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

Bulgarian-Vlach Empire as alternative name for the Second Bulgarian Empire

Hello. I want to ask for some neutral opinions regarding this alternative name. I've inserted 8 different reliable sources that support this view, but someone reverted me with the edit summary "Rvv Fringe views". I don't agree at all with his edit, so we need a third party to settle the conflict (SamiraJ (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

(1) You are edit-warring, and that needs to stop. (2) The proper approach is to start a discussion of the issue on the article's talk page, which you have not done. If you do not participate in a discussion, you are automatically in the wrong. (3) Adding a long list of sources to support a point of view is always the wrong thing to do -- it is sometimes known as reference bombing. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(1) I was trying to insert a well referenced information and someone was refusing it with no valid reason. But I will respect your advice to stop warring (2) There is nothing to be discussed on the article talk page, it is simply about respecting reliable sources (3) I've inserted so many sources to show that it is a widely used term and that many authors present it in their works. The term Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars is mentioned even if Encyclopædia Britannica: [1]. I hope this source is notable enough(SamiraJ (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

It is good that SamiraJ has opened a section here. There is the other view - it is true that some Western historians called Kaloyan Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs (no other ruler after Kaloyan is known by that title) and that a term Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars exists. However, it is not synonymous with the term Second Bulgarian Empire, because it can only be used for the first years of the existence of a coutry which existed as a single state for over 200 years. Therefore, such a name does not belong to the lead of the article. If it has to be mentioned, it should go in a section called "Nomenclature", as in the First Bulgarian Empire, or in the existing "Liberation" section. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So you do you finally agree that the "laughable" names "Vlach-Bulgarian Empire" and "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" should be included in one form of another in the article?

These names are laughable indeed when intended to be used as a symomyn of the Second Bulgarian Empire, because they are not. And I do not agree that "Romanian"-Bulgarian Empire has to be added because it makes no sense and was never ever called by that. In any case it has not place in the lead. --Gligan (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The name "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" is widely used in Romanian historiography and I think it is relevant to mention this aspect in the article (SamiraJ (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

That is only supported by Romanian historiography, the same as the Macedonian historiography calles Alexander the Great's Empire a Macedonian (meaning connected to modern RoM) state and Bulgaria under Samuel again a Macedonian Empire. The only term acceptable by everyone for the country Bulgaria in the period 1185-1396 (which is what the article is about) is Second Bulgarian Empire. I am sure that even Romanian historians do not claim that a "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" existen in 14th century, for example, or that the Ottomans conquered a "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire", do they? --Gligan (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nordic aliens

I have just stumbled across Nordic aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- a poorly sourced article on an obscure (and likely non-notable) offshoot of fringe UFO claims (which are well into the fringes of my own area). Regulars may wish to take a look. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nordic_aliens_(3rd_nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Hierarchy

I got to here from Nordic aliens. It's a mess, mainly by the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oy. At least three big problems:

1. The Theosophists don't own the concept of a spiritual hierarchy.
2. Most of this stuff probably doesn't have anything to do with Theosophy.
3. Cleaning out all the non-Theosophist crap is going to be difficult to do without just erasing pretty much everything and being citation nitpickers.

At least for starters I'm inclined to move the article to Spiritual hierarchy (Theosophy). Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies and Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Could use some eyes. I'm being 'strongly advised to back off'. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There's now an RfC at the latter article's talk page. I've placed an addendum as it did not cover all the issues that were being discussed (ie it covered RS but not WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but I only did it after several comments. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercury is good for you, and other Ayurvedic nonsense splattered all over Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has real problems with telling people Mercury is a good thing to eat, because Ayurvedic practitioners say so.

From Mercury (element) [A Good Article!]

“ Mercury in the form of one of its common ores, cinnabar, remains an important component of Chinese, Tibetan, and Ayurvedic medicine. As problems may arise when these medicines are exported to countries that prohibit the use of mercury in medicines, in recent times, less toxic substitutes have been devised. ”

From Samskara (ayurvedic)

“ In ayurveda, toxic ingredients, which sometimes include heavy metals such as mercury, are purified using a process of prayer and pharmacy. Some practitioners believe that both are necessary to transform the toxicity though a pharmacological study on aconite showed that only the washes are necessary to render the substance non-toxic. [Aconite example given, then...] More general scientific evidence that ayurvedic medicine impurities and ingredients such as heavy metals may be rendered nontoxic is not available, and case reports describe adverse effects of these substances. ”

From Rasayana, we get simple lies about Ayurveda NOT containing mercury

“ Because of negative publicity and cost factor, the use of the classical rasayana formulas has declined considerably, and most of the preparations available now have herbal ingredients with a couple of mineral and animal products. The non-availability and wild life protection act has made the use of musk, amber and parts of wild-life animals, nearly impossible. ”

Miscellaneous advertising-only pages

From Shilajit:

“ Shilajit, also known as shilajit, mumijo, and momia, is used in the Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine.

