Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Mothman

Mothman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit-warring IP now with a brand new user account wishing to add material connecting Mothman to 9/11, all sourced to message boards at Mothmanlives.com, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, just trying to correct the idea that the sightings stopped in 1967. You still haven't stated what sources you feel are appropriate but, since you don't like interviews with experts on the radio (I notice you made some drastic edits the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast), I do have sources from books, magazine articles, and the like that are totally appropriate for Wikipedia. I have offered to send them to you so that you can post them yourself (since you are more familiar with the coding), but if you are not interested in helping I will figure it out myself. As for 9/11 or any other sighting of Mothman, it is not up for you or I to decide whether or not they are real, but to report that the sightings were reported and appear not to be hoaxes, since no one is trying to benefit from them. Western Fortean (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As I told you on the Talk page, we require sources that meet the encyclopedia's WP:RS and WP:FRINGE policy. Non-fringe, non-sensational publications, like major newspapers, magazines, etc. You've offered to send sources that meet these policies? Post them and we'll gladly review them. Regarding my making edits "the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast" I have no idea what you're talking about. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Just to clarify, the idea that the Mothman sightings stopped in 1967 has not been printed in any major newspaper or acknowledged by any expert in the Fortean field. It has only been bandied about on various fringe TV shows, and repeated in these venues for so long that it is now accepted as fact by those unfamiliar with the topic. It is laughed at by anyone knowledgable in the field. Even the fringe skeptics exclusively featured on the page - none of whom are acknowledged experts on the Mothman case - do not make this claim. When you say you would like to me post sources, what exactly are you referring to? Making the edits on the page itself, or posting them elsewhere? Western Fortean (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to get attention for Mothman sightings and the opinion of Mothman 'experts', your best bet is to get a reputable news organization or mainstream scholar to publish them. Wikipedia can only report what has already been published in reliable sources, such as The Toronto Star ("The sightings ended abruptly on Dec. 15, 1967, the day of the collapse of the Silver Bridge, which linked Point Pleasant to Ohio. Forty-six people were killed, and since then people have speculated the sightings were connected.") or even USA Today which covers Coleman's claim that "sightings continue" (also reported in our WP article). In a nutshell, I don't think anyone has a problem having the article say, "Conspiracy theorist John Doe believes Mothman is connected to 9/11 and other disasters and says the creature has been sighted far and wide" as long as we have a reliable secondary source (like the news articles mentioned above) reporting it first. Since you are new to WP, it's probably best to post the urls here or at the article's Talk page first before adding any material. If you have sources that meet WP's requirements, I'll be glad to help you add material to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Withania somnifera

Anyone want to take this one on in my place? I grow a little weary of trying to strip the infinitude of health claims that inevitably descends on a supposedly medicinal herb. Can't we make a guideline setting out what counts as the minimal standards for health claims and such? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed is the standard for health claims. A difficult article to start on; I have no more stomach for it than you do. Solanaceae, full of alkaloids, cultivated as a crop, no wonder both science and pseudoscience home in on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Pubmed is a fairly weak standardd. There's lots of tiny mouse studies on pubmed you could cherrypick. And I, for one, don't think we should allow mere in vitro studies at all, without further evidence. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment wasn't very helpful. We should stick to WP:MEDRS in the sections of these articles that are about medical/alternative medicine use. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Plants may be able to help. I've also looked at Saffron, which is a featured article, but it too might be a bit generous in what it includes about research into possible medical effects. There are a number of other plant FA, but I don't think many of them are traditional medicinal herbs. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that many of our articles on "medicinal herbs" contain ridiculous claims which are rarely referenced to anything more than a single in vitro study on the plant extract. I can't tell you how many times I've removed "treatment for cancer" from these types of articles. WP:MEDRS is definitely the guideline to go by. Deli nk (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A tangential thought

I think this is potentially a big problem, if we have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on "medicinal" plants and a significant proportion contain medical claims unsupported by any MEDRS. Waiting for them to be reported here and then dealing with them adhoc may not be efficient. I'd happily do a systematic review of all these articles - but where's the best place to start? Category:Medicinal plants is unlikely to be complete; Withania somnifera isn't in it. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Plants Wikipedia thinks cure cancer

Per the above, I've begun a quick survey. Here's a list of everything I found in just the first 40 results from a search for "medicinal plant cancer" which actually claims to cure cancer. Not going to fix them, as someone should probably watchlist before removing the claims.


Stated to cure cancer, or very nearly

Strongly implied to cure cancer


"May cure cancer"


"Being studied for", without strong implications

Potential problems, but somewhat balanced (basically, anything that looked too complicated for a quick check)

Other


On the upside, a search that finds about 50% almost certainly bad material is pretty specific. On the downside, holy crap: This search gives over 500 results, and if that pattern holds... 86.184.85.227 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the one plant that is most widely reported to be the most promising for a cure for cancer is annona muricata, but the wikipedia article doesn't even mention this...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional articles

These should probably be nuked from orbit

A clean-up job as big as this is normally done through a WikiProject. Content guidelines, notability guidelines, specific sourcing guidelines can be agreed. WikiProject Plants is active, and perhaps a medicinal herbs task force could be set up in it. There was a WikiProject Alternative medicine, in which many of the members appeared to be practitioners in the field; it's inactive, and I don't see much mileage in reviving it. If I do some bits and pieces, let me get this right in the first place. Eating fruit and veg is good for you, may help prevent you getting cancer, no herb or plant is "effective against cancer", nothing, not even chemotherapy or radiotherapy exactly "cures cancer". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's probably worth pinging Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, nonetheless. The talkpage may be quiet but, considering the subject, I suspect there are some people who've watchlisted it who might be interested in this kind of cleanup or who might have some helpful suggestions. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just cancer

That search is, of course, the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of plants which are claimed to be used for other ailments. Months ago I cleaned up Red raspberry leaf which supposedly had a dozen different benefits for pregnant women and nursing mothers... bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but this at least gives us some idea of the size of the problem. 86.184.85.227 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course; agreed. bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth doing another survey for other diseases, like diabetes, maybe? 86.178.192.40 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Chyawanprash

Please watchlist this - people keep trying to add in a study showing it can cure cataracts... when you damage a chick embryo's eyes with steroids then rub diluted Chyawanprash on them before the cataracts start. This is hardly a study that shows anything about real world use. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Am watching it. The notion that it might have an effect on the eyes is historically interesting, as sugar and honey were eye remedies in medieval Arabic medicine. With all those spices in, it should be quite antiseptic, and might well help in conjunctivitis (not medical advice!) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Aye, but, at the same time, direct application to artificially damaged eyes in embryos isn't particularly relevant to a product meant to be eaten. It's misleading at best. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It sounds delicious spread on toast, and I would definitely try it. But I wouldn't cancel my optician's appointment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ama (ayurveda)

Please keep an eye on this one too; there's an unsourced, probably original research rant that's been getting readded. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Dreadful article, no good sources. I noticed it was prodded and then the prod was removed. I think AfD but have no energy for that today. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't see deleting this outright, as there's a section on it in pretty much every general work on Ayurveda I've come across. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Might be worth nominating it to see if the rescue squad can fix it, though. It's such a tiny topic that it'd need either really good sources, or merging somewhere. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Mangoe, can you improve it? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't have the time. More importantly, I'm unsure what to use as a genuinely reliable source for Ayurveda. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pulse_diagnosis

Major OR and synth: Tries to use modern medicine taking patient's pulse to justify pre-scientific claims. 86.182.191.108 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

off to AFD. Mangoe (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Gemmotherapy

Are there sufficient non-advocacy sources on this for an article to be made, or should this be prodded as too fringe to e reasonably discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.20.197 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 September 2011

Second Survey: Plants Wikipedia thinks cure diabetes

I've checked the first 20 results for "medicinal plant diabetes". Here's the results. Of course, some of these could be valid (but I suspect not).

There is some overlap between this and the previous list.


Apparently cures everything

Said outright to cure or treat diabetes

Said to maybe cure or treat diabetes

Formerly said one of above (cleaned because of previous survey)'

Other questionable claims


Maybe alright?

In Solanum lycocarpum the source, in Portuguese, doesn't say anything about it being used for diabetes. It says that the leaves are used as an emollient and against rheumatism, and the fruits are used against asthma, colds and flu. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In Vaccinium myrtillis, the NIH source says first that bilberry leaf is used to treat diabetes. It goes on to say that there is no evidence that it has any effect in any medical conditions. In fact this official and reliable source is completely stupid and useless. Bilberry is a fruit. It contains all sorts of nice things and is a very good thing to eat. Please everyone eat more of this kind of stuff and less white bread and fried potatoes. NIH warn you not to eat too much in case it is toxic. Doh! That is the case with anything at all. No-one anywhere in the world has ever ever died of eating too many European bilberries. You can pick and eat them all day long. It takes a long time to pick a lot of them. You will end up walking miles. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
List of medicinal plants used for dental caries, apart from the name being the wrong way round. (Sugar cane is the best plant to use if you want dental caries.) It's based on just one article in a low status journal. Sure lots of plants have antibacterial properties, and that should be of interest in dental hygiene. Actually we already put mint in toothpaste. Not sure if any plants target only the bad bacteria and spare all the good ones that we have paid to consume in overpriced yoghurt drinks. Did you want to prod this one too? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

...Not looking good. 86.178.192.40 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the problems here can probably be cured through proper attribution... ie to rephrase the material in the articles from blunt statements of fact ("the plant cures diabetes") to an attributed statements of opinion ("according to so and so, the plant cures diabetes".) Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really. We should only be including such material if it's decent quality evidence for the claim; A lot of this isn't. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
We will consider keeping statements in attributed so long as there is some kind of source. A problem is that virtually every plant in the world is somewhere being investigated in a laboratory. Because of biodiversity loss, scientists really need to know quickly what plants contain what substances, and what effects those substances might have. Only the really important discoveries make it through to publication in an international journal. Many authors begin their papers with a rapid run-through of how the plant has traditionally been used. I am extremely sceptical of any "it has traditionally been used to treat diabetes". Late-onset diabetes isn't particularly common in agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies, and I am not convinced that most such societies had/have the same concept of the condition as we do now. It was hardly understood even in the West 50 years ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Camel milk

This really is one of the worst articles I've seen. 86.178.192.40 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an essay but quite a lot is rescuable in it. I'm sure camel milk is a useful foodstuff, but not necessarily that much better than cow's milk or goat's milk. Article needs to be attacked with a big pair of scissors. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Here's two sections of it.


First of all, lactose is a sugar; the length of proteins is meaningless. Secondly, they seem to be trying to claim that lactose intolerance is a myth, that camel milk's fiiiine despite containing lactose. Thirdly, human milk would cause lactose intolerance in lactose intolerant individuals. You (generally) aren't born lactose intolerant, but the ability to digest lactose goes away as you age.

As for diabetes, I like how they have no idea if it even works, but give exact values for self-treatment use anyway. 86.176.216.50 (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Even I can see that that is nonsense. The scissors will be applied to those sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Have a look post-scissors. I thought that the fact that camels are milked in desert areas was useful to keep, the benefits in a subsistence economy can be verified from FAO, then some people think the composition makes the milk particularly healthy (people who possibly haven't considered drinking skimmed cow's milk), that making cheese from it is difficult but some attempts have been made. Probably some more spam needs to come out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess you're right. Would feel better if it was cited, but... =) 86.182.20.197 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it could still be improved, but the topic isn't in principle fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bone spectacles

"They were proved to be medical spectacles due to his studies and the human needs for re-correcting eye problems in the 3rd Millennium as well as for the techniques used in their production." Huh? Really? Not sure where to go with this mixture of Forteana and questionable archaeology. There is what looks to be a real "scholarly" reference, but all I can say is that if this is what Iranian scholarship looks like, I would view it all with a jaundiced eye. So to speak. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Google hits for Yanik Tepe (rather than "Tappeh") turn up excavations by Charles Burney near the date given, but no mention of any "spectacles". Somebody with a JSTOR account could access this paper that appears to mention excavations in the area along with the name Ali Akbar Sarfaraz, but not any spectacles. My feeling is a WP:REDFLAG claim (or theory) that glasses were in use in Iran circa 3000 BC that's been recently published in only one obscure Ophthalmology journal does not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion at eyeglasses, let alone merit its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked JSTOR and can confirm that there are no mentions of spectacles in that article. eldamorie (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda#Safety

This keeps getting edited to readd nonsense and special pleading, pclaiming that it's perfectly safe - Ayurveda can detoxify heavy metals (through magic, apparently). It also keeps having the notes about the high contamination with heavy metals removed from the lead, despite WP:LEAD saying all sections should be summarised. Please watchlist. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell Talk 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Hate to keep bringing stuff up, but this has a whole TON of claims based on very flimsy evidence. I don't doubt that some of the claims should stand - phramacological drugs have, indeed, been made based on mushrooms, but there's a lot of stuff that's in vitro or worse, and thus, at best, horribly premature to be on Wikipedia. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

From a quick look, the problem seems to mainly revolve around the use of primary sources - as has been noted on the talk page. So yes, 'premature' - but not necessarily 'fringe' in the strictest sense in all cases. One to watch, but not as extreme as some of the other articles recently brought up here, I'd think. It clearly needs to be watched by those with some knowledge of the general topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin of language

There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:

[2]

This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


I would like to copy the link from there to here:
Without commenting further on the substantive issue at this point, I would like to point out that the first link is to a Wikiversity article, and as such will not be regarded as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that others are in practice self-published, but we need a Russian speaker to look at this, I think. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No results for "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" in English Google Books. No results for Азербайджанская Лингвистическая Школа in Russian Google Books. This looks absolutely fringe. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's approach the issue differently. Let's not create a theory of "Azerbaijan linguistic school," and a group of scientists. Then what to do? Ибадов (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Copy the one piece here that was here (translation of this fragment)

The Azerbaijan Linguistic School works on the belief that speech does not precede language and is not the only instrument for language performance. Language can exist without speech, and nonverbal means can play the role of shell (medium) for language. Humans developed the verbal language form because other channels of communication are not so extensive or comfortable. Here natural selection favours the verbal channel. Despite the dominance of the visual channel in everyday human relations with the outside world, it is insufficiently reliable for individual security. Human vision apprehends at any given moment only a quarter of the visible environment, and is usable for only half of the time (i.e., during wakefulness). The efficiency of the visual channel is also limited by various adverse conditions such as smoke, fog, or any other obstacles.

The auditory canal activity is available for 24 hours in the range of 360 degrees in space. The only barrier for sound propagation is strong noise, which is a very atypical occurrence. Furthermore, in order to communicate with a person visually it is necessary that this person sees the communicator. On the other hand, the auditory canal is open around the clock for perception of information from all sides, from anyone, and without any special settings. All this contributed to the human verbal (oral) form of language development.

It is believed that the mechanism of modern sophisticated and overly-complicated human languages development is identical to the writing evolutionary mechanism. That is writing development experienced stages:

The same trajectory language has experienced and it evolved through stages:

That is, some cry, first substituted (designated) a whole sentence, then — only a part of the sentence, and then — part of the word [1 1] [1 2] [1 3] [1 4] [1 5] [1 6] [1 7] [1 8].

