Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 83: Line 83:
Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s).{{pb}}
Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s).{{pb}}
Same question about [[Neurotheology]] and the neurotheologist [[Andrew B. Newberg]] mentioned in the rational mysticism article. [[User:Permstrump|<font color="indigo">—'''PermStrump'''</font>]][[User Talk:Permstrump|<font color="steelblue">(<u>talk</u>)</font>]] 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Same question about [[Neurotheology]] and the neurotheologist [[Andrew B. Newberg]] mentioned in the rational mysticism article. [[User:Permstrump|<font color="indigo">—'''PermStrump'''</font>]][[User Talk:Permstrump|<font color="steelblue">(<u>talk</u>)</font>]] 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

== Scientific dissent ==

{{la|Scientific dissent}}

A pseudoscientific essay in support of "scientific dissent" was penned here in Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_dissent&type=revision&diff=730081966&oldid=729999661 I deleted it].

[[Special:Contributions/73.38.255.229|73.38.255.229]] ([[User talk:73.38.255.229|talk]]) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:29, 16 July 2016

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    "Scientific dissident"

    BinaryPhoton (talk · contribs) (who is suspiciosly promoting Randy Wayne in various places in wikipedia) created a section "scientific dissident" in article dissident. I doubt this section belongs here. "scientific dissident" is a fringe term. google gives less than 500 hits. I suspect it is nothing but a fashionable moniker adopted by fringe scientists. Please comment in talk:Dissident - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that BinaryPhoton (talk · contribs) links to Randy Wayne's Cornell faculty page as his own site, confirming his identity. This is a straightforward case of fringe self-promotion. --Amble (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the article, I'm not sure he passes WP:PROF, is he notable enough from the fringe stuff? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dbrodbeck: If so, only barely from the looks of it. An AfD wouldn't be a bad idea here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, having 1200 citations for an article, even as second author, means he easily passes WP:PROF. For what it's worth, his h-index is about 19. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the notability tag from Randy Wayne (biologist) - there was a consensus for notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Wayne (biologist). StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now, just today, a new article was created: scientific dissent. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK: Can't say factual things about a person. How about we promote astrology instead?

    (Crosspost from WP:ANI)
    Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_2:_.C3.89lizabeth_Teissier Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier

    We can't replace a simple, well-cited fact with promotion of astrology. DYK seems to have gone mad. This is not what I expected (or was ready) to see first thing in the morning after a bout of insomnia and jackhammers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. The article needs work and can't be linked on the main page in its current form. Certainly you can't use a pro-fringe hook. I have tagged the article and left a comment on the DYK discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Related discussion

    Some editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Back to square one, about what the best practice is, if an editor removes WP:UNSOURCED material from an article in the belief (whether right or wrong) that the material cannot be verified in a reliable source (aka "WP:CHALLENGEs the material"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Total Nonsense

    Magnetic resonance therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is total nonsense. Can someone delete it?

    73.38.255.229 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we have plenty of articles on nonsense theories. I think this one may be notable nonsense. So I'm far from sure it should be deleted, but it's much too positive, and would benefit from more watchers. (Unfortunately supporters of fringe theories are more likely to be interested in these articles than other editors, as we all know.) A sentence like "The therapy can be considered as alternative medicine as it is not approved by conventional medicine" (my italics) was quite unacceptably mealy-mouthed. I've removed it, inserting "alternative" in the first sentence instead. Note also that the largest claims in the lead section ("Magnetic resonance therapy is carried out internationally in clinical practices and rehabilitation facilities. It is also supported by research establishments, e.g. the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute in Saalfelden, Austria.") are unsourced. I've put "citation needed" on both sentences, and may remember to remove them if no citations are forthcoming. The body of the article has the same problems, but I have no more time for it just now. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    The ineffectiveness of this therapy is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, but no other significant parts of the article are even devoted to it. Furthermore, the section on evidence (which could possibly use a rename, as it gives more credibility than the contents of that section deserve) seems to be making the point that the therapy is mostly effective. The five sources cited in the lead should also be cited elsewhere in the article. For that matter, the last source could also be pruned from the "literature" section. (If I have time, I'll try to get to it.) Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a mess. I removed the second lead paragaph, as it was a WP:PROFRINGE disaster, but it still needs more work. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this needs to go to AFD, or maybe just overwrite it. MRT is a real thing, but it has nothing to do with this: it's about doing surgery etc. during MRI scanning. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In depth article from The Washington Post, and from NIH - Magnetic resonance therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Without reading the entirety of both your sources, it seems a little odd to me that the Washington Post would present Jin's claim that "[o]ne hundred percent responded [to the treatment] with very visible change" without any comment at all. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From the NIH source: "MRT is safe, but not superior to placebo". So it is exactly as safe and exactly as effective as astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, praying to Jibbers Crabst and various spells from the Harry Potter books. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kris Kristofferson

