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:

Christian Science

Much of the article about the fringe Christian Science system is based on a single primary source, written by the founder: Eddy, Mary Baker (1934 [1875]). Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. United States of America: The Christian Science Board of Directors. It doesn't appear to put the fringeness of the prayer healing beliefs into perspective, for example: "Christian Scientists who choose to rely on medical treatment for a specific problem normally give up Christian Science treatment for the period of treatment. This is because one treatment approaches healing from a material and the other from a spiritual perspective. Because the method of prayer includes denying the reality of matter and affirming the perfection of the individual – while medicine is used to fix matter and a person with a problem – these two means are seen as incompatible and indeed as tending to work against each other when used simultaneously." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If this bit is unsourced, that is a problem. But the wording is not too in-universe and it doesn't seem to be making any extraordinary claims. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age" is being used to say: "There are cases of individuals who have died following their choice of Christian Science care over medical treatment; however, defenders of Christian Science counter that no similar burden is placed on medical science to explain those who die each year under conventional medical care, nor those given up as incurable by medical practitioners, some of whom recover after seeking Christian Science treatment". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of improvement; I didn't like the fact that the first main section is headed "Introduction". There must be good academic sources for the topic. The sentence you quote above is tendentiously worded. "Defenders of Christian Science counter..." is poor wording - what cases where people have died, which defenders counter? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I called it introduction because I couldn't think of anything else to call it, it was originally in the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I ended up just breaking up the intro and throwing things into the relevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice a SPA is removing the mention of Christian Science as pseudoscience form the lead: [1] with "I see advocacy here.". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As the SPA in question my objection is to what I see as a disingenuous approach to improving the article on Christian Science. While it started as a legitimate complaint about the article based entirely on a single primary source, which I agree with, almost immediately the old (to me) saw about pseudoscience crept in. This leaves me in the tenuous position, for fairness, of having to defend or prove a negative, which cannot be logically done. One can only refer back to the primary sources which state, explicitly, that Christian Science does not claim to be a science (and thus not a pseudoscience or at least not any more so than any other religion.)

Too, while there are many secondary references which state, in effect, "Christian Science is a pseudoscience" there are few that discuss Christian Science even outside the purview of the Church as such that say, explicitly, "Christian Science is not a pseudoscience" or discuss pseudoscience at all. Is it required to cite those sources, though the may be irrelevant to the question at hand, to mediate the assertion? What is the "mainstream" thought here? Is Christian Science a pseudoscience? Is it fringe? Both are likely, but I do not believe they are universally held belief even outside Christian Science. How do I prove this in the sense of not being able to prove a negative. Digitalican (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Other sources contradict the claim (they also include quotes of Eddy and Church members to highlight the claim). The assertion that it's a pseudoscience is quite prevalent in the secondary sources; currently the article doesn't explain why it's called a pseudoscience, which is more than just the name. Further, beliefs that don't claim to be scientific can still be pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest people also look at Mary_Baker_Eddy#Distinguishing_between_Eddy_and_Quimby_and_other_criticisms. The secondary sources say she was heavily influenced by Quimby, but this section says the opposite. Problematic wording like "In 1903 Mark Twain published a satirical diatribe attacking ..." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Orgastic potency article and its WP:FRINGE health/medical/sexual claims

Hi, all. Like I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Basically, this article is based on a fringe theory, and I am concerned about its promotion on Wikipedia. Concerns were already expressed on the article's talk page by a registered editor. See Fringe written as fact, and now editors of the article are discussing creating spin-offs of this theory and the possibility of giving more weight to it in other articles, such as the Human sexual response cycle article. See The orgasm reflex discussion. One editor stated that he had not even heard of the human sexual response cycle,[2] despite the fact it is mentioned often in sources when detailing sexual stimulation/arousal and orgasm and is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). I responded with this comment:[3] I'm not even sure that "orgastic potency" should have a Wikipedia article. And if it should, certainly, given the concerns about this theory coming across as fact or otherwise legitimate, it would be better to name it Orgastic potency theory. So please have a look at this article and comment on this in one or both of the linked article talk page discussions above.

