Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
Could use more input, especially from anyone familiar with Russian sources. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
Could use more input, especially from anyone familiar with Russian sources. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
: Q Valda is a knowledgeable professional, a member or an employee of the Committee on Pseudoscience of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He sometimes pushes too much, but he definitely knows what he is talking about.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:55, 6 January 2017
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. |
Maybe it's some sort of reaction against increased scrutiny on fake news sites have been getting in the public eye recently, but I've been noticing more editors (and some of them not just drive-by IPs but editors who have been here for years but avoided these kinds of topics) trying to argue that Alex Jones isn't a conspiracy theorist and that InfoWars isn't a fake news site because... it's only mainstream sources that say so, he disagrees; or it's "only" the cited sources. Some have also tried saying "oh, we just need to attribute it," when we have US News and World Report and a different news article citing a communications professor supporting the description of the site as a fake news site.
Has WP:RS recently changed so that US News and World Report is unreliable, but InfoWars is? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think some of these are probably good faith editors who have noticed all the attention that "fake news" sites have gotten lately. Perhaps they feel that some readers would easily brush off the label "conspiracy theory" site but find "fake news" more malicious in nature? If so then they probably believe they are helping warn folks off of Jones. Just a thought. --Krelnik (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that. There are users who are trying to get rid of the conspiracy theorist label, and there are users who are trying to get rid of the fake news label. Sources support both labels. Meant to say or it's "only" the cited sources' opinions, sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I didn't dig deep into the history. Added Jones to my watchlist though. --Krelnik (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that failed attempts to whitewash topics labeled as conspiracy theories are often followed by attempts to change the conspiracy theory article to be more favorable to conspiracy theories. Which is why Conspiracy theory should be on everyone's watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I added conspiracy theory to my list. We could also use extras eyes on Snopes.com.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that failed attempts to whitewash topics labeled as conspiracy theories are often followed by attempts to change the conspiracy theory article to be more favorable to conspiracy theories. Which is why Conspiracy theory should be on everyone's watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I didn't dig deep into the history. Added Jones to my watchlist though. --Krelnik (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that. There are users who are trying to get rid of the conspiracy theorist label, and there are users who are trying to get rid of the fake news label. Sources support both labels. Meant to say or it's "only" the cited sources' opinions, sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
psych-woo-cology: Limbic resonance
please see above; needs cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- See above where? All the stuff I thought was here is gone, so I'll put this here: I would say it seems like the concept of banning wikilurkers who revert legitimate material without a notice of objection and some time to comply from editing this particular article should be given some serious attention. That is to say editors monopolizing this particular article to the exclusion of all other contributions seems to be a much larger concern than I had considered possible. Specifically, I made the mistake of adding a link to semaphore because I thought readers might like to consider it as an alternative to the borderline illegal 'mother-child bonding-communication' referenced heavily in the article and boy did they ever come unglued. Apparently suddenly everything I've ever done in my life is a travesty and no they're not going to have the decency to tell me why they waited until now to tell me. 55378008a (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who's better than me at talking down well-intentioned but persistent pushers of fringe theories take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Square Nebula Explanation and try to talk the editor in question down? I really don't want to even consider blocking him—this is clearly someone well-intentioned who thinks they have a duty to spread The Truth that the sun is actually powered by electricity and this fact is being covered up by people who have vested interests in perpetuating a misguided belief in fusion reactions—but I can tell he's going to be persistent, and I can feel myself beginning to lose my temper so had probably better withdraw. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Motherboard has an article on this theory. Might be worth a read for anyone else who's never heard of this before. Definitely fits the definition of fringe. clpo13(talk) 22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fifty bucks says this ends up at ANI before all is said and done. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I watchlist a lot of stuff that appears on this noticeboard, but this is out of my league and insane. Sorry. Roxy the dog. bark 00:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: I immediately thought of this when I read your comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Laughter at bedtime. Cant go wrong. Roxy the dog. bark 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- That editor is not long for this world, I should think - they've already drawn a temporary block this week, and they keep edit warring and threatening people. They're clearly here to right great wrongs, never a good idea. --Krelnik (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this editor will probably get to ANI eventually, as MjolnirPants said. After the article inevitably gets deleted, he'll probably keep ranting about The Truth, and get blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I left him a message. It's probably pointless, but I'd rather see him willingly stop editing, instead of being forced to block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 16:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- And he's edit-warring on the Red Square Nebula page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 14:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- I left him a message. It's probably pointless, but I'd rather see him willingly stop editing, instead of being forced to block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 16:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this editor will probably get to ANI eventually, as MjolnirPants said. After the article inevitably gets deleted, he'll probably keep ranting about The Truth, and get blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) Happy Holidays 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- That editor is not long for this world, I should think - they've already drawn a temporary block this week, and they keep edit warring and threatening people. They're clearly here to right great wrongs, never a good idea. --Krelnik (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Laughter at bedtime. Cant go wrong. Roxy the dog. bark 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: I immediately thought of this when I read your comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Velikovsky issues
I have decided to collate all these issues under one setting as they are related. For those unaware, Immanuel Velikovsky was synonymous with pseudoscience back in the 1970s as the equivalent to the 2012 doomsdayers or the ancient alien people of today. Wikipedia was early on infected with a number of Velikovskians who have been subsequently sidelined, for the most part, but a lot of cruft remains. I periodically try to clean it out.
