Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

More AfD fun

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Input, as always, is most welcome.

jps (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake (yet again)

Anonymous editor is trying to right great wrongs with little respect for WP:FRINGE policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm out of 3RR reverts (anon is on 4). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns regarding Sheldrake on the talkpage for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article

The article, as it stands now, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since support for Sheldrake is given by solid sources.

Baraminology

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

Any ideas what to do with this article? I don't know if the WP:FRINGE guidelines would have it as notable enough for an article. In any case, it seems like it doesn't have very many reliable sources being mostly a little jaunt by about six creation science advocates. These kinds of creationist off-shoots seem to be a dime-a-dozen, though, and I'm not sure this particular one deserves an entire article.

jps (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this concept is notable but it is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-creationist sources writing about it. With that said, the criticism section could probably be expanded to include a more thorough explanation of its irrationality and incongruence with reality. The lead touches upon this but obviously there is much more than can be said and I'm sure more sources can be found, though I'd be surprised if the present sourcing doesn't already have more to offer. Additionally, something about calling it a "creationist taxonomic system" bothers me, even though it is a factually accurate description. Unfortunately I cannot think of a succinct way to qualify that statement in a single sentence. N^oformation ^Talk 01:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue I'm having is that it is no more notable than, for example, any one of the ICR's "research" projects: http://www.icr.org/research/ For example, their RATE project where they go and look for helium in billion-year-old rocks as evidence that radiometric dating is wrong or the proposed "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" of John Baumgardner. You can find plenty of non-creationist websites crowing about these endeavors too, but they aren't very serious rejoinders because they aren't very serious projects. While most of the creationists on Wikipedia have been driven off, I don't understand if baraminology is "notable" why every other hare-brained creationist scheme is not. After all, it's something of a cottage industry on the intertubes to make fun of creationists so the "sourcing" would be at our fingertips, even though the sourcing is not very good (and indeed suffers quite a bit at baraminology). What can be done to improve matters? jps (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with those projects but technically if they are covered by the same quality of sources currently in the bariminology article (which are rather high quality: National Academy of Sciences, National Center for Science Education, etc.) they might be notable, at least in WP's context. Let's just be glad no one has taken the time to write them.

On the other hand, it's hard to say whether it's better for an article like this to exist - so we can explain how it's factually wrong - or whether it's better to ignore it all together. I lean towards coverage myself but as it stands we don't have the ability to delete this kind of stuff anyway; the best we can do is make our articles as accurate as possible. Keep in mind that WP articles are many times the first result on search engines and I'd say better that someone come here and read our article on bariminology (or any fringe topic) than get bad information from AIG, anti-GMO environuts, etc. True Believers™ won't be swayed but those actually looking to learn may be convinced before they go off the deep end. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure we share the same distaste of giving attention to the undeserved but I think it's often outweighed by the value in offering education. With that said, while you're right that most overt creationists have left there are still plenty, they just aren't as obvious anymore since the obvious ones get topic/site banned fairly quick.

Oh, not sure if this policy was around when you were active but we have some decent protection to counter poor fringe sourcing: WP:PARITY. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The NAS has certainly not addressed the topic of baraminology specifically, the article is referencing a more general criticism of creationism. The NCSE takes it as their duty to expose problems that may show up in educational settings and, as such, has a whole series of work about the problems with the ICR's pseudo-intellectual approaches and gets down to brass tacks. I don't, however, think that this justifies an article. Another alternative might be to merge this subject back into something like creation science. Having individual articles about each creationist project is not advisable, IMHO.

I'm glad WP:PARITY has made it into the lexicon. It was one of the parts of the Fringe guideline I wrote.

jps (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, hectic week. I did not realize that the NAS didn't specifically discuss baraminology; I assumed since it's being used as a source that it did, my mistake. If it's the case that none of the reliable (viz. non-fringe) sources specifically discuss the topic of any given article then I agree said article wouldn't meet the notability criteria and would suggest either a merge discussion or an WP:AFD, depending on whether the information is valuable enough to be contained in a parent article. I wish I could have a more in depth discussion on these articles but I barely have any free time these days and certainly not enough to go digging through sources to verify they discuss the topic at hand. But if they don't, toss em. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Who has some extra time and feels like fixing up an article?

