Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here. The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained. Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here. To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page. Sections older than 12 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact. Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Animal Therapy

• Animal-assisted therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Equine therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Equine-assisted psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hippotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapy cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapy dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Therapeutic horseback riding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looked like a WP:WALLEDGARDEN in which some very sweeping health claims are made (including benefits to autism and multiple sclerosis). Check out for example Therapeutic horseback riding#Benefits. Generally sourcing is eye-wateringly poor with heavy use made of primary sources, fringe-y journals and commercial sites. After any trimming, there may be scope for merging content. More eyes on these articles (or in finding more of the walled garden) welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC); amended 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the equine/hippotherapy articles. It looks like hippotherapy and equine-assisted psychotherapy have a decent layout, but are mostly similar articles. I'd move them over to equine therapy as I'm not really seeing much worth keeping that's currently in the equine therapy article, and equine therapy seems to be the most non-jargony title. No idea if I'll get around to doing that myself today if someone else doesn't, but just my two cents at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be inclined to have an article called Equine-related therapy (taking a cue from PMID 24953870) which included all the horse stuff. I've taken a hatchet to some of these today; before they were pretty promotional for what appears to be ineffective, expensive woo. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And now the push-back.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there are WP:OWN issues going on here. jps (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that removing sourced material without discussion of the sources and replacing everything with an single reference to a mere metanalysis of 14 studies that was critical, and announcing that as a conclusion that these therapies do not work is pretty much just POV-pushing in the opposite direction. I would suggest a collaborative approach that locates the best materials on each side of the issue and work to improve these articles. I am not up on the cat and dog therapies, but I know that in the realm of equine therapy, in my view, one program (PATH) is vastly superior to the other (EAGALA). Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL is a real danger here. I see that basically all the non-critical claims are sourced to very dubious items or not sourced at all. This is not the way we should be writing Wikipedia articles, IMHO. jps (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be OK with a single Equine therapy article and I agree that there is room for improvement. We can work on this; my concern is replacing one set of POV with another. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

a mere metanalysis of 14 studies ← you mean about the highest quality type of source available to us, MEDLINE-indexed systematic review. To say we need to locate material "on each side" is utterly to misunderstand the fundamentals of neutrality here. We shall faithfully reflect the accepted knowledge on this topic as reflected in the best sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How is this working on this? It's just straight up ownership, isn't it? jps (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's aggressive reversion with the effect of fringe-pushing while singing a song about "collaboration". Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And now this! Perhaps a trip to a drama board is in order? jps (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I'm leaving town shortly with minimal online access for a couple days, and I have no interest in your ongoing drama, so you'll have a couple days to see if you can find your own balance. I only suggest that you take a look at the links I put in at your respective user page and the articles. You are not winning anyone over by calling a respected therapeutic model "bogus" and cherry-picking only the negative sources. There's certainly some stuff that is bogus (I personally have issues with the EAGALA model) but there is also a reasonable amount of decent research, particularly by PATH which has been doing the therapeutic riding stuff for decades and has moved cautiously into the mental health realm. So hold yourself to your own standards and take a fair look at what is there. Surprise me... Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The links to some Google Scholar searches? I'm not sure what you expect we will find there (or why you assumed we haven't done that already). I am becoming more convinced that you haven't done the requisite research yourself to see what the reliable sources actually say. Please note that many sources which show up in Google Scholar are not what we would consider to be reliable according to Wikipedia standards. You still seem not to be able to grok WP:GEVAL, and your weak surrender in the direction of an upcoming trip (happy travels, incidentally) still strikes me -- as someone who is objecting to your drive-by reverts -- as indicative of ownership issues. jps (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, try this: (Lentini ) literature review of 47 recent sources, explains what they all are, reviews conclusions and so on. Even the critical Anestis review of 14 studies (used by Alexbrn) concluded that the subject is worth further research; their concern was the problems with study design and though they stated, "Indeed, we believe that research concerning ERT and other experimental treatment modalities should continue,"and they even concluded that there was no evidence that it was harmful...("iatrogenic"). Anestis also exaggerated the costs involved, from what I can tell (without full text access to all the articles cited). The Lentini article took a wider look. Both the favorable and the unfavorable literature reviews agree that the existing studies have problems with their design and therefore the conclusions drawn are preliminary at best. But both also agree that this is a legitimate area for research and further study; basically, Lentini sees more favorable evidence than did Anestis. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And do stop the "you don't understand" tone; I get it, and I know how many actual hours it takes to do actual research and read all this stuff -- more than any of us have, short of a research grant. I am simply asking you to actually look before you leap in with an unexamined anti-animal therapy POV that is as biased as that of the over-enthusiastic promoters. Saying things such as "no good evidence exists" is an exaggeration and overstatement. Also, confusing the physical health studies with the mental health studies is a problem too; there is a lot more literature out there on the physical health stuff. Let's try to set aside agendas and look at what we actually can cite to MEDRS sources and what had only preliminary study. I see no problem with describing the evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't say "more research is needed" (or the myriad variations on that theme) because it's a truism and also subtly misleading in lay language (the lay reader can take it to mean "they think it's promising" whereas it's more a term of art usually with more of a meaning of: keep funding my field!). This is why MOS:MED recommends against it. The Lentini source seems poor - by the looks of it not in PUBMED/MEDLINE and in a journal with an impact factor of ZERO. If you have personal objections to the Anestis article it shall have no effect on our use of it, as such personal objections are specifically discounted by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

