No doubt individuals have all sorts of weird or idiosyncratic views. But to dismiss an entire bioethical tradition, ranging from the religious and utopian ("May all that hath life be delivered from suffering" - Gautama Buddha) to the scientific - or purportedly scientific - is too quick. None of this is to say that the existing entry can't be substantially improved. -- Davidcpearce ( talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be dismissing the little-supported neologism, which seems to be used only by ... you - David Gerard ( talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's already an article on this subject. It's called Suffering. The article in the OP is just so unbelievably vague as to be useless as an article. I'm not saying the information within is useless, but it should be mentioned in the article I linked, not given its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

David, if I were either to write, or contribute to, the entry, then I promise it would be (very) different. My point here wasn't to defend a linguistic usage - or the quality of the existing entry - but rather to query whether abolitionist bioethics - feel free to substitute whatever term you judge most apt - deserves to be placed under "fringe theories". Suffering? I wish the long-term goal of its abolition were always treated as axiomatic - in which case I'd agree with you. Sadly this isn't the case. -- Davidcpearce ( talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in stating that I don't think anyone believes the goal of eliminating suffering in any given field is fringe. It's pretty much by definition the mainstream approach to medicine, technology, charity, art, etc, etc. I think the issue is that the current article reads like an article about a fringe theory, and it's extremely difficult to write an article about a subject so vague as "eliminating suffering in [insert field here]" that doesn't read like a fringe theory. Especially because it's associated with transhumanism, which is a fringe subject (note that 'fringe' is not a derogatory term, but a descriptive one). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Faced with the choice of investing time, effort and energy working on an entry that needs improving and opting for "delete", the latter option is almost always going to be easier. I just worry that sometimes it's too easy...-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 21:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's serious discussion in philosophy of abolitionism in bioethics by that name that's not by you, it would be quite apposite to list it in the AFD even if you felt you shouldn't add it to the article yourself - David Gerard ( talk) 22:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And Davidcpearce has just been caught in blatant meatpuppetry with added gratuitous personal attack. Lovely - David Gerard ( talk) 10:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Caught"? David, like you I write under my own name: this is not a case for Sherlock Holmes. Sadly, I know we disagree on many things and will continue to do so - presumably both on and off Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce ( talk • contribs)

• Christopher Busby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 7/7 Ripple Effect (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 82.113.46.93 ( talk · contribs)

While trying to figure out if this removal was appropriate (seems ok given the burden of BLP), I looked at the ip's editing history and saw that the immediately prior edits were similar in nature but much larger (to Christopher Busby [26], and 7/7 Ripple Effect [27]. I think both articles could use some review with an eye to FRINGE. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The removals at the Busby article were clearly POV pushing. I've re-inserted them. I'll look into this IP's other edits later. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That was my impression from skimming the removed sources. Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 16:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Even with citations, some parts of the article on Busby makes me wonder about the statistical numbers used in the article. "more than a million people have died between 1986 and 2004 as a direct result of Chernobyl.", "he referred to calculations made with his colleagues estimating that Chernobyl had killed 1,400,000 people", Are there really no sources commenting on the methods used in determining that number? The number is larger than the population of some European countries, and I find hard to believe that Busby would be the only one to notice that kind of increase in cancer deaths. Dimadick ( talk) 15:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RMS Titanic alternative theories (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks heavily WP:PROFRINGE to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the PROFRINGE element, the sourcing ranges from poor to appalling. One section has none at all and many others rely heavily on fringe (non-RS) sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ICE CAN'T MELT STEEL HULLS! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! 4/14 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, come on now. It was clearly aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources there are appalling. It almost seems as if the article exists there to promote the conspiracies of just a few crackpot writers. Without reliable secondary sources, should this be a AFD? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 17:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is slightly notable. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, just because an article's bad, don't delete. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 20:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find enough (non-fringe) RS coverage to justify mentioning most of the theories. IMO they pretty much fail the notability guidelines in WP:FRINGE. Gardiner's work is the exception. It has gotten quite a bit of coverage (most of it scathing) but I think that it passes the notability test. But the write up is absurdly unbalanced. The Gardiner theory needs a brief one or two paragraph summary of the essential points followed by a clear and concise refutation making it clear that the theory has been dismissed as risible by every reputable maritime historian. As for the rest of the theories, I think they can just be deleted unless someone can find enough RS coverage to warrant mentioning them. Just because someone posits a screwball idea does not mean it's entitled to coverage in an encyclopedia. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure how useful this will be, but I am a skeptic who loves to read, and used to be a hardcore True Believer (in just about every sort of BS). So I've found "Have I heard of it, and where?" to be a very useful heuristic for determining the notability of conspiracy theories and psuedoscience. Generally, if the answer is "Yeah, from a couple places," that means it's notable. In this case, the only alternative theories I've heard of were the "it was the sister ship" and "it was ice floes". So, while I don't have the time to check myself, I would bet that there might be a few RSs for those, but none for the rest. I'll watch the page and try to do some digging for RSs over the course of the next few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest it probably should be entirely about the sister ship/insurance scam theories, as they actually have some legs and supporting evidence to them. The rest constitute a one line 'Alternative unsupported theories including aliens, ice floes and whale attacks also exist'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholly concur. Well, the ice floes theory might warrant two sentences, but other than that; absolutely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try and post some sources to the article's talk page in the next day or two.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have deleted several of the obviously non-notable theories. But the main one about switched ships really needs some attention from someone with a good grasp of all things Titanic to counterbalance the PROFRINGE bent. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Its not that bad actually. The sister-ship/insurance scam theory is detailed in the evidence and attributed correctly to the author of the theory rather than stating in wikivoice. Whats lacking is the rebuttals - although they are included at the bottom, no detail is provided. This may be a function of the article scope currently being about all the theories - rather than specifically about the most famous/credible one. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the rebuttals are also problematic. One paragraph covers the rebuttal of an alternative theory by a documentary film called "Titanic: Secrets Revealed". Instead of covering anything examined by this documentary, the citation links to its entry in IMDb. This particular entry is a stub with some information about the cast of the documentary, but nothing about its contents. Not sure if the information in the article comes from a viewer's memory of the film. Dimadick ( talk) 15:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• One of the hardest things to do in an article about fringe theories (and yet one of the most important) is to assign Due Weight to the various SUB-theories that exist. You have to figure out which sub-theories have been repeated by multiple proponents (the "mainstream-within-the-fringe") and weed out the stuff that most proponents ignore (the "fringe-within-the-fringe"). Blueboar ( talk) 15:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Vaxxed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fans of Andy Wakefield's anti-vaccine conspiracy propaganda film are infesting this article. More eyes, please. Guy ( Help!) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

On it. 24.61.145.145 ( talk) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Bumping, as problems persist. See also new enforcement request at AE [28] against MjolnirPants. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ozone therapy ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Recent activity in this article and some discussion about sourcing (primary sources are being added for biomedical content). More eyes needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I watched the page. I'll take a closer look tonight or tomorrow. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Same, I'm watching the page. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 00:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The polarity therapy guy, could use some going-over. I especially like the admission that "even advocates of Stone's theory consider his books Health Building and Polarity Therapy to be difficult reading due to their inconsistencies and ambiguities." Mangoe ( talk) 14:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

On it. After looking over the page, I see many claims that what he studied was "Medical", which are obviously false. Needs more criticism, or a section on it. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 16:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is collecting loads of synthesis and original research, with what appears to be someone finding one or two studies vaguely agreeing with the authors' points, then saying "this is substantiated by independent research" after a lengthy setting out of the claims. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd have thought that if mainstream research agreed with the book that there'd be some major cancer organizations directly promoting its points, not merely a couple initial studies. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 00:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks very much like a coatrack to me. Of course, the article should be about the book and should contain a fair summary of the book's claims. However, it should not go into depth about the book's claims unless there are third-party sources which directly connect the book to in-depth analysis of those claims. Right now, it reads like an apologia or a convert's book report. Stubbification on the basis of WP:FRIND may be the best way forward. Just eliminate everything that is sourced only to the book, not because the book cannot be a source but in order to determine what the most WP:PROMINENT aspects of the book's impact in the broader world actually are. jps ( talk) 14:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a great example about how bad statistics work. I'm a vegetarian, but this is nuts. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is about [29]. Small changes, according to the other editor these words are all synonyms, but they have different Wikipedia articles and the distinction is noted. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

To his credit, he wants to merge those articles. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranormal, supernatural, paranormal and preternatural all mean the same. I don't know how to merge articles. Tel yari ( talk) 05:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Those terms do not mean the same thing. They have similar meanings. The articles should not be merged.- Mr X 11:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree that they are similar, but distinct. All three articles could do a better job at explaining the similarities and differences of the terms. Blueboar ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Check synonyms, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranormal. They are the same thing. Tel yari ( talk) 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Words have implications. For instance, 'insistent' and 'aggressive' are synonyms in certain contexts, but have very different connotations. That is because they have different, yet similar meanings. So sometimes, the differences are irrelevant in the context in which they're being used. Other times, the difference is very important. You could, for instance, say that Wikipedia takes an aggressive stance against the inclusion of credulous fringe claims, and that would be accurate and the same thing as saying Wikipedia is very insistent that credulous fringe claims not be included. But you could also compare two (hypothetical) editors arguing over a fringe claim, claiming that while one is merely insistent, the other is downright aggressive, and that would also be accurate.