Free energy suppression‎ is currently in a fairly poor state. It doesn't advocate any fringe theories but it is in dire need of solid sourcing, rewriting to remove WP:OR and to conform to encyclopedic tone, and formatting (e.g. section headings). I also suggested on talk that it be moved to Free energy suppression conspiracy theory under the "Merge" section heading. Any takers? N^oformation ^Talk 01:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a little cleaning but it really should be merged into the list of conspiracy theories as the hatnote suggests. Bhny (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up some more. Half the article was off-topic and not about the conspiracy theory. Bhny (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AltMed

Talk:Alternative medicine could use a few more eyes to keep the discussion moving forward and focused on our coverage of the topic rather than the topic itself. I have made a proposal to get at least the lead whipped into shape, but it could use some sprucing up. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Null (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gary_Null_is_not_a_Quack_or_a_crackpot

Anonymous editor is claiming that this subject's article is somewhat biased. I haven't looked into this in depth, but I suspect that the scientific community aren't generally too kind to him. To me, the criticism in the article looks somewhat tame. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Orthomolecular medicine (again)

I removed a really extensive segment of FRINGE/NOTFORUM (mixed with a bit of content about the article itself, maybe) from Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, which was inserted by 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an editor with FRINGE issues at this article in the past. They have just reverted my removal, and I am (voluntarily) at 1RR already. more eyes, etc. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the page back to the state you left it, but it took me 3 edits to do it. I still haven't figured out how to revert more than one edit at a time;) --Roxy the dog (bark) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this person should have been blocked in response to his recent Rupert Sheldrake edits. Instead, the article was protected. But in any case, I don't really see a problem with letting people to rant on the talk page. If they are allowed to have their say, they'll be more likely to move on instead of disrupting the article. Vzaak (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not found this to be the case. Articles with a bunch of NOTFORUM, in my limited experience, tend to have more issues with content, to say nothing of spamlinks etc on talk pages. I don't know whether it's reverting of NOTFORUM or just the topics in general, but i think the two are separable. YMMV though i guess. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get the NOTAFORUM impression. By "rant" I didn't mean an irrelevant tirade, but an on-topic push for fringe with many references. Who knows, maybe there's one reference that can be fished out from the sludge. As a practical matter, once the fringe-pusher has made a case, there seems to be no harm in letting it sit. Otherwise the fringe mentality is such that the problem will escalate with claims of "oppression" and "censorship" etc. [Note I typed this paragraph before the IP's additional rant below. This case looks more severe, but I was speaking in general terms.] Vzaak (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2013

I have removed the Sheldrake commentary and placed it in the appropriate talk page. The article, as it stands currently, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since solid sources are in support of Sheldrake.

As for NOTAFORUM concerns, in one case it was not inappropriate, as I was responding to another user making comments violating NOTAFORUM and their edits were not removed. For instance, this was in response to a tangential comment about nutrigenomics, which addressed the point rather succinctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=next&oldid=572669056

For the other I hatted the other comment that refuted other criticisms of misconceptions regarding orthomolecular medicine that could be seen as similar to forum posting, as I did not want it to interfere with the discussion, and for the other points relevant to the article, put forth unhatted refutations based on solid sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=572661953

Also, the word "fringe" does not necessarily mean false. What should matter is if solid sources can substantiate a statement, and when that criteria is applied, there are many "fringe" arguments that can supersede "mainstream" ones. Wikipedia purportedly has a mechanism to address this, the WP:RGW policy, which states that alternative views can be expressed if they are substantiated by solid sources. That is reasonable - it is perfectly all right to argue a view if it can be substantiated by a solid source. Unfortunately, many editors fail to adhere to that policy, and engage in censorship even when the opposing view is well substantiated. Such behavior shows a frightening use of the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, and lends itself, ultimately,to the type of authoritarian collectivist attitude displayed with Maoism and Soviet Communism.

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) may, according to Quackwatch, occasionally pratice fringe techniques such as cranial manipulation more often than their MD counterparts. Whether this should be mentioned in the article, is currently a topic of debate and the cause of some edits back-and-forth. More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

off the top of my head, unless DOs are generally practicing fringe stuff, I think that random comments that some provide quackery is not appropriate for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of the QW article was that comparing DOs and MDs, DOs were found more likely to be engaging in dubious practices. However the mood at the article seems to be this observation should not be made and no difference stated, however mildly. The article remains, in this respect, a criticism-free zone (since nobody will engage with me on the talk page and my edits have been reverted by a newly-made account). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The direct quote from Quackwatch that was used for this topic was nonsensical. It compares DOs to "medical doctors" when in fact DOs are medical doctors in the United States. The MD degree does not stand for medical doctor. Again, the fact remains that both DOs and MDs are considered medical doctors in the US thus rendering the Quackwatch quote incorrect. -- DrBonesaw (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The QW article interchangeably uses the terms "osteopathic physician" for DOs and "medical doctor" for MDs - if you think this terminology needs to be made clearer we can easily unpack it a bit; however it seems a bit of a quibble to me ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that this article does not utilize titles correctly when referring to the medical practitioners in question. How then can this content be legitimized if the source cannot even correctly identify who they are referring to. In my opinion this clearly demonstrates the inadequacies of the source and it's content/opinion on this subject. DrBonesaw (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw, your reading comprehension and your credibility are seriously in question here. Anyone familiar with the medical field, like myself, Dr. Barrett, and others, knows that MD (doctor of medicine) and DO (doctor of osteopathy) are not identical degrees or professions, although now both are included under the umbrella of medical physicians in the USA. In practice there are very few differences anymore, but until the DO education ceases to exist, there will be some differences. You should know all this. Barrett has studied the subject quite deeply and knows the difference, and I suggest you AGF and trust he knows far more than you on the subject, because you obviously don't understand it as well, and this fact totally undermines your credibility. You may also wish to study WP:COI and edit osteopathic subjects (or NOT edit) accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, the DO degree in the US is a doctor of osteopathic medicine, not doctor of osteopathy…thank you for proving my point. Laughable that you insult me, express that you know what you are talking about and still use the wrong terminology.DrBonesaw (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I shouldn't use common parlance around you by using the historic terms, which are still in use. Sorry about that. I should have made it clear that D.O. stands for Doctor of Osteopathy, which is identical to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. This external link by a D.O. explains it for you. Take it from him:

