Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 294: Line 294:
And note also that the addition was by an account named {{u|JohnLauritsen}} so there may be a COI aspect here too. In general the approach we seem to take is to list fringe books only when there is coverage of them in secondary sources (roughly what happens at, e.g., [[Deepak Chopra]]). Maybe it would be good to codify this somewhere. Meanwhile, eyes are needed at [[John Lauritsen]] where a "bibliography" of AIDS denialism is now being edit-warred in. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
And note also that the addition was by an account named {{u|JohnLauritsen}} so there may be a COI aspect here too. In general the approach we seem to take is to list fringe books only when there is coverage of them in secondary sources (roughly what happens at, e.g., [[Deepak Chopra]]). Maybe it would be good to codify this somewhere. Meanwhile, eyes are needed at [[John Lauritsen]] where a "bibliography" of AIDS denialism is now being edit-warred in. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
::Is this biography even warranted? It seems to fail [[WP:AUTHOR]] and [[WP:GNG]]-level works are lacking. Mere mention that the person exists is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and we have only one of his books with an article currently. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
::Is this biography even warranted? It seems to fail [[WP:AUTHOR]] and [[WP:GNG]]-level works are lacking. Mere mention that the person exists is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and we have only one of his books with an article currently. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
:::The unexamined assumption in Alexbrn's comment there is that Lauritsen's books are all "fringe". I see no evidence of that. They cover a range of different subjects and they are not all about AIDS. Lauritsen has received coverage for his work on multiple subjects and it seems obvious to me that we should have an article about him. This noticeboard is not really the place for that discussion, however. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 03:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:25, 11 January 2019

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

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

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Today's featured articles

    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    • 14 Sep 2024 – Rumpology (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
    • 11 Sep 2024 – Cadborosaurus (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
    • 04 Sep 2024 – Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Spworld2 (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 11 Sep 2024; see discussion (2 participants)
    • 13 Aug 2024 – Time dilation creationism (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by ජපස (t · c) was closed as redirect by OwenX (t · c) on 09 Sep 2024; see discussion (22 participants; relisted)

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Files for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    Ken Ham Is Furious That Newspapers Accurately Report Ark Encounter’s Attendance

    [1][2][3] -Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still topic banned from editing the Ark Encounter article by @JzG: However, I see that there is some work left to be done on that page. Could I get a topic ban lift, JzG? jps (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On an entirely unrelated note, does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham? No? Just me then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My image had qualities like frothing and quaking and fists held with the thumbs somehow towards me ... why? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I dream of the day that the Ark Encounter's losses are so large they stop interrupting my television programs with ads that encourage parents to miseducate their children. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham" Isn't there one already occupying the office of President of the United States? Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the lower attendance in the last three months. That Ken Ham doesn't like the numbers is nothing new, I just kept that at the end of the paragraph. --mfb (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ham doesn't like the science education he received from a quality Australia university, but plenty of its other graduates do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask, is it usual in theme park/tourist attraction articles to include visitor numbers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's published numbers, it probably would make sense to list the attendance and indicate gain/loss from prior year, similar to company revenue. This one is tough because it's entirely possible for both sides to be correct. The numbers reported for the fees apparently only include daily paid admission which is not the same as total park admission. If we mention the attendance, we need to be pretty precise about where those numbers are coming from and what it means. POV by omission is still POV. Ravensfire (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally it would be a marketing claim, though often taken as interesting and therefore included, but in this case it's notable information because Ham has been caught lying about it. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "I will ask, is it usual in theme park/tourist attraction articles to include visitor numbers"

    It largely depends on the availability of information, self-reported from the companies which own them. The Disneyland Paris article reports an annual number of visitors at 14.8 million people, Tokyo Disneyland reported 16.6 million visitors, the Magic Kingdom reported 20.450 million visitors (the current world record-holder), Disneyland reported 18.3 million visitors, Hong Kong Disneyland reported between 8 and 9 million visitors, the Shanghai Disneyland Park reported 11 million visitors (which would mean it somehow doubled the number of visitors it received in its first year), and Parc Astérix reported about 2 million visitors. Note that the parks depend on fictional characters more marketable (and a bit more realistic) than Noah, such as Asterix and Mickey Mouse. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Genesis flood narrative is not a myth?

