Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.99.95.250 (talk) at 13:56, 6 October 2017 (→‎Defensive gun use WP: Hoax page?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    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:



    Medicinal plants

    Resolved
     – Chiswick Chap has done an absolutely amazing job of fixing the article. The scope is now very clear and very clearly distinguished from herbalism. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this actually a topic (as distinct from herbalism?). The article does not define what a "medicinal plant" is meant to be, and much of it looks like OR to me. This article is a GA! (despite containing stuff like "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex"). Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just from the first paragraph of the lead it's not a GA. It suggests that all plants contain chemicals which affect the human body to the same extent as pharmaceutical drugs, while few plants do. While the point is correct (it doesn't matter if a substance is natural of chemical of origin), it's not phrased well. Also the historic section suddenly stops before the application of science to medical use of herbs, which suggest an anti-scientific bias. It also has a broad definition of medicines. Any psychoactive substance will do, including caffeine, which is only a medicine for premature babies' lungs and perhaps - way off label - people with a CSF leak; but i doubt the author even knew all that; in general caffeine isn't considered a medicine any more than water - a medicine for dehydration which can be derived from plants... You get the point. And even including nicotine, which is only a medicine for detoxing from nicotine afaik. Also, the use of rhubarb as a laxative isn't well sourced (not even in the rhubarb article, the reference isn't a scientific article nor does that website refer to one). My point is: it's not nearly a GA imho and in it's current state i indeed see a lot of overlap with herbalism. I also don't like the way the two articles synergise. Just look at the only place where herbalism links to medicinal plants. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the above appears doubtfully correct or definitely wrong. Every statement in the article is cited. The article certainly does not state, nor should it be taken to imply, that all plants are medicinal, nor that all are identical in effect to modern drugs. "Medicine" is a term with a wide scope, intentionally including both traditional and modern Western forms. Herbalism is the use of medicinal plants; medicinal plants are also used in ethnobotany; none of these terms are synonyms. This article is about the plants; the herbalism article is about their use, so it can be considered a subsidiary article, and some overlap is inevitable: there is a very brief summary of herbalism in the relevant part of the article. This is a normal main link + summary relationship and a necessary part of the structure of the encyclopedia. "Medicinal plant" is a term with a long history leading back to Ancient Greece. The article is equally definitely based on the established sciences of chemistry, history, botany, and pharmacology, so I have no idea why it should be at this forum (and I will not be discussing things here further). That said, if people have specific comments, they can be made on the article's talk page and we'll discuss, agree and carry out any work required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with PizzaMan's analysis. I'm not seeing any reason why "Medicinal plants" is a distinct topic from Herbalism (or phytotherapy). Should probably be gutted of OR and any usable remnant merged into Herbalism. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PizzaMan, without getting into the meta-point of whether we need separate medicinal plants and herbalism articles, your above comments are way off the mark. Medicinal-grade caffeine is very regularly both prescribed and sold OTC, particularly in combination with acetaminophen/paracetamol as a painkiller, while the use of rhubarb as a laxative is probably one of the most widely-documented traditional remedies in history (after tea it was probably 19th-century China's biggest export crop). ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "whether we need separate medicinal plants and herbalism articles" isn't a meta-point; it's the main point (that I was trying to raise anyway) - esp. since the present article is so woolly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a theoretically viable topic—there are medications like codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines but wouldn't fit into even the loosest definition of "herbalism". The existing article doesn't really go into this; the best thing to do would probably be to merge the existing medicinal plants with herbalism, and rebuild plant-based medicines from scratch. I do not propose to be the one to do this, as it would be a monster undertaking and a magnet for every crank on the planet trying to spam their particular snake-oil. ‑ Iridescent 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    codeine, guaifenesin and medicinal cocaine which are undoubtedly plant-based medicines <- yes, but the article is not about "plant-based medicines" (though we have material on phytotherapy and Plant sources of anti-cancer agents), it is about "medicinal plants" - it doesn't define what this means, though in herbology AIUI the whole plant must be consumed according to the rules of the magicke. As it says "the effects of taking a plant as medicine can be complex" Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What a strange idea, conflating medicinal plants and fringe theories. Have you never used aspirin, a product of the willow tree? What's fringe about that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used aspirin. I haven't eaten a Willow tree. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So attempts to remove the OR or even tag the problems are getting pushed back. Perhaps the next step is a WP:GAR? Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Iridescents point about caffeine: caffeine may increase the uptake of paracetamol and ergotamine, it may increase the analgetic effects, but i personally find the evidence behind this less solid than the examples i mentioned. I care little that it's a more common usage, especially since it's afaik never used purely as an analgesic. Perhaps the most substantial analgetic effect of caffeine in practice is that it treats caffeine abstinence, which is probably the real reason it's added. Which brings us to nicotine. Why did you cherry pick from my examples? As for the rhubarb: I'm not saying it's not a laxative, I'm just saying the reference lack any trace of science, either physiological or historical. It's exactly the lack of awareness of such issues that plagues the article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't we had this conversation before? Possibly with half the same people involved, and with nobody ever admitting that his opinion was changed by the discussion(s) to date?
    Pessimism aside, I think we're approaching this question from the wrong direction. The process is (and should always be): First, identify what the page is supposed to be about. Second, decide what to call it. So if we start off with "Is Title X actually distinct from Title Y?", then we'll get bad results, such as merging Low-carb diet into Ketogenic diet. Instead, we need to start off by identifying the (ideal) scope of the existing two pages. If they match, then we merge. If they don't, then we don't (but maybe add a hatnote to reduce confusion).
    I think that there are a couple of rational possibilities that result in separate articles:
    But step #1 is still step #1. Ignore the existing article title, ignore all the labels (on and off wiki), and figure out what the intended scope of the article is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and things seemed kind of sensible when Medicinal plants was a disambiguation page. It seems back in 2014 a load of awkward content from Herbalism was dumped here instead, and the topics have never had the kind of clarity of division you advocate. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to have to come back here as I'm not a fringe person in any way. However, in the world outside (both Western medicine and other traditions), "medicinal plants" is a major topic in its own right. Several journals from major publishers (Elsevier, etc) are dedicated to it, and there is a voluminous literature of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks on the subject. From the viewpoint of Western medicine, it is seen as a source of useful pharmaceuticals explored by ethnobotany and phytochemistry. From the viewpoint of food companies, it's a source of "nutraceuticals". From the viewpoint of other traditions such as traditional Chinese medicine, herbalism, and the medicine of the classical era such as Ancient Greek medicine, it provides all the plant-based medicines which they use, often combined with other substances and practices, which are not at all based on Western ideas of chemistry or pharmacology. Since it is recognised as a major topic in the world, and seen in quite different ways by different traditions and types of organisation, it seems plain that it is a distinct topic in its own right. The article is quite unpartisan in its account of differing traditions, but describes each of them historically. I hope this is helpful to other editors. Feel free to ask me if you need my view on anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chiswick Chap makes a valid point for separate articles. However, in the current article on medicinal plants, the history section cuts off before any science gets involved in any way and the relationship between herbalism and medicinal plants isn't clearly defined in either article. The article is also mostly vague on how medicinal plants are processed/applied/ingested. I still think it's far off from being a good article, but the best solution may be to improve it rather than to merge. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for these useful suggestions, I'll work on both of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have I believe addressed all these concerns. The context section has been rewritten with fresh sources; the history has been extended; the connection with herbalism (these are plants, herbalism uses them in such and such ways, modern medicine and nutraceuticals in other ways, all cited) has been spelt out; the nature of a medicinal plant has been spelt out; the chemical basis is introduced from fresh sources to spell out its role in the article; one or two words that could have been misinterpreted as advocacy have been entirely removed; the whole article has been checked for neutrality. There is no fringe material in the article, which is fully cited from reliable sources, so I would respectfully suggest that this discussion be closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You've done an amazing job, thank you very much. What an improvement. I've removed the fringe and OR tags from the article. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Further issues (with other articles)