Finally, as linguists and psychologists have often pointed out: words don't actually have meanings, they have usages. That's why we have different languages, after all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural and paranormal are exactly the same. "Full Definition of paranormal : not scientifically explainable : supernatural", that's the only full definition on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranormal. "Simple Definition of supernatural : unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.", http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural. Okay, preternatural is different, "Simple Definition of preternatural : very unusual in a way that does not seem natural". Tel yari ( talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the definition in most dictionaries says the first two mean essentially or even exactly the same thing. But do some google searching, and you'll find that paranormal tends to be used more often to describe more modern phenomena, such as psychics and crystal energy. Meanwhile, supernatural seems to be a bit of a catch-all term, because it is sometimes used to describe more modern phenomena, but also used to describe more traditional phenomena, such as hauntings and some aspects of religion. As you pointed out, preternatural usually means something noticeably different. I'm not necessarily taking a stance on whether the articles in question should be merged, I'm just advising caution with using such definitive claims as you seem to be doing with regards to word meanings. It's usually quite the fuzzy subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How words are often used is opinionated. When the definitions of the two words are the same as verified by a reliable source (I think Merriam-Webster's dictionary is reliable, right?), I think is of neutral point of view and verifiability. Tel yari ( talk) 03:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much at all about the Wikipedia merging process or what to do about merging. Could you please explain that to me? Tel yari ( talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well first off, I should point out that as the mission of an encyclopedia and the mission of a dictionary are very different, the way they use words will be different, as well. Once again, I'm just cautioning you to keep that in mind. I understand your position, however I can see how a case could be made against that position. Regarding merging, it's usually done by hand. One copies text and references from one article into another, trimming out any extraneous information (such as information which is shared between the articles), re-formats it to fit in the new article, then typically redirects the first article to the second. It's all done by hand, as it tends to require judgement a computer can't make. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Travis Walton (UFO witness) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to have been some significant PROFRINGE editing on this article which is a frequent target for such by UFO enthusiasts. Extra eyes would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this article's a mess. I fixed a small amount of it, but do you think the polygraph test should be included, as it has been proven that they don't work or are easily fooled? ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes, someone is promoting fringe theories! Hurry, to the Bat Signal! GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 20:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh, this is is bad. Probably needs to be taken "back to the bare metal" and then rebuilt into something compact and reality-based (i.e. logger tells fantastic story which backed by zero credible evidence; crackpots lap it up). Alexbrn ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

this might help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I seriously thought about it. But I have a high degree of confidence that the subject passes GNG. We may just have to strip out all the material from fringe sources and effectively stub the article. I have been attaching RS tags to the fringe references but there just so many that I think it's time to just start excising all of the inadequately sourced stuff. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that it passes GNG. I'm just agreeing with Alex that it might need to be rebuilt from the ground up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You kids have fun with your MMORPG. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 21:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was an unfixable PROFRINGE disaster in its previous state. I have stubbed it in the hopes that it can be expanded into a start class article that is NPOV compliant and citing only reliable sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Some guy gets lost in the woods..... "It's ALIENS! That was the logic of this article. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 22:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been vastly improved and is now quite respectable. Thanks to everyone who who worked on it! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman#Reception currently cites several conservative evangelical publications critical of Ehrman and his views.

The citations are properly attributed inline, but I worry that giving essentially equal weight to both sides of the dispute when in the real world it is more like 99-1 (or even 90-10) is a violation of WP:DUE.

When Ehrman says that every scholar of the New Testament with a university teaching position in the field agrees with him, he is not wrong -- if he was, other scholars of the New Testament with university teaching positions in the field would call him out on it. The scholarly consensuses he describes actually are scholarly consensuses, and citing the few authors who disagree as saying "no, they're not the consensus" seems very unbecoming of Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(I'm sure there is a school of thought among contributors here that says "if it's verifiable, cite it; citing everything will give due weight": should we hunt down the hundreds of university syllabi that prescribes Ehrman's writings as textbooks, book reviews by scholars who agree with Ehrman, and so on? This seems impractical. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC) )

Well, I know for a fact that Yale's open course on the New Testament (taught by Dale Martin) uses Ehrman's textbooks and recommends several of his popular books. That alone carries quite a bit of weight. But that doesn't address the issue here.

The problem, as I see it, is that Ehrman is very much part of the mainstream in New Testament Studies, and indeed, one of the leaders of it. As one of the leaders, he attracts a great deal of criticism from those who oppose his views. As a member of the mainstream, criticism of his views doesn't get much academic exposition, so it ends up being aired in mass media. Conversely, agreement with his views (being part of the mainstream) sees regular exposition in the academic media, and so doesn't get much airing in the mass media.

But is the criticism of him notable? For the most part, if the person making the criticism is notable, then the criticism is. But we're faced with the issue of how to balance this. Right now, the "reception" section of his page is extremely critical, despite his sterling reputation. That needs to be fixed.

Finally, I was actually listening to one of Ehrman's talks (on the Gospel of Judas) when I saw this thread. :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I would have to agree that UNDUE might be a factor here. Although the material presented seems to be less criticism of his scholarship than on his presentation of his side in an issue, which clearly is, so far as I can remember, representative of the vast majority of academia. If I remember correctly, there is and has been reasonable somewhat widespread criticism of his work on the early version of the Gospel of Judas translation, particularly what some saw as being possibly sensationalistic questionable translations which could, possibly, be thought to perhaps have been influenced by sales or publicity concerns. As one of the leading figures in his field today, if the sources available provide sufficient content and notability for such, a spinout article dealing with criticism, including both positive and negative criticism, of his work might be not unreasonable. John Carter ( talk) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I doubt Ehrman was involved in the translation of the Gospel of Judas -- the way he describes the whole affair in the lecture MjolnirPants references above, and other places I have seen, has him being by National Geographic because he's a famous scholar of early Christianity and him quickly telling them they need a Coptologist to discuss the Coptic text, so I can't imagine he played a significant part in translating the Coptic text. It is possible that the same ultraconservative evangelical scholars who attack Ehrman for just about everything he says falsely placed all the blame on him for what they perceived to be flaws in the translation produced by other members of the National Geographic team he headed. (I'm not even kidding. I have heard Heiser attack Ehrman for his stance on the dating of the text, with no mention of Ehrman's being the founding member of the NG team, and then turn around and say that Evans must be right and Pagels, a woman, wrong about gnosticism and women because Evans is a first-class scholar, and you know Evans is a first-class scholar because he was on the NG team! So I have no doubt that people would make similar non sequitur arguments about Ehrman's supposed relationship to the translation of the text.) However, the things they always claim Ehrman is wrong about are things other top scholars like Martin and Pagels all agree with Ehrman on, so their views are most certainly fringe. The problem I see with a spinout article is that, because of Ehrman's place as a respected figure both in scholarship and in the mass media, the ultraconservative evangelical seminary lecturers tend to blame him for a whole lot of stuff that they could attack just about any mainstream scholar for -- what the "Ehrman Project" call "the views of Bart Ehrman""the ideas that Dr. Bart Ehrman is famously expounding" (also cited as "the ideas Dr. Bart Ehrman is presenting" and "the ideas that Dr. Bart Ehrman is expounds"; clearly the phrase has gone through several editions in order to both be factually accurate and place the blame on Ehrman for ideas that aren't his) but would more accurately be called "the views of modern secular scholarship"; the only difference I can see is that those scholars are not as popular among the general public. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC) (Edited 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) )

Hijiri88 is correct. Ehrman discusses his role in the events surrounding the rediscovery of the Gospel of Judas in this link, and not only does he paint his role as more of a spokesman/commentator for National Geographic, his reasons for claiming such a minor role are obvious and irrefutable (he doesn't have the skills necessary to have taken a larger role). Anyone who criticizes him for mistranslating that work is clearly uninformed about the matter. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There's probably some undue emphasis here, but it's hard to tell. The supposed mainstream, especially the more secularist end (and given the shift of Ehrman's religion he now has to be put in that camp), has always tended to pretend that everyone else doesn't have to be taken seriously. One has to wonder, for instance, what Bruce Metzger thought of the kind of positions that Ehrman is advocating now, but if you read the latter you won't have any much idea about that. I have to think he would have disagreed, and he is at least as important a figure, but there's little interest in that because he wasn't into the kind of "reexamines" titles that Ehrman has gotten into. There is a lot bigger world of scriptural studies than is found at Harvard and Yale (neither of whose divinity schools could be said to represent a mainstream Christian position), and we largely ignore it. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure more than anything else Metzger would be proud (more likely was proud, since he only died long after Ehrman was established as a world-renowned scholar) that his former student had, for instance, written the most widely-used undergraduate textbook in New Testament studies in North America, and had changed the way NT textual criticism is taught in American universities, and any theological disagreements they would have would be somewhat irrelevant to Metzger's overall opinion of Ehrman. But I might be wrong -- if Metzger wrote anything critical of Ehrman and his work, please feel free to add that to the article, as Metzger is not the conservative evangelicals currently being overemphasized there. The most recent example of a collaboration or direct interaction of the two that I could find was this, but admittedly I have not read it, and it is therefore for all I know possible that Metzger wrote the earlier editions, and Ehrman came in and edited the fourth edition, adding the word "corruption" to the title without the consent of Metzger, but this scenario seems somewhat far-fetched -- we should assume that if Metzger's name comes first on the cover, he completely approved of speaking of the corruption of the NT text, which is really what the Bart Ehrman article should be focused on.

Anyway, general discussion of the disagreements of some more conservative elements within scholarship (note: not in conservative evangelical seminaries that are not considered in the mainstream of scholarship) with the way New Testament scholarship has gone in recent decades belongs in its own article, but the Bart D. Ehrman article should be focused on Bart Ehrman and his scholarship, and if applicable criticism thereof, not on popular publications written by and for conservative evangelicals that place the blame on Ehrman for things virtually all scholars have been saying for decades. (Note how when the Ehrman Project say "the ideas that Dr. Bart Ehrman is famously expounding" they hardly ever mean "the idea that scholars can use textual criticism to study doctrinal disputes within the early church"? I don't know why conservative evangelicals so frequently blame Ehrman for things virtually every mainstream scholar says and aren't especially associated with Ehrman -- I have a few guesses, though -- but the fact that they do is indisputable.)

