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:

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a lot of arugments on the talkpage and in the recent edit history about this particular biography and how exactly he should be characterized and how the beliefs he promotes in his books should be outlined. These beliefs range from creationism to 9/11-Trutherism to laetrile-cancer-cure-promotion to chemtrail-paranoia. Warning, Callanecc has imposed a very strict 1RR rule on the article.

jps (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also been a lot going on with some previous history at the article and this board [1] for those here who either haven't seen it yet or don't remember. Some actions there might be better brought up at WP:AE in terms of behavior related to fringe topics, so just be mindful there's been some talk of that as well at [2]. More editors experienced in fringe topics, especially within BLPs would be helpful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded. One editor, Atsme, who is generally a delightful person, seems fixated on the idea that recent studies (mainly from a single group in China) invalidate the consensus view that laetrile is quackery, and validate Griffin's thesis in his book World Without Cancer, to the effect that amygdalin is rich in a vitamin, B17, lack of which causes cancer, and that the medical establishment suppresses knowledge of this (and the consequential curative properties of laetrile) in order to protect its income. I could really do with someone who has much greater reserves of tact and diplomacy than I, to explain the realities of Wikipedia policy on fringe medical ideas and conspiracy theories. Frankly, I think we'd be better off without the article. There are virtually no mainstream sources, though he is popular with websites like whale.to, mercola.com, Natural News, David Icke's forums, even Stormfront. Most of his books and "films" (none, I think, with any theatrical release) are self-published, those that are not are published by the John Birch Society. Mainstream sources tend not to bother looking at Truthers who advocate chemtrails and sundry other silliness. I think it's deletable, but no doubt this would be as unpopular as mentioning that he's known mainly for conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this person even notable enough for an article? I know that Glenn Beck has promoted him, but that alone isn't enough to establish notability. He's off-handedly mentioned in a few academic treatises documenting far-right-wing ideology and conspiracy theories, but nothing rising to the level of WP:BIO's exhortation to "significant" coverage. jps (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

After much discussion, I have proceeded with an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (4th nomination). jps (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually just discovered this discussion after reviewing the progress at the AfD, or I would have responded much sooner. Was there a notice posted somewhere that I've overlooked? In defense of my position as an involved editor trying to make Griffin a GA, I have neither suggested suppressing factually accurate material for inclusion in this BLP, nor have I suggested adding information that wasn't factually accurate or verifiable. I have advocated for policy compliance with NPOV and BLP, and will continue to do so. It appears there may be some misunderstanding with regards to policy taking precedence over guidelines. WP:FRINGE is a guideline not a policy, and within that guideline is WP:FRINGEBLP which is a circular reference to WP:BLP policy. I am not fixated on anything other than strict adherence to BLP policy. I neither support laetrile/amygdalin, nor oppose it. In fact, Guy even admitted to amygdalin's potential as a cancer treatment on his own TP, February 17, 2015, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. It is not our job as editors to promote books, debunk theories, condemn treatments, etc. We write about what RS have said, we follow WP:WEIGHT, and we make sure the information is Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false.

The problem with the above arguments for deletion are explained in WP:AUTHOR No. 3 which clearly states (my bold): The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Griffin has authored two well-known works, Creature and WWC, that qualify his notability as an author. Both books have been cited on academic lists of books to read, and have received notable attention and reviews in RS around the world, regardless of whether or not you agree with the content of those books. The tenacious attempts to deny his notability despite the unambiguous guidelines which clearly support his notability, the prior 3 failed attempts at AfD, the current consensus, and a quick comparison of other AfD requests for other articles gives this AfD an appearance of being dubious. Refusal to acknowledge and respect the long-standing consensus of the community to KEEP it is also somewhat disconcerting. Perhaps the current AfD will provide the answers. Atsme☯^Consult 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Words to watch

