Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Is astral projection pseudoscience?

• Astral projection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some discussion on this on the Talk page. Input from wise fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think even psuedoscience gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Astrology is pseudoscience. Astral projection is... a 9th level spell in dungeons and dragons. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

True believers want to weasel their way out of being a pseudoscience on that article. 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually: non-believers were merely defending the page from an inaccurate label. Only specific contexts make this pseudoscientific. It is a practice, a belief, and a psychological phenomenon that predates science by centuries. Only very limited contexts even refer to it in a scientific manner. There is a big difference between a prescientific belief not based on empiricism and a pseudoscience. Studies of it and certain applications can be pseudoscientific without making it a pseudoscience. Those who wished to label it as "a pseudoscience" were unable to find a single reliable source that took the claim that far without making their own inferencial conclusions. Sticking with dictionary definitions: being fringe and unscientific is not the same as being pseudoscientific. The distinction may seem small, but this is an encyclopedia. To exceed the definitions of our sources is patently dishonest. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The contexts where scientific claims were made which can be identified as pseudoscientific are clearly laid out in the sources and in the article. People may have good faith disagreements over whether that means we should say that the subject is a pseudoscience full stop or whether we should instead try to be more careful in our wording. As it is, the claims are so outrageous that they tend to be made almost exclusively today by people who accommodate a pseudoscientific outlook when arguing in favor of their belief in astral projection. As such, it is not dishonest to identify the subject as being pseudoscientific and it seems that you don't have a problem with its description as such either, so your argument here seems a bit peculiar. jps (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was merely objecting to the one unsigned and inaccurate description of the dispute above. Being called 'a believer' which I am not and accused of 'weaseling out' of being a pseudoscience. I felt the small-minded obligation to set the record straight. Especially when it looked like an attempt to rally editors to a fight by misinforming them and unsettling the debate. A debate that, as we agree, is well enough settled.

But look at how many 'weasel words' you need to justify the phrasing of pseudoscience 'full stop': "they tend to be made almost exclusively today by people who accommodate a pseudoscientific outlook when arguing in favor of their belief." That's what I mean when I say it's only under certain conditions that the title applies.

If the article only described a modern movement of people making science based claims I would agree that it makes sense to call it a pseudoscience. But as the article stands, it goes into a long history of mysticism that does not read well with the skeptical lense anymore than the pages on Jesus or Krishna would. The fact is that historical yogic texts explore the subject extensively as well as taoist texts and in that context it is a piece of a belief system. And when dealing with spiritual beliefs it becomes unduly patronizing and unencyclopedic to sum it up terms like pseudoscience. Science minded people don't buy into any spirit based claims and generally don't need the disclaimer put everywhere spirits are mentioned. It's more that a person claiming he can remote view things with astral projection that warrants a skeptic to point out "no he can't". So again, I believe we agree that the majority of the subtopics on that page are pseudoscience. Just not all the topics on the page are suited to that interpretive lense. Hence the qualifying context or ending "tific".

You can believe in ghosts, but it's the guys trying to film and measure ghosts who practice pseudoscience. The guy who thinks his house is haunted is just superstitious. Ghosts aren't pseudoscience, but the Ghost Hunters practice pseudoscience.

And remember: in addition to being a belief, it is also an experiential phenomenon. That is to say, like an acid trip, you can experience it and fully realize it was in your head. Saying you saw a pegasus while hallucinating isn't a scientific claim. You can still be aware that wasn't a pegasus but that you 'saw' one.

The belief aspect extends to some degree even to astrology and alchemy as well. I don't believe in them, but a large part of them exist inseparably tangled within historic belief systems. To such a degree that the terminology of alchemy becomes identical to the terminology of spiritual perfection in taoism (the outer and inner elixers). Usually saying they drank mercury and died is adequate to express that alchemy didn't lead to immortality without the word pseudoscience being a useful elaboration. To say they can't actually make gold or tell the future doesn't require the word pseudoscience, per se, especially when talking about people who didn't practice modern science. But there are plenty of contexts within astrology and alchemy where it is highly appropriate to call out pseudoscience. Especially with modern day 'medicine-men' scamming people or even deluding themselves. This is where the term fits like a glove. It was meant for calling out harmful quackery like phrenology, psychic surgery, and eugenics. Territory where these traditional practices are sometimes taken.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia needs to balance precision with readability and effective conveyance of information. Nuance is the fact of life, but it does us no good to ignore the basic points in favor of what if and minor exceptions. "Astral projection", as a term, is basically the provenance of pseudoscientific supporters. Are there exceptions? Yes. But the exceptions do not the rule make and when describing a subject on Wikipedia it isn't good to dwell on exceptions when trying to adhere to WP:SUMMARY-style. I am reminded of the story from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the entry on "Earth" is changed from "Harmless" to "Mostly Harmless".