Elaine Pagels's (frequent and vociferous) criticism of Ehrman's (conservative) stance on the Gospel of Thomas and its supposed gnosticism is nowhere to be found in the article, even though that comes from a well-regarded scholar in the field, and is actually a criticism of something Ehrman has actually propounded in his scholarship, rather than something other scholars said and Ehrman summarized for a lay audience. I would add it myself, but at present the criticism section is already far too negative because of its overemphasis on the conservative evangelical school, and solving that problem is a priority.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the comment above, restructuring the section of the article in such a way as to summarize the extant two paragraphs of the section into one paragraph, and then add material regarding Pagels' criticism and related in a second paragraph, might make sense. I'm not sure whether it might be relevant to add that Pagels is herself, according to sources I remember but can't find at the moment, a comparatively recent convert to Catholicism, which some might think might bias her views. John Carter ( talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that there aren't a large number of historians disagreeing with Ehrman. So yeah, Yale and Harvard might be more secular than other schools of thought within biblical history, but we don't have experts on biblical history going around saying Ehrman is wrong when he describes the consensus among biblical historians (or saying that the consensus is something that contradicts Ehrman's views). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I would not be opposed to citing Pagels as an authority on non-canonical gospels who disagrees with Ehrman (and Martin) on Thomas's somewhat ambivalent place in the Gnostic spectrum. I don't personally care who is right on the issue, but given that two university professors in the field -- Martin (who agrees) and Pagels (who disagrees) -- attribute the idea that it represents a form of Gnosticism and makes more sense if read in the light of Gnosticism to Ehrman, it seems like a legitimate point of contention that might be worth mentioning in a biographical article on Ehrman.

But our top priority should be clearing out the fringe-y stuff first. Then we can start adding the legitimate opinions of scholars.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how to evaluate "aren't a large number of historians disagreeing with Ehrman". Just to focus on Misquoting Jesus, Wallace's negative review was widely disseminated and approved of, even though he and other reviewers were positive about the first several chapters as an introduction to test crit. As for Metzger's views, well, he was 92 when the book was published, but another Metzger protege wrote the following: "As I remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine." My impression is that he's someone whose reputation has been diminished on account of him taking problematic positions of late, and I don't see how tagging Wallace as "conservative Evangelical" diminishes that; it's tantamount to saying that only people in secularist academia count, which is hardly a neutral position to take. Mangoe ( talk) 18:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how to evaluate "aren't a large number of historians disagreeing with Ehrman". It means exactly what it says, I wasn't trying to imply anything by it. Some people disagree with Ehrman, and few of them are historians. Sure, they are out there, but there's not a lot of them. Not the way historians have come out against Richard Carrier, who's taken a decidedly non-consensus view of the historicity of Jesus. There are miles and miles of historians refuting him. In comparison, while Ehrman gets a lot of attention from religious non-historians, only the most conservative of religious historians tends to come out in opposition to him. Even then, as Ehrman says here, they generally don't take the typical tripartite approach of poking holes in Ehrman's narrative, establishing an alternative narrative and giving evidence for that narrative. They only do the first part (and yes, I read the book Ehrman wrote that in response to, and it is largely accurate.)

it's tantamount to saying that only people in secularist academia count, which is hardly a neutral position to take. I'm not so sure I can agree with that. First off, I'm not suggesting that history done by historians who are religious is necessarily bad, or that it doesn't count. There are religious historians who do good work. But when one approaches a scholarly subject like this with the unshakable conviction that everything written in the bible is factually accurate? Sorry, but that's going to have a huge, negative impact on one's reliability. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm right up for saying that the opinions of historians in general aren't really relevant, since Ehrman is a text-crit guy and that's a specialist field which tends to live in the divinity school. People who are text-crit guys, like Wallace, are the most qualified critics, and "the most conservative" reject the validity of text-crit entirely. I can see for myself that Wallace does teach classes at Dallas, and in any case Ehrman is ipso facto not a reliable source for the reception of his own views!

I don't know that Wallace is an inerrantist, but in any case it's pitifully easy to find critics of Ehrman's more recent works. Generally they are connected to "conservative" institutions, but then, this review of How Jesus Became God says that "Non-members of the historical-critical establishment are routinely ignored" in the book. Another observes that the more controversial sections of his recent books read like a spiritual autobiography. Mangoe ( talk) 20:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman and other similar textual critics routinely refer to themselves as historians, as what they do lies within the purview of history, so when I say "historian" I am referring to anyone who does history, but specifically to people who share the Ehrman's focus on the events depicted within and the history of the New Testament.

I mentioned the bias of biblical inerrancy earlier as an example, I wasn't suggesting that anyone we're talking about believes the bible is inerrant. Rather, I was using an extreme example for clarity. So conservative, religious historians are, in not only my view but the view of most neutral or secular experts, generally less reliable than liberal religious, neutral or secular historians when it comes to the history of said religion. History isn't a science, but it strives very hard to be a serious academic subject, and coming to the game with an inherent bias is just a bad way to go about that. However, this discussion is getting a bit (read: WAAAAAYYY) too general for this forum, and I'm probably mostly to blame for that, so please allow me to drop it. If you wish to respond to the more general argument we're having now, my talk page would be a good spot.

So to get back to specifics: I wasn't suggesting that Ehrman is the best source for a depiction of his critics. I was just pointing out that he'd written a response which (to me, having read the book in question) is very accurate (not entirely IMHO, but he's close enough for the point he's making). Also, I see the link you've provided, but I don't see how it's relevant. Of course people who aren't specialists in that particular field will be routinely ignored. It's the same for any field, not just academic, scientific and scholarly ones. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

this review of How Jesus Became God says [...] Yes, and I already said that conservative evangelicals tend to disagree with Ehrman and make the (unsubstantiated) claim that their views are supported by historians on matters such as the historicity of the resurrection. The point is that a negative review of that claims that the resurrection is a historically verifiable fact is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be taken as reliable if we are trying to write from a neutral point of view when they treat the miracle claims of Christians, and only Christians, as historically verifiable.

We can hunt down hundreds of such biased, unreliable, fringe sources that have "criticized Ehrman and his ideas", but we probably shouldn't.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in the AFD of that bio page, here. Yobol ( talk) 02:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There are some decent sources covering the guy, the question is WP:BLP1E. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

People analytics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a coatrack article, hanging a bunch of dimly related topics on the notion of data-driven human-resources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. One source even refers to "talent analytics". We seem to have several similar articles, for example Behavioral analytics and Cohort analysis.- Mr X 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People analytics -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Rossi is suing an investment form that decided his perennially-unproven Energy Catalyzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a bust. There are sources! The lawsuit itself, with Rossi's untested claims, and two low low low tier news reports which seem to be churnalism and contain quotes only from Rossi fanbois. It's all over the cold fusion crankosphere and I cannot find a single mention in any quality source at all. Guy ( Help!) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hindu and Triangle Business Journal are not quality sources, yet no such complaint about the material sourced to the How Stuff Works and ScienceBlogs? See also CANVASS. This is way over the top.- Mr X 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this article for a while but surely given the subject matter How Stuff Works and ScienceBlogs are going to be useful sources per WP:PARITY. Anything which implies legitimacy for Rossi's stuff needs a super heavyweight source of course. If there's a good source reporting the legal action I don't see any objection to mentioning it, but not in a way which implies legitimacy for magickal energy contraptions! Alexbrn ( talk) 05:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, as I understood the recent lawsuits, Rossi is suing a former investor for not paying him money he thinks is due, the investor is saying the money wasnt due because it didnt work. I think the lack of sources is mainly because everyone *knows* it doesnt work so is devoting approx zero-to-nil manhours to reporting on it. Far from legitimising it, I would expect the primary sources to enforce the general opinion (its rubbish). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work. Delete the links that say it does. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 12:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that the The Hindu -- the 2nd largest English paper in India, 10th largest in India and 30th largest in the world List of newspapers in the world by circulation -- will be devastated to know that it is a "low low low tier" news outlet. Similarly Triangle Business Journal (part of the American City Business Journals network, whose combined circulation of about 200,000 puts it in the top five USA papers) appears to have an excellent reputation and good paid circulation in the Research Triangle region -- where IH/Cherokee are based. Secondly, even if the eCat is proved not to work, it is certainly relevant that IH was "conned" into signing a $110M contract, and has already paid Rossi $11.5M based on acceptance tests by an engineer they selected. Alanf777 ( talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We here at Wikipedia have had a front row seat to this whole E-cat mess and it was clear from way before the IH contract was signed and lawsuit was filed that Rossi, as a convicted fraudster, could have always been in it to make money. Unfortunately, we are not empowered as Wikipedians to cover this in the way that would lend it to a neutral summary. We need to get some third-party journalist to do this which will likely be hard going because Rossi is notoriously difficult to pin down and IH seem to be pretty embarrassed about the whole mess. The sources that currently know the most about this situation are also less-than-reliable in terms of their cold fusion ideology. I think we need to wait a bit to see how this gets characterized. jps ( talk) 12:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Argh. The edit warring SPA has created a new section full of affirmations of Henry's psychic abilities called Praise ostensibly to balance criticism of Henry's powers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again? Okay, on it. Deleted the praise section, as really nothing salvageable there. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This was submitted for afd in 2007 with the agreement that a user would add "find some good sources", but this user never did. Also two books were put on the article but they do not mention the occult type of earth radiation this article is about instead they are mainstream books on geophysics which seems to discuss the earth's energy budget. Apart from one old paper there seems to be no reliable sources that discuss this topic. I would submit it for afd but it appears the previous vote in 2007 was keep. Any ideas? HealthyGirl ( talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm nominating it for deletion. WP:IAPD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nominated, see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_radiation_(3rd_nomination) . ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Saw that nobody had written it yet, so went ahead and did so. It's a climate change denial documentary from CFACT and Marc Morano that Sarah Palin has been promoting recently. It's not an area I feel particularly at home writing in, though, so I've stuck to mainstream sources and left it in draftspace for now. Hoping to get some additional eyes on it before it goes to articlespace. It's in relatively rough shape for now. Some of the shortcomings are just things I haven't gotten to, but others are based on what's been covered (and what hasn't) in the major publications. There's a lot more in the other sources I posted to the talk page, but they're pretty shaky for what I'm sure will be a contentious subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I would change "Scientific Content" to "Scientific Content and Criticism" and make it it's own section. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How about "Criticism of scientific content", since there's also a review that criticizes its cinematic merit, too? Just to be clear, you can change whatever you want. I'm mainly interested to get feedback and/or other people editing before moving it into articlespace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I waited almost one whole day, but now I've moved it into articlespace. :) Its shortcomings aren't egregious, but may be worth checking in on if it continues to get some press (e.g. the Palin vs. Nye thing was because of comments she made at the premiere). Can't say I'd be disappointed if it didn't get more press. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Bruce (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't tell if this person has any notability outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, but if he's notable within the fringe bubble, that may be enough to warrant his own page. However, we need reliable secondary sources for that, and the article appears to be built upon primary sources (the writings of the guy, himself), and so may end up at AfD real soon. It's been tagged already, but if no-one finds any sources, I'll put it up for deletion myself in a few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