At least one of these items was discussed here quite recently [2]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lentini article is in a peer-reviewed journal under the auspices of the American Counseling Association. I found it cited in PUBMED here. According to this and NLM lists it here it was formerly known as the Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice, (there appears to have been a gap in publication) and that journal was listed on PUBMED [3]. I accept the conclusions of Anestis as far as they go, but they only went through 14 articles and their focus was on study design problems. I do not disagree that they found study design problems. But there was a 2013 study (Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013)) that drew a more positive conclusion as well as the Lentini literature review. In short, reasonable minds differ. You need to accept that this is a situation in flux and as such we simply need to describe the flux. Montanabw^(talk) 07:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the Lentini paper has a PMID, which is what I meant by being "in" PUBMED - correct me if I'm wrong. Generally, we don't use medical articles that aren't MEDLINE indexed and the zero impact factor is probably the final nail in that source's coffin. What every editor here "needs to accept" is that it's our task merely to convey accurately what knowledge is contained in the best sources. I am glad at least we have moved on from trying to use primary sources and commercial web sites as sources for claims about therapeutic value, although the insurance company document you have edit-warred[4] in to make claims about the effectiveness of hippotherapy remains a serious concern. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one who inserted it, I merely re-added it when you edit-warred by removing it. It would be better if someone would pull the peer-reviewed source from that article and cite to it. (Which you could do if you wanted to) But more to the point: Each of these articles contains a large number of sources that ARE peer-reviewed and legitimate material. Nothing stops you from looking at them (other than time and a need to have an open mind) I am concerned with your lack of good faith to consider that a relatively new field is going to mostly have preliminary studies; furthermore, the hippotherapy article isn't really about mental health stuff anyway, it's more about speech and occupational therapies; the mental health stuff should all be moved to Equine-assisted psychotherapy. Montanabw^(talk) 09:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lentini article came out in October, not sure how long it takes to get indexed, the doi=10.1080/15401383.2015.1023916 if that helps. But more to the point, it's a review of the peer-reviewed (and also the "gray") literature, so it's value is also in the many sources cited, I think they found pretty much everything that's come out in the last 5-6 years. And you also aren't looking at this, though Anestis was critical, it needs to be examined on its own merits. Montanabw^(talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Lentini article is poor quality and not really usable. If PMID 22888815 has been referenced by Anestis then it's probably outdated, but may be worth further investigation: MEDRS directs us to use up-to-date sources. Discussing the merits of secondary sources is precisely the kind of conversation we should be having, and I'm happy for that. I'm not happy about using insurance company sites for sweeping health claims: since you restored it, despite knowing it was not WP:MEDRS, the responsibility falls to you for that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, repeatedly, one of the uses of these articles is that they contain citations to the peer-reviewed literature. Lentini is a comprehensive literature review that backs the conclusions of Selby and Smith-Osborne that equine therapies are promising and worth further study; Anestis was more critical, but I think even MEDRS supports a section on the state of research on the topic and the conclusions drawn. I didn't add the Aetna article as a source, but I did restore it when someone else added it and you deleted it - eventually, the precise study cited therein is what the source needs to be, but I rather wish you would do some of the actual heavy lifting here, as opposed to finding one meta-analysis and posting the identical paragraph about its conclusions in three or more articles and then edit-warring to keep in everything including the typos. Given that you are the one who is insisting on the MEDRS sources and declaring yourself the sole abiter of what passes muster, it's really not worth adding meticulous sources if you are just going to delete everything anyone else adds only to restore your own POV. There are eight or so good peer-reviewed articles discussed in the Aetna piece, which is why I posted it; to save a bit of time and work (they do a good job of summarizing each article). Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There are outright falsehoods here: I have add several good sources (the first these articles have seen, so far as I can tell) not just Anestis, but also e.g. PMID 23892336, PMID 23124442 and the Souter source as well as initiating discussion of other good sources. You have been reverting to primary sources, commercial websites advertising these treatments, and insurance company documents. And now you are arguing for obviously weak sources (impact factor=zero; not MEDLINE-indexed). Our articles may be slowly getting better, but you have proved yourself an impediment to this progress in almost every conceivable way. Still, I think we're getting there despite your multi-pronged efforts to stand in the way. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, your personal attacks and biases are really interfering with a collaborative effort; behaving like an arrogant bully just shuts down any actual work getting done. It appears clear that you have an agenda to debunk this topic and attacking those who disagree with you only shows your own POV-pushing mindset. To actually READ these studies takes hours, to look at the content and design would need a grant; all of us here are volunteers, but in any case, one can't just skim abstacts, which is why the Aetna piece is useful; like wiki, it's a source that leads us to sources -- they did what we do on-wiki; review the literature and summarize it. Ditto Lentini; it's a very extensive literature review that explains what the various studies are, and using these can save us hours of independently going through page after page of search results in Wiley or wherever. In peer-review land, I have just gone over Selby/Smith-Osborne 2013 (Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 32, No. 4, 418–432 0278-6133/13/ DOI: 10.1037/a0029188) and though the Anestis study was critical of their work, the reality is that we have two perfectly decent analyses of what's out there, done a year apart, and producing a simple difference of opinion amongst experts; some think the use of horses as a complementary and adjunct intervention in various therapy is promising and existing studies are encouraging, while others think that the poor design of studies to date means "pull the plug and stop now" -- even while acknowledging that there appears to be no harmful effects. The additional benefit of the Lentini work is that one adds a look at the studies done since Anestis wrote and has a more comprehensive summary of what's out there (and, I must note, having actually read it, it pinpoints problems with a lot of the studies; it is not hagiographic by any means). Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in reading primary studies as we are in no position to use them (and doing so would constitute WP:OR). Also we don't use poor sources, like Lentini, to source content on Wikipedia, especially when strong sources are readily available. As to your talk of a "POV-pushing mindset", I suggest need to consider the page history and then take a long hard look in the mirror. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex, as I said, reasonable minds can differ and your personal attacks are not helping produce a collaborative environment. Here, we have a 2013 analysis and a 2014 analysis; I honestly question if you've read more than the abstract of either of them (I have now read both, though I want to do a re-read and more thorough digestion) and they both pass MEDRS and they have some disagreement between them. Lentini is not quite as strong, but it is not "poor" -- it is self-decribed as a literature review and in turn points out some reasonable issues with Anestis plus looks at the most recent work (Primary source are not forbidden on WP, we merely have to use them sparingly and without SYNTH). We both agree there aren't enough peer-reviewed, meticulously-designed studies out there. That said, broad SYNTH statements are not the way we write Wikipedia, we review the sources, particularly the secondary sources, we go where they go, but not beyond that. Montanabw^(talk) 08:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I honestly question if you've read more than the abstract of either of them ← yeah, that evidently is how you roll (pompously playing the man, not the ball and - wrong, BTW). The Lentini source is poor: to repeat it is not indexed in MEDLINE and in a no-impact journal. We simply do not use those sources to support statements about therapeutic efficacy. We especially don't use weak sources to debunk stronger sources, as you appear to be proposing. Why would we use poor sources to build an article? Alexbrn (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Even peer-reviewed studies must not be taken uncritically. You are making a straw man argument here by dismissing an entire field of endeavor instead of doing a balanced analysis and weighing various viewpoints. Where you have an emerging field, as we do here, you need to look at what the available evidence is, and discuss its strengths and weaknesses. I was looking at some of the diet articles as a comparison, and I realize that there is an analogy here: Some diets are backed by scientific evidence and some are not; just because some diets have no scientific evidence to back them does not mean that all diets are nonsense. Likewise, a new diet may be difficult to assess because it hasn't had a lot of studies completed on it to determine if it's a good diet or a bad diet. Similarly, the animal therapies out there are relatively new, some of the experiments are clearly promising while others don't seem to have much impact. You can compare Animal-assisted therapies to things like Music therapy and other forms of expressive therapy; it's all cutting-edge and not well-studied. That does not mean that it is therefore "bogus." My point in all of this has been, essentially, to have true, not false balance. We have one critical systematic review; we have two favorable ones; there are now at least several dozen studies to look at, though flawed in various ways, but compared to real pseudoscience like kissing boo-boos. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Horse merge

