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.
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:

Summerwind

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

Just in time for Halloween, an article loaded with extensive detail regarding a supposedly haunted Wisconsin house. Except there's little to no coverage on the subject by reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summerwind. And HuffPo being argued as a reliable source of fact [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article passed afd. HuffPo is a reliable source.--Auric talk 11:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome

This needs more eyes. A bunch of crap has been dumped there. I just removed an EL to a convicted baby killer (his own child) and a fringe MD. Read my edit summary and then start culling poor sources and external links. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, there are many issues in the article as I see it. As with many claims in forensic "science", diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome on the sole basis of the triad is not as surefooted as was touted in the 80s and 90s. [2] There are plenty of good sources we can use to document this (certainly a personal blog is not such a thing), but I think the article doesn't really do justice to the subject. jps (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are still problems with using fringe sources and non-MEDRS sources. The EL section is becoming a dumping ground, and the article is being used as a place to push one POV using such sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream scientific assessment of climate change

Opinions of neutral uninvolved eds eagerly sought!
We have a

• main article, Scientific opinion on climate change
• sub article, List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming

Discussion of the latter article is often chaotic, as many editors talk about diverse issues in the same breath. However, the issue I'm trying to present is laser-focused on the leads of the two articles.
The lead of the main article tries to summarize the mainstream scientific perspective. To comply with WP:FRINGE's requirement to establish the context for fringe statements, the lead of the latter article does that too. However, for a long time they have been out-of-synch, using overlapping but different text and sources. A poll question has been posted asking

Given that the mainstream assessment is summarized on the basis of the RSs with greatest WP:WEIGHT at the main article "Scientific opinion on climate change", would a neutral uninvolved editor reasonably expect the same sources to be used to present the same summary [at the sub-article "List of scientists opposing..."] unless there was a really good RS-based reason to do something different?

Please offer your thoughts in the thread located at the subarticle via this link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at these articles, here is a view: in general good material should be in sync. across Wikipedia articles. Per WP:PSCI I'd expect the mainstream view of climate change to be prominent in the list article, and would be suspicious of arguments that it shouldn't be. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... I only intended this as a pointer Please consider repeating your comment at the subarticle linked above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting variety of forums you adress your case, NewsAndEventsGuy. As long the scientific opinion includes the major "known unknowns" stated by leading IPCC players, I agree with the approach. There is however a difference between the current "science mainstream" and the IPCC approach, as the IPCC assessement reports naturally a) lag behind the science edge and b) the IPCC mandate limitations on current human impact on global climate. The IPCC covers only a part of the actual research, with regard on current and past natural climate change and studies with a more regional focus. However thats being possibly covered by additional articles. Serten (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness after death

This article has been a constant battle of edit warring between users and IP addresses, and is in a mess. New material is occasionally added/deleted. Any suggestions welcome. Goblin Face (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request page protection? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I have added an Articles for Deletion for Dr. Steven Willey and bundled the deletion with Willey Exertion Scale the AFD can be found here. VViking_TalkEdits 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS policy content

I'm seeking more input at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Coherence catastrophists

I went through and identified some "coherent catastrophists" that seem to be of marginal notability and WP:FRINGEBLP does come somewhat into play here since some of their fame rests on certain devolutions of the Velikovsky affair. You can find a few of them included at the Velikovsky Encyclopedia.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Clube
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Napier (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Asher

As this developed, I also found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers which isn't related to WP:FTN but the synergy is somewhat interesting.

jps (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement

More promotion of toxic quackery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Now featuring sockpuppetry for your dining and dancing pleasure. Could use a few more watching eyes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already watchlisted it, but the changes today are not showing up. Strange. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1972 Eastern Cape UFO sightings

1972 UFO sightings in the eastern Cape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently, 1972 was the big year for sightings of UFOs in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. However, it seems that the only sources who claim this are those ufologists who breathlessly accept most of the eyewitness claims they come across.