No doubt that people sometimes describe acid trips as "astral projection", for example. However, this to me does not detract from the point that the majority of sources we have couch the specific "astral projection" term in the context of pseudoscientific arguments. I think your comparison to alchemy is apt, and I would argue that most of the sources identify the pseudoscience of astral projection in similar regards.

jps (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

#SleepOnIt

John Douillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This alt med practitioner is telling everyone to sleep on their left side because it's "healthier". I notice that his biography here at Wikipedia reads like a snowjob. Can we get some improvement? Or is that impossible?

jps (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Lying left-side down has been shown to reduce recumbent esophageal acid exposure which in turn reduces Gastroesophageal reflux disease and risk of Barrett's esophagus Joshgreene (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

But that is not a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't even something mentioned in the biography that needs citation, I only defend the practice because there is research on it and it was the only objection raised about the person.

Related articles

Related to the above, Joshgreene (talk · contribs) has written a number of articles which may be of dubious notability related to ayurveda:

• Abhyangha
• Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America
• Ayurvedic Institute
• California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine
• California College of Ayurveda
• Churna
• Devi Ma Kunja
• Dinacharya
• Dinacharya Institute
• Mount Madonna Institute
• National Ayurvedic Medical Association
• Sarita Shrestha
• Svedana
• Vasant Lad

jps (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the facts or information of an article by all means please raise them, otherwise WP:AGF and stop your POV crusading. Joshgreene (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have an issue with whether these articles all pass WP:NFRINGE. I think many do not. Many appear to be soapboxes for pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand where the line is being drawn between being a traditional/alternative medicine and not being notable. Authors like Vasant Lad, accuracy aside, are certainly well known and frequently used within the notable Ayurvedic community. I can name accredited universities that assign his textbooks including Loyola Marymount University. I mean, Dr. Oz gets a page. It's just not a flattering page. I assume some of these subjects might not be notable, but is all of ayurveda being dismissed as a fringe topic instead of being labeled as a traditional medicine of whatever effectiveness? Is the same thing happening to all the massage pages and traditional chinese medicine? Putting skepticism on the pages is one thing, but removing a page like abhyanga is as ridiculous as removing blood letting. It doesn't matter if it works. If people have been doing it for hundreds of years it should get an entry, to say nothing of the balanced way that article should be written. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea is that there needs to be independent sources for us to assess notability. The problem with ideas that are not accepted by the mainstream is that the subjects tend to form WP:Walled gardens that are impenetrable to normal sourcing standards. It is hard to judge whether a given Ayurvedic practitioner or organization is notable until some who isn't an Ayurvedic practitioner references them in a serious way. Those are the kinds of sources that speak to notability. This serves an important purpose. If we just accepted the citation palm greasing that can occur with fringe topics, then Wikipedia would be filled with credulously written text based on poor sourcing.

The question we need to answer is, "Where are the sources?" In terms of Vasant Lad, I found none from people who were not Ayurveda true believers, but I'm willing to be convinced that there are sources out there which do allow us accordance with WP:FRIND and WP:BLPFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra (yet) again

I wondered why there'd been an upsurge of NNPOV edits at Deepak Chopra and sure enough:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-i_b_8726130.html

