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.
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:

Koren Specific Technique

Koren Specific Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? It seems to have made something of a legal splash, so that might make it notable.

jps (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The legal bash is not about the technique. I removed the sources that failed RS and MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Look who is editing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack text about the legal bash and unreliable sources were restored. If all the coatrack and unreliable sources were deleted the article would not be notable IMO. This is the clean version. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, let's try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique. jps (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Mind-body/Bodymind

Is it just me or do these concepts all sound like the same thing?

• Mind-body dichotomy
• Bodymind
• Bodymind (in meditation traditions)
• Somatic psychology
• Somatics
• Embodied cognition

And these techniques...

• Bodywork (alternative medicine)
• Body psychotherapy
• Sensorimotor psychotherapy
• Somatherapy
• Somatic Experiencing
• Kinetic Awareness
• Bioenergetic analysis
• Vegetotherapy
• Psychotherapeutic postural integration
• Postural Integration
• Posture release imagery
• Alexander technique
• Trager approach

Maybe some of them don't belong on the list. It's hard to tell. But what does one do about such a large number of articles on essentially the same thing? PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that Bodywork (alternative medicine) was a very generic category that includes basic massage and other things. I therefore doubt that it's in the same category as the others, since it's already a generic concept. Alexander technique is used by singers (standing up straight and relaxing the right muscles produces a good tone). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

The talk page for this article appears to be locked against editing by unregistered users - preventing me from drawing attention to the latest development, which casts serious doubts regarding claimed investment by Industrial Heat LCC in the device. See this article [1] and the statement from IH themselves [2] As it currently stands, the article (wisely) says nothing about IH's involvement anyway, but previous versions included such material, and there seems to be recent discussion on possibly restoring it. Accordingly it would seem wise to at least note on the talk page that as per every previous claimed 'investor' in the E-Cat, nothing has come of the venture beyond the usual flim-flam - the NET article possibly doesn't meet WP:RS, but the IH statement is certainly sufficient to invalidate earlier claims about the level of their involvement. It is probably too much to hope that the ever-optimistic promoters of this device on Wikipedia will finally get the point and find something a bit more credible to plug instead, but at least you can draw a line under this latest episode. Accordingly I would appreciate it if someone could copy this to the article talk page, and/or raise the matter there themselves. Thanks. 86.163.197.112 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it normal/allowed for the talkpage to be locked? I never heard of that. PermStrump(talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NM I read the page on sanctions. Apparently it's a thing. I added it to my watchlist, but I don't know when I'll have time to really look into it as I never heard of it before. PermStrump(talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is perfectly cromulent when an article talk page is being disrupted by cranks and hucksters. New Energy Times is not a WP:RS, though - it's a cold fusionist fanzine. I posted a note to the talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel bad for cold fusioneers. This situation is so transparently corrupt to outsiders looking in that it can't help but cast doubt on the entire community of cold fusion. I gather that Krivit's campaign against Rossi is motivated largely by this fear (as well correctly smelling the rat where it is, but I don't understand why Krivit can't smell it in the Kimmel Institute or in the SPAWAR claims either...). Rossi's machinations represent a real existential threat to those who have been patiently over the course of 25 years trying to convince the world that they balked too soon at Pons and Fleischmann type claims. jps (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh

Not really a fringe theory but more of a case of potential undue weight on certain topics/viewpoints, so related. Seeking outside opinion/request for comment on talk page of Yahweh. -KaJunl (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This user is simply not accustomed to how academics talk of religion. I answered the following at Talk:Yahweh:

• Oppose: Judaism wasn't born full-fledged, as Athena from the head of Zeus. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Yahweh is scholarly parlance so the word is employed it is most common name from reliable sources. Jews in general abhor writing or pronouncing Yahweh, Christians generally don't call their God that way and Muslims call him Allah. So its scholarly-historical meaning is most fitting the way it is used here. The OP thinks that the majority view means fundamentalist rhetoric, but he is badly mistaken: the majority view is in this case the view of Bible scholars who live by publish or perish and teach at reputable universities. See WP:ABIAS for details. So this RFC is malformed as the attempt that it is to WP:CENSOR the history of Judaism in general and of this god in particular. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that he quickly reads five recent Bible scholarship books published by Oxford University Press in order to understand how academics talk about the Bible and its history. The basics of the Yahweh question are outlined in A History of God, a really good book for beginners. I suggest he should read it first. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP considers the verifiable information from reliable sources as WP:UNDUE because he never got an university education as far as religion studies are concerned and it is understandable that people who never had such chance consider weird what academics have to say about the gods of the Bible.

