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:

Animal Therapy

• Animal-assisted therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Equine therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Equine-assisted psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hippotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapy cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapy dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapeutic horseback riding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looked like a WP:WALLEDGARDEN in which some very sweeping health claims are made (including benefits to autism and multiple sclerosis). Check out for example Therapeutic horseback riding#Benefits. Generally sourcing is eye-wateringly poor with heavy use made of primary sources, fringe-y journals and commercial sites. After any trimming, there may be scope for merging content. More eyes on these articles (or in finding more of the walled garden) welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC); amended 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the equine/hippotherapy articles. It looks like hippotherapy and equine-assisted psychotherapy have a decent layout, but are mostly similar articles. I'd move them over to equine therapy as I'm not really seeing much worth keeping that's currently in the equine therapy article, and equine therapy seems to be the most non-jargony title. No idea if I'll get around to doing that myself today if someone else doesn't, but just my two cents at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be inclined to have an article called Equine-related therapy (taking a cue from PMID 24953870) which included all the horse stuff. I've taken a hatchet to some of these today; before they were pretty promotional for what appears to be ineffective, expensive woo. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And now the push-back.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there are WP:OWN issues going on here. jps (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that removing sourced material without discussion of the sources and replacing everything with an single reference to a mere metanalysis of 14 studies that was critical, and announcing that as a conclusion that these therapies do not work is pretty much just POV-pushing in the opposite direction. I would suggest a collaborative approach that locates the best materials on each side of the issue and work to improve these articles. I am not up on the cat and dog therapies, but I know that in the realm of equine therapy, in my view, one program (PATH) is vastly superior to the other (EAGALA). Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL is a real danger here. I see that basically all the non-critical claims are sourced to very dubious items or not sourced at all. This is not the way we should be writing Wikipedia articles, IMHO. jps (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be OK with a single Equine therapy article and I agree that there is room for improvement. We can work on this; my concern is replacing one set of POV with another. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

a mere metanalysis of 14 studies ← you mean about the highest quality type of source available to us, MEDLINE-indexed systematic review. To say we need to locate material "on each side" is utterly to misunderstand the fundamentals of neutrality here. We shall faithfully reflect the accepted knowledge on this topic as reflected in the best sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How is this working on this? It's just straight up ownership, isn't it? jps (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's aggressive reversion with the effect of fringe-pushing while singing a song about "collaboration". Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And now this! Perhaps a trip to a drama board is in order? jps (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I'm leaving town shortly with minimal online access for a couple days, and I have no interest in your ongoing drama, so you'll have a couple days to see if you can find your own balance. I only suggest that you take a look at the links I put in at your respective user page and the articles. You are not winning anyone over by calling a respected therapeutic model "bogus" and cherry-picking only the negative sources. There's certainly some stuff that is bogus (I personally have issues with the EAGALA model) but there is also a reasonable amount of decent research, particularly by PATH which has been doing the therapeutic riding stuff for decades and has moved cautiously into the mental health realm. So hold yourself to your own standards and take a fair look at what is there. Surprise me... Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The links to some Google Scholar searches? I'm not sure what you expect we will find there (or why you assumed we haven't done that already). I am becoming more convinced that you haven't done the requisite research yourself to see what the reliable sources actually say. Please note that many sources which show up in Google Scholar are not what we would consider to be reliable according to Wikipedia standards. You still seem not to be able to grok WP:GEVAL, and your weak surrender in the direction of an upcoming trip (happy travels, incidentally) still strikes me -- as someone who is objecting to your drive-by reverts -- as indicative of ownership issues. jps (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, try this: (Lentini ) literature review of 47 recent sources, explains what they all are, reviews conclusions and so on. Even the critical Anestis review of 14 studies (used by Alexbrn) concluded that the subject is worth further research; their concern was the problems with study design and though they stated, "Indeed, we believe that research concerning ERT and other experimental treatment modalities should continue,"and they even concluded that there was no evidence that it was harmful...("iatrogenic"). Anestis also exaggerated the costs involved, from what I can tell (without full text access to all the articles cited). The Lentini article took a wider look. Both the favorable and the unfavorable literature reviews agree that the existing studies have problems with their design and therefore the conclusions drawn are preliminary at best. But both also agree that this is a legitimate area for research and further study; basically, Lentini sees more favorable evidence than did Anestis. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And do stop the "you don't understand" tone; I get it, and I know how many actual hours it takes to do actual research and read all this stuff -- more than any of us have, short of a research grant. I am simply asking you to actually look before you leap in with an unexamined anti-animal therapy POV that is as biased as that of the over-enthusiastic promoters. Saying things such as "no good evidence exists" is an exaggeration and overstatement. Also, confusing the physical health studies with the mental health studies is a problem too; there is a lot more literature out there on the physical health stuff. Let's try to set aside agendas and look at what we actually can cite to MEDRS sources and what had only preliminary study. I see no problem with describing the evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't say "more research is needed" (or the myriad variations on that theme) because it's a truism and also subtly misleading in lay language (the lay reader can take it to mean "they think it's promising" whereas it's more a term of art usually with more of a meaning of: keep funding my field!). This is why MOS:MED recommends against it. The Lentini source seems poor - by the looks of it not in PUBMED/MEDLINE and in a journal with an impact factor of ZERO. If you have personal objections to the Anestis article it shall have no effect on our use of it, as such personal objections are specifically discounted by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