    Wikipedia has this strange predilection for calling Genesis myths "narratives". So. However, in our articles that link to the subject, I think it is poor form to do so in this kind of violation of WP:NEO. To that end, I've started a discussion about trying to fix this wording that was objected to by creationist watchdogs: Talk:Ark_Encounter#Genesis flood narrative is a neologism. Input would be appreciated (of whatever sort). jps (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In related news, we have Wikipedia users calling The Genesis Flood "authoritative". [5]. jps (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    a narrative is an account of events, and can apply either to real or fictional ones. It's similar to the word story, which can mean either a short story or a newspaper story of the story of Jesus, as in the hymn I Love to Tell the Story. The Genesis account of creative is indeed a narrative, it describes a sequence of events, and the reader understands them according to their own mind. It's a neutral term, and I think used in Biblical criticism of all varieties, as well as many other fields. One can give a narrative of the events of WW II, or in an alternate history of WW II, or of the battles in Star Wars, or of the events in a dream. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper, academic term, for these narratives is myths. But the adherents believe that this term is demeaning. jps (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is people of modern faiths are here too not just academics.... thus why we use the wrong terms in a few places.....that said the leads generally clear this up....so title is kind of a mute point. --Moxy (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a terrible justification for using wrong terms! I cannot believe that this is tolerated. jps (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe you're this incensed over it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ....must...resist...telling..."mute point" joke... (I suppose telling such a joke would be making a moot point.)   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but at the end of the day it is a realistic view. It is an uphill struggle to try and get (what are Myths) called Myths because for the opposeers it means that we are putting their deeply held beliefs in the same basket as the deeply held beliefs of a 1st C roman.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that avoiding the term myth when it is the correct term for the sake of appeasing those who believe in a particular myth is not really in keeping with an encyclopedia or the policies and guidelines of WP. MrBill3 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then try and change it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We have. It's just not possible with the intransigent believers (or those sympathetic to the believers' POV) arguing that by calling it the Genesis flood myth we would be scandalizing our Judeo-Christian readership. jps (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Li Lianda

    Could someone who's an expert here take a look at the article? It's about a recently-deceased scientist who, among other things, worked on things that mixed Western and traditional Chinese medicine. It's been nominated for DYK and I just want to make sure that the article doesn't have any content that could fall afoul of WP:FRINGE. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm no medical researcher, but just want to note that Tu Youyou did similar research on traditional Chinese medicine at the same academy as Li Lianda, and won the Nobel Prize for her work. I have not attempted to describe Li's work in details, only broadly mentioning his research that won major awards. -Zanhe (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to point out that the Youyou prize was for real science that she did, not any TCM work. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Himalayan salt

    Vice regent (talk · contribs), who has never edited the article before, wants to dramatically expand and change the pov of the lede of this article, removing all mention of pseudoscience, and making no changes to the article body.