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While Wikipedia nowhere requires us to be experts in order to write articles, a basic understanding of the field you're editing in is required. Otherwise WP:RANDY is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The spectre that haunts this field isn't Randy; it's Oolon Colluphid. There are, after all, even when you discount the fundagelicals as hopelessly backward, a lot more seminaries than those in the mainline which are to some greater or lesser extent apostate. The Germanic hist-crit school has spent a century in the pretense that it's the only way of looking at things once you've thrown off the shackles of naive religious credulity or or dogmatic literalism, but there are, after all a lot more Catholic seminaries, and even in the mainline, Rudolf Bultmann isn't everyone's oracle.

If you poke around you can find criticism of Ehrman's latest book, which is pretty much like the criticism of the one before that. From what I can tell a lot of the field does not accept his focus on textual inconsistencies. It's hard to say, without better tools and more time than I have at the moment, what the overall opinion is, because things tend to be drowned out by the anti-religious cheering squad (a whole different set of Randys, but Randys they are). In that wise it is no surprise to me that Jesus, Interrupted is published by HarperCollins, because they push that sort of thing (they've been the publisher for most of Spong's books, for example). Trying to find scholarly reviews of A History of God has proven to be quite difficult, but I have no doubt that Armstrong's thesis is to some large degree disputed; yet we seem to be relying on it in our article as a definitive source.

The root problem is that, once you get past the objective facts of multiple text versions and the data of textual analysis, everything else is speculative. Sure, the documentary hypothesis is plausible, and the Two-source hypothesis makes some sort of sense up to a point, but when it comes down to it, they are hardly proven. Robby from Cambridge goes to his secular college, and gets text crit dumped on his naive head, and never learns that nobody really knows any of these conclusions, that there's a wide range of views out there, and that the position he learned in sophomore college classes has spent a century pretending that there's nobody out there but themselves. Some of our articles are actually pretty solid about admitting that the matter is far from closed (e.g. synoptic problem), but this one is pretty bad. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that A History of God was a particularly good scholarly work, only that it serves as a good introduction for people who did not read any scholarship about Yahweh. Those who disagree with Ehrman mostly don't disagree with his facts, they disagree with his pedagogy (focus on textual inconsistencies). I mean, everybody knows the textual inconsistencies are there, but many still find the Bible theologically reliable. The point of the historical-critical research is not that the Bible would be theologically unreliable (remember they discuss falsifiable historical statements, not what believers should believe as a matter of true faith). Its point is that Mark's theology is different from Matthew's theology, different from Luke's theology, different from Paul's theology, etc. This point has to be proven by textual inconsistencies, not that the Bible would be bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As Peter Enns says at [3], the critical-historical method is not the only game in town, but it is pedagogically seen the game every Bible scholar learns to play (in secular universities) before learning other games. If you take time to follow the apologetic criticism of Ehrman at [4], you will see that James White (theologian) states that any student attending a secular US university will be confronted during its classes with arguments similar to those made by Ehrman and that it is extremely rare to catch Ehrman stating an untrue fact about the Bible and/or the history of Christianity. So, this is a confirmation of Ehrman's position in respect to academic consensus from a harsh critic of him. Of course, White criticizes Ehrman for theological reasons: he does not like what he sees as Ehrman's theology, even if Ehrman claims that he is a historian, not a theologian. Further, there was a time, not very long ago, when historical critics did not care much for archaeology and archaeologists did not care much for historical criticism. Now they see that they need each other. The point is: the Yahweh articles builds from historical criticism as well as from archaeology, so just saying that historical criticism is not the only game in town won't change everything it contains, since that also relies upon archaeology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloom, Allan (1987). "The Student and the University". The Closing of the American Mind (Pbk ed.). New York: SIMON & SCHUSTER PAPERBACKS. pp. 374–375. ISBN 0-671-65715-1. Retrieved 18 August 2010. I am distinguishing two related but different problems here. The contents of the classic books have become particularly difficult to defend in modern times, and the professors who teach them do not care to defend them, are not interested in their truth. One can most clearly see the latter in the case of the Bible. To include it in the humanities is already a blasphemy, a denial of its own claims. There it is almost inevitably treated in one of two ways: It is subjected to modern "scientific" analysis, called the Higher Criticism, where it is dismantled, to show how "sacred" books are put together, and they are not what they claim to be. It is useful as a mosaic in which one finds the footprints of many dead civilizations. Or else the Bible is used in courses of comparative religion as one expression of the need for the "sacred" and as a contribution to the very modern, very scientific study of the structure of "myths". (Here one can join up with the anthropologists and really be alive.) A teacher who treated the Bible naively, taking at its word, or Word, would be accused of scientific incompetence and lack of sophistication. Moreover, he might rock the boat and start the religious wars all over again, as well as a quarrel within the university between reason and revelation, which would upset comfortable arrangements and wind up by being humiliating to the humanities. Here one sees the traces of the Enlightenment's political project, which wanted precisely to render the Bible, and other old books, undangerous. This project is one of the underlying causes of the impotence of the humanities. The best that can be done, it appears, is to teach "The Bible as Literature," as opposed to "as Revelation," which it claims to be. In this way it can be read somewhat independently of deforming scholarly apparatus, as we read, for example, Pride and Prejudice. Thus the few professors who feel that there is something wrong with the other approaches tend to their consciences. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution

Of possible interest to board watchers.

jps (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics

More eyes welcomed on Cryonics and Talk:Cryonics (again) - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Much nutjubbery there. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has made serious plans to have their head frozen after death, what specific piece of nutjobbery is the problem? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the 'open letter' rubbish? Not really nutjobbery but then its also over-exaggerating/misleading the purpose of said letter. Cryonics is a legitimate field of science which will (hopefully) one day have great applications in medicine. In some areas research has already had practical applications. The problem seems to be that the material is attempting to be used to support/answer the question 'Can I be frozen and brought back to life?' when really its only valid to support/answer 'Is this a real scientific field as opposed to quackery?'. Which are two very different things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fire needle acupuncture

• Fire needle acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amazingly, passed AfD. There is now resistance to using decent sources (Cochrane) and having a pseudoscience category. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

5:2 diet

• 5:2 diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another in the long-running series of fad diets for which there is resistance to using that terminology (although the NHS seems okay with it). I almost wonder whether it's worth it since there seems to be no end of fad diets and no end to the debate calling them that causes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

The Star of Bethlehem page attracts a lot of fringe theories, with lots of people eager to promote their own theories, despite the widespread scholarly assumption that the star is a literary construct.

I have been engaged with an editor who has one particular fringe view: that the birth of king Herod was four years later than generally accepted. This may seem a trivial point but it is of great importance to some fundamentalist Christians who are bothered by the fact that the Gospel of Luke says the birth of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod and at the time of the census - which took place ten years after Herod died. This is an old chestnut, and many elaborate theories have been put forward in the past to explain away the problem. Modern scholars have given up on this, dismissing such arguments as "exegetical acrobatics" (Geza Vermes).

The editor, Al Leluia81, has been trying to promote his own personal view on the Star of Bethlehem page. Section Star_of_Bethlehem#Relating_the_star_historically_to_Jesus.27_birth

Not only are his edits skewed towards equal treatment of this fringe view, he appears to be editing in bad faith. He has removed critical edits, claiming they are "promotional"; he has implied three bible versions promote a particular dubious version of the biblical text, when they actually include them only as possible aternatives; he has used poor quality, non- academic sources and demands they be given equal treatment to established mainstream scholarly sources; and he has accused me of harassment for calling him out for this.

An example of this is an edit based on poor sources and an amateur's error. I explained why this was wrong:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_of_Bethlehem#Removal_of_Beyer_text It is a very clear and detailed explanation. This error has no support in modern Josehus scholarship. Anyone familiar with the issue would know this. Yet the editor simply reverted the text with a series of poor quality sources.