-----------------------
  1. ^ Azerbaijan Linguistic School
  2. ^ Mammadov J.M., New system of language, thinkings and reality. // “The Papers of independent Authors” (volume 14). Israel. 2010
  3. ^ Mammadov J.M., Origin of language. // Journal "Social sciences". Baku, № 1(21), 2005. Page 25 (russian)
  4. ^ Kazimov Q.Sh., Language and History. Baku, 2004 // [1]
  5. ^ Kazimov Q.Sh., Mamedov M.B., Azerbaijan Linguistic School. Journal "Ucheba". 2007
  6. ^ Gnatyuk R.V., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
  7. ^ Ludmila Esipova, Syntax in schemes. Novosibirsk, 2006.
  8. ^ Original of this fragment in Russian
-- Wedanta (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The "initial cries of Mowgli and Tarzan"???? Are we really expected to include this stuff in an article (answer not required)? Paul B (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

This guy is pretty clearly notable for his involvement in the art world, including a scandal or two which the present version of the article boldly whitewashes. His pseudoscientific endeavors dominate the article at the moment, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

VERY much a whitewash. I like how they managed to find the onlyt scientists who supported his work, ignorign the widely reported criticisms. For a few months, tthis guy was being discussed everywhere, particularly by P.Z. Myers, who had withering criticism. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

City Harvest Church

The article had been inserted with as many as 5 parapraphs describing the Church accordinly to an academic case study by Joy Tong. There are as many as 12 mentions of "according to Tong", "According to informants to Tong","Tong's study observed".

I feel that while it is OK to make mention of Tong's study, but to have so many paragraphs dedicated to his study is not reasonable in a factual report. Besides, how can you ascertain that Tong's report is not bias and NPOV? Already I had digged out an contradicting view by Tong and an Straits Times article regarding the teaching. (I had included this in the article)

There are concerns of UNDUE weight mentioned in the Talk page, but it seems that it is not truly been answered.

Thanks in advance, J0hn 0316 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

Awful, WP:COATRACK of an article, using a minor connection with Andy Warhol to jusrtify praising pseudoscience instead. I've tried to fix the latter a bit, but I suspect this is borderline WP:ONEEVENT 86.176.222.119 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

I want to bring this article up with this project. Personally I feel it has a strong apologist tone and may use quote mining to undermine the research that invalidates astrology as well as the frequent use of fringe sources to counter mainstream ones. The individual sign articles are also problematic for a variety of reasons. I've made a small improvement, but more eyes are definitely needed. --Daniel 17:36, 2 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with our Article, though not the ones you see. It is heavily biased to "Western Astrology" specifically the roman-grecco form, Chinese astrology and Vedic Astrology are barely mentioned. As much of the "apologist tone" could be tempered by framing it more as "what people belief it is" rather than describing it in Wikipedia voice as factual information. Also the "Astrological education" needs to be removed or significantly rewritten as it implies that Astrology itself is taught as a discipline on equal term with Science. The MA program involves cultural context and beliefs of astrology not instruction in it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made intermittent attempts to persuade contributors to adhere to a more encyclopaedic tone in the article, but with little real success. I think a major problem with the article is that it doesn't actually deal with the majority of 'astrology' as experienced by most people at all - the mass media 'star sign' horoscopes etc. The 'serious' astrologers generally dismiss these as the tosh they are, and the sceptics likewise treat them with contempt - so our article doesn't really cover what is a major part of 'astrology' in popular culture - and incidentally a major money-earner: thee Daily Mail for instance was grossing around £1 million per year in the 1990s from phone lines plugged by its printed horoscopes. [3]. A balanced article should give a lot more attention to mass-market astrology, and less to the esoteric claims of the professional practitioners. There is also the problem that, as ResidentAnthropologist points out, the article relegates 'Other cultural systems of astrology' to a small section - as if the contemporary western/middle eastern form was somehow more significant. Basically, the article is shaped by the active contributors (the 'believers' and the 'sceptics' - often engaged in endless disputes over 'proof' etc), rather than by the subject matter itself. Sadly, I think that this is inherent in the way that Wikipedia treats contentious subjects - excessive attention is given to minutiae, and the broader issues are neglected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
From a brief inspection, I suggest that some more material could be migrated to History of Astrology, which also needs more eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits which I expected to be reverted, but what I didn't expect is that it was a proponents-only show there. Without some support, I'm not about to be involved while those who know how to manipulate the bureaucratic nature of WP drag everything out for months on end while using the article's history of controversy as a cover. My edits reversed some obvious bias which people had been discussing on the talk page. But the reversion seems to have been the end of the attempt at balanced tone and content. Be——Critical 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little wary of getting overly involved on a subject which a) promises to be highly contentious and b) I don't really care much about. But it does seem that efforts to improve the page are going to run up against fairly entrenched set of advocates, and I would encourage you to continue working on it. I will support efforts to improve the page, although I'm not prepared to take the lead or even a particularly active role given a) and b) above. MastCell Talk 23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL.... hmmmmmm.... Yeah, thanks for your post there. Maybe I will, but right now, for example, I think they are over-doing the Sagan bit, since Sagan only merits a small mention at most. It's not that important to astrology overall or as a practice, but it is important to a defense of astrology against criticism. But there's budding consensus that the suggested text is good, including support from a "brand-new" editor with about 10 edits, Then there's the issue of some editors who would want to make it less POV (like eliminate pushing terminology) but also want to eliminate useful text and sources from astrological journals. All in all quite a nest. Be——Critical 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, I came across this quite incidentally after leaving messages on your talk pages. Why don't you be more constructive by raising your issues directly on the astrology talk-page? Are we supposed to guess what your concerns are?? Andy - do you think I'm not attempting to generate a more encyclopaedic tone? It's just difficult. Editors who have studied the subject are accused of being advocates, and on the other side of this there is a barrage of new editors, emotively flared up by your post Daniel, thinking that the repression of the astrology argument is the only way to preserve the integrity of scientific knowledge.

Let me tell you what I think, frankly, since this seems to be the place to gossip behind the scenes - there are too many hidden agendas by editors viewing other editors with suspicion. We are losing sight of the most valuable thing that WP has to offer - free and open access to relevant information that the interested reader wants to know. It is true that the astrology page is currently over-emphasising the science controversy by comparison to the cultural and popular interest, but that's because there is much work to be done and few who are willing to do it. And yes, Daniel, the individual sign articles are very problematic - I have put hours of my life that I'll never get back again trying to improve that content, which is an embarrassment to WP - so it doesn't help to have to spend extra hours arguing against your suggestions for taking the pages backwards instead of forwards. If you care, why don't you roll up your editorial sleeves, dig out some books you are not really interested in (as I do) and spend your weekends laboriously adding content to pages that you realise are in too poor a shape to ignore? Here is my motive for contributing to WP - I spent too long in my life unable to access good, credible information on the subjects I wanted to study. I am idealistic about WP, not astrology. If you want to improve the article don't just moan from the sidelines about what other editors are failing to do. Fix it. Contribute content (with appropriate references, marked up in the laborious style that WP demands). Gosh - took me only 3 minutes to write this whinge, as opposed to the several days it can take me to create a piece of content that another editor might want to run their cursor over and delete in a second. (And Judith, the History of astrology doesn't need more 'eyes' on it - it needs more 'contibutors', with text-book in hand). Sorry that I don't understand [sigh] why you all feel so worn out by what other editors are doing-- Zac Δ talk! 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bachelor_of_Ayurveda,_Medicine_and_Surgery

Ugh. Just, ugh. I particularly like the use of bold text. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your reaction, but the article, in its current state doesn't make any claims of efficacy. The subject clearly exists and is probably notable, although the article's not footnoted properly. If it were nominated for deletion, it would probably be kept. I cleaned up some of the typography. I don't think it needs anything else beyond watchlisting to keep out extravagant claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish and others

Natib Qadish seems to be more about modern Canaanite religions than anything else, and is mostly original research. It may be that it should simply be a redirect. Certainlyu Great Mother of the Gods seems to be just Mother Goddess by another name. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolbrin Bible

"The first six books are said to be scribed by Egyptian writers shortly after the exodus called the "Bronzebook". The last five books are collectively called "Coelbook" and is said be authored by Celtic priests written around the time that the New Testament was being created." And other amazing stuff, if anyone wants an article to work on..... Actually, it's an interesting issue, as the only sources I can find using Google Books and GScholar are from people promoting it. Most of the the books I've found and checked so far are published by 'Your Own World Books' which is run by one of the authors, Marshall Masters. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup - a quick search suggests that it doesn't stand a chance of passing wp:notability (books), so no point in doing anything beyond an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I have laboriously rewritten this article. Notability is still a bit borderline (there are negative mentions at several debunking sites), and as it stands I walked right on the edge of WP:OR, but see for yourself. BTW Doug I found a thread on sci.tech-archive.net back in 2005 concerning this book with your name all over it. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating work. I never heard of this book until it was mentioned on this board, but figured I'd see if I could use my Google search skills to help. Article currently states that the first provenanced mention is a 2003 book. I just found a thread from November 2002 where some guy quotes it in his sig: http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=36598 (Only hits for "Kolbrin" before that are as a mispelling of Helena Kobrin.) Does this help? --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I would not assume that this signature dates back to 2002; it's common on such fora that the current signature is displayed, whether or not the message was posted before the last signature change. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the etymology of Kolbrin, I just found now that there is also a Welsh runic alphabet called "Coelbren " believed to be a hoax invented c. 1800 by Iolo Morganwg; see cy:Coelbren y Beirdd... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's very likely that this hoax took its name from Morganwg's hoax. I'm still not sure it merits an article. Self-published books about it, a blog, personal websites, etc. Mangoe, despite all your work, for which I thank you, I really think it should probably go to AfD. Can you convince me otherwise? Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, Doug, I think I've written the article that we would liked some skeptic site to have written for us to reference. Unfortunately the only page that appears to have to made much of an effort to do the same didn't archive and is now AWOL. The other weak point, of course, is that woo-woo sites in large numbers refer to this thing, so it's likely that someone will feel the urge to recreate this thing soon enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, if it fails another AFD it will be the fifth time this article has been deleted. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination) Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gene Savoy

Notable explorer and actually did lot worthwhile but also very much fringe in both his religious beliefs and his beliefs about Peruvian archaeological sites. Particularly pov when it comes to his religious beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy‎

Some substantial changes in the last 2 days to this article. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fringe content:

if anyone is interested, there appears to be a lot of fringe science/pseudoscience on Dewey_B._Larson. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson. MastCell Talk 16:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, I've left a comment on the deletion also. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kambojas again

Just to get a minor point sorted, what could "cognate with the Indo-Scythians" mean? Does it mean that the Kambojas are assumed to be identical with Indo-Scythians? That they were a group of Indo-Scythians? All I can see to be commonly agreed is that the Scythians probably lived in central or south-west Asian and probably spoke Iranian languages. Or Scythian is the word by which the Greeks and Romans knew the Iranians - no because they also knew the Persians well. If someone can describe the situation clearly without making nationalistic claims, would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This article is just getting worse and worse, with editors claiming hat stating the source's negative evaluation of the claim the article makes is POV - so that they can use a source saying there's no evidence that something works, to say it can be used for that purpose. [4]

Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls. 86.177.230.221 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It would be worth posting this on WP:RSN, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I really think it would be worthwhile posting at WikiProject Plants, and setting up a Medicinal Herbs Task Force within that project to facilitate the big clean-up job required on these articles. Article content guidelines, advice on appropriate sources, a noticeboard for problematic articles, that sort of thing. I'm starting from the fact that a plant is a plant, and an article on a plant should prioritise the botanical facts, mentioning any culinary use, use in traditional medicine and use in modern medicine as part of the article if and only if those aspects apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I've already posted requests for more eyes to the medicine, pharmaccology and plants project pages. The task force sounds like a good idea. The number of spam links and unreliable sources that have to be cleaned up is enormous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Looking at it today, it's only getting far worse. This is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda again

This article is undergoing attempts to shove all negative material to the end of the article, and keep it from being summarised in the lead. Keep an eye on it. A couple of us are considering trying to get this article to a state where it could reasonably be nominated for GA, but, at the moment, it's a battle just to keep it from getting worse again. 86.176.74.179 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima de Madrid

Fatima de Madrid seems to be the creation of a women's science advocacy group, out of heaven knows what material. I cannot find anything on this Hypatia of Moorish Spain. Some other eyes would be useful in this deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and removed a couple of claims substantiated with spam sites or sources that did not meet WP:MEDRS. I have reservations about the extraordinary and nonsensical claim that garlic is "widely used as an antibiotic". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A WP:BOLD move

I have moved this page to list of plants used in herbalism. Hopefully this will help to get a better focus on things. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pivar

Whitewash keeps happening, letting his crank theories stay in, but removing all criticism of them. 86.182.19.180 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note the IP address above 86.182.19.180 is also this user:
This is clearly socking, note how he also backs up each one of his IP addresses in various conversations on this board by making out he is a different user. It is all the same guy, on more than three of these accounts he has deleted material or lied about what is in the references on the Stuart Pivar article, why does he also feel the need to create three sections about Pivar on this board?.
Seems to be spending all of his time only on this Wiki Fringe Board (he has never added anything to wikipedia, so why is he even on here?) he only reverts edits on these "fringe articles" and leaves abusive comments. See his latest edit on this Stuart Pivar article:
"No criticism, no description of the quack theory" - Hes just deleted valid references and calling Pivar's work "quack" and elsewhere "utter crankery". This user has obviously not read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly NOT socking. There's no rule that says editors must register accounts. The user at IPs beginning with 86 is clearly using an internet connection that frequently assigns him a new address. He has never, to my knowledge, pretended that each IP represents a different user. The IP has been consistently doing excellent work dealing with fringe content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) [5]

Note that 212.219.xx.xxx keeps deleting all criticism of Pivar. [6] [7]. I don't have the book in question; I didn't add the book in question. It wouldn't surprise me if, as the IP said on the talk page, the page number for calling Pivar pseudoscience is different from the one given; but the IP,, instead of trying to better summarise Pigalucci's views, decided to delete all criticism of Pivar's theory,. which has 0 acceptance in biology. Either this is a notable crank theory, and criticism can be found to describe it, or it's not a notable crank theory, and this article is a WP:COATRACK, trying to use a trivial mention of Pivar's work with Warhol to claim notability for his crankery. And it is crankery: you will find no peer-reviewed biology based on it. However, based on Pivar's website and Pivar's book (the only sources in the section on his crank theories that he's complaining about me removing), he wants to keep in a section bigger than the rest of the article combined promoting his crank theory. Here's my change. I also removed a brief mention in the section on his life, but the source didn't even mention his crank theories.

Just to be clear here, here's the only thing that could even be considered reference to his crank theories in any non-primary source:

Source (pg 2):


[a bit later]



Former use in the article, which is arguably copyvio, due to being so near the way it's phrased by the NWT :

Article:

This in the middle of an article describing his interesting home, which does not have any further elaboration or even direct reference to him having a new theory about human embryonic development. It does not justify giving over the vast majority of the article to primary sources.