At least one of these items was discussed here quite recently [2]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lentini article is in a peer-reviewed journal under the auspices of the American Counseling Association. I found it cited in PUBMED here. According to this and NLM lists it here it was formerly known as the Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice, (there appears to have been a gap in publication) and that journal was listed on PUBMED [3]. I accept the conclusions of Anestis as far as they go, but they only went through 14 articles and their focus was on study design problems. I do not disagree that they found study design problems. But there was a 2013 study (Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013)) that drew a more positive conclusion as well as the Lentini literature review. In short, reasonable minds differ. You need to accept that this is a situation in flux and as such we simply need to describe the flux. Montanabw^(talk) 07:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the Lentini paper has a PMID, which is what I meant by being "in" PUBMED - correct me if I'm wrong. Generally, we don't use medical articles that aren't MEDLINE indexed and the zero impact factor is probably the final nail in that source's coffin. What every editor here "needs to accept" is that it's our task merely to convey accurately what knowledge is contained in the best sources. I am glad at least we have moved on from trying to use primary sources and commercial web sites as sources for claims about therapeutic value, although the insurance company document you have edit-warred[4] in to make claims about the effectiveness of hippotherapy remains a serious concern. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one who inserted it, I merely re-added it when you edit-warred by removing it. It would be better if someone would pull the peer-reviewed source from that article and cite to it. (Which you could do if you wanted to) But more to the point: Each of these articles contains a large number of sources that ARE peer-reviewed and legitimate material. Nothing stops you from looking at them (other than time and a need to have an open mind) I am concerned with your lack of good faith to consider that a relatively new field is going to mostly have preliminary studies; furthermore, the hippotherapy article isn't really about mental health stuff anyway, it's more about speech and occupational therapies; the mental health stuff should all be moved to Equine-assisted psychotherapy. Montanabw^(talk) 09:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lentini article came out in October, not sure how long it takes to get indexed, the doi=10.1080/15401383.2015.1023916 if that helps. But more to the point, it's a review of the peer-reviewed (and also the "gray") literature, so it's value is also in the many sources cited, I think they found pretty much everything that's come out in the last 5-6 years. And you also aren't looking at this, though Anestis was critical, it needs to be examined on its own merits. Montanabw^(talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lentini article is poor quality and not really usable. If PMID 22888815 has been referenced by Anestis then it's probably outdated, but may be worth further investigation: MEDRS directs us to use up-to-date sources. Discussing the merits of secondary sources is precisely the kind of conversation we should be having, and I'm happy for that. I'm not happy about using insurance company sites for sweeping health claims: since you restored it, despite knowing it was not WP:MEDRS, the responsibility falls to you for that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, repeatedly, one of the uses of these articles is that they contain citations to the peer-reviewed literature. Lentini is a comprehensive literature review that backs the conclusions of Selby and Smith-Osborne that equine therapies are promising and worth further study; Anestis was more critical, but I think even MEDRS supports a section on the state of research on the topic and the conclusions drawn. I didn't add the Aetna article as a source, but I did restore it when someone else added it and you deleted it - eventually, the precise study cited therein is what the source needs to be, but I rather wish you would do some of the actual heavy lifting here, as opposed to finding one meta-analysis and posting the identical paragraph about its conclusions in three or more articles and then edit-warring to keep in everything including the typos. Given that you are the one who is insisting on the MEDRS sources and declaring yourself the sole abiter of what passes muster, it's really not worth adding meticulous sources if you are just going to delete everything anyone else adds only to restore your own POV. There are eight or so good peer-reviewed articles discussed in the Aetna piece, which is why I posted it; to save a bit of time and work (they do a good job of summarizing each article). Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There are outright falsehoods here: I have add several good sources (the first these articles have seen, so far as I can tell) not just Anestis, but also e.g. PMID 23892336, PMID 23124442 and the Souter source as well as initiating discussion of other good sources. You have been reverting to primary sources, commercial websites advertising these treatments, and insurance company documents. And now you are arguing for obviously weak sources (impact factor=zero; not MEDLINE-indexed). Our articles may be slowly getting better, but you have proved yourself an impediment to this progress in almost every conceivable way. Still, I think we're getting there despite your multi-pronged efforts to stand in the way. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, your personal attacks and biases are really interfering with a collaborative effort; behaving like an arrogant bully just shuts down any actual work getting done. It appears clear that you have an agenda to debunk this topic and attacking those who disagree with you only shows your own POV-pushing mindset. To actually READ these studies takes hours, to look at the content and design would need a grant; all of us here are volunteers, but in any case, one can't just skim abstacts, which is why the Aetna piece is useful; like wiki, it's a source that leads us to sources -- they did what we do on-wiki; review the literature and summarize it. Ditto Lentini; it's a very extensive literature review that explains what the various studies are, and using these can save us hours of independently going through page after page of search results in Wiley or wherever. In peer-review land, I have just gone over Selby/Smith-Osborne 2013 (Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 32, No. 4, 418–432 0278-6133/13/ DOI: 10.1037/a0029188) and though the Anestis study was critical of their work, the reality is that we have two perfectly decent analyses of what's out there, done a year apart, and producing a simple difference of opinion amongst experts; some think the use of horses as a complementary and adjunct intervention in various therapy is promising and existing studies are encouraging, while others think that the poor design of studies to date means "pull the plug and stop now" -- even while acknowledging that there appears to be no harmful effects. The additional benefit of the Lentini work is that one adds a look at the studies done since Anestis wrote and has a more comprehensive summary of what's out there (and, I must note, having actually read it, it pinpoints problems with a lot of the studies; it is not hagiographic by any means). Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in reading primary studies as we are in no position to use them (and doing so would constitute WP:OR). Also we don't use poor sources, like Lentini, to source content on Wikipedia, especially when strong sources are readily available. As to your talk of a "POV-pushing mindset", I suggest need to consider the page history and then take a long hard look in the mirror. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex, as I said, reasonable minds can differ and your personal attacks are not helping produce a collaborative environment. Here, we have a 2013 analysis and a 2014 analysis; I honestly question if you've read more than the abstract of either of them (I have now read both, though I want to do a re-read and more thorough digestion) and they both pass MEDRS and they have some disagreement between them. Lentini is not quite as strong, but it is not "poor" -- it is self-decribed as a literature review and in turn points out some reasonable issues with Anestis plus looks at the most recent work (Primary source are not forbidden on WP, we merely have to use them sparingly and without SYNTH). We both agree there aren't enough peer-reviewed, meticulously-designed studies out there. That said, broad SYNTH statements are not the way we write Wikipedia, we review the sources, particularly the secondary sources, we go where they go, but not beyond that. Montanabw^(talk) 08:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I honestly question if you've read more than the abstract of either of them ← yeah, that evidently is how you roll (pompously playing the man, not the ball and - wrong, BTW). The Lentini source is poor: to repeat it is not indexed in MEDLINE and in a no-impact journal. We simply do not use those sources to support statements about therapeutic efficacy. We especially don't use weak sources to debunk stronger sources, as you appear to be proposing. Why would we use poor sources to build an article? Alexbrn (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Even peer-reviewed studies must not be taken uncritically. You are making a straw man argument here by dismissing an entire field of endeavor instead of doing a balanced analysis and weighing various viewpoints. Where you have an emerging field, as we do here, you need to look at what the available evidence is, and discuss its strengths and weaknesses. I was looking at some of the diet articles as a comparison, and I realize that there is an analogy here: Some diets are backed by scientific evidence and some are not; just because some diets have no scientific evidence to back them does not mean that all diets are nonsense. Likewise, a new diet may be difficult to assess because it hasn't had a lot of studies completed on it to determine if it's a good diet or a bad diet. Similarly, the animal therapies out there are relatively new, some of the experiments are clearly promising while others don't seem to have much impact. You can compare Animal-assisted therapies to things like Music therapy and other forms of expressive therapy; it's all cutting-edge and not well-studied. That does not mean that it is therefore "bogus." My point in all of this has been, essentially, to have true, not false balance. We have one critical systematic review; we have two favorable ones; there are now at least several dozen studies to look at, though flawed in various ways, but compared to real pseudoscience like kissing boo-boos. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

More eyes would be useful over at Equine-assisted therapy where everything has mostly been merged to. Both across the talk page and at this board, editors have pointed out issues with this review because a more recent review directly points out the previously study was flawed and cannot draw conclusions that the literature currently shows promise for the use of equine therapy for mental health as an "adjunct or complimentary" treatment. There's a new talk section Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy#Let.27s_settle_this that has just popped up as another iteration arguing against this even though the topic has been covered many times across the talk page and here. It would be nice if those familiar with this discussion could give the page a second look or if new eyes could give them a gander. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Horse merge

I preformed a complicated merge of horse therapy pages so proper WP:CFORKing can be done. The main article is now at Equine-assisted therapy and includes content from no less than four separate articles which are now redirects. Help cleaning up that article would be appreciated! jps (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I restored some of the other articles, but left this new one there and made what I hope are constructive edits to it. I have proposed discussion on whether to merge all of them, but best that discussion is consolidated at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. (You found one in there I don't think I even recall seeing though I apparently saw it once... it was in my watchlist). Anyway, though a bit bold, I'd say that, upon reflection. two of the four articles merged needed to be, and the content from the other two that's in the overview now is worth further work. I think we do need to discuss if the two riding-related articles should remain separate, be merged with each other, (with shorter summaries at the EAT article) or all be merged as you suggested. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This merge question might benefit from more eyes. The focus of discussion is now at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Carnism

Kept at AfD, but no credible arguments for keeping the massive coatracks thrown atop the concept. Methinks it's time to gut it, without mercy, of all off-topic material. Note: Some may be better spun off than deleted; I could see meat paradox as a stub article - at least the sources for that section use that term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Commenced work. Ironically, after pulling out meat paradox - a separate subject - both articles are much tighter. Please bookmark; this topic seems very kudzu-ish, in that it keeps being pushed beyond any useful boundaries.

