Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 182.249.241.40 (talk) at 02:16, 9 May 2014 (→‎Ken Ham). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:

    Traditional Chinese medicine

    An editor is trying to force a fringe journal into the lede along with other controversial text. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other text is from a personal website that may not be RS. I think none of the changes improved the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Some déjà vu there. One would have thought these POV-pushers would have been around long enough to grasp some basics of writing Wikipedia articles - like that it's a bad idea to load content into the lede that doesn't reflect what's in the body. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Alexbrn, take a look at this. After being warned he is contuning to violate the 3RR rule. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The text "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]" was deleted from the lede again. The text is obviously sourced and is part of the summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You try to include the statement "TCM is largely pseudoscience" to the lede of this article. I actually agree that TCM probably is just pseudoscience, but your and my opinion doesn't matter here. We're here to write a good article for the general reader. Throwing around derogatory judgements like this when we don't have a good source for it is definitely not going to help our cause. We're not here to deliver judgements. We're here to deliver facts.
    As a source, you want to use this: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." This source doesn't even really make it a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; it only theorizes that it is the most obvious answer. For sure, this source is far from asserting that TCM is widely considered a pseudoscience in the scientific community.
    When I tried to compromise and change the statement in the lede to: "TCM has been labeled as pseudoscience" you opposed me. You don't really participate at the talk page discussion either. Once again, I don't see you being willing to work cooperatively on this encyclopaedia at all. I opened WP:DR about this. C u there. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold fusion

    Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I assumed that this section title is the article name, and linked to it as such. —Gryllida (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Anons and a couple of logged-in editors forum shopping frantically in an attempt to make the nasty reality-based community go away. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood Moon Prophecy

    Although created in 2009 heavily revised in the last few weeks as it was about the April eclipse. Might be worth putting on watchlists. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I've taken on the task of pruning this down to what's actually verifiable from reliable sources and encyclopaedic; ThaddeusB, who added the content I removed, seems to believe that WP:BRD starts with my bold reversion not his bold addition, and I'd appreciate some help explaining WP:ONUS to him. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the article was not created in 2009. It was created about a month ago, by me. Second, I greatly dispute Guy's interpretation of the dispute. ONUS does not give him unlimited rights to delete whatever he wants and make me prove it is worth including. It means he can challenge specific facts that are uncited, not ignore BRD because he feels some details aren't worth covering. He has cut 2/3rds of the article, including tons of material sourced to sources normally considered reliable (Fox News, Washington Post, etc.) Additionally, his edits have introduced factual inaccuracies that I carefully avoided because he insists the details are mere "trivia", but are actually crucial to understanding certain points. We are attempting resolve the issue on talk (while he insists his version must stay in the mean time, ignoring BRD), but I certainly welcome more opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Does 'he supposedly had "discovered"'[1] seem like a neutral tone to you? More generally though, an article about a pseudo-science should give all the space needed to explain its thinking to the reader. I mean, I don't believe a word about astrology, but if I had a reason to draw up someone's natal chart for fiction or comedy, I'd want to be able to find out how to do it right here. There are too many people on this board treating a 'rational' point of view as something to POV-push, rather than as a method of thinking and neutrally evaluating the available evidence, however absurd an idea may be. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are in agreement then. My problem with Guy's edits is that he has removed all context of the Blood Moon idea, to the point where he has actually introduced factually accuracies about what its proponents believe. I fail to see how that is a "better" article, and how the ONUS is on me to prove (to him) the context is necessary. (I do agree that specific sentence was not ideal and could be better worded.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mainly removed in-universe cruft sourced to wingnut fundamentalist websites. We must not give undue weight to the opinions of cranks, what is needed is reality-based descriptions of the concept. Through various edits this was being asserted as on a par with end times and armageddon prophecies generally, but as you yourself wrote, there is no evidence it ever gained significant traction. This is a very minor fringe cult notion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree about what you removed... In the interest of progress, I have proposed rewriting the article to exclude the 2 objectable sources. If you could reply on talk, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise, not sure how that happened as I meant that April 2014 lunar eclipse had been created in 2009. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think anyone on Wikipedia who speaks of "cruft" is making bad decisions, no matter what the target of their disdain. Wikipedia contains a lot of data, and much if not most of it seems dull and pointless, but it should be edited with a respect for the effort that was put in to collect it, and I would even say, with respect for the idea that even when we cannot perceive it, the data wants to lead us to insight and understanding. We're here to free the data, to listen to it as we can, to try to see where it is leading. Just because the idea is "astronomically" unlikely doesn't mean that we can't understand where it came from, what it inspires people to do, its effect on the economy, the motivations of its adherents, etc. But we have to understand these concepts.
    Hagee's religion may be very uncommon, and repugnant to many of us, but it is still a religion, and like any religion, we should take ample time to go through the concepts it is based on without dismissing them as beneath investigation. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Think what you like, it's a temrm of art I learned at Wikipedia and it applies in this case: excessively detailed coverage of trivial topics drawn from sources that have strong associations with he topic, rather than from neutral and independent sources. I woudl not mind betting that more people have heard of this from Wikipedia than form its proponents.. Guy (Help!) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Homeopathy advocacy at black mamba