jps (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- As a general comment, most of the Velikovsky (imho) stuff falls under 'notable rubbish'. Its fringey/pseudoscience but well known and publicised fringey/pseudoscience that had extensive debunking/comment. The related Journals (at the time) were well-known (Pensee was not *that* obscure, Kronos even less so in its area of influence). I dont particularly have an opinion on their merit as stand-alone articles. A better solution would probably be to merge them into one 'Velikovsky publications' article with a lead clearly laying out the context in which they existed and a small paragraph on each. Given the extensive comment/debunking, it would be impossible to write such an article without including the criticism etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Obscure 10 issue journal
Third time we've had a deletion discussion on this.
Comment please.
jps (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Defunct Velikovsky publication
What the hell, let's do talk about deleting this one too.
jps (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- This article was kept, but I cannot for the life of me see how to write about it. A journal with a maximum circulation of 2000 unapologetically devoted to promulgating pseudoscience and pseudohistory, but so obscure as to provoke essentially no notice. Nevertheless, the Wikipedian debaters who don't deal with this subject day-to-day have spoken. Help in clean-up, please? jps (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Velikovsky skeptic biography
C. Leroy Ellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an interesting case and I think people here may be able to help. C. Leroy Ellenberger was an important debunker of Velikovsky (supporter turned skeptic) who, somewhat like ex-Scientologists being the most hated by Scientology, has inspired the irate furor of Velikovskians. He also has an account here and has been very helpful in providing content for some of the articles we have that discuss Velikovsky, but he has edited his own biography (and I will refrain from linking to it here out of respect for WP:OUTING).
The thing is, his biography is more of an object lesson in the larger tale of Velikovsky pseudoscience than it is an encyclopedic work. Note that many of the sources in our article on him do not rise to the WP:RS level that we typically require. I don't really know what to do about this.
So just thought I'd post about this here and let you all decide what you think.
jps (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Was? Still is the last time I heard from him. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Gunnar Heinsohn
Gunnar Heinsohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this neo-Velikovskian pass WP:PROF? I guess so, but it's hard for me to say. In any case, it is very important that we identify his pseudohistory ideas as such, and that is not currently done. Not to mention that the biography looks like a coatrack. See especially: Gunnar Heinsohn#Revision of ancient chronology.
jps (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Footnotes 53 and 56, if in fact the latter is reproduced from Aeon as it seems to be, and if that is an RS itself (is it? - I dunno) might help establish notability, but if they do the article would need to be substantially rewritten to give the appropriate weight to the really independent sources. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Dorothy Kilgallen (again)
There is currently a discussion on the talk page concerning whether or not to add the recent book by Mark Shaw to the bibliography and whether or not it is PROFRINGE. Input from interested editors is kindly requested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Christ myth theory may heat up
The Wash. Post has pulled a Newsweek and published this article by Raphael Lataster on the 18th: Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. Keep an eye out. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Steven Krivit
A journalist of cold fusion "fame"(?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Krivit.
jps (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Brain fingerprinting
- Brain fingerprinting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lawrence Farwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lawrence Farwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Brainf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Brainfingerprinting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Neuroscientist1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brain fingerprinting is a technique invented by Lawrence Farwell. It is not accepted for use in court, as far as I can tell. The article has substantial input fomr a number of WP:SPAs notably those listed above, all of which suggest that they are, or are associated with, the inventor.
The article cites 33 references. Of these, over half are primary sources written by Farwell, or are hosted on his website.
Bluntly, this article reads as blatant advertising. I am fairly sure it is an unrecognised and questionable technique. You could not tell that from the article. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- You say bluntly, I say kindly. This is just another example of the rank pseudoscience of polygraphy, but it is only promoted by a single snake oil salesperson so seems to have flown under our radar. Unfortunately, law enforcement has a history of being duped by polygraphy schemes, and it appears that there are instances where this has happened (even making its way into being admitted in courtroom evidence). This is actually a really difficult case for WP:FRINGE to handle. I see some noise on the talkpage of people who have argued that they can help, but it looks like not much has been done. SMH jps (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. I have stubbed it and redirected Lawrence Farwell to this article, as there is only one subject and both articles had the same problems. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Guy said: "Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups." I'll take you up on that. I am Neuroscientist1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I appreciate your commitment to valid, proven science and to accurate information. I hope that after checking the facts more thoroughly you will realize that I have the same commitment, as do the other major authors of scientific articles on brain fingerprinting. You said: "Bluntly, this article reads as blatant advertising. I am fairly sure it is an unrecognised and questionable technique." These are two separate and independent statements. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the first statement is true, or as true as a subjective opinion can be. That does not mean that the conclusion you are "fairly sure" of in the second statement is true. I think that when you look more closely and comprehensively at the demonstrable facts, you will reach a different conclusion, or at least be open to equal representation for a different point of view. Please consider the following facts. The most definitive and comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific articles on brain fingerprinting are on five studies conducted at the FBI, the CIA, the US Navy, and elsewhere. These are reported in 2013 and 2014 in two excellent and well-respected peer-reviewed journals. [1] [2] Brain fingerprinting is also described in the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. [3] The editors of these scientific journals and the encyclopedia found the brain fingerprinting science worthy of publication. The whole purpose of the peer-review process is to distinguish between valid science and an "unproven" or "unrecognised and questionable technique." The editors of these journals and encyclopedia reached the opposite conclusion from the one you are "pretty sure" of. I respectfully submit that they are more qualified than you are to make that decision. They are also more qualified than the reporter you quoted. (Incidentally, of the hundreds of lay articles published on brain fingerprinting, only a handful are negative. You chose one of these to quote.) If somehow the editors of these three prestigious and authoritative publications had been mistaken, scientists would have undoubtedly pointed it out by now. No scientist in any peer-reviewed publication has found any fault with the science of brain fingerprinting published in these articles. I respectfully submit that your conclusion that brain fingerprinting science is "unproven" and "unrecognised and questionable" is incorrect. At best, it is one opinion, which is the opposite of what many others think, including the experts who have published the major peer-reviewed papers in the field and the editors of those journals. Regarding your ad hominem comments, and jps's statement that "This is just another example of the rank pseudoscience of polygraphy, but it is only promoted by a single snake oil salesperson," I think that both of you have missed the mark, albeit in good faith. The authors of the above cited articles are Lawrence Farwell, Drew Richardson, John Furedy, and Graham Richardson. (Drew Richardson and Furedy died in 2016.) Drew Richardson was an extremely well respected FBI forensic scientist and former chief of the FBI's chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism response force. Furedy was one of the most well published and well respected scientists in the field of psychophysiology. Both of them were major forces in the fight against pseudoscience of all kinds, but particularly with reference to polygraphy. Richardson was co-founder of antipolygraph.org, the flagship of the forces exposing pseudoscience in the form of polygraphy. Richardson and Furedy wrote one of the most definitive peer-reviewed scientific articles against polygraphy, entitled "The Polygrapher's Dilemma." Another scientist who has conducted some of the leading peer-reviewed research on brain fingerprinting is William Iacono, a scientist unaffiliated with Farwell who testified as an expert witness along with Farwell in the Harrington case in which brain fingerprinting was ruled admissible in court. (Yes, brain fingerprinting was ruled admissible in court, as noted in the court decision [4] and in the Yale Journal of Law and Technology. [5]) In addition to peer-reviewed publications on his research results, he wrote a review article entitled "The Forensic Application of Brain Fingerprinting: Why Scientists Should Encourage the Use of P300 Memory Detection Methods." [6] Iacono is also a leading critic of the polygraph, and has written peer-reviewed articles exposing and opposing pseudoscience in polygraphy. He has also testified as an expert witness against the polygraph in court. (Since this is a talk page and not an article, I'll forego citing absolutely everything I mention. If you are interested, I can provide citations for anything I say.) Iacono is one of the most respected and decorated scientists in the entire field of psychophysiology. In short, brain fingerprinting has more than one scientific contributor, and they are not snake-oil salesmen. Regarding Farwell, in the collective opinion of his fellow scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in the field, brain fingerprinting is not actually Farwell's most substantial scientific contribution. He also invented the first brain-computer interface (BCI) and published it in a leading peer-reviewed journal. [7] Farwell and Donchin's original publication on the BCI has been cited over a thousand of times in subsequent peer-reviewed publications since 1988 (2,339 citations [not all peer-reviewed] according to Google Scholar, as compared with 484 for his original brain fingerprinting paper, Farwell and Donchin 1991, and 274 for a technical mathematics paper published in a leading physics journal). To my knowledge, not a single one of those 2,339 BCI-related articles has found fault with, or even questioned, Farwell's science. Time magazine selected Farwell to the Time 100: The Next Wave, who they concluded were the world's top innovators who may be "the Picassos or Einsteins of the 21st Century." Farwell also invented and patented a novel brainwave-based method for early detection of Alzheimer's disease, [8] and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in the psychophysiology, neuroscience, forensic science, and physics scientific literature on EEG in aging, EEG analysis techniques such as digital filtering and statistical bootstrapping, and mathematical techniques such as chaotic attractors. You are entitled to your opinion about Farwell, but others who frankly know much more about his science than you do have opposite opinions. Presenting your opinion as fact in Wikipedia without equal representation for the opinions of those who have reached an opposite conclusion about him and his inventions (plural) would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's POV guidelines (as I understand them). Brain fingerprinting is not Farwell's most major scientific contribution (albeit it is the one that has gotten the most popular press). With all due respect, redirecting Farwell's page to brain fingerprinting is inappropriate, particularly when you have eliminated the entire brain fingerprinting page and substituted a short paragraph containing only your own opinions and a few cherry-picked non-authoritative lay publications that support them. While we're in the ad hominem space, regarding who Farwell is and what he stands for, you might find it interesting to know that Farwell testified against the polygraph before the Senate Intelligence Committee in reference to the Aldrich Ames CIA-double-agent case. No one before, least of all the polygraph people, has ever accused Farwell of being an advocate of "the rank pseudoscience of polygraphy." Whether you like Farwell or not, that shoe does not fit. Regarding Brainf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brainfingerprinting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have no idea who they are or whom they are affiliated with. Judging by their writings, however, I think it is extremely unlikely that they are scientists with any knowledge of the field. There is also some confusion regarding the term "brain fingerprinting" in the article as it now stands. The article quotes findings by the government in India that "brain fingerprinting" is unscientific, unproven, and invalid. The situation is that an Indian named C. R. Mukundan developed a system (usually referred to as BEOS) that he falsely claimed was similar to and/or based on Farwell's brain fingerprinting invention. Farwell was one of the experts who went to India and helped the government to debunk Mukundan's system (as well as other pseudoscience including "narcoanalysis" or using purported truth serums). The quoted decisions were against Mukundan's system, not against Farwell's brain fingerprinting, but unfortunately Mukundan's use of the term "brain fingerprinting" also crept into some of the language used by the Indian government in rejecting his system. The details of the various written statements from the Indian government, however, make it clear that what is being debunked and rejected is Mukundan's system, and not Farwell's brain fingerprinting. The statements about India and brain fingerprinting belong not in the brain fingerprinting page but on a disambiguation page, if they are to appear at all. Or at least there should be an explanation that in that context the term "brain fingerprinting" was erroneously used to describe Mukundan's technique rather than Farwell's brain fingerprinting as described in the Wikipedia brain fingerprinting article.
I'm all for going after the bad guys -- pseudoscientists, criminals, and baddies of all stripes -- and blowing them out of the water, but before doing that I have learned that one must be much more than "pretty sure" that the targets actually are the bad guys. Having had the experience of being simultaneously sure and wrong, I have learned to keep an open mind. I hope you will do the same. On initially reading your edits, I thought that you must be someone with an axe to grind -- maybe a representative of the polygraph industry, or a failed academic competitor whose scientific or mathematical errors have been exposed by Farwell. I was mistaken, and frankly I underestimated you. Upon looking into who you are more carefully, I realize that you are as committed to the truth as I am. I respectfully suggest, however, that you have not yet done enough research to know that the truth is in this situation. Just as I did initially with respect to you, I think you leaped to a conclusion that was incorrect, without first thoroughly examining the evidence. In reality we are on the same side here. Our mutual duty is to present the readers of Wikipedia with accurate, balanced information about the science involved. I, too, have a sense of humor (not to be confused with a sense of humour -- quite different actually). I only went to a 380-year-old (American) university. Nevertheless I, too, am a middle-aged parent who has shared your experience of "oh no, not this shit again," with respect to both parenting and science. So, as you suggest, let's talk nicely and sort this whole thing out like grown-ups. References
-- Neuroscientist1 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
- You "forgot" to mention what connection you have with Farwell. I have no dog in this fight, you very obviously have one, the only remaining question is whether you *are* the dog. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- So, user:Neuroscientist1 is user:Lawrence Farwell, the originator of the theory and the principal author of all the text about it anywhere on Wikipedia. Colour me unsurprised. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar concerning the use of the term pseudomedicine. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. One editor has been trying for nearly two months to remove this term. Guy (Help!) 01:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is "psuedomedicine" as a term used enough to be featured like this? I thought quackery was a more common term of art. jps (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think quackery refers to the practice of it, rather than the thing-in-itself. It's a tricky area partly because the proponents seem to want to keep the terminology in flux ("integrative" is currently popular). Finding a neutral wording is quite hard. There was lots of argument at (e.g.) List of ineffective cancer treatments until it settled on being List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. So maybe we should be calling this "Unproven and disproven medicine". Personally I quite like "Bogus medicine" but I can't see that flying. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- My personal preference of 'List of things to waste your last money and time on' is sadly not going to gain acceptance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, it seems that user:Clean Copy is formerly user:Hgilbert, a Waldorf teacher and proponent of homeopathy. That explains the visceral hatred of the scientific consensus on alternative medicine, I guess. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think quackery refers to the practice of it, rather than the thing-in-itself. It's a tricky area partly because the proponents seem to want to keep the terminology in flux ("integrative" is currently popular). Finding a neutral wording is quite hard. There was lots of argument at (e.g.) List of ineffective cancer treatments until it settled on being List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. So maybe we should be calling this "Unproven and disproven medicine". Personally I quite like "Bogus medicine" but I can't see that flying. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Acupuncture
- Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just a quick heads-up, the trypanophiles have been talking to one or both of the recently topic banned users and have set their sights yet again on the acupuncture article, with a change.org petiton and an op-ed in the BMJ. The bone of contention is, as usual, the statement that acupuncture is pseudoscientific. I have a certain amount of sympathy with that: I think it's a pseudo-religious cult, and that study of acupuncture is mostly pseudoscientfic. But unlike the trypanophiles, I recognise that my view takes second place to the reliable sources. I think acupuncture may be the second most widely discussed example of pseudoscience after homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Petitions? Seriously? Okay, WP:Lunatic charlatans (which JzG wrote) applies here. It looks like this is going to get a lot of disruptive editing in the future, but thankfully it's semi-protected. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Linky. I don't know whether to be confused or amused that comments and pings are closed on that blogpost. In any case, I am rather surprised as to how much of an improvement the acupuncture article is over the last time I looked at it. It took us 10 years to get to the point where we could distinguish between the efficacy claims from Cochrane reviews as being the only metric to an acknowledgment that there is a steady reliance on qigong speculation in deciding where and how to needle (much like reflexology). The particular "Western acupuncture" argument which is that there is no mechanism beyond somatic stimulation and the meridians are all just empirically developed correlates from ancient times was well-debunked, I think, by recent popular press articles which illustrated that much of what is considered acupuncture today was invented in the mid-20th century by pseudoacademics and outright charlatans. jps (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's pretty rum the acupuncturists are complaining about "anonymous" editors (in fact several FTN regulars aren't), when it's clear now that the anonymous activity recently giving rise to problems was from people with an undeclared involvement with the Acupuncture Now Foundation[1]. With the recent NICE un-recommendation of acupuncture[2] I think the tide is turning and acupuncture is now where homeopathy already has been for some years: on the skids. Over the next years I think the discomfort from the profession is likely to increase and we can expect a torrid time as the money starts drying up. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sees blog by person with vested interest in pseudosciene - looks at comments - comments closed. Generally I give zero weight to someone who has a monetary interest in a thing that is unwilling to be at least open to comments/feedback on their money-informed opinions. Given the quality of that, how does the BMJ justify associating with it? Its basically an opinion piece by someone associated with Quackery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- They justify it through appeal to the bottom line. Acupuncture in Medicine is a mediocre journal published under the auspices of BMJ whose editorial board is populated entirely by acupuncturists. The former editor-in-chief (who still sites on the editorial board) is the author of the post. jps (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of which: [3]. jps (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Linky. I don't know whether to be confused or amused that comments and pings are closed on that blogpost. In any case, I am rather surprised as to how much of an improvement the acupuncture article is over the last time I looked at it. It took us 10 years to get to the point where we could distinguish between the efficacy claims from Cochrane reviews as being the only metric to an acknowledgment that there is a steady reliance on qigong speculation in deciding where and how to needle (much like reflexology). The particular "Western acupuncture" argument which is that there is no mechanism beyond somatic stimulation and the meridians are all just empirically developed correlates from ancient times was well-debunked, I think, by recent popular press articles which illustrated that much of what is considered acupuncture today was invented in the mid-20th century by pseudoacademics and outright charlatans. jps (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The chap was a notorious fringe theorist and our article seems to present that fact, in a more nuanced form. Of late I've seen some of his dubious claims getting removed from the article as they are fringey and not based in fact. The claims are just attributed to him. Not sure how this kind of stuff is usually handled, clearly most of his theories are pure unadulterated nonsense but at the same time, he is known for the nonsense so should that be documented (as nonsense)? I have no particular interest in the article, it just happens to be on my watchlist and I've often wondered whether protection might be necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 00:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Generally that is the case. Where fringe person has numerous fringey/crank ideas, the more notable/insane ones tend to get covered. There is no requirement to cover all their beliefs in detail. Usually the ones that have actually gathered notice/comment by other parties get covered. Using what is there as an example: his views on Christianity and the Taj Mahal have got coverage elsewhere due to the quite visible and controversial nature in India (one involved a court case). On the other hand his views on the Kaaba have not. The first two you would expect to be covered, albeit briefly, in his biography, the last is entirely unneccessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Somatic experiencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs cleanup per PSCI. oy Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a coatrack for Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Going through the page history it looks like Location made a mighty effort to weed out some of the worst stuff. Perhaps this is as good as we are likely to get it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Jack Sarfatti
Jack Sarfatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super bloated turning into a press release. I don't have the patience to try to trim it down.
jps (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has removed any suggestion that she was a conspiracy theorist stating that there are no sources. I see a number on Google books and have linked them at Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist). Doug Weller talk 06:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see any discussion on the talk page. I notice the Criticism section was removed, but criticism is better incorporated into the relevant sections of the article. Instead of saying in "Assertions," "she alleges to have suffered as part of Project Monarch," then saying in "Criticism" that there is no record of such a project, combine the two statements in the same section. TFD (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was user:Petrarchan47. Did O'Brien make reference to GMOs? That's his most frequent (though by no means only) target. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can't find one. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Fringe journals
I was doing some cleanup work on acupuncture-related journals this morning (there are a huge number of terrible ones listed at Wikipedia with ZERO sources) when I cam across this list:
Category:Alternative and traditional medicine journals.
I am not amused. How many of these do you all think should be included here? I note that most of them are stubs curated by Randykitty and not likely to go anywhere. Is it time to write about publications in WP:FRINGE? It looks like backdoor coatracks by having stub articles about fringe subjects is the new thing. "Look, ma! The journal has a Wikipedia article. It MUST be legitimate!" Never mind that no one has ever heard of the publishing group that is run out of the back of a trailer in upstate New York. SMH.
jps (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Where on Earth did you get the idea that most of them are stubs created by Randykitty"?? I went through the first 10 articles in that cat and found exactly 1 that I have created. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's correct. If something doesn't meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, I PROD it or take it to AfD (and not just in this rather small category, either). And I know you think NJournals is too permissive, but if you follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts (or browse through its archives), you'd be surprised how much effort I usually have to make to get a journal deleted that doesn't meet NJournals (let alone GNG). If journals in this category are unreliable/fringe/whatever, then find good sources for that and add those to the articles. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- But for the vast majority of these journals, there are basically NO INDEPENDENT SOURCES that I can find besides the impact factor/citation reports. Instead, I find myself hamstrung in reporting that, in fact, the editorial board is populated by [known pseudoscientists] which is borderline WP:OR. Occasionally, there are off-hand mentions of journals, but who writes extensive source material about journals anyway? Maybe there are trade publications that discuss them, but if we go by the promotional material fed to us by the publisher, we're sunk in WP:FRIND-land. It's not that I think WP:NJOURNALS is too permissive: it's that I think it is too categorical in what it says is notable. It feels to me to be much the same as if we had a rule at WP:BK that a book was notable simply because it made it into the Library of Congress. jps (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, since when is having a WP article a seal of approval? ("Look, ma! The journal has a Wikipedia article. It MUST be legitimate!") Ted Bundy has an article, that doesn't mean canibalism is OK. And, yes, stating that "its editors are selected only from people who are practitioners of acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and other forms of related alternative medicine", with as only reference their editorial board listing is indeed OR, so I have removed that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think one issue with fringe journals is that if we don't have independent sources, chances are we only have sources affiliated with the journal i.e partisan and probably promotional/profringe sources. And promotional/profringe sources lead to promotional/profringe articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that, and obscurity is part of the features of the fringe by definition. Ted Bundy is (in)famous and so finding adequate sourcing to describe is (in)fam[e|y] is straightforward. An article on an obscure fringe journal which merely says, "The Journal of Blah is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal published by the Society for the Promulgation of Blah. It is indexed by Scholarly Index 34 and Journal Citation Reports gives it an impact factor of 1.0" lends to the Journal of Blah a cache that many fringe proponents desperately seek. The reason that WP:FRINGE was invented was because extremely early on Wikipedia attracted fringe promoters who rightly viewed this open platform as an opportunity to improve their visibility. Having a Wikipedia page is a measure of success (rightly or wrongly) for those struggling with obscurity. There is no easy remedy for this. One approach is to include absolutely everything. The other approach is to include subjects at an article-level when it is possible to write a decent article on the subject beyond the stub. Otherwise, you know, merge and redirect, as they say. I see that the journals area has adopted more of a kitchen sink approach which clashes with much of the rest of the academic content on Wikipedia and thus serves as a "seal of approval" in spite of the intentions of those who argue for such a standard being something quite different. jps (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Crazy idea: Consider inclusion in the Jeffrey Beall questionable journal list as a criterium for notability for fringe journals. Of course, such needs to be mentioned in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a crazy idea at all, but actually current practice. Beall's blog, despite recurrent challenges from people like OMICS, is generally considered a RS here on WP. If a predatory journal or publisher screws up enough to become notable that way and have an article, we invariable include listing on Beall's list. Note that journals on Beall's list rarely (if ever) make it in one of Thomson Reuters major citation indexes (but their Emerging Sources Citation Index contains quite a few and is generally not considered to be selective enough to confer any notability. We don't have many articles on predatory publishers/journals, because generally they don't meet either GNG or NJournals. The journals in the category mentioned here often are not only included in things like Scopus, but also in MEDLINE. The article that I mentioned above for which I created a stub (Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research) is even included in the highly selective Index Medicus, a database curated by specialist librarians at the United States National Library of Medicine and supposed to include the most important medical journals. If they think something is notable enough to be included in their database, I'm not going to second-guess them... --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome tot he world of quackademic medicine... Guy (Help!) 18:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not a crazy idea at all, but actually current practice.
- well, I don't see it on WP:NJOURNALS... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome tot he world of quackademic medicine... Guy (Help!) 18:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a crazy idea at all, but actually current practice. Beall's blog, despite recurrent challenges from people like OMICS, is generally considered a RS here on WP. If a predatory journal or publisher screws up enough to become notable that way and have an article, we invariable include listing on Beall's list. Note that journals on Beall's list rarely (if ever) make it in one of Thomson Reuters major citation indexes (but their Emerging Sources Citation Index contains quite a few and is generally not considered to be selective enough to confer any notability. We don't have many articles on predatory publishers/journals, because generally they don't meet either GNG or NJournals. The journals in the category mentioned here often are not only included in things like Scopus, but also in MEDLINE. The article that I mentioned above for which I created a stub (Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research) is even included in the highly selective Index Medicus, a database curated by specialist librarians at the United States National Library of Medicine and supposed to include the most important medical journals. If they think something is notable enough to be included in their database, I'm not going to second-guess them... --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Crazy idea: Consider inclusion in the Jeffrey Beall questionable journal list as a criterium for notability for fringe journals. Of course, such needs to be mentioned in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that, and obscurity is part of the features of the fringe by definition. Ted Bundy is (in)famous and so finding adequate sourcing to describe is (in)fam[e|y] is straightforward. An article on an obscure fringe journal which merely says, "The Journal of Blah is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal published by the Society for the Promulgation of Blah. It is indexed by Scholarly Index 34 and Journal Citation Reports gives it an impact factor of 1.0" lends to the Journal of Blah a cache that many fringe proponents desperately seek. The reason that WP:FRINGE was invented was because extremely early on Wikipedia attracted fringe promoters who rightly viewed this open platform as an opportunity to improve their visibility. Having a Wikipedia page is a measure of success (rightly or wrongly) for those struggling with obscurity. There is no easy remedy for this. One approach is to include absolutely everything. The other approach is to include subjects at an article-level when it is possible to write a decent article on the subject beyond the stub. Otherwise, you know, merge and redirect, as they say. I see that the journals area has adopted more of a kitchen sink approach which clashes with much of the rest of the academic content on Wikipedia and thus serves as a "seal of approval" in spite of the intentions of those who argue for such a standard being something quite different. jps (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Why should it be in NJournals? There are many possible reliable sources, can't list them all. And BEall's list is not that often important for writing articles on journals, because, as I said, most predatory journals gloriously fail both GNG and NJournals. It's only the really bad ones that cause waves because of being bad that become notable. Anyway, I'd have no problem with including Beall's list in a note there, either. --Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would settle for NJournals being less strident in its wording. The problem I have is that not everything inclined in highly selective indices is necessarily worthy of an article on Wikipedia because, crucially, a lot of fringe journals are promulgating closed-door conversations about ideas outside the WP:MAINSTREAM. Librarians, journal publishers, and even well-meaning epistemologists allow for an epistemic closure to take place on a grand scale. We've seen it with parapsychology, alternative medicine, and even fringe physics. Conversations about the horrible-ness of this or that journal take place at an informal level because, who wants to bother being rigorous in identifying bullshit? No one. So it survives and gets stamps of approval but not much more. This is the problem. The predatory journals are just the bottom of the barrel of the worst of the worst. What I'm talking about is basically the publication industry's equivalent of a WP:Walled garden. jps (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- NJournals is an essay and has zero weight given the standard rationale for keeping essays at MFD is 'Its an essay, no one cares'. Seriously, try and get a well-written but basically flawed essay deleted, its impossible unless its actively harmful. Essay's have absolutely no standing in a consensus discussion due to not demonstrating any wider community agreement. So ignore it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that "standard rationales" do not apply at AfDs about journals. There, this essay rules the day as though it were policy. This is because there are ~3 to 4 editors who faithfully will opine that any journal with an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports is notable due to the categorical claim in WP:NJOURNALS (which I note that as of today no longer is categorical but instead is simply, "usually" -- interesting). Pretty much the definition of a "racket". jps (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. I skip these AfDs because it's too difficult to get a grasp what the expected standards are. My suggestion to list the Jeffrey Beall blacklist as a notability criterium was meant for a proper guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:NJOURNALS is not gospel, and it seems to me that WP:NPOV trumps that essay in any case. If a fringe journal doesn't meet GNG, then we shouldn't have an article about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: And how do we decide whether something is a fringe journal? By polling the opinions of WP editors? No, of course not. We determine that by looking for reliable sources that state that a journal is a fringe one. And then we have reliable sources, so it meets GNG. Just as we cannot say in a biography that somebody is a quack unless we have good sources for that. --Randykitty (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: How about we just stop having individual articles for journals where the sole reliable source is Journal Citation Reports and the mean fact that it is indexed? If you prefer blue links, why not redirect to the publisher or the index for a list of journals? jps (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- For the simple reason that a redirect to the publisher doesn't tell anything about the journal, and because neutral information (who's the editor, what's the ISSN, what's the scope, etc) can easily be provided. And if it's in JCR, it's almost always in other databases, too, meaning that rarely will the JCR be the sole reason that something is notable. Has nothing to do with not liking red links and everything to do with presenting information. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- If NPOV is in conflict with an essay like NJOURNALS, then NPOV wins. If it's really so hard to tell whether a journal is fringe, then we shouldn't have articles on journals if the sole source is journal citation reports. However, chances are that it actually is usually pretty evident when a journal is on a fringe subject, and when it is in a mainstream scholarly area. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a card catalogue entry, then. The problem is that perma-stubs such as this are not supposed to be in Wikipedia. There is no particular reason why you cannot make a table with Name, Publisher, Editor, Scope, ISSN, Impact Factor. Why not subsume into lists? jps (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- If all info can be included in lists, what's the difference with splitting it out in more handy stubs? And lists are very difficult to maintain, this procedure would make it exceedingly easy to insert information on non-notable journals (or even seedy, predatory ones). And the longer a journal exists, the likelier it will be that sources can be found and added to that stub. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
More fun-and-games with pseudoscience journals in perma-stub states: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. jps (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Owlman
What's to be done with Owlman? I went through the article today to root out the usual cryptozoology pseudoscience and find the core of the matter (usually articles of this sort are hijacked topics from folklore with some commentary out there from folklorists) but I'm not finding anything beyond the chatter of a bunch of fringe figures. I'm just finding pseudoscience on top of pseudoscience, layers of Jonathan Downes and Karl Shuker. Any suggestions here? Should this just go to articles for deletion? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lionel Fanthorpe has covered it for Countryfile, which suggests notability: [4]. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good catch. if we can get some decent sources on it like that, then it'd be a fun article. I see you've already started gutting some of the worst of it out. Note that the Countryfile article doesn't mention cryptozoology at all, so maybe there is in fact a folk tradition to build an article around. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Could use more input, especially from anyone familiar with Russian sources. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)