As for my IP changing, like most British internet users, I have a dynamic IP provided by British Telecom's internet service. (I also have been having some problems with it - it resets a lot of late) There is nothing I can do about that. I have said this many times, but can't very well say it every time. 86.184.86.157 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Pivar did some art collecting makes him all that notable, but if his article is to stay then there should at least be some mention of his theories, and of criticism of them. A couple of sentences should suffice. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If the criticism is there, sure, but not if it's going to be as it keeps being changed to: a coatrack for promoting his theories, while finding bullshit reasons to exclude criticism. For instance, Pivar sued PZ Myers over his blog post criticising his book. Given that the section on the book was primary sources, including Pivar's website WP:PARITY says that the notable post by Myers should be fine. But if this is just going to be promotional, no way. 86.181.103.102 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not deleted

AFD result was keep, so this article is going to need a lot of anti-fringe care. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A summary of his claims won't do any harm as long as the reaction of critics is given. Interestingly, his ideas are clearly related to his attempt to revive nineteenth century artists's anatomy lessons. It looks like they are linked to his experience in the world of plastics too. After all what he apparently did was make "flexible plastic toroidal tubes filled with fluid and flexed them and twisted them". [8] It's a pity we have nothing on his career as a plastics guru. This, it seems, is a man whose first invention was a special plastic spray to disinfect dustbins with floral fragrances. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyology

Should probably be AfD'd, about 7000 ghits does not show a term (which serves only as a neologism for a combination of two relatively minor quack diagnostic tools) is widespread; appears to have minimum takeup. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment. AFD is the way to go. I've watchlisted the page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
IPs can't nominate for AfD, however, since we can't create new pages. =/ 86.178.194.188 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I set it up. You ever try to do that as an IP? It's not fun. Managed in the end, though! =) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not fun as a non IP, so thanks. Did you not want to start an account, 86? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather not, really. It's easy enough to spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph_W._Moss_(writer)

Ah, the usual brave maverick idiot. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Longtime problem article, largely because of the lack of actual independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. He's probably non-notable, and I'd support an AfD nomination, but what will happen is that a bunch of people will show up to argue "keep", the AfD will be closed as "no consensus", and all the "keep"ers will disappear, leaving us back at square one. MastCell Talk 22:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
For someone with his position as being on the previous incarnation of NCCAM, he should be notable. But there really is no significant, independent coverage of him in reliable sources (and I looked pretty hard back this past winter). Would support an AFD as well. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll try a prod first. They're often less frustrating, and, frankly, AfDs are annoying because even the slightest misframing of your initial argument can mean that they go completely off-track. Hell, best way to troll Wikipedia'd be to do really badly-argued AfDs for things that actually should be deleted. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Eat grapes to treat your cancer!

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine#G - Seriously, this article is a bad joke. Most of the sources say that evidence is lacking, or even that they don't work for the conditions, but in a huge POV-push, the article claims that it can be used to treat that disease ANYWAY.

This really is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As is, it is dreadful. I think it is here to stay though. I had one idea. That is, not to say - at all - what plant "is used to treat" what. That very formulation "is used to treat" is highly problematic. OK, it could be interpreted just to mean that some source recommended X herb to treat Y condition. However, in many cases it is unwarranted to propose that traditional use had any concept of Y condition. So the article simply lists the plants with one or more sources for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Suggest it on the talk page there; I don't think we can get that through from afar. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cymbopogon and species

Lemon grass appears to be another super cancer-killer. Cymbopogon is not too terribly bad but the species articles are more questionable. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a single in vitro study. I just delete those on site, explaining that such styudies are mere hypthosis generating studies, which rarely pan out. Watchlist it in case it comes back, but... 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Another typical herb article. If you smell the stuff you can tell it is antiseptic. Sure it has been used since ancient times for preserving things. Of course people are trying to find out what it contains and what else its ingredients are good for. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal plants of the American West

Another plants list with lots of questionable medical claims. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not as vbad as most, though, as the claims are (mostly) quite plausible, and it doesn't claim to treat specific diseases. If we checked the more extreme claims for White sage, Yerba mansa and Yerba Santa, this'd be fairly reasonable. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It still illustrates what an uphill task we are facing with all these articles. Apparently drinking a tisane can prevent dehydration. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Imagine that. =P Though I suspect it MIGHT be trying to talk about the well-known use of succulents as a source of water in the American desert, which includes Yerba buena. Someone obviously took that, and then decided to commercialise. *eyeroll* 86.176.222.245 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
No, wait, I'm thinking Yucca. So... just nonsense. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Just nonsense. Meanwhile... feverfew. I naively thought this would be straightforward. From its name it is a febrifuge. I thought it was probably an analgesic as well. I thought a few people would be using it as a herbal tea, like with camomile. Turns out not only is it a marketed herbal remedy but also it might be effective in migraine or might not, we don't know what the active ingredients are, there could be side effects. Lots of minor and contradictory studies cited. A microcosm of the difficulties. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to fix up feverfew. MastCell Talk 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Better now, many thanks. Parthenolide is still problematic. The whole thing is still a microcosm. Clear that the plant has active ingredients that do something to the body. I wouldn't mind betting that it really can reduce fever. I think it probably is an analgesic too, but that might depend on what is being tested and how. Don't get me wrong, I would expect it to have all sorts of side effects. Plants do stuff. They are full of nutrients and active ingredients that are really good for you in small concentrations, really bad if you overdose. That's why it's recommended to have a varied diet. Typically, in the Parthenolide article, the potential effects like febrifuge, analgesic, that are easily researched have been eclipsed by the search for an anti-cancer magic bullet. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Phytotherapy/herbalism task force

I think we are getting a bit out of hand here. Are these synonyms, or not? Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Dealing with all these medical claims is clearly proving to be a major problem. I propose to set up a joint task force under the appropriate Wikiprojects to go over these and also get rid of some of the content forking of the main articles (e.g. multiple lists of plants, are Phytotherapy and herbalism different, what about western traditional herbalism and modern alternative systems such as homeopathy ...). We need specific standards about what claims can included and how they can be characterized. Probably there are other things to be hashed out.

Herbalism is under the following projects:

and this seems like a good starting point. I've never been involved in a task force and I don't know how one sets up a joint force or even if it can be done.

Do other people think this is a good idea, and would be willing to help out? Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd help, for what it's worth. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll join but only temporarily because it needs botanists on the case, and people well versed in MEDRS. At the moment things are so bad even I can see the multiple issues. BTW I am interested in the history, and the point at which scientific and non-scientific views diverge. A lot of plants were materia medica/pharmacopaeia, and that was good medicine at the time. The value of a plant in, say the 18th century, and the value today are two different things.Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Telepathy

IP seeking a "balanced view" of the scientific acceptance of telepathy inserting own views into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

All the parapsychological things are pretty awful, because all the scientific stuff gradually degrades over time from battles with true believers, and not enough people work to try and improve them. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone also seems to have removed the "generally regarded as pseudoscience" notice from the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed there's usually a small spike in fringy edits to such articles in the weeks leading up to Halloween. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_plants_used_as_medicine

This may be of interest to the FTN community. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Conscious business

I'm not even sure where to start, or if this is even fringe. This just seems like the most likely place to discuss it. The article has no independent sources or footnotes, just some internal links that all look promotional. This might be a non-notable neologism, or possibly a personal essay. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Searching on this is problematic (lots and lots of false hits) but I'm not utterly convinced that this is any different from socially responsible business. Doing a Gnews search in particular produces a paucity of hits; GBooks seems to indicate that someone is trying to bring this term into existence. And the big comment on Talk:Conscious business shows a HUGE COI in authoring this.
Even more problematic is the related Conscious enterprise, which lacks any real citations. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think they're both deletable. I'm not sure what's the best way to go, prod, afd or speedy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I've put it up for speedy since it's an unambigous promotion of this concept for this business. IRWolfie- (talk)

List_of_vaccine_topics

Thoughts on this? At the very least, I think the heavy emphasis on anti-vaccinationists (and the attempt to relabel some of the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement mere "vaccine critics") is problematic, but what's the point of the article in the first place? 86.185.3.153 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally unencyclopedic hotchpotch. In there is perhaps a List of people associated with vaccination and a List of vaccines. Can't see anything else. Someone has misunderstood the purpose of a list and a category. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposing deletion - if you see anything to spin out, please remove the prod, move it to an appropriate location, and cut out what shouldn't be there. 86.176.216.59 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer - again

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attempts to assert fringe 'science' as fact - and not even following the sources cited. The whole article needs input from neutral contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are any Italian speakers they would be particularly useful for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP 79.10. editor is italian and the article is already benefitting. At least it was before the recent deletions started. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know that User:IRWolfie- seems to be deleting Energy Catalyzer into oblivion. Great fun. Whoohoo --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of synthesis, original research and undue weight content. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Reiki

Mostly written from the perspective of fringe theory practitioners, which gives excessive weight to their views. 86.** IP (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out some of the excessive veneration of Japanese and Chinese language. Beyond that I'm going to leave it to others because personally I think that breathing exercises and meditation might be quite good for you. (Although articles should simply reflect what RS say.) Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Pox party

While clearly a notable subject, the article rather focuses on antivaccinationist and pre-vaccination viewpoints. It wouldn't take much work to get this up to shape, but I've been editing way too much today. =) 86.178.198.186 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

How on earth has this obvious WP:POVPUSHing WP:QUOTEFARM lasted as long as it apparently has? If someone wants to start an AfD nomination page (IPs can't create new pages), I'll document why it should be deleted. 86.182.21.252 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does seem rather OR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I created an account just for doing this sort of crap. As you can see, my username is very creative. 86.** IP (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Coooool username. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but this kind of thing makes my spidey senses tingle. 86.** IP I mean no offense if you're a legitimate new(ish) user who never had an account before, but if you're not such a user nothing but drama will result from your involvement in controversial topics like this. The reason I say this is that you sound awfully familiar with Wikipedia terminology for someone who edits from an IP just now registering an account. That said I agree with you that the entry is original research and inappropriately using long quotations.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Had an account a long time ago, found Wikipedia taking up far too much of my time, and, now that I have the urge to do some editing again, I am taking steps to make sure the timesink doesn't happen so easily again, and that I can break off easily. Beyond that, I don't see how it's possibly any of your business. I wouldn't have even got an account if I didn't feel bad about asking others to do things for me. 86.** IP (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please appreciate the fact that in contentious areas of the Wiki there are a number of banned users on either side of controversies. When someone new shows up out of thin air talking the talk like a pro it is quite possibly innocent, but also quite possibly a returned user. Whatever it is it can lead to drama and can increase the battleground atmosphere and preventing that is everyone's business. Like I said already, if you're not such a user then I meant no offense. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Update - I tagged the entry for OR and quotefarming. I also started a discussion on the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, it has already been through AFD four times (and DRV once), and survived each time. It has been a couple years since the last AFD, so the result might be different, but I wouldn't count on it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is a concensus reached on the page I will remove the pointless quotes and any OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the DRV, the !vote at the last AfD was 45 to 31 in favor of delete with a large number of non-policy-based arguments on the keep side and a resolution of "no consensus". Given all this, I don't think a successful AfD is out of the question now that two years have gone by. That article really, really sucks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't see how the article would be kept. Its complete junk.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's find out how! 86.182.17.33 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vaccine topics

Since it was discussed here. 86.** IP (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hezekiah Jubilee Calendar

Seems to be compelte rubbish, but others might want to take a look at it. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

National Anti-Vaccination League

Weird one. It has a lot of big quotes from contemporary material, which, while fascinating in their awfulness, aren't contextualised. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate change denial and global warming controversy

Are these a pair of WP:POVFORKs? I particularly like the see also at the top of Climate change denial. 86.** IP (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger was proposed back in December 2009 but consensus to keep was overwhelming. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather awkwardly argued, though. I wonder if it's worth reconsidering? 86.** IP (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rex 84

This extremely problematic article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a more paranoid version of Continuity of Operations Plan, which is pretty paranoid to begin with. Sourcing is extremely problematic, as it all seems to come from highly WP:POV paranoia sites. At least, that's my impression; I'd feel better if someone else would take a look at it. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaccine_critic

Contested prod. 86.** IP (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish

Fringe neo-Pagan religious article which is mainly about Canaanite religion, not Natib Qadish itself. I brought it up at WP:NORN but I think it's relevant here also, if not just delete this. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is all original research. I have redirected the entry to Semitic Neopaganism, another entry that could use some attention. In fact I'm not sure that entry should exist either. The only scholarly sources I can find relate to the Goddess movement within (mostly ethnic) Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone objected to this so it is now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Can it be speedied as a recreation of a page previously deleted per AFD? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It was deleted 3 years ago and I think that makes a difference, at least in the spirit of the matter. However, like I said I'm not sure. Clearly I'd be happy to see it deleted that way or this way.Griswaldo (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

I was a little surprised to find that this fringe science online publication has not been listed here before. The article and the talk page have recently been semiprotected because of trolling by ipsocks of banned user Bookworm44. The disruption seems to have spilled over elsewhere.[9] Perhaps more watchers of this noticeboard could follow what is going on there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been in communication with the actual owners of the Journal of Cosmology website, and I think it's best that the article entry for the Journal of Cosmology is deleted from wikipedia, they agreed, infact they even see the article on wiki as an attack against them and an ongoing problem, theres arguements on there everyday on the article for JOC on wiki, it aint neutral, and it really is just copping up problem after problem, it isnt a mainstream journal, and to be honest doesnt have many references. I suggest we all have a vote and nominate it for deletion. Would be best that way. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The personal wishes of the website owners have no bearing as to whether the article should be deleted (and not just because we would just be taking your word for it that you really were in contact with them). When you consider the goals of Wikipedia, we'd be in trouble if we start throwing out cited, relevant information just because the subject feels it unflattering. Kansan (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

No further comment. 86.** IP (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Becoming a POV-fest. Lots of people claiming global warming denial isn't fringe, because... they hold the belief, so it's fine to have a huge POV push. 86.** IP (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's an AfD. About global warming. And a 4th nomination. That's three strikes against a civil, thoughtful discussion right there. :P MastCell Talk 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll tell you this, though. If that thing is kept, all the quotes have to come out of that article. It's the most egregious quotefarm I've seen on the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the quotes but they were put back in, it seems they are wanted "for reference". see Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotefarm_.28topic_broken_away_from_.22Tagged_entry_for_OR_and_quotefarm.22_section.29 IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Milan Tutorov about Butaul, an Avar lord in Eastern Europe

Milan Tutorov is a Serbian author. I don't much about him. One of his books is Banatska rapsodija: istorika Zrenjanina i Banata (Aurora publishing house, Novi Sad, 2001). I haven't read the book, but I couldn't find any information to confirm this book is a WP:RS.

Based on this book User:PANONIAN created an article on the Avar noble Buta-ul, ruling Banat and Bačka in the 8th century AD. I initiated an AfD having in mind WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE, and later also WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK (this article has been used also to promote the existence of this lord and his realm in other articles and templates). Some users have attempted to rescue the article. However in the current version, while there's no widely accepted translation and interpretation of the only primary source, an inscription written in Greek alphabet and probably a Turkic language, Milan Tutorov's interpretation stands out as the most prominent view, accounting for about half of the "Interpretations" section and a map (and with 7 footnotes referring to the same two pages of his book). I tagged the section for lack of neutrality, invoking WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and also explaining the problem. User:PANONIAN disagreed, endorsing the current version and the inclusion of Tutorov's views.


The inscription was found in 1799 on a golden vessel contained in a large hoard.

The text in Greek letters: BOYHΛA.ZOAΠAN.TECH.ΔYΓΕTOIΓH.BOYTAOYΛ.ZΩAΠAN.TAΓPOΓH.HTZIΓH.TAICH

Transliterated: bouēla zoapan tesē dygetoigē boutaoul zōapan tagrogē ētzigē taisē

Milan Tutorov's "translation" (provided by User:PANONIAN): The great župan Buta-ul, ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa.

