject's alleged psychic powers being defined as a hoax by multiple reliable sources such as Terence Hines, Kendrick Frazier, Joe Nickell, James Randi, etc. LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two, yes two, RFCs concerning statements about the sex of Gabriel. Please see Talk:Gabriel#Gabriel's Sex/Gender for the epic saga. I am posting here because the issue of Gabriel being female has been called fringe before, and seems confined to New Age type circles, so perhaps some experts on those things can assist in the dispute. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Need to bring this to attention here. Problems are:
Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's what's really happening. The neutrality of the Sheldrake article was overturned by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash the Sheldrake page in violation of NPOV. Opponents of Sheldrake seem incapable of rationally judging what constitutes balanced presentation of his work. Though it's already been repeatedly explained to Barney, WP:FRINGE clearly has no applicability. Sheldrake's article is about his life and his views. The task of editors is to present those views and responses to them fairly. Given his fringe status, to discuss his views on a page devoted to, say, ontogeny would indeed be inappropriate. To prevent a balanced discussion of his views on his own page is scandalous. It is indeed difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion on the talk page, but the real difficulty is translating problems raised on that page into changes in the article, and this is because Barney and friends revert every edit that would restore balance.
The credulity trap is precisely the problem. Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices are proven wrong.
I was banned for three days because I was seeking to restore a description of an experiment conducted by neuroscientist Steven Rose that was intended to falsify Sheldrake's hypothesis of long-range causation among organisms but instead seemed to verify it. Given their fear of science, it was inevitable that the anti-Sheldrake editors would revert the edit. I was blamed for the edit war only because I was acting alone in the face of a tag-team determined to keep any mention of real science out of the Sheldrake article.
As I demonstrate on the NPOV noticeboard, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article, Barney's previous complaint against me for edit warring was not only frivolous but based on an obvious falsehood, one that Barney himself should have seen. Alfonzo Green ( talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
To discuss the man's views in his article we need good sources. Is there any specific proposal to improve the article using good sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC ( talk) 13:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
These were clinical trials run in the early 2000s in Germany. There is some debate about whether/how their suggestions about the effectiveness of acupuncture should be included. More eyes welcome. (Also posted to WT:MEDRS.) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is littered with primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself are not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The mass policy violations have continued. The concerns about the coatrack information raised at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials have been ignored. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether BLPs of practitioners of fringe medicine is within the scope of this noticeboard, but I could use some eyes on Debasish Kundu, a researcher of Spagyric Homeopathy. The article is very promotional and reads like a resume. I did find some citations from him on Google Scholar India, but much of what is in this article seem to be accolades from- and associations with- organizations that are fringe themselves. - Mr X 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
(For those not watching; please consolidate responses there) WT:MED#Is Acupuncture a form of pseudoscience? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie started out by deleting large portions of the article, and is demanding that he recreate it from the ground up, apparently without interference from the earlier editors ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [15]). I'd rather let others with more knowledge of the subject deal with this person.
Maybe they have a lot to bring to this topic, but they know nothing about collaborative editing, ownership, and edit warring. They aren't listening to advice. Here are some relevant links. Their contributions is a good place to start:
Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The other discussion is located at AN/I. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Orrerysky has created Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. Besides other problems, File:Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson.jpeg, uplifted by User:Wavyinfinity seems to be copied from [19]. I see one of the editors above is posting about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Crothers on Facebook. [20] so we can expect more SPAs. Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Orrerysky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
None of this user's edits to articlespace in cosmology that I reviewed are worth keeping. Please keep an eye. jps ( talk) 23:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Oparin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think we could use some editors cleaning a bit of this article. Did you know that this Lysenkoist is considered "the Charles Darwin of the 20th Century"? I didn't either.