    Given the history of the article and fringe nature of the claims around the product, this is my first stop before even responding on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not looked at the page before, so I took a look and my reaction was ambivalent. The distinction that the editor is trying to draw, that there are no health benefits to the lamp usage, while leaving unstated that there are no health benefits to direct consumption either, is not the direction to take the article. That being said, some of the material (percent impurities) the editor wants to add might be appropriate in the body of the article if appropriately referenced, though much too detailed for the lede. On the other hand, I see why they might have found the lede not up to the task. It has a short sentence saying it is salt from Punjab, then a complex sentence three times as long explaining that the health claims made about it are groundless and that it is pseudoscience. That seems disproportionate - 25% bare-bones description, 75% hammering on the non-science of the claims. At a minimum, the lede should mention the distinctive pink color and that it is used both as a food additive and for decorative lamps. I would also suggest shifting the long sentence about no scientific evidence and pseudoscience to the body, and using a simpler, more elegant way to get the point across at the top that doesn't dwarf the rest of the lede. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    i moved the 'pseudoscience' claim to the section about uses where the FDA complaint is discussed. intro reads more normally now & no information has been removed. LeviaThinMint (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded the sources that were used to make the "pseudoscience" claim. The reader will want to know why the health claims are pseudoscience and surely scientists must have reasons for what they believe. So I expanded that out. Ronz removed the material sourced to those very sources. Secondly, I added the claim that "some find Himalayan salt lamps to be aesthetically pleasing." I don't see how that is a fringe claim. I've sourced high-quality sources like The Atlantic and CNN for the claim that such products are popular. That's not a scientific claim. Its not a medical claim. Its a claim about fashion and trends.VR talk 02:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second issue is, as Agricolae pointed out, is the wholescale removal of basic information from the article. How is Himalayan salt used? Removing that information seems counter-productive. And on top of that Ronz says "this is my first stop before even responding on the talk page." Ronz's unwillingness to discuss the matter on the article's talk page is also counter-productive.VR talk 03:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article provides the false impression that the notability of Himalayan salt rests on its position in pseudoscience rather than cooking. Pseudo-scientific claims have been made about all kinds of things. We don't spend 75% of the article on the rhinoceros debunking the theory that their horns cure impotence or devote most of the article on vitamin C explaining that it prevents colds.
    Also, while there is evidence that at one time salt lamps were promoted as having healing properties, those claims are not made today. And while there are sources that the salt was used in "traditional medicine," there are no sources that elaborate on how it was used.
    TFD (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the focus is skewed in making it a pseudoscience article rather than a culinary and lifestyle article with hints of pseudoscience, I can't agree with this last - claims are still being made. There is even a growing trend of spa rooms that are entirely constructed from Himalayan salt, that one sits within to improve one's well being or whatever bloody nonsense - basically some sort of total-immersion salt lamp experience. The point is, while the pseudoscientific claims shouldn't be the focus, neither can they be consigned to the dunghill of history (as well as they can be discussed in a manner consistent with NFRINGE). Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's very little information about them in reliable sources and readers are more likely to visit grocery stores or dollar stores where the salt is sold than visit salt spas. Here is an article about the spas in organic spa magazine. Apparently the claim is that sitting in a salt room is beneficial. Science-Based Medicine, which is a reliable source, has an article, "Halotherapy – The Latest Spa Pseudoscience", about it. But the claim is about salt, not Himalayan salt, although some of these spas use Himalayan salt. So why not edit the article about salt so that 75% of it debunks this and other pseudo-scientific claims about salt? See also Breath Salt Rooms, a spa in Manhattan. While its salt room is made from Himalayan rock salt bricks, it does not say that it is better than any other type of salt and it does not say what types of salt it uses for its salt beds or other halotherapies.
    Anyway there is already an article about halotherapy and sceptic editors have for some reason not mentioned Himalayan salt there at all. But that's the place for it - fringe theories belong in articles about fringe theories.
    TFD (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed "How it Works": They inject "100% pharmaceutical grade sodium chloride (salt)" into the air. In other words, no Himalayan salt is used in the treatment. TFD (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Finnish Air Force sighting

    A new this really happened for reals guys UFO sighting stub. Challenge: most of the sources (excepting a few clearly non-reliable ones) are in Finnish. Anybody here actually read the language? Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1969 Finland was on pretty much any great-circle route one could draw between NATO bases in the UK, US and Norway, and the vast Soviet military facilities in Murmansk, Archangel and on the Baltic coast. It would be more surprising if there weren't regular sightings of unidentified flying objects back in the days before satellite photography was viable and both sides relied on spyplanes. ‑ Iridescent 21:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Soviets also accidentally launched a cruise missile inside Finland in 1984: The New York Times. Anyway, the first two sources in that article are good: Yle (the Finnish "BBC") and Ruotuväki (official newspaper of the military) but the rest are complete carbage. --Pudeo (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing something in the sky does not mean there are aliens. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeanne Calment

