→Bonghan theory: new section |
→Homeopathy is/isn't FRINGE: new section |
||
Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully [[WP:FRINGE|fringey]] to me. It's currently [[WP:Articles for deletion/Bonghan theory|up for AFD]] with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ❦ ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ❖ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]] ❖ [[WP:Editor review/DoriSmith|Review]]) ❦</span> 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully [[WP:FRINGE|fringey]] to me. It's currently [[WP:Articles for deletion/Bonghan theory|up for AFD]] with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ❦ ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ❖ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]] ❖ [[WP:Editor review/DoriSmith|Review]]) ❦</span> 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Homeopathy]] is/isn't FRINGE == |
|||
Some debate on the homeopathy page talk [[Talk:Homeopathy#Changes_to_FAQ_.234_and_article:_Homeopathy_is_not_a_fringe_belief|here]] as to whether homeopathy is covered by [[WP:FRINGE]]. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:10, 14 August 2009
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
- Please . Thank you!
Homosexuality
I added some information which counters the prevailing (Western mainstream) view that homosexuality is immutable, but someone deleted the material even though it was referenced; there's even an article about the organization which provides the information. Is this a case of a "fringe" view being unworthy of inclusion, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Ed, the view of some religious right people that they can brainwash homosexuals into some kind of reformatting has been thoroughly debunked. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Look for the silver lining, Ed, you can add it to Conservapedia's Bias in Wikipedia page - if you decide to take a break from blaming homosexuals for Nazism. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those are not good responses to the question: we mustn't make decisions about what material is acceptable based on whether we like it. The actual problem with the edit was that the views it stated were not derived from reputable sources. Currently the scientific support for the idea that homosexuality is mutable is so limited as to make it a "fringe theory" in the terms of WP:FRINGE. Statements by religious or political advocacy groups don't change that. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which is pretty much what I indicated: it's unseemly for Ed to try to recruit Wikipedia in his religiously-motivated war against "teh gays": that's what Conservapedia is for. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- They may not be good responses for the question, Looie, but they are great responses to Ed, who knows darn good and well when he's just stirring the pot. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, wouldn't it be better, as an admin, to warn him for disruption than to allow yourself to be trolled? Looie496 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to issue any warnings you feel are "better", Looie. It's Ed's behavior that's in question here, not anyone else's, and there's no administrative issue. - Nunh-huh 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't encountered Uncle Ed before, to my knowledge, so a warning from me would be baseless. But if an admin has enough experience with a given user to see that the purpose of an action is to cause disruption, it is better to give a warning than a sarcastic response. Warnings can be used to justify future action; sarcasm can't. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to issue any warnings you feel are "better", Looie. It's Ed's behavior that's in question here, not anyone else's, and there's no administrative issue. - Nunh-huh 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, wouldn't it be better, as an admin, to warn him for disruption than to allow yourself to be trolled? Looie496 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those are not good responses to the question: we mustn't make decisions about what material is acceptable based on whether we like it. The actual problem with the edit was that the views it stated were not derived from reputable sources. Currently the scientific support for the idea that homosexuality is mutable is so limited as to make it a "fringe theory" in the terms of WP:FRINGE. Statements by religious or political advocacy groups don't change that. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, if Ed has been issued lots of warnings in the past, adding another one is pointless. Not saying this is the case here, but I have found that sarchastic remarks and lack of Good Faith usually have some history behind them. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Look for the silver lining, Ed, you can add it to Conservapedia's Bias in Wikipedia page - if you decide to take a break from blaming homosexuals for Nazism. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ed has been active on Wikipedia since The Dawn of Time, and involved in more dust ups on such issues than the Recording Angel can remember. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Newcomers will either have to have faith in the judgement of the oldtimers, or do the necessary research; Ed is the reason that Wikipedia was (until fairly recently) the number one Google hit for AIDS kills fags dead (and our current article to which that redirects is still inadequately referenced and pretty disgraceful). - Nunh-huh 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ed has been active on Wikipedia since The Dawn of Time, and involved in more dust ups on such issues than the Recording Angel can remember. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Reducing the statement "sexual orientation may not be immutable" to "zomg Conservapedia Nazis bible-thumping brainwashers" strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction. I have not researched this, but the claim that sexual orientation may change in the course of an individual's life does not necessarily have anything to do with homophobia, or brainwashing. It entails, much rather, that somebody may start out as a homosexual in their teens and switch to being hetero at some later date, or, equally, as a hetero teen that may turn homosexual at some later point. I am sure there are plenty of case studies for either direction of such "re-orientations", even omitting the rather large field of "neiher, or both", and I do not think it is helpful to reduce this discussion to one on ideology from the outset. The question whether such a change in either direction is in any way desirable is a completely different issue, and necessarily subjective. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- True, but Ed's actual edit wasn't about shifting sexual orientations, actions and self-identifications over a person's life - which may, of course include moving from hetero to homo as much as the other direction. It was about 'correcting' the 'error' of homosexual desire. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The most useful question here might be: is the cited source reliable and weighty enough to warrant the edit in question? In this case, the citation is to an advocacy group espousing a clearly minoritarian view. I don't think that warrants inclusion here; I suppose it could be considered in conversion therapy, a more appropriate sub-topic, but even there I think this is not a good encyclopedic source. If we cover conversion therapy in our article on homosexuality, then we should use high-quality, independent, reliable sources - ideally scholarly material, and failing that, reputable major-media coverage. MastCell Talk 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is what I actually wrote:
- NARTH claims that a third of people who try to reduce or change their sexual orientation or attraction through reparative therapy achieve some form of change. People Can Change gives details of a review carried out of 28 clinical studies covering a period of fifty years. The papers reviewed showed that of the 2,252 participants, 45 changed sexual orientation, 86 were able to have heterosexual relationships, and 287 reported a partial shift in sexual orientation. The review applied different criteria than those used by the original researchers, and re-interpreted the data as showing that 563 (a quarter) of the original participants in the studies over a fifty-year period reported either some sort of shift in orientation and/or the ability to participate in heterosexual relationship.[1]
- I fail to see how this violates any Wikipedia policy. I do see, however, how it might annoy someone who doesn't want other people to know that there are reputable researchers out there claiming that homosexuality is mutable for people who want to change.
- Is it possible that critics are missing the aspect of voluntarism here? There is a history of others (i.e., straights) trying to force people to change their sexuality - and History of homosexuality ought to document this, if it doesn't. I haven't found any support in the research literature of success with such approaches.
- Or is it that regard "unwanted same-sex attraction" as an impossibility - or a prospect that contradicts a given?
- This is what I actually wrote:
- I would prefer for the article to take no position on whether it is possible for volunteers to get help changing their unwanted same-sex attraction. An objective article would dutifully report both the mainstream:
- Can't be done.
- Hurts clients if you try.
- as well as the minority view:
- Has been done.
- Doesn't hurt clients who volunteer.
- I would prefer for the article to take no position on whether it is possible for volunteers to get help changing their unwanted same-sex attraction. An objective article would dutifully report both the mainstream:
- Surely, if this is a minority view then reporting it - and labeling it the view of a minority - won't mislead anyone. And surely also if the view is wrong then scientists have already examinined the minority claims and thoroughly debunked them.