Apparently this interpretation is somehow derived from two other "translations" (apparently also WP:FRINGE, also I'm not sure if those books are WP:RS):

Meszäros 1915, 20: Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß. Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß)-Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes.

G. Supka 1916, 13. Župan Buila, Fürst (Taidschi) von Dügetoigi Großžupan Butaul, Taidschi von Tagrogi und Itschigi (Utschugi)


To me all these "translations" look pseudoscientific. What do you say? What's to be done about it? Daizus (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one thing: I cited sources, while claim of User:Daizus that info from these sources is an "fringe theory" is his personal opinion which is not supported by any source. PANONIAN 04:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Typical of one of wikipedia's greatest flaws: a wikipedia editor who "knows" what is and isn't "fringe", without any sources at all, can trump any number of published sources, and render them all inadmissible, simply because he "knows" what is and isn't "fringe". I see it quite a lot on this board. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE? Have you read the policies cited above? Can you prove the source above is reliable? Can you find at least one reliable source to confirm the interpretation challenged above? "Without any sources?" Are these sources? But these? Are you even able to read Greek? Is this board or this discussion about what you think about other editors? Daizus (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Can people review this to see if it still has NPOV issues? If not, I'm considering doing a full peer review, then pushing it for GA. 86.** IP (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson - originally closed as delete, now reinstated as no-consensus

This is for information although some might have intended to edit further if it was kept. Someone objected that there was not a clear consensus for delete so the closing Admin agreed to change his decision. AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The hell? 86.** IP (talk)
I've asked for review of the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_decision_reversed_by_fiat..._three_months_later.. 86.** IP (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Wouldn't this be better named Anti-vaccination movement to reflect its fringe status? "Vaccine controversy" makes it sound like there's a valid, scientific controversy. It's a weasel term.

This article is also rather strongly biased towards (some of) the anti-vaccination claims, citing them without any effective rebuttal. 86.** IP (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Secret Gospel of Mark

Edit warring going on about the consensus over whether this is a hoax on the part of Morton Smith. We have a firm citation saying that scholars agree that it's a hoax, but there is considerable resistance on the part of one person as to letting the article say this. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular document. But I strongly feel wikipedia should resist the temptation of "deciding" whether or not anything is a hoax. We ought to restrict ourselves to quoting those sources who say it's a hoax, and also quoting the dissenters who say it's not a hoax (if any) -- and not magisterially tell the reader whose school of thought or hypothesis is "right'. That is the original spirit of NPOV in which wikipedia was founded, but it seems to be getting more and more out of this spirit all the time. Once wikipedia become the "arbiter" of "deciding" what is and isn't a hoax, this tendency will lead to becoming something like the Council of Nicea which will decide what line everyone is required to believe, or else be called a heretic. Sadly, this is the death of NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am relatively certain that following WP:NPOV#UNDUE will not cause its implosion. Wikipedia has not decided; the scholarly consensus is that the Gospel is a hoax. We should write our article accordingly, without weaseling. We do not offer wiggle room for Cardiff giant or other hoaxes; we did not decide those other hoaxes were in fact hoaxes; we should apply the same good sense here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading the article and talk page, and reviewing the sources, it's clear to me that the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community is that this the document is a hoax. This has to be presented as the majority position in accordance with due weight. The sources that USER:Contaldo80 contends are unreliable give no indication that they are anything but mainstream academic sources that accurately represent present-day scholarly opinion. The criteria he is using to determine the reliablity of sources is highly subjective and essentially based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and not on a reasonable interpretation of WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that since Smith's death there has been re-examination of the manuscript, and there are several journal publications to the effect that it is a hoax. There is a passage from Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest names in the field, testifying that many scholars had always drawn a line between Smith's sexuality and the material in finding it suspicious; this keeps getting cut out. The same editor keeps inserting the statement that these are "non-proven suggestions of forgery", when in fact the main reference gives a list of faults with the manuscript that those scholars hold show that Smith wrote it out himself. Of course nothing in the field is ever certain, but the pattern of editing here is to minimize the criticism and portray it as coming from minor people who don't really have grounds for their conclusions, rather than reflecting major unease about the text which has been heard from some of the most important names in the field from the start, and which has recently been ratified by application of the techniques of the field reported in reliable sources. We don't have to say that we think it's a hoax, be we do have to stop saying that there's not a lot of confidence that it's a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading the wikipedia article now, and learning about this. The version of the article there now that I am reading looks fairly neutral, it quotes everyone's opinion without saying who is right. If some books are of the opinion that it's not a hoax, those books should also be mentioned, and in the absence of compelling proof to everyone's complete satisfaction, the tone of the article should steer a neutral course, which it seems to do, so I see no problem. The article about Morton Smith also seems balanced, except for one paragraph of uncited opinion which already has a slew of weasel tags on it, and that paragraph should surely be removed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated than that... After a quick look at the talk page... The disagreement isn't over whether we should say the document is a hoax or not... the disagreement is over whether we should note that there is an academic consensus about the document. Apparently we have a cited source that actually says that there is an academic consensus (that consensus being that the document is indeed a hoax). And we have an editor that disagrees with the cited source (and asserting that there is not an academic consensus on the hoax issue). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see... so is this subject a controversy, or consensus? If a controversy, there is no consensus. If a consensus, there is no controversy, because everyone agrees and there is no dissent. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Poking around further, I think the situation is more unclear than I thought at first. There is definitely a camp organized around the theory that Smith forged the document based upon his own sexual appetites and looking back to a story published in the 1940s which follows roughly the same plot as his revelation of the document. There are also a bunch of others who reject the textual analyses that are used to defend the "hoax" theory, and they offer up their own competing analyses. Confusingly, there seems to be someone claiming that the document is a 18th century hoax, presumably showing that Smith either got taken or recognized the fake and went along for the ride. There were BAR articles last year from the "it's not a hoax" group last year. Colluphidism abounds in field, of course, but the sense I get is that this is going to continue to be an unresolved issue. That said, phrases like "non-proven suggestions of forgery" misrepresent the degree of controversy. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis"

Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki? Editors want to remove, "Claims for Reiki energy have no known theoretical or biophysical basis," which I'm not against as long as a proper presentation is still kept in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited [10], [11] do not make this statement, so it is my contention that the statement is OR. The first source (Lee, MS et. al., 2008) states: "In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting." The study's conclusion is as follows: "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven." The study is covered in the same section and this conclusion is stated clearly.
The other source given (Stenger, V.,1999) does not mention Reiki at all. The author calls the study an "analysis." It is not a review article and presents an opinion rather than summarizing scientific consensus, in accordance with WP:MEDRS. Sunray (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please let's stick to the issue at hand: what is the proper presentation of the medical and scientific consensus on Reiki? --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the section of MEDRS headed "Summarize Scientific Consensus," with specific reference to the quote you are referring to in the article. How is that not the issue at hand? Sunray (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused as well. How is Sunray's reply not addressing the issue at hand? KillerChihuahua?!? 04:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking for editors to help determine what should be presented. If editors agree with Sunray's assessment of the two references (I'm unable to access the first), then that likely means finding other sources. --Ronz (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Someone want to help make sure that medical and scientific consensus is properly presented in Reiki?" --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vaccine_controversy#Rename_proposal

Discussion over whether to change the name of the article. 86.** IP (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow_body

This is a hoax, right? Barely-readable, with claims of supposedly documented people turning into light 86.** IP (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a hoax - it is instead apparently a part of a cultural/religious belief system, and the article ought to make that clear. It needs a rewrite, certainly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson nominated for deletion

The article which was deleted but then undeleted is up for deletion nomination again. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of ancient astronauts

New article, no really good sources. Eyes, please. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You will find an "explanation" at Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 2#Timeline of publications moved. Not sure it's a good reason though. It's been done by a new editor with only a dozen or so edits to his name. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of ancient astronauts. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley Psychic Institute

This might interest someone. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, seems to be in very good hands. Might need a little gentle nudging later, but I doubt it. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Council_on_Naturopathic_Medical_Education

Any evidence for anything in this long, uncited article being true, particularly the praise heaped on it at the end? 86.** IP (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to stub it and build it up from scratch using actual independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 22:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

List of plants used in herbalism

This had stalled a bit, so I removed the stuff cited to the self-published source, and the obviously promotional, making-stuff-up[1] source. Please join in the talk page discussion, there's lots of attempts to add it back in, claiming it's fine (even when it's obviously inaccurate and POV-pushing) 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. This crap article is made worse by a major WP:OWNership issues by a couple users. I don't think it's even fixable now. One of said POV-pushers loves to make fake warnings on talk pages against any user who dares challenge her perfect article. The basic goal seems to be to make the article so annoying to edit that they win. =/ Really hate this article; why did the AfD get withdrawn, and why does someone withdrawing an AfD mean that everyone who voted to delete loses their vote? About ready to give up.
The basic facts are: The University of MAryland has a complementary Medicines directory. It has obviously false information in it, which I've pointed out, relating to dates (e.g. saying that we know chili has been used as a medicine in Mesoamerica for 9000 years. That's millennia before any writing system, of course). But, hey, they want to be able to make crap over-inflated claims, so they just stick their fdamn fingers in their damn ears, and say it's fine, it's perfectly reliable.
I'm getting really sick of this WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT trollery. The source is obviously and provably making inflated claims. That should be enough to discredit it. 86.** IP (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the UMD Med source too, but I don't think you're going to make any headway unless you can pick apart one of their articles and show the specific errors in it, or you can find some other source that specifically attacks its credibility. Mangoe (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've also noticed how very problematic it is as a source. Typically: "Sami, Khoi San and Aymara tribespeople have used the plant for many thousands of millennia in the treatment of attention deficit disorder, irritable bowel syndrome and ingrowing toenail. Its active ingredients are currently being studied for possible anti-diabetic effects, and it has been shown to reverse tooth decay in fruit flies". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just like Bertha's mussels. :) Mangoe (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible contrary references

Here are two specific criticisms I've see of the UMD Med center that publishes this website:

  • Salzberg, Steven (21 April 2011). "Why Medical Schools Should Not Teach Integrative Medicine". Forbes.
  • Freedman, David H. (July/August 2011). "The Triumph of New-Age Medicine". The Atlantic. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The second begins specifically examining the UMD center, with criticism from researchers at UMCP. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Blood type diet

Some eyes on this article over the next couple days would be good. We have an IP that has been on the TP in the past asserting a POV problem. I've responded to his talk page message but may be quite busy of the next couple days and won't be able to discuss much. Noformation Talk 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the POV problems - just how does this article meet Wikipedia notability standards? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the original book was a fad for a few months in the late 90s. There might be usable sources from around then, but it was pretty ephemeral, disappearing as fast as it came. I suppose there might be some sources out there (contemporary science magazines, maybe?), but it'd need a huge amount of work to find them.
But then, you could probably just as productively archive dive Victorian newspapers and write articles about the fleeting fads and obsessions of that period. 86.** IP (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's notable/notorious enough. Unfortunately there are still plenty of uninformed people - and "nutrionists" who take advantage of them - so the diet is still being recommended within alternative medicine circles, and that's a lot of people! Of course the most reliable sources all condemn the diet, and they should be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Out-of-place artifacts up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 17#Category:Out-of-place artifacts. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see that category go, but not too soon. I noticed that two of them, Eiserner Mann and Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone have text claiming that they are "alleged" out-of-place artifacts, both without any citation to support this. I think all the articles on the list should be seen to and have any uncited claims removed while the category is still there to aid navigation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

[deleted] See below for less sweary version 86.** IP (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRV is that way. Hut 8.5 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_19#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_.284th_nomination.29

Bullshit close. Since when is 18 policy-based delte votes to 15 mainly WP:ILIKEIT keep votes = keep? "No consensus" I could buy, "Delete" would be correct. Keep is bullshit. 86.** IP (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One piece of advice during the DRV: make sure you're clear on the fact that AfD discussions are not votes, so it doesn't actually matter how many people !vote one way or another. The reviewing admins won't put much stake in a "18 voted one way and only 15 another" argument--make sure your argument deals with the content of the arguments presented in the AfD discussion, rather than on quantities and numbers. --Miskwito (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. I've edited my statement a bit to focus on this. 86.** IP (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the key point here is that, as I've pointed out on his/her talkpage, the closing admin took into account matters not even raised in the discussion - demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the expected procedure for the closing admin. I consider this alone a sufficient reason for the 'keep' decision to be overturned, without taking into account other factors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

For those don't know, there are some major discussions taking place at the astrology article regarding its characterization as pseudoscience, as well as the use of astological publications to comment on mainstream scientific publications. Noformation Talk 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights

I know most people here are already aware of the situation, but for those of you who don't follow AN/I, the Men's rights article is currently in the eye of a shitstorm. Things are somewhat calm at the moment, but there is heavy off-wiki canvassing by men's rights activists on reddit, among other places. Check ANI for the thread, and check out the page for what's currently going on. Noformation Talk 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a topic for this noticeboard though, I'd have thought? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not, and the situation is on its way to being under control. The article will experience 'technical difficulties' for a few days while common sense is restored, but it should shake out after that. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Imprinted brain theory