    Would this be a fringe theory? The only possible third party source which was brought up at Talk:Jeanne Calment#Jeanne vs Yvonne. The rest of the discussion centers around this source: [6] which I pointed out has vetting issues with the author. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Knowledgekid87 just proved they have not read the article sources or the discussion because their premise is totally false. Rather than fragmenting the conversation can I suggest we take this back the article talkpage? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For heaven's sake, the idea that this is FRINGE is ridiculous. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon of someone (apparently) living to 122+ years old -- five years longer than anyone else recorded -- to wit, that she's not actually the person she claimed to be, but that person's daughter. The article presents this for exactly what it is: a hypothesis, and gives appropriately little space to it for now, pending more commentary from other sources. EEng 19:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this story has to mature before getting a section. It's been published barely two months ago, way too little to determine what WP:WEIGHT it deserves or whether it's FRINGE or not. A whole section is too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite clear what weight it deserves now i.e. very little. It's three sentences. You want the (sub)section heading removed? EEng 20:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably just one sentence~, although I qualify my statement insofar as I am more familiar with biology than with impersonation techniques and their detection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The "verification" of the longest lived person based largely on census data is pretty suspect. The idea that the daughter took over the mother's identity to save significant taxes is a much more plausible and reasonable explanation. In science the most likely explanation for an unbelievable discovery is more likely the true. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion on the idea, the fact is that this is a controversy. I am in agreement with the one sentence inclusion unless you can show how it is mainstream and deserves its own section. This would be the case for any given article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you are forum shopping - the article talk page has consensus for the current content. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying we shouldn't include the current content, I am saying it should be in a different form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The hypothesis that she was 99 rather than 122 at death is hardly absurd or in contradiction of mainstream biology and there are several sources. It's not fringe. Jonathunder (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Gates Expedition Unknown and Cueva de los Tayos

    I just reverted a very dubious and unsourced edit at Cueva de los Tayos. I don't know what Gates is claiming, but I'd be very careful about using him for Cueva de los Tayos and his article and the program's article need a bit of scrubbing. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Idk who Josh Gates is but from his article it seems that his documentary is (rather) fringe. From a quick look, articles such as Eiffel tower and Nile do not elaborate on documentaries or movies about them. Maybe the Cueva de los Tayos article should not have the 2018 Gates expedition section at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really an expedition per se, more like a shoot for his television program. I think it would be okay with rewording. The cave article is rather short, whereas the Eiffel Tower has its own list of mentions article, i.e. Eiffel Tower in popular culture. --Auric talk 03:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. A popular culture section might be a good idea. I've reworded the section heading. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge discussion - List of Cryptids to Lists of Legendary Creatures

    This may be of note to members [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: The Washington Times and climate change denial

    This RfC[8] may be of interest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudohistorians

    See Category talk:Pseudohistorians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    TCM on the main page

    Saw on today's "Did you know..." "that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?"

    Uh... WP:MEDRS, please? The Sciencenet.cn is merely reprinting from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, which exists to promote TCM. Bensky and Gamble's Chinese Herbal Medicine is from Eastland Press, a publisher of works on Osteopathy.

    Traditional Chinese Medicine isn't traditional (in its current form), some of its more prominent practices (including acupuncture and Cupping therapy) aren't really Chinese, and it is by and large not really medicine.