I was referred here by User:AndyTheGrump.[4] 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, a brief look at that and related articles suggests that this will take a long time to sort out... a13ean (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, major issues, particularly that the mainstream isn't put into perspective. I see in the merge history it was redirected to Orgone but this was reverted. Seems to me Wilhelm Reich, Orgone and Orgastic potency could be merged, most of the sources are about Wilhelm Reich. Half of the in line citations are actually to primary sources; 21 out of 40, much of the rest are unreliable fringe journals etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thank you two for your input, and this editor[5] also. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that these are primary sources and fringe journals - but notice that all but two of the references are older than the 2/3 years recommended by WP:MEDRS - and even the two that are from 2010/2011, one is not actually used in referencing anything in the article and the other is only used to back up the statement that some guy wrote three books...which didn't need a reference in the first place! Because this is a medical topic - I'd have to say that it has no valid references whatever...not a single one. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does this article go now? Discussion has slowed down again, and it seems that the article won't be improved to where it needs to be...as outlined by SteveBaker. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest stubifying and starting over from scratch. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In the "Fringe written as fact" discussion, SteveBaker suggested that as one of the options. But the creator of the article, Gulpen, is obviously against it. And an editor in the Merge discussion specifically disagreed with turning it into a stub. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Gulpen recently removed the {{fringe}} tag from this article. I replaced it, but I think we need some experts in WP:FRINGE issues to weigh in on why this template is still required. Actually, the entire article is a horrible mess - but I don't have the time to fix it right now. IMHO, it should be either deleted or merged into Wilhelm Reich - but there isn't a consensus for the merge right now. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Memetics

See Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Memetics. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's that stupid list again! The editors there don't have the guts to make "List of pseudosciences" since finding sufficiently solid references for that is tricky - so it's watered down to merely a list of things that someone, somewhere said was pseudoscience - whether or not it was actually true. Memetics isn't pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It might have pseudoscientific elements, though. I agree that the article is really problematic. It confirms or upsets all our prejudices. I loved seeing anti-aging creams in there. I hated seeing qi, a concept from ancient Chinese cosmology - it hasn't been observed, you don't say! Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is not truly falsifiable but claims to be scientific; if it it is not pseudoscience it is close to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. All it takes is for one WP:RS to say "XYZ is pseudoscience" and it qualifies for the list because we can show that it has indeed been "characterized" as pseudoscience. If someone finds a source from someone saying "Relativity is pseudoscience" then relativity belongs on that list - even though it's widely agreed that it's not pseudoscience. The list is broken...I've been saying this for *years* - but still we're stuck with the darned thing because the editors there are too lazy to make it be "List of pseudosciences" with all the requirements for due-weight that this would require. It's much easier to find just one source and say "Look! It's been characterized that way, so it makes the list!" ...bah! SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We could make a separate article for just that, with the extra requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...and if we did that, why would we need/want the present article? That's why I believe that renaming and then pruning the present article is the correct approach. SteveBaker (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the alternative could be made separately in userspace, rather than something drastic. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mind control

On the topic of Mind control in New Religious Movements, an editor is arguing that Benjamin Zablocki's Mind control theory has general acceptance within the academy, except in Sociology of Religion (the only field of Academia specifically dedicated to the study of social processes within religious groups) which he characterizes as fringe. He argues that the reason Zablocki's theory has not received any credence or even attention the past 10 years is because a group of scholars led by James T. Richardson (this group is otherwise known as "the mainstream") has taken control of the journals, handbooks and encyclopedias about the topic of sociology of religion. Attention is requested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·'s description of our debate. Zablocki's theory of brainwashing has received much attention within the academy, even in the lat 10 years; it just so happens that his theories or the theories of any scholar in favor of the brainwashing hypothesis have not been published in the primary journals within sociology of religion; they have been well-published in well-respected journals outside sociology of religion, mind you. This seems to be because Richardson and other scholars sympathetic to his views are the editors of the primary sociology of religion journals. Handbooks and encyclopedias of sociology of religion do often contain an article or two written by Richardson or another scholar sympathetic to his view; such articles are often critical of the brainwashing theory. But to say that entire handbooks or encyclopedias don't respect Zablocki, his theories, or those scholars sympathetic to his views is unjustified. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Then please produce evidence to the contrary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are these secondary sources in that field? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sociology of religion mentions Marx, Durkheim, Weber, but it seems that nowadays sociologists of religion's main area of interest is New religious movements ("a neutral alternative to the word cult") and how these are misrepresented in the media. Seems they say very little about "destructive cults" like Jones temple, Branch Davidian, Solar temple etc. They are mentioned in relation to Aum Shinrikyo, where two of them flew to Japan to hold press conferences announcing that the group was not responsible for the Sarin gas attack. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, especially since John Gordon Melton is one of the leading "sociologists of religion", and has been an expert witness in court cases, testifying that hostile ex-members of "new religious movements" would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents turning them into major incidents. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No way does current sociology of religion mainly concentrate on new religious movements. Look at any introductory sociology textbook. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed that the names I came across represented sociologists of religion as a whole. Anyway, I can understand the point Nietzsche123 is making (not that I agree on the brainwashing issue). Looking at the names involved in the debate: (added abbreviations for clarity)