- It would help our readers to see the minority scientific view compared to the mainstream critique of its methods and findings. If they've made mistakes (or, worse, committed outright scientific fraud), then someone has probably already exposed them. On the other hand, if their work is protoscientific then maybe no one in the mainstream has given it enough oversight yet. There have been episodes in the past, such as the work of Ignaz Semmelweis, which were dismissed at first but became mainstream later on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus", but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. When NARTH becomes Semmelweis instead of Bozo, we'll cover it appropriately - you know, in addition to the link already provided in the homosexuality article before your recent addition added a second. Till then.... not so much. I can't say I hold much hope that NARTH will become Semmelweis, because its method of operation is the exact opposite of the scientific method: they have their conclusions, and collect only such data as supports them, rather than predicating their conclusions on the data. That's pseudoscience, not protoscience. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, I think you're talking past the issue of reliable sources. A "review of the literature" performed by a partisan pressure group, and published on their website, is not a good encyclopedic source. It seems reasonable to request, and prefer, that we rely on meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in the reputable, current scholarly literature. The problem is not that this is a minoritarian view per se; it's that even minoritarian views are not exempt from the strictures of appropriate encyclopedic sourcing. MastCell Talk 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I propose a variant of Godwin's Law - as the time available for a discussion of pseudoscience grows, the probability of the proponent invoking Semmelweis approaches one. Other comparisons may involve Nikolai Tesla or Alfred Wegener depending on the field in question. Skinwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus", but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. When NARTH becomes Semmelweis instead of Bozo, we'll cover it appropriately - you know, in addition to the link already provided in the homosexuality article before your recent addition added a second. Till then.... not so much. I can't say I hold much hope that NARTH will become Semmelweis, because its method of operation is the exact opposite of the scientific method: they have their conclusions, and collect only such data as supports them, rather than predicating their conclusions on the data. That's pseudoscience, not protoscience. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would help our readers to see the minority scientific view compared to the mainstream critique of its methods and findings. If they've made mistakes (or, worse, committed outright scientific fraud), then someone has probably already exposed them. On the other hand, if their work is protoscientific then maybe no one in the mainstream has given it enough oversight yet. There have been episodes in the past, such as the work of Ignaz Semmelweis, which were dismissed at first but became mainstream later on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
Serious attention is needed... the article is full of OR (especially the section: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs#Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to website, currently the subject of a dispute). Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would put it up for deletion. It looks like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly a POV fork. Send it to AfD. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The "challenge and response" essay format is problematic and the article looks to be largely sourced from sites such as "Moon Base Clavius". Agree deletion is probably the best answer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly a POV fork. Send it to AfD. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As awful as the article is... I don't think deletion is the answer. Nor do I think an AFD nom would result in a deletion. This is a well known subsection of the claims that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax... which is a very notable conspiracy theory... heck, Mythbusters devoted an episode mostly debunking it... and talked about the photos extensively.
- I think we are going to have to tackle this the hard way... cleaning out the OR, checking sources, and re-writing the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be the subsection that was expanded with OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely going to need more hands... Stubborn POV warrior is refusing to listen to explanations of what is wrong. Simply reverts to "his" version. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- We need to keep an eye on Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories too-- I just had to clean out some junk about the supposed bogosity of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know who would have the time to do this, but maybe we should take one of the articles on fringe theories and push it through FA or at least GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Intelligent design falls into the WP:Fringe umbrella and it is a featured article. Maybe we should be pushing to have it as the example in WP:Fringe instead of the moon landing hoax--LexCorp (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
- I don't know who would have the time to do this, but maybe we should take one of the articles on fringe theories and push it through FA or at least GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As I figured would happen... the AfD has has resulted in a Keep. Unfortunately, no rational was given for the result, but most of the comments in favor of keeping were WP:ILIKEIT type votes... and I think many of those arguing for keep did not fully understand that we were NOT talking about the main Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories article but the more specific Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. In any case... the article still has a LOT of problems and we need some people who understand WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:V to address them. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers is up for deletion
Read all about it here. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Race and crime recreated as Relationship between race and crime
Race and crime, which was a coatrack for racist POV and OR (by presentation of raw statistics with discussion and analysis begin supressed or coming from recognised hate groups), was merged into Anthropological criminology by consensus some time ago, and Race and crime was protected as a redirect. A new editor is trying to revive the article by posting across multiple noticeboards, suggests sources that clearly fail WP:RS, and has recently recreated the article at Relationship between race and crime. More eyes on all these articles please, and please join in the discussions. I'm not against well sourced analysis from good sources, but I don't want to see the implied racism reappearing. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a blunt disregard of WP:Consensus to me. Speedy delete or redirect to Anthropological criminology.--LexCorp (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
well, Race and crime was deleted on grounds of being WP:SYNTH, not because the topic is inherently invalid. There appears to be a bona fide attempt at encyclopedic coverage at Talk:Anthropological_criminology#Race_and_crime_statistics. But, for the moment, it will be sufficient to just introduce a "race and crime" section within Anthropological criminology. Once such a section has been introduced and proven stable, it can still be branched out as a WP:SS {{main}} article. At that point, and only then, should Race and crime become unprotected. This is just a matter of proper procedure, not of WP:FRINGE.
It is my view that we should not put up unreasonable hoops to jump through for people wishing to document this particular topic in good faith. This would have a nasty smell of censorship (we're not comfortable with statistics on race and crime, hence we're going to make this very difficult for you). The people who want to compile this article must make a reasonable effort of avoiding SYNTH and OR, but it stops there. If they can point to valid resources discussing the question, they are free to write an article about it. I am obviously on the same page as Verbal that "discussion and analysis being supressed or coming from recognised hate groups" isn't convincing as a bona fide effort. But instead of going to lengths to establish that valid analysis is being "suppressed", people could just insert such analysis. It's a wiki. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit I'm not particularly comfortable with an article that tabulates raw statistics without any attempt at coverage of expert discussion of the potential underlying statistical relationships (e.g. race←→poverty←→crime). Lacking such coverage, WP:IINFO would seem to apply -- it is "an indiscriminate [and potentially misleading] collection of information". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Anthropological criminology doesn't seem an appropriate merge target for this topic. Some kind of variant of Race and crime should exist in this encyclopedia - it is a topic that is notable and readers should expect to learn about. Raw stats are a no-no, and it'll need watching for racist POV pushers and vandals, but to suppress this article entirely seems like an overreaction. Fences&Windows 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- A wider and less xenophobic title, such as 'Demographics and crime' might help. Putting the spotlight purely on 'race' doesn't seem to be particularly balanced (any more than putting it on religion would be), whereas a wider view would allow the article to put emphasis on what the experts consider to be the factors most directly correlated with crime, and make it more difficult to introduce WP:UNDUE weight for racist views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the solution is add some material to Criminology and/or Quantitative methods in criminology, as these articles already discuss theories of crime, or to start a new wider Demography of crime article, discussing race, gender, religion, age etc. Fences&Windows 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also note that race and crime isn't a fringe topic: there are 157 articles since 2004 in Google Scholar with "race" and "crime" in the title.[1] Fences&Windows 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you addressed that concern to me, Hrafn, since obviously I am also of the opinion that this cannot be about dumping "raw statistics". I am talking about an actual "coverage of expert discussion of the potential underlying statistical relationships". If somebody wants to write that article, let them. If they insist on just dumping raw statistics, tell them to stuff their statistics and present some coherent secondary source discussing the statistics.