    This isn't to say that sources in Chinese or by Chinese authors can't be used: but they have to be science-based, not propaganda that romanticizes stop-gap measures implemented by Mao for political purposes. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC announce: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies

    See Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:

    "They’re among the nation’s premier medical centers, at the leading edge of scientific research. Yet hospitals affiliated with Yale, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and other top medical research centers also aggressively promote alternative therapies with little or no scientific backing. They offer 'energy healing' to help treat multiple sclerosis, acupuncture for infertility, and homeopathic bee venom for fibromyalgia. A public forum hosted by the University of Florida’s hospital even promises to explain how herbal therapy can reverse Alzheimer’s. (It can’t.)... Some hospitals have built luxurious, spa-like wellness centers to draw patients for spiritual healing, homeopathy, and more. And they’re promoting such treatments for a wide array of conditions, including depression, heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain. Duke even markets a pediatric program that suggests on its website that alternative medicine, including 'detoxification programs' and 'botanical medicines,' can help children with conditions ranging from autism to asthma to ADHD. 'We’ve become witch doctors,' said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine and a longtime critic of alternative medicine."

    As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And since when is Wikipedia a reliable source? That statement is ridiculously overbroad and shouldn't be in the article. Some alternative medicine fits that description, other things are simply unproven to date and need to be considered in light of best evidence to date, good or bad. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying my best to think of a "thing" that is "simply" unproven "to date" that falls under the umbrella of "alternative medicine". jps (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Phage therapy, vitamin megadoses, grains of paradise… it's not hard to find treatments where the jury's still out on their efficacy. The corollary of "if alternative medicine is proven to work it's just medicine" is that on rare occasions, the alternative remedies do turn out to work. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Phage therapy is not an alternative medicine. Orthomolecular medicine speaks for itself as basically debunked. I'm not sure what jury has been even called to study (*squints*) digestive effects(?) of grains of paradise. Color me unimpressed with your list. jps (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear we're going to see a lot more of this until we see less of this. I recently had an e-mail exchange with the licensing board for acupuncturists in the State of Massachusetts about what standards they had for medical claims (as I was complaining about a practice that was advertising a cure for cancer through acupuncture). The answer they gave was that they had no standards at all. They claimed it was beyond the remit of the licensing board for acupuncturists if an acupuncturist made medical claims that were patently untrue. It was, according to them, up to the State Attorney General to determine when someone was practicing medicine without a license or engaging in false advertising. This is a governing board for the practice! jps (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Licensing boards are bound by statute, jps. They are given a certain level of authority and are just as vulnerable for doing too much or too little. Don't confuse practitioners who volunteer their time for a small stipend or non-specialist licensing board bureaucrats with scientists. If you have a beef, their advice was sound -- take it to their attorney general. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Licensing boards are allowed (or, in some cases, required) to revoke licenses when fraud is demonstrated. By passing the buck, the board representative is exposing their racket for what it is and, by extension, setting themselves up for legal liability in the inevitable situation that someone who is harmed by these false claims ends up suing. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you want Wikipedia to do about it? TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good question. The best we can hope to do is to make sure that ALTMED topics stick to peer-reviewed journal articles in high-quality journals. This is has been harder and harder to do as of late. jps (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP has already got ARBCOM sanctions in place for ALTMED topics. It's enough. In fact, it's a bit too much, but it certainly doesn't need to be any more draconian. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome tot he weird and wacky world of quackademic medicine. Still, it could be worse. There could be a corrupt and aggressively incompetent narcissist in the most powerful job in the world... Guy (Help!) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! Quit talking about Jimbo that way! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought he meant Putin, but Putin is competent of course. EEng 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, there is no real person who fits JzG's description. Even from the wording, you can see it was a hypothetical dystopian scenario. Phew! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to note: Peer review is no longer a good criteria for a RS for health related content. We now have and apply consistently WP:MEDRS Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOLWUT?! Just to note that peer review is only described in positive terms in the MEDRS guideline, so it's unclear why you would claim that it is no longer a "good criteria". Of course, it's problematic if you get someone who is a true believer to review a paper written by another true believer, but that's why it's important to use high-quality journals and not to cherrypick sources. I tire of the game-playing by fringe advocates such as yourself jps (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer review in high quality journals on its own is not a criteria for inclusion in any article and such peer reviewed studies are a primary source. MEDRS rejects primary sources in most instances and prefers systematic reviews, academic and professional books, and so on which are secondary sources. MEDRS depends on the mainstream positions as established by these reviews/textbooks. Not sure why citing the Wikipedia position on MEDRS is a fringe position.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have confused "peer-review" with "primary source". jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer review studies on their own as in, are not part of say, a systematic review, are primary sources. As studies included in a systematic review they could be considered part of a secondary source. Per Wikipedia: "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." Littleolive oil (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether it's worth emphasizing this or not, but I repeat, primary sources are NOT the same thing as peer review. jps (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No they're not. Why are you repeating something no one said. Peer review alone is NOT a criteria for a RS per MEDRS. A peer reviewed study can be a primary source but no one said peer review equals primary source. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDRS is just a perversion of NPOV to "mainstream western medicine POV". It would be nice if WP could also report on alternatives neutrally, but MEDRS doesn't allow that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating contention, but we can leave the arguments over what "neutrality" actually means for another time. We fought some years ago over whether it was appropriate to include nutters beliefs in articles about cosmology, I recall. Thankfully, the radical "NPOV" crowd, of which you were a member if I recall correctly, did not win. It is best that Wikipedia ape the WP:MAINSTREAM for want of any consistent way to explain things "neutrally" that divorces themselves from an academic perspective (mainstream, western, or otherwise). jps (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as science is impeded by its closed-minded ban on making stuff up, Wikipedia is impeded by its closed-minded rejection of sources that make stuff up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my understanding, part of the historical background to what we have now was the Andrew Wakefield affair. That's a circumstance where indulging in WP:GEVAL has serious real-world consequences, given the reach of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mainstream Western medicine" is the term used to describe medicine which is tested and constantly evaluated using the scientific method, by people who sell "medicine" that isn't. It's truly bizarre that people allow superstition to stand alongside science in this way. Where are all the "alternative engineers" building bridges that don't adhere to mainstream Western reductionist science? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Genesis flood narrative