His name is really common, so that makes it hard to search for him without being too broad or too specific. I did searches for "robert bruce" "out of body" and "robert bruce" obe in the database of journals my work subscribes to. With or without the "peer-reviewed only" filter, there are 2 hits. Both mentions are in book reviews written by Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi (odd?). The first one [30] is a passing mention in the Journal of Conscientiology ( AFD/Journal of Conscientiology) from 2009. de Bianchi says Bruce was talked about more in the book he was reviewing though (Astral Projections by Michael Ross [31]). The second one, [32] also a book review by di Bianchi, this time in the Journal of Scientific Exploration from 2013, talks about Bruce for a whole paragraph in the context of praising the book's author for refuting some of Bruce's hypotheses in a 2002 letter to the editor of... the Journal of Conscientiology. Apparently my library only has online access to Conscientiology for the years 2008 and 2009, so disappointingly, I could not access this letter. Letters to the editor don't go through the peer review process anyway, so regardless of the caliber (hehe) of peer review that usually happens at a journal called "Journal of Conscientiology," it wouldn't apply to that source. I'm thinking there's no way this guy passes WP:NBIO. PermStrump (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree. I did a google search for Robert Bruce "out of body" and got nothing but breathy praise from non-notable fringe sources and harsh criticism from non-notable skeptics. And -of course- the WP page was the second link, right after the amazon page for his book with the obe phrase in the title. I think it may be time to do an AfD. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed deletion. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 13:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Burned by an IP whose rationale was "He's a real person!". I had a feeling that would happen. I'll fire up an AfD pretty soon here if no-one beats me to it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Even the self-published sources which the article uses are not used to cover the majority of the article's claims. None of them seems to cover his influences from other authors, his professional activities, or the mentioned plans for future works and collaborations. The list of his books contains some that do not even have ISBN codes and I am not sure if the titles or publication dates are indeed accurate. My search for the title "Evolution: What You Need To Know About How To Be Successful With Spirituality" got 74 results in google and none of them contained release information about this book. A few promotional sites are the first that come up. At this point I have my doubts if the article contains reasonably accurate information or made-up "facts" about Bruce. A google search for "Robert Bruce" "writer" delivered a few mentions of this writer, and some pages about a professional screenwriter of that name who was apparently involved with various 1990s shows. Dimadick ( talk) 14:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@ LuckyLouie, MjolnirPants, Dimadick, and Adam Cuerden: What happened?? This article fell off my radar until today when the library emailed me a link to a scanned copy of some letter to the editor of the Journal of Conscientiology that at first I didn't even remember requesting (the letter I mentioned in my comment above). Now I vaguely remember requesting it thinking it was going to be the first time the library was unable find a journal article that I asked for. (They found it just under the gun though, 3 days before my request would have expired.) Since the library put this back in my mind, I figured I'd update my original reply to say: "...Apparently my library only has online access to Conscientiology for the years 2008 and 2009, so disappointingly, I could not access this letter. *The letter is just more of the same in-universe, self- and fringe-promoting chatter that we've already seen and doesn't do anything to demonstrate this guy's notability outside of a very small bubble.* Letters to the editor don't go through the peer review process anyway..." And then I was going to chime in if an AFD had already been started or I'd start one if everyone else had forgotten about this guy like I had... So boy was I surprised when I came here to find the link was already red. Was there an AFD and it ended already? What did I miss?? PermStrump (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Permstrump: if you click the redlink you can see the deletion log entry, which in turn includes a link to WP:Articles for deletion/Robert Bruce (author). Not very exciting, but there it is.— Odysseus 147 9 06:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Rolfing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudoscience or not? More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience, according to sources mentioned. Kleuske ( talk) 08:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

New article on a fringe writer on Atlantis. Virtually unsourced, the only source being to a book by him. ELs need cleaning up, I've started. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This might be what we need. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Among objective sources, his theory has some notability [33], [34] but I could not find material (not even an obituary) that would support a BIO of the man himself (education, early life, analysis of works, etc). Might be best to merge any reliably sourced material to Atlantis#Location_hypotheses. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I know there have been a lot of discussions about the proper terminology with regard to people (especially BLPs), websites, categories, etc. Could someone point me to (or summarize) best practices for such labels? My hope is that it's not the difficult "go with what the sources say". For the sake of discussion let's presume there are sources which talk about both "climate change denial" and "climate skepticism" (and various statements about disagreeing with the consensus among scientists). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say "climate skeptics". That is the more commonly used phrase, and I think it's the one used by more scientists. I haven't done research on it, I would look at major scientific publications, and go with whichever phrase the majority of them use. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a denialist is more appropriate than skeptic. Skepticism usually implies incredulity due to lack of evidence. I don't think that applies to climate change deniers. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Climate skeptic" feels like a WP:EUPHEMISM to me. IMHO, I'd go with what the source says, probably with a direct quote. Unless that's already what you did and someone contested it... Is there a discussion you can link to where editors were debating it or is this a general question? PermStrump (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mostly because I realized I wasn't sure, but it came up at Talk:Climate Hustle -- about the way a movie is described, not a person (though it would apply to e.g. Marc Morano). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. I glanced and didn't see it at the bottom of the talkpage, so I assumed there was nothing new at first... Especially when it's not about a person, I think it would be really hard to make an argument stick against "climate change denial." For people, I think the sources might use different terms depending on that particular person's POV. I could see editors acquiescing to not say "denier" in a BLP if it became a big issue, but I'd oppose "skeptic" in most cases unless it was clear that the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources were using that language. Otherwise, I'd rather say something like "he dismisses scientists' view on climate change" or something like that. PermStrump (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Just use the direct quote, and use whatever phrase is in the source. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It's never helpful, or accurate, to confuse denialism with legitimate debate. DoctorJoeE  ^{review transgressions}/ _{talk to me!} 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Would some other editors want to look at this article? I'm getting stuck trying to edit it, because I'm not sure if I should treat it as a coatrack of fringe creep that was originally supposed to be a legit branch off of Developmental psychology or Child development or if I should think of the whole thing as a fringe article. Based off of the sources used at Nandor Fodor#Prenatal psychology and the existence of the The Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (which is apparently peer-reviewed), my hunch is that is that there does still exist a fringe group within the field of psychology that considers "prenatal and perinatal psychology" a separate field of study and I'm pretty sure that individuals in that field believe a lot of pseudoscience that they're trying to mask under a generic title that's so broad they can claim to be associated with every field of science that ever discussed prenatal/perinatal development (which is exactly what the article tries to do, especially in this version before I removed a lot of it as WP:SYNTH). Also, it really bugs me that they seem to think the perinatal period starts at childbirth, because it's actually a vague time frame that people usually use starting from the point in the pregnancy when the fetus would technically be viable to several weeks after the actual birth. PermStrump (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Article is undue promote of Wendy Anne McCarty, it should be deleted and redirected to Developmental_psychology#Prenatal_development HealthyGirl ( talk) 18:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI it was nominated for deletion after I posted this if others want to weigh in. PermStrump (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ozone therapy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Much activity from a new editor; may need more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the editor's claiming that ozone therapy is the "safest medical treatment" in his edits, as in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ozone_therapy&type=revision&diff=719429251&oldid=719428749 ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Diversified technique

Diversified technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An article may be appropriate for this topic. Diversified is the most commonly used form of thrust joint manipulation used by DCs, PTs, and OTs; diversified is taught in all chiropractic schools internationally and is the form of manipulation being taught in 97% of PT schools in the US today; almost every study on spine manipulation published to date has been looking at diversified thrust joint manipulation.

I recommend a merge to Chiropractic treatment techniques. A quick AFD discussion can resolve the debate. Same with the other techniques below. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• No merge, this type of merge discussion and all the following below are best of AfD. Sources determine notability. Each article needs individual attention and possible expansion. It would be hard to avoid bias if these discussions are clumped into one. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Valoem, there are zero independent sources in the article. If it were nominated for deletion it would probably be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse merge unless more independent sources can be found. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Note. Merge has been completed. User:HealthyGirl, thank you. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I finally created an account to come here and ask why this article was merged? In today's society there is wide acceptance of these professions and you should not impose either your views or the evidence based views on the world. That being said, the articles are the place to discuss some of these viewpoints. We need to provide the best and most comprehensive summary of commonly practiced medical and treatment techniques in order to provide sufficient, independent information to allow a potential patient to make a decision. EditorDownUnder ( talk) 04:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse merge Why was it merged? Because Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia that relies on reliable sources. The article in question had two fringe sources on it, one linked to the Chiropractic Association. This is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. HealthyGirl ( talk) 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

HealthyGirl What? No. If by "mainstream encyclopedia" you mean Wikipedia only covers mainstream views then you may want to review all General Notability Guidelines. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which covers only mainstream ideas, we cover all views cited by reliable sources, however with due weight to given to mainstream consensus. We rationally explain simple and complex ideas to a general audience, but certainly with greater scope than only what is covered in mainstream. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers views by reliable sources but there are 0 reliable sources on the article. Also as QuackGuru wrote "there are zero independent sources in the article". Only two chiropractic sources (it has been like this since 2008 which is hardly encouraging), and the article is two lines long. I don't see the point in keeping the article when that content can easily be mentioned elsewhere on the main article. HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Gonstead technique

Gonstead technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not notable on it's own. Used as a primary approach by only a small percentage of US chiropractors, very little clinical research of spinal manipulation available that uses Gonstead approach specifically.

