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:

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

“ ...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy... ”

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

“ ]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes as well as the aristocracy; it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family. At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Bristol. ”

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

“ A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision. ”

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

“ According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market. ”

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

Origin of language

There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

[2]

This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to copy the link from there to here:

• Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Mammadov J.M., New system of language, thinkings and reality. // “The Papers of independent Authors” (volume 14). Israel. 2010
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Language and History. Baku, 2004
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Mamedov M.B., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Gnatyuk R.V., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Ludmila Esipova, Syntax in schemes. Novosibirsk, 2006.
• Original of this fragment in Russian. // Wedanta (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting further on the substantive issue at this point, I would like to point out that the first link is to a Wikiversity article, and as such will not be regarded as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that others are in practice self-published, but we need a Russian speaker to look at this, I think. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No results for "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" in English Google Books. No results for Азербайджанская Лингвистическая Школа in Russian Google Books. This looks absolutely fringe. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's approach the issue differently. Let's not create a theory of "Azerbaijan linguistic school," and a group of scientists. Then what to do? Ибадов (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy the one piece here that was here (translation of this fragment)

The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.

The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.

It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:

• Stage I: Grapheme = sentence (pictographic writing);
• Stage II: Grapheme = word or phrase (ideographic writing);
• Stage III: Grapheme = syllable (syllabic writing);
• Stage IV: Grapheme = sound (phonetic writing).

The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word .

-----------------------

-- Wedanta (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The "initial cries of Mowgli and Tarzan"???? Are we really expected to include this stuff in an article (answer not required)? Paul B (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several AFDs related to articles created by sockpuppets

Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian origin of modern humans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Schwabe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European origin of modern humans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Woodward Warder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herotheism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial Bipedalism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Le Fanu
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Reid Moir
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rene Noorbergen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pivar

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

This guy is pretty clearly notable for his involvement in the art world, including a scandal or two which the present version of the article boldly whitewashes. His pseudoscientific endeavors dominate the article at the moment, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

VERY much a whitewash. I like how they managed to find the onlyt scientists who supported his work, ignorign the widely reported criticisms. For a few months, tthis guy was being discussed everywhere, particularly by P.Z. Myers, who had withering criticism. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolbrin Bible

"The first six books are said to be scribed by Egyptian writers shortly after the exodus called the "Bronzebook". The last five books are collectively called "Coelbook" and is said be authored by Celtic priests written around the time that the New Testament was being created." And other amazing stuff, if anyone wants an article to work on..... Actually, it's an interesting issue, as the only sources I can find using Google Books and GScholar are from people promoting it. Most of the the books I've found and checked so far are published by 'Your Own World Books' which is run by one of the authors, Marshall Masters. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup - a quick search suggests that it doesn't stand a chance of passing wp:notability (books), so no point in doing anything beyond an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have laboriously rewritten this article. Notability is still a bit borderline (there are negative mentions at several debunking sites), and as it stands I walked right on the edge of WP:OR, but see for yourself. BTW Doug I found a thread on sci.tech-archive.net back in 2005 concerning this book with your name all over it. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating work. I never heard of this book until it was mentioned on this board, but figured I'd see if I could use my Google search skills to help. Article currently states that the first provenanced mention is a 2003 book. I just found a thread from November 2002 where some guy quotes it in his sig: http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=36598 (Only hits for "Kolbrin" before that are as a mispelling of Helena Kobrin.) Does this help? --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not assume that this signature dates back to 2002; it's common on such fora that the current signature is displayed, whether or not the message was posted before the last signature change. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the etymology of Kolbrin, I just found now that there is also a Welsh runic alphabet called "Coelbren " believed to be a hoax invented c. 1800 by Iolo Morganwg; see cy:Coelbren y Beirdd... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's very likely that this hoax took its name from Morganwg's hoax. I'm still not sure it merits an article. Self-published books about it, a blog, personal websites, etc. Mangoe, despite all your work, for which I thank you, I really think it should probably go to AfD. Can you convince me otherwise? Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Doug, I think I've written the article that we would liked some skeptic site to have written for us to reference. Unfortunately the only page that appears to have to made much of an effort to do the same didn't archive and is now AWOL. The other weak point, of course, is that woo-woo sites in large numbers refer to this thing, so it's likely that someone will feel the urge to recreate this thing soon enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, if it fails another AFD it will be the fifth time this article has been deleted. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination) Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