    See talk:Black mamba#Homoepathy section. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Acupuncture

    I thought the debate was settling down at TCM but now it was moved to acupuncture. The text is a summary of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mazzaroth

    Had a reversion today back to the fringe-filled version. I can see no evidence that the people whose opinions were quoted (or, in one case, the completely uncited, probable original research reading of the Bible) are notable opinions on the subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yin yoga

    This is a non-notable article that should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe at Subartu, Sabir people

    There's been a good amount of material added to these pages recently pushing the fringe belief that the Bronze Age Subartu are the same people as the 7th century CE Sabir, and are thus an example of continuous Turkish presence in the Near East. There are a great deal of inline cites provided, but following these I find at least one blatant fabrication - the claim that H. Mark Hubey contributed to The Cambridge Ancient History series and that the book supports the Sabir/Subartu connection [2] (also added to Subartu but removed by another editor) - several fringe sources sometimes connected with the Hungarian or Turkish right-wing [3] [4] (in the last the Christian is reliable, but being misrepresented), and a number of scholarly sources that are being misrepresented, such as Dhorme, [5], the Christian linked before, and a group of sources concerning etymology that may be taken out of context, such as [6] [7]. The use of Old Turkic to provide an etymology for a people that preceded Old Turkic by over a thousand years is a sign of sloppiness at best, and illustrates what seems to be the thought process behind the sourcing: Google for anything that looks like Subartu, Sabir, Subar, etc., and assume that it must be making a Subartu-Tukish connection and present it as such. As the editor has a definite WP:IDHT problem, and I would rather not be in an edit war, some more eyes on this would be good. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The same issue is also discussed at "Multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint and persistent vandalism" section of Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Lamedumal (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multi-referenced_scholarly_viewpoint_and_persistent_vandalism. This would certainly mean that user Ergative rlt seems to be the next candidate who has problems with multi-referenced scholarly viewpoints due to his own contradictory viewpoint, which became quite clear when he put his focus on the Turkic and to a lesser extend on the Hungarian theory, instead on the others, such as the Armenian, Kurdish, Slavic or Greek theory. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint" is original research with misleading or fringe cites. And now that Lamedumal has pointed out the RSN discussion, I see that the misrepresentation of Dorme was specifically pointed out there as well, but Hirabutor's added it back. Also, the Slavic and Greek theories appear to be more of Hirabutor's OR, with once again a misleading citation. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lamedumal seems to have misinterpreted Dhorme, since Sabirois etc. lived in classical times and not in the bronze age, as mentioned by Dhorme. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Peczkis

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis

    Comment.

    jps (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Ham

    There is currently an edit war going on over adding the category pseudoscientist to Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner (and probably others) The argument has reached the level of absurdity to the point the following is posted on the talk page "Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of WP:BLPCAT" A report has been filed at 3RRNB here and as I strongly suspect meat/sock puppetry as SPI here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really something for the BLP noticeboard. The question is whether a living person who promotes something characterised as "pseudoscience" should be placed in Category:Pseudoscientists, particularly when (in the cases being discussed) there is no WP:RS that explicitly uses that pejorative term for those people. In any case, in my view the "pseudoscientist" label provides no information, simply disapproval. Combating pseudoscience is best done by addressing the issues. -- 101.117.28.73 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an IP deleting the category pseudoscientist from the articles. QuackGuru (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And either the IP above is a sock or a meat puppet, we've suddenly have several arrive editing solely on this issue. Besides this one, we have 101.117.30.177, 101.117.58.97 and 71.246.158.7 - socks or meat puppets all it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP here claims that no reliable sources refer to him as a pseudoscientist. I find this hard to believe, and we don't (can't) provide inline citations for categories. Find a source, put it on the talk page, and if the IP continues to revert and change his/her arguments, semi-protect the page. BLP is a weak argument here. 182.249.241.22 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "AIG promotes pseudoscience" -- National Center for Science Education. (That's a paraphrase, but Ctrl+F the word pseudoscience.) DONE. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pseudoscientists cat is up for deletion

    See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Starchild skull again

    Has been progressively edited over the last few days to be extremely crazy-fringe-theory friendly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox News Channel controversies

    This edit was a violation of summary. Articles should properly summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Cremo got added to Paleoanthropology

    Someone want to take a look at this?[8] As you likely know, Cremo claims modern humans have existed on Earth for several billion years. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbara Thiering

    Fringe religious writer but at the talk page there's an attempt to remove a sentence about not being accepted by academics, which is explained in detail in the body of the text. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oil Pulling

    Oil pulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    Aside from the non-WP:MEDRS compliant claims, it seems to be simply an advertisement for Ayurveda.

    jps (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    UFO sightings in outer space‎

    What a horrible article. Appears to be a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no? Grounds for AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the mistake was not calling it what it is: a List of UFO sightings in outer space. Basically it's a list article masquerading as a subject article that compiles isolated incidents and infers, but stops just short of analyzing, what it all means. I would definitely ditch the lead section, as it's pure SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barney I actually did not have you on my watch list until now, I had forgot the Yes Sir Boss incident we had as I just don't care about those things. The only thing that matters is improving the main space which should be all of our goals. I hope the next time we meet we will be on the same side. I chose to drop the ANI incident, because ANI prevents meaningful editing I am sure you agree, and was trying to prevent any further issues. Please do not nominate my article because our past differences can cause impartial decisions, if someone else agrees with you let them do it. As of now, I think we should go our separate ways. With regards. Valoem talk contrib 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie, I left a message on your talk page. I know that you have been an opponent of fringe theories. Please view any citation every line is directly sourced. I appreciate if further discussion can take place on the article talk page and please let me know of any improvements that can be made. Cheers! Valoem talk contrib 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. I gave clear explanations of what problems the article has at the AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also the second or third time the article has been recreated after being deleted:
    jps (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently there was a DRV where the discussion did not address WP:FRINGE or the major reasons why this article is horrible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationist cosmologies

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies

    Could use some more comments.

    jps (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditional Chinese medicine again

    This edit added original research to the lede and made the text unclear. I explained the problems with the edit on the talk page. Also, changing fished out of to extracted is OR. Now the text in the lede is being rearranged out of order and a source previously deleted by User:JzG was restored against WP:CON. Obviously, none of the recent changes to the lede and body were improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now mass changes to acupuncture are being made to delete text that is critical of acupuncture and to add text that is promotional acupuncture. Also a source previously deleted at TCM was added to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We're trying to hammer out consensus at the TCM talk page with the help of uninvolved user Richard Keatinge. What you're doing here is WP:Canvassing, and the non-neutral way you present this post here constitutes campaigning. Please stop and participate in finding consensus at the appropriate talk page instead. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Things were already hammered out with the uninvolved editor User:Dominus Vobisdu but you suggested he was not uninvolved. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think it can be safely established that Dominus Vobisdu is not an uninvolved editor. Please cf. the participants of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to use a non-standard definition of uninvolved. Merely looking at a case and venturing an opinion, is not being involved. You also appear not to understand that this is precisely the right place to ask for more eyes when fringe and pseudoscientific theories are in play, so is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have overlooked the fact that this "uninvolved" editor has in fact been boldly edit-warring the page since last year. -A1candidate (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One edit at Acupuncture does not make someone involved at TCM. The recent strange edits makes you at least involved a acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself.-A1candidate (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you did make a false accusation without evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence is found in user's edit history -A1candidate (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:Boomerang, anyone? It appears that A1 is referring to his exchange (bordering on ew) with DV last August at Accupuncture. It seems rather obvious which editor was attempting to remove reliable sourcing. Both could have made more constructive edit comments, but really, DV simply prevented a fringe POV push. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So how does that make DV "uninvolved"? -A1candidate (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, wp:involved is just a shortcut to Wikipedia:administrators, which also directly addresses the exception for admins dealing with edit wars. That said DV's actions were not admin, they were just what any admin should have done. Sitting back and watching your POV push go ahead unchallenged is in no way required of other editors, and stopping such should not be construed as substantial involvement in an article. To do so would rapidly deplete the pool of the uninvolved. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that doesn't make him any less uninvolved. There's a difference between reverting vandalism and reverting because of a content dispute. -A1candidate (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see wp:BRD. Note that it is not spelled BRRD. Anyhow, this was last August that he prevented your change against consensus. It's about time you dropped the stick, don't you think? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither me nor DV are pushing for any content changes right now. If you think that's my aim, please re-read the entire discussion. -A1candidate (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case what was the point of your post of 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) above? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some who are pushing for strange changes at acu and at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @LeadSongDog: Purpose of my post was to point out that it's wrong for QuackGuru and Guy to label DV as an "uninvolved" editor. Such a statement is factually incorrect, as DV's edit history shows. -A1candidate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't shown DV's edit history of edit warring at acu. One or a few edits at acu does not make someone involved at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself -A1candidate (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sending people off on fishing expeditions does not constitute the presentation of evidence. Please either provide links or drop it.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fishing expeditions? I was requesting that he check DV's edit history before claiming uninvolvement. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So where is the alleged involvement at Traditional Chinese medicine? No evidence has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about doing a simple search of his edit history? -A1candidate (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a simple search of his alleged edit at TCM and came of with 0 edits. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See THIS for more active TCM involvement. And don't forget Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11. -A1candidate (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not provide evidence of any involvement at the TCM page. But I provided evidence there was no involvement at the TCM page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture aren't TCM? -A1candidate (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think TCM equals acu that I would expect you to restore this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a sub-family doesn't mean being equal. -A1candidate (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets's get back to the topic at hand. I see you and others have been busy deleting stuff you don't like from the article. More of the same kind of thing happened at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont speak for other editors, but if you're wondering why I removed your speculative theory, please see WP:FRINGE -A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a speculative theory. There are lots of sources covering this. See (PMID 10501382). Now you have confirmed it should be restored because it is not a theory. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The source says: "We hypothesized that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture". It's not even a theory but a hypothesis. Can you show me a better, more conclusive reliable source? -A1candidate (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Were are using mainstream independent sources for the text. There is no fringe theory. It is not about fringe. You are misusing fringe. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you failed to provide a better source to support your fringe theory. Are there any authoritative mainstream institutions giving credulence to your FRINGE theory? Apparently not. -A1candidate (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainstream independent sources are not good enough for you but on Wikipedia we report what the mainstream independent sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find mainstream sources providing ample hard evidence for your theory, then we may include it in an appropriate section. -A1candidate (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another mainstream indepedent source for you to chew on. See (PMID 15103027). There is no policy on Wikipedia that says an editor must provide ample hard evidence to repeat what mainstream researchers say. We are not using fringe sources or blogs. The mainstream view is that there is evidence that suggested it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference cited by the authors is exactly the same as the one you previously showed me. And notice how they use the word "speculation" to describe this hypothesis. -A1candidate (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You deleted the images and the text only because you don't like what the reliable sources said. Whatever the mainstream view says we report them on Wikipedia. I explained this before. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG should apply here - I removed it because it is a speculative theory that is not backed up by hard evidence. See WP:IDHT. -A1candidate (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is backed up by mainstream research. The sources cited was being done neutrally and appropriately. The author Ersnt (PMID 15103027), for example, is serious mainstream researcher. The results should not be rejected; editors were only giving the weight it is due. There is nothing extremist or flawed about the research. Ernst's work is critical of CAM, and he gets criticized back; there is nothing surprising about this. Obviously, the article represents serious research that should not be ignored by any neutral summary of acupuncture. It is irrelevant whether you personally disagree with Ernst or other mainstream researchers. Removing the images and text will not bring justice to a serious encyclopedia. What was being portrayed was in accordance with WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is doubting Ernst's qualifications. He himself described the theory as speculation, and that's why we do not give undue weight to it. -A1candidate (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[9] This is beyond speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Speculation surrounds the tattoo marks seen on the ‘Ice Man’ who died in about 3300 bce and whose body was revealed when an Alpine glacier melted." [10] This is pure speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. -A1candidate (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When this is repeatedly discussed by independent reliable sources we are allowed to discuss them here on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation -A1candidate (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ersnt went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[11] That's more than a minority opinion of speculation. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ernst is describing the speculative theory to the reader. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. -A1candidate (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about fringe. This is about you have a personal disagreement with the mainstream view. This is about due weight according to RS. So far you have not given respect to the mainstream view. User:BullRangifer said You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated by Ernst, the mainstream view is that your fringe theory is a speculative one. -A1candidate (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We are allowed to report on the mainstream view as long as we use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation. -A1candidate (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not provide only one source. According to your own comment that is more than one source. The Lancet and Ernst are not a minority opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You provided two links - the former is a speculative hypothesis and the latter correctly describes it accordingly. -A1candidate (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But I previously told you that these statements are not a minority opinion and Ernst went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[12] QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't make it any less speculative -A1candidate (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even allegations are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they are reliably sourced such as UFO sighting (Unidentified flying object#United Kingdom). QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    break

    Since the PS classification seems to be - for some reason - in doubt, I added a reinforcing source. But it was quickly reverted. In general, it strikes me there are too many editors at work in these subjects with one hand on the keyboard and another on their wallet. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The source you added says: "The vacuum created by China's failure to adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine has been filled by pseudoscience". This sentence is very confusing; I'm not sure I grasped its precise meaning. Why did the failure of China to "adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine" create a vacuum? Wouldn't we think that the vacuum already existed from the very start? And why should this vacuum be filled by pseudoscience only after China's failure? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that TCM was pseudoscience all along?
    Anyway, to avoid further wars over this ambiguous source I reworded your statement and re-added the source to the text [13]. I'd like to point out that if TCM is as universally excepted to be pseudoscience as some editors claim, why do the only two reliable sources we have use such complicated, unusual and ambiguous sentence structures for their statements? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusing to you maybe (cognitive dissonance?); but plain enough I think: when evidence became recognized as important for medicine, the yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it (something we find in numerous fringe journals). Weaselly, you've attributed the source's statement making it seem like this fact is somehow seriously contested, something that should be guarded against. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "The yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it..." You seem to be smart so I'll refrain from detailedly pointing how illogical this is in regards to TCM, which has been dragging its superstitious codswallop theories along since more than 2000 years without any significant new codswallop being conjured up since the time when evidence became recognized as important for medicine... Anyway, concerning your allegations of me doing anything "weaselly", please read this dead-on reply from Dr. Richard Keatinge to a similar allegation from QuackGuru. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We should avoid WP:WEASEL wording, which your vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as") was, especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of a "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be (for example, by being given the trappings of science in fringe journals I suppose). Before that, it was drifting along as untested nonsense with no intersection with science (your "pre-scientific" maybe?). But if you have a problem with the source's view, that's not something to be resolved here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    True. How you come to the conclusion that your source is "straight-out assertive" is beyond me, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The source has: "The vacuum created by China's failure to adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine has been filled by pseudoscience". That's a straight-out assertion. Why are you so keen that Wikipedia doesn't relay this obvious information? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this as un-straight-out as it can be. The source doesn't even strictly say that TCM is pseudoscience (why?). I talks about some newly created pseudoscience in some vacuum which inexplicably was created recently. WP:FRINGE emphasizes that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources". This source you have here is cryptic and imprecise, and tries to shirk a clear assertion, just like the other source (the Nature editorial). Why is that? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't say it "is" pseudoscience - we follow the sources and say it mainly is. Or maybe that it's "full of pseudoscience". Or somesuch. It's so obvious the sources are probably just trying to find an elegantly varied form of expression. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a violation of assert. This was also another disruptive violation of assert by Mallexikon. QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Vibroacoustic therapy, again

    User:Cyrinus/sandbox
    A userspace copy of the article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy. No sooner did I put it up for MfD, the originating editor submitted it to Articles for Creation. How can I advise the heavily backlogged AfC reviewers that the only changes have been the insertion of additional fringe sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Some "mind-body intervention" articles

    I WP:PROD'd these four some days ago:

    1. Soul retrieval (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    2. Sandra Ingerman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    3. Kinetic Forgiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    4. The Slide Effect (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    The proposed deletion of the first two has been contested. Are these articles in fact salvageable? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Soul retrieval should be deleted (take it to Afd if necessary), only the fringe writer Robert Monroe is used on the article and this is unacceptable. It does not seem a notable topic. Kinetic Forgiveness and Slide Effect cannot find any reliable references for, they should also be deleted as well. There are some possible sources (magazine and newspaper articles) for Sandra Ingerman, but she doesn't appear that notable. Goblin Face (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I redirected it. There is, as you say, no evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikinews boxes

    From time to time I do a bit of work on our UFO articles. Many are in the same credulous state they were when written years ago by UFO enthusiasts, so it's not hard to find one that needs attention. Recently, after cleaning up material cited to fringe sources (and worse, fringe interpretations of material published by reliable sources) at Stephenville, TX UFO sightings I noticed a "Wikinews box" directing readers to a related news story, ‪MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas‬, that gives undue weight to a report by MUFON alleging government intimidation and conspiracies. Are these boxes an NPOV workaround, or what? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say yes, read the discussions of Wikinews at WP:RSN. I don't think we should have Wikinews boxes anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I was thinking of the discussion here, see above. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well coincidentally I see consensus at RSN is "wikinews is a user generated source and therefore not reliable per WP:RS and WP:V". Seems clear to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikinews itself is a workaround. I'd like to have the Wikinews template deleted, myself, but there are a few valid uses from back before it self-destructed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Cremo and Paleoanthropology

    An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#''Controversy'' section Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilhelm Reich

    Can someone have a look at this edit? Looks suspicious to me. - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, that article's meant to be a GA? It's promoting the hell out of orgone quackery, with nary a dissent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mazzaroth#Interpretations

    Can I get some more opinions here, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Drama of the Lost Disciples

    Fringe book, needs attention. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=607720026"