Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

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. 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: 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:

Widom-Larsen theory

Widom-Larsen theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The cold fusion "industry" heralded this idea as promising, but twelve years on and still no one takes this idea seriously except cold fusion true believers (man they hate it when you call them that). I am trying to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion. My instinct is "no", but would like other opinions.

jps (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It needs expansion. But seems to have got a fair bit of novice, even from cold fusion denialists (man they hate it when you call them that).Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources? jps (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4] all seem to discus issues with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Color me seriously unimpressed. The Discover Magazine article seems really to be one off. It's not surprising that there seems to be no other popsci coverage of this obscure idea. The first book is a fringe-infested jaunt through the journalistic acumen of Steven Krivit (not a scientist, so not a reliable source on any subject relating to science). The second book is a compendium and includes only monographs that are not edited, so the cold fusion proponent who waxes eloquent on the theory doesn't provide a lot of context. The final source is a database dump and is a verbatim press release from proponents. jps (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

_{Edit conflict} Agreed. Testing it against the WP:GNG (as we would if taken to AfD) The article's current sources show the first paragraph, at least, is cited to significant mentions in independent, reliable sources. This would be the Discover, European Physical Journal C, and European Journal of Physics articles. I see that at least 87 scholarly articles or books cite the original paper. The extension of this theory into thunderstorms, magnetite rocks, etc., however, seems rather bizarre. I say this despite original authors being involved (e.g., Photo-disintegration of the iron nucleus in fractured magnetite rocks with magnetostriction Widom, Swain, Srivastava (2015)) @Courtesy ping: to the editor who has added most of that content. I think it clearly passes GNG and would survive AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I created this article after reading quite a bit about it, it was interesting to learn more in-depth what critics thought about the math (not much). I thought it was worth an article though, as the scholarly citation count should be enough to meet GNG alone, much less the discussions that have been made in the pop-sci media. Thanks for the ping. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that cold fusion proponents publish in obscure, out-of-the-way fringe journals and do a lot of citation churn amongst each other. The journals you cite aren't exactly high on my list of impressive publications. jps (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The original article in European Physical Journal C isn't in an out-of-the-way or fringe journal by any reasonable definition. Scopus gives it an h-index of 131, ranking #20 out of 248 journals in the Physics & Astronomy (Miscellaneous) category. While that may not be Nature it's hardly something like Kerguelen Review of Hecto-Picoscale Insensible Observations Yes, I did have fun making up that name. Sorry. Discover is a mass-market publication with a circulation of over 500,000 sales, so a significant article there demonstrates independent notice. Just because something is a fringe theory or even a legit theory misapplied to a fringe area does not exclude it from GNG. Assume that all of those 87 cites of the original paper are the type of publication churn you mention, as well as the every cite in the second paragraph. Even without those, the article would pass GNG just on the three I mentioned earlier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We rarely, if ever, write an article on the basis of a single paper. The citations to the original paper and mostly churn as we pointed out above. At best, we have five WP:FRIND-compliant ones. I'm not sure that GNG is the right way to think about this since it may be difficult to write a WP:NPOV article on the subject. The current article is certainly not neutral. jps (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There are huge problems with this idea not the least of which that about 10^11 Bq of beta radiation would be expected for every watt of power generated (the dead grad student problem in a different form). Of course, because essentially no one except true believers gives a care about cold fusion nonsense, nobody seems to have expanded upon this obvious point which is exactly why I think we have an instance of an unnoticed fringe theory. Poorly vetted books and a solitary article from Discover Magazine from five years ago notwithstanding. jps (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The article covers what the most reliable sources say about the subject. It includes a link to the most reliable and detailed reviews of the topic (Einor Tennfors in the European Journal of Physics, as well as Babich et al for the thunderstorm neutron theories). The articles accurately sums up the reviewers' criticism for the theory. Notability is not temporary, and I'm not sure what you want as an outcome here. FYI, in the papers about the theory there are some rationalizations for why beta radiation is not observed (or at least it is 'screened'), perhaps this should be added to the article to improve the clarity on this point (the rationalizations aren't very good, according to Tennfors, but they are there).

