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:

Lloyd Pye

Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (^bananaphone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital

There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.

Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 (talk • contribs)

This is a difficult situation, and I am unsure what is the best course of action here. On the one hand, the old version of the article appears to be sourced mainly to a self-published source, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does, however, contain references to LA Times articles, which would likely be reliable sources if they back up the information in the text. On the other hand, the text which you have copied and pasted into the articles, 82.123, is directly from the document "A Brief History" on the CSUCI page, which says, right there on the page "THE MATERIALS LOCATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE COPYRIGHTED. THEY ARE INTENDED FOR CI EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USER WHO REPRODUCES THEM IN ANY WAY, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES WILL BE SUBJECT TO LAWFUL PROSECUTION." I really fail to see what about that statement is unclear. In addition to the university's prohibition, Wikipedia cannot accept material copyrighted to others without appropriate permission from the copyright owner. I would be inclined to revert to an older version of the article without either of these additions. --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted to a version prior to both these problematic additions. Eyes would be welcome to see if this was the correct move. --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Texe Marrs

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

Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A Researcher at Tired Light

Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue was brought up over at WP:COIN and we are referring this back over to FTN for further discussion on this matter. There is a concern about WP:Outing and WP:Civil regarding this reporter. However, all the same, he does bring up an issue which will likely need to be addressed by someone more skilled in addressing FT. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Licorne was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Wikipedia, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor clamoring for his work to be included doesn't seem to be listening to the arguments. He thinks that Physics Essays is a reliable source when it publishes trash. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Reichian therapy and associated articles

Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis:

• Neo-Reichian massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bioenergetic analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Body psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• American College of Orgonomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wilhelm Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexander Lowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard A. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Springmeier

Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Raised at WP:BLPN as it's a real mess and we need to sort out any BLP issues in it. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tritype

Tritype seems to be a subcategory of the fringe theory Enneagram of Personality. One SPA editor Raa18123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing "Katherine Chernick Fauvre's" explanation of the Enneagram with a standalone article, removing a PROD at one point, and later an Orphan tag. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor with a bone to pick

Please revert this pseudophysicist promoter on sight:

[1]

140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is his second account:

[2]

140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy#Alchemy_as_a_Protoscience

Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly no. I've been arguing for reliability of sources for a while. Same type of thing (fringe theory, bad sources) is being adding all over alchemy related articles, especially also in the intro paragraph. There is now 1 proper academic peer-reviewed source to support 1 statement in that section, but since the page that is referenced is not shown on Google Books, I am unable to check whether the source supports the statement. I feel the spiritual interpretation (which is academically argued against) is receiving too much weight across all alchemy articles.

Is is possible to introduce a special policy on all Alchemy categorized articles so that only academic, peer-reviewed sources, or primary sources with no interpretation of any kind, are allowed? And all statements, no matter how much the editor believes them to be true, must have an academic peer-reviewed source? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles alchemy and history of alchemy. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. Hans Adler 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is certain that chemistry started with alchemy. The original chemists of the scientific revolution were also alchemists and their own writings show and speak directly concerning the transition from alchemy to chemistry (specifically The Skeptical Chymist.) The name change was chosen so as to demonstrate a change in scientific method but the principles were only migrated, except with an exclusion of the unprovable aspects (the existence of the theoretical Philosopher's Stone.) The modern practice is spiritual and according to academic peer-reviewed sources (see History of Alchemy#Alchemy from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries) arose in the 19th century from the occult revival, being totally unrelated to alchemy historically. Numerous alchemical texts were adulterated during this time to make them sound more spiritual.

Currently, the History section of the Alchemy is a copy of a few paragraphs from History of Alchemy. I support merging History of Alchemy into Alchemy. I support minimizing the "spiritual" interpretation, or restricting it to a separate article. Problem is that I get attacked every time I try to minimize it. There is one particular user who frequently edits who is dedicated to getting the spiritual interpretation on equal standing with the historical and academic view. Any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect, or mark it as only a fringe interpretation instead of fact, is reverted. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support the merger. But I must note that Will Timony is himself trying to push an agenda. Of course it is possible to push an agenda purely based on citing academic peer-reviewed sources. This is known as cherry-picking. And it is the only way to push an agenda that is even worthy of comment on Wikipedia, all others are just a reason to rollback.

So, one editor pushing the "proto-scientific" angle of alchemy and another pushing its "spiritual" (occult, magical) side, both basing their opinions on WP:RS, would be the ideal scenario for improvement of our coverage. If, for some reason, only one side is able to cite proper references and the other side is either neglected completely, or represented only by sub-standard contributions, the article will end up biased. Of course alchemy is a proto-science, and of course it has "spiritual" or occult aspects. Exactly the same is true of astrology. It is also true that there have been 19th century revivals of alchemy in occultism. Highly dubious, otoh, is the claim that this "modern alchemy" is "totally unrelated to alchemy historically". But this is not only dubious, it is also irrelevant. What should be discussed is not the "spiritual aspects" of "modern alchemy" at all, but rather the occult or mythological aspects of historical alchemy.

Will Timony complains that "any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect is reverted". That's as it should be. You aren't to "downplay" things, you are to present them in proper topical arrangement. A section on the proto-scientific aspects of alchemy can stand alongside a section on its spiritual qualities, no problem. These aren't two things that need to be balanced against each other, they are basically orthogonal. If you remove a false or unreferenced statement, you are not "downplaying" anything. But if you cherry-pick your references to distract from the central importance of magical thinking or mythology in historical alchemy, you are in fact damaging the article.

