→Cupping therapy: link to pageview stats |
Sławomir Biały (talk | contribs) →Ruggero Santilli up for deletion: new section |
||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
::::::Well done. No doubt we've all noticed that this article's page views have jumped 100-fold, literally, over last 2 days. So it will be a headache for awhile -- at least until Phelps finishes up and goes home. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC) |
::::::Well done. No doubt we've all noticed that this article's page views have jumped 100-fold, literally, over last 2 days. So it will be a headache for awhile -- at least until Phelps finishes up and goes home. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::::<small>100-fold, literally? You must be joking, that is imposs... [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-07-01&end=2016-08-09&pages=Cupping_therapy Oops]. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:::::::<small>100-fold, literally? You must be joking, that is imposs... [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-07-01&end=2016-08-09&pages=Cupping_therapy Oops]. [[User:Tigraan|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#008000;">Tigraan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tigraan|<span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me</span>]]</sup> 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
== Ruggero Santilli up for deletion == |
|||
[[Ruggero Santilli]] is up for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination)]]. Please comment there. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 10 August 2016
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 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Total Nonsense
Magnetic resonance therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is total nonsense. Can someone delete it?
73.38.255.229 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, we have plenty of articles on nonsense theories. I think this one may be notable nonsense. So I'm far from sure it should be deleted, but it's much too positive, and would benefit from more watchers. (Unfortunately supporters of fringe theories are more likely to be interested in these articles than other editors, as we all know.) A sentence like "The therapy can be considered as alternative medicine as it is not approved by conventional medicine" (my italics) was quite unacceptably mealy-mouthed. I've removed it, inserting "alternative" in the first sentence instead. Note also that the largest claims in the lead section ("Magnetic resonance therapy is carried out internationally in clinical practices and rehabilitation facilities. It is also supported by research establishments, e.g. the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute in Saalfelden, Austria.") are unsourced. I've put "citation needed" on both sentences, and may remember to remove them if no citations are forthcoming. The body of the article has the same problems, but I have no more time for it just now. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC).
- The ineffectiveness of this therapy is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, but no other significant parts of the article are even devoted to it. Furthermore, the section on evidence (which could possibly use a rename, as it gives more credibility than the contents of that section deserve) seems to be making the point that the therapy is mostly effective. The five sources cited in the lead should also be cited elsewhere in the article. For that matter, the last source could also be pruned from the "literature" section. (If I have time, I'll try to get to it.) Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's a mess. I removed the second lead paragaph, as it was a WP:PROFRINGE disaster, but it still needs more work. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In depth article from The Washington Post, and from NIH - Magnetic resonance therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double blind placebo controlled trial.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Without reading the entirety of both your sources, it seems a little odd to me that the Washington Post would present Jin's claim that "[o]ne hundred percent responded [to the treatment] with very visible change" without any comment at all. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- From the NIH source: "MRT is safe, but not superior to placebo". So it is exactly as safe and exactly as effective as astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, praying to Jibbers Crabst and various spells from the Harry Potter books. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I removed a section from this article, which described some plausible sounding but irrelivant science stuff. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Salimfadhley: Thanks for that bold edit. The section on nuclear magnetic resonance was not altogether wrong, but it doesn't really apply to the article. The possibilities were either bold deletion or point-by-point refutation and it's good that you simply deleted it. Roches (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think we are not done here. I'm not qualified to assess the credibility of the medical evidence provided. I suspect that it is of low quality but would appreciate it if more expert eyes could review the sources. I think the article is in violation of WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Salimfadhley: Thanks for that bold edit. The section on nuclear magnetic resonance was not altogether wrong, but it doesn't really apply to the article. The possibilities were either bold deletion or point-by-point refutation and it's good that you simply deleted it. Roches (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Phantom cat articles
Yesterday I PRODed Phantom cat—"also known as Alien big cats (ABCs)"—because it's an unencyclopedic list of speculation about non-existent animals (aka cryptids). But Dmol removed the PROD with the edit summary, "Removing PROD. Well referenced article", which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I didn't PROD it due to lack of references. The article is essentially a list of supposed phantom cat sightings, all purely speculation and therefore, IMO, not encyclopedic. Even if the article talked about phantom cats more generally, I most likely would have PRODed it for being WP:Undue weight as I think phantom cats can easily be covered under the main cryptid article or in the List of cryptids. (I haven't really looked at that list yet, but I have a feeling that a lot of the things on the list shouldn't have an entire article devoted to them, but almost every single one links to its main article.)