--Rbreen (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the "Relating the star historically to Jesus' birth" section, I don't see what it's doing there, since it is almost entirely devoted to the messy business of working out the date of Herod's death and doesn't mention the star at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe, and just whacked that entire subsection in a drive-by edit. I'm sure it'll be back very soon in some form, but I didn't see the need to drag the reader through a quagmire of other controversies that really don't seem to have a bearing on the subject. Hard to see how it can help resolve anything about Biblical chronology if probably didn't happen. Geogene (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Using Herod's Death To Determine Jesus Birth stuff would be better suited at an article like Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth (currently in AfD but seems to have a chance of survival). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger, yet again

Got some activity at Michael Greger again (deletion of skepticism, addition of health claims) which could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Much in need of more peer reviewed science links not personal opinions from blogs.Timpicerilo (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Now got criticism from Science-Based Medicine being removed by a suspiciously fresh a/c. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And now an IP is removing criticism ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fringey userpage article

I came across this userpage while checking and fixing ref errors. I would like an opinion if this is fringe or not. The main header is "A FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE OF METABOLICALLY GENERATED FREE RADICALS AS THE FOUNDATION OF HOMEOSTASIS". A Google search revealed part of it on [5]. --Auric talk 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbobmelamede. jps (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Auric talk 15:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For those of you who ruled the theory fringe and stopped reading after a couple sentences, you missed out. It turns out cannabinoids are the Fountain of Youth. Speedy deletion for copyvio was the right course of action. Roches (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I noticed that too. I wish. Carl Sagan would probably still be alive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A new Sorcha Faal article

Sorcha Faal, see also Talk:Sorcha Faal. Doesn't appear to have improved in notability since the last AFD, with all the problems noted there and new ones added - but someone else can nominate it this time - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist influences on Christianity

This article is pretty problematic, because, when you get into the meat of it, you find that by and large the scholarly world rejects that such influences exist outside some syncretism (maybe) in Nestorian India, and that indeed it seems more likely that whatever influences there are run the other direction. At least it doesn't mention Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Any ideas about fixing up the lead? Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the sources for the more remarkable claims were overtly religious material, and/or were published by a press that seems pretty heavy into astrology and New Age spiritualism. I removed those that I saw and replaced with CN tags. The article doesn't seem to be able to mention any concrete examples of Buddhism directly influencing Christianity, instead it mostly gives examples of Greco-Romans being vaguely aware that Buddhism exists. If anybody's going to the library soon, they might want to verify that the claim about Dharmic wheels being found in Egypt is actually in the source given. Geogene (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Graston Technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Article is appropriate, I did a quick pubmed search and found 5 peer reviewed articles. Also this is not a chiropractor specific modality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549185 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22997469

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23118072 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22131563 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589706 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15855909. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 02:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all the sources you presented are reviews and some are written by the trade. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because a journal is written by the trade does not make it less reliable. Peer reviewed journals written by professional associations that follow standard peer review processes are still reliable. Regardless I only spent 2 minutes on this. There is not doubt that 1) the topic is notable and 2) it is not specific to chiropractors. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 03:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to use independent sources and reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

While that is your preference peer reviewed research on pubmed is inherently reliable. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We should use reviews. Peer reviewed research does not equal reliability. See WP:MEDRS. See WP:MEDINDY for using independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideal sources are reviews yes (especially systematic reviews) but peer reviewed studies are still reliable. You cannot paint all sources with the same brush. Also I think you need to review WP:BEFORE and do some research yourself prior to determining everything should be deleted. I should note, I am a deletionist. One suggestion I have is to move this to a new article on insturment assisted soft tissue massage (IASTM) since Graston is just one version of this more commonly used technique. ASTYM, Gavelon and generic IASTM tools are widely used. 99.249.130.248 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Since it is not specifically about chiropractic I have moved the thread. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatment techniques

Diversified technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An article may be appropriate for this topic. Diversified is the most commonly used form of thrust joint manipulation used by DCs, PTs, and OTs; diversified is taught in all chiropractic schools internationally and is the form of manipulation being taught in 97% of PT schools in the US today; almost every study on spine manipulation published to date has been looking at diversified thrust joint manipulation.

