Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:19, 11 April 2016

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:

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
101

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by .

Koren Specific Technique

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

That does not remove it from notability. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Disturbingly little criticism, agreed... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. --Auric talk 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Graston Technique

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

~~While that is your preference peer reviewed research on pubmed is inherently reliable. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Sock comments stricken. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Chiropractic treatment techniques

Diversified technique

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

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)[reply]

No merge, this type of merge discussion and all the following below are best of AfD. Sources determine notability. Each article needs individual attention and possible expansion. It would be hard to avoid bias if these discussions are clumped into one. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonstead technique

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

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)[reply]

This strongly passed AfD, there for is notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still a stub. There is plenty of room in the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

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

It can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques. Should it be nominated for AFD? QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found Secondary sources found News Day, [2], Orthospinology Procedures: An Evidence-based Approach to Spinal Care. No merge expansion needed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there's basically two sentences of content (the quote looks frivolous), it looks very mergable if there's somewhere appropriate to put it.

Newsday link: A random reader's letter to the editor in the opinion pages is not a reliable source.
Book link: There's zero meaningful content there. Two completely empty passing mentions.
Chiroeco link: I don't know what reputation it has for reliability, but as a website of long running print magazine the default expectation is that it qualifies as RS. However it's hard to tell if that's supposed to be an actual magazine article. 1/3 of the way through the tone switches to some sort of personal testimonial. Very strange. Alsee (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports chiropractic

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

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

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

The is a huge field. Try a little next time please. And there are references here which clear by MEDRS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koren Specific Technique (again)

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)[reply]

Blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we get it. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub like Gonstead technique. There is a lack of reliable sources for a separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was proposed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was unsuccessful. Stubs are allowed, without them ever being expanded, although that is welcome. I smell deletionism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic neurology

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I spotted another page. Spinal_adjustment#Adjustment_techniques is similar to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. I think Spinal adjustments are for techniques in general while Chiropractic treatment techniques is for only Chiropractic techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No merge, sources suggest this is notable, some are notable quackery others have legitimate studies. It is ridiculous to clump all these into one discussion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Before an editor creates a new article the main page should be expanded first otherwise the new article could be considered a FORK, especially if there are few reliable sources on the topic.. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike like the idea that if any editor who fails to have a subject delete, can "merge" the subject, also nearly every editor here has voted to the delete the subjects in the past. BullRangifer and DGG, is this neutral editing? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem, you restored the unreliable sources and disputed content against consensus. Is that appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that undisputed against consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Violation_of_consensus. The diffs show you restored unreliable sources against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques because there is insufficient material based on reliable secondary sources to cover them separately. Keeping them as separate articles encourages people to pad them out with fringe health claims with sources that completely fail WP:MEDRS, as shown, for example, at Koren Specific Technique. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is wrong, WP:MEDRS does not have to apply to notable quackery. The article is also neutral with various criticism of the subject. AfD was used to determine sources are adequate for a stand alone article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to padding like "technique is considered to be gentle and safe"—that is a medical claim and requires WP:MEDRS. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that MEDRS sources are even needed for Johnuniq's example above, as long as the source is attributed. EG: "The developer of the technique describes it as gentle and safe" would be perfectly reasonable IMO with a source from the developer. It is good for an encyclopedia article to provide descriptions from attributed 'in-universe' sources. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:85F:DAD1:53CE:674A (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I edited Koran specific technique, to make it less pro-fringe. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know how many times this has to be answered. No one's trying to make the page say that, that's a settled issue. No one's trying to imply that they're always fallacious with the example. The matter of this example is split somewhat evenly on the Talk at 3 vs. 5, and the discussion at the RSN has turned out mostly favorable towards citing scientists when it comes to logical fallacies in science. If anything, trying to delete psychology textbooks that're being cited for facts about how psychology relates to a logical fallacy, and insisting that we cannot cite scientific sources in the article, would be what falls under being a fringe theory.

