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.
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:

Fringe Theory of the month: Dinosaurs helped build the pyramids

"I understand our present view of human history is completely different from what we are proposing, but based on these ancient papyri we must consider the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived amongst ancient Egyptians and were possibly tamed to carry the huge blocks that compose the pyramids."[1] – Professor Nabir Al-Sammud, Egyptologist

Bonus: Fringe theories that have books on them on Amazon:

A Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory[2][3]

Olympic & Titanic[4]

Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yabba Dabba Doooo! Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For an added bonus, that article has a link in the sidebar to The CIA killed Elvis in an effort to cover up the Lockheed bribery scandals. ‑ Iridescent 15:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WHAT!? Elvis is DEAD? Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just what they want you to think—his appearance in Home Alone is conclusive proof he's still alive. ‑ Iridescent 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that anyone here needs this necessarily, but this is from a known click-bait fake news site. "Nabir Al-Sammud" at this time has 1640 Ghits which is a neat trick for somebody who apparently does not exist. I shudder to think how many Facebook shares they've already accumulated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am just glad that the current efforts to tear down monuments to long-dead slave owners are confined to the USA and not Egypt... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If dinosaurs hadn't helped construct monuments to confederate soldiers in the US, there would be nothing to tear down.Dialectric (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the first link is a fake story. I cannot read Arabic, but a Gsearch of "Nabir Al-Sammud", "Nabir Ibn Al-Sammud", or "Helmut Ferrlug" only hit on this. -Location (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pffffffttt. This is old hat for anyone who grew up going to church. Hell, I knew by the time I was five that Jesus himself rode around on a Tyrannosaur. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: At first I was doubtful, but that photograph you linked to is solid evidence. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to deal with fringe sources in the "Further reading" section

I typically removed dubious or fringe external links by citing WP:ELNO #2; however, I am wondering if this is typically done with similar sources that appear in the the "Further reading" section of articles. For example, the article on Allen Dulles includes David Talbot's biography of Dulles which states that Dulles arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald framed as the sole assassin of JFK, then JFK's assassins killed RFK, too. My own view is that sources that mix reliable and unreliable material shouldn't be included (perhaps via Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliable) but I'm wondering what others think. Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Crisis actor

A mess and at the moment a WP:BLP violation I think. Might get more unhelpful attention after claims of crisis actors at the Unite the Right rally. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support a redirect to False flag. It fits there and there are other eyes to watch that article. -Location (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect to false flag is a good idea. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If kept it would need to be rewritten since it currently claims that crisis actors have been confirmed to have been used in multiple attacks (6 specifically) with noting to indicate that it is a a cohspricy theory,--76.65.42.75 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That has been fixed. -Location (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've made a few minor changes. I honestly think this would really look better as a new section to False flag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Crisis actors aka "simulated victims" employed to take part in federal and state disaster training drills are a real thing and have been for many years. Unfortunately conspiracy theorists have co-opted this term in the last decade to promote their nutty claims. Any article on the topic should first give the legitimate context, and then explain the conspiracy term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:False flag#Proposed merge with Crisis actor. Not sure how much Simulated patient and Medical simulation might be relevant here. -Location (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So we keep "Crisis actors" as the real thing User:LuckyLouie mentions - I forgot I've had experience with them but not under that name), make [[Crisis actor {conspiracy theory} a redirect and a hatnote at Crisis actor. Ok? Doug Weller talk 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Was heading to the discussion to change my !vote now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Might also be a pointer at simulated patient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Arhatic yoga, from the minds that brought you Pranic healing

This appears to be a way to bring back content from Pranic healing which was stubbed out after a drawn-out battle with fringe-theory promoters a few years back. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus

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

---

See Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. The content requires a source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The content in question is "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity." QuackGuru is the only user there who has a problem with that statement (do some atheists think Jesus was God or something?). See also the ANI thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole "Jesus wasn't divine, but was a great moral teacher" shtick is easily traced back into the Enlightenment; it would not want for sourcing if anyone bothered, and anyone aware of the material is familiar with it. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson said "QuackGuru is the only user there who has a problem with that statement". I don't have a problem with the statement itself. The issue is that the current content fails verification, but the tag was removed. The source I added was removed. I discussed it on the talk page. Then I requested a single source on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory

Another fringe article. Someone keeps trying to add a Christian Pastor and Bible teacher named Kubo to the lead. I see we use him as a source and he's pushed in "Further reading". I'm not sure who the Mcleod is in the source and further reading unless it's a Scottish 19th century author who supported this idea and is mentioned in the source, but he wasn't writing books in the late 20th century. One of the publishers, Tokuma Shoten, is an entertainment publisher. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The author is Nicholas McLeod, a 19th century fringe writer, who is sometimes credited as "Norman". Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