, Shilajit is a rasayana material and is an adaptogen, due to its proven ability to increase resistance and support the adaptation of the body and its inner workings to a variety of chemical, biological, and physical stressors. The composition of Shilajit has been investigated numerous times in both India and the former USSR, and depends on the location where it is found. It has been reported to contain at least 85 minerals in Ionic form, including triterpenes and aromatic carboxylic acid, as well as humic acid and fulvic acid.

”

Check out the sources for that. They're pretty awfful, including a site wanting to sell you the stuff.

List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda gives us an entire chart of unsourced medical claims. Example:

Andrographis paniculata

Green chirayta

Yavatika

For malaria fever, enlargement of liver, chronic and obstinate fever, dropsy, edema, constipation, and infant disorders such as diarrhoea, colic, vomiting. Used as an appetiser.

From Triphala, claims cited with reference only to a fringe textbook.

“ In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, Triphala is used for:

• immune system stimulation
• improvement of digestion
• relief of constipation
• gastrointestinal tract cleansing
• relief of gas
• treatment of diabetes
• treatment of eye disease

”

From Chyawanprash:

“ Chyawanprash, also spelled chyavangysha, chyavanaprash, chyavanaprasam and chyawanaprash, is an ancient Ayurvedic health tonic, widely used in India, as a rejuvenative, energizer and immunity booster. It is often called "the elixir of life" due to its numerous nutritional properties and benefit to the body. ”

From Adaptogen, we get a lot of health claims, with no sources whatsoever.

“ Panax ginseng, for example, is an adaptogen that has shown an "overall normalizing effect". [...] Many adaptogens contain polysaccharides that have been reported to stimulate immune system components and have immune system enhancing benefits. Polysaccharide-rich plants and mushrooms have a long history of use in traditional practices such as Chinese medicine. In addition to stimulating the immune system, they are used to increase vital energy and considered qi tonics. Adaptogens that contain polysaccharides include: American ginseng, Asian ginseng, astragalus, Cordyceps, eleuthero, licorice, lycium, prince seng, Lingzhi/Reishi, rhaponticum, and shatavari.[1] ”

As I think you'll agree, Ayurveda has spread its tendrils all over Wikipedia, getting away with blatant advertising. Something should be done. 86.182.184.39 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There do seem on the face of it to be some problems here. I can start looking in detail at the articles, and I expect some others will have a look too. Can you help out yourself, too? Anything without a good source can be deleted. Good source means a scientific source for scientific fact, a history of science source for a history of science fact etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So the mercury article now seems only to contain info about use in TCM, sourced to a recent study. Do you still see problems there? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What's left

Making a new subsection to make this easier. I've done a couple, other people have done some, and we've fixed quite a number. Here's what left.

• List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda is unfixable, hence prodded. Much of the rest has been edited and stripped of claims, but there's some remaining.
• I have no idea what to do with Shilajit. It's all mouse studies. I've cut a bunch, but there's really nothing worth saving, so prodded it too. This article so badly fails the miracle cure test: if science had genuinely proved something was a miracle cure, it wouldn't just be a fringe treatment. Has gotten trimmed to a description of the substance, which is perfectly fine.
• Rasayana is similar to Shilajit, but has enough good content to be worth salvaging. It'll need a lot of research to fix well. Perhaps merging rasa shastra would help? Cut all the unreliably-sourced material and advertising. Looks pretty good now, actually.
• Triphala is better than it was, but still not great. Anyone know any good balancing, non-fringe material? Stubby, but fine

So, it's a start, but two really problematic articles left. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit about Ayurveda itself

The article isn't too bad, but has three major problems. It's an awkward one because the science behind historical ayurveda was very advanced for its time, but its continued use now that modern medicine is available is kind of like using Copernicus' epicycles as part of your spaceship calculations.

