Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:18, 1 September 2013

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.

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. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Christ Myth Theory

Christ myth theory is a minority theory concerning the historical origins of Jesus. I'm concerned about some POV language in the article's lead section which gives the impression that this subject is fringe or bogus history:

"Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."

The quote about "parallelomania" comes from a single specific Jesuit Priest Gerald O'Collins who seems to be quite a mainstream Catholic theologian but hardly representative of historians in general.

The article presents a comprehensive list of mainstream objections to the theory, however none of suggest that the theory is 'laden with historical error'. I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory. I can only suspect that the editor may have been trying to suggest that this theory has been recently debunked. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love Wikipedia to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen. Any argument like this is going to be coloured by the beliefs of the participants. It's a waste of time and energy. It will never be properly encyclopaedic. Just forget it, and let the believers and non-believers believe. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I share your frustration but that's really not a very constructive thought! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it could be a good idea to list some related discussions from the archives:

So, let's see what do we have now... You do not like "Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."? Especially "I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory.? Well, as far as I understand, that statement means that the theory was more popular at some time, but now is fringe. By itself it does not say if this change is because of new evidence or because of change of fashion. Anyway, the statement looks true and no reason to think otherwise has been given, thus there is no need to change anything at the moment.

Also, HiLo48, "I would love Wikipedia to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen." corresponds to wishes of supporters of many fringe historical (and non-historical) theories. You might think that this theory is unpopular unjustly, but Wikipedia must make sure it does not correct any existing injustice (it is somewhat related to Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs)... If you don't like that, read the archives of this noticeboard and (hopefully) you will start hating the alternatives far more. If that won't help, there's also my essay Wikipedia:Wikiheresy...

Anything else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have read far more into my comment than I said, or meant, and I meant little more than I said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then... Um... OK, I guess..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, there are no credible academic sources supporting the idea that Jesus never existed. Nor any support for the idea that he might have existed but the gospel-epistle writers made up his teachings. There's some discussion of the possibility that the gospel writers based some parts of the gospel stories on OT stories (it's mainstream that Matthew seems to have gone out of his way to paint Jesus as a second Moses and to have ransacked Isaiah in particular for "prophesies" proving that Jesus was the Messiah). At that end of the spectrum, you're moving out of "Jesus as myth" and into solid scholarship. Perhaps the article needs to be clearer about what it considers "myth". PiCo (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morna Hooker takes the possibility seriously as does Dawkins, Ellegard believed it. Price seems like a credible source, even though he is far outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship and now mainly writes for a popular audience. But the problems with bias in the article are not so much that it misrepresents the mainstream opinion among biblical scholars, but that it tries to hide that it is mainly an issue studied by biblical scholars, not scholars of antiquity in general, and tries to persuade the reader that the consensus is much wider than it really is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins and Ellegard were both unqualified to offer an opinion; I'd need a citation for Hooker's statement. I have to question whether we have to consider any consensus beyond biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the period; otherwise we would also be ratifying the widely held idiocies about 9/11. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins and Ellegard are certainly credible academic sources, which is what PiCo was talking about, and much more so than most biblical scholars. Theologians are of course not credible sources on this, though their opinions should certainly be represented. Biblical scholarship should certainly be represented, though there are grave problems with both bias and methodological professionalism, as is acknowledged to varying degrees both inside and outside the field. But the thing is, very few scholars outside these disciplines have even studied the matter. The article should make that clear, rather than falsely implying that there exists a consensus of "historians" or "scholars of antiquity" who have studied the matter. There is a clear consensus among biblical scholars, their credentials as historians and their impartiality have been questioned by serious scholars inside and outside the field, biblical scholarship maintains that in general this does not invalidate the conclusions of biblical scholarship, most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed, and that's about it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122. Classicist Michael Grant wrote in "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The reason why scholars of antiquity do not study "Jesus never existed" is that they consider it a silly idea not worth wasting their time on, similar to why few Shakespearean scholars bother refuting "the earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works."Smeat75 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a source about most historians finding the idea silly. So far no one has presented such a source. Maybe it exists. If so, let's have it so we can add it to the article. Until then let's represent a consensus among biblical scholars as just that, a consensus among biblical scholars, and mention that of the very few scholars outside that field who have studied the matter, most do not consider the CMT tenable either. Note that Dawkins does consider the CMT a reasonable possibility, though on balance he thinks it's probably false. Price, one of the leading proponents of the CMT goes the other way, he holds that while historicity is not a ridiculous point of view, on balance the CMT seems more probable to him. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "a consensus of Biblical scholars". You were right the first time, "most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed". The only classical historian I am aware of who has addressed the matter at all for many years was the already referred to Michael Grant, that was in 1977 and his view, quoted above, has not been challenged. Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good debate - from what I can tell, within bible scholarship (which is dominated by people of a religious worldview) Christ Myth Theory is fringe or bordeline fringe. Amongst secular bible historians (a very small group of scholars which includes people like Robert M. Price) Christ Myth Theory is considered (at least) to be a viable theory. My concerns were that the quote above misrepresents the erea in which objections to the theory were developed and also quotes the opinion of a jesuit priest as an example of as a mainstream historian. I'd prefer an alternative text like:

"Critics have dismissed these analogies as without formal basis: The Jesuit scholar Gerald O'Collins describes it as a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors." --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, a theory taken seriously only by "a very small group of scholars" is fringe by definition.

"Critics have dismissed these analogies" is misleading, as the whole point is that "critics" include almost everyone. It is just as bad as "Critics think that perpetuum mobile is impossible" would be in some other article.

So, let's put it this way: Salimfadhley, do you agree that Christ Myth Theory is fringe..? If you are a proponent of a fringe theory, that's OK (as far, as Wikipedia is concerned). It is OK to think that the theory is fringe undeservedly, for wrong reasons, as long as you accept that it is fringe and it is not Wikipedia's job to change that. But it is not OK to pretend that that theory is not fringe. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with Martynas. There are a lot of questions regarding this particular topic. The core issue to me seems to be not whether the topic is "fringe" but "minority". It clearly is a minority claim, but there might well be religious bias responsible for it not being more broadly accepted. At the same time, it could be argued that some form of atheistic/agnostic bias might play a part in the support of the theory by at least some of the "minority" involved. How big or small that minority might be would seem to be the point, and the evidence presented seems to indicate it is a rather significantly small minority. I don't know if we have the ability to determine what if any bias any or all of the parties on either side might or might not have. I wish I knew of some Buddhist from Mongolia who was not only independent of the Judeo-Christian culture but also a universally highly regarded historian or religious academic who had spoken on this topic, but I don't know of any such out there. The broad consensus in the academic community, prejudiced or not, seems to be that someone who more or less matched the description of Jesus in the Gospels in some way, to some degree, probably existed. They might even make slightly stronger statements than that, I don't know. This seems to me to be one of the rare cases when the possible bias involved is more or less unavoidable within the part of the human community capable of submitting material to academic journals, and I can't think of any sort of way to set up guidelines for such material. Of course, if anyone knows whether the Guardian of Forever is available for consultation on this matter, if he/she/it qualifies as an RS (I don't know), that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with the above statement. Christ Myth Theory is certainly not fringe in the same sense that Perpetual Motion is. It's definitely a minority theory, however proponents and opponents seem to be broadly driven by obvious biases and that the overwhelming majority of scholars of this era are religious people. I think I'd reiterate my original concern which was that the original text over-generalized the objections to the theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current text is significantly better - The Christ myth theory (or theories, allowing for the variations in the arguments) has failed to convince the vast majority of scholars, who "regard it as effectively refuted." which I think is significantly less POV than the original text. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to question whether we have to consider any consensus beyond biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the period". Only historians of the period should be considered, which is what I assume "Modern scholarship" refers to, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Only historians of the period should be considered" - please let us know who these historians of the period are who have expressed an opinion, or offered evidence, or written a paper or a book, on the question "Was there ever such a person as Jesus?" since Michael Grant in 1977. Smeat75 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sMeat you and pico and Barlow have erased 63000 characters from the text saying they were fringe theories. Well, the article is about this minority theory, it is put forth by people like Price, and you go and erase Price references. What is your malfunction?Greengrounds (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic agriculture

