|
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Psi Intelligent Control
- 2 GMO Conspiracy Theories
- 3 RATE project
- 4 9-11 conspiracy theory at Zim Integrated Shipping Services
- 5 Joshua Axe
- 6 Colin Fry
- 7 Ann Louise Gittleman
- 8 Shiatsu
- 9 SS ideology article
- 10 Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable
- 11 Coding (therapy)
- 12 Alt-med
- 13 Kerala 1st century churches
Psi Intelligent Control
Anyone know what this is? Deeply confusing. No decent references mention it. JuliaHunter (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is obviously a very fringe subject, apparently covered in a single paper in a fee-based open access journal. Nominated for deletion.- MrX 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
GMO Conspiracy Theories
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have a lot of sources attesting to the existence of GMO conspiracy theories that were removed from the article in violation of WP:PARITY. Now we have a user Tsavage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who has made some rather problematic claims on the talkpage about the subject. I note from his history that he looks to be WP:FRINGE-promoter of dubious sourcing standards with regards to this subject and may need to be sanctioned at WP:AE, but first I wanted to get some eyes on his contributions and on the pages he is problematically contributing to.
Thanks,
jps (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was watching Tsavage's talk page due to a recent discussion so noticed the link here. I am not very familiar with the linked conspiracy article, but am an involved editor in GMO so have encountered Tsavage at other pages. I disagree with them on a few points, in particular a comment they made about WP:weight and their charactisation of an AAAS source[1]. However, we have worked well together on other related articles (see User talk:Tsavage#Table of GMO's for an example) and overall I think they are a net positive to the GMO debate. AIRcorn (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The weight comment was at Talk:Genetically modified food and I cannot easily find the dif, but will look harder if it becomes necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I come here from pretty much the same prior experience as Aircorn, and I pretty much agree with what Aircorn just said. I'll admit to finding some of Tsavage's ideas strange at times, or at least that I sometimes disagree, but I'm not seeing disruption. I also do not think that this is the right place to discuss whether or not to go to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: As this is a behavioral comment about me, it seems relevant that excerpts from this article are nominated for "Did you know", by the article's originator (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka jps), and my placement of the POV tag and comment today apparently threatens to derail that nomination, and are being argued against there by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/jps. (I was unaware of the nomination, and discovered it by ping, as I was mentioned in the DYK discussion.) --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Describing someone as a 'WP:FRINGE-promoter of dubious sourcing standards' should not be done without difs, as it could reasonably read as a personal attack. Dialectric (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, their contributions are easy for you to click on above. You can decide whether you think my analysis is correct or not. This is not an arbcom tribunal. This is a discussion about how to deal with fringe theories and sometimes that involved trying to figure out what the agenda of editors actually is. jps (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Describing someone as a 'WP:FRINGE-promoter of dubious sourcing standards' should not be done without difs, as it could reasonably read as a personal attack. Dialectric (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
RATE project
I was wondering if anyone thought there was a problem with the relatively newly created article RATE project about a fringe young earth creationist "research project" that claims to have proven the earth is 6k years old. I don't think the article as currently written violates WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, but I was wondering if others thought it did, or were unsure of whether it was notable, so I am posting here. Everymorning (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure it passes GNG, (key word is 'general' in that) however the RATE project was unusual for fringe theories/pseudo science in that it prompted a real response/rebuttal from scientists (when usually with such things they just tend to brush it off). As written the article is quite neutral, although the last paragraph could probably be trimmed a bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is a good candidate for AfD. I will look for some better sources before I come around to nominating it. The cited sources are mostly self-published, and one looks self-published but is cited as a journal article. Delta13C (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
9-11 conspiracy theory at Zim Integrated Shipping Services
See [2]. More eyes needed for this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Joshua Axe
The article seems very promotional. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mostly doesn't seem that bad to me, but the sources about athletes don't mention him, so that should be fixed. Everymorning (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you going to leave in the blogs? QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I have removed them except the blog post Axe wrote himself which seems to comply with WP:BLPSELFPUB. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is the first source pointing to the Palmer College of Chiropractic unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you mean this, then no, but the blog post I removed, being a blog post, was IMO unreliable. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- The first five sources are unreliable. There is even a link to Amazon.com to buy a book. This is ridiculous.