The coatracking and POV seems to me to be merely vegan propaganda to pathologize the eating of meat, in order to identify veganism as the "normal" and meat eaters as the "deviant wierdos". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hair whorl (horse)

OK everyone, here's one from me. I have way too much drama going on elsewhere to tackle this one solo (and deal with the inevitable tendentious debates likely to follow), but if anyone wants to give this article a clearer pseudoscience/fringe look, I'd be grateful. If there is anything at all scientifically rigorous on this, I'd be surprised, but if there is, you might find it; I can't. Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Gag. I can look through my books: I believe I have an old Western Horseman issue with some stuff about scientists studying whorls on cattle in feedlots. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can a whorl really be fringe? Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Much of selective animal breeding becomes enmeshed in claims that are not rigorously vetted because no one cares. If I say that cocker spaniels are vicious or that poodles are intelligent, there's no scientific basis for this claim. On the other hand, if one surveyed dog breeders and found that breeders ascribed particular character traits to particular breeds, that's just a fact of what humans perceive, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the dogs themselves. Pointing out a correlation between the direction of hair-whorls and the perceived handedness that riders ascribe to a horse is a simple statement of attribution. It really isn't pseudoscience until someone starts to argue causation without evidence that there is a causal link. jps (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

jps is completely wrong here. People do care about such things and there IS mainstream scientific evidence about animal temperament. I am reluctant to even post such evidence on this noticeboard thereby inadvertently indicating it is fringe. For those interested in horse hair whorls, try typing "whorl temperament" into a google scholar search. Here is just one of the articles http://www.lundy.org.uk/download/ar52/LFS_Annual_Report_Vol_52_Part_15.pdf DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's like phrenology for animals - bonkers. And lo! the world gives us not only "whorlology" but also "whorl theory"[5] Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it seems you've either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted my comment (I never said there wasn't any evidence for animal temperament), thanks for showing us that whorlology pseudoscience is a thing, @DrChrissy:. Of course, it doesn't look like any sane people have looked into it. jps (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, jps has apologised on their talk page for their personal attack on me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A very well crafted apology, if I may say so. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. Judging from his very extensive block log, jps has had plenty of opportunity to wordcraft his apologies.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why, are you a whorlologist? Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, chill it with the personal attacks. My question was if people can please look at the pseudoscience aspects of the article itself. Usually when I go after this stuff, I get accused of biting the newcomers and such, so I'd prefer more objective folks look at the article itself and help fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many superstitions/beliefs/legends/claims/whatever regarding what the color or type of an animal's fur means. In some cases there may be truth behind it. White is linked to many birth defects such as deafness--and interestingly, in Mexico there's a belief that white animals should not be eaten and are bad luck. The bad luck may stem from the fact that if you're breeding animals like goats to eat, getting offspring with a genetic defect means less meat in some cases. And also, people do care about breed temperaments and in many cases selectively breed for a tractable personality, at least in animals like horses and dogs that interact closely with humans. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's quite a stretch, though it makes for fun armchair speculation. Not really encyclopedic quality, though. Fun for discussion pages, I guess. jps (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Do these people who think horse colour denotes character extend that thought to humans I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the temperament associated with hair/coat color has been around for a long time -- i.e. in humans, that redheads have hot tempers or that blondes are stupid. In horses, there are beliefs that the "redheads" (i.e. chestnuts) are also hot-tempered. But there is also legitimate science for things like albinism, which has significant health problems in humans and depigmentation genes in some animals are also problematic (i.e. lethal white syndrome in horses). So it's a mixed bag. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly, what you say about artificial selection of animals for behavioural tractability is very true - it is the very basis of our domestication of animals and can be found across many species.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, there are a lot of tall tales that come along for the ride when we talk about animal domestication and breeding. Hair whorls indicating temperament? That's a paddlin'. jps (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But the two bits that I'd like some eyes on is if there have been any studies -- good, bad, or crappy on the temperament question, and 2) an assessment of the "study" that claimed that the direction of the hair whorls indicated left- or right-"footedness" preference. Horses, like people, have preferred sides, and that has a significant impact in horse training. So, if it's baloney (which I suspect it is), it's worth noting as baloney. If we are into helping the general public, I can assure you that the hair whorl thing is an urban legend (or perhaps a rural legend) out there and I've had some very aggravating and fruitless arguments with the true believers. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of you will have noticed that I have been editing the Hair whorl (horse) article. I have just edited the lead to state that there have been reports of "statistical relationships" between whorls and temperament/behaviour in horses. I have chosen the expression "statistical relationship" carefully. I have tried very hard not to indicate any causality or biological significance to these findings as I am as sceptical about them as you all are - but the reports are out there in mainstream science and therefore we should cover them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a little editing there as well: like in half the horse articles, the stuff about the Arabians looked to have been written by a kid. Alexbrn, what I was saying about the color white in animals being linked to health issues is true. See the lethal white article Montanabw linked; also, white cats with blue eyes are almost always deaf. In dogs, breeding of two merles creates white puppies that are blind, deaf or both. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my position is pretty much "if the advocates are going to keep trying to add it anyway, let's address it up front." Saves time and future edit wars. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics: advertising material from a cryonics organisation

@Tiddlypeep: is repeatedly adding advertising material from a cryonics organisation to Cryonics. Two other editors (me and @ComicsAreJustAllRight: have removed it so far. More eyes needed. Perhaps we're both wrong! - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "advertising material" is a biased view, in my opinion. Anyway, the point is that this new UK research network by prestigious scientists in Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions showcases that cryonics has some scientific acceptance. Basically, it demonstrates that reputed scientists support research into cryonics, even though I am aware that cryonics will not win any popularity contests. As such, I think it is relevant to the topic of the paragraph on whether cryonics is scientifically feasible. but if I'm mistaken then I'm happy to be proven wrong. Tiddlypeep (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to take your "new research" to the article talk page and discuss why this research demonstrates "scientific acceptance." "Prestigious scientists" is a meaningless phrase, the research itself and its quality is what matters. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: thanks for the suggestion, I have mentioned this issue in the article talk page. @David Gerard: @ComicsAreJustAllRight: Tiddlypeep (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

... where you continue to refuse to take "no" for an answer. How long do we spin this out for? Guy (Help!) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

A user with an - ahem - idiosyncratic view of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, has returned, after an absence, to continue adding contentious fringe content to Psychokinesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). More eyes needed, please. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted to the last "clean" version which appears to be that of jps. If I was over-bold in reverting, no worries about cleaning up my mess and mea culpa if I trashed a couple good edit in the process. Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a repeating loop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:REHASH by a user who insists that a minimally notable parapsychologist is actually a respected academic whose fringe opinion deserves prime space in the article. I'm done engaging, he's worn me out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Actually a respected academic": professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, written several books on the subject, dozens of articles published in academic journals. Yes, that sounds exactly like a respected academic.
• "Prime space in the article": actually, one paragraph in the appropriate section.