You can't make this stuff up. Appears to be based entirely on a pdf on some guy's personal web site. Possible hoax article? a13ean (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it appears not to be a hoax - or if it is, it is an elaborate one. Google throws up enough evidence to suggest that someone somewhere takes it seriously. Not that we need to - there clearly isn't anything like the level of coverage to indicate it meets Wikipedia notability criteria. I think an AfD is the simplest approach... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And would you believe it somehow survived a previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeodynamic agriculture? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm surprised at one of those !votes. a13ean (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggestion. Reduce the article to a few sentence description and place it in the context of pseudoscience, perhaps citing this article [1]. I am One of Many (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article discuss 'homeodynamic agriculture'? If it doesn't, it would be WP:OR to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, my proposal was clearly original research. More importantly, the term homeodynamic does not have this meaning in actual science. It is instead a term that comes from cybernetics, combining the notions of homeostasis and dynamics. Since there is no article that I know of that states that the way "homeodynmics" is is used in this article is pseudoscience, it should be deleted. If there ever is a reliable source for in homeodynamic agriculture as pseudoscience, then an article on it might be ok. I also can't find any reliable sources on homeodynamic agriculture other than the fringe blogs discussing it. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a new AfD discussion for this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a PROD on Homeodynamics as this also seems to be borderline scientific and almost certainly not-notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would take care of the problem, but if it stays, the article is one big COPYVIO - the vast majority of it (85%) is a single long quote (over 300 words). Clearly exceeds fair use. Agricolae (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the PROD was rejected - it had already been unsuccessfully prodded. It is now formally a COPYVIO case. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Piper 3

It is very boring when you go forum shopping instead of using the talk page. I'm trying to summarize what reliable sources say, not have Wikipedia be a mouthpiece for spiritualism. Shii (tock) 11:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You used a huge piece of text from a psychical paper, it was undue weight and isn't a reliable source. If you want to cite reliable sources then you would need to cite someone like Edward Clodd, but all those references are already in the article. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used a huge quote from William James. Your call. Shii (tock) 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a noticeboard is not forum shopping, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shii is now using edit summaries that are at least outrageously understated and at worst duplicitous: [2] jps (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the subject (Piper) has a small but highly devoted cult following, and every few months there's someone insisting we give the fringe view more credibility. It'd help if a few more people could add it to their watchlists, since I'd prefer not to own it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a lifelong skeptic, I don't believe in spiritualism (this is the second time I've had to point this out on this stupid noticeboard) and I am not part of the "Piper fan club". I want the article improved and brought up to good article quality. That requires a better lede and a better description of Piper's influence on period intellectuals. It is impossible to get work done in the article if people come crying here every time a change is made that they don't like. Talk to ME instead of asking someone else to revert my edits. Shii (tock) 02:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with having more opinions at the article. And no one's called you a spiritualist. - LuckyLouie (talk)

I wonder who you are referring to in the comment I am replying to, then. Shii (tock) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie made a general statement about people coming to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's accurate, Shii. As you can see, I have been quite active on that Talk page, going back years. In fact, I recently explained to Eric Kvaalen why the huge primary-sourced quote by James was inappropriate. Kvaalen's reasoning was that it contains "more information in favor of Mrs. Piper" and he placed it in the context of a "rebuttal" to unbelievers. Now you wish to include the same quote, or at least half of it. I still don't agree it's appropriate, but rather than go over the same reasons again and again and risk appearing to dominate the article Talk page, I'm hoping to find other opinions, and WP:FTN is the most fitting noticeboard for the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all you succeeded in doing is bringing people to the talk page who think I am a POV-pushing Spiritualist, even though I do not believe in "spirits". I wish you had just talked to me, because I was not attempting to add "more information in favor of Mrs. Piper". Shii (tock) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop focussing the discussion to be about yourself and instead make policy and guideline based arguments, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the way a discussion was carried out. It's something people do quite a lot on Wikipedia and is not outside scope. If you want a guideline to read, here's one: WP:MOOT Shii (tock) 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

persistent, tendentious editing at Orthomolecular medicine

A user, Nitrobutane, keeps insisting that their particular interpretation of an NIH consensus document says what they want it to say. They are persistent, and appear to be ignoring consensus. Or at least that's my interpretation, and I am certainly involved there. There is lots of talk page discussion that goes absolutely nowhere.