And if you want to talk about "ignoring arguments to the contrary", what about how you dismissed my detailed reply to your criticism of a source with nothing but a personal insult and then said that you would no longer speak to me. You might not need to come here misrepresenting the issue if you didn't reply to analysis with insult and then refuse to speak to people. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Earth Similarity Index

I have been going through today cleaning up a lot of fringe material related to this article as can be seen in this edit. There seems to be a cottage industry of people who are trying to apply this index everywhere they possibly can which is, as far as I can tell, the curated and uncited invention of a single person with the only mention in one journal article that does not go as far as to propose consistent measurements for all the different exoplanets so far discovered. To be clear, the index has been mentioned in popular science work, but there is no rigorous use of it and it is far from standard in mainstream academic use. Contextualizing it properly is the key, so people familiar with how to use WP:FRINGE properly would be helpful.

Related to this are the following AfDs:

as well as a few templates at

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 1

Help contextualizing this issue would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some more eyes from outsiders. jps (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Yarvin

Moved to WP:WPBIO Talk Page w/o objection from the OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Curtis Yarvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one of the main theorists of the Dark Enlightenment - a fringe political figure who has done all manner of slightly notable things, some of which have made RSes. The article recently survived AFD. So the problem here is how to get it reliably sourced to BLP standards, particularly as a controversial figure.

There are a pile of warnings on the cites, but this post isn't intended to subtly ask for someone to steam in with an axe - instead, I'm asking for help with dredging up RSes on this fellow. So please don't go mad with the axe :-) We really seriously want help with good BLP-quality sourcing on this guy. Not primary sources, not blogs, but actual third-party verifiable RSes for everything worth noting about him. See the talk page for discussion hitherto - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::slowly sets his axe back down down and heaves a sigh:: I never get to use this thing anymore... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you even have an axe - isn't that supposed to be a hammer? Or are you just really pleased to see us? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. I too have had a devil of time finding anything RS on Yarvin. My gut says he should be notable. But the reliable source coverage is... I will be generous and say it's thin. Part of me thinks the AfD got it right based on Yarvin's influence in the NRx movement, and the Keep could be justified on the basis of WP:COMMONSENSE. The problem is that the dearth of RS coverage means that it will be extremely difficult for this article to ever expand beyond a largeish stub. This contradicts the guidelines for stubs. Honestly, pending better RS coverage that will allow us to add basic info that one would expect in a BLP, I think this should be merged into Dark Enlightenment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ad Orientem on the idea of merger... Right now, I would describe the subject as "contextually noteworthy" rather than notable in his own right... ie he should be heavily featured in the Dark Enlightenment article... with the expectation that a stand-alone BLP article will eventually be (re)created once there are more RSs to merit a stand-alone BLP. This would be in line with WP:PRESERVE. Wikipedia should definitely cover the guy... but not necessarily in a stand-alone article. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: I think this discussion should be moved to the talk page of WP:WPBIO. Politics and political persons, even political views that might be reasonably described as "fringe" are not usually discussed here because political beliefs are inherently subjective. The topics addressed on this board normally deal with issues where there is a clear (or close to it) true and false. Pseudoscience, medical quackery, bizarre conspiracy theories are the staples of this board. Politics and/or controversial political persons is, IMHO, outside this boards intended brief. I personally think that Communists are crazier than a bunch of bed bugs trapped in a jar full of moonshine. But I don't believe this board should get involved in that. All of which said, I think the concerns raised by the OP are entirely legitimate as per my comment above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, yes - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Psychic surgery

Does the opening sentence over-attribute the mainstream view, with too many qualifiers? It seems odd, at the least, to write:

“

Psychic surgery is a means of committing what most physicians in traditional medicine believe to be a pseudoscientific medical fraud using a possible conjuring trick[...]