People are extremely touchy about discussing race issues openly. I realize that this is due to the rather recent history of racial discriminatino in the USA, and everybody still feels kind of bad about that. But this shouldn't interfere with our project of writing an encyclopedia. I am actually investing great hopes in President O. and his candid and above-the-board approach to the matter that this situation is going to vastly improve over the next years or even months.
Obama is telling racial minorities to stop blaming colonial slave trade if they drop out of school. We have the same effect on Wikipedia, people whining about historical discrimination if their crappy edits are reverted. Perhaps they need to start considering the possibility that their crappy edits were reverted because the were crappy and not because of some WASP cabal behind Wikipedia. Now that was a rant about the "Afrocentrism" hubbub further up on this page, but you can see how it relates to this point here. We just need to grow out of this sort of thing, its the only way to a better (and for Wikipedia that is: more encyclopedic) future. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ian Stevenson again
The POV pushing over there by some dedicated SPA editors (might need to do some sock checks soon, come to think of it) is still ongoing,l despite repeated notices here. The editors in question insist upon presenting this person's reincarnation beliefs as science at its best and do so based upon very selective choice of sources and WP:SYNTHESIS. They are also wikilawyering klike nobody's business to remove all mention taht reliable sources has explicitly named his work as an example of pseudoscience. Apparently the main argument now is that being mentioned by name as making flawed arguments in a paragraph discussing specific instances of pseudoscience in a section discussing a pseudoscientific topic in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is somehow conveniently not actually calling his research pseudoscience because they do not see the actual word "pseudoscience" in the sentence mentioning the individual. This is wikilawyering at its most absurd, and clearly doing so to censor the majority scientific view while enthusiastically giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to an extreme WP:FRINGE view. It'd be nice if some sane people showed up over there to help out again. It's clear that unless the POV pushers in question get blocked that they will never give up on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you read the talk page you would see that it is now accepted that a source referring to Stevenson's work as pseudoscience has finally been produced (not the one you've been going on about but one that actually supports the text) and discussion has begun there about how to address weight issues. You should also note that there is no synthesis used for the claims that his research is science. This is supported by direct quotations from six sources including some top quality scientific journals such as the BMJ and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Noirtist (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- So we now have at least two good sources for pseudoscience. I'm not convinced obits copied from his parapsychology departments press release are very good sources. Verbal chat 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, press releases are completely bogus, especially from parapsychology sources when discussing whether something is science or not. It's like citing a UFO newsletter about whether they have any valid evidence of aliens: of course they're going to claim they have, and that has nothing to do with how any reliable expert has to say on the matter. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. The Skeptics Encyclopedia source shows that critics have mentioned Ian Stevenson whilst dismissing this field of research, with no direct critisism of his work. I do not consider this to meet WP:V for the statement. If you have a better source showing that crtiics have directly accused him of pseudoscience then please just add it to the page. Artw (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, I do not care if you consider it to have met WP:V or not, because it was CLEARLY used as an example of direct criticism of his work. The mental leaps and amount of cognitive dissonance to require claiming otherwise are quite astounding. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've now done so. Quite why it wasn't done so previously is beyond me. Artw (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- So we now have at least two good sources for pseudoscience. I'm not convinced obits copied from his parapsychology departments press release are very good sources. Verbal chat 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested more sources and evidence of notability for this work. I'm sure people here can provide some. This seems to be related to the Jim Tucker/Ian Stevenson/Reincarnation research debates. Reviews, sources, citations all requested! Thanks, Verbal chat 13:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well... it seems to be mentioned by multiple authors in other works... see this google book search. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly a bad faith request by a very active POV-pusher. I've removed the tag. Of course sources would only be helpful, but we can't pout up with such obvious attempts at censorship. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. He does seem to be raising the same issues about that article that have been repeatedly raised at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. However it is true that the book does not meet WP:N, and from Googling it does not seem like the sources are there to make it meet WP:N – adding quotes to the Google books search brings up no substantial mentions [2], and a general web search is just coming up with product descriptions and the like. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If verifiable sources are provided that meet the notability guidelines I will of course withdraw my nomination, but it seems unlikely. Artw (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of Shermer's work is independently notable per WP:BK - for example, Science Friction, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Denying History. I have to say, I'm not finding a lot of independent coverage of this particular work, at least in my initial Google-search permutations, nor does it seem to have spent any time on the bestseller list. If that's the case, it might make sense to merge the available info (which is largely just a description of authors and subject matter) into the biographical article on Michael Shermer. MastCell Talk 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. He does seem to be raising the same issues about that article that have been repeatedly raised at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. However it is true that the book does not meet WP:N, and from Googling it does not seem like the sources are there to make it meet WP:N – adding quotes to the Google books search brings up no substantial mentions [2], and a general web search is just coming up with product descriptions and the like. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If verifiable sources are provided that meet the notability guidelines I will of course withdraw my nomination, but it seems unlikely. Artw (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The linked article for The Skeptic's Dictionary Does not appear to meet WP:N, WP:BK, WP:WEB. All current references are links to the skepdic site. I would suggest adding some sources there as well – Google doesn’t come up with much that is usable but there seem to be some mentions of it if you do a books search
- An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural has similar problems - I suspect it would be better off merged to James Randi Artw (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot even be serious with this recent tagging spree of yours filing AFDs and throwing notability tags on books that are skeptical and that get mentioned here. You can't just start attacking any source that says something you don't want to hear and hope to censor the topic. This is an obvious WP:POINT violation, and if you continue on in this path you should get blocked for it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Artw (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is notable by virtue of its authorship (Arthur C. Clarke, together with Randi). Note that virtually all of Clarke's published ouevre is considered independently notable, probably under WP:NB criterion #5. MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarke appears to have only written the introduction, with Randi you may have a point. I'd be happier all round with proper references. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I'm going to go ahead and say that it doesn't meet 5, as it requires a conciderable level of historically significant that, no offense to him, Randi does not have. Artw (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look at this and found an additional ref in seconds, which with the existing refs means the template is no longer needed. I suggest that those of you that do not like the presence of notability templates on those other articles do the same instead of complaining to me about tagging. Artw (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarke appears to have only written the introduction, with Randi you may have a point. I'd be happier all round with proper references. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is notable by virtue of its authorship (Arthur C. Clarke, together with Randi). Note that virtually all of Clarke's published ouevre is considered independently notable, probably under WP:NB criterion #5. MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Artw (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot even be serious with this recent tagging spree of yours filing AFDs and throwing notability tags on books that are skeptical and that get mentioned here. You can't just start attacking any source that says something you don't want to hear and hope to censor the topic. This is an obvious WP:POINT violation, and if you continue on in this path you should get blocked for it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The asrticle on Robert Todd Carroll seems like a rich source of potential references that could be used to bring the The Skeptic's Dictionary to the point where it meets WP:N. I'm not entiurely sure why I mention this, since form the evidence of the last few days conversation you lot are far too lazy and useless to do it and I'll end up doing it myself. Artw (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the recent keep arguments for the Encyclopedia convinced me to vote keep although earlier I was considering voting for a merge. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Armenian patriotism galore. After all these months, this article still hasn't gone past the mandatory handful of diehard nationalists pushing Soviet era propaganda. Many more encyclopedist's eyes needed. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
hello? There are at least three nationalist kids between them "owning" the article. We either need enough bona fide editors to keep the article under control, or an admin with balls to show them the door. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some one should stop with fantasies and start reading the talkpage. Traina, Mahé, ... have nothing to do with Armenian nationalism. Sardur (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only "kid" around here is Dbachmann - his language is like that of a spoilt brat whose offensiveness knows no limits and who has never had limits imposed. Meowy 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- says Meowy, who had to place about four rants on my talkpage before understanding the very simple concept of WP:CITE. There is a problem: The Moses of Chorene article is under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory. This noticeboard is designed to address such problems. Meowy's animosities towards my person have nothing to do with this. Indeed, Meowy could help protect the Moses of Chorene from the trolls and thus contribute to the resolution of the problem instead of stalking me with random personal attacks. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- "under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory": how funny, I'm Belgian and of absolutely no Armenian descent.