• " "What's a D.O.?" "Are you a bone doctor?"
  "These are the most common responses I get when I introduce myself as a D.O.; Doctor of Osteopathy. While my profession has been providing health care to the U.S. population for over 100 years, we still are virtually invisible to the general population, the media, and some of the less educated in the healthcare industry. Therefore, in an effort to enlighten those unfamiliar with D.O.s, please allow me the opportunity to elaborate on the Osteopathic profession.
  "A D.O., Doctor of Osteopathy (also known as: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Osteopathic Physician, or Osteopath) is a physician trained and licensed to practice the full spectrum of conventional medicine and surgery; while incorporating the philosophies of Osteopathy and the practice of Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy (OMT)." by Stephen Loo, D.O., [1]

Also check out the profession's history. I hope that clears it up for you. You can criticize his choice of words if you wish, but my main points still stand. M.D. and D.O. are not identical degrees, and Barrett understands this better than you. Only a deliberate attempt to misread him would cause any difficulty. Others have no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this tangent is getting a bit off-topic now and I'm beginning to see some comments that could be perceived as unnecessary personal attacks. I understand tensions are running high, but let's attempt to remain civil while discussing this. I think user DrBonesaw's observation that the terminology used in the article is indeed outdated, but that is of secondary importance to the issue of whether the claim that DOs are more likely than MDs to engage in practices such as chelation therapy, etc. is true and if it is reflective of the current state of osteopathic medicine or if it is only a decade old observation by Dr. Barrett. I would be curious to see if this observation has been repeated by others in current journal articles. Also, the correct terms are indeed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine or osteopathic physician, not Doctor of Osteopathy, but I think that's hardly the issue right now. I think taking the direct quote from that article (IMO, an article with a rather biased tone to it) is inappropriate. I have suggested, as I see ImperfectlyInformed as below, that if this information is true and reflective of the osteopathic medical field, that such information would likely be found in sources that are more recent and of higher quality than Dr. Barrett's webpage. Actually, after going over the article again, it looks like it was just updated in 2003, but was originally published in 1998 since it mentions within it that it received a letter about a previous version of the article in 1998. The ACAM list it cites regarding chelation therapy is also from 1998, so that's an even older claim than I initially realized. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Rocksanddirt. I think would be inappropriate to add this (a quite speculative 2003 article by Stephen Barrett alone) to the DO article, particularly starting in the lead as it was [2]. On the talkpage there was a mention that "QW has consistenly been found to be a RS on the topic of altmed" by Alexbrn. That's not really true. The recommendation is to start by looking at more traditionally published and high-quality articles, then use QW if there's nothing there. There's plenty of articles about osteopathy on Google Books and Google Scholar. Go check those first, add something to the body, and then maybe a mention can be made in the lead. Wikipedia is not Stephen Barrett's soapbox, and there are many cases where Stephen Barrett is histrionic, misleading, or just plain wrong (feel free to ask me on my talkpage if you want examples). Not surprising since he's written hundreds of articles outside of his field (by himself) and doesn't always update them. For example, if you want to write up something about cranial osteopathy in particular you might start with Ferguson's A review of the physiology of cranial osteopathy (2003) or take a glance at the 25 articles which cite it. Took me about 5 seconds to find. You could also glance at The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America (2005), the 152 articles which cite it, or Diminished Use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment and Its Impact on the Uniqueness of the Osteopathic Profession (2001). Stephen Barrett doesn't seem to publish peer-reviewed articles; not saying he can't be used to counter the peer-reviewed literature but the scholarly lit needs to at least have a some weight. Also, I'm not going to go the surgeon article and add to the lead that some surgeons get paid to do vertebroplasty despite evidence against it (or any number of dubious, expensive, and controversial surgical procedures where evidence is less conclusive for or against) because it's just undue weight without a larger discussion. II | (t - c) 21:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Using the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine as a source for anything but what osteopaths believe is problematic. The article you link tried to link certain physiological frequencies with cranial osteopathic practices without specifying any mechanism or data that the practices have any effect whatsoever on the referenced biomechanics. It's very unfortunate when people use promotional literature from niche journals to claim peer review. This isn't peer review; it's preaching to the choir. jps (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read the paper in detail, nor do I really have the expertise to do so (although apparently you do; perhaps you should publish something). It is unfortunate that Stephen Barrett and like-minded folks seem to have opted out of the traditional academic publishing system, but I didn't say that Quackwatch couldn't be cited: I said the peer-reviewed literate should receive some weight. Wikipedia is not the place to campaign to fix the problems in mainstream medicine and Wikipedia shouldn't be picking a side, defaming mainstream institutions, or taking up Quackwatch's conspiratorial view towards them (as you do in conspiratorially advocating that osteopaths are promoting their technique, which isn't how that article reads at all). Quackwatch's peer-reviewed equivalent, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, was rejected three times by the National Library of Medicine for PubMed indexing, so apparently they gave up and haven't published an article since 2007 (?). If you're unhappy about the state of affairs, contact your reps in Washington. Wikipedia's not the place for that kind of advocacy. It's unfortunate, but Wikipedia has a bias to the mainstream and traditional system of publishing. Also, if someone is basically just drive-by adding Quackwatch articles to everything, that's not the recommended approach. It's actually a pretty bad approach. I'm sorry if you don't realize that. II | (t - c) 21:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. By citing the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, you are citing the basic means by which osteopathic medicine supporters opine on the subject of their own ideology. It's problematic, to say the least, to use this as something like WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. We cannot rely on their say-so for how something works any more than we would rely on any other fringe journal, though we can report their beliefs. Bringing up such a source is not a real rejoinder and the unrelated indexing controversy associated with another journal is irrelevant. jps (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch in any way a compliant source for article content that falls under WP:MEDRS as for example Physician does?(olive (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC))