    Text/sources being removed re: "Scientists have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the flood narrative with physical findings in geology and palaeontology." Eyes needed on edit war. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for keeping an eye on this one, I have no idea why it wasn't already on my list. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfD discussion notice

    Please see:

    --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayurveda in the United States

    Gosh, I clicked on a link and this popped up. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rope worms

    I don't have time to work on this a lot now, but this article needs better references. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Miracle Mineral Supplement --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot believe that people can be persuaded to stuff bleach up their arses. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wait until you discover butt chugging. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hip kiddies do Alcohol inhalation. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid is as stupid does. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alcohol is just Liquid Stupid anyway, so it all comes together. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly they stuff it up the arses of their children. Lovely people. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Acupuncture again

    Still having a lot of trouble with practicing acupuncturists who refuse to admit that they have a COI whitewashing the article. The whitewashing ranges from heavy-handed to subtle. Dealing with this is like *cough* being poked with tiny needles... :( More eyes needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that a majority of editors at the RfC do not think that practicing acupuncturists necessarily have a COI when editing acupuncture, I suggest focusing on undoing any POV-pushes rather than accusing people of COIs. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the policy concerns, which appear completely ignored by those voting for "no coi", I think it's good to remember consensus is not a vote.
    Seek bans and blocks from ArbEnf if no one will do so because of the COI problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More watchers needed

    Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In spite of posting about this subject every few months or so, again today I reverted more of the same apologetics that keep getting shoehorned into the AAH article (as well as a weird replacement of a scientist with a filmmaker).

    It would be good to get some more people to monitor this page.

    jps (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to mention this revert done. This is like a months-long slow-motion edit conflict with @Mvaneech:. I thought we had resolved this last year, but apparently not. jps (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mvaneech. jps (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got it on my watch list now. Thanks for keeping an eye on this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now watching it as well. In the spirit of "I scratch your back you scratch mine", anyone reading this is invited to weigh in on the discussions happening on my talk page. Besides, whoever dies with the most talk page watchers wins. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If the Daily Express says aliens may have built the Great pyramid, it must be true, right?