The highlight is the argument for the respectability of the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience journal, just after (as it happens) Frontiers Media has been added to Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory open access publishers. There's other silliness beside. As always, fringe-savvy editors are encouraged to keep an eye out ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice timing. If only there was some recent scientific research putting Chopra's pseudo-profound bullshit into some sort of context. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the Huffpost article at all? I find it troubling that you generalise Chopra's work as pseudo-profound bullshit. prokaryotes (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very much biased for the scientific mainstream. Orthodox skeptics love the scientific mainstream (scientific orthodoxy, if you wish). So, the article on Chopra criticizes him from going very, very far from scientific orthodoxy. The difference between Einstein and Chopra is that Einstein very much designed our current scientific orthodoxy, so he has successfully produced a paradigm change. Chopra's intention is indeed to produce a paradigm change, but all he could reach in this respect is peddling pseudoscience. I don't know exactly what Chopra did before turning to New Age, but there is a quote from The Adventure of the Empty house by Conan Doyle: "There are some trees, Watson, which grow to a certain height and then suddenly develop some unsightly eccentricity. You will often see it in humans." Source of the quote: Dutch Journal Against Quackery, Dec. 2015, p. 39. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is biased towards the mainstream, and in matters of scientific inquiry we follow the scientific consensus. This is by design.

It's a singular fact that in almost any debate, references to "paradigm shifts" correlate very strongly with advocacy of ideas that are refuted by science. No "paradigm shift" will ever render the statement "consciousness is nonlocal" as anything other than bullshit. Murray Gell-Mann even coined a term for this kind of thing: quantum flapdoodle. I have no problem with mystics. I greatly admire the Dalai Lama. I do have a problem with people who try to pretend that new-age mysticism is some kind of scientific profundity and that they have arcane knowledge that real scientists who study the real wonders of the universe, somehow do not have. Science is hard, bullshit is easy. Why bother with the hard stuff if you can get away with bullshit instead? Guy (Help!) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 5 49–563

BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Raw foodism

Terrible, terrible article, large parts of it need gutted. Includes such lovely text as:

“ Demand for unpasteurized, or raw, milk is growing among consumers concerned about chemicals, hormones, and drugs in milk.[123] Some oppose pasteurization on the grounds that - in their view - it impairs the quality of milk by denaturing enzymes and proteins, and killing beneficial bacteria.[124] According to the FDA, some of the health benefits claimed by some raw milk advocates do not exist.[125]

Raw dairy advocates have claimed that government agencies are heavily biased against raw dairy, providing incomplete facts or erroneous statistics.

[End of section]

”

It's a terrible article. I'll be slowly gutting it of the worst claims over the next few days, but could use a hand. It's one of those highly cherry-picked articles, where every bit of evidence of any effect of cooking that's negative is quoted, but none of the evidence against raw food is, so it requires a lot of nuke and pave. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice the very first reference in the article says "The raw food diet is based on the belief by some alternative medicine practitioners that the most healthful food for the body is uncooked." That overriding alternative medicine influence doesn't get a mention in the article. Would like to help with the balance of this article can make only fleeting visits to Wiki because of real life commitments. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. In July 2014 [1] I wrote, "Looks to me the problem is a combination of poor sources (WP:MEDRS should be followed and is not), selective sourcing to give undue weight to certain points of view, simply ignoring related topics (eg Antinutrient), and the organization of the material (especially "Common beliefs", "Research", "Controversies")." We've made little progress since. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a start. It quickly became clear that the research section especially of the article was not only cherrypicked, but also misrepresenting studies, mentioning only the conclusions favourable to raw foodism from each, in a kind f Gish gallop of bad cites. I trimmed it down severely, and added a couple buried studies. I suspect a lot of sources are badly misrepreseted still; but I made a start at getting it to a manageable level. Throughout the rest of the article, there were numerous bad sources - I think I remember a Natural News cite - and I've been cutting those on sight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finding six main types of problems:

1. Cherrypicking, Pt. 1: Quoting any and all studies on the dangers of cooking, without regard to whether they show raw food is better, or if they're representative of research. Or sometimes when the report itself notes it conflicts with the mainstream view.
2. Synthesis: E.g. E.g. quoting talk of trace amounts of trans fats created in cooking, followed by a study talking about the dangers of trans fats in large quantities.
3. Cherrypicking, Pt. 2: Quoting only the parts of studies that support raw food, even when the study as a whole is ambiguous or negative.
4. Outright misleading presentations: E.g. a report on the smog cloud over Asia, caused primarily by dirty cooking fires, acting to encourage global warming was used to categorically say that cooking causes global warming.
5. Order of presentation - Putting all the mainstream points right at the end of the article, after pages and pages of advocacy.
6. Bad sources: Advocacy sources being used to talk science.