So, what do you think? Notable enough that we should have an article on the subject?

jps (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Based on a quick glance, I'm leaning towards a "no" to the above question. I am decidedly not impressed by the sources cited, some of which appear to be dead links. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

is there an upmerge parent article? the event in Beufort appears to have become vaguely notable as a lore for the local tourist traps, but its hard to see two passing mentions in tourist books establishing notability for it as an "incident"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly UFO sightings in South Africa? jps (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

R. H. Naylor

While it might just be the very short length, this seems rather pro-horoscope:

“ Naylor himself explained, "Here is the 'horoscope' of the baby princess" and predicted over three columns of text that she would lead an "eventful life", in which forecast he was correct. The rest of the article gave general forecasts by birth date. ”

“ In September 1930, Naylor forecast that "A British aircraft will be in danger" in October. On 5 October 1930 the R101 airship crashed and burned in Beauvais, France. ”

This feels rather like the standard keep the hits, forget the misses thing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It feels more like so vague they can't be misses. For example, if the R-101 had survived, it still would have been in danger. For that matter, the prediction was “A British aircraft will be in danger” between October 8 and 15.” [3] R-101 crashed on the 5th, Edward321 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Association induction hypothesis

Association induction hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In need of eyes from science knowledgeable folks (and a machete) .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

K. Paul Johnson

K. Paul Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been pruned of a lot of stuff. I reverted saying that the pruning left an article that suggested lack of notability, and the editor involved, User:JEMead, has posted to my talk page saying he agrees. I don't care. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The items I removed were added by User:SERGEJ2011 who put a negative focus on his theosophical book on the Masters and he then also added several articles from a web site magazine which is not a reliable source. JEMead (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an afd situation. None of those sources on the article are reliable and he is not notable. The article should be deleted, or at the minimum his article redirected. Goblin Face (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ouija

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

New edits slanting article towards POV that religious views are of primary importance, Ouija is dangerous, leads to spirit possession, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should this article be covered by Arbcom sanctions on Pseudoscience, and should it also be categorised as such? I think it should be covered and is pseudoscience fwiw. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't notify on Talk:Ayurveda about this discussion, I have done that for you. Any articles, I mean just any can be non-controversial and less irritating when they don't have editors who lack general competence and bases their rationale on dubious I don't like it approach. Yes I am talking about you, you didn't even knew the definition of Vandalism, thus a topic ban on such a editor is possibly enough for solving remaining tensions, if there are any. Otherwise if there is some ongoing trend of many editors(I don't see any except you) fighting for a long time on this article, then sure it can be brought under sanctions. But for a long time I don't see any reverts but meaningful discussion made by everyone else, excluding you. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, can you explain how any of that has the slightest bearing on the question Roxy asked? If you have issues with Roxy's editing, please discuss them elsewhere - nobody is going to topic ban anyone here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And back on topic - no Ayurveda isn't in of itself pseudoscience. As a belief system it long pre-dates science. What may be pseudoscientific are modern claims of efficacy regarding specific Ayurvedic practices not supported by appropriate evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly and we have to stick to Wikipedia:MEDRS about every particular claim about medical efficacy, there was clearly no possibility to include any of the claims that would contradict the authoritative medical researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti: Roxy is well aware of the definition of vandalism, and your comment seems to be quite tangential to the original point. You should stop making up things to discredit editors that you disagree with. bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer to the question is no. I was about to bring this subject to other noticeboard for discussing its content and here I can see at least 2 sections have been opened about this article, and this one wasn't needed because it should have been discussed on the article talk(page) first. You cannot find any discussion there. That's why my comment was mostly about Roxy, rather than his question. Bladesmulti (talk)

In response to the specific question of whether the article is covered under discretionary sanctions, I would assume the answer is yes. I would refer to this request for clarification at ARCA on the topic of chiropractic, and especially this diff which was endorsed by several arbitrators. The relevant quote is: "pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed)."