    Here's something different for you. In a HuffPo piece Kristofferson is reported to have chronic lyme disease[1]. That piece is commented on by David Gorski here. On the Talk page there is some disagreement about how all this should be reported here. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideokinesis

    Came across this, another of the endless variants of somatic nonsense topics we seem to have. I trimmed some nasty POV and went looking for neutral sources to try and expand it but have drawn something of a blank. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources look fringe to me. I too am having trouble finding RS coverage. This may be a candidate for AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Results from HighBeam seem to indicate that it is primarily about teaching dance technique/choreography, however Gale also reports that Some have taken the concept and enhanced it by using visuals of proper movement and having participants watch for several minutes before attempting the movement. This has been used to develop videos that teach sports or dance technique. Sources found at HB: Dance Spirit, Dance Magazine, Dance Teacher, Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers, Canadian Encyclopedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found that sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between articles about (A) an accepted dance training technique that's being appropriated by the somatics nonsense vs (B) somatics nonsense trying to sell itself as a concept that was borrowed from an accepted dance training technique. After a cursory search on this one, this seems to fall into category (A). My library's periodicals database found ~103 hits (probably some dups, so a little less), ~34 of which are peer-reviewed (some in journals with more dubious names than others). It's covered (not too favorably) in this 2016 literature review (PMID 27245944) in the Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, which is indexed on medline. So with that and the number of other hits and the stuff Isaidnoway found, it seems like it meets GNG. I'll add some material from this lit review to the article since it's probably the highest quality source on the topic.
    It seems like "ideokinesis" is basically some entrepreneurs' attempt to brand guided imagery, so I imagine it's the type of thing that wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on in general. —PermStrump(talk) 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolfing

    There has been a lot of activity at the article recently, and I have just done a mini re-write/clean-up which could probably benefit from a check by fringe-savvy editors. There is also an RfC running for this article which may be of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, my re-write got wholesale reverted.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That's a big, big mess, with lots of pseudoscience in the talk page. Will need lots of eyes. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Technological singularity

    Technological singularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - in its present state is transhumanist advocacy with a ton of blog-quality sources, all trying to make out that this purely hypothetical science fiction trope is a real-life thing that is immiment. Someone tried noting in the intro its science-fictional nature and was reverted; I did a rewrite of the intro so it sounds less like a blog article and essayed upon the long task of fixing the sourcing ... I removed a nonexistent unverifiable source, a blog, a seminar talk video equivalent to a self-sourced blog post, three redundant cites to the same IJ Good piece, and toned down some WP:PEACOCK terms ... and that was editing two paragraphs. More eyes would be most welcomed on the task of bringing this article up to Wikipedia scratch. Or saying that my approach is wrong and terrible if you think that. Discussion at Talk:Technological_singularity#SciFi - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Trey Smith

    Trey Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Can someone delete this article? Looks to be pure WP:VANITY as well as a WP:FRINGEBLP.

    73.38.255.229 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This probably should have been posted at WP:BLPN, but I went ahead and started an AFD. —PermStrump(talk) 08:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rational mysticism

    Is this a notable concept? I tried looking it up and can't figure out if the sources that use those two words in consecutive order are talking about the same concept as this article since the article is essentially a list in prose form of all of the times the phrase has appeared in writing (they missed at least one from the 1700s).

    Same question about Neurotheology and the neurotheologist Andrew B. Newberg mentioned in the rational mysticism article. —PermStrump(talk) 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific dissent

    Scientific dissent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A pseudoscientific essay in support of "scientific dissent" was penned here in Wikipedia. I deleted it.

    73.38.255.229 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=730082386"