Additional eyes would be welcome. I will cross post this at WT:MED if it hasnt been mentioned there already. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon belt

This article was a mess. It may still be. Some help figuring out what to do with it would be appreciated. jps (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare to find an article with more than 40 sources cited and virtually all of them unreliable. The only thing to do is WP:BLOWITUP and stub it down to only what truly independent sources say about the subject - if any can be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gut the article as being inherently unreliable and poorly written. It can now be improved from a more solid foundation. Has anyone uncovered reliable secondary sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to find sources discussing this concept from an uninvolved perspective. This one discusses the concept as an aspect of millenialism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation research

I have renominated the article for deletion as it has not improved in a number of years and seems to be just as problematic as the last time I nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research (2nd nomination).

Your input would be most welcome.

jps (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Astrology

An astrologer, Other Choices (talk · contribs), is attempting to edit war favourable text from a non-academic source into an article to give the impression that astrology has academic respectability: [3]. More input welcome here: Talk:History_of_astrology#Edit_by_Other_Choices, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's an accurate summary of my edit. Regarding "non-academic," the author in question has a Ph.D from Columbia University. And "give the impression that astrology has academic respectability" is twisting my edit rather brutaly. And IRWolfie is the very first person who has ever called me an "astrologer." My academic training is as a historian. I have never practiced astrology as a profession or taken money for horoscope readings.--Other Choices (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a PhD does not make all of ones future writings automatically academic, nor does it establish the due weight of any such future publication. Other Choices, you refer to yourself as an (amateur) astrologer [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, your initial omission of the word "amateur" continues your habitual pattern of twisting the meaning of words and phrases. To say someone is a [insert job or profession] indicates that the person makes a living or gains remuneration from that profession. The use of the word "amateur" pointedly disavows any such occupational status or financial interest.--Other Choices (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before this problem escalates, I would like to ask you to remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. "To say someone is a [insert job or profession] indicates that the person makes a living or gains remuneration from that profession." has a simple counterexample: I can say that I am a chess player, but it does not mean that I am not an amateur chess player. Anyway, I don't see how that point is supposed to help you explain or support your position (whatever it is - after reading what you write here and in the cited section of the talk page I am still not completely sure). So, please, drop that point. You are not going to lose anything by doing that.

On the other hand, you should explain why you think that your edit was good. At the moment ([5], [6]) I only see that you have argued that its reversions and criticisms were not good. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martynas Patasius, perhaps your counter-example is the exception that proves the rule. "Astrologer," like "truck driver" or "school teacher" is a profession. "Chess player" is an avocation, with a tiny handful of professionals at the pinnacle of the game.

IRWolfie's use of the loaded word "astrologer" hearkens back to the days (before my time) when a group of practicing astrologers ruled the astrology-related articles here at wikipedia, and then there was a lot of uproar for a while until they all got banned. IRWolfie and others have repeatedly mischaracterized my editing here at wikipedia.

Why I think my edit was good: The study of astrology disappeared from western universities around 300 years ago, more or less. In the past decade, after this long period of total ostracism, the study of astrology has slowly begun creeping back into academia. That, in my opinion, is a significant event in the history of astrology. I used a mainstream reliable source to add this noteworthy fact to the History of Astrology article. And that's why I think it was a good edit.

Here is the entire paragraph from Bobrick, p. 7: "Astrology in modern times has undergone a remarkable resurgence, and is now (as Carl Jung predicted it would) knocking again at the doors of academe. Astrologers are attempting to verify traditional doctrine by scientific methods and in general to meet the demand of Johannes Kepler (one of its true believers) that they 'separate the gems from the slag.' In a number of countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States, astrology is once again being taught at the university level, for the first time since the Renaissance. In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools. Scholarly journals such as Culture and Cosmos (A Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy), the Dublin Astrologer (The Journal of the Dublin Astrological Centre), and Apollon (The Journal of Psychological Astrology), have begun to establish themselves, while the prestigious Warburg Institute in London recently created a "Sophia Fellowship" for astrological research."