- On the other hand, Dbachmann is edit-waring and tries to impose his PoV (while scholarship on Moses generally agree that the dating issue is still disputed); and he even doesn't care about what has been reached after request to WP:3O. Who is the "troll" (as quoted from Dbachmann's post preceding mine, not as my opinion)? Sardur (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- And even after those 4 "rants" Dbachman still couldn't understand the very simple concept that deleting content is not the same as asking for citations. Meowy 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- says Meowy, who had to place about four rants on my talkpage before understanding the very simple concept of WP:CITE. There is a problem: The Moses of Chorene article is under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory. This noticeboard is designed to address such problems. Meowy's animosities towards my person have nothing to do with this. Indeed, Meowy could help protect the Moses of Chorene from the trolls and thus contribute to the resolution of the problem instead of stalking me with random personal attacks. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only "kid" around here is Dbachmann - his language is like that of a spoilt brat whose offensiveness knows no limits and who has never had limits imposed. Meowy 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
ahem. I am willing to absorb as many personal attacks as I have to, but the issue of the Moses article pushing pseudohistory still remains. So, the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand, the better you will pobably look to the outside observer.--dab (𒁳) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't got time to deal with this at the moment (nor for the foreseeable future) but WP:VUE is worth reading on the use of foreign language sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- "the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand,..." And the sooner you will actually read the talkpage of the article, the better you will start to understand that quotes from Western scholars have been given for weeks. As for personal attacks, I didn't make a single one. I wish I could say the same from others. Sardur (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with dab. The article is taken over by a group of editors, who prevent others to add any info. If anyone tries to add any info that contradicts the 5th century claim, it gets instantly reverted, no matter how reliable the source you are referring is. The discussions are being stonewalled, and the progress is extremely slow. After many months of discussions I managed to achieve a consensus only on 2 short sections. In general, the article attaches an undue weight to the opinion of the Armenian scholarship, while the western scholarship is being suppressed. Mahe and Traina mentioned above are among the few international scholars who agree with the 5th century dating. Most of the 5th century dating supporters are the scholars in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, as described by politologist Razmik Panossian: [3] Something needs to be done to bring the article to neutrality, and fairly represent both opinions on dating. Grandmaster 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Misrepresentation of Mahé (whose position in the introduction of his translation is that the issue is not settled) and of Panossian. Sardur (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's BS and you very well know it! Dab edited the lead against consensus and removed the 5th century date from the first paragraph in its entirety, when both dates were present earlier. You agreed with that version of the lead which was deleted subsequently by Dab! Also, Mahé's translation of Khorenatsi has receieved less negative criticism than Thomson's. Your understanding of what is an international scholar is tainted by your Armenophobia, several of those 'Armenian scholars' have published work in peer reviewed western journals and that's all that matters here (what a shocker that most of them are Armenians, Armenian manuscripts are mostly written in Armenian ... surprise, surprise). It's hard for you to accept that every individual regardless of his ethnicity has equal chance of having his work published in reputable publications if their paper is well researched and respects standard protocols. It's dishonest to come here and claim that the article is taken over by a group of editors and then supporting everyone blindly regardless of the fact that they sabotated the concensus you participated in, simply because they're in a dispute with editors that you consider opponments. Don't forget to mention why you began editing that article to begin with. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would be good if you refrained from personal attacks on other editors and minded WP:AGF. It is behavior like this that drives people away from editing this article. Like it or not, as it was mentioned above, it is a group of people with certain national POV that edit wars and WP:OWNs this article. It is enough to check who exactly edit wars to prevent the alternative opinions on dating of this author from being included in the article. This is the biggest problem wikipedia is facing with. Many articles are taken over by groups of editors who do not allow others to edit them. The fact remains that the 5th century dating is not generally accepted in the scholarly community, especially that outside of Armenia. All the existing scholarly opinions must be fairly represented in the article, whether someone likes them or not. That's what WP:NPOV requires. Grandmaster 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Fringe Causes of ADHD
All the "alternative" causes[4] of ADHD are fringe theories with regards to the Causes of ADHD. Causes would mean what theories would best explain the causes of ADHD. This is best determined by scientists and none of these theories have true scientific backing. Theories in Causes section of the article include, the social construct theory of ADHD. This theory believes that ADHD is a fabrication of society and is a philosophy often expounded by anti-psychiatrists. Neurodiversity is another philosophy not based on science. The Hunter vs. farmer theory has a popular following but is not based on science. This theory believes that those with ADHD carry the Hunter genes while the rest of the population carries the farmer genes. Finally the low arousal theory explains symptoms and not causes. This theory may have been created to sell product.--scuro (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of them have support from the literature. They are not the most widely held views but are help by a manority and deserve mention. The scientific community acknowlegdes that both the cause and the pathophysiology are unknown and most likely muitifactorial. Comments would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of them have support in the scientific literature?! This is the "Causes" section of a medical based article.--scuro (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, all those and more. In fact, many "ADHD" cases are actually something else, misdiagnosed. (My sleep specialist, for example, knows that sleep disorders often are misdiagnosed as ADHD.) This stuff is in its fumbling infancy. Fringe would mean like visitors from outer space or at least the position of the stars at the patient's birth. - Hordaland (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are telling me that the social construct theory that states ADHD is fake, has support in true scientific journals? I'd like to see that. You example of a sleep disorder is anecdotal and skirts the issue. I'm speaking of true ADHD. Fringe with regards to this case, means simply it has no mainstream scientific support.