    Egypt SHOCK: Top secret KGB files reveal truth inside Great Pyramid. To be fair, it is in their "Weird" section. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    But how did they know to build it so close to the ring road? Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This brings up two issues.
    1. We should be careful about content that can be sourced to a single, or small number of sources. Just because something gets published, doesn't necessarily mean it should be in a Wikipedia article.
    2. I do not consider the Express to be a reliable source, generally speaking. It's about as bad as the Daily Mail and the Register.
    A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Express has a long history of publishing bollocks about supposed aliens. They are the Giorgio Tsoukalos of British newspapers. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Persecution of Christians in Denmark

    Christians are persecuted in Denmark. This fringe opinion has been placed in the article "Persecution of Christians"(permalink). Attribution is given, but again the problems exist: A)too fringe opinion to be inserted, even with attribution B)Denmark, a safe heaven for religious freedom, is portrayed as a country where Muslims are oppressing Christian, which is a ridiculous pov. I did google-searched the term "persecution in Denmark" and the results are mostly related with (real) Jewish persecution during WWII. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm on it, but the Europe-focused islamophobes are a particularly frustrating subset of Wikipedia to deal with so I make no promises. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're "on it", meaning what, edit-warring like mad section blanking using this [9] as an argument? Khirurg (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regenery is a fringe source. And Dr. K is over the 3RR brightline so just whom are you calling an edit warrior? Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Deutsche Welle a fringe source too? Also, no one broke 3RR, so slow down. You're not helping yourself by making wild accusations. Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Khirurg so, Regenery is fringe after all? Cinadon36 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say that? Also, it's "Regnery", not "Regenery". Khirurg (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s also outside the defined scope of the article, and should be removed, along with other contemporary content. Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Khirurg the two of you are tag-teaming and are over 3RR taken together. Furthermore 3 reverts is not mandatory to show edit warring. This is especially the case when you show battleground behaviour like slapping the edit warring notice on another editor's page after they perform a single revert. So I'd suggest you consider self-reverting the WP:PROFRINGE content out and then we can put this mess to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I suggest you drop the wild unfounded accusations before you get WP:BOOMERANGed. Khirurg (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already asked for that at the WP:AN/3RR thread. I'd suggest you won't get it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with unclean hands? Khirurg (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going nowhere. I'll reiterate my core point: the additions about modern Denmark are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims which you are supporting with a WP:FRINGE source and an opinion piece from a conservative think-tank. My section blanking was not, as you described it, disruptive but rather to bring the article in line with WP:PROFRINGE and your subsequent WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct has been galling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing that's "galling" are your wild unfounded accusations, and shrill uncompromising tone. Not to mention the hypocrisy of accusing other editors of tag-teaming, when one could easily accuse you and another editor of the same thing. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel the scope of this article should be defined as persecutions that have some level of official backing. What is described in those sources relating to Denmark is more properly considered violence against Christians by individuals. Writers labeling that sort of thing "persecution" are being tendentious imo. Denmark is an officially Christian country with a state church, saying persecution of Christians happens there is misleading.Smeat75 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a valid point. But then that does not only apply to Denmark, loom at Persecution of Christians in the modern era.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OK< do any RS say support the removed text?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as far as I'm concerned; they're using a book about imigration from Regnery press, which is a fringe right-wing political press that mostly publishes the likes of Dinesh D'Sousa, and an opinion piece from a conservative American think tank that is operated by the Rand corporation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this may need taking to RSN, I am not sure that political bias disqualifies a source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that's clearly not the case, as anyone who has ever tried to insert something from AK Press into an article can attest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely fringe stuff—appears to be the usual Fox News talking points dressed up as fact when discussing Scandinavia. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on closer inspection, this whole article appears to need a serious audit. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an article on persecution by Christians? That would be very long... Guy (Help!) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep asking the same thing about whether there's an article on mass killings in capitalist countries but for some reason people seem to think Anti-communist mass killings is the same thing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Serge Lang