• David G. Bromley was editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), and is currently the editor of Religion and the Social Order, an annual serial published by the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR). He's on the editorial board of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society.
• Anson D. Shupe has held office in the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• Eileen Barker received payment from the Unification Church for expenses for a book and eighteen conferences. She was President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• Massimo Introvigne is vice-president of the Catholic movement Alleanza Cattolica, he taught courses at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, an institute run by Opus Dei. He has written books and articles criticizing The Da Vinci Code and a documentary on pedophile priests.
• Lorne L. Dawson, Canadian, served for six years on the editorial board of Sociology of Religion: A Quarterly Review, the journal of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• John Gordon Melton was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist church and worked for six years as a pastor.
• Irving Hexham is on the Editorial Board of Studies in Religion.
• Jeffrey K. Hadden's website The Religious Freedom Page doesn't exactly read like the work of an objective, uninvolved sociologist: Covenants are sacred arrangements between God and God's people. Covenants transcend social contracts, and are believed to endure for all time. The heavy hand of tyrants, as well as "ordinary" man-made institutions, may deny the promise of a covenant. That does not alter the Truth that believers share regarding special arrangements with God. His take on Jonestown: Jonestown serves as a lesson in how a combination of media, government, and citizens can create a climate of persecution and fear.

Others mentioned as sociologists of religion and specifically new religious movements:

• Douglas E. Cowan was ordained to the Christian ministry.
• Benton Johnson has been editor for the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and president of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR). He once received the annual book award from the SSSR.
• Rhys H. Williams was editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), was President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR), and President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR).
• Marie Cornwall is the editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), she previously worked for the "Priesthood Correlation Program", a department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• James A. Beckford served as President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR), and as the President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion. He has suggested that "latent xenophobic and anti-American attitudes have contributed significantly to the extremity of European anti-cult positions."

The Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR) used to be the American Catholic Sociological Society (the name change "reflecting changes in the Vatican's policy"). Catholic sociology doesn't sound like a very objective science.

The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR) is a publication by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR). Ssscienccce (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential astro canvassing

Note: Originally I was posting this to ANI but this user just had talk access revoked so there's not much point to that, instead I'm posting here so everyone has a heads up that there may be a large influx of astrology SPAs, so keep an eye on your watch lists and read on if you want the background.

Dave of Maryland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor who, over the past 3 years, has posted long walls of text to multiple talk pages regarding astrology, how WP is unfair to pseudoscience, as well as fringe takes on mainstream subjects (for instance, recently he argued on Talk:Moon#The_Moon_is_not_a_moon._Nor_does_it_have_impact_craters. that the moon isn't actually a Terran satellite and that there is no proof that impact craters on the moon were caused by impacts!). He has generally skirted under the radar because he doesn't really engage in discussion, rather he just posts the walls of text and then disappears. In his 3 years of having an account, he has made one article space edit to Antikythera mechanism, and it was basically all WP:OR attempting to claim that this ancient computer was for astrological purposes.

He was recently indefed by 23B³ for WP:NLT per this edit, where he essentially threatens to report WP to his congregation of astrologers who I guess will then take legal action.

He is now claiming that he meant no legal threat, but if you read through this wall of text you'll see that it's not clear what this person is even talking about.