Even if theories don't work out, that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Usually physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained, that doesn't mean that prominent failed theories are not notable, nor does it mean that we should for some reason delete the articles for notable theories that fail to live up to their proposers' aspirations or fail to survive academic peer-reviewed scrutiny. This is one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny, and if nothing else, failed theories are examples of what didn't work to explain the anomalies observed in experiments (and this is an important part of developing theoretical physics theories). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"physicists will propose dozens of theories before the phenomenon is adequately explained","anomalies observed in experiments". This assumes facts not in evidence: namely that there are any phenomena that need explaining or that there are any anomalies that are something more than pathological science. It's also not true that this is "one of the few cold-fusion/LENR theories that has been subject to detailed academic peer review and scrutiny". In fact, this is not subject to much scrutiny whatsoever. There are exactly two non-true-believer sources that I can find that treat the idea with the necessary independence. I'm not looking for any outcome at all, but the way this "theory" is being described in Wikipedia currently is not, I would say, doing readers any service. jps (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You spoke of "worthy of inclusion" in your initial message here. Other than this tepid suggestion for deletion you haven't offered any suggestion for changes/improvements. As for independent sources used in the article; there are three separate Babich et al papers that discuss the theory, the one by Tennfors, and The Discovery source. There are literally zero 'true-believer' sources here; even the primary sources used in the article are cited to highly reputable peer-reviewed physics journals. I'm afraid that you have run out of rope with my good faith, and it appears that you simply just don't like it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting comment. If I didn't know any better I would think you had an agenda or something. I am merely pointing out that you are arguing that cold fusion anomalies are actual phenomena when the vast consensus of reliable sources says that it is not.

I think it is undeniable that this topic is fringe. I think it is also undeniable that the coverage of it is scant. Trying to argue that the Babich papers are conferring notability on this idea seems to me to be a stretch. I'm not even entirely sure why these ideas were taken seriously and there is paltry citation going on here compared to most other ideas in physics (I challenge you to find a "theory" less cited than this with it's own Wikipedia article).

jps (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And you're not doing your point of view any favors, either. If sources that would pass AfD on any day of the week keep running into special pleading from you as to why they aren't RS just for this topic, then it does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think anything Insertcleverphrasehere has said indicates he thinks that cold fusion is a viable theory, as you are implying. Bad theories, fringe theories, even outright nonsense theories can all be notable. If you aren't confident enough to bring this to AfD, then why not use the article talk page to propose specific improvements? Continuing the discussion here doesn't seem likely to be fruitful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging is another option. Finding better sources is another. Also, I think it is important to understand that "cold fusion" is not a "theory". No one is arguing that nonsense cannot be notable. I am arguing that we have some poor sources here and, no, I do not buy the GNG argument necessarily. We've deleted other articles that had more "sources" on the basis of WP:FLASHINTHEPAN together with WP:FRIND. The real question is whether we have high quality sources. It appears to me that we do not, but I also am not sure if there aren't better ones. jps (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet by my reading of this thread, the answer to that "real question" is that all three other editors who have expressed an opinion have considered your argument about quality of sources and find them at least good enough. It is equally true to say that we've kept articles that had worse sources. I won't go to the wall to defend this article's right to exist but you asked for opinions and there they are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly impressed with the quality any of your responses to the fundamental points. Citing h-indices for entire journals and arguing that Discover Magazine is magic is, well, precious. I'll wait for some other responses. jps (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I too think that further discussion with you on this topic is fairly pointless. I'll wait to see if someone else is willing to opine on the topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Talk:Cold_fusion#Quote

Opinions welcome.

jps (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Records

Hall of Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I gave this article a light editing yesterday, to make it clear that there is no mythology involved with a "Hall of Records", a term invented by Edgar Cayce, and to remove the following text:

The Hall has been said by some historical commentators, including Manetho and Plutarch, to house the knowledge of the Pre-Dynastic Founders and latter Egyptians on papyrus, as well as several inscribed golden metal plate scrolls with a partial history of the lost civilisation of Atlantis, much as the Great Library of Alexandria housed Grecian knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}

Despite knowing the term had been invented in the early 20th century, I did do my due diligence to see if I could source it. User:Smuckola reverted me despite the fact that the citation template was 10 1/2 years old with the edit summary "then feel free to find a citation. there's nothing dubious or WP:UNDUEabout it." Unless things have change drastically this restoration of unsourced text shouldn't be done, and it is certainly more than dubious. The article is about the "Hall of Records", not about mysterious golden plates or even the knowledge of Pre-Dynastic founders. Claims that commentators such as Manetho or Plutarch or other "historical commentators", which means in the context those living long ago" about golden plates might be suitable for Atlantis but anything about Egypt's history being hidden would be a separate article if indeed there were proper sources. Unless I see actual arguments based either on sources or policy and guidelines I'll revert it again at some point. If someone here can find a better category than the red-linked "Mythological libaries" I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

On it, and got ride of the infobox with coordinates. Mangoe (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, I just added parent category Libraries. We do not seem to have other articles on mythological libraries.