    Is this edit justified? Does anybody know more about this? He seems to be at least a conspiracy theorist, but I could not find any good sources quickly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't on my watchlist, but spookily, I've seen that before. Experts in one field making huge and unevidenced claims in another are difficult, but this one seems clear enough. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look at the cited source, and it certainly doesn't call him an AIDS denialist - it's saying that would be a naïve interpretation of his views, and that really he was arguing that the search for a cure to AIDS had been politicised. I don't know anything more than that, but from the source alone it would appear that the edit is justified. GirthSummit (blether) 07:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit is a bit of a whitewash. The cited source may not call him an AIDS denialist, but he certainly was one. It's just a matter of finding sources. For example, in "Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy" by Seth C. Kalichman, Appendix B, p. 182, we read, "The late Serge Lang is a well-known and well-respected mathematician. He was on the faculty of Yale University and became a vocal activist for academic freedom. He also spent time at UC Berkeley and came to know Duesberg. Lang decended into HIV/AIDS denialism and protested what he saw as the unjust treatment of Duesberg. He conducted a flawed analysis of Duesberg's grant failings and called into question the entire NIH review process. He also caused a bit of commotion on the Yale campus when AIDS speakers visited. He protested the appointment of former Global AIDS Program Director at the World Health Organization Michael Merson as Yale's Dean of Public Health and launched a series of letter writing campaigns to Yale administrators about the role the university was playing [in] the global AIDS conspiracy." In Serge Lang's obituary published in the San Diego Union Tribune on 6 October 2005, [10], and in the New York Times obituary of 25 September 2005 identical passages note that "Controversially, beginning in the mid-1990s, Dr. Lang sided with skeptics who doubted that AIDS was caused by human immunodeficiency virus, arguing that the scientific evidence connecting them was weak and faulty. He criticized the denial of research money to Peter Duesberg, a skeptic on the HIV-AIDS link. He was never convinced otherwise. A week before his death, he mailed his latest file, a dozen pages of letters and e-mail messages about two papers he had written about the AIDS debate that had been rejected by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ." Our article goes on to say Lang (in 2006!) "maintained that the prevailing scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS has not been backed up by reliable scientific research" - a position which is pretty much the definition of AIDS denialism. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dingonek deletion review

    A deletion review has been opened for Dingonek. Interested editors may join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So was the opinion of the closer that local consensus (or in this case, lack of, if you're just counting heads) can override a guideline like WP:FRINGE? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems like it would apply there. --tronvillain (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't mentioned in the closing statement, but when I brought it up on their talk page they said that "a guideline doesn't override consensus" and "I think the way to progress this issue as it keeps coming up at AfD may be to try to get agreement on notability guidelines for these sort of subjects." This struck me as odd, since the existing W:FRINGE guideline represents agreement that has already been gotten. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MUFON

    I am uncertain if this is the correct forum, but the fringey Mutual UFO Network could use an eye or two. A new, SPA editor (plus an IP, likely the same person based upon the similarity of added content) has of late been making promotional additions to the page. For whatever it is worth, and as as I mentioned on the editor's Talk page, the editor's username suggests a COI with the organization. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bibliographies of fringe writers

    There have been some disputes recently about whether articles on fringe authors should include a "bibliography" of their fringe works. This is happening again at

    And note also that the addition was by an account named JohnLauritsen so there may be a COI aspect here too. In general the approach we seem to take is to list fringe books only when there is coverage of them in secondary sources (roughly what happens at, e.g., Deepak Chopra). Maybe it would be good to codify this somewhere. Meanwhile, eyes are needed at John Lauritsen where a "bibliography" of AIDS denialism is now being edit-warred in. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this biography even warranted? It seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG-level works are lacking. Mere mention that the person exists is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and we have only one of his books with an article currently. jps (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The unexamined assumption in Alexbrn's comment there is that Lauritsen's books are all "fringe". I see no evidence of that. They cover a range of different subjects and they are not all about AIDS. Lauritsen has received coverage for his work on multiple subjects and it seems obvious to me that we should have an article about him. This noticeboard is not really the place for that discussion, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=877822611"