Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Discuss a possible fringe theory

What this noticeboard is for: Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience). Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here. Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard.

When starting a discussion: Make your comments as concise as possible. Other editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long messages. Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here. Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

“

...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy...

”

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

“

]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes as well as the aristocracy; it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family. At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Bristol.

”

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

“

A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision.

”

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

“

According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market.

”

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

Tommy Golden

I never knew that "using the right level of emotional sounds will reintroduce the living energy to the Zero-point energy". Awful article manages to weave "spirit communications", "zero-point energy", and "memory persistence" into a promotional bio of an unknown 'researcher'. Includes requisite giant size publicity headshot of subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good candidate for AfD. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Exorcism, er, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Golden. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Using the right level of emotional sounds will reintroduce the living energy to the Zero-point energy." Facedesk. Pound, pound, pound. The stupid, it burrrrrrrrrrrrns. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced rubbish. Waiting until the end of the AfD is too long for reasons of meta:Immediatism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubius article Quantum mind

The article appears to portray fringe views as mainstream. For example the section Gustav Bernroider appears to try and link a paper printed in Neuroquantology to what appears to be a respectable mainstream scientist with publications in Nature and Science to try and make it seem mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that Bernroider's papers are worth including at all? Are they a notable fringe viewpoint? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I don't see any reliable independent sources to indicate notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared out some of the undue stuff in the article. I've also removed the references which relied on neuroquantology as it seems to have pretty poor peer review with some very dubius articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be completely devoted to pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA consciousness

I became aware of this article due to a wikilink added to consciousness. I am inclined to think that the article should not exist. It is entirely devoted to the ideas of one John Grandy, whose only claim to notability seems to be that he has written a few articles for a couple of Sage Press encylopedias, and a couple of papers for minor journals. I don't see any evidence that anybody else has taken notice of his ideas. I frankly have given up hope of getting rid of the bogosity that overwhelms wikipedia -- what I would really like to do is remove the wikilink from consciousness, an article I have largely written and have been maintaining. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. An article on Grandy may be warranted, which summarizes his bold claims. But until this idea has some currency or has been debated by other scholars (psychologists, philosophers, biologists) it is a paradigmatic example of "fringe." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The article relies on just two types of references, irrelevant ones (used to document accepted neurobiology but in no way mentioning Grandy's theory), and Grandy's own writings in (of all things) an encyclopedia of anthropology, which is not where one would look for accepted neurobiology (especially one presenting the pet theories of an author who is just a registered physician's assistant). I don't see how his thoughts on DNA having thoughts carry the least bit of credibility, although I note that the purveyors of woo seem to have latched onto it on some web sites and he has given some conference talks. Does this constitute sufficient notability to justify such an overblown farce? Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One branch of anthropology is human evolution, and many anthropologists have expertise in genetics and evolutionary theory. But Grandy's theory really seems to be about consciousness - which is an area in which philosophers and psychologists have expertise ... and anthropologists. So raising a flag concerning anthropology is a red-herring. The problem is, we do not have enough evidence to tell whether Grandy is making an argument based on his own research or is speculating — and no evidence that other researchers care. This is what we really need to know to determine whether it is fringe or notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis of the article, but let's not get personal about Grundy. Remember that patent clerk? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Those with terminal degrees in the area about which they are speaking, holding professional positions at the top of the relevant field (i.e. a faculty post or commercial scientific advisorship), or with substantial records of peer-reviewed publication are given the presumption of expertise. The patent clerk speaking about physics had to demonstrate his expertise by the power of his argument, by getting it past peer review and by its acceptance among those with expertise in the field. You don't get the benefit of the doubt just by coming up with a lame-brained idea and self-publicizing it. Yes, someone with no formalized training could come up with a new concept that better explains life as we know it, but every yahoo with a novel 'idea' does not get a Wikipedia page dedicated to their 'insight' just because of the successes of one patent clerk, any more than everyone 'persecuted' by the establishment must be onto something just because Galileo was persecuted. His level of expertise is relevant. WP allows the use of self-published/publicized material if coming from an expert. Nothing against PAs, but a physician's assistant talking about DNA consciousness does not qualify, any more than when an engineer says something delusional about evolution or an astronomer shoots his mouth off about paleontology. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that his job is irrelevant to an analysis of the article about his ideas. If they are accepted, or given credence, or comprehensively refuted, in reliable mainstream sources then we report that: if they are ignored in mainstream sources then we ignore them too. We judge the ideas by what the sources say, not by what Grundy's job is. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And my point is that this isn't entirely correct, because self-published sources are treated differently when they come from an expert, and one's job is relevant when evaluating expertise. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not suitable for Wikipedia, and I think an AfD is the best solution. See Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 27#User:BOK602/DNA consciousness where we learn "An article on a new subject not covered elsewhere. I'm seeking feedback on how to publish it to Wikipedia." Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical explanations of bewitchment