I want to bring this article up with this project. Personally I feel it has a strong apologist tone and may use quote mining to undermine the research that invalidates astrology as well as the frequent use of fringe sources to counter mainstream ones. The individual sign articles are also problematic for a variety of reasons. I've made a small improvement, but more eyes are definitely needed. --Daniel 17:36, 2 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with our Article, though not the ones you see. It is heavily biased to "Western Astrology" specifically the roman-grecco form, Chinese astrology and Vedic Astrology are barely mentioned. As much of the "apologist tone" could be tempered by framing it more as "what people belief it is" rather than describing it in Wikipedia voice as factual information. Also the "Astrological education" needs to be removed or significantly rewritten as it implies that Astrology itself is taught as a discipline on equal term with Science. The MA program involves cultural context and beliefs of astrology not instruction in it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made intermittent attempts to persuade contributors to adhere to a more encyclopaedic tone in the article, but with little real success. I think a major problem with the article is that it doesn't actually deal with the majority of 'astrology' as experienced by most people at all - the mass media 'star sign' horoscopes etc. The 'serious' astrologers generally dismiss these as the tosh they are, and the sceptics likewise treat them with contempt - so our article doesn't really cover what is a major part of 'astrology' in popular culture - and incidentally a major money-earner: thee Daily Mail for instance was grossing around £1 million per year in the 1990s from phone lines plugged by its printed horoscopes. [3]. A balanced article should give a lot more attention to mass-market astrology, and less to the esoteric claims of the professional practitioners. There is also the problem that, as ResidentAnthropologist points out, the article relegates 'Other cultural systems of astrology' to a small section - as if the contemporary western/middle eastern form was somehow more significant. Basically, the article is shaped by the active contributors (the 'believers' and the 'sceptics' - often engaged in endless disputes over 'proof' etc), rather than by the subject matter itself. Sadly, I think that this is inherent in the way that Wikipedia treats contentious subjects - excessive attention is given to minutiae, and the broader issues are neglected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

From a brief inspection, I suggest that some more material could be migrated to History of Astrology, which also needs more eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some edits which I expected to be reverted, but what I didn't expect is that it was a proponents-only show there. Without some support, I'm not about to be involved while those who know how to manipulate the bureaucratic nature of WP drag everything out for months on end while using the article's history of controversy as a cover. My edits reversed some obvious bias which people had been discussing on the talk page. But the reversion seems to have been the end of the attempt at balanced tone and content. B^e——C_ritical 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of getting overly involved on a subject which a) promises to be highly contentious and b) I don't really care much about. But it does seem that efforts to improve the page are going to run up against fairly entrenched set of advocates, and I would encourage you to continue working on it. I will support efforts to improve the page, although I'm not prepared to take the lead or even a particularly active role given a) and b) above. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL.... hmmmmmm.... Yeah, thanks for your post there. Maybe I will, but right now, for example, I think they are over-doing the Sagan bit, since Sagan only merits a small mention at most. It's not that important to astrology overall or as a practice, but it is important to a defense of astrology against criticism. But there's budding consensus that the suggested text is good, including support from a "brand-new" editor with about 10 edits, Then there's the issue of some editors who would want to make it less POV (like eliminate pushing terminology) but also want to eliminate useful text and sources from astrological journals. All in all quite a nest. B^e——C_ritical 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, I came across this quite incidentally after leaving messages on your talk pages. Why don't you be more constructive by raising your issues directly on the astrology talk-page? Are we supposed to guess what your concerns are?? Andy - do you think I'm not attempting to generate a more encyclopaedic tone? It's just difficult. Editors who have studied the subject are accused of being advocates, and on the other side of this there is a barrage of new editors, emotively flared up by your post Daniel, thinking that the repression of the astrology argument is the only way to preserve the integrity of scientific knowledge.