I've begun to fix these, but a big part of that is just cutting material. Can people watchlist this, please? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The section on food poisoning is the weirdest alarmism. The dangers of eating a banana, I venture to assert, are low. Every normal healthy diet includes raw foods, and that section, talking about contamination of lettuce, spinach etc., confuses the normal eating of raw foods with a diet based exclusively on raw foods. They are very different things. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Good point. I've cut it down to things not commonly eaten raw. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

... and now there's blowback[2] at raw foodism. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique

Nomination of what appears to be a meaningless chiropractic buzzword; perhaps the article is salvageable, but one rather needs to be able to define a term before an article on it becomes appropriate, surely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hale Boggs

For monitoring: Congressmen Hale Boggs (a member of the Warren Commission) and Nick Begich are presumed to have died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1972. Although Boggs was a critic of the single-bullet theory, he did not dispute that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Still, the conspiracy-minded suggest he was killed because of his rejection of the SBT. Per Talk:Hale Boggs, a new version of this theory based on a primary source, synth of secondary sources, and an alternative weekly has made its way into the article. (diff) - Location (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Raw feeding

Even worse than Raw foodism in many ways. So, let's first discuss: Should this be its own article, or should we merge? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a different subject, though it's much the same woo - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Stainless steel soap

I am trying to expand our article on Stainless steel soap, but am having trouble finding any reliable sources that test for the alleged effect. It really smells like something somewhere between pseudoscience and outright fraud ("are you bothered by the smell of pseudoscience? Try our stainless steel soap! Removes the stink of bunk, flim-flam and even snake oil in seconds!!") but I would really like to be able to cite the results of a double blind test. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we use some sort of powdered stainless steel as an alternative to detergent in our washing machines? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in Osteopathy

Some questions about terminology and sourcing for the pseudoscientific component of osteopathy (the things collectively called OMT or Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment). More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method

• Feldenkrais Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor seems unhappy with the inclusion of the recently-published Australian report recommending against insurance cover for 17 altmed practices (of which the Feldenkrais Method was one). More generally the article is a bit bamboozling (from the lede: "Feldenkrais aims were to improve upon previously established neural network patterns... engendering a clearer, more efficient self image and use of self"). Could uses eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) starts by stating that "It is often triggered after the patient has received a viral infection or vaccination". Later, we find that "The only vaccine proven to induce ADEM is the Semple form of the rabies vaccine" but that "Large scale epidemiological studies (e.g., of MMR vaccine or smallpox vaccine) do not show increased risk of ADEM following vaccination". In other words, the call-out in the lede appears to be an antivax trope. Now guess who bacame a Warrior for Scientific Truth after his brother got this "after" a vaccine? Gilles-Eric Séralini, darling of the anti-science brigade. I think a careful review of tihs article is in order. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your source that Sersalini became a warrior for scientific truth after his brother got it (using your words)? Notice that you should not use your own synthesis, also you should bother and read the talk page. This factoid you mentioned here was only part of the article because Jytdog readded it after an IP removed it. prokaryotes (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not article space, I am free to state things how I like. I don't care who added it, the phrasing was tendentious as it implied a causal link for which there is no credible evidence. The vaccine encepahlomyelitis trope is an anti-vax trope and should not eb included without substantial analytical sources. As a factoid, it adds nothing to the article anyway. And I do encourage others to look at the article because it relies far too heavily on Séralini's own work. X published a paper claiming Y, source, X's paper claiming Y, is barely acceptable when the claim is uncontroversial. When it's controversial and widely disputed, we don't include it without reliable independent secondary sources to establish the significance and context, per absolutely standard Wikipedia practice. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

N.b. Prokaryotes is community banned from all articles related to vaccination. [3]. jps (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Socionics

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

User:Sounderk deletes characterisation and critics from the article about fringe theory of socionics: 1 (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is a famous pseudscientific society in Russia), 2, 3. If you check contributions, it is clear that he/she is an one-purpose-account, presumably from International institute of socionics (fringe organisation developing socionics in Ukraine)—as the references to «hundreds and thousands of scientific papers on socionics» (published mainly by this institution) and to «outdated critics» (connected to very rare discussions of the socionics in respectable scientific journals, especially by psychologists) are very typical for people from this organization. You can check it in the discussion about socionics in Russian WP (sorry, in Russian). --Melirius (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