This admittedly a little dated reference claims use of Gonstead by 58% of (presumably American) practitioners. Mangoe ( talk) 11:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This strongly passed AfD, there for is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is still a stub. There is plenty of room in the main article. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• It got redirected to Chiropractic yesterday. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one: there seems to be a lot of sources provided at the AfD which were then never added. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Rubbish computer, there is only a small paragraph in the main article. See Chiropractic treatment techniques#Gonstead technique. There is not enough content for a separate article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the decision at the deletion page overrule your personal opinion? IMHO this should not have been merged. EditorDownUnder ( talk) 18:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

Neuro Emotional Technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It was nominate for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro Emotional Technique. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NUCCA

NUCCA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The AFD process has begun. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUCCA. QuackGuru ( talk) 11:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Trigenics

Trigenics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not in my opinion; the article fails to handle either evidence or literature well. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein, I think it can be merged to Chiropractic_treatment_techniques. First I would remove all the unsourced text and primary sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure, [35], [36] some sources, but merge may be better. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Activator technique

Activator technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference above claims 62% of practitioners use it. Mangoe ( talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques. Should it be nominated for AFD? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sources found Secondary sources found News Day, [37], Orthospinology Procedures: An Evidence-based Approach to Spinal Care. No merge expansion needed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that there's basically two sentences of content (the quote looks frivolous), it looks very mergable if there's somewhere appropriate to put it.

• Newsday link: A random reader's letter to the editor in the opinion pages is not a reliable source.
• Book link: There's zero meaningful content there. Two completely empty passing mentions.
• Chiroeco link: I don't know what reputation it has for reliability, but as a website of long running print magazine the default expectation is that it qualifies as RS. However it's hard to tell if that's supposed to be an actual magazine article. 1/3 of the way through the tone switches to some sort of personal testimonial. Very strange. Alsee ( talk) 10:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Alsee's points, this should probably be merged and replaced with a redirect. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Merge was entirely appropriate because this article contained only two sources, and one looked unreliable. HealthyGirl ( talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sports chiropractic

Sports chiropractic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreliable sources everywhere. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This article also reads like an advertisement. Geogene ( talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is plain garbage. Wikipedia is being misused for advertisement. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The is a huge field. Try a little next time please. And there are references here which clear by MEDRS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the advert tag. There is still unsourced text in the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed all of the unsourced stuff for now, except for a statement which was part of a sentence. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique (again)

Koren Specific Technique (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I propose merging into Chiropractic treatment techniques. If it survives AFD then we can still merge it. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we get it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is a stub like Gonstead technique. There is a lack of reliable sources for a separate article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A merge was proposed. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was unsuccessful. Stubs are allowed, without them ever being expanded, although that is welcome. I smell deletionism. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated "Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus." [38]

User:ProgrammingGeek stated "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." [39] See WP:STUB. There is no mention of it in the main article. User:BullRangifer, a merge is better than another AFD that could result in deletion. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic neurology

Chiropractic neurology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I ended up on this one somehow after visiting sports chiropractic. Same issues as all of the above. Just wanted to add it to the list so I don't forget about it. Will comment more on discussion below. PermStrump (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles

• Comment With a polite nod to QuackGuru's long record of fighting pseudo-scientific medical nonsense on the project, I am not altogether clear as to what exactly brings all of these articles, flawed though many are, to FTN. Is there an assertion that they are all promoting some kind of pseudoscience or other Fringe Theory? Just wondering... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is suggesting that these fringe articles could all be merged into one, called chiro treat techs. - Roxy the dog™ woof 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropracty is a fringe subject (based on pseudoscience and BS, but incorporating a small bit of actual medicine). That being said, I'm not sure that different techniques within it are non-notable. There are a lot of chiropractors out there and they have a lot of patients. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Medical quackery and pseudoscience is not one of my strong subject areas. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge all the techniques into Chiropractic treatment techniques. For example, each technique can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with merging most chiropractic techniques. Like someone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if certain techniques are notable enough for their own spinoff article, but Koren Specific Technique, chiropractic neurology and sports chiropractic should be on the short list to merge-ville. Ad Orientem, I had no idea how much quackery there was to chiropractic until, like, last week. When I've seen a chiropractor, she never said anything to me about their alternate definition of "subluxation" or the other really foo-foo woo-woo sounding things that are apparently a major part of chiropractic philosophy. I think I'll still pop in to see my chiropractor from time-to-time (she's different, I swear), but it's definitely a field that attracts a lot of fringier fringe on top of the base fringe. At its core, it's not accepted by the medical community anyway, but it's sort of "mainstream" in the sense that a lot of normal people go to chiropractors and like them and there's at least validity to the techniques they use that overlap with PT and DOs. But the people using those techniques aren't the ones beating down the door to create vanity articles on WP. PermStrump (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Permstrump: this podcast interviews a retired psychiatrist turned debunker who says pretty much the same thing you just did. I just thought you might be interested in this. Don't let the channel or podcast name fool you: this episode is about exactly what the episode name suggests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also OK with the merger, as what we have is a bunch of short articles when it would be better to see them together, for comparison's sake. Mangoe ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Support merger to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. Most of these haven't enough notability for standalone articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I spotted another page. Spinal_adjustment#Adjustment_techniques is similar to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. I think Spinal adjustments are for techniques in general while Chiropractic treatment techniques is for only Chiropractic techniques. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• No merge, sources suggest this is notable, some are notable quackery others have legitimate studies. It is ridiculous to clump all these into one discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Before an editor creates a new article the main page should be expanded first otherwise the new article could be considered a FORK, especially if there are few reliable sources on the topic.. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I dislike like the idea that if any editor who fails to have a subject delete, can "merge" the subject, also nearly every editor here has voted to the delete the subjects in the past. BullRangifer and DGG, is this neutral editing? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem, you restored the unreliable sources and disputed content against consensus. Is that appropriate? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is that undisputed against consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Violation_of_consensus. The diffs show you restored unreliable sources against consensus. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• These articles should be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques because there is insufficient material based on reliable secondary sources to cover them separately. Keeping them as separate articles encourages people to pad them out with fringe health claims with sources that completely fail WP:MEDRS, as shown, for example, at Koren Specific Technique. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is wrong, WP:MEDRS does not have to apply to notable quackery. The article is also neutral with various criticism of the subject. AfD was used to determine sources are adequate for a stand alone article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to padding like "technique is considered to be gentle and safe"—that is a medical claim and requires WP:MEDRS. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that MEDRS sources are even needed for Johnuniq's example above, as long as the source is attributed. EG: "The developer of the technique describes it as gentle and safe" would be perfectly reasonable IMO with a source from the developer. It is good for an encyclopedia article to provide descriptions from attributed 'in-universe' sources. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:85F:DAD1:53CE:674A ( talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I edited Koran specific technique, to make it less pro-fringe. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion. See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Selective_merge. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Diversified technique

Gonstead technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Koren Specific Technique

I think these are the top four to merge. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposes merger Wikipedia:Does deletion help - best to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory over leaving our readers to search the web for said information.-- Moxy ( talk) 13:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Does deletion help is not applicable. There is plenty of room in the main article. Before a new page is created it should be expanded in the main page. This is not what happened. Koren Specific Technique is not mentioned in the Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Techniques section. The Techniques section is a vey short and can be expanded.

Diversified technique contains only two sources and both are non-independent sources.

Gonstead technique contains only two independent sources.

Atlas Orthogonal Technique contains only two sources.

Koren Specific Technique contains only four independent sources. All four pages could easily be deleted. I want to preserve the content and merge it to one page. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @ BullRangifer:, @ Moxy:, @ DGG:, @ Cunard: It looks like they tried to pull a fast one and merge without consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Trigenics is mergeable, also I agree with the deletion of Neuro Emotional Technique. Atlas Orthogonal Technique is notable for stand alone, but merge is okay for now. The other ones are CLEARLY notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose the merger of Gonstead technique and Koren Specific Technique per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique, where I provided sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify standalone articles. Cunard ( talk) 05:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• The best and most reliable way to establish notability of any subdivision of anything is to first make extended sections in the main article, and then to split them. It is usually unwise to try to establish separate articles against opposition when the sources for specific notability are relatively sparse or borderline, and wiser to wait until they are sufficient to give no doubt about notability. This applies particularly in a field here there is a certain amount of conscious or unconscious bias against coverage of the subject . It is of course more satisfying to fight such bias, but considering the inconsistent decision methods at WP, such a fight should be preceded by establishing as good a likelihood of success as possible. (It is of course necessary to be on watch to make sure that the material in the sections being extended is not gradually and surreptitiously removed, as has been known to happen. Even the most unimpeachable references have been known to be unreasonably challenged in such cases--but at least all obviously dubious material should be removed as early as possible--then at least the bias will be the more evident to the uncommitted observer. (Just for the record, I have a bias of my own: I profoundly distrust the entire practice of chiropractic, and therefore want to see it covered in detail so that others will understand also.) DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Merge None of these articles hold up to WP:MEDRS, and frankly having them all over the place makes it easier to add nonsense and quackery. I was not made aware of this discussion, and it seems clear the opposition is not assuming good faith, as it was stated:

It looks like they tried to pull a fast one and merge without consensus.