    Looking more widely at the topic area, I see we also have:

    which also has problems (e.g. "Samoa has had a great influence on western medicine when it comes to finding a cure for HIV/AIDS"). Alexbrn (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA in 2010, barely changed since. Now that's what a truly rough article can look like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Finding new chemical drugs from plants is getting increasingly unlikely, as are the chances that a chemical drug couldn't be synthesized. Modern, so called biological drugs are lab-made to target specific receptors. That's the kind of new drugs which I've seen put to use in actual medical practice in the past 15 years. So I'm not even sure this issue deserves it's own article any more than "preservation of VW Beatle cars". And that's not even going into the structure and sourcing. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Meg Patterson

    Fringe theories in play since this person was an electo-acupuncturist and a credulous obituary is being used to air her notions. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident

    Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm wondering if we have a resident UFO debunker who might want to check the sourcing for this. I was watching "UFOs: The Lost Evidence" on AHC earlier and there was a brief discussion of Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident which in typical fashion of UFO programs featured snippets of all sorts of credentialed peopled (e.g. people who worked for the FAA and former military personnel with secret clearances, etc.) confirming that there was a UFO. If this skeptical website is to be believed, the pilot had a history of reporting UFOs and told things to the press that he didn't tell the FAA or are not confirmed by the flight recordings, and the two other members of the flight crew did not see anything remarkable. The article reiterates the claims and allegations of various players as fact (e.g. meeting in which individuals were instructed not to talk to anyone, etc.).-Location (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this blog post which has some useful links to skeptical analysis (beyond its own). It occurs to me, reading these, that really almost all UFO incident articles could be deleted as being based on the one hand on credulous and unreliable sources, but more so on a lot of primary sourcing, directed by the credulous behind the scenes. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe: It looks like we cited the same link. Regarding the deletion of all UFO incident articles, I was thinking the same thing while posting this inquiry. I've never really paid much attention to the UFO articles, but I cannot image that many of them have reliable sourcing. -Location (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a skeptic who thinks UFOs are the most ridiculous of widely held (that qualifier is important) conspiracy theories, I would oppose any such move. Mostly because, as a cultural phenomenon, UFO sightings are widespread and oft-discussed, with an overwhelming amount of coverage in reliable sources, well-defined tropes and a history of being mined by creators of fiction precisely because it's a subject that commands so much interest.
    So while I think they're all bullshit (ain't no aliens gonna spend quadrillions of dollar's worth of alien currency to come to some backwater planet with a barely-sentient species just taking their first tentative steps into space and stick probes up the ass of some redneck named Cletus), they're the precise sort of bullshit that demands encyclopedic coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia covers it up,
    therefore aliens.

    @MjolnirPants: I don't think any move to mass delete all similarly categorized article would succeed, but many of these articles appear to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and are instead built upon a combination of primary sources and fringe sources. If we trimmed these articles to reliable sources, there may not be much left of them! We all need to pick and choose our battles and this is one category of fringe that I don't plan to soak much time in fixing. -Location (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion that many of these articles are shot through with OR and bad sourcing is something I could absolutely get behind. And the suggestion that many of the articles we have would be worth deleting is, as well. I think we're on the same page here, the problem is that I have a lot of other things on my plate. However, if you want to do the work of tracking down UFO articles that need work or deleting, feel free to mention them at my talk page and I'll hop on over to them and help out as best I can whenever I get the chance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is huge WP:UNDUE weight given to details from FAA reports, obviously cherry picked to support the UFOlogy POV. If you pull out all the material cited to credulous sources such as Timothy Good, Bruce Maccabee, MUFON, disclosureproject, ufocasebook, ufoevidence, and The History Channel's UFO Files, you will find only a couple of news items from independent sources that may or may not justify a stand alone article. Not an easy fix. A good case for WP:BLOWITUP and start over from scratch. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleared some time in my schedule. I'll be looking into some of these articles now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The conclusion by the FAA after its investigation may help with this one: [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Ellis socking for over 8 years

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle. I'd forgotten this. See also the 2010] ANI discussion. I'm wondering if a community ban is worthwhile or if it would just be unnecessary drama. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    With this sort of problem, and given the arguments I've seen this individual using at talk, I'd support a community ban. I suspect quite a few others would, as well, just based on the socking. I'd open up an AN discussion, were I you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: Looking at the old socks and their edits, I was obviously the bane of his Wikipedia existence, and it might be too much of a fulfillment of his complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and my being his nemesis. I might I guess but I don't know when I'll have the energy or time to start one. I'll think about it. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're forgetting the fact that you have the ability to block him and all of his socks any time you want. But instead, you've chosen to be as patient with him as a saint. I think that, at this point, were he to see a community discussion about banning him started by you as confirmation of his view that WP exists to shill for "dogmatic" science and suppress "real" scientists like himself, that would only really be confirmation that nothing we can do other than bow to his whims would appease him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It doesn't look like we will have to worry about that now, though. @Doug Weller: Is there anyone's shitlist that you are not on?! -Location (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not on my hit list. Oh wait, you mean shit list? Yeah, he's on that. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Velvet antler (TCM ingredient)