Now as for Manetho writing about this, how would we know? Manetho was a Hellenistic Egyptian priest who wrote the "Aegyptiaca", a book on the history of Egypt. Most of his work is now lost. What he have are fragments and summaries of his work by other writers, such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome, John Malalas, and George Syncellus. And some of the fragments are contradictory to each other.

With Plutarch, a Roman-Greek priest, we have more of his works preserved. However his most famous work Parallel Lives, is a group of biographical accounts of various historical (and a few mythological) figures. The historical setting is from the 13th century BC to the 1st century AD. Is there any specific work of Plutarch used as a source here? Dimadick (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Kadrolsha Ona Carole

"Paranormal researcher" up for deletion. Others might find something; I found nothing in print. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tengri

Tengri currently has a link to Dingir (a Sumerian word), with a citation dating back to the 50's, which cites research from the 20's, that states that the Turkish and Sumerian Languages are related (they're not).

When I put in an edit request to have the link removed, I was told that I had to provide "a source that characterized the Sumerian-Turkic connection as fringe research".

Would anyone care to chime in on this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To repeat exactly what I posted on the article talk page: No, I'm asking you to provide some academic disputation of a Sumerian-Turkic connection. If I wanted to, say, edit an article to say that the continents move through oceanic crust over time, disputing that wouldn't be proving a negative. All you'd have to do is refer to the voluminous literature on plate tectonics. Similarly, if you think the theory of Sumerian-Turkic linguistic connection is a fringe theory, then there should be some linguist somewhere who has disputed that in something. Somebody obviously published the theory that the connection exists, after all. That's the type of reference this requires. Please also reference WP:FORUMSHOP. Waiting all of five minutes between demanding and explanation and searching for support of your position is not how the WP:BRD process is generally supposed to work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are THREE references describing Sumerian as a "language isolate" . Current consensus on the Sumerian language talk page has rejected any relation between the two languages, or indeed between Sumerian and any known language.

Going back to the source I'm trying to remove, said source makes the connections bases it's assertions on the now discredited hypothesis of an Altaic language family.

Also, I apologize for my testiness, but it's aggravating to no end to see such pseudolinguistics be given serious consideration. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The user above (IP account 74.70.146.1) has been already reported for edit-warring in the article Dingir. There are reliable and verifiable sources that points out that the Sumerian Dingir might be a loan from Turkic Tengri/Tengir. Both being the primary gods in the respective religions. Here is the source which is constantly being removed by him without any reason:

References

Languages don't have to be related genetically to possess loan words, so his reasoning here has no basis whatsoever. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Those are exactly the type of references that I was indicating were required to make the original requested edit. Considering that the sources disputing a Sumerian-Turkic connection are specifically doubting the former theory that one exists, as in the 1958 reference, it's clear that scholarship has begun to doubt the connection. That means the cited sources is no longer sufficient for verifiability purposes and the proposed removal should be allowed. I won't make such an edit until others have had a chance to chime in. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something. This case is not about the Altaic languages etc, but about a possible loan word relationship between Dingir and Tengri/Tengir, which is evidenced in the source I gave. So a removal would be wrong, because that's not what the source says. Akocsg (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue about Altaic languages is pretty much disputed and in this case WP:SYNTH, but it is also off topic here, do any citations show that the cite about etymology has been superseded? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Psi encyclopedia

• psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk

The Society for Psychical Research has now has an online encyclopedia to compete with Wikipedia articles on parapsychology. They claim that Wikipedia's articles on psychical topics are too skeptical and they attempt to 'balance' the case with their own articles. [5], Having had a look at their articles it seems their agenda is to claim various psychics and mediums were actually genuine. Their article on Dean Radin claims he is doing legit science [6] and claims his Wikipedia article was highjacked by skeptics. I have noticed that this "Psi encyclopedia" has started to pop up on various Wikipedia related articles as a reference. I believe any case of this website should be removed. The website seems to be very negative about Wikipedia. What do you guys think about this? Should it be blacklisted? 78.108.46.82 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a fringe source, and probably useful only for things that can be independently corroborated, or for verifying statements made by fringe practitioners. There are plenty of ideological reference sites that compete with Wikipedia, but they get traction only for the choir to whom they preach (Conservapedia being one example). ~Anachronist (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used as source, but might be useful for finding references. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine

This survived AFD two and a half years back on no consensus. It has the classic Energy Catalyzer-style list of every last little sales detail, so you know it's important. One GScholar hit and six GBook hits.