--scuro (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're going to have to explain in more detail what the problem is, as that Alternative theories section looks fine to me. Fences&Windows 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) ADHD does not have a "cause". It's the name given to a syndrome. There may be -- and indeed probably are -- several things working together that create it. To say that identical twins raised apart show a greater than 90% incidence of having and of not having would seem to indicate that there's some genetic factor involved (but it's not 100% so there maybe there's something else.) Thom Hartmann's Hunter-Farmer story may be close to linking that genetic change to pre-history. Still not a cause, though. Some are upset that we don't know the "cause" of ADHD; we don't know the "cause" of epilepsy, either, and until recently we all knew (and there were RS for) the "cause" of ulcers being stress. We'll learn more, I hope. Social-Construct isn't a theory of cause, it's a denial of the existence of the syndrome, and thus merits the "fringe" label. htom (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- As with many neurological disorders such as Tourettes or Schizophrenia, there is no know exact cause of the disorder. If there were it would be a disease. There are widely accepted theories within the scientific community about ADHD. All the "alternative" theories in the article, under the causes section, are fringe. They have no support within the scientific community.--scuro (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The social contruct theory simply implies that some cases of diagnosed ADHD are diagnosed not because the patient fullfuls the full diagnostic critia but due to too narrow of a defination of what should be considered normal. And yes there is evidence to back this up.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- As with many neurological disorders such as Tourettes or Schizophrenia, there is no know exact cause of the disorder. If there were it would be a disease. There are widely accepted theories within the scientific community about ADHD. All the "alternative" theories in the article, under the causes section, are fringe. They have no support within the scientific community.--scuro (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are telling me that the social construct theory that states ADHD is fake, has support in true scientific journals? I'd like to see that. You example of a sleep disorder is anecdotal and skirts the issue. I'm speaking of true ADHD. Fringe with regards to this case, means simply it has no mainstream scientific support.--scuro (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, all those and more. In fact, many "ADHD" cases are actually something else, misdiagnosed. (My sleep specialist, for example, knows that sleep disorders often are misdiagnosed as ADHD.) This stuff is in its fumbling infancy. Fringe would mean like visitors from outer space or at least the position of the stars at the patient's birth. - Hordaland (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of them have support in the scientific literature?! This is the "Causes" section of a medical based article.--scuro (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of them have support from the literature. They are not the most widely held views but are help by a manority and deserve mention. The scientific community acknowlegdes that both the cause and the pathophysiology are unknown and most likely muitifactorial. Comments would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that there's some problems here. For example, it looks like there's some POV forking going on, there shouldn't need to be so many articles. With the exception of Neurodiversity, the other articles are all begin by centering in on ADHD as the topic. Perhaps they should be merged into the main article? I'm proposing that. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can agree that there are "some problems here", yes. But the main ADHD article is 100 kilobytes long. The 'Diet' section was just forked out because the article is too big. You may be right, but then something else will have to go. Cheers, --Hordaland (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The ADHD article is too long to merge in those other articles, and besides, expanding on these fringe theories within the ADHD article would surely be giving them undue weight within the main article. Articles about fringe theories are fine so long as they make clear that they are fringe theories. Fences&Windows 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of this material doesn't fit well in the causes section: wouldn't Alternative theories be better as a part of the section Controversies? Fences&Windows 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns
I wonder if those who run Wikipedia might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial. What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with. We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis. Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're reading more into WP:UNDUE than it says. It doesn't imply that all views that are given undue weight are morally equivalent to Holocaust Denial. Fences&Windows 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
See this edit, adding Viera Scheibner who said that 95% of sudden death of infants was caused by vaccines. See discussion in talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Spinning off from the discussion regarding The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience I did a quick survey of articles relating to the feild of skeptisism and found quite a number that currently fail WP:N.
The Skeptic's Dictionary- Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown
- Junior Skeptic
- Voodoo science
- Daniel Loxton
Barry BeyersteinMilbourne ChristopherDerek ColandunoThe Planetary Society- Kendrick Frazier
- Sven Ove Hansson
Ray HymanJoe Nickell- New England Skeptical Society
James ObergRobert Sheaffer- Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj
CICAP- China Association for Science and Technology
- Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
- Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham
- Science and Rationalists' Association of India
- Tarksheel Society
- Irish Skeptics Society
- Swedish Humanist Association
- Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning
- Indian Rationalist Association
- Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas
- Sociedade da Terra Redonda
Given their expertise in this field I'm assuming members of WP:FTN will want to do search for third party reliable sources and add them to these pages where they can be found. I'm assuming them will be no brainers, but it does need to be done if WP:N is to be met.
Note that removal of the notability tag without providing sources is not particularly helpful: It is an informational tag that describes steps required to keep an article within Wikipedia, so assuming you don't want to see an article deleted or merged before someone has a chance to fix it you probably want to leave that tag on there. Artw (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you consider the Planetary Society as "relating to the field of skepticism". Cardamon (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's linked to from List of skeptics and skeptical organizations, so I ended up taking a look at it, but you are correct: It's only tangentially related to skeptisism. Still, I'm sure that someone here would be interested in helping it along. Artw (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
many of these should just be merged without further ado, e.g. Voodoo science into pseudoscience, or Derek Colanduno into Skepticality. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of these perhaps make sense, but some are absolutely ridiculous. Joe Nickell, Ray Hyman, James Oberg are not notable? Thats insane. Just Joe Nickell's bibliography alone is longer than most stubs. It's not enough to write 30+ books? And Oberg has made significant contributions not only to scientific skepticism but also to journalistic reporting on the space program. I'm not sure merging Derek Colanduno makes sense, because he has significant contributions other than Skepticality and has an asteroid named after him.