I followed one of the articles, saw some action and then found the category which was full of crappy articles. As I do whenever I come across horrible articles I tried to delete and cleanup the stuff that did not belong — finding that it made the articles extremely short and expressing a POV. I chose to merge, and satn by the merge, something I deem most editors here to do as well. I will remerge the reverts by Valoem shortly. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 14:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 

Myself and other editors such as DGG, have pointed out that it may be improper to apply WP:MEDRS to non-medical topics, however, Gonstead technique and Diversified technique (to most popular chiropractic method) pass MEDRS requirements even though it is not necessary. As I pointed out on your talk page here is a source from the "Journal of Physical Therapy Science" [40], which is a source included in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health and clearly passes WP:MEDRS. You agreed with silence on your talk page, but decided to merge the topic when others were not paying attention, not good my friend. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

PMID  24259853 is primary research in a journal not indexed by MEDLINE and with an impact factor of 0.39. Not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please show me the guideline which states MEDLINE is the only acceptable source for MEDRS I guess we can just ignore the peer reviewed studies from PubMed here right? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "from PUBMED"? It's essentially a search engine that contains lots of stuff, some MEDRS; some not. WP:MEDRS says it is a redflag if a journal is not MEDLINE-indexed. It is a generally a red flag for any medical journal source if it has a low impact factor. In any event, we generally do not use primary research for biomedical claims. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And generally don't is a pretty mild way to phrase it: I would say pretty much never. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• support merge as it seems the best option for articles...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge on these grounds, though individual notability may still be arguable. Techniques for exorcism should not have to pass MEDRS, and the same is true of less-than-real sciences. We simply need to let the reader know we are not applying "genuine medical standards" to the article somehow, as is generally done in the articles I looked at by saying practitioners say whatever, etc. There is too much lobbying to drive "woo" off the 'pedia. We should simply neatly label the "woo" and maintain it for our collection. Wnt ( talk) 21:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge I support the merge of these articles, because there are not enough references to warrant individual articles for every one of these techniques. Take for example Diversified technique, has been around since 2008 with no decent references ever added. It consists of only two lines, and both references are chiropractic references. There is no point in keeping articles like this, they are redundant. It is also easier for the reader if these techniques are discussed in one place. What is the point in being directed to many of these stubs with two or four lines. Disappointing for the reader. HealthyGirl ( talk) 09:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Would some editors with a strong constitution care to take a look at the suicide bag article and weigh in on the talkpage about the WP:PROFRINGE issues raised? My assumption is that this article has been left alone for several years, because the topic is difficult for most people to read, as are the cited sources. Some of the sources have pictures that I wish I never saw. IMHO people might prefer to go to the talkpage first before the main article, because it's not quite as heavy. (P.S. I hope I didn't make it sound like there are pictures of dead people on the main article, because there aren't—there are in some of the sources though—but I imagine that the main article would probably be unsettling for most people the first time through and I have a strong feeling that that's why the sources haven't been combed through thoroughly in a long time, if ever, and also why only editors from one POV have essentially provided all of the sources for the article.) Other articles in peer-reviewed journals exist. I'm working on compiling a list, but haven't posted it on the talkpage yet. PermStrump (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be some insistence on poorly-sourced material and POV-pushing in evidence. Will watch. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this is probably because of the topic. I can't really do much to find sources, due to your warning about the pictures. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I did genuinely want to prepare people, but I secretly hoped it would be taken as a dare. :-P ThePlatypusofDoom, what if I told you which ones don't have pictures? Actually, the only ones where there's a risk are the case studies that are already (over)represented in the article. I created Talk:Suicide bag/Source dump, which now has a decent list of articles—the case studies are in their own subsection, so they can be easily avoided. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone with the conversation on the talkpage. Most people aren't bothering to reference policies and when I do, I'm told I'm wikilawyering. I suggested an RFC and the response was that that would be equivalent to an "enemy takeover" to "legalize" my agenda. I went to the RFC page to read about it because I don't think I ever initiated one before and it said one of the steps before an RFC should be to ask for input from related projects (hence this post). There are more people involved now, but it's still not getting anywhere. I guess I should RFC? PermStrump (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, an RFC is probably the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article is a POV and PROFRINGE mess. I got to it from the page on UFOs, it needs some work too. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Many unreliable sources, a lot of the article promoting a fringe point of view. Seems this article has attracted a lot of attention from UFO believers, the skeptics section has been tagged with 'citation needed'. HealthyGirl ( talk) 01:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a mess. I'm just going to TNT it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It was definitely needed. Nice work, thank you. HealthyGirl ( talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable fringe sources all over the place. May need to be entirely re-written. HealthyGirl ( talk) 00:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, do you want to TNT it? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

TNT completed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Another PROFRINGE article. The "Tension" section needs the most cleaning up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs an expert on the topic who can fix some of these articles. While I am extremely knowledgably about some topics, I have never taken much time in researching the whole UFO craze. I own a few skeptical books on UFOs, but it is not possible for me to know where to begin on an article like this. It is quite depressing how many of these articles dealing with UFOs have just been left. HealthyGirl ( talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's depressing that so many UFO articles have been left . ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It takes no expert to see the sources being cited are not independent or objective; David M. Jacobs, Richard M. Dolan, Jerome Clark, and Michael D. Swords. Both Wikipedia and Google searches show they are all career UFOlogists who hold varying degrees of fringe views, some more "far out" fringe than others, but still fringe. Even so, these can be used sparingly and attributed to make clear it is a UFOlogy point of view. But if you base an entire article on just those kind of sources, it's naturally going to be slanted to favor the UFOlogy point of view. IMO, to bring such an article into compliance it doesn't really require a subject matter expert, just sheer pick and shovel work to find truly objective sources from which to build a useful encyclopedic article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree but there are many articles like this that are Ufology related. It is going to take a significant amount of effort and time to bring them all up to Wikipedia standards. Maybe we should just focus on these few for now. It is indeed depressing because there are so many article likes this, giving undue weight to fringe proponents like Jerome Clark. HealthyGirl ( talk) 05:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We could notify WikiProject Skepticism about this, there might be a couple ways clean it up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Index of ufology articles Here's a good place to start for anyone trying to clean these articles up ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Or I could try to make a fringe-patrolling bot or something (Which will take a month or so, considering I can't code). 16:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk)

Sorcha Faal reports (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs more eyes, there is an editing dispute. See history and talk page - David Gerard ( talk) 19:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look. See my comments on the talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

List of life forms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would imagine that such a list would be something related to taxonomy, for example. It starts out as such, but quickly delves into a lot of WP:FRINGE areas including the "Origin of the universe and life" where various creation myths are listed and "Encounters with animate beings subject to skepticism" where such fantastic topics such as Close encounter, Electronic voice phenomenon, and Mystery airships make an appearance.

I would argue the purview of such a list should be biologically identified life only, but I grow tired of cleaning up these messes.

jps ( talk) 17:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

<raised eyebrow> Fascinating. It seems the clue to this mess can be found in the last sentence of the lead: "As in process philosophy, this article brings together in a holistic manner, life forms from the diverse human intuitions found in experiences that include the ethical, religious, philosophical, scientific, and aesthetic". So it's a list formed from a specific point of view, yet purporting to be an objective list. Quite a trick. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Angel of Death is a lifeform? Rilly? So is Christ? The last sentence of the lede includes "this article brings together in a holistic manner..." which is a fairly clear declaration of a likely NPOV violation, unless the title were changed to Holistic list of life forms or something like that. I also wonder whether this holistic view is notable enough for an article, or whether there are maybe obvious SYNTH issues here. The bloody thing is probably notable in general, but maybe if nothing else an RfC on determining what parameters of inclusion are to be used might be a good idea. Alternatively, if there is already a similar list of vaguely taxonomic lists of lifeforms, presumably including some cryptids, maybe just propose it for deletion as maybe an OR SNYTH violation. John Carter ( talk) 18:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we even have a consistent definition of holism these days? I used to be of the opinion that it was a kind of "accept everything including the kitchen sink" sort of philosophy including blatantly false and incorrect claims. By such a standard, why is there no flying spaghetti monster on the list? If this comes across as cynical, I apologize. #SorryNotSorry jps ( talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Nobody is claiming the Flying spaghetti monster is a life form. If one is disposed to make this kind of claim you could include Historical Jesus, too, I suppose. 18:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) No Invisible pink unicorn, either. No apology necessary. If there isn't enough response here to prompt decisive action, I would definitely go for an RfC, widely publicized on noticeboards, asking for terms of inclusion on this list, and, possibly, what if any spinout lists can be reasonably well sourced and verified, and what should be put there. Also, what if any consistent definition of "life form" is there, and how does an Angel of Death qualify as a sufficiently different entity than a regular angel to merit separate inclusion? I think the way to go is to see whether this list even remotely meets NOTABILITY guidelines (I think it probably does, but wonder whether a real list was ever made), and definitely have to wonder why the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy content on process philosophy, referenced twice, is perhaps given waaay too much attention to that matter in this context. John Carter ( talk)