BTW this is likely my last FT/N submission as I haven't been able to make a new article in a long time, and getting bad cats and articles deleted is hardly a way to do business. Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory? It looks overly promotional, but that's perhaps a different matter. jps (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As I read it, this seems to be taking the usual input for a cogeneration plant (waste heat from another process) and turning it into electrical power using a radial piston engine, correct? There's noting inherently fringe-y about that that I can see. ABB, GE, Siemens, and other multi-national companies sell such things every day but they use turbines instead of piston engines. I don't see any claims about free energy or over-unity or other red flags, but maybe I'm missing something? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears as if that article could be merged into Cyclone Mark V Engine prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Turanism

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

What brought my attention to it was its removal from the pseudoscience category. There are interesting recent edits to review. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

Subject is making major POV edits to their own article.[7] despite my warning. I went to COIN but no response. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla shield

• Draft:Tesla shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An interesting new draft —PaleoNeonate – 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

There is a section in this article called "Difficulties in assessment, media hysteria and unscientific claims". It was a mess. First it made claims in wikipedias voice on medical "facts" with non-MEDRS sources. It then had a couple of paragraphs deriding these claims in a very editorial tone. You can see this version here.[[8] Anyway I deleted and tidied up what I could [9]. I am still not very happy with the result. This is not a topic I am overly familiar with, so I would like to see what others think. Personally I am leaning to deleting the whole mess of a section, but we may lose a baby in the process. Any ideas or help appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who tagged that section as needing major review along with changing the name of the section to better reflect what had been contained within it. I truly appreciate the assistance, especially removing the non-MEDRS book and its accompanying text. However as it stands now, the vast majority of the remaining references are reliable. If you or someone else could re-write what remains of the section, to remove the perception of the editorial tone, that would greatly improve the article.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am interested in doing more at this article. I was testing the waters with my first few edits. I commented here to see if anyone had any experience with this article as I didn't see any of the regular outspoken science editors in the history. I have edited it before and run into issues with an editor (no longer here) and it felt like it was a neglected area then. I have more experience with similar articles (GMO not nuclear) now though so we will see what happens. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You know, I think I remember who you are talking about in regards to the "editor (no longer here)" who would edit this page and prevent the article from reflecting the NPOV consensus/WP:MEDS. Though I can imagine that editing articles on GMOs was no less a formative experience alright, nuclear winter was mine. I find the contentious science & medicine articles the most in need of work and dedicate myself to them as well, when time permits. Speaking about Chernobyl, there were more than likely science publications for the 2016 anniversary that could definitely improve the article, the most surprising revelation that I added was that the infamous bubbler-pool-story, as emotively depicted in the BBC docudrama "Surviving disaster - Chernobyl Nuclear" was in actuality a major exaggeration. The men who were said to have died, survived, and were largely still wondering in 2016, how such a depiction of them, even came about.

One area that I've always felt the article needed work on, apart from the things I tagged around the article, were the maps. Specifically the fallout plumes heading in different directions, dependent on the various isotope boiling points(with iodine and cesium isotopes naturally falling out the furthest from the accident and the "heavy" plutonium & americium depositing pretty nearby) However I have not found any free maps to use on wikicommons unfortunately.

The other outspoken science editors could definitely do with coming in and shaking the article up, seeing what stands up to scrutiny. The encyclopedia as a whole, certainly needs more science editors.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Powell (food safety)

• Doug Powell (food safety) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be teased out of marginal or unreliable sources. Does this meet WP:PROF? 82.21.88.44 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There appeared to be a small consensus to redirect the article to Food Safety Network in 2007 (and it was) but this was later reverted in 2008 by a now retired editor. I failed to find mentions in The Guardian and Washington Post; maybe that the redirect should be reconsidered... —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And the article itself was basically written by an associate, so yes, it's advertorial and should go.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2017‎ (UTC)

I restored the redirect and will see if it sticks, if it doesn't I'll nominate it at AfD. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oncothermia

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

There are many sites to crappy journals in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017‎ (UTC)

My initial glance would suggest it is total bollocks, and very badly written, badly enough to be almost meaningless. I haven't actually done anything though, as I would like a second opinion. from you guys. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My advice:

[1] Merge into a small section of our Hyperthermia therapy article. Oncothermia and Hyperthermia therapy are the same thing.

[2] Remove all nonscientific claims from our Hyperthermia therapy article.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The article smells very fishy. Follow my reasoning.