User:Montanabw, maybe you should state a reason for your revert. No one has done so yet, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is under discussion at Talk:Psychokinesis#Stephen_E._Braude. zzz (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll grant you he's respected among fringe proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a typical "response" from you. You just claimed that he's not a respected academic, which he clearly is. So, you are wrong, then, yes? Or are you going to pretend you were saying something else? Like [here], at the talk discussion, when you pretended you hadn't just claimed that Noûs is an "obscure" publication, which it clearly isn't. zzz (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not my circus, but Signedzzz, you really don't understand that a philosopher is not the same as a scientist... two different fields. Respected academics in one field can still be crackpots in another. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, the connection is philosophy of science. You can't claim on the one hand that PK is purely scientific, and unconnected with philosophy, and at the same time that it is completely unscientific ("pseudoscience"). This respected philosopher is making no scientific (or pseudoscientific) claims, he is looking at PK from a philosophical perspective - his field of expertise. And this positive review, in a respected peer-reviewed journal, of a book he wrote on PK demonstrates that he is not regarded as a "crackpot". zzz (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So far, the only policy-based reason to exclude this has been User:LuckyLouie asserting that it is an "obscure" publication (which he later seemed to have changed his mind about anyway), when in fact it is plainly obvious that it is a WP:reliable source. zzz (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, could the admin User:JzG (Guy) please explain exactly how my view of what is or is not a WP:reliable source is "ahem - idiosyncratic"? See, I am claiming that this peer-reviewed academic journal is in fact a WP:reliable source. If that is wrong, please explain here why you think that. If you don't think I'm wrong, then what did you mean? zzz (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I could explain again, but I doubt you'd listen this time either. You are in a minority of one. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise: you cannot back up your personal attack. You have not explained how this peer-reviewed academic journal is not an RS, and to suggest otherwise is obviously a lie. This kind of crap is what I would expect from a troll or vandal. I find it worrying that it is an admin casting aspersions and then lying about it. zzz (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:STICK. And stop digging. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT too! jps (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed a bit of vandalism from Stephen E. Braude that included the word "ignorami" (sic). The word is from the Latin ignoramus "we do not know." The English plural is "ignoramuses." Roches (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish that people would speak plainly without citing numerous essays all the time. What's the journal in question, and what are the positions on why it's not reliable or why it is? SageRad (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The journal in question is Noûs (see the ref, above). Because it's a peer-reviewed academic journal, I believe it is an RS. However, User:LuckyLouie has stated on Talk:Psychokinesis that it is "obscure". JzG/Guy is apparently also claiming here that it's not reliable (but hasn't explained why). For about a month now, a handful of users have been insisting that the "Belief" section of the article should describe in detail stage magicians, fraudulent mediums, and the like, but not mention this (apparently) respected academic who has published articles and several books on the subject (one of which is reviewed in the journal in question). zzz (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a lot more complicated than either side is letting on. No journal is "reliable", full stop, without qualification. The answer to the question "Is X reliable?" must always be "For what?" Then, if we establish that the journal is reliable for some particular statement, we need to figure out whether that statement merits inclusion in the context of the article. It would be helpful if there were a clear, concise statement of the wording that the reference is meant to support. The Traveling Boris (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of this section. Please note the context of the article, which goes on to devote a paragraph each to over a dozen stage magicians and the like. The paragraph has the cite to Nous and to another book about psychokinesis by the same author that discusses Carl Jung's theory of synchronicity. zzz (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, that is helpful. I think the argument reduces to WP:WEIGHT: is Baude sufficiently prominent in the field for his views to merit inclusion? This could go either way. What is clearer is that any such mention needs to be qualified by stating that Baude's writings are held in very low regard by other academics. For example a review of one of his books states "I would be surprised if any reader with the slightest tendency towards critical thinking would find the evidence for psi presented in this slim volume to be anywhere near compelling." As I said before, this is complicated. The Traveling Boris (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. The reviewer in Nous describes Braude as "the most philosophically sophisticated among clear advocates of the paranormal" and states that "this book - like Braude's work in general - [is] well worth attending to." I would agree with adding more criticism. zzz (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What they basically mean is that while he may be a crank, he is not an obvious loon. His views do not change the scientific consensus that PK is bollocks, and we do not, for obvious reasons which you nonetheless seem to have difficulty grasping, "balance" mainstream scientific consensus with the opinion of lone cranks. See WP:PARITY / WP:WEIGHT. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the vulgarity and the able-ist language, but "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." That's the extent of the praise Braude is getting. It's much like saying, "Russell Humphreys is the most sophisticated young-Earth creationist who claims to rectify his faith with the observed age of the universe." One might even say that Humphreys ideas are "well worth attending to" if for no other reason than to see what the high-water mark for sophistication is so that when you encounter creationists you can dispatch their claims with relative ease. This, however, is not justification necessarily for including Humphrey's ideas on pages about religious cosmology for example because Wikipedia's remit is to explain the notably WP:MAINSTREAM treatments of human knowledge. That means you have to find reliable independent sources that show that his ideas are seriously connected to the larger subject, keeping in mind such principles as WP:PARITY, WP:ONEWAY, and WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy your interpretation. If you read the review, it's clear that it means what it says - not "if for no other reason..." The same journal has published work by Braude, in any case, thereby confirming the reviewer's evaluation. And it is also quite clear that it's a reliable independent source, as required by WP:PARITY and WP:ONEWAY, since it's a peer-reviewed academic journal. WP:NFRINGE is about whether a fringe theory is notable enough to qualify for a separate article, so not relevant. Except where it states: "Theories of Booth's escape – The page on John Wilkes Booth includes descriptions of conspiracy theories contending that Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. However, they are not notable enough for a dedicated article." The same principle should apply here. zzz (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pretending that psychokinesis is real or worthy of serious consideration. WP:MAINSTREAM. jps (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside your personal interests, which part of that essay are you referring to? Presumably not the part that supports what I've been saying: "Wikipedia gives the most space and prominence to descriptions of a subject that conform to the expert understanding while marginalizing in space and prominence the minority understanding, or even excluding some descriptions or issues that have no reliable sources." zzz (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is simply a fact that psychokinesis does not exist. Wikipedia will represent this fact plainly in our article on the subject and will not be distracted by cranks. jps (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So according to you, the professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland is "a crank", and as such, must not be mentioned. I think you should leave your personal opinions about respected academics aside when judging what can and cannot be mentioned in articles. As a side-issue, User:JzG, please refrain from editing my comments. zzz (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who advocates PK as if it were real, is, by definition, a crank. And as noted by several others, we do not "balance" scientific consensus with individual people whose contrary views we happen to like. This is not restricted to PK or other fringe topics, it applies everywhere. It's called false balance and it's a failure of WP:NPOV. And any editing of your comments was entirely accidental. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The article describes in detail over a dozen stage magicians etc who have "advocated PK as if it were real". Since that is the case, the only reason I can see to exclude the views of this respected academic is because his views are more difficult to ridicule. In other words, to use Wikipedia to promote your skeptic POV, against policy. zzz (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming there's no answer to this forthcoming, I'm going to go ahead and delete the Psychokinesis#Belief section, as per Talk:Psychokinesis#Remove_.22Belief.22_section. zzz (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that you believe psychokinesis is real and are offended by those of us who point out that such is a cranky belief to which equal validity will not be extended at Wikipedia. Do you believe that psychokinesis is real? Just curious. In any case, I see you've already been reverted by another. jps (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone has removed the POV tag, apparently because Template:POV#When_to_remove doesn't apply here. I believe in correcting obvious bias in articles, and obviously I find it somewhat offensive when users revert my corrections and refuse to address the problem. I repeat: The article describes in detail over a dozen stage magicians etc who have "advocated PK as if it were real". Since that is the case, the only reason I can see to exclude the views of this respected academic is because his views are more difficult to ridicule. In other words, to use Wikipedia to promote your skeptic POV, against policy. Would you agree with this, and if not then explain. zzz (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeating your poorly argued statement does not make it more convincing. No one agrees with you because the argument makes no sense. I'm sure I can find many people who believe in psychokinesis. That does not mean we need to use the page as a soapbox for the peculiar views of a marginalized academic who believes likewise. jps (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a question, not a statement. What is the reason to exclude the views of a respected academic who "advocates PK as if it were real" from Psychokinesis#Belief when the section describes in detail over a dozen stage magicians etc who have "advocated PK as if it were real"? I have indicated the obvious answer, above. Your refusal to address the question is revealing. zzz (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that reliable sources identify stage magicians as pretending as though psychokinesis is real. Reliable sources do not identify this marginalized academic as having a prominent opinion on this topic. jps (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only has this "marginalised" long-standing professor of philosophy at a major university been published in dozens of reliable sources, but the reference above in a peer-reviewed academic journal - ie. a reliable source - identifies him as "the most philosophically sophisticated among clear advocates of the paranormal" and states that "this book - like Braude's work in general - [is] well worth attending to." So how is that less "prominent" than the examples currently in the article, which begin with, for one example, a long paragraph about Angelique Cottin (ca. 1846) known as the "Electric Girl" of France (who is not notable - "prominent" - enough for a Wikipedia article)? In other words, your reply is obviously wrong. But thanks for at least pretending to reply. If only to confirm the blatantly obvious, that you are indeed intent on abusing Wikipedia's policies to promote your skeptic POV. zzz (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, your claim can only be that the source mentioning Braude's nonsense makes him prominent (self-citations don't count). Others, including myself, have indicated why this isn't the case. Find a better source that indicated Braude is a prominent source for explaining belief in psychokinesis. Until you do, you're going to be drummed out by the rest of us. You can complain that about the "skeptics" winning this argument as much as you want, but it's not a convincing whinge. jps (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