- Is this just very strict adherence to the rules, or someone with an anti-skepticism axe to grind at work here? --Krelnik (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, well then thanks for the "help". I really enjoy having a deadline to fix 30 articles all at once, with overanxious "fringe theories" editors hovering over my shoulder. (I find it odd that this list is even brought up here in "fringe theories". Science & skepticism is not the fringe viewpoint, it is the consensus viewpoint). I only noticed this list by virtue of some watchlist items and following several links to find this. A more appropriate venue would have been to bring it up under Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism which most of these articles are connected to. --Krelnik (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it worth chekcing in relation to the Skeptics Encycolopedia discussion above. If you think it would be reposting the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism then please feel free to go ahead and do so. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also there is no deadline here - none of the articles are up for deletion and you have my word that I won't be putting them up for deletion unless I've done a very thorough search for sources. I suspect a few merge discussions to lessen the workload may be a good idea, but I intend to leave that to others. Artw (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, well then thanks for the "help". I really enjoy having a deadline to fix 30 articles all at once, with overanxious "fringe theories" editors hovering over my shoulder. (I find it odd that this list is even brought up here in "fringe theories". Science & skepticism is not the fringe viewpoint, it is the consensus viewpoint). I only noticed this list by virtue of some watchlist items and following several links to find this. A more appropriate venue would have been to bring it up under Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism which most of these articles are connected to. --Krelnik (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Artw has a very valid point. We have to hold the skeptics up to the same standards that we hold the Fringe theorists. That means we have to establish why a skeptic (or any thing else) is notable. If we are going to demand this in an article about some Fringe theorist, we have to demand it in an ariticle about a skeptic. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The follow also need a little work, mostly bringing references in line, to make it clear that WP:N is met, though I beleive from the various links and references on the page that they do:
Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations Julia Sweeney Martin Gardner Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Gene-centered view of evolution Richard Wiseman Randy Cassingham The Blank Slate
(Again, this is a pretty meandering and informal survery of articles, so some of these are only indirectly skeptisism related (Gene-centered view of evolution is by way of Dawkins, that sort of thing) and by nomeans should it be considered a complete list. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see any stated procedure anywhere for removing a ((notability)) tag, so I've added 11 footnotes (cited in 17 different spots) to Ray Hyman and went ahead and removed the tag on that article. Let me know if there's an issue. --Krelnik (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The procedure is that if you think the tag is invalid or (preferably) you improve the article to the point where it no longer applies, you remove it. There aren't a lot of bureaucratic rules for this. So it sounds like you did the right thing. As for some of the articles listed above such as Sweeney and Gardner: they are highly notable (not necessarily primarily for being skeptics) but as Artw points out the sourcing in them is inadequate, so I agree that some improvement seems to be called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say best the procedure is probably WP: BRD. Sifaka talk 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice David Eppstein & Sifaka. I'm relatively new, only been editing for about 9 months. I spend considerable time coming up with new material to put in Wikipedia, including actually looking at microfilm at my local library. (What? There are ways to research other than Google?) You can see how it might seem annoying when someone swoops in from a different area of Wikipedia entirely and starts slapping tags on things without attempting fixups themselves. I've alerted several other editors who work on these skepticism articles all the time and improvements are underway. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If I had my way, article tags would be outlawed for anything except likely hoaxes and major proposed changes such as deletions or mergers. They are very obnoxious, and often are used to push a point of view rather than to improve the article. In most cases it would be better to raise a point on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated the list a little to cross out some articles that have been considerably improved. A tip of the hat to Krelnik in particular who is doing some fantastic work with these. Artw (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice David Eppstein & Sifaka. I'm relatively new, only been editing for about 9 months. I spend considerable time coming up with new material to put in Wikipedia, including actually looking at microfilm at my local library. (What? There are ways to research other than Google?) You can see how it might seem annoying when someone swoops in from a different area of Wikipedia entirely and starts slapping tags on things without attempting fixups themselves. I've alerted several other editors who work on these skepticism articles all the time and improvements are underway. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say best the procedure is probably WP: BRD. Sifaka talk 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The list is laughable. I just grabbed an article title at random (China Association for Science and Technology,) put it into Google, and got a BBC article about the president of China speaking at their 50th anniversary dinner. Yes, maybe Derek from Skepticality shouldn't have his own article. But The Skeptic's Dictionary? It's been reviewed in New Scientist, the BBC, etc etc. James Oberg is the foremost Western expert on the Soviet space program and the chief space reporter for MSNBC (and not even particularly well-known as a skeptic.) You're obviously using some strange criteria to make this list and certainly not the WP:N policy you've cited. 69.159.60.55 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
James Oberg not notable? A clear case of WP:POINT. NVO (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The "strange criteria" I am using here is called "looking at the article", which at present contains references to James Oberg's website and some articles penned by James Oberg. Given the guys stature it a couple of reliable third party links covering his work shouldn't be too much to ask, should it? Artw (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- You do not understand WP:N. WP:N is an objective criterion for whether a subject is notable, not an evaluation of whether a Wikipedia article has enough references. If I write article "George W. Bush" referencing only "ihatedubya.blogspot.com" this means not that George W Bush is a non-notable subject. Some small fraction of the articles you list are arguably non-notable, like Derek from Skepticality as I said above. Most are very obviously notable, even if their current articles lack third-party refs. 74.14.70.54 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is just User:Artw disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT again. I would suggest that WP:DENY applies here. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A group editors advocating Armenian POV in Wikipedia is persistently attempting to either remove or obscure a reference to the Georgian origins of the name of this Turkish city - [5], [6], [7] (initially removed by a sock [8]). While the city may have been associated with Armenia at some point in history, it is not now, and there is no reliable reference as to either the meaning of "Kars" in Armenian or to the fact that the origin of the name is Armenian, whilst a reference that clearly says the name is Georgian. Can you please, look at the issue and decide whether Armenian transliteration should even appear in this case, when Georgian is not being allowed. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Even worse now. While the source is presented, another source is removed altogether to emphasize only Armenian claim to the name - [9]. Atabəy (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are reading a hell of a lot into what are actually extremely minor changes. And what does this have to do with fringe theories again? I mean other than the fact that your opponent's presumed "Armenian POV" is clearly fringe, while your own evident Azerbaijani POV is obviously not... 64.231.61.103 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is awfully ridiculous. Let's make this clear. If editors follow the edit wars on that article, they will see an attempt to add a modern Azeri transliteration of the word Kars to no avail. After this unsuccessful attempt, Atabey came and removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. The fact is that the word 'Gari' was never used for the place in English, the word 'Kars' came to us first to describe an entity in Armenia from Armenian literature. While it is true that the word is claimed to have come from either an Armenian or a Georgian word, the naming of the city as 'Kars' came to us from Armenian. It's as simple as that... as simple as providing the original transliteration of the current English language word, just as much as in any serious English dictionary the Latin or Greek original terms are just next to the English word to give them a clue. Also, Atabek's claim of Georgian etymology is contradicted by his own long term behavior on Wikipedia..., as several places like Nakhichevan have etymologically Armenian terms which is backed up by dozens of sources (unlike the one single source he came up with here), but all those were systematically removed. - Fedayee (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a definitive policy about the purpose of listing alternative names for a location. Is there one? In his edits, I think Atabəy was quite conciously distorting the common-sense usage, which would be to list the historical name(s) for a place that has changed its name, or to list the native name(s) where the name commonly used in English is not the same as the native name(s). Atabəy is trying to introduce into the first sentence of the article a specific theory (one of several) about the etymological origin of the name "Kars" [10] and [11]. Those controversial edits form the background to this edit conflict. They are controversial for three reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence that the settlement of Kars was ever called "Karsi". If the alternative names are there to list historical names then his addition is not valid at that location within the article. Secondly, the Georgian word "karsi" is just one possible etymological origin for the word "Kars", and there are other theories - so inserting just that theory is POV. Actually, the concept that every placename must mean something and that that something can be deduced with certainty, is wrong. Thirdly, the core reason behind Atabəy's edits are to remove the Armenian name that appears on the first sentence. That Armenian name is justified because it is a real alternative name, an historical name which differs from the curent name. Meowy 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the opinion of independent (i.e. non related to the region) reviewers would be more valuable in this regard. The argument here is that if there is one possible etymological origin of the name, it shall be listed also, while others are listed. Conversely if Georgian etymological origin is removed, then there is no reason to keep the Armenian one. Keeping one and removing the other from the introduction of the article is clearly an Armenian POV pushing, especially given the fact that the city is located in Turkey not in Armenia.