List of reported UFO sightings

I came to this as the target of these redirect discussions. Once again it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents, not to mention that a lot of the articles linked to have similar issues. Not sure what to do as there is simply too much to keep track of. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

What a mess. Usually for such lists elements which are not notable enough to have a standing article would not be listed, meaning that article links become more important than references. This however includes every type of claim including revisionism of mythology and ancient reports claimed to be "UFO sightings". I've not checked enough to see if some of it is also here, but aura depictions in paintings seen by ufologists as ships are similar. Most appear to be referenced however; I'm not sure how strict we should be in assessing the reliability of those sources, or if the lead should be clear to mention that most are unsubstanciated extraordinary claims, supported by a critical source discussing such ancient astronaut/alien claims... —PaleoNeonate – 04:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:REDFLAG, but Wikipedia might not have much information on UFOs if that were enforced strictly. -Location (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

On my list of things to do is to remove all the items in that list which are sourced only to UFOlogical true believers. A compendium of news reports that use the "UFO" term may be okay (though suffering from WP:FAKENEWS), but the vast majority of the pre-Kenneth Arnold events need to be excised, IMHO. jps (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Given it is a list of things that have been misidentified why? I want to know what they think are UFO's, so I can judge if it is a cesspool of credulously described incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)]

In the main Unidentified flying object article, it is probably worthwhile to discuss how reinterpretations of certain historical and mythological accounts have been crowbarred into the "UFO explanation" by ufologists. Indeed, there are plenty of independent sources which can attest and describe this situation. But including such events in a "list" as such is a stretch of reliable reporting as to what was claimed to be a UFO sighting (at the time). Jumping into anachronisms is not Wikipedia's place. jps (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, lists are not main articles. As such it is just a list of what people claim are UFOs, not a list of actual UFO's. In fact it would be very odd to include the "lumberer flitting hamster scare of 1527" in the UFO page, but not in the list of UFO'd. What we should do is not imply these are real.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

E.g. Ezekiel's Wheel should not be listed as a UFO sighting. It might be mentionable on the UFO page when discussing what other ufologists think are UFO sightings. jps (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What if RS refer to this belief?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The point is, Ezekiel's Wheel was not a reported UFO sighting. A list of "purported" UFO sightings? Okay, then. jps (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

St. Gallen Group

"Reformist" cardinals in a cabal against Benedict XVI? The article seems possibly OK now but I'm a bit unfamiliar with the material; there's a category discussion about the membership of this group. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue has also spread to the various cardinals' articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Not sure what you mean by "the issue". I think the text that I added to those bios was straightforward and factual. The Category, on the other hand, tries to make more of this than it should. For easy reference, here's what I added in one stance: "Kasper was one of a dozen or more like-minded cardinals and bishops who met annually from 1995 to 2006 in St. Gallen, Switzerland, to discuss reforms with respect to the appointment of bishops, collegiality, bishops' conferences, and the primacy of the papacy as well as the Church's approach to sexual morality. They differed among themselves in varying degrees, but shared the view that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not the candidate they hoped to see elected at the next conclave." As a contribution to his bio, it speaks to his views and activism. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mangoe: The article states: "Cardinal Godfried Danneels; who candidly described the network as a "mafia-club."". I haven't read his autobiography, but I Googled those words and ended up at this page and in that video he says:

"De groep van Sankt Gallen, dat is een soort naam die deftig is. Maar eigenlijk zeiden wij van onszelf en van die groep: "de maffia"."

Rough translation:

The group of Sankt Gallen; that type of name is prestigious. But in fact we said about ourselves and that group: "the mafia".

You can hear the audience laughing.