That said, it is a different matter whether categorization as pseudoscience is appropriate or not. :-) Sunrise (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a different matter. I agree with Andy that it's basically protoscience, although some recent advocacy of it would count as pseudoscience. It shouldn't be categorised as pseudoscience but the discretionary sanctions should apply. It definitely comes under the scope of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I obviously don't hold a mop, but can I place the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template on the talk page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DS says, "Any editor may advise any other editor"...Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.[4] I intended to paste the DS content here but ran into some coding problem which I don't understand, so here's the first and last of it at least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

For the record, I've placed the above template on the AV talk page, and warned a fringe editor of said sanctions -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I had asked Sandstein and according to him, "that would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources",[5] when it comes to the Arbcom sanctions, related to pseudoscience. Although this subject is not one and we don't have any reliable citations that would support. When I attempted to find at least one citation, I found opposite.[6][7](Oxford univ.) In a matter of few hours, if Roxy the Dog or any one else happen to find some reliable citations that would state(and describe) that AV is pseudoscience, then only we can consider. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Blades, you have changed the above post some four hours after you originally made it, without acknowledging the change. I will WP:AGF and continue to believe that the fact that multiple editors have pointed out that the citation you gave actually says the opposite to what you say it says, and your new ref may not be relevant to the subsequent conversation on this thread, it could not possibly be your intent to deceive us in this case. I would like to point out that this change may confuse new editors to the page, as much of the following conversation is predicated on it. Bad form though Blades. tut tut. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really pointed to it, as discussion still seemed to be relevant about the source I had specifically highlighted. I was by far only pointing to the lines openly told me many times, that they practice, most often ayurveda, couldn't specifically copy and paste due to copyright issues. Bladesmulti (talk)

The source you pointed to says, "Both [Astrology and Ayurveda] are labeled 'pseudoscience' in the official agenda of the rationalists" It goes on to provide a quote about those who consider ayurveda scientific don't know enough about the topic. The section starts with the sentence, "There are some ideological realms where the official agenda of ANiS is not applied in the ideal way by a majority of it's members." it is discussing ayurveda and astrology and clearly both the author and ANiS consider them both to be pseudoscience. I would have to say the source supports the label of pseudoscience not "quite the oposite". Before putting forth a source it is a good idea to read more than a single sentence generated by a search. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3; Cherrypicking a few sentences wouldn't speak enough. ANiS means Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti, and the paragraph is after all about the organization's views. Author doesn't seem to be holding any of his own view about AV in whole book. So there's still no reason to consider AV to be pseudoscience. ANiS is concerned with Astrology, that it is pseudoscience(see last paragraph and next page), not AV. If you have any particular citation that would describe AV as pseudoscience then only we can establish something. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First this is the source you provided in an attempt to assert ayurveda is not considered pseudoscience. Second try giving the whole page a read. It makes it clear that the organization (ANiS) clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience. If you try reading some more of the content of the book it is mostly about ANiS and the book is about "a movement that is based on the explicit intent to challenge belief in magical powers of irrational efficacy as well as the influence of charismatic gurus." It was you who cherry picked a single sentence. Read at least the full page you pointed to and perhaps the introduction also, context matters. BTW the position of an organization published in this context is a reliable source, it need not be the opinion of the author. The organization clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience and the author seems to be in agreement (context matters). I really suggest you read the book.

See also, Semple, David; Smyth, Roger, eds. (2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780191015908. Which includes ayurveda in the discussion headed pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's members are also saying that they don't consider it as pseudoscience? Not even a matter because it is about a irrelevant organization. Author has clearly stated none of his opinion.

