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:

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

Christopher Bird

This fellow notable? 86.** IP (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable, maybe. "Science journalist"?? You have to be kidding. Mangoe (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Poked around Google News. Probably enough coverage for an article, if you search for his name in quotes. Cut the stupid claims and bad source. 86.** IP (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The related article The_Secret_Life_of_Plants also needs a look at. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumpology

The only critical voice is a psychic, who says rumpology is ridiculous - try psychic powers instead.

One needs to ask: Is this a joke? One possibly based on real crankery, but... 86.** IP (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be sourced - though probably not notable. I rather like the article, as a classic example of just how 'pseudo' pseudoscience can get. Perhaps I should e-mail Jackie Stallone a photo of my arse, and see if she can figure out from it what I think of her methods. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the article is 4 years old. It would have made a great Did You Know...? feature. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The best part that the Sun article cited is called "Ass-tronomy" (maybe it's time to propose a move to Asstronomy?) --Miskwito (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that "Ulf Buck claims he can read people's futures by feeling their naked buttocks, though this may simply be sexual abuse?"

Best line on WP - bar none. N^oformation ^Talk 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I especially like the idea of a blind rumpologist. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the suggestion of possible sexual abuse has now been removed, as per WP:BLP policy it probably should. So how do we proceed now? Is rumpology a fit subject for Wikipedia, or should we apply a swift kick to its nether regions, and send it on its way? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Salon.com, The Sun, Skeptic's Dictionary, etc. are not bum sources. Although in many of the articles the subject is the butt of jokes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Beale

Probably better known as the creationist pundit Vox Day. Main editor? Theodore Beale. 86.** IP (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Psykosonik, allegedly his band, has no references or sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't find any reliable sources for his claims about his involvement in it. 86.** IP (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks to me like the article on the band and Power of Seven (publisher) are deletable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The secret life of plants - chris bird

The fringe articles The_Secret_Life_of_Plants and The_Secret_Life_of_Plants_(film) seem to be in need of a look at for possible fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gutted most of the film article because it seemed a pure combination of OR and Fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's blatantly fringe, but the book was actually a bestseller, and resulted in lots of people worrying about the emotional health of their plants for a few years -- our current article (on the book at least) seems pretty reasonable. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that it is now 4 sentences long, I would suggest that the film page be merged into the book page, as the film itself seems of dubious stand-alone notability. It can always be split back out if the film suddenly becomes the topic of public discourse or scholarship. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree; in fact I've gone and done it. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of the link to the BBC article Plants 'can think and remember' for External links: rm, trying to link this to the book is OR could be challenged. Measured variations in electrical conductivity are the basis for the book and for the research reported by the BBC. Seems closely related regarding the observations made.

They likened the discovery to finding the plants' "nervous system".

He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.

I would think those remarks qualify the good professor for inclusion in the article. DS Belgium (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, DS Belgium. The BBC article doesn't mention the book, so linking it to the book is clear-cut original research. This isn't even a close call. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Plant_perception_(paranormal) also needs some serious attention. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Which also links to Cleve_Backster IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Hierarchy

Lengthy in-universe Theosophy article. Particularly annoying for its overuse of bold text. Of course we, quite rightly, have long articles on many religious concepts. Usually we can cite them to theologists, including academic theologists and official bodies of churches etc. This is a bit different to my mind. The sheer quantity of info only of interest to Theosophists and perhaps some New Agers might be a problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bit detailed in relation to the attention these ideas have gotten outside of Theosophy, but I give it points for at least attributing statements like "on the etheric plane there is a continuous flow of flying saucer traffic" to Theosophist writers rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert O. Becker and The Body Electric

Looks like these need some attention, I don't even know where to start on The Body Electric or even if it needs its own article. I'm not sure about the author either, he seems to be a somewhat prolific researcher but I don't know if he's notable enough for an article. Some googling made me think he has some definitely fringe ideas.

Maya Tiwari

This article seems to have some POV issues. In the Body of Work section, some dubious claims are made and although they are attributed to the author, I feel like a balancing source might be beneficial. Thoughts? N^oformation ^Talk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecopsychology

This page is definitely fringe and written in an advocate's tone. I don't know anything about the subject so I don't know how to help in rewriting. N^oformation ^Talk 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

do you think the topic is even notable? The article looks like it needs some real work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

List of cryptids

Much wishful thinking on the part of cryptozoology enthusiasts. For example, Bloop is a hydrophonic sound cataloged by by NOAA. This list categorizes it as a cryptid and identifies it as a "Gigantic creature/Unconfirmed sound". - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the possibility that the bloop was made by an unknown animal has been a subject of speculation among cryptozoologists, so it seems like a reasonable inclusion to me. Abyssal (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. It's just odd to see folklore like Black Shuck identified by WP as a "cryptid" because some guy with a web page said so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's just some guy with a webpage, it shouldn't be there. Wikipedia requires better sources than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look closer, that article is shit. Most of it is unreferenced. A lot of things on the list are clearly not cryptids and no source says they are. Some of them are extinct but real animals. Some of them are real animals recognized by science. Someone has decided that relicts, which are very different things from cryptids, belong on the list. Oh, and Black Shuck should be nominated for deletion, since it has only one source, which clearly fails WP:RS. This is a real can of worms. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorites: Quacker (sound). - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Soul

The article seems to need being looked over with a fine tooth come for fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A comb might be less controversial... - Nunh-huh 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, Took me a minute to realize what you meant :> IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AAVE

Another level-headed person who's either informed or ready to learn would be welcome to keep an eye on African American Vernacular English and its discussion page. The former routinely attracts stupidity (if not blatant racism), but [fingers crossed] it's going through a quiet patch. Dealing with stupidity is straightforward (if tiresome); fringe, quasi-scientific beliefs held by the well-intentioned are another matter. Please see this for the latest challenge. Possibly I was on the bitey side in my first response (it had been a tiring day). And my interlocutor is polite enough.