- Cattel, Jeff (12 January 2016). "The 100 Most Influential People in Health and Fitness". Greatist, Inc. Retrieved 26 February 2016. This source is also unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you mean this, then no, but the blog post I removed, being a blog post, was IMO unreliable. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is the first source pointing to the Palmer College of Chiropractic unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I have removed them except the blog post Axe wrote himself which seems to comply with WP:BLPSELFPUB. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you going to leave in the blogs? QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Colin Fry
Last November a user supportive of Fry deleted any negative or sceptical secondary sources and complained on the talk-page they are biased against Fry, and completely re-wrote the article using Fry's own biography. I have just had to re-write the article (mostly a revert to what was before). I think this will be controversial and this article will be a magnet for fringe supporters. JuliaHunter (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I watched the page to help keep tabs on any future shenanigans. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ann Louise Gittleman
An IP user is attempting to edit war with me. IP user talk:97.93.180.67 removed BLP, ref improve, and notability templates on Ann Louise Gittleman by misunderstaning the purpose of these tags. The article is about a Clayton College of Natural Health grad who wrote a bunch of books about fat-burning diets. The theories are obviously fringe and the article may not be notable, as it lacks reliable sources to verify the the subject. In my opinion, the article does not pass WP:AUTHOR, especially that it is a WP:BLP. More eyes please, also an admin look at the IP user would be good. Delta13C (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that the IP states that being a best selling author makes her notable, but it does not. Just do a search of talk and wikispace for "best selling author" and be prepared to be amazed at the vitriolic, vicious evisceration of such claims. The tl:dr version is that best selling lists are easily manipulated by publishers and even authors, and as such are basically useless for establishing notability on their own. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
How to properly qualify a Clayton College PhD?
Do we have some general consensus on this? I changed "In 2002 she earned a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health in Birmingham, Alabama" to "In 2002 she was given a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health, a school known as a diploma mill", [3] as a placeholder. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would say "unaccredited" rather than "diploma mill". I have no doubt that Clayton College was a diploma mill, but it's not clear that she knew it was a diploma mill necessarily. jps (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Surely anyone who claims to have a doctorate would be aware that some doctorates (i.e. the legitimate ones) require several years to obtain. I am not sure that Clayton College was a diploma mill in the strict sense: an organization that exchanges credentials for money without even a veil of attempting to educate. Clayton probably awarded doctorates to students who had completed less actual work than, say, an A-level or AP secondary school course. But I favor "unaccredited" because it evidently pretended to be teaching something.
- I added the fact that Clayton provided no clinical training. Normally, clinical training -- supervised interactions with patients -- is absolutely necessary for ethical practice of health-related professions. Basically she was awarded the ability to tell people "in a doctor's voice" that they should take X supplement, but no one ever checked to make sure she knew not to give a huge dose of homeopathic caffeine to someone with a cold, or Vitamin C to someone with insomnia. Roches (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Shiatsu
Recent edits removing Cancer Research UK as unreliable, etc. May need eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just weighed in at the talk page and watched the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
SS ideology article
Ideology of the SS and the main SS article, see [4] could use more eyes. Problem is SS theories/nomenclature/pseudoscientific bullhockey being presented in Wikipedia's voice, which I guess ain't a good thing is it? Being fixed in the "ideology" article but not yet addressed in the main SS article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable
There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's little reason a respected expert would need to vanity publish something mainstream, and it's even less likely that we would need to resort to a journal like that to cite something that's appropriate for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Left remarks there to that effect. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Coding (therapy)
I trimmed out some text sourced to an OMICS Group journal, but even before that it was not obvious if this is notable bollocks. Please review and give it some thought. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've heard of this before (being a skeptic who loves to read, that's my heuristic for notability, and it's been pretty accurate so far). To be honest, I'm not sure it's completely bollocks, either. It's just a specific application of operant conditioning with a heavy emphasis on the power of the placebo effect. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge candidate? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I say yes. The article is a stub and I think that while it's notable enough for inclusion here, I'm not sure it's a... big? enough subject for its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge candidate? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Alt-med
There's a request by an editor that their topic-ban be lifted for alt-med topics at ANI. Regardless of opinion on the editor, we could use thoughts from editors who've dealt alt-med topics on the outlook of lifting this particular ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Kerala 1st century churches
In List of oldest church buildings three Indian churches allegedly built in the 1st century were added. One of them already has an article where the construction date is cited to an (off-line) book; the two others even do not have articles (isn't it strange that the two of the three oldest churches in the world do not have articles?) but I assume these will be forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)