After administrator’s explaining Guy (Help!) I am not going to delete this criticism. But I want to elaborate my point of view on these controversial changes. This is a mistake or a selective presentation of sources. 1. Among 2500 academic sources Melirius found only 5 you can some any critical material about socionics. He put them at the very first part of the article. But first - it's just a personal web - blog. 2 source - a philosophers: Monastyrsky and Mineev, who are neither psychologists nor sociologists. But a number of other philosophers have a positive opinion of socionics. Monastyrsky himself proposes to pay attention to "the concept of socionics type". Also in the book of the philosopher Meneev, the term "socionics" is used only once (!) without any reference and analysis. 4 - one phrase: prof. Shmelev does not writes about Socionics, but about "authors of Socionics", because it is a review of the book about the MBTI. 5. Prof. Bogomaz worked on socionics and even his own socionics test. Therefore, he did not criticize socionics at all. When Melirius writes "Prof. S.A. Bogomaz state that there were a huge flow of psuedoscientific-popular, largely too enthusiastic publications in the field, that damages socionics in the eyes of psychological society of Russia". Melirius ignores that Bogomaz wrote this back in 2000, with reference to his own 1995 paper. Thus, this is not the secondary source, but the primary one. And now, in 2015, that information is just out of date! But Melirius didn’t write that Prof. Bogomaz gave his assessment of the works of other authors of socionics as a secondary source: "At the same time Prof. S.A. Bogomaz considers the socionic typology as an version of post-Jung typology and believes that on a number of criteria it is more perspective than the American version (MBTI) for the study of the differences between people, because it expands the volume of the typological features and offers an opportunity to form various typological groups with different motivations, attitudes, temperament, perception of information and thinking styles. It is also important the existence of preconditions to study intertype relations, that are substantially not developed within MBTI. S.A. Bogomaz thinks that the creation of the theory of intertype relationships is undoubtedly contribution of A.Augustinavichiute to the development of Jung typologies " 6. Thus, such "criticism" is very questionable and simply incorrect. At the same time socionics is taught in more than 150 public universities either as a separate discipline, or as part of other disciplines and is used in aviation and aerospace, sport pedagogy, management and other fields. 7. I wrote that that it was not suitable especially for the beginning of the article. We need to create a separate section of "criticism" at the end of the article, as is customary in other articles of Wikipedia. But the criticism should be constructive, valid and correct.--Sounderk (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to note here that the account Sounderk was registered three days ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Federation of German Scientists

• Federation of German Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Actually, this is really about Séralini again. He was given an award by this body and there is some dispute about how this fact should be neutrally presented taking into account the WP:FRINGE aspects in play. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes seems to me to be pretty much the only one who does not want to include reliable independent secondary sources discussing the award, but instead cite only the primary source, which very obviously has a disputed take on the facts. Your edits are well supported on Talk, his are not. I encourage anybody who's interested to review the article's edit history and judge for themselves. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking to no avail, but has the aspect of awards given to a fringe BLP subject been disscused either here or at the guideline talk page? I seem to recall some large conversation on it at least (maybe related to climate change deniers), but the subject is escaping me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all awards, the questions for inclusion are (a) whether the award is notable, and (b) whether there is a reliable source showing that the award was given. The subject's involvement with non-mainstream viewpoints should have no bearing on this inclusion criterea.Dialectric (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue I'm getting at is when fringe BLPs have awards for their fringe advocacy. Including awards for non-mainstream viewpoints can become undue weight by validating the viewpoint, which is why care is required. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

Anyone familiar with this subject? This is a GA that seems to have a fringe theory described in the lead (third paragraph) without any mention of opposing viewpoints. I'd normally remove it by default, but it looks like it was already discussed on the talk page and was ultimately kept. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Living Ethics

I think Living Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is WP:FRINGE but I can't rightly say because the article itself reads to me as gobbledegook. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Ethics. jps (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

Paleolithic diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did some clean-up on the lede of this page, but as it is has been tagged for more than a year it is clear that more work could be done.