On a related note, I also PRODed Gippsland phantom cat last night for lack of notability since of its 4 sources, 2 were broken links and the other 2 didn't mention the subject. That PROD was removed by Kvng who provided three sources on the talkpage as evidence of notability: This article in the Herald Sun, which WP describes as a tabloid. The 2nd is on oddhistory.com and the 3rd is on australianbigcats.com. None are RS and only the 3rd source uses the phrase "Gippsland phantom cat".
Neither article has had any substantive edits for a long time, so I didn't think the PRODs would be controversial, but apparently they were, so I wanted to get input from other editors here before nominating them for AFD. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 04:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I ended up AFDing Gippsland phantom cat because that one was pretty cut and dry after I looked into it more. Not 100% sure if Phantom cat needs to be nuked or AFDed though, so would still like input about that one. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 07:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of recent edits does not assure uncontroversial deletion. You need to do WP:BEFORE to establish whether deletion is the obvious and uncontroversial path. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article's title should have been "List of alleged Feline Cryptid sightings" --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of recent edits does not assure uncontroversial deletion. You need to do WP:BEFORE to establish whether deletion is the obvious and uncontroversial path. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Phantom cats are not cryptids. Phantom/alien cats are (usually) big cats in the incorrect habitat. But they are actually existing big cats. The alien refers to alien to the environment - so Puma's in Yorkshire etc. The vast majority of them are hoaxes, unsubstantiated sightings and/or misidentified, with the occasional zoo/private ownership escapee. A sabre-toothed tiger would be a cryptid. A Tiger in North London is not. Just improbable rather than impossible. Even the Gippsland cat which is called a cryptid is allegedly the result of a freed pair of Puma's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, because that's what I thought at first, but then the article was categorized as a crytid. —PermStrump(talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I thought that "cryptid" included purported populations of otherwise real animals despite lack of scientific coverage. Like phantom cats or the ivory-billed woodpecker. My introduction to phantom cats was actually a friend of mine who told me about "the mountain lion nuts" in a particular US state not known for being home to mountain lions -- people who attend various local naturalist meetings and ruin the party by insisting on talking to everyone at length about mountain lions nobody's ever seen/documented. That anecdote isn't to say they count as a cryptid, but it make sense to me why they would be lumped together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think Phantom cats is completely mis-titled. Try a simple google search of the term. I got bored of scrolling through non-related hits. Oh, and there is no RS to support the terminology.DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I thought that "cryptid" included purported populations of otherwise real animals despite lack of scientific coverage. Like phantom cats or the ivory-billed woodpecker. My introduction to phantom cats was actually a friend of mine who told me about "the mountain lion nuts" in a particular US state not known for being home to mountain lions -- people who attend various local naturalist meetings and ruin the party by insisting on talking to everyone at length about mountain lions nobody's ever seen/documented. That anecdote isn't to say they count as a cryptid, but it make sense to me why they would be lumped together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, because that's what I thought at first, but then the article was categorized as a crytid. —PermStrump(talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
A fringe case of "fringe"
Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex This is a theory claimed to be popular in Russian literature and even in Russian textbooks, but virtually unknown in the West. Google search in English shows either translations of the proponent or comments by Russian authors. I am not saying that Russian scientist are stupid, but such disconnection in today's globalization of science is a red flag to me. I am at a loss what to do with this article, since I see the subject has basically no independent scholarly discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, the theory does not seem to have gained much traction outside of Russia, despite being around since 1965 -- but it does attempt to answer some perfectly valid, fundamental questions, e.g. why are two genders necessary, and what is the precise nature of the difference and its evolutionary significance. There is a substantial bibliography at the end of his book, here -- and another, more concise one on his website, for whatever that is worth. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think gaining widespread acceptance is necessary for inclusion here. It seems to have a fairly broad base in Russia, which I think is enough to have it's own page. That being said, the page should be clear about it's status. It seems to be a legitimate fringe theory, and should be presented as such. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that its acceptance in Russia justifies the article's existence -- but is it fair to label it a fringe theory? It doesn't depart significantly from mainstream views on the subject, because there really aren't any. It's true that there isn't any significant independent scholarly discussion outside of Russia, but we've already agreed that the Russian discussion is sufficient. And it doesn't appear to be pseudoscience. So should we label it as fringe? I'm asking, not telling. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have always used the term "fringe" as a descriptive, and refuse to use it in the special meaning it has acquired here and in skeptical circles of "pseudo-scientific". For instance, I call this a legitimate fringe theory, just like I call Loop quantum gravity a legitimate fringe theory. I'm not suggesting this is pseudo-science, only that it's not part of the mainstream (and thus, on the 'fringes' of science). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I typed up the last and hit post before realizing I didn't address your question directly. My apologies. While I disagree with the use of the word "fringe", I understand its connotations here. So I would be fine with the word not being used. Also, as I've done above, if it is used, it should be prefixed with "legitimate" to distinguish it's usage here from it's usage elsewhere. But honestly, even that's a little questionable. I think describing the theory's lack of impact is enough, it doesn't need to be explicitly labelled "fringe", legitimate or otherwise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree! It's a hypothesis on the fringes, but not "fringe", per se. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that its acceptance in Russia justifies the article's existence -- but is it fair to label it a fringe theory? It doesn't depart significantly from mainstream views on the subject, because there really aren't any. It's true that there isn't any significant independent scholarly discussion outside of Russia, but we've already agreed that the Russian discussion is sufficient. And it doesn't appear to be pseudoscience. So should we label it as fringe? I'm asking, not telling. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The definition of fringe in Wikipedia guidelines is a theory that has little acceptance, while in common usage it means a theory that no rational person would accept. So the special theory of relativity was fringe when it was published but mainstream today. We do necessarily put into an article the term "fringe theory," it is only necessary that we follow the appropriate guidelines. That requires that we make clear the degree of acceptance it has, but that is true of mainstream theories too. TFD (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
A Fringe theory
I theorise that Ages Ago will do very well on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe?
Yeah, I just had to get the pun in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Acupuncture
WP:PROFRINGE edits at Acupuncture. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this unwarranted escalation what passes for discussion on Wikipedia these days? I addded a talk section at Acupuncture before you made your reverts. Are there any sanctions for people who abuse these resources? I've been on Wikipedia since 2003 and this is my first edit on any Acupuncture-related page, and this is how I'm treated? Smh. Huangdi (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your inexperience in editing the acupuncture article is clear. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Huangdi:A couple of things:
- Posting here is not something that any reasonable person would consider an escalation. The very purpose of this page is as a means of conflict resolution, which is quite the opposite thing.
- When one gets into a content dispute, immediately trying to make it about oneself ("I've been on Wikipedia since 2003 and this is my first edit on any Acupuncture-related page, and this is how I'm treated? Smh.") is extremely counterproductive and can be perceived as rather self-centered and arrogant.
- Asking if there's any way to punish someone for using one of WPs varied methods of conflict resolution is... Well, frankly it's ridiculous. No, there are no sanctions which can be imposed upon a Wikipedian for making a single posting to this noticeboard. My advice would be for you to stick to discussing the content and try to make a case for your position. If you cannot make a convincing case, then my advice would be for you to drop it and move on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'd disagree with this. Posting here is almost always an escalation. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:SEEKHELP. Posting to a noticeboard is regarded on Wikipedia as part of WP:Dispute resolution. A widened consensus is always a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I stand by my statement. If you disagree, then I'd contend you are being unreasonable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's why: 1) The first and usual place oto engage in discussion or conflict resolution, is the Talk page of that article. After my first edits, and before Tudor Georgescu's, I wrote on the Talk page. 2) Georgescu never engaged in conversation on the talk page, but 3) An arena as unusual or exceptional as this should be used sparingly - in my thousands of contributions I've never seen anything like this - the result (and perhaps desired effect) is potential intimidation of most contributors - which seems to be the *opposite* of the discussion we are trying ostensibly to facilitate. 4) Given the poor (and poor-sport) reaction on the page, I gave up on the earlier edit and made a much lighter edit which again was summarily rejected - no one seems interested in engaging in how to improve the rough and unedited tone of those first four paragraphs. Huangdi (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Context is important. We have a long history of trypanophiles trying to obscure the fact that robust testing shows that it makes no difference where you put the needles, or even whether you insert them at all. Edits that flatter the subject are likely to be rejected because the subhject is, as far as can be ascertained, a religious dogma masquerading as a medical procedure. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's why: 1) The first and usual place oto engage in discussion or conflict resolution, is the Talk page of that article. After my first edits, and before Tudor Georgescu's, I wrote on the Talk page. 2) Georgescu never engaged in conversation on the talk page, but 3) An arena as unusual or exceptional as this should be used sparingly - in my thousands of contributions I've never seen anything like this - the result (and perhaps desired effect) is potential intimidation of most contributors - which seems to be the *opposite* of the discussion we are trying ostensibly to facilitate. 