A novelist seems resolute on inserting her personal theories into the article. Without regard to the merits of her conjectures, her theory is backed up only by her own novel, and not by secondary sources. In addition to conflict of interest issues, the issues of reliable sourcing and notability are involved. The article will probably require monitoring, and I would prefer not to be the only one doing so. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly that section should not be there, but the whole article seems to be suffering from some form of curse or split-personality. It looks as though it started off as an article about the Salem trials, and then was expanded, but not altered sufficiently. The lede section talks about witch trials n general, and then sweepingly says that all medical explnations are rejected by historians, which is palpably untrue of some cases (eg John Law's stroke which started the trials of the Pendle witches). Either the article should go back home to Salem, or give a more rounded view of the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Black holes as cold dark matter

Recently this passage was deleted from the Cold dark matter article as "fringe":

Black holes are known to exist in abundance. Intermediate mass black holes of about 100,000 solar masses in galactic halos are consistent with observations of wide binaries as well as microlensing and galactic disk stability.(ref name=frampton2011>Frampton and Ludwick (2011) "Number and Entropy of Halo Black Holes" Astropart. Phys. 34:617-9</ref>(ref>Frampton et al (2010) "Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter" Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010(04):023</ref> Smaller black holes are also a possibility.(ref>Hawkins, M.R.S. (2011) "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter" 415(3):2744–57</ref>(ref>Worsley, A. (2012) "Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of the Galactic Halo" Applied Physics Research 4(1):128-37</ref>(ref name=gsfc2004>Goddard Space Flight Center (May 14, 2004). "Dark Matter may be Black Hole Pinpoints". NASA's Imagine the Universe. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/14may04.html. Retrieved 2008-09-13. </ref>

Many of the authors involved, such as Paul Frampton and Michael Hawkins are extremely prestigious, and most of those sources are peer reviewed in prestegious journals, while some of them are WP:SECONDARY literature reviews. Although the editor who deleted the passage claims that their sources at Talk:Dark matter#intermediate mass black holes and the subsequent section somehow proves that the idea of black holes as dark matter is a fringe theory, that seems completely absurd to me, and the top non-Wikipedia Google search hits on ["dark matter" "black holes"] clearly confirm that they are a top possibility; e.g. [3]. Now the editor who deleted that passage has apparently accused me of being Paul Frampton, even though everyone ought to be able to see that I am in Colorado from my IP address (and for the record, I am a statistician, not an astrophysicist.) Would someone please do us the favor of evaluating whether this is a fringe theory? 67.6.175.184 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that black holes might be dark matter is not fringe (although the theory that they could have masses of 100,000 solar masses is - that's what I was referring to, not to Hawkins' views). As far as I know, Frampton is the only person in the world advocating the point of view that 100,000 solar mass black holes can be dark matter. In fact, decades of accumulated evidence have convinced the vast majority of experts that dark matter cannot be black holes of any mass, or indeed any kind of large, massive object (so-called "MACHOs"), let alone 100,000 solar mass holes.

The strongest evidence against such objects comes from direct searches - MACHOs passing in front of the field of view of a telescope produce detectable lensing effects, and if MACHOs are present in sufficient abundance to be dark matter, they would have been detected in the correspondingly large abundance, but several dedicated searches failed to find them.

To support this I went out and found eight (!) recent reviews of dark matter physics. I didn't pre-select them in any way, I found the first eight I could (by google and by using some specialized astrophysics search engines). Of those eight, several never mention black holes as dark matter at all (bear in mind that these are 50-100 page overviews of the topic, some intended for experts and some for students that are learning the subject). Of the reviews that did mention MACHOs or black holes, all were unanimous in saying that they are ruled out as a dark matter candidate, and devoted a short paragraph (again, out of 50-100 pages) to saying so. I added those sources to the article, including quotes.