Holy cow! Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Are you proposing Holy Cow as a life form? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Only in Nepal and India. DoctorJoeE  ^{review transgressions}/ _{talk to me!} 13:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And with the section heading "Animate beings subject to skepticism" (which includes "ghost") I hereby declare we have achieved peak stupid for the week here on Wikipedia. I shall now retire for a few days to consider whether the Internet is really a good thing. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "formerly-living life-form" section too? John Carter ( talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:LIST is directly relevant, including WP:LISTNAME, which might be directly relevant to this broad of a list, as might WP:LSC, as is WP:MINREF. In stand-alone lists, I think, ideally, every item included is to have a separate reference which more or less substantiates that item's inclusion in the list. I ain't seeing any individual citations here. It would easily be possible to add as many citation needed templates to sections and specific entries as one requested, and, after a reasonable time, if the citations aren't produced, remove the uncited material, which could even include subsections. John Carter ( talk) 19:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should take off, and nuke it from orbit. It's the safest way. - Roxy the dog™ woof 19:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I get the impression that this used to be titled "list of environmental topics" or something similar, and the article is even included in the Category:Outlines. Maybe an effective way to go might be to propose that the article be renamed to something more directly in accord with its chosen content? John Carter ( talk) 19:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I struggle to understand what possible name one might apply to this magnum opus that would solve the problems with it being hosted on an "encyclopedia" that is supposedly verifiable. I see someone added Boltzmann Brain to the list. Might I counter with Swampman? How about zombies? Don't they get any love? jps ( talk) 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell, I was hoping you might be able to think of one. List of life related topics, or something along those lines, maybe? Outline of life forms? Maybe? John Carter ( talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Argh, what a shame that people searching life form get redirected to this rambling listicle. Maybe the way to go is to cut out all the cruft, and rename it List of biologically identified life forms. Then if someone wishes, they can create a correctly identified article about lifeforms according various philosophies. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Even that will be too large to be useful or curatable. Geogene ( talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there sufficient reliable sourcing to generate a stand-alone life form describing, I would suppose, the processes required for something to qualify as such? if there are, that certainly could be created as a Draft-space article and then, when the draft is approved, the redirect could be removed. That could happen independent to any changes to this article itself. John Carter ([[User talk:John Cart{{{er|talk]]) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted all of the life forms which don't exist. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For the moment, a highly reduced and least astonishment version of the article has been renamed as Outline of life forms. As a bonus, the graphic now actually matches the content. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"We have achieved peak stupid" Agreed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sherlockpsy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an account run by a family member of the ghost hunter Peter Underwood. I had my suspicions because all of this user edits seem to be promoting Underwood's books or ghost stories. It is now confirmed because of the twitter link he added found here [41] is his own Wikipedia username.

I will make it clear that this user is not disruptive or a vandal, and he seems to source his citations correctly. But in most cases they are all to Underwood's books. For example see recent edits on Speke Hall.

I would say that recent problematic edits from this user are on the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall, inserting quotes from Underwood directly into the lead, and on the Raynham Hall. This seems to be promotion and may be a problem for WP:Fringe. I am at loss what to do here, because Sherlockpsy seems to be making some ok edits, he is here to improve Wikipedia and I don't have a problem if he cites Underwood. But in the case of Raynham Hall this seems to be over-promotion to a fringe point of view. WP:COI may come into play here, however. But can anyone offer any opinions on this? I am not going to revert this user because this user clearly has good intentions and I don't want to tread heavily or ruin anyone's day, but Underwood's opinions are about as fringe as it gets. So what should we do here? HealthyGirl ( talk) 01:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll remove them. This is a case of WP:UNDUE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes! Borley Rectory again? jps ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted some of his edits which I feel bad about. Unfortunately Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971), is also undue. An entire article about a book by Peter Underwood, sourced to Peter Underwood... HealthyGirl ( talk) 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just PRODed this article. If the template gets whacked, we can take it to AfD, where I'm sure it'll get deleted. I can't find any indication of notability in the article at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And he's claiming on his talk page that people are "Attacking" him and because it survived AfC, it should be kept. (It was accepted by SwisterTwister, an editor whose judgement I don't trust) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure Underwood is notable enough for his own bio. The present article doesn't cite enough independent secondary sources, but a little digging should find them. As for the books, they're likely not notable enough for their own standalone articles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There is also this Haunted London (1973) HealthyGirl ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That book probably doesn't pass WP:NBOOK either. The Peter Underwood bio needs to be reworked to clean out all the self references and fringe references. There's plenty of independent sources from which to write a decent NPOV bio, e.g. TIME; [42], BBC; [43], the Independent: [44] ; the Guardian: [45] ; the Times; [46] ; the Telegraph: [47] ; the Cornish Guardian: [48]. Not sure I have time for this one at the moment, but it needs a cleanup. I think the SPA doesn't quite understand WP:SYNTH yet, but it's possible they might come around. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There seem to have been at least a few RS obituaries on the individual, some of which can be found here. John Carter ( talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This user still seems to be using Wikipedia just to promote Peter Underwood, see his recent edits on Hans Holzer. I don't have a problem with those edits because they are sourced to a piece in the Guardian but I have a feeling we are going to see Underwood cited on many of these paranormal related articles. HealthyGirl ( talk) 17:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the makers of the anti-vaccine movie Vaxxed (starring Andrew Wakefield) sent an email out to their supporters yesterday in which they solicited editors to "polish" some pages. The email is on a Mailchimp mailing list that anyone can sign up for, so I'll quote what they said here:

ANY WIKIPEDIANS OUT THERE?- We are looking for registered Wikipedians who can help polish some Wikipedia pages. If you're interested email <email redacted>, subject line: I CAN HELP WITH WIKIPEDIA

They don't say here what articles they are interested in, but it would likely include Vaxxed, Andrew Wakefield, Hear This Well and MMR vaccine controversy. ETA: oh, and of course Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I suppose it's possible they may attempt to create articles for the film's director Del Bigtree , activist and producer Polly Tommey, the "CDC Whistleblower" William Thompson or others, but the usual notability/sourcing stuff around new articles would of course apply. -- Krelnik ( talk) 17:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the page for a couple weeks. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been on the page for a while, and I appreciate the heads up. Save your copy of that email, I have a feeling it's going to be needed in an AE case or two (dozen) soon... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Bioresonance therapy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The description in the lead is so general that it also applies to radiology and radiation oncology: "it proposes that electromagnetic waves can be used to diagnose and treat human illness". I had a look at the "theory", but don't know how to summarize that drivel. Prevalence 03:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of those sources aren't working for me. A related topic is " Electromagnetic radiation and health" (I hate those 'and' titles, by the way). Offhand, I could suggest a theory of action, which is that it would work like the alleged carcinogenic effects of cell phones and other EM sources, much of which work focuses AFAIR on cyclotron resonance of ions in ion channels.

There is nothing innately pseudoscientific about supposing that microwaves or radio signals might cause harm or be useful in medicine. It is only a question of who is pursuing them by what means. So I'm thinking you should either define the article by the literal title term - only people who claim to sell "bioresonance therapy", and explain what is known of what they do - or else make it a catch-all for unproven electromagnetic treatments. Wnt ( talk) 23:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't go off on tangential ideas about what you think radio and microwaves can do to living cells. Exhaustive work has been conducted on these matters and it is abundantly clear that the major physical concern associated with non-ionizing EM waves is their ability to heat a substance. To that end, the safety thresholds that are in place have yet to see a single study that abnegates them. On the other hand, people who claim, for example, electromagnetic sensitivity are routinely unable to establish that they actually have such a condition (the tenor of such issues illustrated well in the current hit Netflix series Better Call Saul). One thing that I have pointed out to people who, for example, object to cellphone towers being built on their property that owing to the way antennae emit EM waves, the place with the least amount of EM radiation from an antenna is directly below it. The entire topic is really a sad case of physics illiteracy gone amuck. jps ( talk) 18:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Another UFO page which has many issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason not to merge this into Project Sign? Mangoe ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as your doing the Lord's work here with UFOs, you might want to take a gander at Majestic Twelve. That has been a thorn in our side for the better part of a decade. jps ( talk) 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned out all the fringe stuff from Majestic Twelve a while ago, so it's in pretty good shape IMO. And I gave reliable sources their way with Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter recently. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. jps ( talk) 20:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if other people think this article should be edited with WP:FRINGE in mind? Jobrot posted about it a few weeks ago on WT:PSYCH#Highly sensitive person (HSP) legit? and had also initiated an AFD for it in Jan that ended with the result to keep, "But cleanup to remove promotionalism, and consider merging with Sensitivity (human)." It reminds me of other fringe topics that use a string of common words that could easily appear in the same order in reliable sources that weren't intending to reference HSP the way it's meant in this article. The HSP in this article, refers to a phrase coined by Elaine Aron who sells books and other promotional materials on her website. I strongly recommend watching this trailer for the HSP "movie", if for no other reason than the entertainment value. —PermStrump (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Few things to add... Aron says the scientific term for HSP is sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS). FYI SPS is another neologism by Aron and not a scientific term. After reading some of Aron's papers, I was honestly confused about why so much of it was getting published in independently published, peer-reviewed journals. But after looking into more in depth, I've found that her husband, Arthur Aron, was an editor or reviewer for most, if not all, of the journals that have published Aron's work. Likewise, most, if not all, of the papers authored by other people were written by people listed on Arthur Aron's personal page on the SUNY Stoneybrook website as his research assistants or PHD candidates that he supervised. What to do with something like this that does have a lot of lay coverage? —PermStrump (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably needs an RSN discussion. Almost all of those papers are unreliable due to the COI/closeness with the subject. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. One of the first results when I did a google scholar search for "highly sensititive person" was a pair of articles published in Personality and Individual Differences, and there's no Aron on the review board for that. Between the two ( The Highly Sensitive Person: Stress and physical symptom reports and A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”), they have 94 citations in other works, and neither seems to reflect poorly upon Aron's work (the first doesn't even address it directly in the abstract, simply using the same term to refer to the same group of people).

It looks to me like what we have is a relatively niche aspect of psychology that doesn't receive a lot of coverage in peer-reviewed scholarly media, let alone the mass media. That explains the dearth of sources, the apparent closeness of many sources (researchers who know each other often work on similar issues for obvious reasons) to the originator, and the lack (or possibly dearth, I haven't found any, but there might still be some out there) of criticism.