I preformed a complicated merge of horse therapy pages so proper WP:CFORKing can be done. The main article is now at Equine-assisted therapy and includes content from no less than four separate articles which are now redirects. Help cleaning up that article would be appreciated! jps (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I restored some of the other articles, but left this new one there and made what I hope are constructive edits to it. I have proposed discussion on whether to merge all of them, but best that discussion is consolidated at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. (You found one in there I don't think I even recall seeing though I apparently saw it once... it was in my watchlist). Anyway, though a bit bold, I'd say that, upon reflection. two of the four articles merged needed to be, and the content from the other two that's in the overview now is worth further work. I think we do need to discuss if the two riding-related articles should remain separate, be merged with each other, (with shorter summaries at the EAT article) or all be merged as you suggested. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This merge question might benefit from more eyes. The focus of discussion is now at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carnism_(4th_nomination)

Fringe neologism. One of the worst examples of a WP:COATRACK I've seen ever. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so much that as a case of WP:NEO - a plausible search term but of no independent significance. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs pruning with a hatchet. Somewhere around September the article ballooned into a mess. Huge sections on "sightings", over 500 refs, a ridiculous level of credulity. It needs serious, serious work. More than I have time for currently. Capeo (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably needs a total rewrite (and yes, I don't really have the time or interest to tackle it either) But Is there a "last clean" version from before September that you think was a better version? It might be helpful to compare the two for the purposes of beginning a cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try to find some time before New Years festivities start tonight to look at the history a bit deeper. Capeo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, this massive expansion was done through thousands of edits by one user going back to July. The article before then wasn't that good anyway but wow. The user name explains a lot actually. I have no idea where to begin. This monstrosity has 200 more refs than our WWII article. It's basically been turned into a typical Bigfoot website. I thought I had it watchlisted but clearly I didn't or I would've nipped it in the bud. Capeo (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That is going to need a massive amount of content editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it will. Want to help? I'm okay with adding a bit here or there with refs but cutting down an article this size and dealing with all the hanging refs and such is a bit beyond me I think. My next project was going to be another little well received indie movie that could be taken care of in a night. This is an undertaking a good bit beyond that. Capeo (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added "mythical" as the first adjective so that the mainstream view is mentioned first, per due weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears there was a massive rewrite done by RogerKni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who in my opinion did not fully understand WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. The article may need to be reverted to a pre-RogerKni version [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘IMHO, that's the solution— though I'm sure it will stir up a shitstorm. Reverting it back to the "last clean" version, and then build it from there. Way easier than sifting through the cruft.Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Follow up: I boldly nuked it. If others want to revert, no worries, just BRD on my part. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Patterson–Gimlin film also was extensively rewritten by RogerKni. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe give it the same treatment I gave bigfoot. Be bold, see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"most scientists discount" ?