I've seen many times where people would object to a fringe label such as pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, etc. claiming it's not NPOV or contentious(those claims often coming from someone wanting to support a fringe view). WP:LABEL helps with this by specifically stating the term pseudoscience is supported by NPOV and why. Are there other terms we should consider either adding at WP:LABEL or elsewhere to cut down on claims of the terms being contentious when used to describe fringe content? I see conspiracy theory come up pretty often which may not be as concrete as pseudoscience, but is there anything we can do to give guidance in using such terms when others are opposed to them because they call the terms contentious? Maybe pseudoscience only gets the specific treatment at WP:LABEL because it's the most concrete of the fringe definitions, but I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on terms or places to mention this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Psuedoarchaeology and all its derivative words? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 18:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe revising the phrasing to say something roughly along the lines of "terms like psuedoscience, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, conspiracy theory, alternative medicine, alternative history, new religious movements, cult, and the like can be used in wikipedia to describe the subjects in wikipedia, with the prominence of usage of such terms in our articles to be, roughly, analogous to the usage of those specific terms or virtual synonyms in well regarded general reference or academic sources, or specialist reference or academic sources relating directly to the terms and their usage." Maybe, something like that anyway, although probably a hell of a lot better phrased. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

denialism has been contentious. Especially in regards to global warming denialism which denialists claim is defamatory since it sounds like Holocaust denialism. It's an extremely weak claim, but it has hoodwinked a number of administrators and editors who think that global warming skepticism is somehow "more neutral". It's not. All scientists are skeptics. Global warming denialists pretend to be skeptics but they're either lying about it or are too ignorant to understand that the ideas they are hung up on have all been investigated thoroughly. jps (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Misconceptions as per List of common misconceptions and Lie-to-children might merit inclusion as well. I do however think that there may well be a bit of a problem regarding what might be called the overuse of these specific terms. So, while I would have no objections whatsoever to incorporation of any of them in the most directly relevant lists with adequate sourcing, there does seem to me to be a question, as Ian.thomson has expressed here regarding perhaps how much weight and prominence to give such words in articles on the individual topics described by these terms themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree in part with the statement that pseudoscience is supported by NPOV because the latter fails to mention the qualifier for what is and isn't considered pseudoscience. The latter argument is supported in WP:FRINGE/PS which states, Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. In that regard, we have the following definitions:

• Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
• Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Another consideration is WP:FRINGEBLP, so it is far more complex than simply stating the term is supported by NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Annabelle (doll)

Annabelle (doll) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a haunted doll appears to be only supported by credulous sources, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some new additions to the article include lots of supernatural claims cited to fringe sources, like The Demonologist (..."reveals the grave religious process behind supernatural events and how it can happen to you!...") - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is particularly worrying to me that the sources (mostly in "entertainment news"/"slow news day"/"junk food news") are being held up as paragons of reliability. Are sources like this actually reliable factual sources per our guidelines and community consensus? There is a contingent of editors at the AfD who are vigorous in their defense of such sources. It is hard for me to imagine that their views represent the community consensus on that subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the stand alone article may be kept - with significant WP:UNDUE problems intact. The only sources available report that this doll was possessed by a dead girl and demons, moved around on its own, attacked people, left threatening notes, etc. (I find it interesting that none of the sources put these reports in the context of an urban legend or pop culture phenomenon, rather they seem to go out of their way to sensationalize the subject.) We know the claim that a doll has supernatural powers is a fringe view, and policy instructs us to clarify how the fringe view differs from the mainstream view. But with no sources explicitly critical of these claims, WP:OR via WP:IAR has been suggested as a solution. I don't think that's a good option to remedying the WP:UNDUE problem, however I strongly advise against the pointy edit warring that's currently happening at the article now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OMG what a mess. This article needs substantial trimming, phrasing adjustments and better sourcing. It contains a host of REDFLAG content without sources of the quality to support such extraordinary "facts". - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism vs. denial in climate change politics

There is an ongoing definitional problem that Wikipedia has been spectacularly unsuccessful in solving.