He wasn't candidly admitting something, he was joking by comparing this group to the mafia (because of the secrecy). Funnily enough this page, which was used as a source, contains the text: "Tired of Fake News?". They aren't aware that they are spreading it (probably because they do not understand Dutch). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, when the Diocese of St. Gallen issued a press release about the media fuss they headlined it "Sensationsmeldung?" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that they are often quoted on Wikipedia. [5] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Even weirder, ncregister has reported on the fact that the biographers have tried to explain things by saying that this was "not a lobby group that prepared for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be elected Pope", but they are still trying to create a narrative where there was some evil lobby against someone. In fact it seems to be a tempest in a teacup, and probably not even notable. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Um. My response to this is that I once went naked swimming in St. Gallen town reservoir. Aages ago. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: I've followed this entry since its creation. Since there's been an edit war, the version you see varies greatly from day to day. It's largely nonsense and Wikipedia would be better without it. The existence of a discussion group -- the host called it a "circle of friends -- is real, and i've added a bit to the bio of each of the participants that makes that point. What is to be done? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the worst thing about the entry is the "Team Bergoglio" section, which tries to elevate a journalist's tag name for (once again) a group of like-minded individuals into a cabal, whose purported activities seem to be nothing of note and certainly nothing as serious as what is alleged. I added the disclaimer by the four named cardinals, without which this was very much in violation of WP:BLP, and even with that disclaimer I imagine. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the group itself is notable, but if we must have an article about this then we need to get rid of all the conspiracy nonsense and describe factually and neutrally what happened. The story is quite boring, a group of like-minded religious individuals were having meetings and discussed church-related stuff. The idea that this was an evil mafia-like conspiracy is laughable. I am an atheist btw, so I have no dog in this fight, other than my strong dislike of the bullshit conspiracy theorists come up with. If you want me to I can have a look at some more reliable sources, and I can probably translate some stuff from Dutch to English if necessary but it is 2AM here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: @Bmclaughlin9: I have pinged Drmies. He is Dutch and he has a brain. Drmies, would you please be so kind to help us deal with this stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is a lack of sources so much as a failure to evaluate the sources we have. The creator of the article will have to weigh in. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Holy moly. Well, I deleted the category as a BLP violation; that's a start. Yes, I believe we have a conspiracy-type article here based on a joking remark blown out of proportion by some decidedly partial sources--this being perhaps the most egregious one. I don't know if I have much of a brain, but I can smell a BLP violation when I see one, and this article comes pretty close. Oh, one of you please remove the category from those articles? You're protected by the BLP, Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions #7. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the category from the articles. Here's a tidbit. This article is in the category "Secret societies". But apparently people in the know knew. At one point the Vatican even sent one of its own guys, "le sinistre cardinal" Camillo Ruini, to check it out. Some secret! source And all through these years the people involved were trying to have an impact on church policy. They weren't lurking in the shadows waiting for the pope to die. Three of them are quoted, for example, in this account of a 2001 synod. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: I have removed the cat "secret societies" from the article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up this article once or twice to keep it to the bare facts but the general sense of it concerns me greatly. By having such a detailed article on wikipedia in seems to be giving public credence that here is a group of "plotting" cardinals determined to undermine the papacy and push some sinister "modernist" agenda. I think the few facts we do have are being whipped into a hysterical witch-hunt. I'd rather see the whole article go. Not helped by the fact that the editor that created the article has systematically gone to the article for each bishop alleged to have been involved and then tagged them in the category - which seems designed (in my mind) to point to the "faithful" about who is their "enemy". Dangerous and unpleasant stuff. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies, Contaldo80, The Quixotic Potato, Bmclaughlin9, and Mangoe: I've sent this article to AfD as a conspiracy theory about BLPs. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group. Unfortunately we get crap like this all the time in papal conclave articles: most of them are based on self-published sources or borderline polemics. This one just happens to have found some press in the partisan Catholic media and is relatively recent rather than a few hundred years old. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, should anyone be interested, here is my analysis at the AfD of the sourcing and the article. It's long, so I didn't want to cross post, but thought it worth putting here in case any more conversation comes about. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sensible analysis. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment

Michael Pollan wrote stuff like:

“ Their potion recipes called for such things as datura, opium poppies, belladona, hashish, fly-agaric mushrooms (Amanita muscaria), and the skin of toads (which can contain DMT, a powerful hallucinogen). These ingredients would be combined in a hempseed-oil-based "flying ointment" that the witches would then administer vaginally using a special dildo. This was the "broomstick" by which these women were said to travel. ”

In the article Flying ointment claims like these are described as if they are true.

The article also contains stuff that appears to be WP:OR:

“ Juxtaposing the Italian and Scandinavian accounts with the ecclesiastical condemnation of Regino of Prüm, a picture emerges of a 'journey' not literal, but of the drugged mind, involving the actual mounting of an animal, smeared with flying ointment - the contact of the naked witch's genitalia with the animal's back allowing the absorption of drugs, through the vaginal mucosa, and the physical sensation of riding on the back of an animal suggesting powerfully to the drugged mind of the witch a ride to the Sabbath through hallucinatory realms conjured up by the drug. ”

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the others. Datura causes delirium, but is much more famous as a deadly poison. Datura-related murders and suicides are relatively commonplace. Voluntarily consuming datura is a very bad idea. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. He's presented as an 'autodidact theoretical physicist', but has no reputable work. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit (here's a brief analysis) but his fans understandably don't see it that way. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. There hasn't been any formal scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the increasingly impressive promotional material in the article. He has a following of very committed followers who are convinced he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.