As for your second citation, it is no where describing ayurveda, and there is only a unreferenced flying mention. While author has cited reference for others. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It has an entry in this encyclopedia of pseudoscience, which is suggestive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

While many of the pages includes the paragraphs about places, historians, just a paragraph in a book is not enough, only because book's title includes the word pseudoscience, it is not saying that AV is pseudoscience or anything close to it. While it has generally considered other concepts like Psychic surgery to be pseudo-scientific. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And this book on science in India tells us that some people view it as pseudoscience (or worse). Looking at the sourcing I think neglecting to mention that (at least) some people view ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscience would be a touch coy ... we should be neutral here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Should be described in relevant reliable sources. Flying mentions about some view cannot be considered to be descriptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semple & Smyth 2013 is a very strong source very clearly describing ayurveda as pseudoscience, Quack 2011 provides clear description of a notable organization's position, Paranjape 2009 provides more than a flying mention it provides a clear description, an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is notable. The sources are piling up and your arguments are becoming tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For good measure: Wanjek, Christopher (2003). Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O. John Wiley & Sons. p. 168. ISBN 9780471463153. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not describing as such, can you quote here? Your citation Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, doesn't include the word pseudoscience or anything close to it, if its about AV. Just bringing up many irrelevant references wouldn't solve anything. Read Wikipedia:OR, Wikipedia:SYNTH. A source has to state 2+2=4 then only you can refer at such, in fact, if it has referred 2 & 2, it wouldn't be considered as 2 plus 2. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is counter factual. Semple & Smyth explicitly use the word pseudoscience and describe how ayurveda is pseudoscience. Quack presents the explicit statement of the official position of ANiS (which the author endorses, read the book). Inclusion in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is also fairly explicit. Paranjape also explicitly uses the word pseudoscience (again look to context, the book is about science in India, the positions represented are those of the scientific community). I think Wanjek's description can be fairly paraphrased as describing ayurveda as pseudoscience and it includes "faulty science". I think paraphrasing 2 & 2 as 2 plus 2 is not what consensus would consider synth or OR (of course context matters). Your contention that the references are irrelevant is nonsensical. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to your request for quotes, Semple and Smyth, "These pseudoscientific theories may be based on authority rather than empirical observation (e.g. old-school psychoanalysis, New Age psychotherapies, Thought Field Therapy), concern the unobservable (e.g. orgone energy, chi), confuse the metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine), or even maintain views that contradict known scientific laws (e.g. homeopathy)." (italics in original). - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing means written representation or account of object, it should be detailed. How a flying mention could be considered as a description? I only talked about irrelevant references, you misunderstood that part.

Pranjapae starts with people who rate AV as "proto-scientific system" and ends with "yet there are others" who reject it as pseudo-science, all in all, it is just a one liner. "Faulty science" is of course not the term that we would be using on encyclopedia, how you found it to be 100% related with pseudoscience?

Now since we have citations about Traditional Chinese medicine[8], Psychic surgery[9], [10] and many other concepts. Why we couldn't have one good citation about AV, stating that it is pseudoscience, it seems to be very hard compared to rest of the pseudo-scientific concepts.

In your search, can you try including the terms like proto science or pre-science/pre=scientific, you would happen to find many citations with detailed instead of these 2 or 3, because that is how AV is usually described. Proto-science largely differs from pseudoscience. Question is, that what is normally accepted? That's what we stick to. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semple & Smyth are describing pseudoscience and it's characteristics and list ayurveda as an example. The description is adequately detailed and the characterization is unquestionable. Pranjapae states, "It may be pointed out that varied views are prevalent on the epistemological nature of Ayurveda. There are people who would rate Ayurveda as a proto-scientific system of thought, yet others would go so far as to reject Ayurveda as pseudo-science altogether, not to speak of characterizing it as unscientific. Today, Ayurvedic professionals are struggling to prove the so-called 'scientificity' of Ayurveda." So in discussing how ayurveda is characterized in science clearly there are those who call it pseudoscience. This is also supported in Quack. What source do you have that states "what is normally accepted" or "usually described"? Pranjapae supports the contention that multiple descriptions are used, explicitly including pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