@jps Please treat other editors with respect and civility: your comment above does not do that.DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @DrChrissy, your documented promotion of pseudoscience in the past makes me inclined to ignore your protestations. If you prefer, you can form a cabal with zzz and attempt to sway Wikipedia policy towards credulity. I doubt you'll be successful. jps (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) If this is documented, then you will be able to provide diffs. Please do so, or otherwise stop casting aspersions. I also suggest you read WP:FOC.DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC) It is documented (with diffs) in the GMO case that you supported the pseudoscience of GMO paranoia. If you didn't want people focusing on your problematic behavior, you shouldn't have started the discussion in such a fashion. No one asked you to be the standard bearer for your warped sense of what civility entails. jps (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC) As I expected, you have not been able to provide diffs supporting your spurious accusations. I thought your comment regarding my "warped sense of what civility entails" was rather ironic considering you have a large list of blocks for reasons including incivility.DrChrissy (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC) The diffs are beautifully lined up in the arbcomm case. If you think my block record is relevant, we could remind the peanut gallery that only one of us is topic banned. jps (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Your block record for incivility is most definitely relevant. I asked you above to remain respectful and civil when addressing other editors. I remind you of this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Is your topic ban from GMOs relevant? After all, it was given because you support pseudoscience and here you are trying to insert yourself into a discussion supporting pseudoscience. I see a pattern where you just seem to love to support pseudoscience. jps (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note... Philosophy is not the proper field to be considered an expert on psychokinesis. Neurology would be the most applicable field. If a respected philosophy professor supports psychokinesis as a real phenomenon, then with regards to neurology, that professor is indeed a crank. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quick reply: Philosophy of science is indeed the "proper field" to address this issue. As this particular professor of philosophy also clearly believes, as well as others in the field. If you disagree, you need to get your opinion published in a peer-reviewed philosophy journal. zzz (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Um. No, "philosophy of science" answers no questions as to whether psychokinesis has been demonstrated. You have lost, zzz, and will continue to be reverted until you give up and move on. jps (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• So, a couple of skeptic Wikipedia editors are now authorities on philosophy of science, and actual philosophers and philosophy books and journals will be ignored on the subject on Wikipedia. Oh, and I've been warned not to edit the page, so your POV is now de facto official Wikipedia policy, in place of WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. So, you're right, I have lost - congratulations.zzz (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is not what is happening, but if it makes you feel more comfortable with the situation and encourages you to stop disrupting the page, feel free to angrilycomplain about this off of Wikipedia. I hear that the Huffington Post entertains such rhetoric from time to time. jps (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Signedzzz:Quick reply: Philosophy of science is indeed the "proper field" to address this issue. No, it isn't. A Philosopher of Science is not the same thing as a Scientist. WP:RS makes it clear that the expert cited needs to be speaking to their field of expertise. It takes science to answer such questions, and even if you were correct and this person were eminently qualified: They're still making claims which do not reflect the scientific consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I obviously need to explain the relevance of philosophy of science. Braude is not disputing the scientific consensus, which is that no scientific evidence has been found. If laboratory experiments find no evidence of something, does that mean that anyone who says they have seen compelling evidence outside a laboratory on many occasions, for example Carl Jung, is either delusional or lying? Science doesn't address that question. According to Braude, it's a philosophical question about the limits of science. But currently the consensus for this article is to keep it simple and follow the "skeptic" approach by just describing such "prominent" individuals as Angelique Cottin (ca. 1846) known as the "Electric Girl" of France and James Hydrick, an American martial arts expert, etc, etc so that's my last comment. zzz (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Whether or not psychokinesis is a real phenomenon is an empirical, not a philosophicalquestion. Questioning the limits of the scientific method is the job of a philosopher of science. Questioning the results of science is either science (such as if the questioner is qualified and asks specific questions that have not already been answered, and can be answered) or crankiness (such as if the questioner is not asking scientific questions, but philosophical questions intended to undermine the validity of the science's results). What you described clearly falls into the latter category. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Please read my comment again (I specifically mentioned: "Braude is not disputing the scientific consensus"). Questioning the results of science - which "results of science" is Braude questioning, in your opinion? I know I didn't just describe any! 02:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This example of a reply being casually ignored or misrepresented is depressingly familiar at this point - it seems as though it is a deliberate strategy. Braude is a professor of philosophy who writes about philosophy, including books about the philosophy of science with respect to PK: Wikipedia's Skeptic users don't like his philosophy and don't want it mentioned in the PK article, I get it, but endlessly repeating that you don't like it and calling him a "crank", achieves nothing. Although, I don't know, perhaps this also is a deliberate strategy, intended as a smokescreen. Whatever, its a massive waste of time and energy. zzz (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

::sigh:: Okay, let me explain this to you, because you seem confused about what you're saying, in addition to what I'm saying. I'll admit that I wasn't making everything completely clear, but I really thought it wasn't necessary. I thought you had thought through the implications of your own argument, but you apparently haven't. So I will lay it out for you. I'm sorry if this is very long, but you really seem to need me to explain everything.

• Until there is evidence for it, we must assume it does not exist according to the principles of empiricism.
• The scientific method is the best method we have for finding evidence of any phenomenon.
• Many people have searched for evidence of it using the scientific method, and found nothing.
• People who believe anyways have proposed conditions that might have explained why no evidence was previously found.
• New tests -again using the scientific method- have been done to see if those proposals had any merit, only to find that they did not.
• Many natural explanations have been proposed which would explain the non-scientific evidence which has been proposed.
• All of those natural explanations have been shown to be valid, applicable, and likely.
• The scientific consensus has thus been not that there is no evidence of psychokinesis, but that there is no evidence, there is no theoretical framework, all evidence and theories thus far proposed are best explained by human error, and there is no reason to suspect that there will ever be evidence or a sound theoretical framework.
• If this person is making any argument whatsoever that this phenomenon is real, they are contradicting the scientific consensus. (Note, I have perused their work since I first saw you mention this, and I know for a fact that this is the case.)
• If this person is making any argument whatsoever that science isn't a valid way to answer this question, then they are both demonstrably wrong, and a crank (in their own field, no less).
• If this person is not making the argument that psychokinesis is real, then bringing them up is completely irrelevant.

Do you understand now? Either this person is is conflict with science (making them a crank), or you are bringing them up as a red herring. Your belief that it is possible to dispute an empirical claim with nothing but reasoning is, itself, a hallmark of crankiness. No offense intended, I'm just telling you what you sound like. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I explained why this professor of philosophy believes philosophy of science is relevant, per WP:Reliable Sources. Your response is to state your opinion that this philosopher is a bad philosopher, and that philosophy is actually not relevant. However, you are not qualified to offer an opinion, and even if you were, that would be WP:Original Research, and therefore still irrelevant. The other fundamental error is that a Wikipedia user is actually describing their own beliefs when describe those of someone else. I have stated all of this several times, but nevertheless every editor opposed to including this has repeatedly made exactly the same basic, fundamental errors. Yet still no one has answered my question about WP:Weight, how the disputed material is less relevant or "prominent" than the material currently in the article about Angelique Cottin (ca. 1846) known as the "Electric Girl" of France and James Hydrick, an American martial arts expert, and a dozen others like them. I have asked this several times also. I have to accept that I'm not going to get an answer, and that the same fundamental errors will continue. I said I wouldn't comment further, but I think it's worth pointing out that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of including the disputed material, which isn't going to be discussed anyway, the success of this "discussion" strategy makes a total mockery of Wikipedia's model of WP:Consensus. zzz (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You would be better served in your goals by encouraging high-quality outside sources to take Braude's work seriously. Get someone who isn't a believer in psychokinesis to publish a laudatory evaluation that frames his work as equally valid. As it is, right now we have no indication that his work is anything but too marginal to include anywhere but on his own page. jps (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The book review referenced above evaluates the philosophy as valid, though "deeply unpopular". You could be right about weight, it's hard to say, and maybe not that important. zzz (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Your response is to state your opinion that this philosopher is a bad philosopher No, that was not my response. You are misinterpreting what I said. However, given the facility with which you've read everything else I wrote, I am neither surprised nor inclined to correct you. I don't think you're capable of understanding why you're wrong. Suffice it to say that it's clear you're arguing against consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, my summary was accurate. zzz (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

GcMAF

Editors are needed, see talk page GcMAF. prokaryotes (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This noticeboard is starting to read like the contents list of a particularly bad issue of What Doctors Don't Tell You. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll keep an eye on it too. Delta13C (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to something that I think is more neutral. The old version presumed that the claimed mode of action for the protein is valid. Roches (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic - important discussion on talk page

Hi all, extra eyes and opinions from experienced editors requested in discussion on the chiropractic talk page [6]. There is a long and ongoing dispute about recent changes to the lede, mostly regarding claims of using OR and distinction between "pseudoscience" and "pseudomedicine." Delta13C (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think there is WP:OR in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Elevator