    As an ingredient for use in traditional Chinese medicine, the article has had fring- and coi-related disputes for over five years. While the article could use help in other areas as well, the current dispute is over including the best MEDRS source we've been able to find, a 2012 systematic review, and if it is included, with what content: Talk:Velvet_antler#Uses. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations

    See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_25 § Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind_relations

    Now up for discussion. Maybe there needs to be a category to roll up the contents, but I think this name is, how shall I put it, problematic. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete category, on the basis that it has to be empty, yes? -Roxy the dog. bark 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to !vote here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two pages and three subcategories. Not exactly empty.--Auric talk 21:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    About half of my sex life belongs in that cat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MjolnirPants, we now know far too much about your pants. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 You'd change your mind if you knew about the other half... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still interested in the half about extra-testicular relations. -Location (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to kiss and tell, so let's just say that it was out of this world. A stellar experience. I could go all day... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mangoe: which other name do you suggest? Apokrif (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't reply for Mangoe, but I for one would -at a minimum- add the word "alleged" to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, but do we usually do it for category and/or article names? Apokrif (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, I was against adding the word alleged to an article name the last time it came up, but this is a different case. That was politics, this is conspiracy theory stuff. I'd go for it, and I imagine most word, but I can't say for certain that consensus would favor it. What I can say for certain about site consensus is that it won't be to just leave this credulous category alone. Something should be done about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Proposed extraterrestrial-human relations - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is an attempt at, rather than a proposal, of relations. Also, are fictional relations proposed relations? Apokrif (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: "this is conspiracy theory stuff" No. Apokrif (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Until someone comes up with some evidence for these claims: abso-fuckin'-super-duper-lutely yes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unproven" of "false" is not synonymous with "conspiracy theory". Apokrif (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Aliens visit earth and forge relationships with humans that are unknown to the general public" is a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is about Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations, not Category:Aliens visit earth and forge relationships with humans that are unknown to the general public (the latter could be a subcategory of the former). Apokrif (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except I can see what pages are in this category. If you're trying to convince me that you are a true believer, trying to "defend" "the truth" on wikipedia, you are well on the right path. If, however, you are trying to convince me that there are no policy problems with this category, you are failing completely so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get your point. Do you see any policy problem? Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A sub-category of a non-existent category? We haven't yet found any confirmed extraterrestrials yet. This is "Categories" gone mad. David J Johnson (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we labouring under the misapprehension that the Categories Police do things logically? Not at all, in my experience. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a subcat of "conspiracy theories" for sure. Apparently this stuff is widespread.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest: "category:conspiracy theories about Extraterrestrials"... or something like that. The stuff is notable, and the article's need a category... but let's be honest about what it is. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A category with "conspiracy theories" in its name could be used only for articles about conspiracy theories, but not for Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and perhaps not for Category:UFO religions. So a more general category is needed. Apokrif (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would it be possible to ask the idiot who created this Cat in the first place what they were thinking? -Roxy the dog. bark 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately not, because there is no such idiot (btw, WP:NPA could be of interest to you). Apokrif (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Was it you? If it was, what were you thinking?-Roxy the dog. bark 15:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Was it you?" Help:Page history
              • "what were you thinking?" That this category should be used to categorize articles pertaining to extraterrestrials-humankind relations.
              • Apokrif (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What relations did you think we were having? Did you check the spelling of Extraterrestrial? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "What relations did you think we were having?" Wikipedia relations.
    "Did you check the spelling of Extraterrestrial?" That's none of your business.
    Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Phrenology articles

    I stumbled on Cautiousness because Cautious redirects there, and am at a loss for words. There are other, similar phrenology articles such as Secretiveness (phrenology). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All these at Phrenology#Specific_phrenological_modules should probably not exist as articles... —PaleoNeonate – 05:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did anybody else attempt a search for a "Retro Phrenology" article? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go and stand in the corner over there, shall I? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to delete the remaining nonsense, but another one keeps removing my deletion proposals. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as though copyvio is going to take out the lot. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe Theory of the Month: Alex Jones Is Actually Bill Hicks

