|
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Is astral projection pseudoscience?
- 2 Input requested on several fringe-y articles nominated for deletion
- 3 #SleepOnIt
- 4 Anthroposophic medicine again
- 5 Antivaxer on the loose
- 6 Alex Tsakiris
- 7 Myofascial release
- 8 Talk:Conspiracy theory
- 9 Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content
- 10 "Techniques to rejuvenate the human body and stop aging"
- 11 Fringe topics in management theory
- 12 Deepak Chopra (yet) again
- 13 Henry Lindlahr
- 14 Karyn Calabrese
- 15 Raw foodism
- 16 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique
- 17 Hale Boggs
- 18 Raw feeding
- 19 Stainless steel soap
- 20 Pseudoscience in Osteopathy
- 21 Feldenkrais Method
Is astral projection pseudoscience?
Some discussion on this on the Talk page. Input from wise fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think even psuedoscience gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Astrology is pseudoscience. Astral projection is... a 9th level spell in dungeons and dragons. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- True believers want to weasel their way out of being a pseudoscience on that article. 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually: non-believers were merely defending the page from an inaccurate label. Only specific contexts make this pseudoscientific. It is a practice, a belief, and a psychological phenomenon that predates science by centuries. Only very limited contexts even refer to it in a scientific manner. There is a big difference between a prescientific belief not based on empiricism and a pseudoscience. Studies of it and certain applications can be pseudoscientific without making it a pseudoscience. Those who wished to label it as "a pseudoscience" were unable to find a single reliable source that took the claim that far without making their own inferencial conclusions. Sticking with dictionary definitions: being fringe and unscientific is not the same as being pseudoscientific. The distinction may seem small, but this is an encyclopedia. To exceed the definitions of our sources is patently dishonest. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- True believers want to weasel their way out of being a pseudoscience on that article. 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The contexts where scientific claims were made which can be identified as pseudoscientific are clearly laid out in the sources and in the article. People may have good faith disagreements over whether that means we should say that the subject is a pseudoscience full stop or whether we should instead try to be more careful in our wording. As it is, the claims are so outrageous that they tend to be made almost exclusively today by people who accommodate a pseudoscientific outlook when arguing in favor of their belief in astral projection. As such, it is not dishonest to identify the subject as being pseudoscientific and it seems that you don't have a problem with its description as such either, so your argument here seems a bit peculiar. jps (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Input requested on several fringe-y articles nominated for deletion
I thought readers of this noticeboard would be interested in the following articles relating to fringe subjects that are nominated for deletion:
WP:Articles_for_deletion/William_EsserDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_DeLuzDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/California_Bureau_of_Naturopathic_MedicineRedirectedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Gordy_AinsleighDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Makaʻala_YatesDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_TomshackDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/David_Singer_(chiropractor)DeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_RhodesDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Reed_(chiropractor)DeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Parker_(chiropractor)Deleted
-
- What about Parker University? Possibly also an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Leistner_(2nd_nomination)DeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_MorningstarDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Clarence_GonsteadDeletedWP:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_AuerbachDeleted
Marked off the closed ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
#SleepOnIt
John Douillard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This alt med practitioner is telling everyone to sleep on their left side because it's "healthier". I notice that his biography here at Wikipedia reads like a snowjob. Can we get some improvement? Or is that impossible?
jps (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Lying left-side down has been shown to reduce recumbent esophageal acid exposure which in turn reduces Gastroesophageal reflux disease and risk of Barrett's esophagus [1] Joshgreene (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
References
- But that is not a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't even something mentioned in the biography that needs citation, I only defend the practice because there is research on it and it was the only objection raised about the person.
- Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Related articles
- Related to the above, Joshgreene (talk · contribs) has written a number of articles which may be of dubious notability related to ayurveda:
- Abhyangha
- Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America
- Ayurvedic Institute
- California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine
- California College of Ayurveda
- Churna
- Devi Ma Kunja
- Dinacharya
- Dinacharya Institute
- Mount Madonna Institute
- National Ayurvedic Medical Association
- Sarita Shrestha
- Svedana
- Vasant Lad
- jps (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with the facts or information of an article by all means please raise them, otherwise WP:AGF and stop your POV crusading. Joshgreene (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have an issue with whether these articles all pass WP:NFRINGE. I think many do not. Many appear to be soapboxes for pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Anthroposophic medicine again
In addition to the usual, we've got some new WP:SPAs (possible WP:SOCKs?) advocating changes to the article to big up claims about Steiner's mistletoe therapy. Could do with vigilance from fringe/medical-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note this is now also an issue at the Viscum album (Mistletoe) article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Antivaxer on the loose
The edits and comments made by Realskeptic (talk · contribs) need watching. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- See here for background, including diffs showing their M.O. (IMHO, these edits speak volumes) This user has wasted a lot of people's time on several talk pages. I'm rather surprised he or she hasn't been indeffed. You can look at their talk page history to see all of the warnings (since removed and not in the talk page archive), including a discretionary sanction warning by EdJohnston. That was removed, calling it a threat. APK whisper in my ear 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you think that a topic ban from vaccination might be justified under WP:ARBPS, consider making a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like someone has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. APK whisper in my ear 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you think that a topic ban from vaccination might be justified under WP:ARBPS, consider making a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Alex Tsakiris
Is this guy notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I had to removed some terrible sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think he is notable enough: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Tsakiris. jps (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Myofascial release
Got an IP determined to remove the "slander" (i.e. well-sourced skepticism) from the article. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Conspiracy theory
There is a discussion at the Talk page for Conspiracy theory [1] that could use some input, and I think editors here would be particularly interested. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there are periodic efforts to add material to the article to reflect a POV that is currently making the rounds in fringe circles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've made some recent revisions to a section that was cherry-picking quotes to support the above fringe view and using badly misrepresented sources. Let's hope it sticks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content
Cross-posting a discussion as in "starting the same discussion in two different places at the same time" is not OK. Allowed cross-posting is starting a discussion in one place and posting invitations on other relevant noticeboards to the place where the discussion is active. Consequently, closing one of the two discussions. The active discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Talk:Genetically_modified_fish#Unreliable_source.3F a discussion has occurred where an editor User:DrChrissy with known WP:OWN problems is insisting their preferred content is okay.
The controversy is that the following source is used as the sole citation for two paragraphs that make a variety of empirical claims about the characteristics of genetically engineered fish:
- Kirkden, R. and Broom, D.M. (2012). "Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food" (PDF). Retrieved November 30, 2015.
The source in question is a report that apparently did not receive peer review and was "commissioned by Compassion in World Farming and made possible by a grant from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)." This is dubious at best. I suggest either finding a new source for the content that it footnotes or removing the content altogether.
The person who wrote the content and included the source refuses to accept that peer-review is necessary for the content, in spite of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Cross-posted to WP:RSN.
jps (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why is this being posted to this noticeboard and WP:RSN? Surely this is forum shopping?DrChrissy (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is trying venues in sequence until the desired result is achieved; sometimes it's desirable to post to noticeboard in parallel when an issue straddles both their areas of concern, though in such cases I prefer if it's indicated which NB should "host" the discussion, otherwise it can get split. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's generally considered OK to reference an issue on multiple noticeboards as long as the issue is relevant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is trying venues in sequence until the desired result is achieved; sometimes it's desirable to post to noticeboard in parallel when an issue straddles both their areas of concern, though in such cases I prefer if it's indicated which NB should "host" the discussion, otherwise it can get split. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- It would seem fine to me if the source was used with attribution. Not so fine to be using it to make claims in WP's voice though. And even with attribution weight would always be a consideration particularly due to the source being funded by a special interest group. I would think there would be better sources out there though. Sources published in peer-reviewed journals. Capeo (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much JPS, as the Doc is just cocking a snoop at Arbcom and his impending ban from GMO topics. He's doing the same thing elsewhere. Quite why he thinks this sort of thing is acceptable I cannot fathom. I think the best strategy, since ArbCom hasn't been able to pull its finger out, is to ignore any damage he does in the topic until the ban comes into force, then tidy up. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It could be used with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Request Would the OP please indicate why they have posted this on the "Fringe" noticeboard. What aspects of the disputed content are "fringe"? Oh, I also think it is a rather a strategic shot-in-the-foot to spuriously state that I have "known WP:OWN problems".DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is the fringe theory that the source supposedly advocates? TFD (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- There are definitely a lot of fringe theories surrounding "concerns" over genetic engineering. This is broadly related. jps (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are clearly not answering the question. What theory in the disputed content are you suggesting is "fringe"?DrChrissy (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am repeating the question that I and others have asked you previously but you have not yet satisfactorily answered. Why have you posted this thread to the Fringe Discussion board? The first paragraph you contest is content relating to abnormalities caused by the over-expression of growth hormone. This is the mainstream authors' expert opinion of multiple papers published in mainstream journals. The second paragraph I can quote fully - "In studies on the cloning of fish, a proportion of the offspring are haploid and non-viable, the rate of hatching is decreased, and a substantial proportion of hatchlings are deformed (12 - 48%)." This is again a review summary of articles published in mainstream scientific journals.
- Which of these is a "fringe" theory? An answer would be very much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are definitely a lot of fringe theories surrounding "concerns" over genetic engineering. This is broadly related. jps (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Techniques to rejuvenate the human body and stop aging"
Connoisseurs of fringe may by interested in a new WP:WALLEDGARDEN that is being uncovered at WT:MED#Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans (thanks to CFCF for the discovery). Probably a lot to be done in this topic area ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Life extension related topics seem to have these kind of problems frequently. There was an Arbcom case about longevity, this seems to be a similar issue in a similar topic area.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- The life extension subculture crosses over with the transhumanist subculture (e.g. de Grey) and has a similar culture of extensive self-citation out in the wider world as well as on Wikipedia. c.f. past discussion on this board - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Fringe topics in management theory
User:PHCleverley appears to be trying to create a fringe nexus around Corporate Brain (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Brain). He's been trying to shoehorn references to this bizarre concept into a number of unrelated articles. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all and User:Salimfadhle that's a little unfair in my opinion talk. The notice for improvement indicated that to improve it, we should introduce links to the page from other relevant pages which is what I did and I told you which ones when I replied on Talk. There are several existing Wikipedia articles that mention the corporate brain and other analogues and metaphors such as organizational memory and corporate amnesia. So its certainly not a bizarre new concept to Wikipedia articles. You say they are all unrelated as a concept and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Not sure if you have read the article recently but some of your feedback has been well taken and used to develop it further, supported by more peer reviewed research and practitioner literature from a variety of authors. Constructive criticism welcomed on how it can be improved. PHCleverley (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra (yet) again
I wondered why there'd been an upsurge of NNPOV edits at Deepak Chopra and sure enough:
The highlight is the argument for the respectability of the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience journal, just after (as it happens) Frontiers Media has been added to Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory open access publishers. There's other silliness beside. As always, fringe-savvy editors are encouraged to keep an eye out ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nice timing. If only there was some recent scientific research putting Chopra's pseudo-profound bullshit into some sort of context. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Henry Lindlahr
Kept at AfD basically on the presumption the (uncited) claim the book was influential was accurate, and the usual google search finds something that might be a source. Is this accurate? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Karyn Calabrese
The article Karyn Calabrese seems to be barely squeaking by WP:BLP because of the subject's popularity as a raw foodist and restaurateur in Chicago, which to me appears to be giving undue significance to FRINGE. Most of the sources in the article are about her restaurants/diets or come from unreliable sources. There is one solid Chicago Tribune article. Help requested. Delta13C (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I trimmed it in March 2014, and trimmed out some trivia today. There's been little progress in that time. BLP applies, so any contentious material that is poorly sourced or unsourced should be removed outright. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Raw foodism
Terrible, terrible article, large parts of it need gutted. Includes such lovely text as:
“ | Demand for unpasteurized, or raw, milk is growing among consumers concerned about chemicals, hormones, and drugs in milk.[123] Some oppose pasteurization on the grounds that - in their view - it impairs the quality of milk by denaturing enzymes and proteins, and killing beneficial bacteria.[124] According to the FDA, some of the health benefits claimed by some raw milk advocates do not exist.[125]
Raw dairy advocates have claimed that government agencies are heavily biased against raw dairy, providing incomplete facts or erroneous statistics. [End of section] |
” |
It's a terrible article. I'll be slowly gutting it of the worst claims over the next few days, but could use a hand. It's one of those highly cherry-picked articles, where every bit of evidence of any effect of cooking that's negative is quoted, but none of the evidence against raw food is, so it requires a lot of nuke and pave. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I notice the very first reference in the article says "The raw food diet is based on the belief by some alternative medicine practitioners that the most healthful food for the body is uncooked." That overriding alternative medicine influence doesn't get a mention in the article. Would like to help with the balance of this article can make only fleeting visits to Wiki because of real life commitments. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting here. In July 2014 [2] I wrote, "Looks to me the problem is a combination of poor sources (WP:MEDRS should be followed and is not), selective sourcing to give undue weight to certain points of view, simply ignoring related topics (eg Antinutrient), and the organization of the material (especially "Common beliefs", "Research", "Controversies")." We've made little progress since. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I made a start. It quickly became clear that the research section especially of the article was not only cherrypicked, but also misrepresenting studies, mentioning only the conclusions favourable to raw foodism from each, in a kind f Gish gallop of bad cites. I trimmed it down severely, and added a couple buried studies. I suspect a lot of sources are badly misrepreseted still; but I made a start at getting it to a manageable level. Throughout the rest of the article, there were numerous bad sources - I think I remember a Natural News cite - and I've been cutting those on sight. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting here. In July 2014 [2] I wrote, "Looks to me the problem is a combination of poor sources (WP:MEDRS should be followed and is not), selective sourcing to give undue weight to certain points of view, simply ignoring related topics (eg Antinutrient), and the organization of the material (especially "Common beliefs", "Research", "Controversies")." We've made little progress since. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm finding six main types of problems:
- Cherrypicking, Pt. 1: Quoting any and all studies on the dangers of cooking, without regard to whether they show raw food is better, or if they're representative of research. Or sometimes when the report itself notes it conflicts with the mainstream view.
- Synthesis: E.g. E.g. quoting talk of trace amounts of trans fats created in cooking, followed by a study talking about the dangers of trans fats in large quantities.
- Cherrypicking, Pt. 2: Quoting only the parts of studies that support raw food, even when the study as a whole is ambiguous or negative.
- Outright misleading presentations: E.g. a report on the smog cloud over Asia, caused primarily by dirty cooking fires, acting to encourage global warming was used to categorically say that cooking causes global warming.
- Order of presentation - Putting all the mainstream points right at the end of the article, after pages and pages of advocacy.
- Bad sources: Advocacy sources being used to talk science.
I've begun to fix these, but a big part of that is just cutting material. Can people watchlist this, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique
Nomination of what appears to be a meaningless chiropractic buzzword; perhaps the article is salvageable, but one rather needs to be able to define a term before an article on it becomes appropriate, surely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hale Boggs
For monitoring: Congressmen Hale Boggs (a member of the Warren Commission) and Nick Begich are presumed to have died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1972. Although Boggs was a critic of the single-bullet theory, he did not dispute that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Still, the conspiracy-minded suggest he was killed because of his rejection of the SBT. Per Talk:Hale Boggs, a new version of this theory based on a primary source, synth of secondary sources, and an alternative weekly has made its way into the article. (diff) - Location (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Raw feeding
Even worse than Raw foodism in many ways. So, let's first discuss: Should this be its own article, or should we merge? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's a different subject, though it's much the same woo - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Stainless steel soap
I am trying to expand our article on Stainless steel soap, but am having trouble finding any reliable sources that test for the alleged effect. It really smells like something somewhere between pseudoscience and outright fraud ("are you bothered by the smell of pseudoscience? Try our stainless steel soap! Removes the stink of bunk, flim-flam and even snake oil in seconds!!") but I would really like to be able to cite the results of a double blind test. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could we use some sort of powdered stainless steel as an alternative to detergent in our washing machines? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience in Osteopathy
Some questions about terminology and sourcing for the pseudoscientific component of osteopathy (the things collectively called OMT or Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment). More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Feldenkrais Method
An editor seems unhappy with the inclusion of the recently-published Australian report recommending against insurance cover for 17 altmed practices (of which the Feldenkrais Method was one). More generally the article is a bit bamboozling (from the lede: "Feldenkrais aims were to improve upon previously established neural network patterns... engendering a clearer, more efficient self image and use of self"). Could uses eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)