An autism origin theory which may have been a flash in the pan. I think it will survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprinted brain theory because it has citations in real literature, but given that they are all about three years old I get the impression that nobody cared. The article doesn't mention this, of course. I refuse to get caught up in the autism etiology madness but people may want to keep an eye on this one. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole article about this speculative and untested theory uses only primary sources. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Which is false. The article cites a review. As noted in the deletion discussion there are also several secondary sources finding the theory to be at least very interesting. Sources include artcles in the best medical journals available. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If it's speculative, it does not warrant a wikipedia article written almost exclusively using primary sources. Watchers of this page will probably be aware that Miradre's past editing, which has involved inserting prominent sections on evolutionary psychology into multiple articles, has been deeply problematic. In Causes of autism, where this theory had been cited, editors from WikiProject Medicine have insisted that the standards of WP:MEDRS be respected. This does not come anywhere close to that. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, much a sourcing is a from a review article. I have now also added other reviews to the article. Sources includes articles in Nature (journal), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and Psychological Review. It was on the talk page of the Causes of autism that it was stated that the theory deserved an article of its own and where it was suggested that I should write it. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
One discussion took place here on talk:causes of autism [12] and mentioned WP:MEDRS. In a separate discussion on Talk:obesity, also involving evolutionary psychology,[13] two medical editors, jdwolff and jmh648, requested that the standards of WP:MEDRS be adhered to. Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Where is can be seen that it was thought the theory deserved an article of its own and it was suggested that I should write it. Regarding obesity, the source I cited was a secondary or tertiary source. A handbook/textbook. The issue was that it was thought that the material was already covered in the article in another section. Not that there was something wrong with the source. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
How can any wikipedian who is not an expert summarize a primary source on speculative science? No secondary sources have been used in making the summary. Miradre has not included the 2009 book by Badcock on the subject in the article. That's seems like an odd thing to do when writing a supposedly encyclopedic article. Two academic reviewsof the book are mentioned in the AfD; both describe the proposed theory as speculative and untested, even if interesting. Mathsci (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you know I am not an expert? Again, several reviews are cited in the article. Your description of the book reviews is incorrect, they note a large amount of supporting evidence but not many tested predictions. Additional evidence from testing has appeared since then as noted in the article. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 15:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No wikipedian is presumed to be an expert. Mathsci (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD, I think there is a false premise operating here. Primary sources should be avoided in top-level articles such as autism, but the more specific the topic of an article, the less reason there is for avoiding primary sources. There is still of course a need that sources be reputable. I'm pretty sure Doc James agrees with this way of thinking. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument about high level articles doesn't apply if the article is being inserted as a wikilink into high level articles such as causes of schizophrenia. [14] I have never before heard the claim that primary sources can be used for writing articles on speculative research. One of the book reviews in the British Journal of Psychiatry mentioned in the AfD questions the application of the theory to psychosis. Equally well it has been included [15] in Causes of autism, another high level article. In both instances the statements in the high level articles are currently unsourced. This is the thin end of a wedge. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, the article cites several reviews and literature reviews. But I agree that lower level articles have lower requirements of summary sources than high-level articles. The BJP book review does not state the theory is wrong and is somewhat positive. More recent evidence and reviews, including in better sources than book reviews which are not peer-reviewed literature reviews, have appeared since. Added secondary literature review source to both Causes of autism and Causes of schizophrenia articles. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth remembering that Miradre is still under an ArbCom topic ban per WP:ARBR&I, which still has a period to run. Miradre haa in addition just come off a one month block for violating that topic ban. At the time the one month block was enforced, which Miradre appealed unsuccessfully at great length, EdJohnston commented that Miradre appeared to be close to being community banned. It doesn't seem that very much has changed since then. Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I am under no sanctions, they have expired. I am in the same situation as you who was previously also under sanctions. This whole attempt to delete this article is just more of your previous long-term behavior of following me around and trying to obstruct everything I do. Other users have also complained about you starting wikihounding campaigns against particular users you dislike. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 20:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you haven't done your calculations properly: Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Enforcement of topic-bans by block. The topic ban clock stops at the time of the block and restarts when it is lifted. The topic ban would ordinarily have ended on 11 October, but because of the one month block, it is automatically extended to 11 November. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing there about the the clock stoping. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 04:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block." That's clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, obviously the topic ban would restart after the block. But there is nothing stated about the end date of the topic ban being increased by a block. If that was the case it should be communicated to the editor so he knows this. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 04:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In any language "with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block" is unambiguous. If you edit any article or talk page related to race and intelligence, broadly construed, before 11 November, you will probably incur an even longer block and possibly an extension of the topic ban. Wiilawyering about this is not helpful. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A few papers and a literature review ( not a systematic review). Enough for a mention in the article on causes of autism. Not enough for an article on this speculative theory, and in fact the article is spun out at undue length. Perhaps one day some more work will be done, and more evidence will be found for the theory, and then it can have its own article. Or perhaps the idea will be abandoned. We don't have to keep up with every single twist and turn in academic investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles from the best medical journals there are. Mentioning in the NYT. Several reviews which are generally favorable. Predictions from the theory confirmed in new studies. Wikipedia have hundreds of articles about for example Star Trek topics so I certainly think this scientific theory deserves an article. I also note that you have a long previous history of opposing me on various topics so I suspect that you appear here just to oppose me on a general principle. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 20:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it really noteworthy that the reviews seem generally favorable, given that the ones cited were are written by the proponents of the theory (Badcock and/or Crespi)? The only material not written by one of the two are 1) the NYT article, and 2) the 'Evolutionary perspectives on health and medicine" item, which while it looks good in a bibliography is nothing more than an 'in this issue' overview. Do the number of papers alone constitute notability? I don't know, but let's not make more of it than it is, a novel idea that a couple of researchers got published several times, and which has only been noticed one time outside those publications. (Also, while we're at it, it has not appeared in the 'best medical journals there are' - no JAMA, no NEJM, no Lancet. Not to diminish Nature, but again, let's call things what they are. Nature is a prestigious general-science journal.) Agricolae (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 literature review by Schlomer, Del Giudice, and Ellis in Psychological Review was not written by the authors. The same with the review by Carl Fredrik Johansson. Nature (journal), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, and Psychological Review are all highly respected journals. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 01:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the references and the Psych Review is not there, same with the Brit J Psych. I see now that they are in the page, but they really should be cited normally rather than linking straight out to the Journal web sites. That being said, "highly respected journals" is not the same thing as "the best medical journals there are". Note in particular the word "medical" in one that is not in the other. I am just trying to get the hyperbole tamped down a touch. Agricolae (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, they should have proper refs. Fixed. The cited journals such as Nature and PNAS likely have higher impact and overall prestige and are harder to get published in than medical journals since they are general rather than specialized journals. Nature is commonly seen as the world's most prestigious journal. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 03:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why the book "The imprinted brain" by Badcock [16] and its book reviews have been ignored. I understand even less why the 2010 article "A meeting of minds" in Nature Medicine by Nicola Jones has been ignored (Nature Medicine (2010) 16, pages 353–355, doi:10. 1038/nm0410-353 [17]). This is a three page report on the research of Badcock and Crespi. It contains a series of evaluations by a number of outside experts in the field, including comments from Simon Baron-Cohen. For those without access to Nature Medicine, I have temporarily placed a copy of the report at http://mathsci.free.fr/Mind.pdf. The summary reads, "The idea that autism and psychosis are two ends of a common spectrum is stirring up debate among geneticists and psychiatrists alike. It's controversial, but thanks to advances in comparative genomics, this hypothesis is now testable." So Looie496's statement that the theory is uncontroversial seems to be WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Remove_all_quotes

Only way to get this awful, awful blot on Wikipedia fixed. 86.** IP (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:United States Education_Program/Courses/Reality Check (John_Farquhar)

From what I can tell this is a class assignment at Western Washington University. According to the course description, it is designed to teach students how to "evaluate controversial claims and attempt to explain why people might believe weird things such as UFOs, ESP and ghosts". Students have chosen to work on fringe articles according to an assignment list. However I see edits by the students like this and this that appear to be using fringe sources in an attempt to promote the fringe view of such subjects. Maybe part of their assignment is to make controversial edits and be reverted? Not sure this is the best use of Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, maybe they're honestly doing their best and this is just part of the learning process. In any case, I looked at the edit you posted to Mediumship. I know who Victor Zammit is and his website is a long, long way from being a reliable source, so I reverted. We'll see what happens next. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a complaint, more of an FYI to all concerned. Should you happen to start seeing odd edits to fringe articles, check the student assignment list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The assignment listed for Oct 20th on the Wikipedia Reality Check course page is "Add (individually) at least one properly-sourced fact to your article", so it's most likely good faith edits by students who aren't clear on Wikipedia policies on what constitutes NPOV, or on what constitutes a fringe vs. reliable source, etc. Anyway, building on LuckyLouie's second comment, on the Reality Check page is a list of the student accounts and of the articles each one has chosen to edit, so it should hopefully not be too hard to keep an eye on what they're doing. --Miskwito (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and also, they do have the experienced editor Bilby as their "ambassador". So for instance he's already responded on Anonymous777985's talk page to explain about the policies on reliable sources. So that's a good sign that he's on top of what the students are up to and trying to teach them the correct procedures. --Miskwito (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate the discussion and guidance on this. For the most part, the class is about understanding the psychology behind belief in controversial claims with the assignment being to investigate and update a WP article on fringe topics. The intent is to completely follow WP policies in order to gain an understanding of how knowledge is constructed in such an environment. Thanks for any additional guidance you might have. John.Farquhar (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Electron bubble#Splitting the electron bubble

The article puts an obscure theory on equal footing with quantum theory - one of them has to go... have a look at this, please. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron bubble. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems another editor has removed all the fringe. I've added it to my watchlist. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contrast_shower

Contested prod. 86.** IP (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be fringey but there is enough out there to establish notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's almost all trivial hits, though. 86.** IP (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_W._Moss_(writer)

Prod was contested, apparently because the contester didn't notice that the only good sources were used merely for background information. 86.** IP (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mount Washington Observation

In context

Dubiously-named article (can a photo be an astronomical observation?) making WP:REDFLAG claims as supposedly the first photo of a "mutual" (whatever that is) UFO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This becomes far less mysterious when you look at the full one, read the full name ("Frost Architecture"), and realise it's apparently a picture of frost on a windowpane looking out from there on Mount Washington. This makes it a relatively easily-identified non-flying object. That crop is incredibly misleading, by the way. 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's even easier than that. This isn't a picture of the sky; it's a picture of ice and frost formations on the ground. The fleck could just as well be a stick lodged in the snow. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. you CAN see the mountain behind it. That said, I did ponder whether it mightnot be an ice- and snow-covered tree. 86.** IP (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The focus isn't good enough to tell what, but the way it is sitting there, on a little ledge, it looks like something put there by the photographer for scale. That or just crud on the lens. And cigar shaped? Other than it is longer than it is wide, I've never seen anyone smoke a cigar shaped like that. Agricolae (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
ZOMG, the summit of Mt. Washington was loaded with 'mutual UFOs' in the 1870s. Looking over the full set of images, I see triangle shapes, blobs, dots... - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly not a mountain in the background, it's just a rock. My impression based on managing to get the thing to go 3D for me (which has given me a bit of a headache) is that it's probably a metal bar driven into the ice and protruding from it. Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Close encounter

Close encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a lot of primary-sourced claims in this article. I'm not equipped to figure out exactly which of these Close Encounters of the X Kind beyond the first three are includable and which are not.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this better? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

List of vegetable oils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See the good faith post at WP:RSN about the quality of sources. I am really worried about the health claims made in the article. It's part of the wider problem of medicinal herb articles, and shows that it could extend to virtually all our articles on plants and foodstuffs. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working with Waitak; bring them up on the talk page there and it can probably be dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've responded at WP:RSN to Judith's posting. The gist of my response is that I'm baffled. List of vegetable oils says "used medicinally" and absolutely nothing more, and only in the cases where a cited, reliable source says so. Even where (as is normally the case) the source says what medicinal use is made of the oil, the article doesn't. As I mentioned in the response on WP:RSN, if I'm missing something here, please point it out. Waitak (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the entries are fine, but there are one or two cases that raised the WP:REDFLAG. I'll come to the talk page with 86.** IP. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sri Chand

Sri Chand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are obvious problems with this article including, but not limited to, basic arithmetic.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And being a copyvio of http://www.naamyoga.com.mx/AboutBabaSiriChand/ 86.** IP (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I tagged as CSD for the copyright problem, I think it's probably too much to wait for a prod to expire. Noformation Talk 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Reformatting

This is just getting ridiculous. I love how airily they dismiss core Wikipedia policies, which their beloved 13 pages of denialist arguments with no mainstream response allowed can't possibly violate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Bird

This fellow notable? 86.** IP (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable, maybe. "Science journalist"?? You have to be kidding. Mangoe (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Poked around Google News. Probably enough coverage for an article, if you search for his name in quotes. Cut the stupid claims and bad source. 86.** IP (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The related article The_Secret_Life_of_Plants also needs a look at. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumpology

The only critical voice is a psychic, who says rumpology is ridiculous - try psychic powers instead.

One needs to ask: Is this a joke? One possibly based on real crankery, but... 86.** IP (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be sourced - though probably not notable. I rather like the article, as a classic example of just how 'pseudo' pseudoscience can get. Perhaps I should e-mail Jackie Stallone a photo of my arse, and see if she can figure out from it what I think of her methods. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Too bad the article is 4 years old. It would have made a great Did You Know...? feature. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The best part that the Sun article cited is called "Ass-tronomy" (maybe it's time to propose a move to Asstronomy?) --Miskwito (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you know that "Ulf Buck claims he can read people's futures by feeling their naked buttocks, though this may simply be sexual abuse?"
Best line on WP - bar none. Noformation Talk 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I especially like the idea of a blind rumpologist. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that the suggestion of possible sexual abuse has now been removed, as per WP:BLP policy it probably should. So how do we proceed now? Is rumpology a fit subject for Wikipedia, or should we apply a swift kick to its nether regions, and send it on its way? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Salon.com, The Sun, Skeptic's Dictionary, etc. are not bum sources. Although in many of the articles the subject is the butt of jokes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Beale

Probably better known as the creationist pundit Vox Day. Main editor? Theodore Beale. 86.** IP (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Hierarchy

Lengthy in-universe Theosophy article. Particularly annoying for its overuse of bold text. Of course we, quite rightly, have long articles on many religious concepts. Usually we can cite them to theologists, including academic theologists and official bodies of churches etc. This is a bit different to my mind. The sheer quantity of info only of interest to Theosophists and perhaps some New Agers might be a problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bit detailed in relation to the attention these ideas have gotten outside of Theosophy, but I give it points for at least attributing statements like "on the etheric plane there is a continuous flow of flying saucer traffic" to Theosophist writers rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The secret life of plants - chris bird

The fringe articles The_Secret_Life_of_Plants and The_Secret_Life_of_Plants_(film) seem to be in need of a look at for possible fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gutted most of the film article because it seemed a pure combination of OR and Fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's blatantly fringe, but the book was actually a bestseller, and resulted in lots of people worrying about the emotional health of their plants for a few years -- our current article (on the book at least) seems pretty reasonable. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that it is now 4 sentences long, I would suggest that the film page be merged into the book page, as the film itself seems of dubious stand-alone notability. It can always be split back out if the film suddenly becomes the topic of public discourse or scholarship. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I would agree; in fact I've gone and done it. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Your removal of the link to the BBC article Plants 'can think and remember' for External links: rm, trying to link this to the book is OR could be challenged. Measured variations in electrical conductivity are the basis for the book and for the research reported by the BBC. Seems closely related regarding the observations made.
They likened the discovery to finding the plants' "nervous system".
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
I would think those remarks qualify the good professor for inclusion in the article. DS Belgium (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong, DS Belgium. The BBC article doesn't mention the book, so linking it to the book is clear-cut original research. This isn't even a close call. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Plant_perception_(paranormal) also needs some serious attention. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Which also links to Cleve_Backster IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

List of cryptids

Much wishful thinking on the part of cryptozoology enthusiasts. For example, Bloop is a hydrophonic sound cataloged by by NOAA. This list categorizes it as a cryptid and identifies it as a "Gigantic creature/Unconfirmed sound". - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the possibility that the bloop was made by an unknown animal has been a subject of speculation among cryptozoologists, so it seems like a reasonable inclusion to me. Abyssal (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. It's just odd to see folklore like Black Shuck identified by WP as a "cryptid" because some guy with a web page said so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
If it's just some guy with a webpage, it shouldn't be there. Wikipedia requires better sources than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that I look closer, that article is shit. Most of it is unreferenced. A lot of things on the list are clearly not cryptids and no source says they are. Some of them are extinct but real animals. Some of them are real animals recognized by science. Someone has decided that relicts, which are very different things from cryptids, belong on the list. Oh, and Black Shuck should be nominated for deletion, since it has only one source, which clearly fails WP:RS. This is a real can of worms. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's one of my favorites: Quacker (sound). - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AAVE

Another level-headed person who's either informed or ready to learn would be welcome to keep an eye on African American Vernacular English and its discussion page. The former routinely attracts stupidity (if not blatant racism), but [fingers crossed] it's going through a quiet patch. Dealing with stupidity is straightforward (if tiresome); fringe, quasi-scientific beliefs held by the well-intentioned are another matter. Please see this for the latest challenge. Possibly I was on the bitey side in my first response (it had been a tiring day). And my interlocutor is polite enough.

The anonymous writer makes one parenthetical comment that may baffle: I've seen the bias shown towards Dr. Smith in these discussion for[u]ms. This is Ernie Smith; to judge for yourself the bias shown against him, see this talk page archive.