    --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonus from Alex Jones himself: NASA Denies That It’s Running a Child Slave Colony on Mars. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course NASA would deny it, because it's not true. The child slave colony is on the moon. Mars is where the alien base is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. Yet another person claiming to be a former CIA officer... Robert David Steele. -01:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

    Ksharsutra

    An Ayurvedic treatment that is apparently a complete cure, where allopathic treatments fail. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've boldly redirected it to Ayurveda. It didn't have anything worth saving. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. @Alexbrn: what do you think of the mention in Anal fistula? (Both were created by the DrSingh (talk · contribs)). --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly worthless. Excised. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is your mobile number harming you

    An interesting new BLP. —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would love to get some input from editors familiar with the quality (or lack of quality) of the cited sources. I question notability. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now at AfD (discussion). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Meg Patterson and Neuro-electric therapy

    So this survived an AfD I launched, and what we're left with is a bit of a coat rack for her "Neuro-electric therapy" (NET) - which is a claimed way of curing addiction by administering electric shocks of different frequencies (different substances require different frequencies). Could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And hopefully some references for how NET has been subject to scientific peer-review. Diego (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was, and was found (unsurprisingly) to be ineffective. Patterson protested the magickes were being administered incorrectly (also unsurprisingly). Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WT:V - Asserting that something is pseudoscience can get exceptions to Verifiability?

    More perspectives would help. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Quality, hand-crafted wikilink to the discussion in question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh... Artisinal wikilinks... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. dollar as commodity currency?

    I am concerned that the current version of United States dollar describes it, without qualification, as a commodity currency. This seems to me like a very questionable statement occupying a prominent spot in a fairly important article. Virtually everything I've ever read agrees that it's fiat money. As far as I can determine, this is the opinion of one editor, 186.71.169.87 (talk). This editor has been extremely active on the article and on its talk page, posting large walls of text in support of their position.

    User Icewhiz has shown more patience than I would have in engaging the IP in discussion. Icewhiz has also quite properly opened up an RfC. There haven't been as many talk-page comments as I would have expected, though.

    In my opinion, the IP's contributions qualify as both tendentious and fringe-y. Would anyone else like to comment? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already removed it. To be honest, I didn't even look at the talk page. The statement was incorrect on its surface, confusing commodity currency and commodity money; I also didn't see it as sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lede paragraphs that the U.S. dollar had a 1792 value of such-and-so-many grains of silver. I'm not surprised that there is a wall-o-text silver-standard crank behind the addition, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving credit where due - BirdValiant and Khajidha (and others)were involved in the article, and discussion. BirdValiant opened the RFC - I came along after the RFC was opened (but engaged in more than just a comment). Given the "arcane law history" this is not as open and shut as you might think on the surface - however it is fair to say that in real modern day life (defacto) it is clear this is fiat money and has been for several decades.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First I would like to thank NewEnglandYankee for designating me as a promoter of "fringe theories". I never new simply restating what Congress has designated would ever be considered a "theory" let alone "fringe". Might I enquire what exactly is considered fringe about providing the legal definition of a US dollar in the Wikipedia entry for a "US dollar"? Is it considered bad encyclopedic form to make a small attempt at defining the very thing the article is about before moving on to the colloquialisms? The "arcane law history" is unfortunately still the "law" much like the first amendment, second amendment, third amendment... you get the picture. 186.71.169.87 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, shucks, it was nothing. You did all the hard work. The IP-hopping, the walls of text, the refusal to accept consensus . . . I just thought it should be recognized, that's all. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a heads-up; I requested temporary semi-protection for the article. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious...protection from what? 186.71.169.87 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From random editors changing fiat currency (a factual statement) to commodity currency (a counterfactual statement), one would presume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for a week. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Theistic science

    I must leave so cannot pursue this immediately, more eyes welcome. The issue is if it is appropriate to keep the pseudoscience label. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe-related AfD

    Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly, about a German former museum curator who became a creationist, and leave your opinions there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS

    This needs input from a FT POV. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Creighton pushing his book and editing Richard William Howard Vyse using IP addresses