The space elevator is a science fictiony thing that is supposed to replace rockets. It had a lot of publicity a few years ago. There are some articles coming out now saying it is not a viable idea. I've tried to add a well referenced section on viability but it was deleted by a single purpose editor. The whole article has a promotional tone and is in need of some balance, but "single purpose editor" is making that difficult. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is the WP:SPA Skyway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a clear and self-admitted WP:COI. If Skyway continues to edit these articles, then a topic ban is in order. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN as to whether skeptical sources can be used

See WP:RSN#Skeptic and similar sources? Seems to be a discussion about some "Skeptic™" movement and whether we can use sources from this "movement". Doug Weller talk 13:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Its nothing to worry about, just marauding gangs of "TreeHuggers™" that escaped the reservation. You are not allowed to shoot them, trapping is permitted, if you have the correct authority. See WP:PAG -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Now is that WP:CIVIL to speak of your desire to shoot other editors, Roxy? I guess is considered ok if you speak of shooting other editors in a sufficiently indirect way. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a documented Skeptic movement. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I chimed in there. If you have evidence that "skeptical" sources are not reliable, please share this with us. Delta13C (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, I have plenty of evidence as well as personal observations and reasoning, and I'll write more soon. I take it from your absence of comment on the incivility above that you implicitly think it's fine. I find that odious. How's it alright to speak in this way about other editors? That's the culture here. It's pretty nasty. I'll not be silenced by rudeness and bullying. The encyclopedia is too valuable to be intimidated even when people try to force their agenda. SageRad (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When you make comments like "No, the Science-Based Medicine blog, and Skeptics™ in general are axe-grinding ideological sources." you will find very few people are willing to listen to your blather. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh look. Someone calling my comments "blather". Oh, so civil. Good on ya. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In the section above, an admin accused me of being unable to identify RS, but when I asked for an example of this, being unable to provide one, instead he pretended to have already done so at some other time. And another user pretended that is an adequate response. This page is like a kindergarten playground, really. zzz (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Or you could stop advocating pseudoscience in violation of WP:FRINGE. up to you really. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a documented skeptical movement. It has included people like Carl Sagan and Martin Gardner, others still with us include Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Bob Park, Simon Singh and others. It is a movement, though, not a body: it's not like the climate denial machine, funded by industry and driven by ideology. While there's a strong overlap with secular humanism and many (though by no means all) are atheists, as far as I can tell the only dogma in skepticism is that the scientific method is the best way of separating truth from fiction.

Many skeptical sources are certainly very reliable indeed, they are often the only ones that will properly examine claims that are obviously batshit insane.

It does depend what you mean by a skeptical source though: in science, skepticism is the default position so in theory (though definitely not in practice) every scientific journal should be a skeptical source. Some skeptics publish in the scientific literature (e.g. Richard Wiseman, who has published extensively on the psychology behind the false belief in psychic phenomena both in books and in the academic press). Some skeptical organisations have achieved some stature in challenging nonsense. The National Center for Science Education, for example, has been a very important voice in challenging unconstitutional attempts to teach creationism in public schools. I suspect a decent proportion of publishing science communicators would self-identify as members of the skeptical movement.

So in terms of WP:RS we follow the usual rules: does it have an editorial board, ideally with peer review, is the author qualified or identified as an authority in the field, are facts referenced back to original measurements and experiments and so on. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A case in point: Michael Greger

This issue is exemplified by some recent goings on at the Michael Greger article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think Michael Greger needs eyes. The view is that SBM is "not RS" and that criticism of Greger is at odds with BLP requirements (where have we heard that before?) Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans provides some useful insight. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way does it provide insight into the issues with the Greger article?Dialectric (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This concerns, in particular, the website sciencebasedmedicine.org, whose "editorial policy" is as follows:[7]

Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, appropriate, and scientifically accurate. The editorial staff looks at all promising submissions: an informal peer-review process. ... We have no firm style guidelines. Being a blog, there’s a lot of flexibility, and room for personality and humour. The main requirement is intellectual rigour: make a well-reasoned, science-based point about health care, and it has a good chance of being published. You’ll get extra points for good scholarship and referencing, but it’s not necessarily required, depending what you’re writing about. Most relevant posts that don’t make the cut are rejected for generally poor quality of writing and/or thinking.

I think this might be okay for pointing out the flaws in obvious bunkum like homeopathy, but the article cited there was in no way appropriate. It had numerous flaws, made straw-man arguments that attempted conflate Greger's actual statements with things he never said, conflated talking about a study with claiming that it is representative of medical consensus, framed its criticism of Greger in the context of a general screed against veganism which Greger had nothing to do with, cited anecdotal evidence (a guy the author knows who was B12 deficient), and a completely discredited paper by Davis as a general argument against veganism, indicating that whatever "standards" sciencebasedmedicine.org has were not applied here.

More troublingly, Alexbrn is framing Greger's views as pseudoscience without supporting this idea. Indeed, another source he included to criticize Greger, cited on the talk page, seemed to indicate just the opposite, saying " While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine." Alexbrn wants to conflate having opinions with being fringe. Most problematically, the source is not included to dispute any particular "fringe" claim in the article - none actually appears there. It is included to discredit Greger himself.

This is a case of WP:PSCI being used as a bludgeon to enforce a particular point of view. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say I invoked pseudoscience when I specifically said WP:PSCI was not specific to pseudoscience? This is a guy who claims that diet can prevent and reverse most serious disease (as we say, he wrote a book "How not to die" and he promotes tumeric as a cancer cure). You seem to want to expunge all criticism of him from the article. If you think the exact nature of his dubious claims needs to be clearer, then by all means expand the article. Don't use it as an excuse for whitewashing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to "expunge all criticism" - I want to expunge dubious criticism based on the source you provided which is deficient for the reasons I discussed above and whose use in this context is a BLP violation. Just because people describe themselves as "skeptical" does not make them reliable, particularly when they go on to cite garbage fringe theories (Davis). If you can find reputably published criticism of Greger, then by all means, add it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please help me out by showing where in the scientific literature you will routinely see analysis and dissection of claims made by people promoting, say, food fads? This is, after all, why skeptical sources are used: a claim that is not made in the scientific literature (i.e. which is a novel synthesis from sources) will not be analysed in the scientific literature. Are we supposed to allow questionable claims to stand? I don't think we are. The issue is one of WP:PARITY. Greger has declared himself to be an authority, and has put himself about as such. Hall is an authority on bogus claims made by hucksters. There's no obvious problem with citing Hall here. Have you noticed how SCAM proponents often go for absolutes? "X causes cancer!" "Never eat Y!" and so on. Now read the language of Harriet Hall's writing. You will find it measured and balanced. Much more so than the claims she is analysing. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Actually there is lots of research on diet, and Greger's work seems to be well grounded in legitimate research, at least according to the view of one physician who Alexbrn quoted as expressing skepticism of him. If you ask a specific question one of Greger's claims I can give a specific answer. I can also explain in detail why some of Hall's criticism is demonstrably nonsense.