However, he claims to have a large email list and to be one of the largest publisher of astrology related books in the world (I did some googling and this claim appears to be true at first glance) and he claims to be canvassing off wiki to attract attention from astrologers. So yeah, just keep an extra eye out but hopefully nothing will come of this. Sædon^talk 22:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I recently dealt with him on one of the astrology articles, and came to the conclusion that he seriously needs his meds adjusted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

O mai. This user's newsletter is... interesting. No that's not the right word... batty perhaps? Wikipedia has "a malign 9th house, Neptune-Mercury-Uranus making a stellium". Predictions of gloom and doom follow, as well as self-comparisons to Linus Pauling. This is not the first time astrologers have canvassed offsite, nor will it be the last. I think we have enough sane eyes on the articles to prevent any major damage. Discretionary sanctions have worked well in the past. Skinwalker (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that a number of potentially-canvassable astrology editors were banned after the last round of canvassing, so at worst we'd still only have an influx of very new accounts, which is a bit easier to deal with. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Has he "gone live" yet? Where's the firestorm? Anyone has a link?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the call to arms. I don't think many astrologers pay attention to this guy. Skinwalker (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per NPOV, I've included the criticism at Criticism of Wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's undue material based on a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That's amazing stuff! Between claiming that Evolution and Global Warming are just "fads" - and providing Wikipedia with it's own, free astrological chart...it's hilarious (if a little confused) reading: "Wiki, or someone like Wiki, is going to use pseudoscience to go after us, it’s just a matter of time.". I've checked the Wiki weapon-rack and I call dibs on the N-Ray gun with the SMOT-based perpetual power supply. SteveBaker (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to close wikipedia down guys, according to the link we we think like the enlightenment leaders (in a bad way). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No signs of trouble on my watchlist yet. If fire does actually break out, I'm sure somebody would come back here and raise the alarm. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely. On his talk page, he names today (Monday, 24th) as the day of action - and in his "AstroAmerica" newsletter, he says "3pm" but doesn't mention which day (or which time-zone for that matter) as the critical moment for Wikipedia. Presumably the astrologers who read his newsletter have already predicted the time *and* date, so this shouldn't be an issue for them. SteveBaker (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is the wikiproject watchlist as well for those who are on the watch for vandalism etc [6]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That was a horrifying reign of terror! The astrology article was...um...not edited at all...but the related Talk page was...well...totally unchanged. Wikipedia seems to have survived the "current Jupiter station on Wiki’s ascendant, along with the long running opposition to Pluto" more or less untransformed. I don't think User:Dave of Maryland has quite the fanatical following he thinks he has. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"opposition to Pluto"? Never argue with a cartoon dog. Or does he mean the ex-planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most astrologers area probably not as irrational as that, just limited to a non-scientific discourse which lacks and undervalues critical thinking (reminiscent of what is discussed here: [7]). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess jupiter exited the crazy house. a13ean (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On the upside, Larry Sanger will be drowning in a sea of letters. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit one-sided to remove speculation about it's use for astrology from Antikythera mechanism#Speculation about the mechanism's_purpose when the whole section is unsourced at the moment. Astrology seems a rather obvious possibility, the history of astronomy is inextricably linked to it. And if you read the article by Derek J. de Solla Price upon which part of the section seems based:

• It might have been held in the hand and turned by a wheel at the side so that it would operate as a computer, possibly for astrological use. I feel it is more likely that it was permanently mounted, perhaps set in a statue, and displayed as an exhibition piece. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced speculation from articles sounds like a good practice to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Leroux

Non-notable scientist that seems only to have an article because peopl like his fringe views on climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.65.107 (talk • contribs)

I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, so I've put it up for AfD. He has attracted some mentions, but nothing like significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Scientific method

See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Template:Scientific method - it appears to be original research, and given that it covers 'fringe science', is clearly within the remit of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw this popping up as well. It's been unsourced for a long time, and turning it into a template doesn't seem like a great idea. Using my own OR, it's also wrong, pre-scientific disciplines were protoscience, but they didn't use the scientific method. Something can be a superstition and pseudoscience at the same time. Fringe science is a large umbrella term that covers a lot of things. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What makes something "fringe" is simple... lack of acceptance by the mainstream. "Fringe science" has nothing to do with whether adherents of the theory or idea actually use (or attempt to use) the scientific method (sometimes they do, sometimes they do not). Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I think the confusion is from "pseudoscience" (which isn't synonymous with "fringe" - although the two often go hand-in-hand). Pseudoscience is when the adherents don't use the scientific method. Fringe is when the vast majority of mainstream science does not believe in it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've nominated the template for deletion due to the above concerns. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Billion Dollar Secret