4) Given the poor (and poor-sport) reaction on the page, I gave up on the earlier edit and made a much lighter edit which again was summarily rejected - no one seems interested in engaging in how to improve the rough and unedited tone of those first four paragraphs. Huangdi (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'd disagree with this. Posting here is almost always an escalation. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone going to make an argument for why this was an appropriate removal of sourced content? If not, what are we talking about? The argument for keeping it is that WP:PSCI requires that we keep it. It is written dispassionately and it's well cited, so it doesn't seem like a justified removal to me. —PermStrump(talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a highly problematic removal and it was good for Tgeorgescu to air the issue here. (In my case I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise as I generally don't follow the acupuncture article since it's such a shit pit). Alexbrn (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Huangdi: You removed well sourced, accurate, important information with the excuse that it was "NPOV". That, in and of itself is a red flag of the "don't bother to argue with this guy because he's agenda driven" sort. You then edit warred it back out at least twice (calling this well sourced, accurage, important information "weaselly") after you were reverted. You compounded this with your response here, where you made it all about yourself and speculated about punishing someone for trying to get outside opinions. Finally, you just lied to me directly by claiming Tgeorgescu never responded on talk (he did, and you then responded to him so I know you were lying and not simply ignorant of his response), when the record shows that it was he who invited you to talk with one of his edit summaries. Honestly, I think you're completely in the wrong and have no leg to stand on in any aspect of this issue. You seem to be engaged in blatant WP:NPOV pushing in this article and I'd advise you to stop immediately before you fall prey to those discretionary sanctions you've already been warned about. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
John A. McDougall, again
- John A. McDougall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inventor of a fad diet promising poorly-evidenced health benefits. The article is under constant assault (often from IPs); could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
FT/N a forum for canvassing?
Related (at least) to the above postings on acupuncture, editors here should be aware of this contribution[1] on Jimbo's Talk page which alleges FT/N postings are being used to WP:CANVASS. More eyes welcome ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Canvassing about a discussion on canvassing. TimidGuy (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're so meta.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad I wasn't the only one to notice that. I wasn't going to say anything, though. Gotta protect the cabal at all costs, don't ya know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, wasn't this supposed to be on the secret fringe theories noticeboard, not this one? -Roxy the dog™ eyes 20:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, this isn't the secret FT/N? Oh noes!!!111!!1!1oneoneone MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- We'd better stop posting now. I'll see you guys at the Lodge at midnight, okay ... ? We can revise our master plan then ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- On a related note, did you folks get your big pharma shill cheques this month? I called big pharma and they said mine was 'in the mail' but it still hasn't shown up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was told the black helicopter is having engine trouble. But they would say that, wouldn't they? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- On a related note, did you folks get your big pharma shill cheques this month? I called big pharma and they said mine was 'in the mail' but it still hasn't shown up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- We'd better stop posting now. I'll see you guys at the Lodge at midnight, okay ... ? We can revise our master plan then ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, this isn't the secret FT/N? Oh noes!!!111!!1!1oneoneone MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, wasn't this supposed to be on the secret fringe theories noticeboard, not this one? -Roxy the dog™ eyes 20:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean we aren't out to get you. - Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Transhumanism
Transhumanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - there is a debate on the talk page about whether fringe science is a suitable see also, whether there should be a hatnote for posthumanism and how to cover the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Fixuture has asked for more eyes and I concur, so mentioning it here - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welp, I consider myself a transhumanist and I know others who would say the same. That shows that I'm biased, but it also shows that transhumanism is a thing, a noteworthy thing at that, and a noteworthy thing that is well-subscribed by some considerable number of enthusiastic people. Nevertheless, I would certainly agree that association with the movement is generally considered damaging to one's reputation because the ideas are antithetical to current cultural norms, but only some transhumanist assumptions about the future can justifiably be considered "fringe" e.g. cryonics, uploading; mainstream opinion is that cryonics is pseudoscience on par with UFOs (worse: it's perceived as a financial scam intended to dupe dying people), while uploading is perhaps slightly more charitably viewed. This recent Pew poll is unambiguous evidence that the public takes transhumanist ideas very seriously [2]. To be transhumanist is merely to believe that the enhancements listed in the Pew poll are good and desirable and to advocate