Let me tell you what I think, frankly, since this seems to be the place to gossip behind the scenes - there are too many hidden agendas by editors viewing other editors with suspicion. We are losing sight of the most valuable thing that WP has to offer - free and open access to relevant information that the interested reader wants to know. It is true that the astrology page is currently over-emphasising the science controversy by comparison to the cultural and popular interest, but that's because there is much work to be done and few who are willing to do it. And yes, Daniel, the individual sign articles are very problematic - I have put hours of my life that I'll never get back again trying to improve that content, which is an embarrassment to WP - so it doesn't help to have to spend extra hours arguing against your suggestions for taking the pages backwards instead of forwards. If you care, why don't you roll up your editorial sleeves, dig out some books you are not really interested in (as I do) and spend your weekends laboriously adding content to pages that you realise are in too poor a shape to ignore? Here is my motive for contributing to WP - I spent too long in my life unable to access good, credible information on the subjects I wanted to study. I am idealistic about WP, not astrology. If you want to improve the article don't just moan from the sidelines about what other editors are failing to do. Fix it. Contribute content (with appropriate references, marked up in the laborious style that WP demands). Gosh - took me only 3 minutes to write this whinge, as opposed to the several days it can take me to create a piece of content that another editor might want to run their cursor over and delete in a second. (And Judith, the History of astrology doesn't need more 'eyes' on it - it needs more 'contibutors', with text-book in hand). Sorry that I don't understand [sigh] why you all feel so worn out by what other editors are doing-- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

City Harvest Church

The article had been inserted with as many as 5 parapraphs describing the Church accordinly to an academic case study by Joy Tong. There are as many as 12 mentions of "according to Tong", "According to informants to Tong","Tong's study observed".

I feel that while it is OK to make mention of Tong's study, but to have so many paragraphs dedicated to his study is not reasonable in a factual report. Besides, how can you ascertain that Tong's report is not bias and NPOV? Already I had digged out an contradicting view by Tong and an Straits Times article regarding the teaching. (I had included this in the article)

There are concerns of UNDUE weight mentioned in the Talk page, but it seems that it is not truly been answered.

Thanks in advance, J0hn 0316 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

Awful, WP:COATRACK of an article, using a minor connection with Andy Warhol to jusrtify praising pseudoscience instead. I've tried to fix the latter a bit, but I suspect this is borderline WP:ONEEVENT 86.176.222.119 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and removed a couple of claims substantiated with spam sites or sources that did not meet WP:MEDRS. I have reservations about the extraordinary and nonsensical claim that garlic is "widely used as an antibiotic". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A WP:BOLD move

I have moved this page to list of plants used in herbalism. Hopefully this will help to get a better focus on things. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bachelor_of_Ayurveda,_Medicine_and_Surgery

Ugh. Just, ugh. I particularly like the use of bold text. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your reaction, but the article, in its current state doesn't make any claims of efficacy. The subject clearly exists and is probably notable, although the article's not footnoted properly. If it were nominated for deletion, it would probably be kept. I cleaned up some of the typography. I don't think it needs anything else beyond watchlisting to keep out extravagant claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish and others

Natib Qadish seems to be more about modern Canaanite religions than anything else, and is mostly original research. It may be that it should simply be a redirect. Certainlyu Great Mother of the Gods seems to be just Mother Goddess by another name. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gene Savoy

Notable explorer and actually did lot worthwhile but also very much fringe in both his religious beliefs and his beliefs about Peruvian archaeological sites. Particularly pov when it comes to his religious beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This article is just getting worse and worse, with editors claiming hat stating the source's negative evaluation of the claim the article makes is POV - so that they can use a source saying there's no evidence that something works, to say it can be used for that purpose. [4]

Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls. 86.177.230.221 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It would be worth posting this on WP:RSN, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think it would be worthwhile posting at WikiProject Plants, and setting up a Medicinal Herbs Task Force within that project to facilitate the big clean-up job required on these articles. Article content guidelines, advice on appropriate sources, a noticeboard for problematic articles, that sort of thing. I'm starting from the fact that a plant is a plant, and an article on a plant should prioritise the botanical facts, mentioning any culinary use, use in traditional medicine and use in modern medicine as part of the article if and only if those aspects apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already posted requests for more eyes to the medicine, pharmaccology and plants project pages. The task force sounds like a good idea. The number of spam links and unreliable sources that have to be cleaned up is enormous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it today, it's only getting far worse. This is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy‎

Some substantial changes in the last 2 days to this article. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fringe content:

if anyone is interested, there appears to be a lot of fringe science/pseudoscience on Dewey_B._Larson. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, I've left a comment on the deletion also. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

Whitewash keeps happening, letting his crank theories stay in, but removing all criticism of them. 86.182.19.180 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note the IP address above 86.182.19.180 is also this user:

• 86.176.222.119
• 86.182.19.180
• 86.177.230.221
• 86.182.191.108
• 86.178.192.40
• 86.182.20.197
• 86.184.85.227
• 86.178.193.2

This is clearly socking, note how he also backs up each one of his IP addresses in various conversations on this board by making out he is a different user. It is all the same guy, on more than three of these accounts he has deleted material or lied about what is in the references on the Stuart Pivar article, why does he also feel the need to create three sections about Pivar on this board?.