It is a well-known trope that Isaac Newton was both the first scientist and the last magician. Of course he was neither. But the truth expressed in this trope is that he was sitting exactly on the fence between Renaissance magic and modern science. Anyone before Newton could not have divided their work in magic vs. science because the distinction between the two wasn't even known, or meaningful. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on insulting me without understanding what I was saying. I was at no point trying to downplay the historically recorded spiritual aspects of alchemy. I neither said that nor have I been editing in that manner. I said the spiritual interpretation. I am arguing against statements that are being made on the alchemy articles that "alchemy is a spiritual discipline" exclusively. My agenda is to improve this article so that it actually has verifiable historical and academically valid information, and is not just another new age web page, as there are plenty of already.

Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality, especially gnosticism. There are plenty of academic peer-reviewed sources that support this, so I am not therefore cherry-picking. What the academic peer-reviewed sources don't support is that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline and the substances and processes are metaphors for spiritual enlightenment... which is what I'm battling against from other editors. I have no problem if academic peer-reviewed sources can be found for the spiritual interpretation.

My point is: can non-academic sources from alternative publishers be used to forward a view (even in the intro paragraphs) which flatly contradicts the research in multiple, peer-reviewed publications by various academic publishers? That is exactly what is happening. I posted 6 quotes from such sources on Talk:Alchemy, which write that the spiritual interpretation postdates the early modern period (it came from the 19th century occult revival.) These sources do not write against the concept that alchemy contains spiritual symbolism, but they write against the concept that alchemy is primarily non-material. It is not bias or cherry-picking to minimize something that has no reliable sources, and the reliable sources that do exist actually speak against. Or am I wrong with this thought? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry this has become an issue for the larger community. The contributions of Will Timony came to my attention when plugs for the recently posted online Book of Aquarius (summary: the philosophers stone is real and you can make it with your own urine - fringe) were being inserted into articles like the Philosopher's Stone. Since this didn't fly, it appears that a new effort is being made to cherry pick deletions and re-write alchemy related articles in ways that suspiciously support this book - and spin doctor a variety of reasons for doing so. For the record, I'm not pushing any agenda apart from an equal representation of the physical and spiritual aspects of this topic as outlined above, pre-existed, and is standard. My edits have largely been to restore recent deletions with more NPV and references, or to offer referenced counterpoints. Admitedly the references on some of the text inserted over time on these articles has been shabby, but this has been too liberally used as an excuse to delete and change tone, disrespecting WP:Preserve. Will Timony is making cases for all sentences to be cited including leads. The embarrassingly long expose of all this can be seen on the talk pages.Car Henkel (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Car, it has become public because you're so aggressive about it. Thank you for again bringing up your unfounded accusations. Your edits are not even in line with what you're saying. I had to revert another statement of yours recently, let me find it, "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss.". That was in the Philosopher's Stone intro paragraph without any citation whatsoever, and after our long discussion about sources. If I weren't around the whole thing would be about the spiritual interpretation in outright factual statements. I recommend before anyone jumps to conclusions they actually read the entire of Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor. Am I the only person following policy? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me be very direct. I at no point ever tried to remove or minimize any part of the article which actually had citation. The only statements removed, which Car complains about, were sourced by absolutely non-reliable sources (such as non-existent sources and random web pages) and previously had citation needed marks, since no one bothered to fix it, and I knew of no source, I eventually removed the statements (according to policy.) Car objects, if you read Talk:Alchemy to me changing his comments that state that alchemy is spiritual only to statements that say "proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe". His accusation about Book of Aquarius is only because in my first couple of posts (weeks ago) when I was a new contributor I mentioned this source, not at the time understanding the policy of Wikipedia regarding these sources, this was reverted and I did not complain, because I also agree with the policy, so there is no need to try to use this against me. I intend to expand the history of alchemy with many references to philosophical, religious and spiritual aspects. Car is pushing an entirely alternative historical view, which contradicts everything else in the article. I am not against spiritual, I am against exclusively spiritual interpretation and I am only against it because there are no academic peer-reviewed sources I have seen which support it, and I did actually look for them. I am against nothing that has evidence to support it. I have no agenda other than to make this article accurate according to Wikipedia policy. I'm even accused of cherry-picking because I would like non-reliable sources to not be used which contradict academic peer-reviewed sources! I am upset that people are hostile to me for following policy. Someone please explain to me why I am wrong. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This agrees with me WP:FRINGE. Please update yourselves by reading this policy before attacking me. It even says "However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review", which is exactly what I have been saying. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient nails

I think this article needs a little balance, and I do not know where to begin... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend searching on Google Books for related terms, to see if there are any academic opinions or theories on the subhect. Some of the sources used are not very reliable, but perhaps the web sites themselves quote a more reliable source? (Follow the trail to find where the info came from.) Some possible explanations would add some balance to the article. Also try to find an explanation (preferably from an academic source) detailing what is to special about these nails. This statement may not be true: "The mainstream scientific community do not accept the discoveries as genuine." It would be worth finding a source to either support that, or an academic reference to the finding being genuine, or both if possible. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)