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

After a closer look I agree that the wording was problematic. I see you have fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really need the "Infobox paranormal term"? That thing seems to be a leftover POV workaround from when someone was going around trying to define things according to a paranormal dictionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce (author)

I can't tell if this person has any notability outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of him, but if he's notable within the fringe bubble, that may be enough to warrant his own page. However, we need reliable secondary sources for that, and the article appears to be built upon primary sources (the writings of the guy, himself), and so may end up at AfD real soon. It's been tagged already, but if no-one finds any sources, I'll put it up for deletion myself in a few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His name is really common, so that makes it hard to search for him without being too broad or too specific. I did searches for "robert bruce" "out of body" and "robert bruce" obe in the database of journals my work subscribes to. With or without the "peer-reviewed only" filter, there are 2 hits. Both mentions are in book reviews written by Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi (odd?). The first one[3] is a passing mention in the Journal of Conscientiology (AFD/Journal of Conscientiology) from 2009. de Bianchi says Bruce was talked about more in the book he was reviewing though (Astral Projections by Michael Ross[4]). The second one,[5] also a book review by di Bianchi, this time in the Journal of Scientific Exploration from 2013, talks about Bruce for a whole paragraph in the context of praising the book's author for refuting some of Bruce's hypotheses in a 2002 letter to the editor of... the Journal of Conscientiology. Apparently my library only has online access to Conscientiology for the years 2008 and 2009, so disappointingly, I could not access this letter. Letters to the editor don't go through the peer review process anyway, so regardless of the caliber (hehe) of peer review that usually happens at a journal called "Journal of Conscientiology," it wouldn't apply to that source. I'm thinking there's no way this guy passes WP:NBIO. PermStrump(talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to agree. I did a google search for Robert Bruce "out of body" and got nothing but breathy praise from non-notable fringe sources and harsh criticism from non-notable skeptics. And -of course- the WP page was the second link, right after the amazon page for his book with the obe phrase in the title. I think it may be time to do an AfD. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD controversies

This article is full of Scientology fringe and all sorts of other fringe. I've been trying to work on it, but it's a beast, so I could use help if anyone has time. It doesn't look like anyone is necessarily paying attention to my edits... at least not yet. PermStrump(talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a controversy article, so let me rephrase... There's a lot of fringe views that need to be revised per NPOV and WEIGHT, but I guess some of them belong with the right context. Some of it is just ridiculous (e.g. Hunter vs. farmer hypothesis -- an article I'll have to take a look at later). PermStrump(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like there is a soft pushing of views and opinions that are outside of mainstream science and medicine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "soft" before I posted this. :) I tried to take out the obvious stuff, but I still need to go back and it's really long. I don't even know what the second half says yet. PermStrump(talk) 03:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on deleting fringe science here as well, my main problem is that the "Financial Conflicts of Intrest", Which pushes fringe science, is pretty cleverly worded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday effect

This isn't fringe per se but it touches on a lot of the kinds of problems we deal with in research. It's a statistical appearance that people are more likely to die within a few days of their birthday (and there appear to be Christmas and Passover effects as well)— except that some studies show it and some don't. From the one study I could readily see into the effect is very small. Someone who is more familiar with dealing with this sort of research than I am could help sort this out. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcha Faal reports

Needs eyes. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it MMR vaccine controversy or MMR vaccine conspiracy theory?

Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Rename article

Some outside input may be helpful there.

jps (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory, as it has been thoroughly discredited by science. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activated phenolics

Revitalizer created a new page called Activated phenolics, a concept that falls outside current thinking about the physiological fate of ingested polyphenols ("phenolics"). Although research is extensive on potential physiological and anti-disease effects of polyphenols, there exists no in vivo evidence that they survive metabolism and extensive rapid excretion to play any significant role in the body, let alone being "activated" (no definition for how this occurs). In my opinion, this content is not worthy of article status.

Revitalizer uses old citations, mostly weak in substance, to support what seems to be a WP:OR theory certainly on the fringe of current science. Possibly, this is a student science project -- the user is a new contributor to Wikipedia as of Feb 2016.

I provided feedback on the user's Talk page, then transferred the discussion to the Talk page of Activated phenolics. --Zefr (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr mentioned no affiliation with any reputable scientific institution nor substantiated expertise in this topic. I suggest if Zefr indeed believes that those "old" and "weak" studies are wrong, please go to the journals which published those studies and scientifically criticise it. Zefr implied that this is a possible student science project is not only offensive but unfounded. So is the comment of me being a new contributor, suggesting that just because Zefr has been a contributor longer than I have somehow gives Zefr more authority? Revitalizer (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding use of the term "activated phenolics" in sources. This looks like some terminology that Revitalizer invented. Beyond the definition, the article loses coherence and becomes a personal essay about "superfoods". I recommend deleting the article, per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Geogene (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I patrolled the page when it was first created; unfortunately, I didn't have the scientific to feel comfortable nominating it for deletion, so I added {{reflist}}, added a few cleanup tags, and moved on. I believe that if there's the possibility of false medical information being on Wikipedia, it needs to be removed or rephrased. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted a good half the page full of fringe science, Problem is revitalizer is really pushing the validity of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made a AfD page, but I messed up, need someone to fix it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the deletion template. --Zefr (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian cancer pill