jps (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pecked at this from time to time and agree it needs work. One problem has been the confusion between The Paleo Diet™ and OR that tries to mingle this with suggestive stuff about paleolithic nutrition. The Paleo Diet itself is based on some fringey misconceptions. The book Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk has some corrective material (and I even bought a hard copy of this with the aim of improving the article but alas Fringe longa, vita brevis). Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

God, is every crank diet the soruce of terrible articles? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes (mostly). And it's a growing field. I've been thinking that Fad diet could become a good hub article with each entry in the list of diets having some brief NPOV descriptive text of each diet that is in WP:SYNC with that diet's main article. That might make the whole area more manageable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Diet woo is one of the most profitable forms of bullshit: one hollywood endorsement can sell a metric fucktonne of books. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Precautionary principle

Precautionary principle could use a few more eyes. The main issue is being discussed at Talk:Precautionary_principle#Whitepapers_not_reliable_sources.3F where a non-peer reviewed and self-published source has been repeatedly added by a new editor.[4] They also appear to be a WP:SPA citing the author Nassim Taleb in nearly all their article edits, and I'm not sure how to handle that in the context of fringe advocacy right now.

This is another GMO related issue. One argument coming up is that since the precautionary principle article isn't about GMOs, it's fine to insert the content specifically about GMOs without the higher scrutiny we usually give to scientific sources such as peer review, which I'm seeing some major WP:COATRACK issues with. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is this pushback against asking for peer-reviewed sources coming from lately? Today, I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Review_articles_and_peer_review on this very issue. Certainly, there are many reliable sources that are not peer reviewed, but when it comes to statements of fact, peer review should be the gold standard at the very least. White papers, sponsored reports, conference proceedings, and preprints should all be treated as preliminary primary sources that have not been fully vetted. They can be used, but the content being sourced should be couched as the opinion of the authors rather than fact. This has been the standard operating procedure at Wikipedia for as long as I've known. Did it change recently? jps (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Even a peer-reviewed article is a primary source, most published research findings are wrong, so we really need review articles if we're going to make confident statements of fact. It must be remembered that cranks these days are very good at publishing irreproducible studies "proving" the cherished belief they set out to prove. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions now active on GMO-related pages

I am posting this here so others don't get caught in the same trap I did:

jps (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Metatron's Cube

Metatron's Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This survived an AFD attempt and for whatever reason got merged into Flower of Life (geometry), with which it shares almost all the same problems. Right now the only statement about it that I can source and which is relevant is "this image is called 'Metatron's Cube' by various New Age types." There's no source at all that dates further back than 1999, at best, and no source that says all the graph theory or whatever geometric burbling pads out the section is at all meaningful to anyone. Of course every citation is to what I would consider a primary source about New age/etc. claims. The claim that it is "sacred" I have to regard as bosh.

I'm not sure I can source this at all with something even vaguely authoritative. Any ideas? Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can do is a geometry package using it as a title for an example piece: [5],

The Flower of Life page seems to have been voted to be deleted a few motnths back, then not deleted, and kept in a subsequent vote. That's just weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. What happened was a user with a particularly good geometry background spiffed up the article to match the tenor and type of other related articles (such as vesica pisces and platonic solid). jps (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercharge Me and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2nd nomination)

Both of these films appear to have minimal coverage - a couple press-release-ish articles, and that's it. I'm going through the Books and Films part of Template:Veganism and vegetarianism; most are, at least, notable, whatever their other issues, but for some, the best you can say is they exist, really.

I suspect there's going to be a few more of this type, but I want to carefully research each of them first. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Carnism

While the basic concept underlying it - ethics of vegetarianism - isn't fringe, "Carnism" as a term and philosophical view has one proponent, Melanie Joy and one main source, her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. The article is a horrendous example of WP:SYNTH, consisting of points sourced to the book coupled with sources not talking about carnism that agree or support the points made. See Talk:Why_We_Love_Dogs,_Eat_Pigs,_and_Wear_Cows#Carnism_merge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And the annoying thing is I'd actually trying to be more vegetarian, so it's not like I'm opposed to the view that reduction of meat would be better. But I'm a Wikipedian first; we should cover this after it's established philosophy, not while it's still just a blunt propoganda term with one advocate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Finasteride