In the lede says "most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot". Is this really NPOV? Surely Bigfoot (according to to good RS) does not exist? Anyway, this a question to contemplate as I bid all readers here: Happy New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But that lede statement is supported by a secondary RS?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And how would you rate the quality of that source? Alexbrn (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not decided yet. Does it not meet any of the RS criteria?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it meets some in the general sense: but for a specific statement that the non-existence of Bigfoot is merely something that "most scientists believe" ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So if it meets RS and it is verifiable, it stays. As you well know, the truth, but particularly your opinion, do not matter here. You are only an editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well no, because all sources are RS for their own opinion. Have you decided yet how you'd rate the quality of the source for that particular statement? Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is a statement of fact, rather than opinion...but it is RS and it is verifiable. Your opinion is not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have two Bigfoot threads going at once? Happy New Year to all BTW. Capeo (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ineptitude on my part - I'll merge them. HNY everyone! Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I nuked the version being discussed above and restored the July version as a "last clean" version. I think on this one, there's not a serious dispute that we have a mythical phenomenon going on there, and the rest is more nuances of content. I suggest we all just take this over there; I did what cleanup that was short and sweet, those who care more can perhaps continue at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone wants to figure out those nuances come to the talk page. Also feel free to compile possible sources in my sandbox. Capeo (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Underwood Ghost Books

Peter Underwood (parapsychologist) wrote many books on ghosts, the problem is that I do not think they are notable enough to have individual Wikipedia entries. These have recently been created:

• Haunted London (1973)
• Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971)

They are entirely sourced to other fringe paranormal books on ghosts. Any opinion about these? JuliaHunter (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Slap on merge tags to merge them into the Underwood article. If no one objects in a week or so, then merge and redirect the titles. Don't go to the drama boards unless there are objections raised that can't be dealt with at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a completely mechanical question, showing my ignorance, but there's no way we can do a merge history ourselves right? Without an adim? Neither of the articles deserve their own article. Capeo (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to do a history merge, just use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to seek input, and then if you get a resounding silence, then just take the relevant parts of the articles and paste them into the main one, then leave a redirect behind. The only time you need a history merge are for more complicated situations such as two articles on the same topic and such. The beauty of a redirect as opposed to a deletion is that if someone tries to recreate the article, you've most likely got the redirects on your watchlist and will know when someone is dinking around with it again... Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Stephen E. Braude

Stephen E. Braude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:FRINGEBLP. Seems to suffer from some soapboxing. Please be gentle in the cleanup.

jps (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I'll watch and work on it. Delta13C (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Braude's fringe views are being pushed at other articles. See Talk:Psychokinesis#Stephen_E._Braude. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has always been a perpetual magnet for fringe proponents, but lately there has been lots of activity on the Talk page by a bunch of brand-new new SPAs. One is campaigning to split the article into separate sections giving equal weight to mainstream psychiatric views and the views of delusional people who think they are being persecuted via electromagnetic waves. Another wants to add material about electronic warfare that correlates speculative military technology to fringe claims that such technology is being used to harass private citizens. Another wants to add material that lists existing laws banning "harmful electronic devices" (i.e. tasers, stun guns, etc) to bolster the idea that electronic mind control harassment exists. A few more eyes on the Talk page would be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll do that just as soon as there is robust evidence that "electromagnetic harassment" exists in the real world. I do not advise anyone reading, to hold their breath in the meantime... Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Zone diet