(I normally wouldn't post here and instead would ping Ƶ§œš¹ about it, but he's away on a long break.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll leave that one to someone more patient than me (which doesn't say much), and carry on fighting the fine old conflict against the forces of cold-fusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that the "Wow" refers to the talk page archive. Having to read that stuff and respond was a bore at the time, but I was grateful that nobody simply deleted the material posted by my antagonist: deletion would have fueled his resentment. And now, long after the posting? Once every few months I skimread some part of it for a chuckle. ¶ My thanks to the two people who pointed out the etymological fallacy at the start of the latest objection; I hadn't really taken in that part of what the IP was saying. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to keep an eye on it, since I have a fair amount of knowledge on linguistic stuff (although not on AAVE per se...) --Miskwito (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Miskwito. Your self-description puts you in the same boat as Ƶ§œš¹ (I think) and myself. An AAVE-nonspecific linguistics background should help an editor handle AAVE dispassionately -- though I'm sure the article would also benefit a lot from the input of level-headed linguists who are L1 AAVE speakers. -- Hoary (talk)
Well, I tried to read through some of the old archives, but...Jesus Christ. Anyway suffice it to say I didn't get through all of it, but now I'm kind of hoping Dr. Smith comes back because I always love it when academics insult people in academese --Miskwito (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

A cold fusion-like scheme, this seems to have attracted some media attention from the unwary, and therefore has some chance of surviving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. Like most such articles it is heavily burdened with primary sources, though there is one good reference from Discovery.com here which spells out the prospects of this quite well. Obviously we need to keep an eye on it. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, this article is in massive violation of WP:WEIGHT where the claims of fringe theorists are given far more weight than they receive in the most reliable of sources. Someone shold take a machete to the article and remove every sentence that has not been noticed by independent sources. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We need a lot of help here. Lots of ownership, an SPA IP editor for Italy, and tempers breaking down. The article does mention that the thing most likely doesn't work, but that's buried in a lot of detail which tends to push the article the other way. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not just RfC and recommend stubbing the article to content that can be referenced to third-party independent reliable sources? That would mean competent science writers, physicists, chemists, etc. not directly connected to the cold fusion community? I think that would properly shrink the article down to a few paragraphs. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely that you'll find "competent science writers, physicists, chemists, etc. not directly connected to the cold fusion community" who can say anything much directly related to the E-Cat. Unless and until it is revealed what it consists of, 'science' can have little to say on the matter, though cold fusion/LENR advocates would like us to think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That's why the article should be dramatically shortened. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the deletion discussion hit a nerve. It may be time to get more serious administrative action involved. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Others seem to really dislike the way the article was first written. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So I'm working for the CIA, am I? Where's my paycheque? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An alternative approach to the Energy Catalyzer

I've bumped this thread to the bottom of the page, because I've suggested a different approach to handling some of the problems identified. Our best references on this topic address it as a social and economic phenomenon – the most reliable sources address the E.C. as a (troubled) business venture – and skirt the scientific and technical aspects of it. It therefore might make the most sense to cover the Energy Catalyzer within our (newish) article on the device's inventor, Andrea Rossi, who has previously been involved in a couple of other now-defunct alternative-energy-related business ventures.

I invite, encourage, and welcome a discussion of a possible merger at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#This article could be merged.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach, but it will probably have to wait until the AFD dies; otherwise there will be procedural problems, and I doubt you'll be able to swing the AFD over to such a merge. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. I figured that the AfD was already over, in pretty much any but the most legalistic sense, and that it was time to move on to doing something constructive. The AfD was never going to be successful, really, and I think it's unfortunate that someone tried it. (While the article we have is crap, it's crap with a lot of footnotes, and it's virtually impossible to excise that sort of thing from Wikipedia.) It's particularly unfortunate because we've now got a lot of single-purpose accounts recruited from off-site to the topic area; I'm hoping that they try to absorb Wikipedia's policy and ethos before jumping in with all guns blazing, but I'm afraid that they're just going to add noise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's over now. Propose away. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Procedure over sanity, unfortunately. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sanity? Where? This is farcical. We now have a prematurely-closed AfD reopened, with no notification to anyone. I'm seriously thinking of just walking away from this playpen, and leaving it to the hucksters and clowns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades suggestion is the right thing to do. It should be done regardless of the peanut gallery. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecopsychology

This page is definitely fringe and written in an advocate's tone. I don't know anything about the subject so I don't know how to help in rewriting. Noformation Talk 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the topic is even notable? The article looks like it needs some real work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Topic is notable. But the treatment is on the groovy side of reality... It does read more like the musings of two people who have had more than a few drinks talking on the corner of Haight-Ashbury than an encyclopedia article. I tagged it for refs and suggest deleting the unsourced items and pairing it down to a few sentences. There was a professor in that field who edited that page. Maybe he can add sourced content after the clean up History2007 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher

Elizabeth Rauscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently being owned by User:Dreadstar who is making arguments about "consensus" that are borderline incoherent.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at this, for example. This is just being a jerk, as far as I can tell. I filed a case at the dispute resolution board: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Elizabeth_Rauscher. It was forwarded to WP:3O which was taken up by User:FormerIP. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF. It seems especially inadvisable to call an administrator a jerk. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. It's just frustrating since it's been going on for months. Sorry. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The article needs some serious attention as well as Fundamental_Fysiks_Group. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethereal being

POV fork of ghost? Or perhaps it started life as something else, and later got a bunch of fringy stuff tacked onto it (sourced to places like this). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Soufanieh

There are some extraordinary claims on this page about " extraordinary spiritual phenomena" including "stigmata, corporeal oil profusion" etc. & there is an ongoing debate concerning reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [[18]]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [[19]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maya Tiwari

This article seems to have some POV issues. In the Body of Work section, some dubious claims are made and although they are attributed to the author, I feel like a balancing source might be beneficial. Thoughts? Noformation Talk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems written by an admirer. If it had been a product (and I guess celebrities are products anyway) it would be called an advertisement. Most of the sources are non-WP:RS. It really deserves several tags regarding POV, Advert, Ref-improve etc. Given the tone, it would be also appropriate to have a 800 number for donating to her cause, joining the group etc. Reads like a recruitment poster. History2007 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I tagged it as an advert anyway, but the BLPN may be a better place anyway. History2007 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone Afd-ed it here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Tiwari#Maya_Tiwari. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is scheduled to end anytime now, but some people here may be interested in Talk:Oxfordian_Theory_–_Parallels_with_Shakespeare's_Plays#Poll_regarding_redirect.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [[20]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Soul

The article seems to need being looked over with a fine tooth come for fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A comb might be less controversial... - Nunh-huh 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, Took me a minute to realize what you meant :> IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And it's actually a fine-toothed comb... – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

In this article, a claim is made that if the reliable sources are not proven to be not fringe, and anyone questions them (providing no sources for their claim) that the claims are barred as "fringe." As AFAICT, WP:FRINGE does not appear to cover such a claim, I am asking here.

Claims in the body of the article add up to a large number of deaths. The sources are RS (been shown as such at RSN) and those opposed to the figures have not provided RS competing figures (as I suggested many times per WP:NPOV). Rather they suggest that all such numbers are not "mainstream views" and are "fringe."

[21] shows one opinion - that we should only write truth in Wikipedia, and that Jimbo has that position (argumentum ad Jimbonem, I rather think).

Another [22] says

As I already said, not only you have no sources that characterise these estimates as mainstream, but we have the sources that explicitly criticise the figures and the very approach. Your refusal to recognise this fact shakes my belief in your good faith.

And also [23] posits:

Re "You need reliable sources for the claim of the estimates not being "mainstream"" That is exactly opposite to what our policy says: I don't have to prove opposite, the burden of proof is on those who adds some materials: if you want to present some views as mainstream, please, provide a source that states so. However, taking into account that I have already presented non-fringe sources that characterise the sources you advocate as "provocative", and the figures you promote as "inflated", you are supposed to provide very serious counter-arguments.


Another [24]:

You're right. It isn't up to us to "know" that they are fringe. Reasonable editorial discretion is enough. And since you have been challenges, the burden is on you to show that such heavily contested theories are not fringe, per Wikipedia policy.

Which might have some validity if reliable sources (other than editors) made the assertion that the RS sources are "fringe", I suppose. The problem is that those editors seem to feel the onus is on anyone who makes claims based on the body of the article to "prove" that the RS sources are not fringe <g>. Is it possible to do such - that is, in any article with cites making claims and not having cites making opposing claims that the RS sources must also be shown to be "not fringe" as long as an editor says they are "fringe"?

When those editors do not provide RS sources showing that claims made in the body of the article are not mainstream, and the vast majority of academic cites use the references in the body of the article, it is up to me to "prove" that the claims are mainstream (as far as a range goes)? Is it required that to use sources requires that other sources explicity call them "mainstream" ? And is their use of WP:FRINGE reasonable here? BTW, I expect those cited to give their spirited defence <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.
The problem with fringe assertions is that regular sources, like journalists and scholars, often see them as too preposterous to refute.
In many case the best approach is to attribute the information. Rather than saying "X were killed by Y", say "Smith, a history professor at UMass, writes that..."   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Um -- one source is a former PRC official. And the claims are generally fully ascribed in the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This particular article is covered by WP:DIGWUREN (as the template by Sandstein indicates) and has resulted in topic bans for various editors. It is in the same set of articles as Communist terrorism, Holodomor, etc, where Collect (talk · contribs) is a frequent contributor. I do not think it is helpful to bring tired debates of that kind to this noticeboard. Enough discussion occurs on WP:AE. Indeed this article and a recent enforcement request concerning Collect resulted in indefinite full protection of Mass killings under communist regimes. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the list of edits. I am far from a "frequent contributor" to that area, and my talk page edits are generally about WP policies and not about content. For example: On Holodomor I have made a total of 5 edits, including such major ones <g> as [25] (vandalism revert), [26] (rm material not in the cite given - which Pteryi asknowledged), [27] ditto, [28] a really major edit - not (fixing cn tag from [29] where I tagged material as uncited). 5 edits and not a simgle one not required by WP policy, and not a single one adding or deleting sourced claims. Zero. Now examine the actual major editors (since I am a "frequent contributor" perhaps this will show who really are "frequent contributors"): Irpen (470) Jo0doe (263) Bobanni (242) Lysy (138) Kuban kazak (130) Andrew Alexander (122) Horlo (118) Alex Bakharev (111) Riurik (97) Bandurist (82) LuisMatosRibeiro (78) Igny (76) Altenmann (74) Lvivske (69) Jacob Peters (69) Mzajac (67) Lothar von Richthofen (65) Paul Siebert (55) Ostap R (55) Faustian (51) etc.
If you wish to read the talk page, you will find similar content pushing by me - none. As for Communist terrorism where you insist I am a "frequent contributor" my edit count on that article is precisely 9. Including vandalism reverts etc. Compared with Tentontunic (94) Paul Siebert (83) Hodja Nasreddin (78) Mamalujo (78) Commodore Sloat (54) Igny (52) Nug (28) The Last Angry Man (28) Petri Krohn (25) Marknutley (22) The Four Deuces (22) AndyTheGrump (19) etc.
My edits there include [30] which was on policy grounds, and not disputed by anyone, [31] reverting a fairly clear POV violation, etc. So for the claim gratuitously given above, the response is "Utter Hogwash!". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
WRT the ill-posted AE request -- the consensus there was that Paul, being fully as culpable or more than I, made the request with unclean hands and should be treated harshly for that. Thanks for bringing this up - I am not the one to routinely post AE requests. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see how bringing these disputes to this noticeboard might help. Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC) <off-topic>Since you are bringing up statistics on your own editing, you probably spend more time on talk pages: Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (448 edits [32]); Talk:Communist terrorism (219 edits [33]); Talk:Fascism (460 edits [34]); Talk:Holodomor (35 edits [35]). </off-topic>
It was another editor who invoked WP:FRINGE thus this is the proper noticeboard. I note that since you must now understand that I am not a "frequent contributor" to any group as you defined it, and my posts to talk pages are generally of the "policy wonk and Wikignome" variety. But since you brought up the talk pages as though they have the remotest relevance -- let's look there ...
For Communist terrorism where you emphasize my 219 edits ... Paul Siebert (920) The Four Deuces (681) Justus Maximus (325)

AndyTheGrump (269) Tentontunic (262) placing me in a measly 6th place -- while Paul and TFD together have 1600 edits. For Fascism ... I am number 3 - with many of them occuring when working with R-41 on reducing some of the irrlevant stuff. For which he gave me a barnstar. If improving an article requires writing on the talk page, so be it. TFD and R-41 are both well ahead of me on that one, by the way. Holodomor? You have to be kidding! I am not even in the top 20 editors on that talk page, for gosh sakes! (I suspect I am not even in the top fifty - making that claim about as ill-founded as imaginable) Meanwhile I found one editor who has made over a thousand edits to a single article, 600 to another article, and lots of edits to a number of other articles as well <g>. And others whould note that I am currently near 20K edits on enWiki alone. Cheers - but I leave the noting of edit counts for others to the observer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You should not begin a discussion thread with your own interpretation of what another editor said. Not only is there a possibility that you have misquoted the other editor, but we need to know the context of the quote. You should also explain what specific edits to the article are involved. I suggest closing this discussion thread as wasteful to editors' time. TFD (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Um -- since I link to some of the posts, I suggest it is quite unlikely that I 'misquoted" them! That suggestion is a personal attack at its worst, TFD, and should be redacted by you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know. You do seem to have made 450 edits to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (the article we're talking about) and you do seem to be the 5th most prolific editor there. Perhaps somebody else can help you here. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read the posts before making an assumption here. Pauls Siebert has made over 1600 edits there, and TFD over 1200, and the length of there edits is roughly 4 times or more the length of mine -- that is Paul has posted more than 15 times the verbiage on that talk page, and TFD more than 10 times the verbiage on that talk page overall. Some posts make me laugh out loud at their obvious and misleading intent to show me as a "principal contributor" to any topic. Cheers - and next time READ. Collect (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure anybody can help you here. Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mathsci. I don't see anything to answer here in your post. If there are specific sources that editors claim should be dealt with under WP:FRINGE and you dispute this then link to the dispute and summarize the specific dispute, but this meandering general question is not helping. Also, the discussion about how many edits you've made to these entries is completely offtopic. I understand that you were responding to a characterization made by Mathsci, but you're helping to derail any productive discussion by arguing about your edit counts. If you are even in the top 10 contributors to a page that gets decent editor traffic you could be accurately called a "frequent contributor," so the fact that you're not the most frequent is irrelevant, and again arguing over that derails any productive discussion. Move on and if you want advice here then rephrase your question about something specific. I'd say, feel free to hat what has already transpired and try again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I specifically made the proper comments on the proper talk pages. It was not I who made assertions about numbers of edits - so that part is irrelevant to my request here. And since a majority of my talk page posts are about WP policies, that shows, indeed, that I am concerned about policies <g>. The only editing area where I am a "frequent contributor" are to BLPs. Cheers - but I think your cavils are not relevant to the gist of the initial request made. Unless, of course, you feel that it is wrong to answer improper aspersions made by others - thus assenting by silence. Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to answer a good faith suggestion about how to rephrase your question and how to keep it focused on Fringe issues so that it makes sense for this board with thinly veiled personal attacks then I guess I can be of no help to you. Good luck getting any assistance here with that attitude. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
All you need do is read the initial post - which gave cites for the discussion, and "attacked" no one. Not even "thinly veiled." The "attack" was made by Mathsci, as anyone can read. Cheers.Collect (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about your response to me in which you suggest that I'm assenting through silence to "improper aspersions." That is indeed a "thinly veiled person attack." I'm assenting to no such thing. I'm also unsure what you mean by referring to the "cites for the discussion." I see diffs to comments made by Wikipedia editors on talk pages which refer to claims, but what claims are these and how are they sourced? Who can tell if they are fringe or not when we don't even know what the sources are and what the claims are specifically. Instead you appear to want people here to comment without the proper context on how people are arguing with you. As I said in my initial post, present the board with a tangible issue and you might find some productive feedback. If other editors are calling your sources fringe tell us what the sources are if you want another opinion. FYI, this is not a conduct noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Independently of whether Collect feels he has been attacked or not, cutting down on drama-creating rhetoric might be a good idea at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture

Seems to have quite a bit of OR, but I don't have time right now or the resources to deal with this (and related articles). Probably no one else here does, but I didn't want to just ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a little tidying although there's probably still room for improvement. It wasn't too bad; the original openly acknowledged that the Vinča "script" is very controversial, and that Gimbutas's ideas are controversial too. bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The bit about how wonderful Merlini is seemed pretty bad though, glad you dealt with it. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

Yet another POV-fork of Global warming controversy, and one that has nothing but synthesis and original research to back it. I swear, there's like a dozen articles covering the same basic content. Do we really need this one? 86.** IP (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon England - Oppenheimer again

It looks as if I'm going to be drawn into an edit war with users Ghmyrtle and Wilfridselsey on this page. It started when I pointed out that the article was drawing attention to the fringe theory and giving a citation that refuted it, which is essentially contrary to Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories - if we refute one we'd have to refute them all. Both users insisted the reference should remain, initially disputing that Oppenheimer's theory on the origin on the English language wasn't "fringe" at all (hmm...)