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation, I am unclear as to whether we are covering this purported syndrome correctly in Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A lot of discussion of the purported syndrome looks distinctly fringey to me, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It helps to read things twice... I initially misread the topic of this thread... seeing it as "Fenestracide" (which I assumed was somehow related to death by Defenestration - The "Post-Fenestracide Syndome Foundation" presumably being formed to help people traumatized by being thrown out of a tall building... or something similar) my bad Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they have started a praguematic trial... Guy (Help!) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your czech is in the mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an absolutely classic fringe bio. Khuda-Buksh produced a paper in the SCAM-specific BMC Complementary Medicine, purporting to show that homeopathic arsenicum album cures arsenic poisoning in mice. This was diligently promoted and resulted in a small number of reports of the claim in reliable sources (BBC, Nature India, New Scientist). Here we are over 12 years later and it has never been reproduced or successfully exploited to develop any usable treatment. Hardly a surprise since homeopathy is bullshit and the vast majority of so-called basic research in homeopathy could be published in the Archives of Irreproducible Results. So, based on that tiny, obviously incorrect and unreproduced study, we have a biography, which has at various times noted that he got a standing ovation from a room full of other homeopathy believers. I nominated it for deletion but it was kept based on one anonymous user's addition of more reports from 2003 of that same paper. I do not think one bullshit paper that has gone nowhere, qualifies per WP:PROF. The anon claims that being a professor emeritus is a singular honour in India. It's not: it just means he's retired. If we're going to have an article, it needs sources based on more than one event, I think, but every source I find is so full of homeopathy wibble that it makes my eyes bleed so it needs someone with more patience that I have for reading drivel. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Ruggero Santilli is a physicist who propounds esoteric ideas of quantum mechanics, chemistry, and who considers both the Theory of Relativity and the Nobel Prize to be Jewish conspiracies. The biographical page, already long, is periodically expanded by editors wishing to propound and defend Santilli’s theories. Santilli runs a number of fringy journals and institutes; many of the sources currently used in the article are not clearly independent. The article appears to act as a fringe magnet. Might we be better off without it? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should have articles on notable fringe pushers, articles which actually state that they are fringe pushers. But I don't know if Santilli is notable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Taured mystery

Taured mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This popped up in the New Pages feed. The sources used are abysmal, but does anyone know if the purported incident itself is notable? Kolbasz (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Some obscure non-english sources pop up, but the topic has no real footprint in reliable sources that I can find. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taured mystery is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

There is some strong fringe-pushing on this article. I recently had to delete an entire section dedicated to Stephen E. Braude quoting him as saying there is "outstanding evidence for a degree of PK far surpassing that apparently demonstrated in laboratory experiments" [6] JuliaHunter (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

I recently nominated the article for deletion because it does not seem to meet notability per WP:ORG outside of certain naturopathic communities. It would be good to have more opinions on the AfD discussion from more experienced editors, especially because it deals with fringe issues. There appears to be some concern that it meets GNG because it is a non-profit organization. Delta13C (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hitlers testicles.

A german claims Hitler suffered from monorchism, several newsoutlets parrot the statement. Various other sources claim there's nothing wrong with the testicles of the Führer. Is this Fringe? WP:RECENTISM (book just published)? None of the biographies I've read (several) confirms the claim and since the book has only recently been published. After the Hitler Diaries i'm extremly skeptical about any sudden, intimate revelations about Hitler. Could someone please take a look? Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Wormcast the German that you are referring to? Main article is Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism but it is also being added as Cryptorchidism by different editors. Also added to template. For more background:

• Sixteen threads in archives for Hitler (maybe other threads depending on words searched - 2nd search)
• Talk:Monorchism#Notables?
• Mentioned in Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler
• Mentioned in Discrediting tactic as having been put out by the British and Soviets as a hoax
• ...and then there is the song, Hitler Has Only Got One Ball.