Yes, legitimate scientific inquiry into diet exists. I am speaking specifically about food fads, fad diets, "nutribollocks" and the like. No scientific journal is going to bother publishing a paper looking into whether eating kale smoothies cures cancer by reducing your body's pH, because there is no question to answer: it doesn't affect pH and there's no evidence it would cure cancer even if it did, so the question is not even wrong and can't easily be addressed scientifically. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a believer in fad diets, and am skeptical of these kinds of health claims. I swallow large quantities of aspartame on a daily basis. However, we shouldn't throw the label "pseudoscience" around - what I've seen of Greger's work since coming to this subject has given me the impression he is not promoting "fad diets", and his claims are qualified and seem accurate. For example, he will say "researchers found potential benefits of turmeric in studies X, Y, Z" but he will not say "turmeric will cure your cancer!" That's an important distinction, and I think certain people should stop presuming that he is a quack. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The 'standards' I've seen proposed here by which skeptical sources are deemed not to be reliable by some editors would render every news story and blog post ever written unsuitable for use on WP. Notably, if we applied the same standards to the sources used to support the claims skeptical sources are used to refute, then they too, would not be RS. I mean, the argument presented here is that a person's writings are not a reliable source for what that person has written, because that person has opinions. That's completely nonsensical. It only works if you're more focused on the conclusion (that skeptics aren't reliable sources) than the logic.
Add to that an editor who insists upon putting a trademark symbol next to his or her every use of the word skeptic and another editor who keeps seeing "skeptics are always right and totally infallable and should be used as sources in every controversial article!" in comments which don't even hint at anything like that, and it really looks like some serious agenda pushing is going on. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that, I'm not trying to insult anyone. Everyone seems like a polite, mature and intelligent person here and I want to assume good faith, but this has gotten past the point where that ceases to make any sense. There's only one axe being ground here, and it's got "anti-skeptic" engraved in the handle. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants The issue is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We shouldn't present sources which themselves are not scientifically rigorous as "debunking" the minority views of a scientist. In the case that WP:FRINGE applies, that's a different story - but when these sources are applied to basically say "this guy is a fraud", and it turns out that the criticism this is based on is itself insubstantial, ideologically motivated, or simply wrong and the source is published in a non-peer-reviewed blog with low or no editorial standards, that's a problem. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just looked at WP:FRINGE again and it contains this rather interesting statement "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals" - I think this works both ways.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In the context of SBM, of course, I have not seen any high-quality sources which dispute its reliability. I've seen a lot of pseudoscience-promoting outfits that dispute it, but they're not reliable sources. jps (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What is SBM?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: a website that promotes skepticism with regards to medicine. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: To put it succinctly: Diffs or GTFO (I don't mean that rudely, but comically :) ). I've heard the argument that journalistic sources don't refute scientific sources, and I agree. But I have yet to see a single example of journalistic sources being used to refute scientific ones. I've yet to see a single example of an editor arguing that skeptical blog or news sources trump scientific results which support non-consensus views. I don't see anything to suggest that your specific complaints about SBM have any merit whatsoever, let alone that published criticism of a public figure is not reliable because the author is critical of the public figure's views. In fact, I find that suggestion completely nonsensical. In short, I hear a lot of complaining (and not just from you) about a number of related problems, but I haven't seen any evidence at all that any of these problems exist. The longer this goes on, the more this implies bias, and the less it implies well-founded concern. If I may, I'd like to offer a bit of advice:

Find a couple of articles in which this pro-skeptical bias is evident. Two or three should be enough. Get diffs of changes to the page, showing where scientific sources and claims supported by them were removed by editors who promote skepticism, or where skeptical journalistic sources were inserted, supporting claims which directly refute claims supported by scientific sources, or where the latter were replacing the former. Put together a case and make it to me. Part of being a skeptic (which I am) means being open to the possibility of being wrong. I don't have any trouble imagining that WP has a bias towards skepticism, and I'm open to the possibility that this bent has gone over the line some times. I'll happily help you bring those articles in line with good research. But I am -and always will be- a skeptic. If you want my support, you need to show me the evidence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

One small case in point would be a fervent need to represent the Katz/Meller paper's take on the Paleo diet in a more negative light than is warranted by the source. It's been edit-warred back when i've tried to balance it. SageRad (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Views Article alerts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Article alerts could do with general watchlisting, it usually has some AFDs/PRODs and RFCs in need of eyes - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Brian Josephson who is well known for supporting pseudoscience and a couple of his friends on the talk-page of this article proposing to remove pseudoscience from the lead. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The walls of text make it difficult to understand what they are proposing, but they seem to be citing this clipping to argue that parapsychology has the support of 69% of "elite scientists". - LuckyLouie (talk)

This user has previously been blocked but doesn't look like he has learned anything, promoting the same sort of pseudoscience and irrational conspiracy theories about 'materialists' Wikipedians [8] 84.43.115.148 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a pseudoscience. There are no reliable sources to claim otherwise. The lead of an article is intended to define and contextualize the subject, which means taking out any reference to pseudoscience would be against the MOS. Furthermore, it is a fringe topic, meaning such an act would be contrary to NPOV and UNDUE. And probably a half dozen other policies and guidelines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Brian and the other IP on the talk-page just are not getting it. I can see this issue on-going amongst these fringe proponents. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to counter the claim that parapsychology is a pseudoscience (see one such example at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full). However, rather than cherry-pick refs and toss them at each other, couldn't we acknowledge that negatively-defining a subject in the first sentence of the article runs counter to producing a neutral encyclopedia entry? Discussions of criticism and pseudoscience appear later in the article, and to this end, they should appear later in the lead. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but poorly sourced opinion articles published in a journal widely regarded as unreliable aren't evidence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Weak Statistical Evidence?

Could somebody explain to me why parapsychology is cited as an example of a field that relies on anecdotal/weak statistical evidence at WP:FRINGE/PS? Please take note of the fact the current President of the American Statistical Association regards the field of parapsychology to be a legitimate science (http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v22n2/rossmanint.pdf) stating: "Parapsychology is the scientific study of alleged abilities such as telepathy and clairvoyance, collectively called psi abilities. What sets parapsychology apart from science fiction and wild anecdotes is that the research is done under well-controlled conditions and generally uses statistical methods to compare the results to what would be expected by chance." Note that the link is to an article in the mainstream academic Journal of Statistics Education. I recommend that a better parenthetic example be found to illustrate the concept at WP:FRINGE/PS 75.118.11.184 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The weak statistical evidence that is cited in parapsychology is a well-known feature of the discipline according to reliable independent sources -- that is those not connected with SRI or SSE, for example. The elephant in the room, if you are a true believer such as yourself (this has been pointed out by skeptics, to boot) is that many "mainstream" results in psychology have even weaker statistical evidence. Fortunately, we haven't had to face that issue head-on yet because most psychological claims based on such weak statistics are buried in primary source literature and don't see the light of day here at Wikipedia.

Ultimately, what makes parapsychology corrupt isn't so much its fundamental premise, but rather its lack of convincing results. It is closer to pathological science or cargo cult science when it gets down to the evaluation of what the "heavyweights" are doing.

jps (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The publication I have cited is from a mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journal with a high impact factor. Since when has that not been adequate source material at Wikipedia? As for your "true believer" comment - you don't anything about me and your sweeping generalizations above are just as tenuous. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea of who you are, 75.118.11.184. Your insistence that this puff piece is "peer-reviewed" is pretty amusing. Normally this kind of human-interest interview fluff is just given a nod from the editor-in-chief. It's not as if she's presenting any actual data or serious science. jps (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the Journal's guidelines for authors, it states[9] Articles submitted to JSE that undergo a full review are peer-reviewed by an Associate Editor chosen from the JSE Editorial Board and (usually) two referees. The refereeing process is double-blind; authors and referees are anonymous to each other This looks absolutely standard for top quality journals including Nature.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You think they peer review interviews? jps (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure that it would not be published without being first reviewed by at least one member of the editorial team, who I would assume is a peer.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One member of the editorial team like Jessica Utts? Seriously, interviews are not scientific papers. This is, like, source recognition 101. We aren't talking about a piece that would ever undergo peer review. We're talking about journalism. jps (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The interview would be a good source for 'What Jessica Utts believes'. Its not a good source for the subject of her beliefs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the interview. Most of what she says is entirely unobjectionable. She has a mainstream statistics background, and she applies that to claims of psychic phenomena. She's found that there is some statistical evidence for what appear to be supernatural phenomena, with small effect sizes.