On the same book of Pranjapae, you can find "Ayuveda exemplifies proto-science at best and would have been fared better if it had shed the remnants of the magico-religious tradition out of which it developed and turned into a more rational approach to healing." Then there are many paragraphs about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the authors gives their own view - but that does not somehow negate the information that some view Ayurvedia as pseudoscience; since some good sources agree on this we owe it to inform our readers such a view is held. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct and I am not actually saying that we should disregard those who consider it as pseudoscience otherwise I would be at Pseudoscience and removing the mention of AV. But like we all know that there are mentions, and indeed such view is held. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So Pranjapae says "proto-science at best" if that is the best possible characterization what would be the "normally accepted" or "usually described" characterization? He specifically stated it is characterized by some as pseudoscience. Notable science journalist David Bradley wrote, "One area of non-western science that many western medics and scientists say is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap is Ayurvedic medicine." - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Manohar, PR (April 2013). "Uniform standards and quality control of research publications in the field of Ayurveda". Ancient Science of Life. 32 (4): 185–6. doi:10.4103/0257-7941.131968. PMC 4078466. PMID 24991064.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) a marginal source provides a decent discussion that essentially reveals research into ayurveda as pseudoscientific and states, "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda." (goes on to point out Beall's bias but supports his contention). - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the best possible characterization, but certainly one of them, because pre-scientific/proto-scientific seems to be more in common. Commenting on sciencebase article, what they say is purely speculation, though he ends with "Perhaps it is time modern science took a closer look at the multitude of alternative remedies that sit under the Ayurvedic umbrella." And "perhaps science should consider the holistic approach to drug discovery with a view to coping with the side effects and improving efficacy overall." It seems to me like you are naming me every single page which has included ayurveda and pseudoscience together or any similar term, but you are not telling that how they are describing. The best you had was Semple & Smyth, who just added ayurveda as one of the example, but didn't explained about it. Let me repeat once again, it would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources.

The journal you have cited, Manohar further writes "Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda and uses this opportunity to spice up his arguments against Ayurveda, it is important to realize that the lapses within the Ayurvedic community makes the latter vulnerable to criticism." So we are going to take a biased opinion? If no, then how we can only believe on the first few lines, but not the rest? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources with a bias are acceptable, read the policy. WP represents the published sources including their opinions, the opinions and biased statements of notable, relevant authors are acceptable content. In some cases attribution is appropriate, but Pranjapae has published it as an opinion that is held in the field at least by some. What medics and scientists say is not "purely speculation" it is a description of the view of at least a portion of the scientific/medical/academic community. It has been clearly established that there are multiple published sources that support the statement that ayurveda is considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific, medical and academic community, given that including that information in the article is appropriate.