Wilfridselsey insisted the Victorians had thought Britons spoke German. I asked for a reference, he supplied what turned out to be an anti-German political propaganda leaflet from the First World War. I said this wasn't really good enough and he supplied Googlebooks pointers to various late 18th and early 19th Century works speculating on race and language. I said that while these weren't worth much, they could be mentioned as representing an earlier view. I put in a sentence in a previous section on sources mentioning earlier race/language speculation with a couple of citations supplied by Wilfridselsey. Ghmyrtle immediately reverted, putting back the Oppenheimer reference, in spite of the fact that Wilfridselsey had been attempting to argue the view was not modern.

Whenever I have removed the reference to Oppenheimer's fringe theory, Ghmyrtle has reverted the change and put it back in. Wilfridselsey on the talk page has returned to defending Oppenheimer's theories as worthy of inclusion. I removed the Oppenheimer reference again, but before long my reversion will be reverted again, I have no doubt. Part of the problem is that too few people know enough about linguistics to see quite why the theory is fringe in the first place. Paul S (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing wider attention to this dispute. I left a warning on your talk page concerning WP:BLPTALK and one of your extreme comments on Oppenheimer 3 weeks ago. As a general note, interdisciplinary work often causes extreme friction between scholars using methodologies from different fields. While this can lead to strongly negative reviews by one scholar of the work of a colleagues based in a different field, Wikipedia's neutrality usually requires that these are read cum grano salis, not exploded to grandiose claims of fringiness. Hans Adler 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Truly, this is not "interdisciplinary work" we're talking about here. Try and find any serious contribution by Oppenheimer & Co. on the subject of the origins of the English language which has been submitted to and accepted by a serious periodical and subject to peer review. You won't. When it comes to language, it is fringe by anyone's definition. Remember, this is not his ideas on genetics I am speaking of, only his assertion that some Britons spoke German, based partly on a total misunderstanding of what the comparative method in historical linguistics is. Paul S (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
A geneticist speaking about history of language in a book on historical genetics is an obvious case of the kind of interdisciplinarity that I meant. Many scholars are reluctant to do it because they are afraid of making blunders outside their area of expertise. But overall that's not a good thing because it leads to unhealthy compartmentalisation, sometimes with different fields coming to contradictory conclusions without being too concerned about the fact, simply because they don't take each other seriously. Science occasionally needs visionaries who are not afraid of blunders. My personal impression is that some of his blunders (and the Language Log posts you linked from the article talk page leave no doubt that he made some severe blunders) may be due to inadvertently saying things he didn't mean, or introducing local errors during revisions of a long book, or other reasons that do not necessarily affect the overall ideas. This is something that can easily happen to big picture people who are working in a field in which they don't have much routine, and it need not affect the plausibility of the overall picture they are painting. Hans Adler 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
But you must understand that Dr. Oppenheimer does not have to be a bad person for his theories on English/Celtic in Britain to be discounted as nonsense by linguists. I'm not saying he is a bad person. I'm saying that this particular theory of his is a fringe theory and ought not to be given weight in the Anglo-Saxon England article. Oppenheimer already has his own article anyway and that is where it belongs. If you don't want Wikipedia to listen to linguists on the subject of languages, where does that leave us all? Paul S (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article originally credited Oppenheimer as suggesting that some of the Britons were German speakers. I believe that it was not an original idea by Oppenheimer, as it had been discussed in the 19th century. I accept that the methodology was not sound but the reasons were diverse. These ideas were discussed but rejected by many historians in the 20th century. Modern geneticists have identified that some Britons had Germanic markers in their mtDNA, thus could have been Germanic speakers. In our discussion I cited Forster's paper, Forster is an eminent geneticist and his paper has been peer reviewed. I changed the relevant part of the article (which was Oppenheimer centric), to There is a hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been Germanic language speakers although most modern scholars refute this. The hypothesis proposed by the genetic community has been largely rejected by the linguist community, so I would suggest that the hypothesis is a minority view and I think that the sentence reflects that. I guess that it could be argued that it is a theory as there is some supporting evidence. Paul S. has completely rejected the sentence and keeps removing it, because he says that he does not agree with Oppenheimer views , he could quite easily have swapped the Oppenheimer citation for the Forster for example, but has preferred the vandalisation route. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at al sure what "Germanic markers" in mtDNA may be, but even if this suggests that some ancestors of Britons came from German speaking areas, that does not mean that they spoke German. Obviously language can change in a single generation, whereas genetic markers are always with us. This really is not good evidence. It's like saying that black Americans have Swahili markers in their mtDNA. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You are right the reason that we describe the possibility of some of the sub-Roman tribes, in Britain, being German speakers, as an hypothesis is because genetic findings can not be linked to a language. Genetics alone are insufficient to prove the presence of any language. To become a theory the genetic evidence needs to be combined with some non-genetic evidence. There have been some papers that have explored the possiblity that the origins of some placenames being non Celtic, for example in A new explanation of the name of London, by Coates.(Transactions of the Philologica Society. volume.96.issue.2. p. 203–229). Also in the journal of the Kent Archaeological Society (Archaeologia Cantiana, 129 - 2009) they had an article that in it's conclusion said that Etymology rapidly descends into guesswork, not just for word roots but also for the declensions, local dialects, sound changes, and silly mistakes that have always moulded place names down the ages. Despite this huge caveat, this article shows that all the place names in Kent that have been claimed to be derived from Celtic roots have alternative Germanic roots that are at least as plausible. The evidence does not prove what language Kentish people spoke at home in Roman times, but it makes Belgic seem more likely than Brythonic. [36] The argument is whether the sentence should be deleted as a fringe theory and is not really about the validity of the hypothesis. My contention is that the whole idea has been around at least since the 19th century and has been discussed on and off by historians since then. Most of them are against the idea, this includes Sally Thomason. I would suggest that support for the hypothesis is by a minority as it is rejected by most historians and essentially that is what the sentence says. However it is a subject that is widely discussed and therefore should not be removed from the article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

The article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is in a bad way, and I'd like to get keen, non-partisan editors to clean it up. In other words I'm calling for volunteers, or else advice on where to go (no snide suggestions please).

The article sets out the various errors in the BoM - they include matters such as the presence of horses, silkworms and domestic pigs in the Americas before Columbus, the use of iron, the idea that American Indian languages were descended from Hebrew and Egyptian, and much more. It should be enough merely to list these, but as it stands the article gives far more space to rebuttals - thus we are told, by Mormon apologists, how when the Book of Mormon says horses it really means some other animal (ditto silkworms and pigs), how copper can sort of rust just like iron, and so on. It's embarrassing, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute (at least it does if we want something that can stand as a reference anyone other than believers).

So I'm asking, (1) am I correct in thinking that the apologists' refutations of facts are fringe and shouldn't be covered, and (2) where or how can I ask for a concerted clean-up of the article?

PiCo (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a range of articles covering the Book of Mormon that are only thinly disguised missionary tracts or anti-Mormon harangues. These articles include Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, Archeology and the Book of Mormon, Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc. The articles have devolved into a nearly formulaic series of topics with an anti- argument followed by a pro- argument. Sourcing is always a difficult issue since the vast majority of pro- arguments are drawn from works published by the LDS church or Brigham Young University and written by professors at BYU or church leaders. Balancing arguments are difficult to source since most scholars don't get paid for debunking false religious assertions about history and archeology so they don't waste their time on it. This whole set of articles should be deleted IMHO since they are really nothing more than a proselytizing effort thinly disguised in scientific/historical terminology with enough semblance to reliable sourcing to make it look reasonable. --Taivo (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree that this series of articles is not a good way to cover a religious topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a better route would be to collapse all these petty articles into a single article entitled something like Science and the Book of Mormon where a very broad summary can be written that entails the history of criticism of the BOM and the history of apology, where the main protagonists and antagonists can be named and the general directions can be outlined without going into each detail of when elephants and horses when extinct in North America. The articles should be about the big picture from both perspectives, not the details of who said what and who is right and who is wrong. This shouldn't be a set of debate articles, but a single article outlining the main issues between science/history and the BOM with the main players named, but without a lot of trivia. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're willing to take the initiative I'll lend a hand. But with believers involved it might be difficult. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That is, of course, the major problem with all these peripheral BOM articles. Since Wikipedia is run more like the Athenian democracy, with everyone having an equal voice regardless of qualification, and no overall authority, what would be best and what is likely to achieve consensus are often two entirely different things. Although I can see what the best course should be, I have neither the time nor the energy to begin and prosecute the battles that such a revision would require. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I would support some consolidation, since it seems to be very difficult to maintain encyclopædic quality with separate articles which each have a smaller number of watchers - they tend to drift towards either apologetics or mudslinging. With a smaller number of articles (or just one), I think it would be easier to achieve neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that there had earlier been some sort of general agreement that an article about, perhaps, Independent science and the Book of Mormon might serve as a very good base article for much of this material. There may be sufficient cause in some Mormon related journals to establish notability for the topics, but I still think a strong central article on the topic is probably preferable to weak, and possibly overlong, more focused articles. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on what is in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon I have to agree as there are serious accuracy problems here. Milk didn't exist in pre-Columbian Americas?!? The llama (well known to several Indian tribes of lower South American) produces milk!--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Humans, also well known in the area, produce milk. However, Bruce is being disingenuous. The inly reference to milk is in an abbreviated quote in a footnote about the claim that peccaries are the domesticated 'swine' in the BOM. There is no claim in the text about milk itself. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
BruceGrubb's comment is a perfect illustration of the fundamental problem with all these articles: They teeter on the brink of WP:OR on both sides of the issue and lead to recurring OR disputes about the tiniest details of the pro and con arguments. Sourcing of comments is rarely part of the equation, only debunking or upholding every particular element. These articles have become places of argumentation in order to convince readers of a POV. Wikipedia is not the place for such things and it is a violation of Wikipedia's principles. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I went through and deleted the most egregious OR from the articles, but they are still pretty bad. The amount of copy-pasted content in the articles really demonstrated the need to combine them as well. eldamorie (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Only significant change since I last looked is the closing down and blocking of all attempts to fix this, and the removal of all tags noting problems. What's it going to take to get this festering boil lanced? 86.** IP (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we simply are not able to create very good encyclopedia articles because of other interests. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
How about you stop wasting people's time on your pointless crusade? Even were anyone to believe your exaggerations, this would still be the wrong place to discuss this article William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You mean the fringe theory that humans doidn't cause climate change should not be ddiscussed on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard? Youy have no idea how this works, do you? 86.** IP (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You might get further in your mission if you spent more time trying to persuade editors on the article Talk page, though. Tags are supposed to be there while the community discusses the perceived issues; they're not an end in themselves. --Merlinme (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Such discussions have proved to be nothing but WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, complete with archival of threads and attempts to attack other people. 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See below re RfC. Look, everyone here has the same determination to present fringe topics properly, i.e. with due regard to the scientific mainstream. Infighting between FTN regulars is unseemly and can only benefit the POV-pushing crowd. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)

Repeated insertions of unsourced or inadequately sourced personal interpretations of facts and theories tending to promote the fringe Legitimist POV on articles about the defunct French throne and/or its order of succession are ongoing by Emerson 07 and his apparent sockpuppets (e.g. 112.198.79.106 and 112.198.81.179). He initially ignored Jimbo's edits & warning about fringing. I have stopped requesting sources, protesting, deleting and correcting these edits temporarily, here and at Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist), History of the French line of succession and Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, in order to refrain from edit-warring. However, that has left the fringe insertions and their POV distorting the article in question. Please review the following diffs:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight (talk • contribs)

Trouble is that France is likely to remain a republic for the foreseeable, and no-one is really bothered to work out which line of succession has the best claim. If you want more eyes on the article, I suggest going to WikiProject France. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a trouble? I went at a few of these, only to find it a much bigger issue. Three distinct groups of monarchists who each consider the others to be fringe and illegitimate, and all adamantly opposed to being treated as different flavors of the same fringe belief, which they clearly are. This particular page has had a lot of the problematic WP:OR material removed, but it is now in limbo, awaiting some broader resolution that will require a consensus that doesn't seem possible, or someone with a whole lot of time to be bold and then deal with the consequences. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎

For info, I have opened an RfC on whether the above article should have a quote to illustrate the opinion of every scientist listed. I think it's of interest to this board, as the article is a controversial one and climate change denial is a very visible fringe theory that we want to get right. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture

I ran across this recently, adding it to my watchlist because of the obvious WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. I've always avoided the lengthy discussions on when and how "pseudoscience" can be used within an article, but I think it should be applied to this. What do others think?