If this is the case, then the article still goes into way too much detail, and should likely be shortened. If I'm missing something and there really is a fringe group of researchers working on a fringe theory under this name outside of the mainstream, and using personal connections to get through peer-review, then the article still needs to be trimmed down quite a bit, as well as being re-written with an eye to where this diverges from the scientific consensus. I think an RSN discussion, as Only in Death suggested, is probably the best route. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Shoot! I forgot to mention that Elaine Aron used to teach at the Maharishi University (see also Transcendental Meditation movement). It's hard to tell what's behind a paywall for others when I'm logged into my work account. Do other people have access to the full text of the 2 articles MjolnirPants mentioned? They're both in Personality and Individual Differences: 1. Smolewska et al. 2006, "A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale..." 2. Benham 2006, "The highly sensitive person: Stress and physical symptom reports". MjolnirPants, I couldn't tell if you'd read the whole thing or just the abstract. They might be over my head, but my take-away from both of them is that while they weren't overly critical or anything, but they also weren't able to replicate Aron et al.'s findings. Is that what other people get from them? I'll copy and paste some pertinent parts from the conclusions if other people can't easily access them. A few weeks ago when I started looking into it, I found 20 articles by Elaine Aron with a potential COI with her husband being an editor or reviewer for the publication, but I only looked at 4 not written by the Arons that were listed on hsperson.com (2 of the 4 weren't about HSPs, 2 had potential COIs with Arthur). I doubt I would have noticed the potential COIs (and probably would have written it off it I did) if there weren't at least 20 potential COIs with Elaine Aron's work despite that I haven't found any solidly independent publishers putting her work in peer-reviewed journals, which is why I started looking deeper into who published it. As far the articles not written by the Arons, I haven't found any yet that were able to replicate her work. Evans and Rothbart (2008) were the most critical: "This suggests the HSP is not measuring sensory sensitivity, at least as it pertains to thresholds for perception and noticing environmental events... Smolewska, McCabe, and Woody (2006) have challenged the unidimensionality of the HSP, and suggest it is comprised of three factors: Ease of Excitation, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Low Sensory Threshold." (HSP here refers to the Arons' HSP Scale or HSPS. I can give more context if needed, lmk.) —PermStrump (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot: I think you accidentally blanked the rest of the page when you replied, so someone reverted it, but it lost your message. I don't know how to bring it back other than copy and pasting it. I think chronologically this comment was made before my comment directly above:

Many of the sources discuss "Sensory Processing Sensitivity" rather than "Highly Sensitive Persons" on the grounds that Aron claims on her website "Sensory Processing Sensitivity" to be the "scientific term" for "Highly Sensitive Person". I don't get why we a) don't have a page on that "scientific term" and b) instead have this page which is full of WP:Primary sources, WP:promo that's backed up by horse retreats, celebrity endorsements and borrows it's credibility from another term... another question being that "highly sensitive persons" is a natural turn of phrase that's going to appear in scientific case studies - it won't always refer to Aron's concept, and we need to protect from this phenomena. All in all I find it interesting that Aaron is protecting the term "Highly Sensitive Person" by not declaring it a diagnosis or statistical disorder - whilst encouraging individuals to adopt the term via a self-diagnostic survey on her website promoting the condition. Strange she has a scientific and non-scientific term for this diagnosis, non-diagnosis, scientific, non-scientific term. Anyways, I've found the sources to be choppy in the above regards. -- Jobrot ( talk) 9:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Also when the sources do reference HSP, they're almost always referring to the HSPS (highly sensitive person scale). Anyway, I agree with merging with Sensitivity (human), especially since that article is only ~3 sentences anyway. —PermStrump (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(Outdenting 'cause I'm not sure how to best indent my reply)
@ Permstrump: I only read the abstracts, I don't have access anymore. But the journal supports open access (the program, not the concept) so anyone who's a current student at any public college should be able to get at it. I didn't find any of the criticism you found, but I do think that criticism is something we should keep in mind. I still think an RSN discussion is the way to go, because this is not at all clear, though given your most recent response, it does seem to lean towards this being some fringe work. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's good to see some concrete reasoning on this issue! I'm the editor who spent >100 hours overhauling the Hsp article in Jan-Feb 2016 (mainly re-organizing, removing unsourced content, adding valuable content when I came across it):

1. I found zero references, either scholarly or lay, that considered HSP/SPS to be bogus or a 'fringe' theory. (Jobrot's Reddit-inspired 20-year-conspiracy theory is unsupported.)
2. I hadn't done, and haven't verified, PermStrump's detective work on scholarly articles with Aron's husband's COI issues. I agree that it's a meaningful inquiry, but keep in mind that the article is about the term E. Aron popularized and her own words are properly citable if expressed in context. Various articles aren't authored by either Aron.
3. I found zero psychology-related sources that used the term hsp as merely a string of words. In fact Aron's 1997 JPSP article says sensory processing refers more specifically to what occurs as sensory information is transmitted to or processed in the brain (Jobrot deleted this critical definitional information from the lead).
4. The above-mentioned "most critical" (Evans and Rothbart 2008) article didn't invalidate the HSP Scale, but says it reflects orthogonal concepts, and Evans in turn cites Smolewski et al. 2006 which said the HSPS reflects three dimensions rather than one—both of which articles have been cited in this wiki article (despite Jobrot's deleting them from the lead).
5. Essentially, E. Aron has brought to popular awareness what has been studied as different names for the same or closely Related Concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Highly_sensitive_person&oldid=720850286#Related_concepts I thought that many cited references had indeed explicitly or implicitly validated the SPS concept.
6. Using a questionnaire (the HSPScale) is not inherently less valid than the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator questionnaire.
7. After my Jan-Feb 2016 overhaul of the article, I'm against the large deletions mentioned above, unless there is a specific valid reason to delete a particular item. Since Feb 2016 the article's content has been well organized (see its ToC).
8. I'm against merging with Sensitivity (human) for reasons just added to the article's talk page.

Let's not forget it's the general population who will look to Wikipedia for understanding of a term used in the popular press for two decades. — RCraig09 ( talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a case involving conspiracy theories at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am the moderator in this case, but extra input would be appreciated. The case hasn't started yet, so wait until I open the discussion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved, and it's worth noting that the filing party excluded me from their list of involved users. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw the case was recently opened by Jed Stuart ( talk), a single-purpose account whose sole focus on Wikipedia is lobbying for the idea that Electronic harassment - i.e. covert electronic mental torture of individuals by the government - is potentially real, rather than psychotic or delusional. The article includes multiple reliable sources that clearly show psychiatrists and mental health professionals are in agreement about the psychotic nature of such delusions, and so WP policy (specifically WP:FRINGE) requires the article to state this as fact. This is also the consensus of seasoned editors participating on the Talk page of the article. I won't be participating in the Dispute Resolution since (a) we're not going to negotiate changes to the article that violate WP editorial policies by saying the government may be inserting thoughts into people's heads against their will, and (b) WP:DR/N isn't the proper venue for such a clear case of fringe WP:ADVOCACY. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you should participate. The outcome of the case is -frankly- quite clear, even from the get-go. If you do not participate, then Jed has the logical ammo to argue that you're not editing in good faith, since you refused to participate in mediation. If you do, then Jed will be eventually stuck with either abiding by the decision reached there, or will be shown to be editing in bad faith, which would make an AE case easier. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I added my statement to the case file, however I'm not convinced this particular DR is worth participating in. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP just made a "Template" that is WP:BOLLOCKS. Really fringe argument there. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As I predicted, the DR has become a playground for the (how can I say this) differently rational. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sadly. @ MjolnirPants: can you make a statement about the template? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

State Crimes Against Democracy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ran across this article in my travels. Seems to be using Wikipedia's voice to promote a term that's known within the conspiracy/Truther echo chamber. Also the section State Crimes_Against Democracy#Relation to conspiracy theory argues for an alternative definition of "conspiracy theory" that favors conspiracy theorists, in Wikipedia's voice. The WP:FRINGE problem is a complete lack of criticism and objective analysis that would indicate how narrowly held the views presented in the article actually are. Doesn't help that the creator of the term (Lance deHaven-Smith) and a single SPA/sock are the major contributors. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I took a look. I'll watch it, too. I already salted the opening paragraph of that conspiracy theory section with {{ cn}} and {{ dubious}} tags. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

TNT complete. I'll put it up on AFD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD started, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Crimes Against Democracy. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a little off topic, but is "truther" a euphemism for all conspiracy theorists or just a particular brand? —PermStrump (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The term is generally understood to apply to those who subscribe to 9-11 conspiracy theories. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Truther is a DAB with the more common specific examples to which this label refers. DMacks ( talk) 20:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's a term that was coined by Lance deHaven Smith to mean "concerted actions or inactions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty." I don't see why it should be deleted. Something like Watergate would fit within the definition of this term. It doesn't take a "truther" to note that Watergate was a real thing. SageRad ( talk) 14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence of the term's widespread use in political science or law studies. deHaven Smith has written credulously about several conspiracy theories, which puts his views about this term into a fringe context. So unless someone can show that the term has jumped the border from fringe to mainstream, the article doesn't really meet the standards for inclusion here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible hoax article or is a non-notable chiropractic organisation. Recommending AFD. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Geez, none of the websites in the references resolve or seem to even be registered anymore. A few hits in Wayback on them only result in cached 404 errors [49] or default Wordpress screens [50]. If it's not a hoax, it sure seems non-notable. Found a tripod page [51] that is either hacked or was taken over by a spammer, and a barely active Facebook. [52] Yeah, AFD seems like a good idea. -- Krelnik ( talk) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the bogus refs and tagged the article. On a closer look however I don't think it is a complete hoax. But notability is highly doubtful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi Kappa Chi - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information-theoretic death Jytdog ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Decentralized autonomous organization and Talk:Decentralized autonomous organization could do with more eyes - questions over sourcing and tone on an article about an unlicensed investment scheme on a blockchain. More or less a carryover from similar at Ethereum - David Gerard ( talk) 10:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Help still needed with supplying the correct acronym soup to answer misconceptions on how Wikipedia sourcing works. The talk page is ... lengthy - David Gerard ( talk) 19:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone up for it? —PermStrump (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• John A. McDougall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

promotes a series of faddish weight loss diets which have found little favour with health professionals. The article is under constant assault from IPs (and lately a fresh account) wanting to remove criticism. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I had to revert twice in 10 minutes, lots of different IP's removing unsourced claims. I filed a RPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The same IP has been deleting criticisms on the Alain de Botton article. HealthyGirl ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RPP successful, filing one for Alain de Botton. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI (2nd nomination).

Please comment.

jps ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)