Need more eyes in phosphorylethanolamine: [6]. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my expertise, but I'll see what I can do. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Henry

There appear to be two SPA accounts systematically removing all criticism from this bio of a celebrity/TV psychic medium. One of them has been warned and blanked the warning off his user page, I'm going to go call that attention of admins in a second. The two accounts are Brando628 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gizza2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Krelnik (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted most of the fringe science material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a friendly note on one of the talk pages. It might be a stretch but I will give the benefit of the doubt and AGF for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! --Krelnik (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Moulton Howe

Bio of a fringe author who'd rather be known as an "investigative reporter" overloaded with excessive puffery. I gave it a recent cleanup (BEFORE and AFTER) but eyes appreciated as Howe fans frequently attempt to revert it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On it, and will continue to track page.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I don't think adding snarky comments [7] to the article text is a good thing. ~~Will you revert it? Thanks.~~ - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism sidebar

I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the Anarchism sidebar; I do not. This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved. I am posting about this on this noticeboard because I argue that Anarcho-capitalism 1) exists pretty much only on the Internet and in theoretical journals and think-tanks whereas the other Anarchist schools of thought (with some exception; in Template talk:Anarchism sidebar I mention several other pages which probably also do not belong in the Schools of Thought section) have a long real-world history and shared ideological and social tradition, 2) is still not widely accepted as an Anarchist school of thought by mainstream scholars, 3) is already in another section of the sidebar where its best connection to the rest of Anarchism, whether or not it actually is part of it, is discussed. It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.

What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this page belongs on this sidebar? I'm asking on this noticeboard because I think that "Anarcho-capitalism" is a fringe theory in regards to Anarchism. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 324: / Line 324: @@
 :On it, and will continue to track page.[[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]] ([[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|talk]]) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 ::Thanks, although I don't think adding snarky comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Moulton_Howe&curid=2962900&diff=714454778&oldid=714453682] to the article text is a good thing. <s>Will you revert it? Thanks.</s> - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
+== Template:Anarchism sidebar ==
+I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page [[Anarcho-capitalism]] belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the [[Anarchism]] sidebar; I do not.  This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved.  I am posting about this on this noticeboard because I argue that Anarcho-capitalism 1) exists pretty much only on the Internet and in theoretical journals and think-tanks whereas the other Anarchist schools of thought (with some exception; in [[Template talk:Anarchism sidebar]] I mention several other pages which probably also do not belong in the Schools of Thought section) have a long real-world history and shared ideological and social tradition, 2) is still not widely accepted as an Anarchist school of thought by mainstream scholars, 3) is already in another section of the sidebar where its best connection to the rest of Anarchism, whether or not it actually is part of it, is discussed.  It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.
+What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this page belongs on this sidebar?  I'm asking on this noticeboard because I think that "Anarcho-capitalism" is a fringe theory in regards to Anarchism. [[Special:Contributions/24.197.253.43|24.197.253.43]] ([[User talk:24.197.253.43|talk]]) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (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

Revision as of 00:19, 11 April 2016

Koren Specific Technique

Fire needle acupuncture

Michael Greger, yet again

Fringey userpage article

A new Sorcha Faal article

Graston Technique

Diversified technique

Gonstead technique

Neuro Emotional Technique

NUCCA

Trigenics

Activator technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Sports chiropractic

Koren Specific Technique (again)

Chiropractic neurology

General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles

Vaxxed

Earth Similarity Index

Curtis Yarvin

Is it MMR vaccine controversy or MMR vaccine conspiracy theory?

Brazilian cancer pill

Template:Anarchism sidebar