Beall, Jeffrey (2013-10-01). "The open access movement is fueling the emergence of pseudo-science journals". Scholarly Open Access. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the first few lines at most. I am not saying that any of them should be disregarded, since they are generally considered as good sources like we have discussed above, and this discussion was more about the sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Paranjape states at best that's the source, a WP editor's opinion on what is the best or "seems to be more in common" are OR without sources to back it up. On WP it is what the sources say. Semple & Smyth do indeed describe how ayurveda is pseudoscience "confuse the metaphysical with empirical claims". That is "how it is described in a reliable source", pseudoscience that confuses the metaphysical with empirical claims. Quack presents the official position of a notable organization (an opinion he endorses, he considers mixed adherence to that position a shortcoming). Paranjape presents the opinions of members of the scientific/academic community. Bradley presents the opinions of "many western medics and scientists". Beall presents his opinion that of a notable, relevant authority. Manohar finds his characterization notable enough to quote and provides a description of the published science on ayurveda consistent with the definition of pseudoscience. The encyclopedia of pseudoscience lists ayurveda as an entry. Wanjek's description is a rather detailed explanation of how ayurveda is pseudoscience (certainly a fair paraphrase, not OR or SYNTH). You have asked for sources that specifically describe ayurveda as pseudoscience, multiple sources have been provided. Clearly reliable sources describe ayurveda as pseudoscience (or considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific/academic/medical community) you can't ask for 2+2 and then say 2+2 isn't adequate description. Of note for explanation of the basis for applying a term, a description consistent with the definition of the term is fairly paraphrased through the application of the term. That is not OR or Synth that is using a word as what it means. If the word pseudoscience applies to the subject of the article it falls within the purview of the sanctions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If it could be considered as one, then obviously I wouldn't have problem if it is within the range of sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ayurveda+pseudoscience+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl Ayurveda is known to be a pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If it could be considered as one" Multiple sources have been supplied, quoted and explained. QG's search link returns a large number of books which "consider it one". The only counter arguments have been "maybe science should" "proto-science at best" nothing in any way countering the clear characterization in multiple sources. It is clear that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience so "it is within the range of sanctions". No policy based, sourced backed argument has been put forth that challenges the assertion that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience. Good faith is being strained. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sources can be added to the article and summarised in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New discussion started for this edit and this change. See Talk:Ayurveda#Violation of ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I added another source and it was deleted. No matter what source is used it will likely be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Above discussion was just about putting article under the arbcom sanctions on pseudoscience, but there was some requirement of sources, if they consider AV to be pseudoscience, and we did it. No agreement for categorizing/generalizing it as pseudoscience. If recognition is the case, AV has been added to Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and it's been a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean you are not going to explain this revert? QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done, on the talk page. Above discussion is probably over, let's keep further discussion there (Talk:Ayurveda). Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorrowful God

This could use a bit off looking into. There's a bunch of fold crap stubs about supposed Polish mythology at AFD right now but this one at least I could trace back to Marija Gimbutas in her late fringey phase. I don't know the field though so it's possible that someone actually cares about this. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have responded there. It appears to have been referenced in a few academic sources. -Location (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hodgson Report

Article consists of mostly unsourced original research, sources that mention the report are mostly fringe. Any ideas about this? A redirect might be appropriate. Goblin Face (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is one of a nest of impenetrable Theosophy POV forks probably deriving from this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple academic sources that reference it (e.g. J. Gordon Melton[11], James A. Santucci[12]), but I'm not convinced that there is enough for a stand-alone. Gary Lachman, bassist for Blondie, mentions it in his biography of Blavatsky, but I did not look carefully to see if it is a fringe source. Redirect to Helena Blavatsky? - Location (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nofel Izz, Inventor?

• Nofel_Izz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Nofel_Izz#WP:FRINGE_problems?

Izz is a businessman who sold his online recruiting firm, Jobs in Dubai, for $9 million in 2011 according to a published announcement.

He's promoted himself as an inventor, having patented a type of condom wrapper, and actively promoting his designs for an emergency oxygen mask and a space tower. In a recent RfC, multiple editors argued against presenting these inventions, and they've been substantially de-emphasized. However, these comments ([13] [14]) bring up points that might be best dealt here, as the inventions appear simplistic to the point that it's likely no science or engineering journalist would ever take them serious enough to even mention them. How should we treat this given we're unlikely to ever have sources beyond his own p.r.? Have similar inventors been discussed here? --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These concerns have been extensively if not exhaustively discussed on the article talk page, particularly under Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, where the consensus is that the article as at revision 629505495 is properly cited with reliable sources and passes WP:NPOV. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That version makes mention of "the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell" which will be nonsense to our readers, so if there's a local consensus in favour of this version of the article it's probably right to kick it upstairs to this noticeboard. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. There's no consensus for such nonsense [15], but that's for WP:COIN and WP:ANI to address.