jps ( talk) 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You might not think an IP claiming the Ainu are white (despite the genetics) is being fringe, but he's basing this on a real crackpot, Edo Nyland [24] who thinks all languages are descended from Basques - he just sent me the link. He's also adding the Japanese to the Turanid race article claiming they are 'Turanese' (and the Mongols). Dougweller ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
In the article on the Insite supervised injection site in Canada there is a section called #Research. In three paragraphs is says that "the site has been the focus of more than thirty studies, published in 15 peer-reviewed journals" gives some examples of findings from CMAJ, NEJM and Addiction. One of these articles is from the Lancet and it states that the number of "overdose deaths have dropped 35% in the Insite area since it opened, much more than a 9% drop elsewhere in Vancouver". This last study is then critiqued by a organization called Drug Free Australia (DFA) in the two following paragraphs. (They urged Lancet to retract the article in a letter to the journal [25] The letter was published [26] and got a reply from its authors in the same issue [27]. Lancet have not retracted the article. Drug Free Australia also accused the scholars of scientific misconduct. The University of British Columbia subsequently investigated the matter and concluded that the research was stringent and solid. [28].) The last paragraph of the section is also from Drug Free Australia and presents their view. A view that is contrary to what studies in peer-reviewed journals found and is presented in the thee first paragraphs of the section.
I have tried to chunk most of these three paragraphs. For a number of reasons including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. Editor Minhpie say that it should stand, as the critique echoes concerns that a number of (political) organizations have with supervised injection sites and thus that their "research" is needed for balance. (Drug Free Australia, REAL Woman of Canada and similar believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to suppress negative findings of certain abuse related programs and confabulate positive findings about the same to sway public opinion. They claim that these researchers, editors-in-chiefs, reviewers, excreta - just like them - have a political agenda and that's why the Lancet and other peer-reviewed papers publish what they do.) Minphie also claim that "medical" doesn't apply as it rather is a social outreach program then something bio-medical. While DFA might not be MEDRS, the contrarian view presented in the latter paragraphs is attributed to DFA and DFA is a reliable source for the views of DFA and thus there is no problem with the reliability of sources neither, Minhpie claims.
So how to view this? Steinberger ( talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is essentially one big list and the primary contributor, User talk:Chalquist, seems heavily invested in the subject. It was voted for deletion six years ago, albeit with not much input. -- MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This article was previously the subject of an AFD discussion. I think it should be again! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrapsychology. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I just started an AFD for Ecopsychology: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopsychology -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This journal, which seems to be on the fringe, is currently at AfD and the discussion could use some more input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There's discussion ongoing on the talk page of this article -- user Seppi333 is promoting what seems to me to be an implausible reading of WP:FRINGE, and it would be nice to have one or two more opinions. -- JBL ( talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe website used as a source for around a dozen articles about Indian history. The site publishes pseudoarchaeology with a religious agenda, and the theories that it promotes has no support among historians. It makes the claim that there was a " Hindu colonisation of America", basically a South Asian version of the crackpot Gavin Menzies' equally ridiculous ideas about the Chinese in the Americas. It alleges that "The largest temple in Mexico City was the temple of Lord Shiva, the War God of the Mexican whom the Spanish invaders found entwined by golden snakes" and that "the Astec calendar known as the Astec Chakra of the Hindu Astronomers. It is the foundation stone of Hindu culture in America. The ancient Americans believe in the four Hindu ages (Yugas or cycles).."
There are more fringe articles on the site. One claims that Ancient Troy had contact with Mesoamerica, while another claims that the Phoenicians were Indian. There's even one that links together Atlantis, the Celts, a psychic named Edgar Cayce, Ancient Egypt, and the "Goddess Danu". Thoughts?-- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the only one left. I'm bringing it here as it appears to have a lot of fringe in it and no reliable sources. As an example, the first source is a technical support guy. [29]. I'm not sure what to do with this. Dougweller ( talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Terence_McKenna#Thought ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This section looks like a lot of promotion and original research to me. Is there anyone here who has the time to go through and figure out which of these ideas has received independent notice and which are the sole provenance of McKenna's speculations?