Given wiki's due weight policy, I don't think Frampton's theory should be mentioned at all unless the article is made much longer. Wiki articles are supposed to represent the prevailing view and accord alternate views due weight, which in this case seems to be pretty close to zero. There are many other possibilities and important points that carry significantly more weight with the community and aren't discussed. Even in a long version of the article, its lack of coverage in all eight reviews indicates that Frampton's theory shouldn't be mentioned at all, while black holes should be discussed briefly. As it is now, in a fairly short section black holes are mentioned (in both the dark matter and cold dark matter articles). Waleswatcher (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that Waleswatcher deleted both theories of intermediate mass black hole dark matter and stellar mass black hole dark matter as "fringe". Frampton, "the only person in the world" who Whaleswatcher says advocates the idea that IMBHs can be dark matter, has at least six co-authors on his two papers that suggest the possibility, both of which were very recently peer reviewed by prestigious journals. Actually reading the papers which Waleswatcher deleted will explain to anyone who wishes to take the time and effort that microlensing, wide binary orbits, and the cosmic microwave background are at present thought to be compatible with black hole dark matter, although only three to five years ago there was reason to believe that all three excluded the possibility. I asked Waleswatcher twice whether he has a financial conflict of interest in WIMP searches, and although he did not deny the possibility, that is when he suggested that I was Professor Frampton.

I am grateful that Waleswatcher now says that stellar mass black hole dark matter is not a fringe theory, but I would like others' opinions on IMBH dark matter, too, please. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dualus. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post on Cold Fusion

"Helium-3, an isotope that in the future may support cold fusion when earthlings finally figure out how to make it happen, is another potential treasure."[4] - I thought the Washington Post was firmly siding with the mainstream science view that cold fusion was completely debunked and crackpot ? How can earthlings ever make it happen, when according to everything mainstream science knows it does not and never will exist. Or is this a sign that the view on cold fusion is really changing lately ?

• CERN colloquium on LENR

Is the topic becoming more acceptable for discussion in mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's advisable to use this noticeboard as a form of blog for advocating personal views on the future of cold fusion. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. The Washington Post and other newspapers often write in sensationalist terms about science, so do not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. There is so much language of potentiality in the Wash. Post article, and so little of substance: we may mine on the moon, there could be He³ there, it might be used for cold fusion.... It's really something of a Pop Sci-style "soon everyone may have a flying car" advocacy piece, not a reliable source on the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to insert a quibble... Major news outlets like the Washington Post usually do count as WP:RS for writing Wikipedia articles - However, reliability is not necessarily a binary "yes/no" assessment. It is a sliding scale... with some sources being considered more reliable than others (an assessment that changes depending on the specific topic). When it comes to statements about science, there are other sources that are considered far more reliable than media outlets. Our goal is to base our articles on the most reliable sources possible. So, we should rely on those other sources instead of the Washington Post. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What this noticeboard is for: Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience). --POVbrigand (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"...especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience". Within those topics we don't need to give advice, as policy is clear enough already - we base articles (particularly those making claims of radical breakthroughs etc) on mainstream peer-reviewed sources and the like. Yes it is interesting that CERN is holding a colloquium on LENR, but since we don't know what will occur at the colloquium, we are in no position to say what effect (if any) it will have on the views of mainstream science on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like poor editing -- sounds like the writer is mixing up normal fusion research and science fiction. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Schuman -and- Schuman Declaration

All the stress around the word 'supranational' and Schuman's prominent authorship appears to be exclusive voicing of the author of the site schuman.info (dating back to Apr.22,2007 with adds on Mar.26,2009; referenced himself Feb.12,2007).

Though containing a few relevant corrections, the paragraphs are verbose, blurring and have poor factual contents. Apparently the same author made similar inserts in the 'Schuman Declaration' article.

I put abit more details in the Schuman_declaration Talk page. Wouldn't the plain removing of most of the contributions from these dates solve the bannered WP:COI problem, if not also the WP:Refimprove one ? Gwaevl (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)