The point that's being missed here is that she is defining legitimate parapsychology as research that uses well-controlled experiments and statistical analysis. That's different than saying parapsychology is any work that calls itself that. So if a paper is under discussion here that does not use well-controlled experiments, then that paper is not parapsychology as Utts defines it. It is wild anecdote, or science fiction, as Utts defines that. Roches (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz

There is still a discussion regarding the AfD for Erika Schwartz, a medical doctor who makes her career selling and promoting bioidentical hormones. This seems to be a borderline notability issue for editors not familiar with WP:FRINGEBLP. Additional input requested. Delta13C (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth

Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016

This kind of discussion as to whether the article should be moved to (in my opinion) a more appropriate title such as "Genesis creation myth" occurs about every year or so. I guess it's time again. Typical fringe arguments being leveled include such chestnuts as "even though the academic sources say it is a myth, millions if not billions of practicing Christians and Jews disagree!"

jps (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on how we discuss fringe content

There's an ongoing discussion at ANI where editors are claiming that describing topics and content as fringe, like climate-change denial, anti-vaccine sentiments, etc. when sourced are personal insults towards editors. This discussion could use more eyes from folks familiar with policies and guidelines related to fringe topics and how content discussion on those are handled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This idiocy needs to stop. We call it fringe because it's fringe. Getting all offended because it's fringe is pointless: it's not Wikipedia's problem to fix, it's the real world that makes it fringe, not us. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please point out the specific diff where an editor claims that describing anti-vaccine sentiments as fringe is a personal insult.Dialectric (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about anti-vaccine sentiments? I can show you the diff where someone claims comparing anti-GMO arguments to climate change denial arguments is an insult. Or, I can show you the diff where someone claims using the word 'fringe' is insulting. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There was some discussion relating to this at WT:FRINGE a few months ago. I think the key point is to explain that "fringe" is a term of art used when a subject meets the specific technical definition described at WP:FRINGE. It might be a good idea to write an essay on this. Also, personally I'd be open to proposals for alternative terminology as long as they're accurate. Sunrise (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I could get behind alternate terminology as well, but I don't see that as solving the issue. The issue seems to me that some people are offended that things they believe are being called [insert synonym for fringe here] and they feel this constitutes a personal attack. Changing the words won't really change that, but it's worth a shot, subject to the same caveat you mentioned. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about a potential change as well, but fringe is much less harsh than saying pseudoscientific, which is usually what's going on in controversial topics at least. I doubt whatever we call it will ever be "good enough" to not be considered offensive by some. It could be worthwhile to add something to the fringe guideline related to WP:NOTCENSORED policy in that classifying topics and particular arguments used by sources is not a personal attack. We do this for pseudoscience over at WP:LABEL, so it could be worth explaining in the guideline. Something for a later time though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable to expect people to take issue with inquisition types of behavior, with witch-hunting, and with McCarthyist-style campaigns against "undesirable" ideas, even if it's dressed up as being pro-science. I am very pro-science, and yet i take serious issue with the kind of language being used, because it reflects the kind of thought being used, which is prejudicial and poisoning of the well so often that real discourse becomes impossible. SageRad (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See also: Euphemism treadmill. I'm happy to change words too, but I am unclear why people dislike "fringe". I like fringe on my tapestries, for example. A good fringe can make or break it in terms of aesthetics. This is similar to academic thought, in my opinion. jps (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theory, "The term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." The problem is, it is used here to frame editors or science, without providing evidence. The term is variously thrown around, most of the time without providing evidence for actual pseudo science. Unless there is a consensus which clearly identifies a practise, or theory as pseudo science, the term should not be used. Even less so for framing groups of editors. In the discussion about GMO consensus you need to differentiate and account for all opinions, even if you don't like them, i.e. WHO states there cannot be made general statements on GMO food safety. Additional, framing (social sciences) hints that it is better to be critical of a technology or new findings, for various reasons. And the history of mankind is full of examples where to much optimizen, and resulting carelessness led to a disaster. Hence, why we have the precautionary principle. -- prokaryotes (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree (minus the speculation about framing and skepticism). I think we ought to go the other way on the euphemism treadmill. Pseudoscience should be called pseudoscience, and "fringe", per the definitions at WP:FRINGE refers to theories of a similar caliber. Usually this policy is invoked against the worst of the worst garbage, including climate change skepticism and some of the anti-GMO paranoia; but you're mistaken if you think it can't be abused. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about fringe theories on Wikipedia. This is different. Meanwhile, GMOs are subject to more safety tests than almost all other foods. Concerns over safety are more often than not so half-baked as to be unintelligible. The best that people have offered is unintentional protein allergens which tend to be exactly what is tested against. jps (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice that basically a scientist is a skeptic (at least he should), there is a lot of skepticism in climate science, maybe best reflected in the rather conservative IPCC estimates. Climate deniers instead use often fabricated data, and claim they would be skeptic (It's the Sun, unscientific base lines, its a money scheme, its a NWO conspiracy, is HAARP etc). Additional to much caution leads to underestimation, i.e. record sea ice decline. But ironically the so called self branded denier-skeptics never used this valid point - which hints to their special interests motives, and that they are not credible. Deniers also cherry pick, which means in climate science denialism, that they use observations like record colds to claim global warming is a hoax, when instead studies had projected such instances all along, and are in agreement with observations (weakening of the jet stream).prokaryotes (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@jps, the problem with GMO testing is that often tests which were conducted by the industry itself were not made public, but positive results were. Or standards for evaluating safety may be be not good enough. This lack of transparency is one of the reasons why everybody should be a skeptic when it comes to GMOs. In my opinion there are good and bad GMOs, hence why i support the WHO statement, for testing on a case per case basis. And since last year we know more about glyphosate, maybe the most worrying circumstance with GMOs. This is reflected by state decisions to label glyphosate accordingly, or in a ban entirely. It doesn't matter that it overlaps with non GMOs, because GMOs require such pesticides. These recent developments on a state level underline why you cannot brand someone fringe who is concerned about GMO food safety. Same for many countries which ban GMO crops.prokaryotes (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The pseudoscience issue as it relates to GMO paranoia is much more basic than that. You can complain about industry financing of food science departments all you want, but the narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We are talking about introducing a product to market. This isn't the kind of tobacco industry techniques of taking concerns about an already at-market product and finding opposition research to pay off. We're talking about an incentive to identify dangers before market. The question is, what does the GMO paranoiac fear explicitly about GMOs? I think it's merely that they were genetically modified. That's it. The argument against big agribusiness and pesticides can be made in a different way, but it turns out that by playing on the Frankenfood fears, the activists found a way to connect their imagined fear to a gullible public. That is why I'm very down on that whole game -- it's especially sad because there are good points to be made which are buried in the hype. The US intellectual property laws as they apply to genetic material are ridiculous, for example. But this real issue takes a back burner to people's fears that are based around an idea that genetic modification in a lab must be intrinsically more dangerous than genetic modification in normal agricultural practices. It is that fundamental disconnect where the pseudoscience starts. This is the same way as a climate science denier arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, for example. It's a very basic point. jps (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's worth pointing out that the WHO statement that broad statements about the safety of GMO foods cannot be made does not make the case for anti-GMO activists. It applies to both negative and positive statements about the safety of GMO foods. In addition, in my own (admittedly amateur) review of the scientific information, I have yet to see a well-formed hypothesis about how GMO foods could be harmful that doesn't rely on the assumption that normal food safety standards would somehow not apply to GMO foods. (For example, I've seen a well-formed hypothesis about how a modified venom-producing gene might be used to make fruit pest-resistant by producing trace elements of the venom, then mutates into a full bore venom-producing gene, but for that to hit the market, the company producing it would have to not test that food for the single most predictable problem.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• An obvious problem with pretty much all the discussion above is that almost everyone is confusing the general discussion about how WP:FRINGE should be applied with particular, politically-charged issues of current interest. This is obscuring the policy question, and really clearly illustrates the potential for pitfalls in mis-appplying this policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to separate the subjects (GMO's, parapsychology, etc) from the issue (what is Fringe?) because the nature of the former decides the latter. If GMO dangers or psi phenomenon were well established but controversial, they wouldn't be fringe, they'd be political. Besides, all this (for want of a better word, and that includes more politically correct ones) butthurt about the word "Fringe" conveniently forgets that fringe subjects sometimes get promoted to mainstream subjects, and not all fringe subjects are pseudoscientific (though all pseudosciences are fringe subjects). See Loop Quantum Gravity for a reputable, fringe subject. This problem has an extremely simple solution: Grow a thicker skin, and learn to embrace your lot if you support fringe topics. Hell, I'm a skeptical, left-handed, red-headed atheist. If you call me a cynical, backwards ginger heathen, I'll grin and say "Damn skippy!" I wouldn't have it any other way. (There's also the issue of you guys being subject to the same biases you accuse us having, but that's a human problem, not a 'fringe' one). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

LQG is absolutely and extremely not-fringe, and the idea that you would try to apply WP:FRINGE to LQG demonstrates the problem brilliantly. WP:FRINGE does not apply to respectable minority scientific theories - it applies to crankery. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)