--Other Choices (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the history of astrology ever disappeared from being researched, and that list does not distinguish astrology groups from universities. How reliable do you really think that is? I just checked one of the fellowships in the mainstream universities, and as I thought [7], the Sophia fellowship is for looking at the history of astrology. It's this conflation in the source with studying the history of astrology == resurgence of astrology that is utterly undue and clearly unreliable from a basic fact checking point of view, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's pretty clear that Bobrick's use of the word "resurgence" had a much broader meaning than exclusively the renewed academic attention to astrology (being its history or otherwise), given the context of the following paragraphs. But I'm not going to go down that road; I'll drop this discussion here and now.--Other Choices (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you have dropped this discussion, I would still like to thank you for dropping the behavioural point (well, relatively...) and explaining your reasoning concerning the text itself. As you can see, the discussion did become much calmer after that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese Medicine

There is a discussion as to TCM's relationship with evidence-based medicine and if characterizations of TCM as pseudoscience belong in the article. a13ean (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Bem

Article about a Cornell social psychologist features a section on his widely criticized parapsychology experiment, including criticism of the journal that published it. A rotating IP account is campaigning on the Talk page to have the worst criticism removed on the basis of WP:UNDUE weight. The weight seems appropriate to me given the multitude of high quality sources, but other opinions are appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spengler's civilisation model

Hello all,
I'm concerned about some recent additions to Spengler's civilization model (a model of historical civilisations) and to related pages such as The Decline of the West. There is a very large volume of content being added. It's not possible to post it all on this noticeboard, but here's a sample:

A financial debt is essentially a potential difference (a voltage) in a dielectric medium between the status quo and a more informed future state—the only way by which an indebted system can repay the original amount of a debt plus the interest is by becoming more informed, more synergetic. That is why the beginning of the overtly exponential period of debt accrual roughly coincides with 14 February 1946—the day of the unveiling of the first electronic general-purpose computer (ENIAC), regarded as the birth of the Information Age. In November 1990, the debt voltage reached a critically high level, which initiated the final stage of the dielectric medium's pre-breakdown electrical treeing—the emergence of the World Wide Web. The progress of the electrical treeing is indicated by the concomitant release of positive energy (synergy, binding energy, heat of crystallization), measured as the growth in the nominal GDP per dollar of new debt. In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state, to a qualitatively deeper level of informedness and synergy compared with the status quo.

There's a neatly organised table which explains why spring and infancy are associated with the infantile (feminine, rural, Mongoloid) redshifted brain, whilst winter and old age are associated with the adult (masculine, urban, Jewish) blueshifted brain. And so on. I tried removing a lot of this stuff, but it just got reverted back into the article. Any suggestions from the wise folk of WP:FTN? As an aside, one affected article seems to have odd patterns of multiple inexperienced editors - possibly this is some kind of school group? bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's wacky stuff. I also tried to remove it but was reverted & warned by a Huggler :( 78.105.23.195 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the huggler was reverted. And then more reversions, ending up in me blocking the editor adding this stuff. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw similar material by 8i347g8gl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while looking at the history of Rupert Sheldrake. Compare [8] and [9], in particular look for "matter waves' synergetic (energetically favourable) constructive interference" and "electrical treeing". Similar behavior by the user as well. I'm not able to write up a sock investigation now, but if anyone wants to do it I'd bet my lunch on a positive match. Vzaak (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to sniff my sock for lunch, Vzaak? Suit yourself. 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/97ytkljgg789. Vzaak (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, little buddy! 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two users are likely related per the SPI. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to sniff my second sock, NativeForeigner. 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something slightly different

With the prolegomenon (or interpretation or exegesis or whatever) removed, our page on Spengler's civilization model is really just a copy of a table in Spengler's book. We're not providing any independent encyclopædic coverage (although we attempt that over at The Decline of the West). So, should Spengler's civilization model be moved to Wikisource? bobrayner (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree. the page is nothing but a reprint and needs to be actually about the subject, as written about by reliable sources and presented in an NPOV manner, of course. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine edits

Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting and removing a lot of content from vaccine related articles. I think it would be a good idea to go through the edits and see if there has been any violations of WP:FRINGE as part of the user's contributions.