Climate scientists, science educators, and skeptical organizations have decried the use of the term "climate change skeptic" to describe those who are properly climate change deniers. [3]

Yet, Wikipedia persists with the following categories:

• Category:Climate change skepticism

• Category:Climate change skeptics

• Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians)

• Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists)

By endorsing these designations and not the "denier" designation, Wikipedia has firmly taken the side of climate change deniers. Why is that? What is the remedy?

jps (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there good sources which address this terminological question? They might offer a way through ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. There are just polemic rants from one group or another. There is no "neutral" agreed-upon designation for such groups. "Climate change skeptics" are the preferred names of the deniers while "climate change deniers" are the preferred names for those who oppose them. I guess this is somewhat similar to the term of art pro-life to indicate anti-abortion activists. jps (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, there are some climate change deniers and even some who are opposed to them who think the designation "denier" is needlessly inflammatory. However, the term "denier" is only inflammatory in the sense of it carrying implications that are not necessarily intended. Even worse, the most reliable sources don't have a consistent way of describing these groups or people who espouse such ideas. "Denial" is the closest thing we've got to what the preponderance of sources use as a designation when they are trying to be deliberate. Still, sources from the sociological literature, for example, use both designations in different contexts since both designations are used. It's something Wikipedia is not equipped to handle. jps (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Look through this list for sources discussing this subject? jps (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a definite problem here in that a fair number of the scientists could be legitimately be characterized as skeptics rather than deniers (e.g. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen). Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that the models can't be verified seems like straight up denialism to me, considering the models are verified by ensuring they can predict past events and also earlier climate models have been checked for the success of their . Second Quantization (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sonja... there are many scientists who are skeptical of specific models and claims, but accept others. Which models a scientist supports plays a huge role in determining his/her views on subsidiary questions such as whether climate change is driven by man-made factors vs. natural factors (or a mix of both), how dire the situation is, what we should do about it, whether we can do anything about it, etc. etc. etc.

In many ways, the climate change debate reminds me of a religious dispute... you have the BIG disagreement between believers and non-believers (acceptors and deniers)... but then you also have smaller denominational disagreements among the believers, over questions of dogmatic details - with accusations of "heresy" (ie "denial") being tossed around by the various denominations at anyone who doesn't fully agree with their particular version of the dogma. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is a classic pseudoskeptic, a social scientist or political scientists who feels she knows physical science better than physical scientists. When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, she said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?" . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC) [added italicised words for clarification + missing sig, dave souza, talk 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)]

That's a common misconception. ALL climate models worthy of the name (either based on physics, or "toy" models that have physically realistic parameters) give essentially the same result regarding anthropogenically-induced warming. They differ around the edges on various things but the basics are firm.

This is not newfangled stuff. Tyndall discovered the main greenhouse gases in 1859 and Arrhenius made the first prediction of temperature change from doubled CO2 back in 1896. The physics are so robust that his result is only a little outside of what is now regarded as the "likely" range of climate sensitivity. So this is old, established science -- in the past century we've just been refining the details.

Getting back to the original question... My impression is that "denier" is rapidly overtaking "skeptic" in the media. I realize that I'm not a WP:RS (smiley) but it might be possible to find someone who tracks such things. Note also several scholars prefer the use of "contrarian" as being less loaded than "denier", e.g., [4]. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Harbingers Of The Endarkenment" which I think all wiki eds should be obliged to use henceforth. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, however, we don't seem to have a good way to deal with this situation. What we've done is essentially adopt the propaganda of the contrarians (I don't think, except for perhaps Richard Lindzen, there are any deniers who are fine with the "contrarian" designation). One thing that dawns on me is that the lot of them are opposed to climate science consensus. So Opposition to scientific consensus on climate change would actually be a NPOV article title. We could subsume all the categories under that neutral designator Category:Opposition to scientific consensus on climate change and remove the "naming" problem. Would that be a good way of doing it? jps (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better... but we still have the issue of how to treat those who are not necessarily opposed to the scientific consensus, but who still question some of the data and conclusions that are accepted by the consensus. I think these people are properly called "skeptics", rather than "deniers" or "opponents". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Same problem: all scientists question the data and conclusions that are accepted [provisionally] as the consensus, pseudosceptics assert that the consensus is wrong without going through the proper scientific process. Unlike the fake "skeptics", scientific skeptics publish their analysis and data in peer reviewed publications, and help to form the changing consensus. Fake skeptics misuse the label, but don't do the work properly. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think at some point you have to bring the IPCC into it. As the UN body tasked to provide "a clear and up to date view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change," their current Fifth Assessment Report has to be seen as representing 'the mainstream.' There will be people who think that the UN is a conspiracy by lizards to take away the freedoms of their favourite political party, but for the rest of us, it is not really valid to be 'skeptical' about the legitimacy of mainstream climate science, as summarised by the UN body. Wikipedia should acknowledge this explicitly, without mealy-mouthed false balance. --Nigelj (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) I could live with the variant proposed above. While Blueboar has a point, he seems to be equating "questioning" data, which scientists regularly do in general, with questioning the results of multiple independent studies. Now, there might be a few people of at best marginal scientific qualifications out there, like me, who might say that they don't question the evidence of global warming as anthropologically induced, but might say they haven't seen sufficient evidence to indicate that the primary reason for the existing global warming is necessarily human input. They might simply ascribe it to the earth coming closer to returning to its more average warmer temperature, and note that the earth has actually, apparently, been marginally cooler for the past few hundred years than normal. I suppose for such cases, if the scientific community has many of them, I dunno, "Opposition to the theory of human impact on climate change" or "Skeptics of the..." might be acceptable, if unfortunately way more longwinded than even I generally like. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to some of the points made by Blueboar above - that there are people who question some of the data and conclusions that are accepted by the consensus - the question we editors have to ask is which data and conclusions. If the current IPCC report says that the data is sketchy or the conclusions unclear in a certain area, then it is good science to question them. However, in relation to the point Blueboar raised earlier ("whether climate change is driven by man-made factors vs. natural factors") then the report is clear and ascribes a very high degree of certainly to the worldwide findings. Denying that climate change is mostly human caused at this stage is virtually unsupportable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I note you hedge with "mostly" and "virtually". This must mean you are a denier. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that helps us decide the names of categories. It's almost as if you'd rather discuss your views on climate change (or perhaps mine) than how we should present the topic in the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that we need to be careful not to be overly broad in labeling people as "deniers"... when in fact they are not... "skeptics" is a valid term for those who do agree with most of the IPCC conclusions, but may question some of the specifics. Save the term "Denier" for those who really do deny that climate change exists. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that "skeptics" in that definition includes [most or all] mainstream scientists: for example, Michael E. Mann describes himself as a skeptic, and in recent papers questions tree rings as an annual proxy record of termperature changes. He's solidly mainstream, and indeed his work is [unscientifically] denounced by Richard A. Muller who has been seen as part of the fake skeptic camp, though renounced part of that camp's denial of temperature changes when his Berkeley Earth project produced unexpected results. To the chagrin of Anthony Watts (blogger), a denier who describes himeslf as a skeptic. Denial is a spectrum, in the less clear cases unscientific opposition to the IPCC consensus is better called contrarian. . . dave souza, talk 06:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

People who question basic facts of climate change as outlined by the IPCC -- that the average global temperature is increasing primarily due to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations caused by human activity -- are not skeptics in the scientific skepticism sense. They are either ignorant or in denial. All of the articles in the above categories basically include those who "question" those basic facts. So we should not use "skeptic" or derivatives in the category names. What words we should use is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging the probable reasonableness of the above, I guess, although this is probably going on a tangent not particularly relevant to this noticeboard, I would be curious on what basis that statement is made. Like I said, not disagreeing with it, but at least so far as I remember, and I obviously could be wrong, there might not be necessarily enough raw information available on changes in climate over the long term on a planetary scale in a broad sense outside from our one planet in the one period of recent recorded climate information to provide enough of a basis for conclusions along those lines. Granted, I am about 3 decades out of date here, but there didn't seem to be enough data back when I was in school to make a conclusion drawn on the data then available necessarily reliable. That information, however, clearly could have changed since I last really studied the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The basis for the statement would surely be WP:WEIGHT, specifically WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is currently the best overall assessment of the state of science on the topic, have a look in the Summary for Policymakers for an outline of the info you want. You'd need a very good source for any other conclusions. . dave souza, talk 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"I would be curious on what basis that statement is made" Which statement specifically? "enough raw information available on changes in climate over the long term" Some methods are mentioned at: Temperature record for the long term (depending on what you count as long) but that seems to me to be irrelevant to the current discussion. Of course, a large historical record of temperatures isn't needed to make and test the current models which are based on basic science. It's for the same reason one doesn't need to know the history of an atom to model what happens when it gets hit by another atom; it's quite frankly irrelevant, if you know the current state of a physical system you can calculate how it further evolves in time provided you include the right processes.

"like me, who might say that they don't question the evidence of global warming as anthropologically induced, but might say they haven't seen sufficient evidence to indicate that the primary reason for the existing global warming is necessarily human input." I don't get this. Models which take into account human emissions of CO2 predict the warming we have experienced, those that don't, don't. "They might simply ascribe it to the earth coming closer to returning to its more average warmer temperature, and note that the earth has actually, apparently, been marginally cooler for the past few hundred years than normal." If temperatures are changing there has to be a mechanism and that can also be modelled, then you can make predictions or see if it can accurately predict past warming (say 1970 to 2010). Temperatures don't just magically return to "normal" all by themselves (and they aren't, see [5]). Second Quantization (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Decades ago, people had a hard time coming to terms with radiative forcing, but it's pretty well understood these days that the heating effect expected from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations accounts for the global warming that is observed on decadal timescales. The surprise for many is how large the effect is, but the consensus is strong that it is the size we observe it to be.

I will grant, however, that many are not necessarily aware of the facts surrounding these issues, so it is possible that there are those who "question" because they simply don't know. Distinguishing between which is which is not something we're equipped to do either, so simply saying "opposition to..." and leaving it at that seems to me to be a good solution. jps (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the commercially funded disinformation campaigns and the politically motivated media coverage may still be too influential, especially in the USA, that while we have to discuss this with people with only a passing interest, and those who have taken little up to date scientific input recently, we are, sadly going to get nowhere. Those who feel that there is still a legitimate scientific debate going on have been wrong for decades now, but they still represent a loud and vocal minority, especially as I say in the US, and this will always scupper a clear consensus here in WP discussion for some time to come, I fear. --Nigelj (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is editors: here we have an editor reverting to self-contradictory wording which equates skepticism to belief, when the sources don't make any statement that the subject is skeptical. Common misuse of language. . . dave souza, talk 15:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the disinformation campaigns and politically motivated coverage, unfortunately, I think that the topic has also tended to at least some of us older editors, who might be among the more active "disbelievers," to have suffered in their eyes the same fate as a lot of millenarian movements who find that their predictions don't come true. A lot of us remember Ted Danson's statements which, as they were presented at the time, were basically seen as predicting the end of the world by the end of the 20th century. That didn't, of course, happen. Michael Crichton's State of Fear played a large role in the development of the thinking some individuals like myself as well, particularly the implications that the idea may have had some sort of less-than-beneficent governmental support. The Global warming conspiracy theory, unfortunately, particularly with the apparent "failed predictions" of Danson and the like, coupled with the distrust of authority of all kinds in general over the past decades in the West, does, I think, unfortunately, play a big role in a lot of sometimes goofy ideas going around there. This one included. Michael Baigent comes to mind as an equivalent in the field of religion. I acknowledge that this comment is completely off topic, and say this not necessarily in the defense of those who like me still harbor some lingering suspicions. Having said all that off-topic b.s., I guess I should apologize to those who actually have done more research and know more about the topic than me, and, maybe, ask if the sources exist to describe the millenial aspects of the early global warming advocates somewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ted Danson's comments were not specifically about global warming, but rather more about ocean conservation. He may actually have made an accurate point too -- it is highly likely that we have passed the tipping point for fisheries and coral reefs and that tipping point could have been the year 2000. Michael Crichton's book definitely played into climate change conspiracy theories, but we're trying to talk here about specific points made in climate science not about the weird political machinations of right wing (or left wing, mind you) ideologues. Actors and science fiction authors are not the experts who drive the conversation. jps (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As for politically motivated coverage, you may be amused by Jim Inhofe having invited Crichton to testify to Congress, apparently supposing he was a scientist. You did realise Crichton was writing fiction? Similarly, Danson seems to be an actor, author, and producer, not a scientist. Don't know what you mean by "early global warming advocates", people like Spencer and Legates who claim, on religious grounds, that global warming is good for you? . . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to trace the early history of work on the relationship between carbon dioxide in the air and the temperature of the earth's surface, it might make more sense to start with this paper [6] that Svante Arrhenius published in 1896, rather than with anything Ted Danson may have said. Cardamon (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it came up, does anyone have a good source for exactly what Ted Danson said, when he said it, and it what context? I tried to find this for the article Ted Danson. I found many later arguments over whether he was right or wrong, but no specifics on the statement itself. It still has a "citation needed" tag after many months. --Amble (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the statement was made in a speech when he founded the organization that is now Oceana (non-profit group), but I cannot find a transcript of it either. jps (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: You should have checked for precedents before starting a pointless discussion in the wrong forum. We've already got an administrator's ruling about this:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.

If you wish to overturn the administrator's ruling:

• take it to the administrator's noticeboard
• inform people who participated last time
• come up with something new.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the most reliable sources use some form of "denial" as the marker. jps (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrators don't make "rulings". If their opinions had special weight, then Dave and I (and I don't know who else in this thread...I'm too lazy to check. Boris, if he ever bothered to ask for the tools back) would count double. What you're referring to is a specific summary of consensus on a specific set of sources. Made a year ago. The simple reality is that the pendulum has shifted - a few years ago calling people denialists could earn people blocks. Now, it's no big deal - because the sources are there now. There's room for debate about whether we call someone a denialist in Wikipedia's voice or we say who called them that. It's fair to argue about that. But by the same token, it's fair to debate whether we can call people "skeptics", or whether we should say that they describe themselves that way. Usage has changed, and we need to follow that shift in usage. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "ruling" may have implications that I did not intend; I will use the simpler word "statement" from now on. However, it's not a specific summary of consensus on a specific set of sources, it's stated in a general way, and nobody has pointed to something that supersedes it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The best sources do not use the term "global warming skeptic" or "climate change skeptic" without qualification. We have included many articles which do not fall under the category of "skeptic" and thus we need to rename the categories. jps (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest the term "Heretic" would be more appropriate than "Skeptic". :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

CfD discussion

Please feel free to comment here. jps (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is reiki fringe and/or pseudoscience

A new flare up at reiki. Are various sources sufficient to use the word "pseudoscience"? Does WP:MEDRS allow us to discount sources saying it is nonsense (after all, the sources are not review articles...)? Geeze, it's a "spiritual practice", so we cannot dare say qi/ki doesn't exist. A little experienced help would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need some new eyes as the current ones, myself included, are being discounted. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be canvassing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an appropriate use of the noticeboard, but thanks for helping make the point for us. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this canvassing? "This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories." --Gaff (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If this these types of actions were canvassing all of the content notice boards would have closed years ago since virtualy all the posts to them would have been banned.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to help! Just saying as much.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PARITY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaning Tower of Nevyansk