The same has been suggested of Francisco Franco and Hermann Goering, too. Likely a hoax. Speculations are often sensationalisms designed to sell books or otherwise get attention.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The recent "report" is not conclusive evidence. And one must take into account other "claims" as to Hitler which were reported in the press and books as the past, such as the Soviet false propaganda as to Hitler's death and the Hitler Diaries hoax; along with the fact that leading historians, such as Ian Kershaw have not come out in support of this claim, lends weight to it being at best a claim which is speculation and surmise. It should not be included in the main GA rated Adolf Hitler bio article. And it should not be given WP:Undue Weight in the Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism article, if consensus is to maintain mention therein. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It ws Carol Fenijn and 7&6=thirteen (u template breaks) who brought it up. See Talk:Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. Thanks for the prompt reply. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

*@7&6=thirteen: for Kleuske's attempt above. I will leave a note on that article talk page as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Likely a hoax sounds like speculation to me, we should stick to the facts - fact is that a German professor does mention this, leaving that out of the encyclopedia will make it biased. Usually, scholarly works like these are peer reviewed: http://www.verlagsdruckerei-schmidt.de/hitler/ Peter Fleischmann is a historian and head of the Bavarian state archives in Nuremberg. The different points of view should be reflected, not a selection of them. Carol Fenijn (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Likely a hoax is based on the preponderance of available evidence and more clearly upon the wide consensus here at en.wiki that it is a hoax. Did you bother to read any of the material that I linked to above? Moreover, this is an argument to be held at this article on the subject matter and not try to introduce the unaccepted point on a pop culture subject article. That is a POV fork. Best to discuss an academic matter at the academic article talk page. The doctor's work hasn't been vetted and does not have acceptance in academic circles (yet if ever at all). As stated above, the source provided does not support monorchism. From WP:PROFRINGE, "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter, what do you mean by it in it is a hoax? A many-page peer reviewed scholarly publication that is the result of years of research by the head of the Bavarian state archives in Nuremberg is not really likely to be a hoax at all. The book actually consists of a publication of archive material with annotations, it cannot get any more factual than that! Carol Fenijn (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am preparing a full response with lots of WP:RS. In any event the test is verifiability not Truth. Dismisssively calling this a "fringe theory" is simply an attempt to obscure both historical fact and controversy. Whether he had one ball is only part of the question and answer. That it has been the subject of propaganda, speculation and research is quite another, and is beyond dispute. Are we going to censor history, too? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I say again, it is not conclusive; nor is there consensus of main-line historians on this. The doctors on both sides of the "issue" are long dead; Hitler is long dead; it is impossible to prove the information or frankly verify it fully, either. I think with the new claim, it moves above "fringe" but that's about it. To say this is "fact" is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove at this point. Impossible even to verify if the doctor's report Professor Fleischmann saw is even genuine. I think this new evidence is interesting but not compelling without further verification. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a "fact." WP:Truth and WP:RS cover the issue. And that it has been asserted, debated, dissected and opined upon is itself an indisputable Fact. There is a difference between the assertion (which is admitted and can be used to show something was said or written) and whether in fact there is truth to the matter asserted. It depends on the facts that are being proved. Even in a courtroom, it is not even hearsay if being used for the first point. Your "fringe" theory claim is logically a misdirection. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't treat all claims equally as you seem to be implying. As Diannaa notes, for a claim like this to be considered credible it needs to be endorsed by multiple experts on Hitler. Entire books continue to be written about the man's health (eg [7]), so a claim by a single historian which hasn't been endorsed by other historians should be treated very cautiously. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently don't get the difference between the assertions themselves and the facts as they may be sorted out. The assertions alone have independent significance. It does not make them true, but it does make them said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." I can see its mention in this article but trying to make this look substantiated in the article on the song and asserted as if it were fact is POV forking. Isn't this fun? Here it is hours before Christmas Eve and we are arguing about Hitler's balls...it seems like there should be copious amounts of alcohol involved when discussing these popular party topics.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not discussing Hitler's ananatomy, we are discussing whether a certain source can be quoted or not. Merry Chrismas for those who celebrate that. Carol Fenijn (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Siderski ?

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

Anybody know anything about this guy? Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

His page looks like it is mostly copypasted from here, for one thing. And that does not look like it's compatibly licensed, so I'll send it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like yet another teacher trying to self-promote with wikipedia. Who else would copy paste the entire biography from his blog to a wiki page if not him or a close associate. No doubt he's figuring out how to license his own writing to the commons to circumvent this problem now. I don't believe there is anything notable enough about this teacher/artist to warrant a page here. He certainly doesn't provide adequate citation. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters (2nd nomination)

Another fringe film; this one promoting Orthomolecular medicine. No evidence of notability, so thinking that AFD is the best solution. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)