Seems to be spending all of his time only on this Wiki Fringe Board (he has never added anything to wikipedia, so why is he even on here?) he only reverts edits on these "fringe articles" and leaves abusive comments. See his latest edit on this Stuart Pivar article:

"No criticism, no description of the quack theory" - Hes just deleted valid references and calling Pivar's work "quack" and elsewhere "utter crankery". This user has obviously not read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly NOT socking. There's no rule that says editors must register accounts. The user at IPs beginning with 86 is clearly using an internet connection that frequently assigns him a new address. He has never, to my knowledge, pretended that each IP represents a different user. The IP has been consistently doing excellent work dealing with fringe content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) [5]

Note that 212.219.xx.xxx keeps deleting all criticism of Pivar. [6] [7]. I don't have the book in question; I didn't add the book in question. It wouldn't surprise me if, as the IP said on the talk page, the page number for calling Pivar pseudoscience is different from the one given; but the IP,, instead of trying to better summarise Pigalucci's views, decided to delete all criticism of Pivar's theory,. which has 0 acceptance in biology. Either this is a notable crank theory, and criticism can be found to describe it, or it's not a notable crank theory, and this article is a WP:COATRACK, trying to use a trivial mention of Pivar's work with Warhol to claim notability for his crankery. And it is crankery: you will find no peer-reviewed biology based on it. However, based on Pivar's website and Pivar's book (the only sources in the section on his crank theories that he's complaining about me removing), he wants to keep in a section bigger than the rest of the article combined promoting his crank theory. Here's my change. I also removed a brief mention in the section on his life, but the source didn't even mention his crank theories.

Just to be clear here, here's the only thing that could even be considered reference to his crank theories in any non-primary source:

Source (pg 2):

“ A menagerie of stuffed animals, also on the second floor, further evidence of Mr. Pivar's fascination with the natural world. ”

[a bit later]

“ Mr. Pivar's early interest in insects and their metamorphosis eventually led him to focus on exploring human embryonic development. ”

Former use in the article, which is arguably copyvio, due to being so near the way it's phrased by the NWT :

Article:

“ Pivar has a deep fascination with the natural world, his early interest in insects and their metamorphosis led him to explore human embryology ”

This in the middle of an article describing his interesting home, which does not have any further elaboration or even direct reference to him having a new theory about human embryonic development. It does not justify giving over the vast majority of the article to primary sources.

As for my IP changing, like most British internet users, I have a dynamic IP provided by British Telecom's internet service. (I also have been having some problems with it - it resets a lot of late) There is nothing I can do about that. I have said this many times, but can't very well say it every time. 86.184.86.157 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Pivar did some art collecting makes him all that notable, but if his article is to stay then there should at least be some mention of his theories, and of criticism of them. A couple of sentences should suffice. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If the criticism is there, sure, but not if it's going to be as it keeps being changed to: a coatrack for promoting his theories, while finding bullshit reasons to exclude criticism. For instance, Pivar sued PZ Myers over his blog post criticising his book. Given that the section on the book was primary sources, including Pivar's website WP:PARITY says that the notable post by Myers should be fine. But if this is just going to be promotional, no way. 86.181.103.102 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not deleted

AFD result was keep, so this article is going to need a lot of anti-fringe care. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A summary of his claims won't do any harm as long as the reaction of critics is given. Interestingly, his ideas are clearly related to his attempt to revive nineteenth century artists's anatomy lessons. It looks like they are linked to his experience in the world of plastics too. After all what he apparently did was make "flexible plastic toroidal tubes filled with fluid and flexed them and twisted them". [8] It's a pity we have nothing on his career as a plastics guru. This, it seems, is a man whose first invention was a special plastic spray to disinfect dustbins with floral fragrances. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kambojas again

Just to get a minor point sorted, what could "cognate with the Indo-Scythians" mean? Does it mean that the Kambojas are assumed to be identical with Indo-Scythians? That they were a group of Indo-Scythians? All I can see to be commonly agreed is that the Scythians probably lived in central or south-west Asian and probably spoke Iranian languages. Or Scythian is the word by which the Greeks and Romans knew the Iranians - no because they also knew the Persians well. If someone can describe the situation clearly without making nationalistic claims, would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda again

This article is undergoing attempts to shove all negative material to the end of the article, and keep it from being summarised in the lead. Keep an eye on it. A couple of us are considering trying to get this article to a state where it could reasonably be nominated for GA, but, at the moment, it's a battle just to keep it from getting worse again. 86.176.74.179 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyology

Should probably be AfD'd, about 7000 ghits does not show a term (which serves only as a neologism for a combination of two relatively minor quack diagnostic tools) is widespread; appears to have minimum takeup. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment. AFD is the way to go. I've watchlisted the page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

IPs can't nominate for AfD, however, since we can't create new pages. =/ 86.178.194.188 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I set it up. You ever try to do that as an IP? It's not fun. Managed in the end, though! =) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not fun as a non IP, so thanks. Did you not want to start an account, 86? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not, really. It's easy enough to spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Eat grapes to treat your cancer!

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine#G - Seriously, this article is a bad joke. Most of the sources say that evidence is lacking, or even that they don't work for the conditions, but in a huge POV-push, the article claims that it can be used to treat that disease ANYWAY.

This really is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As is, it is dreadful. I think it is here to stay though. I had one idea. That is, not to say - at all - what plant "is used to treat" what. That very formulation "is used to treat" is highly problematic. OK, it could be interpreted just to mean that some source recommended X herb to treat Y condition. However, in many cases it is unwarranted to propose that traditional use had any concept of Y condition. So the article simply lists the plants with one or more sources for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest it on the talk page there; I don't think we can get that through from afar. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima de Madrid

Fatima de Madrid seems to be the creation of a women's science advocacy group, out of heaven knows what material. I cannot find anything on this Hypatia of Moorish Spain. Some other eyes would be useful in this deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cymbopogon and species

Lemon grass appears to be another super cancer-killer. Cymbopogon is not too terribly bad but the species articles are more questionable. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a single in vitro study. I just delete those on site, explaining that such styudies are mere hypthosis generating studies, which rarely pan out. Watchlist it in case it comes back, but... 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another typical herb article. If you smell the stuff you can tell it is antiseptic. Sure it has been used since ancient times for preserving things. Of course people are trying to find out what it contains and what else its ingredients are good for. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal plants of the American West

Another plants list with lots of questionable medical claims. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not as vbad as most, though, as the claims are (mostly) quite plausible, and it doesn't claim to treat specific diseases. If we checked the more extreme claims for White sage, Yerba mansa and Yerba Santa, this'd be fairly reasonable. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It still illustrates what an uphill task we are facing with all these articles. Apparently drinking a tisane can prevent dehydration. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Imagine that. =P Though I suspect it MIGHT be trying to talk about the well-known use of succulents as a source of water in the American desert, which includes Yerba buena. Someone obviously took that, and then decided to commercialise. *eyeroll* 86.176.222.245 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, wait, I'm thinking Yucca. So... just nonsense. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just nonsense. Meanwhile... feverfew. I naively thought this would be straightforward. From its name it is a febrifuge. I thought it was probably an analgesic as well. I thought a few people would be using it as a herbal tea, like with camomile. Turns out not only is it a marketed herbal remedy but also it might be effective in migraine or might not, we don't know what the active ingredients are, there could be side effects. Lots of minor and contradictory studies cited. A microcosm of the difficulties. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to fix up feverfew. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Better now, many thanks. Parthenolide is still problematic. The whole thing is still a microcosm. Clear that the plant has active ingredients that do something to the body. I wouldn't mind betting that it really can reduce fever. I think it probably is an analgesic too, but that might depend on what is being tested and how. Don't get me wrong, I would expect it to have all sorts of side effects. Plants do stuff. They are full of nutrients and active ingredients that are really good for you in small concentrations, really bad if you overdose. That's why it's recommended to have a varied diet. Typically, in the Parthenolide article, the potential effects like febrifuge, analgesic, that are easily researched have been eclipsed by the search for an anti-cancer magic bullet. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Phytotherapy/herbalism task force

I think we are getting a bit out of hand here. Are these synonyms, or not? Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Dealing with all these medical claims is clearly proving to be a major problem. I propose to set up a joint task force under the appropriate Wikiprojects to go over these and also get rid of some of the content forking of the main articles (e.g. multiple lists of plants, are Phytotherapy and herbalism different, what about western traditional herbalism and modern alternative systems such as homeopathy ...). We need specific standards about what claims can included and how they can be characterized. Probably there are other things to be hashed out.

Herbalism is under the following projects:

• WikiProject Plants
• WikiProject Medicine
• WikiProject Alternative medicine
• WikiProject Rational Skepticism

and this seems like a good starting point. I've never been involved in a task force and I don't know how one sets up a joint force or even if it can be done.

Do other people think this is a good idea, and would be willing to help out? Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd help, for what it's worth. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll join but only temporarily because it needs botanists on the case, and people well versed in MEDRS. At the moment things are so bad even I can see the multiple issues. BTW I am interested in the history, and the point at which scientific and non-scientific views diverge. A lot of plants were materia medica/pharmacopaeia, and that was good medicine at the time. The value of a plant in, say the 18th century, and the value today are two different things.Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph_W._Moss_(writer)

Ah, the usual brave maverick idiot. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Longtime problem article, largely because of the lack of actual independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. He's probably non-notable, and I'd support an AfD nomination, but what will happen is that a bunch of people will show up to argue "keep", the AfD will be closed as "no consensus", and all the "keep"ers will disappear, leaving us back at square one. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For someone with his position as being on the previous incarnation of NCCAM, he should be notable. But there really is no significant, independent coverage of him in reliable sources (and I looked pretty hard back this past winter). Would support an AFD as well. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try a prod first. They're often less frustrating, and, frankly, AfDs are annoying because even the slightest misframing of your initial argument can mean that they go completely off-track. Hell, best way to troll Wikipedia'd be to do really badly-argued AfDs for things that actually should be deleted. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Telepathy

IP seeking a "balanced view" of the scientific acceptance of telepathy inserting own views into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

All the parapsychological things are pretty awful, because all the scientific stuff gradually degrades over time from battles with true believers, and not enough people work to try and improve them. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone also seems to have removed the "generally regarded as pseudoscience" notice from the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed there's usually a small spike in fringy edits to such articles in the weeks leading up to Halloween. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This may be of interest to the FTN community. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Conscious business

I'm not even sure where to start, or if this is even fringe. This just seems like the most likely place to discuss it. The article has no independent sources or footnotes, just some internal links that all look promotional. This might be a non-notable neologism, or possibly a personal essay. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Searching on this is problematic (lots and lots of false hits) but I'm not utterly convinced that this is any different from socially responsible business. Doing a Gnews search in particular produces a paucity of hits; GBooks seems to indicate that someone is trying to bring this term into existence. And the big comment on Talk:Conscious business shows a HUGE COI in authoring this.

Even more problematic is the related Conscious enterprise, which lacks any real citations. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they're both deletable. I'm not sure what's the best way to go, prod, afd or speedy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_vaccine_topics

Thoughts on this? At the very least, I think the heavy emphasis on anti-vaccinationists (and the attempt to relabel some of the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement mere "vaccine critics") is problematic, but what's the point of the article in the first place? 86.185.3.153 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally unencyclopedic hotchpotch. In there is perhaps a List of people associated with vaccination and a List of vaccines. Can't see anything else. Someone has misunderstood the purpose of a list and a category. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish

Fringe neo-Pagan religious article which is mainly about Canaanite religion, not Natib Qadish itself. I brought it up at WP:NORN but I think it's relevant here also, if not just delete this. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is all original research. I have redirected the entry to Semitic Neopaganism, another entry that could use some attention. In fact I'm not sure that entry should exist either. The only scholarly sources I can find relate to the Goddess movement within (mostly ethnic) Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer - again

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attempts to assert fringe 'science' as fact - and not even following the sources cited. The whole article needs input from neutral contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)