I have notified the user of this discussion.

jps (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user recently removed this legit edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Influenza_vaccine#Vaccine-induced_disease_enhancement_has_been_described_in_connection_with_several_viral_vaccines Further do i challenge him to provide proof about his allegation that i violate WP:FRINGE . I find it strange that somebody can just post here on the board without providing any evidence. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a court of law. This is a noticeboard for editors, like myself, who notice problems. I noticed a number of problems across a lot of different articles pertaining to vaccines that you are participating in. However, some of your edits are not problematic. It takes a lot of volunteer time and muscle to go through and make sure that everything is okay. It might help if you explained a bit about what your editorial philosophy is with regards to this subject. What types of coverage for vaccines do you think Wikipedia needs and why? What is your motivation for the edits you've made to articles about vaccines? jps (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss my addition the right place is the related talk page. At above link i asked you for feedback, instead you link to this Fringe board. My philosophy is pretty obvious if you ask me, since everybody should be able to determine it based on the content i submitted. I ask you to respond on the related talk pages, and again to provide any kind of proof in regards to the justification of your framing of me as a Fringe. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Prokaryotes, but you've been posting some obscure stuff on several pages, including one-source questionable claims about specific vaccines on both Vaccine and Vaccination. I've removed the content from Vaccination, and commented on Talk:Vaccine, but I repeat here: giving such weight to this kind of content on the main articles is unlikely to find any support; adding it to the vaccine specific articles is still something for which you must seek consensus. The content is well within the arguable parameters of WP:FRINGE. Your arguing venue rather than discussing the content is not helpful. Killer Chihuahua 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in the edit that Prokaryotes made in the Influenza Vaccine article, he/she added a source. There are three links in the citation - two are correct, but the third, the PMID, points to a different article, namely Cases in vaccine court--legal battles over vaccines and autism" from the NEJM. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content in question = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Influenza_vaccine&diff=570969365&oldid=570968691 - the study in question http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/200/200ra114 Fringe is not mainstream science which is backed by several studies which all come to the same conclusion. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many studies replicate "vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease", see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vaccine-associated+enhanced+respiratory+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=Xy8iUoa-B-rE7Ab-3oG4CA&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA And yes there are reliable journal secondary sources too. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now complained about this at Admin Noticeboard/Incidents: [10]. jps (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalipa

Article claims this is an "Ancient vedic term referring to a sub atomic wavelet with the characteristic of change". I'm not sure why the article is called Kalipa when I find it easier spelled "kalapa". In any case, the Vedic science bit seems related to another article Avaidika, now at AfD. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fringe also[11]. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalipa can be re-directed to Kalapas I suppose. The latter seems to be a notable enough subject, though I haven't looked at the article content itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, missed that one. Another relevant edit - he or she added Dan (ancient city) to County Laois. When I removed it he reverted me "Because even without any citations whatsoever, modern genetic andthe sheer volume of exact correlations speaks entirely in its own rite". Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McMenamin being slanted

See [12]. Also [13] and [14]. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one obvious skewing of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry

I am not quite sure if the articles fall und WP:FRINGE, but maybe this forum is the best place to ask for other editors to have a look at Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Maria Luisa Figueira, Mario Di Fiorino as well as edits made by users involved in those articles in e.g. Ganser syndrome and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [15] and left a note on the editor's page.[16] Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found one copyright violation, and expect there is more. Not quite sure if it all belongs here though, try notifying wikiproject medicine as well. This appears to be some effort to promote Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, so there is a probable COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IRWolfie-. How do I notify WP:Medicine? I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti, please have a look and see if you think any of the lost content was worth keeping. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can notify them here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 ::'''Go on, little buddy!''' [[User:97ytkljgg789|97ytkljgg789]] ([[User talk:97ytkljgg789|talk]]) 03:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 :::The two users are likely related per the SPI. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
+::::'''Feel free to sniff my second sock, ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]''.''' [[User:97ytkljgg789|97ytkljgg789]] ([[User talk:97ytkljgg789|talk]]) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 ===Something slightly different===
 With the prolegomenon (or interpretation or exegesis or whatever) removed, our page on [[Spengler's civilization model]] is really just a copy of a table in Spengler's book. We're not providing any independent encyclopædic coverage (although we attempt that over at [[The Decline of the West]]). So, should Spengler's civilization model be moved to Wikisource? [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards