Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.38.255.229 (talk) at 12:44, 22 July 2016 (→‎Proposed deletion of Scientific dissent). 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:

    "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]

    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]

    ...and I reverted you. Don't just delete articles. List them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and let the community decide whether to delete or retain. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion of Scientific dissent

    The article Scientific dissent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    Poorly sourced personal essay in support of pseudoscience

    While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

    You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

    Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 73.38.255.229 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been proposed for a speedy deletion, but I don't see any of the criteria from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion listed. Please add a valid reason for speedy deletion on or list this article at WP:AFD. (I have no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or removed; my only concern is that it be decided by the community, not by 73.38.255.229 alone deciding to remove it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late. The proposed deletion was rejected.[1] The lesson here is to read and follow the instructions when proposing deletions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you learn your lesson about reading before posting? 73.38.255.229 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now self-reverted—PROD mistaken for CSD—we‘ll see if anyone else disagrees.—Odysseus1479 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The PROD has been removed (again). I have sent the article to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 19 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]
    I removed a section from this article, which described some plausible sounding but irrelivant science stuff. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kris Kristofferson

    Here's something different for you. In a HuffPo piece Kristofferson is reported to have chronic lyme disease[2]. 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.[3] 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]

    B. Alan Wallace

    B. Alan Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An editor has been edit-warring to add the (obviously unsourced) claim that "vacuum state of consciousness" is a "concept originating in Buddhism". A source designates "vacuum state of consciousness" as quantum woo pseudobabble. (Unless we are in a time-travel paradox, the phrase can't come from ancient India.)

    Undeterred by requests to read WP:NOR, the editor is also demanding that the perfectly acceptable secondary source be expunged and replaced by primary sources because the secondary source is "wrong". In any case I've made little headway on the talk page, so a third opinion would be appreciated. Manul ~ talk 20:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be refferred to WP:BUDDHA. I expect somebody there will be more likely to have relevant specialist knowledge. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Duesberg

    An IP just made a few edits that look like POV pushing to me, I'm at 2RR, could use a hand. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What specifically did you need help with? I scanned the talk page and didn't find anything. Note that I feel strongly about bad science; when scientists use misleading or fraudulent language, the lies are like a rat infestation -- there are far more present than you will ever see. Roches (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD Edward Group (2nd nom.), possibly G4, speedy

    Needs more advanced opinions. Obviously fails WP:BIO, and since the guy is a WP:FRINGE careerist, I thought you all should be aware. Delta13C (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a G4, the new text is quite different to the old text - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    GAR & notability discussions of interest to this board

    Since both include issues of "Military fancruft" I'm sharing these two discussions with this board.

    Additional eyes on these areas would be welcome! K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why an article about a German is "military fancruft." Fancruft is about things that have no bearing whatsoever on the real world. Even the least successful of the 3,000 or so pilots who flew for the RAF in the summer of 1940 was a real person whose life is a permanent part of human history. Thus, I think the best guideline for notability for World War II victims and combatants is the one used for place names. Every named place on Earth is considered notable. Similarly, every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz, and so on -- all those people probably are notable enough for inclusion on a list, if not an article. There are almost certainly independent secondary sources that discuss each of those people, even if they are not currently known to us.
    The only way this is a WP:FRINGE issue is if one advances a conspiracy theory that the sources are so unreliable that the individuals in the articles didn't exist. I looked over the list of deleted articles on Knight's Cross holders, and the first on the list (Peter Arent) was in fact a person who never did receive the award. But I found photos and primary-source Soldbuch references supporting that the next two (Kalss and Sengbas) did receive the Knight's Cross. It would be fringe, then, to claim that these photos are not Alois Kalss with a Knight's Cross. Roches (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably should not add spam to FT/N, especially as I do not think this thread belongs to this board, but...
    every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides), everyone who died at Pearl Harbor and at Auschwitz (...) probably [is] notable - huh, you will have to show a guideline for that. "They did something great" is not enough. The guideline I see is WP:LISTPEOPLE and it does not agree with you (even under the assumption that "everyone who died at Auschwitz" means "everyone who died fighting at Auschwitz", unless you are suggesting a list of 1+m people).
    According to this guideline, every entry in the list needs to be at least "notable for a single event", or that at least so many of them are that we can extend the list to make it complete. This means "notable individually", not that the list topic is notable. The Few is a notable topic; Archie McKellar is notable (or at least plausibly notable) because of his military prowesses; but not every one of The Few is individually notable.
    Moreover, your definition of "fancruft" is strange. Pop singers today do have bearing on the "real world" - $15b in 2014 - and some of them really are notable, but the most minute details of their lives do not belong to WP. Similarly, major military battles are notable, many of their commanders are notable solely because of that battle, but not all the soldiers who took part in them, and mention of the colors of the socks of the generals is usually not appropriate. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it belongs here either. And I know the guidelines, although I hate them, and want to emphasize that even WP:GNG is guideline and not a policy. WP:MEMORIAL says not to create articles for dead friends or relatives. I'm not suggesting a complete list of The Few (the less notable of whom would be on lists but not articles) just because they did something great. I'm suggesting that all of those people were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did. Also, I meant everyone who died at Auschwitz, not everyone who died fighting. There is no point in arguing why I think those people are notable.
    No one is adding mentions of colors of general's socks. We are talking about deleting articles for lack of notability. For musicians, successful ones are notable and unsuccessful ones are not. Roches (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm suggesting that all of those people [every pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain (on both sides)] were mentioned in secondary sources for what they did" appears to be fringe theory, and would suggested include indiscriminate amounts of information into Wikipedia.
    Regarding "military fancruft", editor Roches's suggestion to keep German High Command propaganda communiques in articles about German WWII military men borders on fancruft and is not based on policies or guidelines that I am aware of. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gujarat Ayurved University

    Gujarat Ayurved University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article requires cleanup. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Article requires more than that. I just deleted two sections that were nothing more than promotional content.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=731025981"