    It looks to me as though the article is being edited by Scott Creighton[3][4] using 4 IP addresses that geolocate in Glasgow where he lives. See the comments by these IPs on the article's talk page. There's a 5th IP, 72* who is in Virginia and I don't think that's Creighton. See Talk:Richard William Howard Vyse#The Great Pyramid Hoax where he is promoting his new book and acting as though he is different people. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the new book self-published or on-demand? The 'pyramid hoax' is notable fringe (purely for the amount of time that has been spent debunking it) but I cant see Creighton has gained any third party comment that would make his opinion on it relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inner Traditions – Bear & Company, a fringe publisher. I've been trying to explain that the book needs reliable sources discussing it, but getting no where as I'm arguing against Creighton himself and another IP who is a fan but also new and doesn't know how we work. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it passes the first hurdle (actually being published by a publisher - albeit one specializing in fringe/pseudoscience). I would want to see some independent coverage of the book by before I would think about including it as commentary (from the fringe POV) of what the fringe are actually thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI editing is also a problem, maybe I should go to COIN or ask for more protection. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shag Harbour UFO incident

    Shag Harbour UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Someone has added a section called Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon. Only ufologists believe something actually "crashed" in Shag Harbor (such as this non-notable ufo book, however, its POV of primary sources (various unrelated reports of people who say they saw lights in the sky) is being pushed at the article [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You would be wrong LuckyLouis, the People of Shag Harbour figured it was airplane that crashed into the channel. It was the "Ottawa Air Desk" RCAF that labeled it a UFO event. Plus three RCMP officers watch the craft sink into the channel and filed reports. The "Pre Crash Aerial Phenomenon" outlines the events leading up to the Shag Harbour Incident, with reference to books, newspaper articles, and RCMP reports from witnesses. UFOlogists were not a thing in Nova Scotia in 1967 when the event took place and only the government believed it was a UFO, that is why the incident is know as the "world's only government documented UFO crash" Snowy Badger (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just insert 'incident' instead of 'crash'. Same meaning in context and satisfies the ambiguity over if anything did/did not actually crash. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pre crash aerial phenomenon" sounds like you're trying to make something simple sound 'scientific'. A header that says "Reports" is much less misleading. - LuckyLouie (talk)

    Ayurveda

    There is a statement in the lead and more in the article about it being 5000 years old. It's possible the Springer source is an RS, I haven't checked it, but the others don't seem sufficient for such claims. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see two millenia but not 5000 years in the lead. Not going to plough through the rest though. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have details on (ancient) Egyptian medical practices going back that far. The lead mentions the Indus Valley Civilisation - so I don't see it as completely unfeasible. Someone would need to look at the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: sorry, it says some people see its origins as prehistoric. The body of the article syptstes as fact that “The origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to around 5,000 BCE,”. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My Favorite Pseudoscience

    I found the following to be well worth reading:

    https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-favorite-pseudoscience

    Key quote:

    "Those of us concerned about pseudoscience and its attractiveness to the public would be well advised to consider the emotional needs that are met by beliefs in ESP, alien abduction, astrology, psychic powers, and the like, and address them as well as criticizing the poor science invoked by supporters to support the pseudoscience. We skeptics sometimes feel that the people we are trying to reach are impenetrable — and some of them are! The public is divided into 3 parts: confirmed believers, confirmed skeptics, and a much larger middle group that does not know much science, but does not have the emotional commitments that might lead it to embrace a pseudoscientific view... I have found that I am most effective with that large middle group, and hardly ever effective with the true believers; I suspect most skeptics have had similar experiences. But after all, reaching that large middle group is also the goal of the proponents of pseudoscience. If, like most skeptics, you feel that we would all be better off with more science and less pseudoscience, then that is where we should be focusing our energies, rather than fruitlessly arguing with people who will never agree with us. But to reach that group that is potentially reachable, we must also be aware that a scientific explanation is necessary but not sufficient to change someone’s mind; if I have learned anything from over 25 years in the skeptic business, it is that it is necessary to deal with the emotional reasons that make our species susceptible to these beliefs, as well as the scientific."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Defensive gun use WP: Hoax page?