for their development and use. That's "fringe" only insofar as it is a policy perspective opposed to the current (apparent) majority opinion. Just to be clear, I think it's totally appropriate to point out those particular beliefs which are considered pseudoscience (as in the lead for cryonics), but transhumanism *per se* cannot be said to be "fringe" in the way intended by this noticeboard since it is essentially the mere belief and advocacy that human enhancement is desirable. Since most Americans believe these enhancements are coming, and organizations like Pew believe this is worth discussing, then clearly this is not "fringe science" or pseudoscience. Frankly, the claim that transhumanism is *itself* pseudoscience is used as a way to delegitimize the viewpoints of transhumanists so as to shut down discussion. Believing that we should microchip our children the way we do so with dogs may be odious to some people, but that opinion is not, in and of itself, "fringe science." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone else have a go counselling this new editor? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- What else to say, that hasn't been said? He appears to have stopped, at least for the nonce. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Electron internal structure
- Electron internal structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Came across this article when it was advertised in Youtube comments by the same individual who created it (scroll down for linked comment here). Appears to have been created and maintained by a single editor (the guy who made the Youtube comment) for sole purpose of promoting fringe viewpoint of a somebody named John Williamson, with 4 out of 6 references being primary sources; Williamson's own published work (including a preprint). As far as I can tell, Google search turns up nothing on this particular John Williamson, which makes this article especially inappropriate given that he is mentioned alongside Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman while simultaneously awarded the lion's share of the content. This should be deleted. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's already been prodded, and I've watched it. If it's not deleted per the prod, I'll nominate it at AfD. It's pure crankery. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Worse than crankery, it's gibberish. Can't we just nuke it on general principle? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- ... from orbit, it's the safest way. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's the only way to be sure. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- ... from orbit, it's the safest way. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Worse than crankery, it's gibberish. Can't we just nuke it on general principle? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've posted a rather long (but quite polite) message at the talk page of the user who has been editing that article. Hopefully, I can help him understand why this article needs to go. One thing I'm rather sure of is that this guy is really new here, and doesn't know what he's doing. His only interactions with the rest of us so far have been through warning templates. If we AGF at his next few breaches of protocol and make a point of communicating directly with him from now on, it might go a long way towards helping him turn into a valuable contributor. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- In looking into this further, I think what we have here is a case of "legitimate" fringe science being treated as mainstream science. The works cited appear to be on a level with loop quantum gravity in terms of rigor, though there aren't nearly as many scientists working on it. To be sure: this is not a mainstream view. That being said, the only pseudoscience seems to come into play when the editor writing the page lets his own voice creep in (which is, admittedly, quite a lot). Also, I still haven't dug fully into this, I've only looked up the authors cited and read some abstracts. There might yet be more to this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Fringe phobias
I've just put leukophobia up for deletion because, as far as I can tell, it's just something someone made up. There were a couple of RFDs which deleted a huge swathe of redirects, ostensibly because articles ought to be written instead. I'm wondering just how much of the -phobias we have have any kind of medical literature behind them. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do the DSM-IV codes contain a list? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- If a patient presented with this, it would be considered specific phobia. In a perfect world, much of this comically extensive list of phobias could probably be eliminated with a redirect to specific phobia. For what it's worth, I'd guess that traditional perceptions of phobias as well as popular interpretations of mental illness generally (including and perhaps especially psychotherapy) are inextricably intertwined with pseudoscience. Murky stuff. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not in my copy of DSM, and the only place I could find a definition was in the Urban Dictionary, suggesting that it's more of a "pop" diagnosis than a real one. One of the cited sources (a blog, I think) goes on to describe fear of other colors -- yellow, purple, black, etc. I don't think we want to open that can of worms. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The very thought of the colour of those worms makes me squirm. Ugh. **shivers** -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Colour Out of Space, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The very thought of the colour of those worms makes me squirm. Ugh. **shivers** -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of this people already said in this thread, but I'm quoting myself from Talk:Trypophobia ("phobia" of clusters of little holes or bumps), because it basically applies to all of the made-up terms that fall under the DSM diagnosis of "specific phobia, other type"... According to the DSM-5, these are the subtypes of specific phobias:
- Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs).