jps ( talk) 11:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
COMETA ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time making heads or tails out of this. It kinda reminds me of the Disclosure Project only French and from the 1990s. Anyway, it's being trumpeted in the lede of UFO right now, so I think we could use some help. I'm going to santize the lede of UFO, but would appreciate someone with better French skills than myself work on the article on COMETA. -- jps ( talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Has anybody checked the sources for this article? They are all rubbish. I'm starting to think that what we have here is bordering on a hoax, or at least an article that blurs the line between dishonesty and incompetence. I've removed some of the dead links, and now there's very little to support the claims of the article. I'm thinking we are ready for an AFD. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
An unsourced advert for one man's self-published research project. The closest thing we have to notability was that it was (allegedly) mentioned once in the X Files, but not episode data is given. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
According to whoever wrote this article - Bill Clinton was interested in UFOs and even issued an executive order to change the classification rules of UFO-related secrets. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
To round out our discussion of UFO articles for the week:
Cheers,
jps ( talk) 02:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Another weakly sourced report of a UFO flap. This one has (apparently) been mentioned in a TV show and a book about UFO flaps. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Supposedly a "team of scientists" consisting of prestigious physicists and a parapsychologist found that telekinetic powers unleashed by an emotionally distraught secretary were the cause of spinning picture frames and electrical failures in an office. Sourced to German language parapsychology books and a sensationalistic article in Der Speigel. Try as I may, I can't find any reliable, objective sources with which to transform this into a viable, encyclopedic article. Options are to redirect it to the main poltergeist article or send it to AfD. Or I may have missed something. LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
An "anti-autism" diet that has recently had some mainstream press coverage in the UK. I have just expanded the article a bit, and it may be worth watchlisting this and/or taking a look over it. Thanks, Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look? This is not really my field at all, but it does not look like a fully credible article.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion about how to present an opinion about 'flu vaccination, and its claimed link to Alzheimer's. Could benefit from more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Eyes are needed on Rupert Sheldrake; the regular eyes are no longer there. vzaak ( talk) 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any arbitration cases dealing with massive and extended off-site canvassing from proponents of fringe theories? How Wikipedia can deal effectively with such a situation is an interesting question. Wikipedia suffers when editors need to spend more time on one article being targeted from off-site. A possible outcome is that the non-canvassed editors will drop out from exhaustion, which would set a very bad precedent. vzaak 20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead paras of Narconon have been moving steadily away from the idea that it's a Scientology organisation with a fringe theory of drug rehabilitation, towards giving the reader (or at least, the reader who doesn't read the rest of the article) the impression that it's a mainstream drug abuse treatment programme. I'm attempting to move it back, input from experienced editors would be appreciated. -- 82.44.96.198 ( talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Should List of government responses to UFOs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) even exist? Some of the items on this list are articles we have previously discussed as possibly fringe. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Same problem - IPs repeatedly deleting sourced content from lede. I suspect it is probably the same person, IP-hopping. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) states that
"Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus used lodestones, or naturally magnetized pieces of the mineral magnetite, to treat conditions such as epilepsy, diarrhea, and hemorrhage." and that "Nikola Tesla is often considered by historians to be the father of modern electrotherapy because of his research into electromagnetism. His methods and patents in the early 1900s for the Tesla coil [1]" that were used for power distribution transformers were also used for electromagnetic medical devices". -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
UFOs beam death rays at helpless Brazilian citizens, a super secret military task force is assembled, someone commits suicide. I don't see anything here worth saving. LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
TK cell therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I wish the researchers behind this sort of thing every luck in their project, I think we all understand the gravity of articles which present highly speculative cures for cancer. Could somebody with a more biomedical background assess the validity of this article? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing attempt to recast the Koch brothers' global anthropogenic denial as "skepticism". This is inaccurate, and inconsistent with our sources, but they're edit-warring and ignoring citations. MilesMoney ( talk) 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Abstract: Click and read the abstract
Here are relevant literature examples from my own library
-- Cyrinus ( talk) 06:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|}
more references added to my talk page:
King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat
Parkinson’s Disease Vibration Therapy in PD
-- Cyrinus ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"Some music therapists argue that evidence on the effectiveness of vibroacoustic therapy is lacking. In his own work with autistic adults and children, Ari Amir, a master’s student at NYU’s Nordhoff-Robbins Center for Music Therapy, has found that listening to and creating music can produce physical results. But vibroacoustic therapy, he says, “is considered as a form that may help but hasn’t been clinically proven to help so far." Biology professor Carol Shoshkess Reiss at NYU’s School of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief at The Journal of DNA & Cell Biology, goes a step further. “It’s quack work, absolutely quackery,” said Reiss. “I did a web search in PubMed, which is the accepted review site for peer-reviewed publications, and in the last twelve years there has been not one paper on this.” While Reiss doesn’t feel the treatment could be of any medical harm, she does worry about a patient’s financial “waste”."