1. This quote is simply awful, but removing it would be worse. We need better sources to discuss it.

“ Western medicine has ayurveda classified as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. ”

However, fixing the other problems should sort this:

2. It fails to include sufficient criticism of the modern-day practice. There's some criticism of the heavy metal content (I removed some special pleading and cherry picking), but that's a very narrow focus of criticism, and the inclusion of that narrow focus seems to have acted to isolate the practice from any more general criticism.

3. The criticism is only in the last section. By hiding all the criticism at the end, it means that anyone who only reads part of the article will be misled. Giving the article a proper WP:LEAD, which summarises ALL points should fix this. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Bioenergetic analysis

• Bioenergetic analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All the (solely general) references given for this article appear to be WP:FRINGE, from advocates of this idea, and would appear to fail WP:MEDRS. What should be done about this article? Is the topic sufficiently notable fringe that it should be balanced with the scientific view? Or should it simply be WP:AFDed? It's well outside my area of expertise, so I'm not really in a position to assess how notable it is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Donald Eisner has a section on it in The Death of Psychotherapy. Views on Eisner vary a bit but I think it is a least a sufficient reference to establish notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Script

And editor has been trying to push a fringe theory about an alleged Hungarian Runic script, stating it as if it is an established fact. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas and Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription. User Rovasscript has added this fringe theory and links to a site supporting the theory Alsószentmihály inscription [2], as well as Szarvas inscription [3], Karaite Judaism [4], Jews in the Middle Ages [5], Crimean Karaites [6], Khazars [7], and Kabar [8]. I doubt this theory is notable enough to even be listed, let alone as an established fact. Edward321 (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

More Ayurvedic spam

Is Terminalia arjuna at all salvageable? 86.183.39.90 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Panchakarma.

To give samples:

From Terminalia arjuna:

“ Terminalia arjuna (Neer maruthu in Tamil & Malayalam) is a medicinal plant of the genus Terminalia, widely used by ayurvedic physicians for its curative properties in organic/functional heart problems including angina, hypertension and deposits in arteries. According to Ayurvedic texts it also very useful in the treatment of any sort of pain due to falls, ecchymosis, spermatorrhoea and sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea.It is thought to be a useful astringent, cooling, aphrodisiac, cardiotonic, tonic and is used for ulcers, leucorrhoea, diabetes, cough, tumour, excessive perspiration, asthma, inflammation and skin disorders etc. Arjuna bark (Terminallia arjuna) is thought to be beneficial for the heart. This has also been proved in a research by Dr. K. N. Udupa in Banaras Hindu University's Institute of Medical Sciences , Varanasi (India). In this research, they found that powdered extract of the above drug provided very good results to the people suffering from Coronary heart diseases., ”

As usual, it fails the miracle cure test. If what was claimed to be proven really was proven, it would be much more widely used than just in a fringe practice.

From Panchakarma:

“ In order to stay healthy and fit one should carry out Panchakarma methods as a way of cleansing and servicing the body. The greatest benefit of this system is preventing possible serious illness due to 'Srothas Avarodha' obstruction of channels or ducts. ”

“ A Panchakarma Specialist is someone who specializes in Panchakarma therapies of all kinds. Post Graduate in the field of Pnachakarma makes a ayurvedic physician a specialist in the field of Panchakarma. There are many institutions in India which imparts Post Graduation courses in Panchakarma.

The Panchakarma therapies are highly specific and require years of hands-on clinical training and experience to be effective. Without the proper training in Ayurvedic Medicine, these therapies cannot be administered properly and may even aggravate or worsen the person's condition. [Emphasis original]

”

Both are proposed for deletion. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I cut the Terminalia article back a lot, but haven't looked up the refs to see if they justify the text. It would be a pity to lose an article about a plant just because of coatracking. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

True. I'll remove the prod, and add some rather strong warning tags. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it back some more, and put up a request with Wikiproject Plants to rewrite a botanical description. Those things are evil to rewrite without accidental plagiarism. The request's here, and I included the description I found.

I'm happy to believe herbs can have pharmacological effect, but when the article claims it can treat diabetes, asthma, and cancer, at the same time as saying the traditional usage was solely anti-inflammatory, there be issues. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. Herbs can definitely have pharmacological effect. Antiseptics, stimulants, emetics, purgatives, diuretics, analgesics, in any hedgerow. They're all in the pharmacy too, should you need them. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, I meant more that I'm happy to believe a specific herb could have some named pharmacological effect, but there's so much overselling and just made-up stuff about herbs (for example, no claims that Echinacea is good for colds predates the 20th century, as I recall) that I need to see decent evidence. =) 86.176.222.148 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)