I recommend a merge to Chiropractic treatment techniques. A quick AFD discussion can resolve the debate. Same with the other techniques below. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gonstead technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not notable on it's own. Used as a primary approach by only a small percentage of US chiropractors, very little clinical research of spinal manipulation available that uses Gonstead approach specifically.

This admittedly a little dated reference claims use of Gonstead by 58% of (presumably American) practitioners. Mangoe (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

Neuro Emotional Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

NUCCA

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Trigenics

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Activator technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference above claims 62% of practitioners use it. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sports chiropractic

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

Unreliable sources everywhere. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This article also reads like an advertisement. Geogene (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is plain garbage. Wikipedia is being misused for advertisement. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique (again)

Koren Specific Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I propose merging into Chiropractic treatment techniques. If it survives AFD then we can still merge it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic neurology

Chiropractic neurology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I ended up on this one somehow after visiting sports chiropractic. Same issues as all of the above. Just wanted to add it to the list so I don't forget about it. Will comment more on discussion below. PermStrump(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles

• Comment With a polite nod to QuackGuru's long record of fighting pseudo-scientific medical nonsense on the project, I am not altogether clear as to what exactly brings all of these articles, flawed though many are, to FTN. Is there an assertion that they are all promoting some kind of pseudoscience or other Fringe Theory? Just wondering... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is suggesting that these fringe articles could all be merged into one, called chiro treat techs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropracty is a fringe subject (based on pseudoscience and BS, but incorporating a small bit of actual medicine). That being said, I'm not sure that different techniques within it are non-notable. There are a lot of chiropractors out there and they have a lot of patients. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Medical quackery and pseudoscience is not one of my strong subject areas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge all the techniques into Chiropractic treatment techniques. For example, each technique can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with merging most chiropractic techniques. Like someone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if certain techniques are notable enough for their own spinoff article, but Koren Specific Technique, chiropractic neurology and sports chiropractic should be on the short list to merge-ville. Ad Orientem, I had no idea how much quackery there was to chiropractic until, like, last week. When I've seen a chiropractor, she never said anything to me about their alternate definition of "subluxation" or the other really foo-foo woo-woo sounding things that are apparently a major part of chiropractic philosophy. I think I'll still pop in to see my chiropractor from time-to-time (she's different, I swear), but it's definitely a field that attracts a lot of fringier fringe on top of the base fringe. At its core, it's not accepted by the medical community anyway, but it's sort of "mainstream" in the sense that a lot of normal people go to chiropractors and like them and there's at least validity to the techniques they use that overlap with PT and DOs. But the people using those techniques aren't the ones beating down the door to create vanity articles on WP. PermStrump(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: this podcast interviews a retired psychiatrist turned debunker who says pretty much the same thing you just did. I just thought you might be interested in this. Don't let the channel or podcast name fool you: this episode is about exactly what the episode name suggests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also OK with the merger, as what we have is a bunch of short articles when it would be better to see them together, for comparison's sake. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Support merger to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. Most of these haven't enough notability for standalone articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I spotted another problem. Spinal_adjustment#Adjustment_techniques should be merged into Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. There should not be duplication in two different articles. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority‎

There are a couple of editors over there, both of whom have stated their conviction that the argument from authority is always a fallacy trying to push an example and some bad sources into the article which supports their view. The specific example they're trying to push is the belief in the early 20th century that humans had 48 chromosomes, because the most popular count of 48 came from a highly respected cytologist (Theophilus Painter). They're pushing sources from mathematicians and psychologists as experts on logic, and ignoring any arguments to the contrary. They've opened two sections at RSN, the latter of which boomeranged on them by bringing in a couple of additional editors to contest the inclusion. Most of the editors involved don't want to use this example because it's unclear, it implies that even relying on non-controversial expert claims is a fallacy (despite all the academic and scholarly sources flatly stating that it isn't), and because it's just so contentious that it wouldn't be stable. It has been suggested (by me) that one particular case in which a cytologist said he had to force a count of 48 when he didn't see 48 could be used, so long as it was balanced with examples of the argument used non-fallaciously and other forms of fallacious versions, but that compromise was flatly rejected. Any additional voices of reason would be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed

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

Fans of Andy Wakefield's anti-vaccine conspiracy propaganda film are infesting this article. More eyes, please. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)