• It looks like a plurality of citations are to some combination of coauthors sharing the surname Szasz. At least one of them, Oliver Szasz, is also identified in some of the papers as a leadership employee of a Hungarian company called Oncotherm.
• Virtually all of the content now in our article was added in two editing sessions by a pair of Hungarian IPs. The first, 91.144.96.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), changed the existing redirect (which pointed to hyperthermia therapy) into description of Oncotherm's technology in September 2010. The second, 82.141.158.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added some great lumps of stuff (a lot of which looks kind of like copy-pasta from someone's CV or website, but I haven't gone digging yet to determine where it came from) in September 2017.
• Of particular note, that second IP's last few edits were to create an External Links section for the article. The five external links added were: Oncotherm's website, Oncotherm's Facebook page, Oncotherm's LinkedIn page, Oncotherm's Twitter feed, and Oncotherm's YouTube channel.

I have tried without success to come up with any plausible explanation for this article's existence beyond either an egregious undisclosed COI or outright paid editing. Given the dubious provenance of the article's content, its overreliance on a walled garden of authors, and the generally low robustness of most of the sources, we may be best to just restore the redirect to hyperthermia therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bonus notes: I found the copy-pasta source. Unsurprisingly, it's from Oncotherm's website. (Incidentally, Oliver Szasz is the company's Managing Director; Andras Szasz is the Research Director. Frankly, I can't help but think that one or both of them should have been more proactive about disclosing their affiliations and potential COIs in a number of their publications, but I digress.) This edit is straight from here. The original 2010 addition was copied straight from another company page here.

Either there's a gross and undisclosed conflict of interest, in which case we should scrub the article; or there's a massive infringement of the company's copyright, in which case we should scrub the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything in this article worth salvaging or merging? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the text was all copied from a company website, it's problematic to use from both a COI and a licensing/copyright perspective. Anyone is welcome to have a look at the article history (or just follow the links I provided above) to have a look for worthwhile nuggets, but the assorted red flags I'm seeing would make me very reluctant to trust the company's spin on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 [SPAM  DETECTED] [A.F.D.  FILED] [RESULT=DELETE] [   FIRE!!!   ]
 .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
 |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
 |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *NUKE!* --|
 |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
 '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

NHS plans to scrap homeopathy treatments

In the UK, the National Health Service has announced plans to stop doctors prescribing homeopathy, herbal and other "low value" treatments. It hopes to save almost £200m a year by ending what the head of the service called a "misuse of scarce" NHS funds. Link --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Similar event in Australia: WT:MED#Australia has stopped paying for a bunch of alt med. —PaleoNeonate – 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

For some unfathomable reason, various people who make good money providing homeopathic cures have a problem with this. My solution: pay them with homeopathic money! Take one genuine banknote, dilute it 100:1 with 99 slips of blank paper, pull one of the 100 pieces of paper at random, dilute it another 100 times, repeat six or even times. Using this method you can easily generate enough homeopathic money to pay all of the vendors of homeopathic remedies whatever they charge. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Like banks do?^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 00:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the week: NFL football is a psychopathic death trap idol.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/10/31/former-qb-bizarre-conspiracy-theory-nfl/

Key quote:

"And then I started reading about my homies, the Russians, who four years ago did extensive studies on DNA, okay, and what they found was that the double helix DNA, which is in every single cell in our body, is a fractal antenna, and it hears words and sounds. And so the people here in the United States who have been watching football Thursday nights, Sunday mornings, Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday night, for 40 years, their DNA has heard all those violent sounds…well the problem with it is, when you worship a psychopathic death trap idol like the NFL, you become like your idol. The Bible says that you become like your idol that you worship, and they just don’t seem to really care, it has dehumanized them."

-Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bonus: Five of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Weirdest Conspiracy Theories --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User creating articles on countless Theosophy books

See the recent article Thought-Forms (book), it may look scholarly from a first glance, but most of the sources are from Theosophical books and it reads like promotion. There is also Occult or Exact Science?, How Theosophy Came to Me, Man: Whence, How and Whither, a Record of Clairvoyant Investigation (all of the sources are Theosophical), From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, The Occult World, K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. The same pattern here, all created by the same editor. There are others.

Another example, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Philosophers and Philosophicules etc. Basically if you strip these articles down there would be only a handful of reliable neutral sources that discuss these books. The user making these articles SERGEJ2011 only edits in relation to Theosophy, I suspect this user is associated or works for the Theosophical Society Adyar. 139.99.131.38 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look yet, but are these book reviews of probably non-notable books? or discussions of probably non-notable ideas from within these books? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD for Jason Lisle

A second one, actually. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)