- Another point to be emphasized here, if we list etymological origins of the city in Turkey, why not also list the etymological origins of various cities in Armenia, especially those that do not originate from Armenian? Atabəy (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plain old content dispute, with nothing to do with fringe theories. Please find somewhere else to resolve this. Fences&Windows 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a content dispute (though neither is it a "fringe theory" dispute). Does Wikipedia have a policy on what should be in the first sentence of an article about a place? Can you suggest where we can go to ask about what is, and what is not, appropriate to include as "alternative names", and whether it is appropriate to include theories about the etymological origin of the place name in that list of alternative names? My opinion is that it is not appropriate because it is the wrong location within the article to place such information. Meowy 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plain old content dispute, with nothing to do with fringe theories. Please find somewhere else to resolve this. Fences&Windows 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The closest we have to a guideline on this is: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Based on those guidelines, theories about the etymology of a placename should not be placed in the lead section. Meowy 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed a section from the article, and there is a very unhappy editor complaining about this on the talk page. If anyone else is interested in this I'd appreciate it if they'd take a look. Maybe some of it should go back, but it was a lot of SPS stuff and I may have missed some relevance that would mean that some of it should go back. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong
- Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (including but not limited to: Teachings of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).
The topic area is plagued by POV pushing and personal commentary. I am currently attempting to help mediate the dispute. The current stage of the mediation is focused on identifying serious issues and soliciting uninvolved outside input. I have invited some experienced uninvolved editors to take part in the editorial process, in an attempt to help steer things back on track. However, further specialized outside input would be invaluable. If some of the regulars from this noticeboard could review the main Falun Gong articles for fringe theories and severe undue weight violations, it would be sincerely appreciated. Providing a review at the main article talk page and/or correction of the problems would be particularly helpful. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- One issue, when I originally started working with these articles I came to it as an "uninvolved" editor and eventually found myself being thrust firmly into an anti-FLG mold by the people defending the PoV in the articles for my attempts to remove POV. Some semblance of order is finally descending thanks to the concerted efforts of MANY editors but I have to say, more help is ALWAYS welcome.Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
no doubt an extremely important artefact, but it would appear the article has been written by people who want it to be aged 20,000 years, not 9,000 years. That's a huge difference, and raises WP:REDFLAGs. Also the speculative, question-marked "interpretations" seem rather far-fetched. Also raises further {{notability}} issues for the Alexander Marshack and Claudia Zaslavsky articles linked. The lakeside Ishango population of 20,000 years ago may have been one of the first counting societies, but it lasted only a few hundred years before being buried by a volcanic eruption sounds like cheap fiction of the Lost World kind. In any case. my WP:FRINGE detectors went off with this article and perhaps somebody else wants to take a look. Also check out Lebombo bone which imo is a clear case of a ghost-artefact. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also object that a tally stick does not imply counting. In fact, a tally stick might be used because a society doesn't count (eg speaks a language that has no numerals), though of course it might lead to counting. kwami (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- this isn't plausible. Everything points to finger-counting as the natural first step. This of course doesn't leave archaeological traces. number names become associated with that. Additional "tools" like tally sticks are a later step.
- but my issue here is not with the Ishango stick being a tally stick, but with (a) the early date and (b) the speculations regarding multiplication / prime numbers etc. and the lunar calendar thing. I find it very very problematic to postulate something like this for the early Upper Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- A quick check shows that there are a number of relevant recent sources on this, but unfortunately I can't download them from home, so I can't figure out which date is supported by the current consensus of anthropologists. Both dates still seem to be mentioned. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be only some shaky evidence for this, and while I'm no longer convinced it's a blatant hoax, I'd like some more people to take a look. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I found this, so it's at least not a blatant hoax. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are now ten references in the article including academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I put this up while the article still looked very shaky. It's far better now. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are now ten references in the article including academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"the Galileo of the 20th century"
An editor is attempting to push opinion of Harold Lief, a self-described "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Ian Stevenson, that "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known ... as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'" into the lead of that article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Did Stevenson also drop things from towers and get imprisoned by the Catholic Church? Fences&Windows 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, someone needs to get out the ban stick for that article. The dedicated determination of the POV pushers there is crazy. And anybody looked into sockpuppet concerns yet, both in general and for banned users? The strategy of civil POV pushing and gaming the system demonstrated there are way beyond what anyone can in good faith expect from newbie accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- So true. Two very hard working red link WP:SPA's have politely ("Cheers!") but firmly tilted the WP:WEIGHT of that article with persuasive pro-reincarnation arguments to rebut each scrap of criticism and successfully WP:COATRACKed material openly supportive of Stevenson and reincarnation in at least three other BIOs. But they haven't done anything ban-worthy per se (unless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is now a ban-able offense.) I don't have the time to bicker with this crowd. If they want the article THAT bad, I say let them have it for the time being. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Lots of nonsense in here.
The worst bit: "Chi Kung practiced at the mind level cures any disease, including diseases considered by some as incurable, such as cancer, diabetes, ulcers and cardiovascular disorders."
Please see its AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Viktor Suvorov is a former low-level GRU officer-cum-amateur historian, who argues without sources and from extremely circumstantial evidence that Hitler's 22 June 1941 invasion of Soviet Union was desperate pre-emptive strike against Communist juggernaut about to attack him (in accordance with long-held Stalinist master plan of world takeover.) He has found extremely hostile reception among professional historians, although a few have made vaguely sympathetic though noncommittal reviews.
Suvorov article as of now is highly promotional. Worst problem: It conflates "Suvorov thesis," which is about disposition of Soviet ground troops in Spring/Summer 1941, with various "Stalin's psychology and ideology" debates, which revolve around his committment to Socialism in One Country versus his possible sympathy for Permanent revolution achieved by military force (ie, Soviet invasions / subversions of other countries.) So you have a lot of legitimate authors saying "Stalin was maybe more aggressive than some people realize," and they have no time for Suvorov, yet they are presented as allies supporting Suvorov's fringe theory. Careful attention has been lavished on accumulation of book and scholarly journal sources, but of those I have checked, many are being blatantly misused.