Article with no references about one single episode shown on Discovery Channel in 1999. Something about black projects, antigravity, and Nick Cook. Does not seem notable. Redirect to Nick Cook? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, redirect (or delete). For a TV show to merit its own page, it (not the stuff that the show was about - the show itself) must have received significant coverage in the secondary literature. I see no such coverage here. My only argument against redirecting is that the term is broadly used to relate to all kinds of costly 'secrets', and I am not sure that sending anyone who does a search for this term to Nick Cook's site is necessarily the best thing to do, but it is certainly the easiest way to make the page go away. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected it per WP:NOTPLOT. If someone can dig up some secondary sources and make it something beyond a plot then it can be considered again. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Parapsychology rebuttals

The entire section on Parapsychologists' rebuttals appears completely undue Parapsychology#Parapsychologists.27_rebuttals to me. It would be similar to having an entire section on Astrology rebuttals in astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I renamed it "Response to criticism" since it didn't seem like a rebuttal and one of the "rebutters" is a physicist not a parapsychologist.Bhny (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian Josephson is also a parapsychologist, as well as a physicist. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I see my change has been reverted by Dominus Vobisdu anyway Bhny (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert your change. I deleted the entire section. Your change was irrelvant, and nothing more than putting lipstick on a donkey. The problems do not lie with the title of the section, but with the contents of the section itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here, there are two different sections at issue, one is called Parapsychologists' rebuttals, the other was about parapsychologist "theories". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It was a mistake on my part. Thanks for readding. Sorry, Bhny. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For me, this illustrates the problem with Criticism sections. It seems to people from the opposite viewpoint that there are possible rebuttals to the criticisms. And there could be rebuttals to those rebuttals ad infinitum or definitely ad nauseam. The criticisms should be integrated under the different headings and the mainstream scholarly view should be clear throughout. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's a bit about it in WP:CRIT here-> [[8]] Bhny (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, though I'm not going to edit further until the SPI clears, there is an obvious WP:DUCK editing the article and it looks like it'll be a headache to edit. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie has claimed the edits by "GreenUniverse" is copyrighted, yet provides no evidence. Note how "GreenUniverse" wrote both the "theory" and "evaluation" section. IRWolfie claims the "theory" section is copyrighted but when it came down to "GreenUniverse's" section the "evaluation" IRWolfie is all ok with it becuase it concludes parapsychology does not exist. This is cherry picking bits based on personal beliefs and not neutral editing. If you believe the information is copyrighted then please provide it, you can't claim just some of it is and then keep little bits, it all goes or it all stays. At least point out your so called "evidence" that it is "copyrighted"... please explain where it was "copyrighted" from. Ghosts Ghouls (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Like magic the WP:DUCK appears. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the posts by this blocked sockpuppet of a banned editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation#Pansexuality and polysexuality

We really need some people from here to weigh in on this topic there at the template discussion, especially since the related WikiProjects have not yet helped out on the issue (aside from WP:MED referring us elsewhere and one editor from WP:LGBT thus far weighing in). Since the discussion has gotten a bit long, I will summarize here what is going on there: Basically, we have kept pansexuality and polysexuality off Template:Sexual orientation because they are not considered distinct from bisexuality or sexual orientations by any authoritative source, and because authoritative sources are what we are supposed to follow on this topic. We recently agreed to let these two concepts stay on Template:Sexual orientation as long as they are not listed as sexual orientations or listed in a way that they are perceived as sexual orientations. That isn't enough for one editor who is arguing that pansexuality and polysexuality are distinct from bisexuality and are sexual orientations, despite no authoritative source on sexual orientation and sexuality, such as this authoritative source and this authoritative source, stating that they are, and is now arguing for a redesign of the sexual orientation template so that heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are not called sexual orientations. I have maintained that we don't go by what one or a few researchers state, which is why the WP:FRINGE guideline exists. Going by what one or a few researchers state leaves the door open for anything to be defined as a sexual orientation, including zoophilia. Editors have tried more than once to get zoophilia listed as a sexual orientation on the template, for example. And, from what I see, the Polysexuality Wikipedia article shouldn't exist at all, as it is completely non-notable/fringe. We don't get to define sexual orientation the way that we won't to. We are supposed to follow scientific consensus. Like I stated at Template talk:Sexual orientation, if the editor arguing for us to go against scientific consensus wants a Sexualities template, where zoophilia and many other types of sexualities can be included, she can create one. But the Sexual orientation template will remain. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)