The anonymous writer makes one parenthetical comment that may baffle: I've seen the bias shown towards Dr. Smith in these discussion for[u]ms. This is Ernie Smith; to judge for yourself the bias shown against him, see this talk page archive.

(I normally wouldn't post here and instead would ping Ƶ§œš¹ about it, but he's away on a long break.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll leave that one to someone more patient than me (which doesn't say much), and carry on fighting the fine old conflict against the forces of cold-fusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that the "Wow" refers to the talk page archive. Having to read that stuff and respond was a bore at the time, but I was grateful that nobody simply deleted the material posted by my antagonist: deletion would have fueled his resentment. And now, long after the posting? Once every few months I skimread some part of it for a chuckle. ¶ My thanks to the two people who pointed out the etymological fallacy at the start of the latest objection; I hadn't really taken in that part of what the IP was saying. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it, since I have a fair amount of knowledge on linguistic stuff (although not on AAVE per se...) --Miskwito (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Miskwito. Your self-description puts you in the same boat as Ƶ§œš¹ (I think) and myself. An AAVE-nonspecific linguistics background should help an editor handle AAVE dispassionately -- though I'm sure the article would also benefit a lot from the input of level-headed linguists who are L1 AAVE speakers. -- Hoary (talk)

Well, I tried to read through some of the old archives, but...Jesus Christ. Anyway suffice it to say I didn't get through all of it, but now I'm kind of hoping Dr. Smith comes back because I always love it when academics insult people in academese --Miskwito (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

A cold fusion-like scheme, this seems to have attracted some media attention from the unwary, and therefore has some chance of surviving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. Like most such articles it is heavily burdened with primary sources, though there is one good reference from Discovery.com here which spells out the prospects of this quite well. Obviously we need to keep an eye on it. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, this article is in massive violation of WP:WEIGHT where the claims of fringe theorists are given far more weight than they receive in the most reliable of sources. Someone shold take a machete to the article and remove every sentence that has not been noticed by independent sources. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a lot of help here. Lots of ownership, an SPA IP editor for Italy, and tempers breaking down. The article does mention that the thing most likely doesn't work, but that's buried in a lot of detail which tends to push the article the other way. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just RfC and recommend stubbing the article to content that can be referenced to third-party independent reliable sources? That would mean competent science writers, physicists, chemists, etc. not directly connected to the cold fusion community? I think that would properly shrink the article down to a few paragraphs. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that you'll find "competent science writers, physicists, chemists, etc. not directly connected to the cold fusion community" who can say anything much directly related to the E-Cat. Unless and until it is revealed what it consists of, 'science' can have little to say on the matter, though cold fusion/LENR advocates would like us to think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That's why the article should be dramatically shortened. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the deletion discussion hit a nerve. It may be time to get more serious administrative action involved. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Others seem to really dislike the way the article was first written. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So I'm working for the CIA, am I? Where's my paycheque? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An alternative approach to the Energy Catalyzer

I've bumped this thread to the bottom of the page, because I've suggested a different approach to handling some of the problems identified. Our best references on this topic address it as a social and economic phenomenon – the most reliable sources address the E.C. as a (troubled) business venture – and skirt the scientific and technical aspects of it. It therefore might make the most sense to cover the Energy Catalyzer within our (newish) article on the device's inventor, Andrea Rossi, who has previously been involved in a couple of other now-defunct alternative-energy-related business ventures.

I invite, encourage, and welcome a discussion of a possible merger at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#This article could be merged.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach, but it will probably have to wait until the AFD dies; otherwise there will be procedural problems, and I doubt you'll be able to swing the AFD over to such a merge. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. I figured that the AfD was already over, in pretty much any but the most legalistic sense, and that it was time to move on to doing something constructive. The AfD was never going to be successful, really, and I think it's unfortunate that someone tried it. (While the article we have is crap, it's crap with a lot of footnotes, and it's virtually impossible to excise that sort of thing from Wikipedia.) It's particularly unfortunate because we've now got a lot of single-purpose accounts recruited from off-site to the topic area; I'm hoping that they try to absorb Wikipedia's policy and ethos before jumping in with all guns blazing, but I'm afraid that they're just going to add noise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's over now. Propose away. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Procedure over sanity, unfortunately. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanity? Where? This is farcical. We now have a prematurely-closed AfD reopened, with no notification to anyone. I'm seriously thinking of just walking away from this playpen, and leaving it to the hucksters and clowns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades suggestion is the right thing to do. It should be done regardless of the peanut gallery. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher

Elizabeth Rauscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently being owned by User:Dreadstar who is making arguments about "consensus" that are borderline incoherent.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at this, for example. This is just being a jerk, as far as I can tell. I filed a case at the dispute resolution board: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Elizabeth_Rauscher. It was forwarded to WP:3O which was taken up by User:FormerIP. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. It seems especially inadvisable to call an administrator a jerk. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It's just frustrating since it's been going on for months. Sorry. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article needs some serious attention as well as Fundamental_Fysiks_Group. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)