• Zone diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another fad diet; needs eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could do with a bit more attention. -- haminoon (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic

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

It is classified as a field of pseudomedicine. was deleted from the lede. See Talk:Chiropractic#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_December_2015 for discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning

• Bruno Gröning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just ran across this article about the a German faith healer that appears to have been written primarily from self-published, in-world sources. I thought this would be the best place to get some new eyes on the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just AfD this article? Delta13C (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the German Red Cross doesn't want to touch the group named after this guy with a 10 foot pole: [6] Delta13C (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the obvious unreliable sources. There remains one newspaper story and a number of book refs that may also be unreliable, feel free to nuke them if they are. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thetruemovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted back in the "sources" I removed. I have removed them again. Thetruemovie is a WP:SPA and seems to me to be likely to be involved in one or more of the websites. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd try an AfD, that's a good way to get an assessment of notability (or notoriety). If it gets deleted, end of drama (we hope). If not, then the sourcing debate can begin... Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He's notable. I even found an academic source that includes him (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667597?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Black, Monica. 2012. “Miracles in the Shadow of the Economic Miracle: The “supernatural '50s” in West Germany”. The Journal of Modern History 84 (4). University of Chicago Press: 833–60. doi:10.1086/667597) but I dont have access to it. The problems are that very little has been written about him in English, and that there are multiple organizations promoting his theories. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have access to the source and it is clear from the source that he is notable. He had a large following in 1950s Germany and accrued a lot of media attention at the time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Anopsology

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

Another cancer-cure diet. Doubt if it's notable. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is in order: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anopsology Delta13C (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it seems so. This article has been live for 10 years. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz

Erika Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Promoter of "natural" hormones that fails GNG. There is a history of COI and puffery. I worked on improving the article today, especially its poor sources, and decided it was best to nominate for deletion. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Schwartz. Delta13C (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: transhumanist politics

There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also a related discussion to restart the Transhumanist Party article, from the same people again, with much the same sources as before, but this time there's a tour bus - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoting Fringe on the Front Page

Taking a quick break from my retirement to query this article being promoted on the Front Page. Was there really no other historical event of greater significance on that date such that we are reduced to promoting UFO sighting at WP:OTD? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ehh, I see nothing at all wrong with us covering fringe topics just as we do any other topic that's suitable for a Wikipedia article. I think this page is more about making sure that fringe topic coverage in Wikipedia is suitably Wikipedian. I'm very interested in fringe topics (if as a skeptic) and am all for good coverage of them that's up to Wikipedia standards - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

At least it's a famous incident in comparison to many we've removed from Wikipedia over the years. There was considerable national coverage in the media over it. jps (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is actually quite skeptical of the incident, especially when compared to some other UFO articles. It provides an extensive discussion of the Air Force investigation and conclusion that the "UFO" was actually a secret Skyhook balloon. I don't get the sense that it's promoting a fringe view. Just my two cents. 2602:304:691E:5A29:8481:F4D0:7A40:AA72 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a little fun on the front page is OK so long as the article passes muster, I'm good with it. May want to keep a closer eye on what pops up at DYK, though, those are newer article with fewer eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's pretty clear that the best sources identify this as one of the most famous global warming denial blogs. Nevertheless, our lede persists in declaring it a blog dedicated to "climate change skepticism or denial" which is a weird turn of phrase (which is it, please?)