Suvorov's own article is worst. Soviet offensive plans controversy is about his thesis and looks OK though disproportionate space in text given to his few allies, overall framing makes clear his idea is non-mainstream to say the least. Suvorov influence is apparent in other articles though. He has other wild ideas in relation to not just 1941, for example, he claims that all estimates of Soviet military equipment are wildly distorted by Monkey model bias (that article should probably be AfDd) and his ideas are liberally sprinkled through articles relating to various pieces of USSR military equipment. 74.14.70.54 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you actually disagreeing with any of his points? Find an argument in defense of Onkel Joe and fix the articles. NVO (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Doubt
Is it necessary to quote works in English to prove that a theory is not a fringe theory,Can foreign works be used too ? If a publication claims that their book is Academy reviewed or peer reviewed can the publishers word be taken as true ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- We allow non-english sources on wikipedia (although English sources of the same quality or better take precidence over non-english sources). As to your second question, the fact that a book claims peer review does not make it so. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its like this I have a single reliable source in English language proposing a theory ,There are other sources proposing the same theory but in different languages .So can I use these foreign sources to prove that the english source is not a fringe theory ?--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am concerned by your word choice here... If what you mean is: "can I use non-english sources to subtantiate that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (per WP:NOTE)?" then the answer is: Yes. If you truely mean "do foreign sources prove that the theory is not Fringe"... then no... the fact that a theory is discussed in multiple languages has no impact on whether it is considered Fringe or not. Fringe theories can come in any language. More importantly, we should not be using Wikipedia to "prove" anything (trying to prove things is biased editing, and violates WP:NPOV)... we should simply summarize what the reliable sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its like this I have a single reliable source in English language proposing a theory ,There are other sources proposing the same theory but in different languages .So can I use these foreign sources to prove that the english source is not a fringe theory ?--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Gnosisquest, I suppose the easiest would be for you to just present your case with what sources you have and see how people react, and things will develop from there. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you bring a topic here, it's good to provide a pointer to the article in question. We've all had the experience of people describing a dispute in a slanted way and then asking for opinions -- editors here will be reluctant to commit themselves if they can't verify that your summary is accurate. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the subject interests anyne else, but I'm already too involved in this article and want to back out if I can. Various problems, see the talk page. I won't comment myself about it, but if, as I said, anyone's interested in Egyptology they might enjoy this. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
oh dear, this appears to be the classic WP:FRINGE case, a theory associated with a single scholar, who is even personally dominating the talkpage and giving directions on how he would like his views advertised on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have left a notice at the Ancient Egypt project talk page about this. Hopefully those with more knowledge of the subject can attend to it. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think a lot of expert knowledge is needed here. Rohl suggested this revised chronology based on "let's take the Hebrew Bible and find a historical person to match each character that appears in it". Egyptologists have looked at it and said "98% rubbish". It's a fringe theory that received some limited media coverage. It should just be merged back into the David Rohl article and presented for what it is worth. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
this is pretty bad, and we need to look after the "revised chronology" articles more generally. A lot of undue crackpottery seems to have been festering here. See Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, apparently a clone of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky. David Rohl appears to be a product of a sizeable "shadow academy" starting with Velikovsky's Revised Chronology (1952) which engendered the Glasgow Chronology (1978). This is all 100% WP:FRINGE. Other limbs of this would include Emmet Sweeney (link to deletion debate) and Gunnar Heinsohn (a tenured sociologist who apparently fell for Velikovsky), Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered), Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis. All of this needs to be checked for notability and proper presentation, strictly within Category:Pseudohistory. Super-articles are Catastrophism and Phantom time hypothesis. The David Rohl articles appear to be the most vigorous attempt at misrepresenting this thing as part of bona fide Egyptology at the moment.
Help from more FRINGE-savvy editors is badly needed here, as we haven't got past the stage of "but it was on TV" on talk yet. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS, Donovan Courville, Peter James (historian). This seems to be a pretty deep well of WP:FRINGE that has so far passed largely unnoticed on this board. Oh yes, Rohl also knows where Eden was, James knows about Atlantis, and Courville can revise the chronology of Sumer to fit Ussher's date for Noah's flood. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
We have a new editor, ArXivist who doesn't quite get WP:NPOV on WP:Fringe topics. Me and several other editors have tried explaining it to him, but without much success. Our 9/11 conspiracy theories article might need some extra attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- New editor? I. Don't. Think. So. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about sock puppetry on Wikipedia to form an opinion, but Cs32en is one of the most prolific POV-pushes I've ever encountered. He's been able to grasp the basics of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which leads to some very time consuming rebuttals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is again undergoing edits that change whether Stevenson's research is accepted or rejected at large, possible mischaraterisations and misrepresentations of sources, peacocking, etc. Please take a look. The discussion on the talk page is repetitive and tedious, unfortunately. Verbal chat 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Sigh)... This needs to be bumpped up the dispute resolution chain. POV pushing is never acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Now sourced information is being removed as it's 'unfair'. Sheesh. Verbal chat 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see this article now states that "scientific opinion of his research is split". Wow. This is the first I've heard of a controversy within science that reincarnation is the best explanation for this guy's anecdotal evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience
Question being considered here: Should this article have the pseudoscience tag and template? It's also home to a lot of fringe POV pushing generally, so a good one to add to watch lists. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience category does not label the article as pseudoscience, it labels the article's subject. "Moon landing was a hoax" qualifies as pseudoscience. And now excuse me while I hop over to Youtube for the vid of Buzz Aldrin decking the annoying fool calling him a liar, I never tire of watching it. Go Buzz! Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has win written all over it. Verbal chat 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not pseudoscience, it's a conspiracy theory. (Theorists may make use of faulty quasi-scientific reasoning to prove that we never went to the moon, though.) You wouldn't call Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories pseudoscience, would you? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has win written all over it. Verbal chat 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Akhilleus... the topic isn't pseudoscience (if it is "pseudo" anything it would be pseudo-history).Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)- (ec) There is precedent for tagging a topic that is primarily something else and only part of which is a pseudoscience as a pseudoscience. Homeopathy is also tagged as a pseudoscience, although it is primarily a (complementary/alternative medicine) practice, and it's not clear how relevant the pseudoscientific aspects of the belief system and the questionable attempts to support it scientifically really are.
- We don't seem to have clear criteria for this. Personally if I feel that something needs to be rooted out once and for all (to prevent further damage, or just because it's so unbearably silly), then I am more inclined to add it to the article than when I feel it's harmless nonsense. I suspect that many people feel similarly. Unfortunately the inclusion criteria are not clear enough to settle such questions, because they don't give a working definition of pseudoscience, and properly defining pseudoscience is a field of active research. Hans Adler 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Would someone please explain (briefly) what parts of the article involve pseudoscience. Are pseudoscientific claims discussed, and if so what are they? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Never mind my last question... I have answered it for myself. The section [Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories#Ionizing radiation and heat] clearly involves pseudoscientific claims. I am going to change my mind... the tag does apply. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The whole list of claims that one can tell that there is a hoax is, from end to end, based on defective technical claims. This doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to call it pseudoscience. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Shifting to neutral gear… I could see it labeled as "pseudohistory" instead as suggested by Blueboar. Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The whole list of claims that one can tell that there is a hoax is, from end to end, based on defective technical claims. This doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to call it pseudoscience. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jenny McCarthy has the pseudoscience tag for claiming that vaccines cause autism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- May I point out that Category:Pseudohistory seems tailor-made for this article? It has a little pseudoscience, but that's solely to back the pseudohistory. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of shaky claims and lacks anything resembling a reputable source. I suspect the best thing to do would be to delete it. (It was prodded some time ago but the prod was contested.) An editor named James Aslan (talk · contribs) has complained about the article on the talk page, but apparently isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures to address the problems effectively. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is quite a lot of material (fringe or otherwise) about this theory. See, for example, Google books. It clearly passes WP:N and should be covered. I made a cursory attempt to make it clear the theory isn't mainstream. I am no expert by any means, so I welcome better editing efforts. However, outright deletion doesn't seem appropriate given the level of coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully fringey to me. It's currently up for AFD with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy is/isn't FRINGE
Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. Verbal chat 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)