User:Cyrinus has been campaigning to keep this article, however I believe the end result has been to draw yet more attention to the aspects of this article which originally concerned us. This is starting to fit the pattern of almost all fringe medical claims - a WP:Coatrack of very suspect sources which have included NASA patents, unpublished theses and and FDA approvals.
@Cyrinus, In one paragraph on this page you explain that VAT is traditionally considered to be a form of music therapy. A few lines later you insist that VAT is completely different to music therapy. Please stop and consider the effect this kind of inconsistency has on other editors! I'd urge you to end this campaign. By all means work within the policy to find acceptable sources which might help us save the article, but please work within the policy rather than constantly seeking to bend the rules! -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-- re-posted Cyrinus ( talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
"noted business consultant, author, media commentator and speaker" and author of UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry which is currently up for an AFD right now. I strongly suspect that this subject may be insufficiently notable to pass WP:BLP and WP:GNG. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks.
Just declined a
WP:A10 on this, as it is quite a different thing to the prenatal procedure
Vibroacoustic stimulation.
I, erm, don't really know where to start with this article, and need a whole lotta help.
Pete aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, now we have real problem here. I was just going to suggest that AfD might be a better option, as it means a re-creation can be tagged WP:G4. Which is still what I would suggest. Vibroacoustic stimulation is simply a test of fetal health used in evidence-based medicine. It's now been page-moved to Vibroacoustic therapy, the reason why we're here. I'll try restoring Vibroacoustic stimulation without using the sysop buttons, though I suspect there might be cut-and-past move problems. Pete aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a more basic COI SPAM problem, with the editor repeatedly inserting spam links to his own website. Amazing how many people have never heard of the Streisand effect! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html We are talking about a therapy form - not evidence based medicine. how did wiki approved pemf? Cyrinus ( talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyrinus ( talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
All of these sources appear to be Self-published or sourced to non-accredited research organizations. At best we could use these sources to clarify what proponents of VAT have claimed, but they do not give us anything which clears the hurdle of the Medical Reliable Sources policy.
The first link (Fibromyalgia study) is a small non-blinded study which appears to be hosted on the website of a private clinic which offers this service. It's precisely the kind of source that the policy advises us to not use to back up biomedical claims.
Many of the same concerns hold true for the second link: It's a single page on a website for Rett Syndrome carers. The page is mostly a compilation of references to other studies, plus some comments about VAT and Music Therapy, written by a music therapist. It's not actually saying all that much beyond the opinion of the author that VAT is a good thing.
The third link appears to be some kind of blog run on behalf of an individual or organization who is promoting VAT. As such it's clearly not much use as a WP:MEDRS.
I'd say that if these really are the highest quality sources available to us then we are definitely looking at an WP:AFD nomination. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Article now at WP:AfD here. (My apologies to Kolbasz, Salimfadhley, and VQuakr for my comments above that might appear to be snarky.) -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"
Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined. Cyrinus ( talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Cymatic therapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be almost exactly the same thing as Vibroacoustic therapy but invented by a British Guy in the 1960s. Coincidentally it also has an AFD active right now. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic therapy (2nd nomination). -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Is chelation therapy is a fringe treatment or a legitimate treatment for mercury poisoning. Could anybody more familiar with this topic kindly review this section? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with medical expertise please take a look at Tumor Treating Fields? To my layman's eye, it looks a lot like a Rife Machine.
Here are some links that may be of interest:
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/536.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.44.2.115/pdf
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=573260
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Of note, the device's approval was controversial within the FDA ( [37]), in part because the key clinical trial submitted by the manufacturer failed to show any benefit of TTF over standard medical care. (The trial had several other substantial methodologic flaws as well, which are probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard). Interestingly, with longer follow-up there was a suggestion that survival was actually better with standard care than with TTF (see Fig. 2 here). Nonetheless, the device was approved because relapsed gliobastoma is a highly lethal condition where even the best standard therapies are highly unsatisfactory. In that setting, and given the evident safety of TTF, the device was approved as a "last resort" with a rationale that boils down to what's-the-harm?
While it's fairly unusual for a device to be approved on the basis of a single clinical trial—especially a clinical trial which failed to show superiority to standard care—there is another randomized Phase III trial underway which will hopefully clarify the value of this approach. MastCell Talk 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)