So, what has been done with other articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alexbrn, the reliable sources cited and majority of the contributors to the talk page discussions do not think that the mention of the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell in the article is "nonsense to our readers"; note that that revision has since been improved upon, and I have rephrased that particular line too. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not addressing the relevant policy and guideline issues here. You're once again claiming consensus and a majority (which is often irrelevant to consensus-building) despite the majority of editors involved disagreeing. As noted, these problems need to be addressed at WP:COIN and ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My words are quite clear, that the contents are supported by citations to reliable sources, it meets WP:NPOV and passes WP:UNDUE, and of most of the contributors, you alone is consistently disagreeing with this—Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of asserting your "majority" (which appears to include only yourself), you'll have to identify exactly who and how they agree (diffs will suffice). Meanwhile, you've still demonstrated no understanding of the policy/guideline concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-relevant discussions from archives:

• BlackLight Power Company, but we're already rejected Telescopic Exo Shell. One editor just wants to be sure to mention the name "Telescopic Exo Shell" in the article on Izz despite it being a nonsensical phrase.--Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Lamarr as an inventor. In contrast to Izz's claims, hers are well-documented and clearly worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the "inventions" discussed to support their notability. Lack of characterization as "inventor" or discussion of "inventions" in reliable sources. The inclusion of these inventions and the characterization as inventor is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter‬

‪Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is a leftover from a time when it was acceptable for UFO articles to argue the UFOlogy point of view (e.g. who calls it "Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter" or "Kelly Green Men Case" except UFOlogists?) Objective sources are largely ignored in favor of credulous UFOlogy sources (I love the part where Wikipedia asserts that the witnesses charging the public an admission fee to see their farm was intended to "keep people away"). It may be time to clean out all the unreliable sources and trim down the sensationalized narrative to only what reliable sources support. Some possible news sources: [16] [17] - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's long overdue a rewrite from better sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve

Universal rotation curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The AfD crashed and burned and I'm trying to deal with the damage. So far, we have had no help from editors except to say that because there are inline citations to Salucci's papers, we therefore have a reliable article. (It's total WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). Help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks dreadful but I don't have the physics knowledge to help much. The article is lacking anything about the extent to which these ideas are accepted in science. It also needs in the lede, a short clear statement about what the usual scientific explanation is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uri Geller

Edits being done to this article with a new section created "2013 BBC documentary" and to the lead claiming he is "a serious psychic who has worked for various intelligence agencies". The source for this is a dubious documentary that featured parapsychologists such as Russell Targ, also unreliable sources have been added such as imdb etc. Goblin Face (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tollmann's hypothetical bolide

I stumbled across Tollmann's hypothetical bolide (and by extension Alexander Tollmann) today - it seems that most of the article is about the fact that this is a fringe hypothesis, but the lead is very positive and doesn't mention any criticism at all. Seems like it could maybe use some attention. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:0x0077BE Have you made any discussion on the talk page? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't gotten around to it. Anyone can feel free, though. Doesn't look like a very active talk page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Series of deletions of skeptical sources and opinions

I'd like to see more eyes on this situation. An editor, Harizotoh9 (talk · contribs), has been on a roll, removing lots of skeptical opinions and websites, some of it on dubious grounds. I left a message on their talk page. Please read it and check out their recent contribution history. I'm not saying they're all wrong, but I think they are going too far. NPOV requires the inclusion of critical sources and their non-NPOV language. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion after a series of edits at Natural News and came here to find this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is an especially nasty series of POV edits which can best be described as whitewashing of a very fringe and misleading website, ergo the edits serve to promote it. I won't even mentioned the "worst" interpretation. It certainly reveals a gross misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no fan of Brian Dunning and PZ Myers. I rolled back most of the edits from the last day or so. Someone should inform admins. jps (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Johrei “purification of the spirit”

If someone has the time and inclination, Johrei is a treasure trove of Fringe. The talk page mentions there are misrepresented studies used as references, there are Med claims throughout, however not cited to any creditable source. I worry that I took a first stab at the article cleaning it up there would be nothing left. Can someone please help to sort out the wheat from the chaff in this article? VViking_TalkEdits 10:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Need admin on Talk:Homeopathy

We have another SPA User:TineIta who is engaging in disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so forth - in clear violation of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Talk:Homeopathy. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could swing by and verify whether a dope-slap is needed. TIA SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)