- Natural environment (e.g., heights, storms, water).
- Blood-injection-injury (e.g., needles, invasive medical procedures).
- Situational (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places).
- Other (e.g., situations that may lead to choking or vomiting; in children, e.g., loud sounds or costumed characters)
For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of little holes)", not "other (trypophobia)" (or anything else involving the word "trypophobia", because no one else who read it would have any idea what you were talking about).
The fancy Greek/Latin terms are "pop" diagnoses like DoctorJoeE said and will probably never be in the DSM, because the trend, at least for now, is to move away from using obscure Latin and Greek words in favor of less ambiguous terms (e.g., Trichotillomania → hairpulling disorder). BUT that's not to say that believing someone could have a fear of lots of little holes in one place (or a fear of anything else for that matter) is a fringe concept, because people can have a specific phobia of literally anything and one of the criteria for a phobia diagnosis is that the fear is irrational, so they will always sound... irrational. (That doesn't mean the people self-diagnosing on the internet are right about themselves having it, but that's a completely separate issue.) So when these things come up, and they seem to come up a lot (see also nomophobia—fear of being separated from your smartphone/internet access), IMO, we should look at them as a WP:NEOLOGISMs and if the term doesn't meet the notability criteria for neologisms, then it shouldn't get its own article and in most cases would probably be undue weight to even mention in the body of Specific phobia, but I guess that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. —PermStrump(talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think, as you suggest - Lovecraft references notwithstanding - that this is more of a notability issue than anything else. Yes, there are probably people who really do have an irrational fear of a certain color -- or their underwear, or elevator buttons (like Jack Weston's character in The Four Seasons) -- but how many such people are there? And are those legitimate phobias, or just components of OCD, or something else? Ask 10 shrinks, you'll probably get 11 answers. Unfortunately it is, in all likelihood, a case-by-case thing, as you said. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A problem I've noticed with some -phobia articles is that they conflate a psychological disorder subject with a cultural phenomenon subject. Two that I took to AfD last year were Androphobia (an abnormal fear of men (a phobia) or a term that basically means misandry) and Hoplophobia (an abnormal fear of guns (a phobia) or a neologism coined by a gun rights activist for political purposes). Hoplophobia proved controversial (go figure) and was not deleted (*grumble*), but the AfD was, to me, illustrative of this challenge. With trypophobia, at least there's less confusion -- it was a cultural phenomenon, gaining attention via the Internet, at which point psychologists commented on it and said meh, revulsion, priming, and conditioning, and stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point. When they end up being notable as neologisms, most/all of the time they need to be re-written to sound less like a medical article and more like an article on a cultural phenomenon. —PermStrump(talk) 18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Cupping! it works! just look at Phelps!
Ya'll might want to be aware of this. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/olympics/rio-2016/2016/08/08/88385924/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Correlation does not imply causation. clpo13(talk) 21:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well when I read this earlier today, I suspected it would cause issues... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- They say the round bruises are from cupping, but can we really rule out attacks by giant squid? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is an issue affecting the health of human beings, I'm going to need to see some recent, published review articles saying that this was not the result of a squid attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Octopus. Given the circumference of the marks, it would have to be a giant squid, and if it was a giant squid - their suckers are lined with larger than usual teeth, so those swimmers would be bleeding all over. Clearly the work of an enraged octopus.[original research?] Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've convincingly ruled out the salt vampire from Star Trek.... - Nunh-huh 23:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's actually simple enough. All we need to do is test for the presence o-
- Actually, that test is inaccurate and I never should have suggested it. But it doesn't matter because it definitely wasn't the salt vampire. Kirk killed the last of
usthem. Now please excuse me, I've discovered this wonderful town I just have to take a trip to... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)- Ah, yes, I know it well... from the Book of Mormon... Sal Tlay Ka Siti. A village in Ooh-tah. Where the goat meat is plentiful, and flies don't bite your eyeballs. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've convincingly ruled out the salt vampire from Star Trek.... - Nunh-huh 23:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Octopus. Given the circumference of the marks, it would have to be a giant squid, and if it was a giant squid - their suckers are lined with larger than usual teeth, so those swimmers would be bleeding all over. Clearly the work of an enraged octopus.[original research?] Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is an issue affecting the health of human beings, I'm going to need to see some recent, published review articles saying that this was not the result of a squid attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- They say the round bruises are from cupping, but can we really rule out attacks by giant squid? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well when I read this earlier today, I suspected it would cause issues... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bunch of silly people -- obviously it was a kracken; don't any of you watch Geico commercials? Or a really aggressive girlfriend. Whatever; given his results last night, everybody will have 'em tonight, I reckon... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Definitely the Kraken. Definitely not salt vampires. I'm an expert on these things, you know. Just look at my user name. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bunch of silly people -- obviously it was a kracken; don't any of you watch Geico commercials? Or a really aggressive girlfriend. Whatever; given his results last night, everybody will have 'em tonight, I reckon... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I hear if you put KT tape over those cup lesions you actually go back in time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only in the sense that your wallet now contains the amount of money you had 2 weeks ago. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could someone pass me the Dried frog pills. -Roxy the dog™ bark 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Save one for me, please -- I've gone a bit Bursar myself ... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here is some nightmare fuel for you: Vampire squid. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, please. It's just another anim-nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. Vampire squid are a pain in the neck. Meet my favorite cephalopod, the Dumbo Octopus. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, please. It's just another anim-nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here is some nightmare fuel for you: Vampire squid. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Save one for me, please -- I've gone a bit Bursar myself ... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could someone pass me the Dried frog pills. -Roxy the dog™ bark 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted an account for adding text such as "From her personal and non-scientific standpoint, she nevertheless" and an IP for removing sourced text they didn't like, both in the last few hours. I'd prefer not to revert again today. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've watched the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Rolfing again
There are some remaining unresolved issues with this article which could benefit from extra input. As I see it the issues include:
- Should the article be copiously tagged? I'm not entirely sure any more what this issue is here by those who want to keep the tags, but the description of Rolfing as pseudoscience/quackery has been objected to for example (it was proposed[3] we should say that opponents see it as pseudoscience).
- How should the question of effectiveness be dealt with? It has been proposed that we say some sources support Rolfing's effectiveness and some don't[4] - although as I see it the only WP:MEDRS we have appears to say there is no good evidence.
Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Harold E. Puthoff
- Harold E. Puthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs a thorough going over in light of FRINGE. For one, Puthoff's fringe viewpoints are being given weight over mainstream scientific viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Cupping therapy
Edit war raging on cupping therapy. Notable sources are being systematically removed from a couple of IP addressed that have never edited Wikipedia before and seem to be here for a single purpose: maintaining a particular POV on this single topic. Help requested on how to solve this conflict, please. It is getting out of hand. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've watched the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Someone just deleted a bunch of sourced content in lede, and wrote, "spending more than half the WP:LEAD criticizing the subject is *not* balanced writing." It is if sources support the criticism, yes? Anyone object to reverting that deletion of sourced material? Just checking before I do it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The lede should definitely make clear the cupping is nonsense on toast, but OTOH it has been a bit overblown and makes it look like the case is a bit desperate with over-criticism. I think it could be more succinct and be stronger. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The lede is a summary of the article. If the lede is overly bloated with criticism (when the article itself is not) then yes, it looks unbalanced. A brief summary should be in the lede with the bulk of the material expanded on and integrated into the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The lede should definitely make clear the cupping is nonsense on toast, but OTOH it has been a bit overblown and makes it look like the case is a bit desperate with over-criticism. I think it could be more succinct and be stronger. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Someone just deleted a bunch of sourced content in lede, and wrote, "spending more than half the WP:LEAD criticizing the subject is *not* balanced writing." It is if sources support the criticism, yes? Anyone object to reverting that deletion of sourced material? Just checking before I do it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well done. No doubt we've all noticed that this article's page views have jumped 100-fold, literally, over last 2 days. So it will be a headache for awhile -- at least until Phelps finishes up and goes home. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- 100-fold, literally? You must be joking, that is imposs... Oops. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well done. No doubt we've all noticed that this article's page views have jumped 100-fold, literally, over last 2 days. So it will be a headache for awhile -- at least until Phelps finishes up and goes home. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ruggero Santilli up for deletion
Ruggero Santilli is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination). Please comment there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)