Note that reverts tend to happen.

jps (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Braco

Braco (faith healer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, I think, differently neutral. The subject carefully avoids making any claims, leaving all that business of hype and bullshit to his followers, but the article still reads more like a fan piece. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Food Matters

This film, which advocates for orthomolecular medicine was kept on the basis of sources being found (not fantastic ones, but the WP:GNG can be interpreted very liberally sometimes). In any case, help is needed to try to avoid this film being used as a coatrack to promote the film's pro-altmed views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

...Oh, never mind. I just found the copyvio. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Carnism

Kept at AfD, but no credible arguments for keeping the massive coatracks thrown atop the concept. Methinks it's time to gut it, without mercy, of all off-topic material. Note: Some may be better spun off than deleted; I could see meat paradox as a stub article - at least the sources for that section use that term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Commenced work. Ironically, after pulling out meat paradox - a separate subject - both articles are much tighter. Please bookmark; this topic seems very kudzu-ish, in that it keeps being pushed beyond any useful boundaries.

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers

The matter of exactly how religious the founding fathers are is somewhat contentious; the old "all the ones who mattered were deists" line hasn't weathered well but I don't know that I would go as far as the thesis of this particular book. That, however, is not why I'm here. We have an author whom I gather is from somewhere in the Iran-to-India region dropping in some material about Zoroastrianism which strikes me as at best loopy and at worst complete gibberish. I've run out of reverts but it would be useful for someone else to look at this and perhaps make an effort to get this guy back on track. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot that this account is up to: [7]. Don't exactly know what to make of it all. jps (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. Did you also check contribs? This was the rough draft. FWIW, while this editor does sound like he has a genuine interest in the topic, there are also some white supremacist groups that combine "Aryan occultism" or "magic" with anti-semitism. Might want to keep an eye out for that, just as a precaution. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see any anti-semiticism in the account's contributions. I think the account is rather just adding a lot of Zoroastrianism to various articles which actually may be somewhat useful here at Wikipedia in our ongoing fight against WP:Systemic bias. On the other hand, it's not impossible that some other agenda is its game. jps (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess we just sit tight and take the edits as well-intentioned and at face value, even if they are undue or not appropriate to a given article. I think the neo-nazi pagans are more into worshipping Odin, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is some loopy theory going around now that all the founding fathers were--not deists, as was claimed for years--but occultists and that half the structures in Washington DC are built on occultic symbols. Personally, I really doubt it and think it's one of those internet myths. The Revolution wasn't that long after the Salem Witch Trials. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, that's Freemasonry stuff; and most of them were Masons. Nothing new there... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism reversing cancer etc.

At Talk:Veganism#Vegan health claims and NPOV there is some debate about how to frame claims that a vegan diet can prevent and reverse serious disease, and whether/how WP:FRINGE applies. More eyes from fringe-savvy editors would be helpful! Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ugh. not a fan of health claims. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the claim is not being made in Wikivoice -- it's a historical accounting of claims made by people from as far back as 1815. So in that sense, it's not a claim in Wikivoice and should not be treated as such. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying this and it's just wrong; the paragraphs in question are about modern times and were airing the current fringe views of people like Michael Greger. Anyway, this issue seems to have been resolved now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hair whorl (horse)

OK everyone, here's one from me. I have way too much drama going on elsewhere to tackle this one solo (and deal with the inevitable tendentious debates likely to follow), but if anyone wants to give this article a clearer pseudoscience/fringe look, I'd be grateful. If there is anything at all scientifically rigorous on this, I'd be surprised, but if there is, you might find it; I can't. Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Gag. I can look through my books: I believe I have an old Western Horseman issue with some stuff about scientists studying whorls on cattle in feedlots. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Can a whorl really be fringe? Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Much of selective animal breeding becomes enmeshed in claims that are not rigorously vetted because no one cares. If I say that cocker spaniels are vicious or that poodles are intelligent, there's no scientific basis for this claim. On the other hand, if one surveyed dog breeders and found that breeders ascribed particular character traits to particular breeds, that's just a fact of what humans perceive, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the dogs themselves. Pointing out a correlation between the direction of hair-whorls and the perceived handedness that riders ascribe to a horse is a simple statement of attribution. It really isn't pseudoscience until someone starts to argue causation without evidence that there is a causal link. jps (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