18th century Russian tower with a murky history. Flagged since 2012 for possible OR and definite tone/style issues, but could use some eyes from here perhaps: the tone wanders perilously close to Coast to Coast AM-style 'scientists still don't know why' <wiggly spooky fingers here> at times. Hatchetfish (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf Education

Hi! I stumbled upon the Waldorf Education article a few weeks ago, and began making edits recently to bring it to a NPOV. Previously, the article read almost entirely as a promotion for Waldorf-style education, which has been remarked on many WP:RS as a fringe theory of education. I've run into a dispute with User:Hgilbert, and I'm looking for more third party input. Basically, the dispute revolves around the article's possible lack of NPOV, ADVERT like statements, and above all, excessive detail and puffery, in my opinion. User:Hgilbert, before I showed up, was the only substantial contributor to the article, and has been cited previously as having a COI in relation to the page, as he's a Waldorf educator and has written extensively about Waldorf in academic settings and on other websites. Please just drop by the article's talk page, or check out the article itself, and lend a hand!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

First of all, Waldorf education is not a fringe theory, but one of the most prominent and successful forms of education worldwide today. Second of all, this user is a likely Sockpuppet for the banned User:Pete K, who has repeatedly returned under various guises (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pete_K/Archive and linked investigations). HGilbert (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, whether or not Waldorf education can be called a fringe theory on wikipedia is based on WP:RS. Not on your own opinion or original research. I provided sources.

Secondly, if you go through my edit history, you'll see there were several other times I was called a single purpose account, but for OTHER PURPOSES. Focusing on one group of articles or even one article for an extended period of time in one's history does not alone make one a single purpose account. Even while editing this page, and focusing here, I have edited numerous other pages. The IPs I edit from tend to be in the 146.203.126.0 to 100 range or used to be in the 128.135.0.0-250 range. This is because I graduated from the University of Chicago last year and started attending the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Pete K has many websites that he used to use to attack Hgilbert, and others, in a pretty shitty way. The IP addresses of those pages, and the biographical information on those sites about Pete K, show that he and I are clearly completely unrelated people. You'll also see, if you go to those websites, that I have never posted there, there is no one resembling me on any other forums about Waldorf education or Anthroposophy.

That is because I only found out that Waldorf education EXISTED by finding this ridiculously bad POV article here on Wiki. I am a neutral third party, who only wants this article to adhere to wiki standards. If you go through my edit history on Waldorf education, you'll see that I made many edits, that could be construed as from BOTH sides. See here and here and here. To me, this seems like a tactic to prevent any editor who wants to fix up the POV issues on Waldorf Education from doing so. This article desperately needs third party viewpoints, and I am a completely and totally uninvolved party, that Hgilbert disagrees with, and so is accusing of being a sockpuppet of another account he used to disagree with. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We are well aware that there is an issue with Hgilbert's connection to the anthroposophical movement and related ideas. I have found that he can be amenable to working if you present good sources... this is how we've been able to identify and eliminate much of the nonsense about biodynamic agriculture and anthroposophical medicine, for example. One of the biggest problems with anthroposophy articles is the massive amount of material that is included sourced to violations of WP:FRIND. What we would like to do is remove much of the soapboxing that seems to be endemic. You need to make specific requests if you would like some help. Just saying, "come to the page" may not be good enough. jps (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly hope that "come to the page" will draw some investigation/assistance from editors here. The article needs substantial improvement and such improvement is meeting a great deal of resistance. I currently have limited use of my computer and have gotten very busy IRL. I hope some editors here can "come to the page". - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience there is such a weight of invested interest in that article that any changes to neutral will get eroded away fairly promptly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Man, this is so sad. I find myself being worn down as well, I no longer have any interest in fixing the page up, because anything I do is immediately nitpicked by a small army of (what I suspect to be) meat/sockpuppets/newly created accounts, as well as three hardline anthroposophists who will never openly admit their COI in selecting certain sources and removing others..."I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive....”-Good ol' Carl. I think Waldorf/anthroposophy may be the pseudoscience most defended by abusers of the system I've seen in a long time. I mean, if enough interested and stubborn editors involve themselves in the talk page, it might turn out better. But it appears as though certain COI editors have nearly unlimited time on their hands.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Although it is necessary to elaborate, the article as it stands isn't the WORST it could be, and somewhat far from it. The NPOV problems are subtle, incredibly subtle. A law student actually published a review about this article in particular, and about the NPOV problems brought about by some of Hgilbert's edits. You can find it here (pp 118-124), I thought it was really interesting, and it was one of the few things that made me become so passionate initially.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This comment is a striking example of where the NPOV problems lie. The law review article discussed problems with COI on both sides: both critics and supporters. It's curious that only half of this is mentioned here.

In any case, the WE article was completely changed as a result of arbitration many years ago, so that it relies on solid reliable sources from independent authorities, i.e. academic or peer-reviewed books and journals (instead of high-quality emic sources, as it had done). The only criteria I have for further changes is adhering to RS and avoiding OR. HGilbert (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Extra eyes please

I am having problems with an editor on the article Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'‎ by one of our recurring topics here, Mr. G. I. Gurdjieff, who is persistently reverting deletions of unsourced material about a book whose notability is in doubt. The article has been tagged for no sources for six years. The editor added a few links to sources that are patently not RS with no inline citations. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. I don't want to get into an edit war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The material has been re-added (again) and due to 3RR I can't revert it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is principally user behavior, [7] is the board you need. If its a question about whether something is a reliable source, use the reliable source noticeboard. If there's a question about whether something is a fringe theory or what the due weight is for a fringe theory, you're in the right place, but will need to explain the situation a bit better. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Shockingly, there are currently no less than three reports on this matter at WP:AN3. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Carctol

Carctol (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
is a fake cancer cure, and our article has seen some recent activity. Needs eyes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've checked your source and restored the quote and the 'ineffective' qualification. There seems to be some whitewashing going on in the recent history, so i've placed the article on my watchlist and i'll keep an eye out. HTH. Tjuus... Kleuske (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Ayurveda

There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input from editors with experience in articles on pseudoscience and alt med would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions concerning the article and the talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Out-of-body experience

User who has also used a few IP addresses re-adding in a fringe source (near-death.com) that an OBE experiment by Charles Tart was genuine evidence for consciousness leaving the body. Future Kick (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And some original research, too. I've written a strongly-worded note to the user. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Fringe eye treatments

• Behavioral optometry (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Bates method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• The Art of Seeing (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I recently undertook a major re-write of Behavioral optometry which had problematic (primary) sourcing and editorial special pleading and which lacked mainstream context. This led me to look at the other two articles. Bates method is generally okay, but my attempt to have the lede say the method is "ineffective" (rather than merely "unsubstantiated") has been reverted[8] on that grounds I am POV-pushing. The Art of Seeing is Aldous Huxley's book on the Bates method and our article strikes me as problematic in that it essays Huxley's belief in the system without mainstream context - again my attempt to have the lede say the method is discredited has been reverted to ave us say that the method is just "controversial".

Thoughts, comments, scrutiny, etc. from fringe-savvy editors would be welcome as ever. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Langdon Ward

"has recently discovered a relationship between global warming and volcanism rates" "After man began reducing these emissions by 1980, in an effort to reduce acid rain, the rates of increase in temperature and methane began to decrease, reaching zero by 1998."