The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do about it. I wouldn't necessarily argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. I think it needs some scientifically literate people watching it, because he does a very good job at presenting himself as an eccentric-but-competent physicist and it's far from immediately obvious to a sympathetic eye that the problems with his work are substantial rather than superficial. I've posted on WP:PHYS as well. Bobathon71 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(Note, I moved the above comment here from the talk page --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC))

I'd say go ahead and renominate for deletion. I cut out his list of "patents" on OR/UNDUE grounds, but that was just the lowest hanging fruit. He might be borderline notable, simply for his antics, but the current article as written seems like it's there merely to try to legitimize his work. Apparently the page was salted for 10 years or so, and was only unprotected in April. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As above, send it back to AFD. All sources are either unreliable, or primary - so no indication of notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Connected Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is in desperate need of work. What hath Patrick Stewart wrought?

jps (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought and after some review of the sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Universe. jps (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Global warming paper concludes warming is mostly natural variation

An article was recently published online (doi:10.1016/j.grj.2017.08.001) from the journal GeoResJ that is peer reviewed and concludes most of global warming is natural and not man-made. It has attracted attention from the conservative media and criticism from scientists. I have written a section on it at Jennifer Marohasy#2017 GeoResJ manuscript as Marohasy was the lead author. I am reporting my addition here for several reasons:

1. So others can check my addition for accuracy, UNDUE, BLP, etc, etc.
2. So others can use any of my text / sources in other articles on wiki. Perhaps on the article on the Institute of Public Affairs? Do we have an article on peer-reviewed denier materials? I would add something to the journal's article, but there isn't one and I'm not sure it is notable – though it may become so if the paper gets further attention and / or is withdrawn. (Randykitty, any thoughts?)
3. So others are aware of the paper and criticisms of it if deniers attempt to use it as strong evidence against the IPCC, etc.

This is likely to continue to develop. The graph produced by Gavin Schmidt and posted on twitter is only 3 days old and would be good for the article, if it is available. I have also seen little coverage of the scientific community's response, except from the Guardian article by Graham Readfearn, but it seems inevitable to me that there will be more.

Any and all comments, advice, criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of an exclamation mark and the last uncited sentence It is clear that the correlation is poor need rectification. The section is perhaps giving too much weight to news media and too little on scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed those, thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. The comment on the correlation was OR on my part, in that looking at the graphs tweeted by Gavin Schmidt, it's obvious that the correlation is awful once the time-axis correction is made, but he didn't actually say so. It'd be good to get that illustration and include it, and let it speak for itself, but for now I just removed the sentence. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting. Looks like the journal meets WP:NJournals as it is indexed in Scopus (haven't looked for other databases, but Scopus is generally considered enough to confer notability). Did you see, though, that the journal if folding? It will be discontinued as of January 2018.([6]). As an aside, I always find it amusing how climate change deniers (or "alternative medicine" pushers - perhaps in the spirit of the times, we should start calling this "fake medicine") deny the validity of tons of peer-reviewed research that goes against their convictions, disparaging experts and academic journals alike, but then, as soon as there is just a single article that seems to go in their direction suddenly treat that as the ultimate truth and proudly proclaim that expert Prof. SoAndSo from Tiny Rural University agrees with them and that the important and respected journal SciRag published this groundbreaking research, so it must be The Truth... --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, Randykitty, I did notice it is folding, and mentioned it in the article. GeoResJ will have publications in 2014 to 2017 (inclusive), so its significance as a journal is not impressive in history terms. On your aside, the two authors work with the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank with a history of climate change denial. Marohasy is a biologist who hasn't published in the field for about a decade, I think, and Abbot is claiming association with James Cook University in submitting the article months after his adjunct position ended. The issue here is not claiming either has great expertise, and to me the big question is how two peer reviewers passed this. I'm guessing there will be pressure for the article to be withdrawn, though I don't know how that works once the journal closes. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry, I commented here before even reading the article (it's not directly in my sphere of interest). I don't think that the fact that the journal closes will affect any retraction, if needed. The editor-in-chief (and anybody else who handled this article) should still be available to give their views and, of course, the publisher is not going to go away anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• The author's article appears to make it clear that her credentials are in biology, that the view used outdated data (1965) and that it has been critized as being fringe in the field. To me this is already nice work and helps to put it in perspective. The important is probably to keep monitoring related articles so that unreliably sourced POV doesn't creep in too much over time... Thank you very much for the notification. —PaleoNeonate – 10:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PaleoNeonate. I added some content to the article on the Institute of Public Affairs – hopefully not UNDUE. I have also further expanded the Marohasy article as scientists have been taking to the work on Twitter and she has given some responses, which I thought addressed Jo-Jo's concerns too. I suspect more will come from scientists in other places. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• You've done a good job of balancing Marohasy's research against the actual science, but the text could be trimmed down a bit for readability. I might go over there and mess around on the edges a bit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic_music_therapy

Could use some eyes. An editor working for the two... "inventors" of this method just got brought to COIN. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: also see WT:MEDICINE#Music Therapy where a related thread exists. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)