jps is completely wrong here. People do care about such things and there IS mainstream scientific evidence about animal temperament. I am reluctant to even post such evidence on this noticeboard thereby inadvertently indicating it is fringe. For those interested in horse hair whorls, try typing "whorl temperament" into a google scholar search. Here is just one of the articles http://www.lundy.org.uk/download/ar52/LFS_Annual_Report_Vol_52_Part_15.pdf DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's like phrenology for animals - bonkers. And lo! the world gives us not only "whorlology" but also "whorl theory"[8] Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it seems you've either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted my comment (I never said there wasn't any evidence for animal temperament), thanks for showing us that whorlology pseudoscience is a thing, @DrChrissy:. Of course, it doesn't look like any sane people have looked into it. jps (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, jps has apologised on their talk page for their personal attack on me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A very well crafted apology, if I may say so. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. Judging from his very extensive block log, jps has had plenty of opportunity to wordcraft his apologies.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why, are you a whorlologist? Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, chill it with the personal attacks. My question was if people can please look at the pseudoscience aspects of the article itself. Usually when I go after this stuff, I get accused of biting the newcomers and such, so I'd prefer more objective folks look at the article itself and help fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many superstitions/beliefs/legends/claims/whatever regarding what the color or type of an animal's fur means. In some cases there may be truth behind it. White is linked to many birth defects such as deafness--and interestingly, in Mexico there's a belief that white animals should not be eaten and are bad luck. The bad luck may stem from the fact that if you're breeding animals like goats to eat, getting offspring with a genetic defect means less meat in some cases. And also, people do care about breed temperaments and in many cases selectively breed for a tractable personality, at least in animals like horses and dogs that interact closely with humans. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's quite a stretch, though it makes for fun armchair speculation. Not really encyclopedic quality, though. Fun for discussion pages, I guess. jps (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Do these people who think horse colour denotes character extend that thought to humans I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the temperament associated with hair/coat color has been around for a long time -- i.e. in humans, that redheads have hot tempers or that blondes are stupid. In horses, there are beliefs that the "redheads" (i.e. chestnuts) are also hot-tempered. But there is also legitimate science for things like albinism, which has significant health problems in humans and depigmentation genes in some animals are also problematic (i.e. lethal white syndrome in horses). So it's a mixed bag. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly, what you say about artificial selection of animals for behavioural tractability is very true - it is the very basis of our domestication of animals and can be found across many species.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Of course, there are a lot of tall tales that come along for the ride when we talk about animal domestication and breeding. Hair whorls indicating temperament? That's a paddlin'. jps (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. But the two bits that I'd like some eyes on is if there have been any studies -- good, bad, or crappy on the temperament question, and 2) an assessment of the "study" that claimed that the direction of the hair whorls indicated left- or right-"footedness" preference. Horses, like people, have preferred sides, and that has a significant impact in horse training. So, if it's baloney (which I suspect it is), it's worth noting as baloney. If we are into helping the general public, I can assure you that the hair whorl thing is an urban legend (or perhaps a rural legend) out there and I've had some very aggravating and fruitless arguments with the true believers. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of you will have noticed that I have been editing the Hair whorl (horse) article. I have just edited the lead to state that there have been reports of "statistical relationships" between whorls and temperament/behaviour in horses. I have chosen the expression "statistical relationship" carefully. I have tried very hard not to indicate any causality or biological significance to these findings as I am as sceptical about them as you all are - but the reports are out there in mainstream science and therefore we should cover them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a little editing there as well: like in half the horse articles, the stuff about the Arabians looked to have been written by a kid. Alexbrn, what I was saying about the color white in animals being linked to health issues is true. See the lethal white article Montanabw linked; also, white cats with blue eyes are almost always deaf. In dogs, breeding of two merles creates white puppies that are blind, deaf or both. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Constellations

• Family Constellations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Systemic Constellations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a fresh WP:SPA active on these articles; could uses eyes. (Update: editor got blocked for socking; still, these articles should be on the watchlists of all fringe connoisseurs). Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)