    Please someone fix Defensive gun use, or delete the page altogether. This is a hoax page run by fringe gun nuts claiming that there are 4 million defensive gun uses per year, despite actual statistics showing there are only 230 jusifitiable homicides with a firearm in the US annually. Editors at this page will not listen to reason or logic that it is impossible for there to be 4 million defensive gun uses per year, since that figure cannot logically exceed the number of total violent crimes prevented. HOAX ALERT!!!!!Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence also indicates that the current figure of 4.7 million was simply made up in the comments section, after the editors were called out on inventing a prior "33 million" figure. This page is so bad and worthless it should simply be deleted, and nothing would be lost. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that DGU does not mean just shooting people to death.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. But can the figures exceed 100 percent of the 1.2 million violent crimes attempted per year? No. Reasonable sources agree that 200 is a reasonable lower bound of verifiable justifiable defensive gun uses. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We go with what RS say, now one explanation maybe that if a crime is prevented it is also not prosecuted (and thus is not record as a crime). We need RS to discus this discrepancy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That talk page is disturbing. A user complained about the 33 million figure, and the locals circled the wagons to try to talk them out of it. Then after the fact, one of them finally admits that the figure was unsourced! That article needs outside attention, I don't trust the current group of editors to handle it competently. Geogene (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) The second reference to the sentence with the 4 million claim does include a summary of a George Will column that stated there were 2 million a year, and the reference is specifically addressing DGUs, by name, in a scholarly format, published by a respectable source - it is a WP:RS (the cited reference, not necessarily the Will column). We don't use logic in evaluating reliable sources, and a claim doesn't need to be reasonable to be included, it just has to be noteworthy (not WP:UNDUE). While 4 million may have been made up, it is not off the mark by much. Whether this topic is notable enough is something that can be debated, as can specific content, but it certainly isn't a hoax, and you do yourself no favors using loaded language like this. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Pro-gun advocates – from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Ri e Association – frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States.8 According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:Much discussion about the protective bene ts of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative bene ts often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected o cial.

    In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million gure from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self-defense claims for rearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassi cation that is well known to medical epidemiologists.” http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

    It is well known that figures in the millions are a hoax. It is not possible for there to be millions of legitimate defensive gun uses per year in the US when the FBI claims only 1.2 million crimes attempted annually, 63 percent of which are simple assault. It is not unreasonable to demand that our claims be logically possible. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you can include thus criticism in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not logically possible" is a bit of a stretch for something that I have seen twice in my lifetime. Twice I have seen a criminal intent on an assault or robbery decide to spend his time elsewhere when the victim pulled out a gun. Neither was ever reported as a crime and thus would not be included in any FBI statistics. (One of the non-victims was an off-duty Sheriff, so maybe that one shouldn't count). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on content, not contributors, friend. Logic Freebaser (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not your friend, buddy. GMGtalk 14:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been protected, the socks blocked (without a checkuser that I can see), and at least a few more editors are more aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's funny that this comes up today when I was just researching this topic today. How often are guns used in self-defense? 1.2 million a year is at the high end and almost certainly an overestimate. But that number is certainly not a hoax. It comes from a study conducted by a Florida State University criminologist. The real answer is that we don't really know because a lot of DGUs go unreported. Here's a good article on the topic.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't really know the exact amount it is true. However anyone with a cluepon knows it is nowhere near the number the NRA like to trot out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall the article discuses the data both low and high end.11:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it just isn’t true that the “article discuses the data both low and high end.” A few posts up, this link was posted http://theweek.com/articles/585837/truth-about-guns-selfdefense] by [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge], stating as follows: “Another study by the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, based on FBI and Justice Department data, found that of nearly 52,000 recorded shootings in 2014, there were fewer than 1,600 verified cases where firearms were used for self-defense.” Thus, low end estimates actially suggest there are approximately 1500 defensive gun uses annually annually.” (The original data is here: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls.) Moreover, there is no citation for the alleged 4.7 million figure. While there are some citations for 2.5 million, these figures are several decades old, disproven, and we should not include these estimates in the article without a disclaimer that these estimates are debunked are are mentioned out of historical interest only (i.e as we might mention “People used to believe whales were fish” without endorsing the claim that whales are fish, since we now know this claim to be false. Science marches onwards.)overall, the range appearing in reliable sources estimates between 1500-100,000 defensive gun uses per year (see more recent work here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf). Does anyone have a recent source backing the figures in the millions? If not, these figures should be moved to a “History” section, as they are out-of-date. Employing hopelessly old data to support a pet hypothesis rather than the most recent reliable sources is not jsut unscientific, its unencylopedic as well, and the tolerance for such misconduct from our editors is why fringe theories thrive around here. Articles need to be periodically reviewed, and old references purged, and this article is Exhibit A. 75.99.95.250 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=804063196"