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:

Kenneth Wapnick

Completely unsourced bio unabashedly heroicizing the subject and promoting the profound nature of A Course In Miracles. Contains flowery musings such as, "...the thoroughness and accuracy of the concordance produced by Wapnick was fully on a par with some of the more thorough concordances already used for the Christian Bible." It also reports a copyright lawsuit over ACIM as centered around "the disputed claim that Jesus Christ is the author of the material" rather than all too human squabbling between authors and publishers. Wrap it up with a book list that goes on for miles, and you can see it's an article in dire need of help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean up the article a bit. Re-add text I've removed as you feel relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the article could be merged into A Course In Miracles since it's really just about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Merged to A Course In Miracles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientific investigation of telepathy

Simply awful! For example, it acts as if there weren't severe methodological, statistical, and other flaws in Rhine's work (the original Zener cards were partially transparent; the statistics were done as if the zener cards were randomised completely, when they weren't shuffled between cards, etc. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply awful is a total understatement. May I suggest ghastly, appalling, atrocious and frickin' unbelievable. Clearly a candidate for wholesale deletion, as it's basically a POV fork of Parapsychology. I'd try to edit it if there were hope, but this is the sort of thing God created crappers for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks more like a long-forgotten POV fork of Telepathy to me. Suggest a merge or redirect to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's more of a fork of Telepathy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Merged to Telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Crohn's disease#Alternative_medicine

Isn't this a bait-and-switch? Most of the supposed "alternative" treatments are, in fact, conventional or experimental conventional treatments. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Management_of_schizophrenia#Alternative_medicine reads like an advert. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Settipani as a reliable source

Over the last month I've been working in a determined way to improve a number of articles on 5th & 6th century European history topics, & have been surprised to see a number of these articles use the works of Settipani as a source. I never heard of this guy before, & finally took the time to look into him & his ideas about Descent from antiquity. To say I'm underwhelmed at what I found is to put it mildly: he's just another computer geek & amateur historian, like me & countless contributors to Wikipedia. In many of these articles, his works are cited in the same breath with standard references such as Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft -- or as the only source for the article -- for example, Ecdicius & Felix (consul 511), & as a rather egregious example, Ennodius. To make matters worse, a preliminary investigation suggests these citations are all due to the efforts of a currently banned user.

While I can see the point of mentioning his theories in the articles about people who form these genealogical chains into antiquity -- some of which are clearly more speculative than others -- I don't see how it helps Wikipedia's reliability for articles to cite his works so frequently (a search on his name turns up 317 mentions), so I'd like to remove him from various articles as I encounter them, & have accumulated more reliable sources -- similar to what I've done with Odoacer, & several of the Visigothic kings of the 6th century. Thoughts? Arguments that Settipani is not a fringe author/source? -- llywrch (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, look at the difference in Settipani's article between the pre Cupertino version and his edits: [1] "Passionate about genealogy, he has specialised in the ancestry of earlyMiddle Ages people and earlier. His work is much quoted by genealogists, being widely accepted by them, searching for the elusive Descent from antiquity (DFA), in which area of expertise he is one of the current major authorities, having inspired other researchers." A Google books search does not back this up in any way. I know how hard work this can be, but please carry on removing material sources to Settipani unless you can find a reliable source for it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Doug, are you saying "For heaven's sake" to me, or to Cupertino? I'm just being cautious, since while I know a bit about the subject I know I don't know everything. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand

• Leonard R. Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An AfD on this relatively minor creationist has just closed as "no consensus, but let's do this again!" Given the large amount of, in my opinion questionable, material that has been added to this article to keep it from being deleted, I have raised an RFC on the topic at Talk:Leonard R. Brand#RFC: Third party coverage. You may wish to express an opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand's main promoter is now trying to get the following two quotes from Brand into the article:

The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist isn't a difference in the scientific data, but a difference in philosophy - a difference in the presuppositions...

In my approach, I retain the scientific method of observation and experimentation, but I also allow study of Scripture to open my eyes to things that I might otherwise overlook and to suggest new hypotheses to test. This approach is not just a theory; some of us have been using it for years with success.

(The second one, in spite of the fact that he's clinging to a widely falsified hypothesis) I have suggested that these claims fall well foul of the 'unduly self-serving' clause of WP:ABOUTSELF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Rick Perry

A single-purpose account account has besieged the talk page for nearly a week attempting to overturn overwhelming consensus against including a mention that Gov. Perry attended a Bilderberg conference in 2007. The clear consensus is that the event is neither notable nor are their significant RS linking Perry to any issues relating to his attendance. Another concern is that even a passing mention of the conference in the article will give a foothold to let theorists expand it into something more.

The SPA alleges that several blogs are enough notability and alleges Wikipedia censorship, etc. for not permitting "the truth" to be published The fact that the meeting was closed to the press is a major issue for the editor and the editor repeatedly calls it a secret meeting in Turkey. He also alleges that Perry violated the Logan Act by attending a meeting with other foreign notables and that Perry is involved in some sort of Manchurian candidate conspiracy with CNN and other unnamed actors.

I request that editors who are familiar with fringe theories and cabals take a look at the four lengthy discussion sections and suggest how we can put this to rest or find a reasonable compromise.

Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in this discussion. For most BLP articles, Bilderberg participation shouldn't be mentioned as it's almost always cherrypicked as a way of indirectly attacking the subject. People at this level attend all sorts of meetings. For some, eg the founders of Bilderberg, committee memebers or whatever the equivalent is, it's relevant. The issues raised by the SPA are clearly meant to defame and we should never, anywhere, accuse anyone of violating a law (and least of all a law that hasn't been used for over two centuries). That the meeting is confidential is irrelevant also. I've warned the SPA that he needs to stop this. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation in Ito calculus

There's an ongoing edit war in the article on Ito calculus. There's a section on differentiation in Ito calculus, which is not found in the standard textbooks on the subject. It seems as though some single-purpose accounts are using wikipedia to promote this point of view. The author of the original paper even links to the wikipedia page from his website.

The paper on which this result is based has 0 citations on MathSciNet, a major resource for mathematics research. Google scholar lists 5 citations, though I can verify that the author of the original paper was involved in at least three of these. The other two are duplicates of a paper in a language I cannot read. SimonL (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This material was added over four years ago[2] by an account Mdbrack (talk · contribs) created for that sole purpose. When removed, it has been reinserted by other accounts created solely for the purpose of restoring that section. These include Mattrach (talk · contribs), BechampAnalyse (talk · contribs), AmericanProbabilist (talk · contribs), JRMATH (talk · contribs) and currently RHarryd (talk · contribs). The arguments on notability on the talk page are completely unconvincing (in particular the references to two recent Fields medalists). Forgetting about the mathematics for the moment, my guess would be that all these accounts are operated by the same person promoting the work of Alloub. To stop the revert wars that happened each time the material was readded, one of the regular contributors/watchers of the page came to some kind of compromise (see the discussion on the talk page). I do not think that compromise was really warranted by the content, even if it did solve a purely user-related problem. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to go to the trouble of opening an SPI then. Though maybe those accounts are now stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Since I'm here... Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has had trash added recently, which I've removed a few times [3], by the now-blocked User:Chronocrator. But the same junk has been added by 92.100.183.168 (talk · contribs). Metric expansion of space also applies, but is currently at peace William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand again

The conflict level on Leonard R. Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gotten to a sufficient level that I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to take a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on the article. I am therefore requesting that any WP:FTN regulars who have the time (and particularly any with expertise in Creationism, or who have better grace under fire than I do) to take an interest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The article on this conspiracy theory advocacy group spends all its time on explaining their theories and nothing on criticism of what is a quite controversial group. Mangoe (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Exoconsciousness and Terri Donovan Mansfield

Both created by the same editor. I have been working on Exoconsciousness removing copyvio, stuff sourced to a self-published book by a Ruth Hardcastle, and material that is only about Hardcastle. When I finished I ended up with three sentences, the only reliably sourced one having just a brief mention of the subject, and a lot of links which I suspect are about Hardcastle and not the subject. I'd like a sanity check on what I've done and any comments as to whether it should go to AfD. Terri Donovan Mansfield is a BLP article starting with "Terri Donovan Mansfield is a recognized Ambassador of Peace". Virtually all the sources seem to be to material by her. My initial thoughts were that she might be notable, but I don't see any real news coverage for her or anything else, but maybe someone can find some. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought "While thousands marched for immigration reform in cities throughout Arizona, very few were talking civilly to others across the aisle with different points of view." was pretty good too. Concur on Exoconsciousness article - merge the remnants into Mansfield? The Mansfield article isn't much better. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything that isn't self-published, which surprised me a bit. Hmmmm. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mansfield article was virtually all copyvio, not surprising as it was by the same editor. I've gutted it but she does seem to have had some very minor (judging by the word count) coverage in the Arizona Republic. I'm still not sure it would survive an AfD. I might take the Exoconsciousness one to AfD today or tomorrow. 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)

Exoconsciousness has a good source or two, just enough to support a paragraph in a larger article such as UFO conspiracy theory, although some feel that article has become a dumping ground for marginally notable alien/ufo stuff. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's put it into a larger article if we can find one and turn Exoconsciousness into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would redirect both Exoconsciousness and Mansfeild back to Exopolitics Institute or The Disclosure Project where they seem to have escaped from. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleve Backster

Telepathic plants, anyone? As used by a former "Interrogation Specialist with the CIA" (no citation provided, naturally) for lie detection, at the 'Backster School of Lie Detection' - the "longest running polygraph school in the world" (nope, no citation for that either). Prime grade bullshit. As a BLP, I could probably delete half of it as a policy violation anyway. Anyone see any reason why an AfD isn't the obvious course of action though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any chance of an AfD succeeding, he is discussed in reliable sources, he was the focus of an episode of Mythbusters (citation needed but easy to find, [4]), etc. The CIA etc stuff all needs sourcing of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Advise copyediting the article to include only what reliable and independent sources like some of these cover. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

This article seems very rose tinted in its description (a proponent currently edits the article mostly), is there anyone with an interest in fringe medicine to have a look at it? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Faculty of Homeopathy and British Homeopathic Association

Puff pieces. I've done a bit to improve these, but there's still some promotional language, like "The Faculty promotes the academic and scientific development (What does that mean? Science has come down firmly against it.) of homeopathy and ensures standards (Puffery!) in the education and training in homeopathy of dentists, doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, podiatrists, veterinary surgeons (But don't tell DEFRA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/17/pet-remedies/ ) and other statutorily-registered healthcare professionals."

Also, none of the masses of criticism they've received appears. I've at least added in a little context about homeopathy, but these were a whitewash, and will probably become so again if not watched. 86.183.39.212 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)