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to articles in their totality, but to any biomedical information on Wikpedia, anywhere. The question at hand isn't about biomedical material but about a claim that a minority of DOs engage in dubious practices, such as cranial manipulation. QW is of course not the last word on all-things related to DOs, but it is an excellent source around fringe topics, such as the question of where cranial manipulation might be practiced. If Barrett's opinion is attributed (and, it seems, dated) I think neutrality requires that it be included, otherwise the article enshrines the position that there is zero difference between MDs and DOs, and that has nobody has ever said otherwise. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Physician happens to lack any content that is covered by MEDRS, so our ordinary RS rules apply. QW is especially relevant for coverage of any angles related to health fraud, quackery, pseudoscience, and fringe medical practices and beliefs. That is their area of expertise and relevance. As such they may be the only source which preserves NPOV by keeping an article from being a sales brochure. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking a bit more closely at this article, I'm wondering if the POV problem isn't more deeply rooted. For example, while the article is happy to use this source to mention that DOs get "additional training" in OMT, it is rather more coy about using that source's description of what OMT entails: "Osteopathic physicians hold to the principle that a patient's history of illness and physical trauma are written into the body's structure. The osteopathic physician's highly developed sense of touch allows the physician to feel (palpate) the patient's 'living anatomy' (the flow of fluids, motion and texture of tissues, and structural makeup)." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cremo

See [3] where an editor has removed from the lead material removing from "has attracted attention from mainstream scholars who criticized his unorthodox views on archeology and called his work pseudoscience." the end of the sentence, "and called his work pseudoscience."with what I think is the false argument "Except there is enough opposing view points in mainstream science to counter the argument that it is pseudoscience. Second its clear enough that some mainstream scientist think its pseudoscience when its in the main text." (from the talk page). Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to say the first revert was by another editor so he clearly doesn't have consensus. I've reverted him again. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Its definatley not neutral to call research pseudoscience without proper evidence to back it up. Just citing articles that report other scientists who feel there work is threatened by his research and decide to call it pseudoscience is not neutral. Its a scientist with a bias toward new information. quoting a review that talks about this problem. http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact Secondly, editors are not always right so it doesn't matter if there is a consensus or not. Just because you are an editor doesn't mean you have authority on any subject just a FYI. Who ever used the term on the first paragraph to describe it as pseudoscience of the bat is using loaded language to appeal to emotion or stereotypes an audience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language It does not do justice to an author of a work to simply using loaded language on the outset to describe a work when there are people who value the authenticity of the work. Trinsic1 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted me a 3rd time so I've given him a warning, but I'm at 2RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If mainstream scholars have characterized his views as PS, then WP should neutrally report that. The lead should also note if there is notable criticism. I have to reverted to a version where these things happen. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Alexbrn, the wording in first paragraph is much better Trinsic1 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)