Looks like the article needs a total rewrite with a very close eye to NPOV and FRINGE, rather than it's current de-emphasis of the fringe elements. Others want to take a look? --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a good laugh on this when it said a farm patch is a"self-contained entity with its own individuality". I had often laughed at the idea of "pet psychologists" - they do exist and they do charge money. Now, the next thing will be to have "farm psychologists" who analyze the super ego of a recently fertilized piece of land. I wonder what Freud would have said to a cabbage.
In any case, this is a very far fetched fringe item, and most farmers would laugh for a while when told. It is an idea held by less than 0.0001% of farmers: clearly a fringe. And the other article Demeter International which allows a 20% surcharge for a "happy farm" needs attention too. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Ronz has given us an interesting problem. WP:Fringe covers both Pseudoscience and Fringe science but it is not clear from the way the article is currently written just where on that spectrum this subject falls. It is for this reason that I agree with Ronz that the article needs a total rewrite as if this subject has Pseudoscience and Fringe science elements to it then the article should do a far better job in explaining them.
Regarding things like farm patch patches "self-contained entity with its own individuality" I noted that this doesn't have any reference to check if that is actually what Biodynamic agriculture themselves believe or if that what an editor thinks they believe. I mean no rational person will say a Welsh farm patch in England is the same as a farm patch just outside Dodge City, Texas. So is this an accurate summation or poor wording, or misunderstanding? Clearly needs a mammoth rewrite.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Biodynamic ag was simply one of the first and still is one of the most widely used approaches to organic agriculture, especially in Europe. I hope we are not proposing to consider organic agriculture generally a "fringe theory" .
BruceGubb has figured out what the "individuality" passage is meant to say, roughly. The wording could be clarified. (Incidentally, many seemingly rational approaches to agriculture do ignore the individual, read particular, nature of the farm; this is the "factory farming" approach: one size fits all.) hgilbert (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There were already a number of published studies of the approach listed in the Studies of efficacy section of the article; I have added more to the list. And it should go without saying, but given the nature of this noticeboard...yes, these were published in standard scientific journals. Finally: 142,482 hectares across 47 countries is not exactly fringe level. hgilbert (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not about how many people practice it, it is about the types of claims that are made vis a vis the scholarly consensus. Popularity of fringe practices does not negate their fringiness. Homeopathy is fringe. Agriculture based on homeopathy can't help but be fringe. (Reading some of the practices, I'm surprised there isn't a treatment involving Eye of Newt or the gizzard of a chicken collected under a blue moon.) Agricolae (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't accepted by mainstream science then it's fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Then we're safe; there are plenty of studies by "mainstream science" (I think you mean mainstream scientists) that take biodynamics as a significant (non-fringe) branch of organic agriculture. hgilbert (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please save use the straw man dismissal. It's not accepted by mainstream science just because it has been studied. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True but conversely just because it meets fringe does not automatically mean it is pseudoscience which seems where this argument is going. Pseudoscience, Fringe science, and Protoscience all fall under fringe but the later two do follow the scientific method. For example, the Pro-Clovis theory is still fringe but it is NOT Pseudoscience but rather Fringe science; furthermore continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all fringe science ideas that eventually became mainstream. Fringe in wikipedia terms simply means not part of the mainstream--nothing more nothing less; it does NOT automatically translate as pseudoscience.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that is a discussion worth having, because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference in the way it is dealt with. More importantly, does it accurately present the science being reported? I just took a look at ref. 22, which is a 2003 masters thesis consisting of two submitted papers, book-ended by a general discussion and conclusions. The Abstract of the first paper summarizes that, "No differences were found in soil quality in the first six years." (p. 10) The Abstract of the second concludes, "The biodynamic preparations were not shown to have an effect during these adverse composting conditions." (p. 48) The General Conclusions section begins with the sentence, "There were no consistent differences in any of the soil quality parameters measured over the first six years of the experiment." So, what is this being used to support on this page? Is this negative outcome included in the Studies of Efficacy section? No, it is used to document the statement, "some positive effects have been noted", and the fact that it makes passing reference to a König study about zucchini published in a 2000 pro-organics symposium proceedings. The page cites a devastating study only to make vague references to positive effects, and completely ignores its negative conclusions regarding efficacy. Agricolae (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this distinction, BruceGrubb. That is very helpful.
Let's accurately summarize the various studies, many of which have mixed conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources saying it is pseudoscience, and those sources have been somehow overlooked or removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of pseudoscience? That's appalling. I will add some text and sources. The article must be categorized as pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire 'Treatment of pests and weeds' section is unreferenced . . . and absolutely ridiculous. Deploy the ashes of an incinerated mouse when Venus is in Scorpius? Spray the ashes of weed seeds with the clear urine of a sterile cow, the urine having been exposed to the full moon for 6 hrs? Who makes this stuff up? And we are debating whether this is pseudoscience? Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the article could use your expertise, Agricolae. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It really doesn't take much expertise to make my pronouncement, and we have the same problem as with most pseudoscience - it is a lot easier for me to look at it and see that it is silly than to find someone with credibility bothering to call it silly in print. I can look at the above hocus pocus and recognize it as simple employment security for sterile cows, (do you know what the term for a sterile cow is on most farms? Hamburger!) but, particularly given that it was never referenced to begin with, I don't even know where to start looking for a formal refutation of the whole sterile-cow-urine-under-a-full-moon approach. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I know a bit about biodynamic agriculture. It derives from ideas worked out many decades ago by Rudolph Steiner, as part of his anthroposophy, a mystical, quasi-religious philosophy. It was never mainstream, nor intended to be. Ironically some of the principles coincide with recent concerns in sustainable agriculture - the importance of plant and animal derived nutrients in the soil, the need to minimise (or eliminate) external inputs. Yes, fringe. It may be better regarded in Europe than in North America, among scientists critical of typical agribusiness than those who aren't, etc., and we should try and present all the recent mainstream assessments fairly. I'm really surprised that others hadn't heard of it before. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely a lot of fringe-pushing going on. Recently we've been arguing there about the inclusion of a quotation from the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience claiming that effects of biodynamic ag stuff has been "verified scientifically" (see here where I finally yanked the passage). The quote is from a proponent, and tracing back to the source of the quote shows no evidence that any such evaluation was performed. The only apparent reason to put this in is to give the misleading impression that the author of this encyclopedia thought that BA was OK. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'm primarly concerned by the use of individual papers to back up biodynamics rather than the use of reviews in the article. Do reviews exist? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

a monkey wrench

I've found source (no time to re-locate it just now, unfortunately) that says that the Nazis basically took Steiner's material and peeled all the woo-woo off. If that's true then there is a major WP:SYNTH problem lurking here in that we can't assume that material from different times and places adds up to a commonly held system. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like the problem encountered with the Jesus myth theory article where the various synonyms (Christ myth, mythist, etc) can be shown to have different meanings depending which author you use. Regarding the Nazis they were not above throwing in their own woo-woo to push their Aryan-centric agenda--the quality (or rather lack of it) in Nazi archaeology is well known. Perhaps taking the route I did with Focal infection theory might be a good idea--see if the modern and original versions have a common definition and see how the ideas changed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Here we go: the material is in a section on BA in Lockeretz, William, ed. (2007). Organic Farming: An International History. CAB International. In the section "The Origins of Organic Farming" (written by one Gunter Vogt, whose affiliations are not given) there is a section on BA beginning around page 19, and beginning on page 22 there is a section on how it fared under the Nazis and how the end of the war changed the way BA was done. I note the following: "Scientific-biological knowledge was integrated into biodynamic concepts during the 1950s and 1960s, especially by Nicholas Remer (1906-2001), thereby bringing them closer to those of general organic farming. Simultaneously the anthroposophic aspects of biodynamic farming became less important. This 'scientificization' of biodynamic farming led to a biodynamic counter-movement initiated by Hellmut Finsterlin (1916-1989), emphasizing the esoteric-occult tradition of anthroposophy and biodynamic farming." (op.cit., p. 23; see [37]). The source here has scholarly citations, but not completely; for example the passage in question is not cited. Nonetheless it is suggestive that the thing in question doesn't have a single character. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly a start and better that what exists for Jesus myth theory (which has nothing regarding how the term differs or may have changed through time). There are likely sources of better quality and it it for us to go and find them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Psychometry (paranormal)

Awful, credulous article. 86.** IP (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want credulous, check out List of UFO sightings. UFOs capturing aircraft in tractor beams and aliens abducting people, featuring the article lead offering an excuse to circumvent WP:N.
Well, yes. What did you expect. Why don't you start a new section for it here (where we can discuss, at a minimum, deleting the 'Kind of Close Encounter' column which is POV and OR). Agricolae (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

cold fusion

MIT offers a lecture on Cold Fusion: "Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments".

This lecture clearly propagates the notion that cold fusion experiments yield excess heat, ie cold fusion is real.

Is cold fusion still fringe or is it becoming protoscience ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That lecture is not an official part of the MIT curriculum, and that's all I am going to say. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Cold fusion as a process describes numerous phenomena, including well established science into muon-catalyzed fusion as well as the more common popular use describing the phenomenon P & F investigated in palladium/deuterium cells. I assume you mean the latter. Hype aside, almost from Day 1 experiments into the energy flux (at least those not done by P & F) in a PdD cell have been pursued by the scientific method, the primary debate being whether the result was due to nuclear or chemical processes or an artifact of flawed apparatus. See Cold fusion#Ongoing scientific work. That such experiments represent the fringe of the field is not going to be changed by 9 seminar sessions on someone's own work, even at MIT. (And I am underwhelmed by the ability of these descriptions to adequately categorize the perception of scientific theories. It looks sort of like protoscience to me.) Agricolae (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The lack of clear distinguishing between protoscience, fringe science and pseudo science in the WP-policies gives rise to so many unclarities that many editors will quench any elaboration of the topic, because "it is fringe". The Cold fusion#Ongoing scientific work is completely underdeveloped. Please see User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers for an overview of what is really going on in the field. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you are after here. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
@Agricolae: I feel that WP should make a clearer distinction between pseudo, fringe, proto science. Currently anything which is not within mainstream can be deleted at will. At least that's the way some editors interpret the policies. If the policies would be clearer it would avoid endless "delete this for FRINGE, WEIGHT, OR, ..." edits. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And I don't think there is a clear distinction to be made between fringe science and protoscience, or that it is a helpful distinction. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you are proposing to move the list into article space, I'd point out that per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about the list: we don't have lists of scientists working in other fields (or can you provide a contrary example?) If you aren't proposing to move it into article space, it has no business being in your user space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
How utterly wrong you are: Category:Lists_of_scientists. I will move it into article space eventually. What I have in my user space is of no concern to you. How completely wrong you are, so very contrary WP spirit. Disgusting. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? I suggest that people take a look at Category:Lists_of_scientists, and see if they can find anything remotely like your list (which seems to consist of everyone you can find, based on your own research and criteria, often cited from primary sources, or from dubious websites - or is New Energy Times RS when it suits you?). And what you have in your user space is covered by Wikipedia policy - this isn't a free web-hosting service. The only 'disgusting' thing is that people are abusing Wikipedia to push fringe 'science' that never seems to actually result in 'results', and to help dubious characters hawk their magic teapots to the gullible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am doing nothing wrong, go complain somewhere else, preferably not on WP. You are making baseless conclusion, assumptions and convictions. This is what userspace is for and you already start to rally for AfD while the page is still in my userspace. You are totally anti WP spirit and you think you are saving the whole damn planet. I think that is clear to everyone else. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want comments on the validity of User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers, don't cite it as evidence. And if you have any evidence I'm doing anything 'anti WP spirit' raise it at the appropriate place. You started this thread here in an attempt to boost your pet theories, and have got no support. Cold fusion/LENR research is marginal science at best, and needs to be treated appropriately - not boosted by misleading head-counts and speculative hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no misleading headcount. So far there are 43 scientists on the list. The rest of the page and the names further below are only on a working sheet and currently not sufficiently source to put them on the list. Read first, then think, then comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the list states that the names below your newly-added divider [38] are a work in progress - it didn't when you cited it as evidence though. Anyway, this is a pointless debate. You've been told how Wikipedia policy relates to cold fusion research, and you can't change policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The list is work in progress. I added the divider to avoid further misunderstandings from other editors. This debate is not at all pointless as it shows what the unclear pseudo-, fringe-, proto science definitions in the WP policies lead to. Endless discussion full of useless arguments why this topic cannot be discussed in WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, we have an article on Peter Hagelstein. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to preliminary research. If it escapes into the MSM, then we have to deal with it because our hand is forced, as we can see with the ongoing Energy Catalyzer rubbish. Ideally in the latter case we would just ignore it until the thing came to some sort of resolution, but there's too much precedent for not waiting, and therefore we are stuck with some sort of speculative article. But with research that isn't generating a lot of publicity, we can wait until something really substantive is produced. Sure, people research cold fusion because it would be wonderfully convenient if it could be pulled off; but it's no concern of ours until they come up with some results that are generally accepted. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be accepted by ENEA (Italy), who also develop hot fusion technology. In the foreword of their book "COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy" the president of ENEA Luigi Paganetto writes: "However, the importance of results lies not only in the fact that reproducibility was more than satisfying and measurements carried out in different laboratories have reached a higher order of magnitude than measurement uncertainty. It also lies in the mutual result check based on the fact that only specific material lots prepared by ENEA gave evidence of excess power production in both Institutes: ENEA and SRL Energetics. In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon."
--POVbrigand (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This list User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers seems like a BLP issue. BLP applies to user space. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


The question is: "Is ENEA a mainstream research institute ?"- If "NO" then why are they cooperating in the ITER project. If "YES" then why does the PRESIDENT of ENEA state: "Government programs ... have proved the existence of this phenomenon".

Kindly explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ?

I guess all the pathological skeptics currently go through a moment of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy it. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"pathological skeptics"? Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Marcello Truzzi - Read first, then think, then comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fruitcake - Read first, then think, then comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I take that as an insult. Will the rest of the noticeboard just stand by and watch ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that you implied anyone who disagrees with your POV is a pathological skeptic, and then that Andy would comment without thinking, well . . . . yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I intend just to stand by and watch. That being said, if you feel you have been the victim of a personal attack, WP:NPA provides some guidance on how best to respond. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
First Andy accusses me of trolling and he insults me. I did not personally attack you or Andy. I did not imply that anyone who disagrees with me is a pathological skeptic. I did not call you nor Andy a pathological skeptic. Pathological skeptics exists and debunk cold fusion without knowing anything about the subject and refuse to look into the subject. You are just providing wind in the sails for editors who think that insulting is in accordance with WP spirit. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course. You are completely innocent. The "pathological skeptics" bomb was just hypothetical and "think first" was only intended as a helpful suggestion. Whatever. If you think you have been mistreated, Wikipedia has a process and structure to deal with such circumstances, and I encourage you to utilize it. (Just be aware that a complaint of 'Mom, he hit me back!' tends to have a different outcome than the complainant intends.) Whether you choose to pursue it or not, this is not the place. This noticeboard is for discussion of Fringe theories, not discussion of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not completely innocent. Neither are you here supporting Andy's conduct. So you want to discuss Fringe theories ? Then kindly answer my question: explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Luigi Paganetto is one scientist. You're cherry-picking comments from individual scientists and pretending that these carefully chosen excerpts somehow represent "mainstream science". MastCell Talk 22:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Fringe theories: " It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact". Does Paganetto's research represent "scientific consensus"? No. Or can you provide a source that states otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not supporting Andy's conduct - I am not even addressing Andy's conduct. My only point was that when you sow the wind, you may be 'shocked, . . . shocked!' by the all too predictable consequence of your own behavior, but you won't find me stepping in to shield you from your whirlwind coming home to roost. As to who represents 'mainstream science', the question is misplaced (and to be clear, I have not given an opinion on Paganetto). One can do mainstream science on a fringe question or to reach a fringe interpretation. For about three decades, the hypothesis of pre-Clovis settlement in the Americas was fringe even though the scientists favoring the opinion were using perfectly respectable mainstream approaches. It is just that the scientific mainstream insisted that it had to be wrong. Doesn't matter if its fair. Doesn't mean that they were questioning the scientific credentials of the people favoring the alternative proposition. They just refused to accept the interpretation - on a smaller scale this happens all the time, with individual research groups not accepting some of the conclusions of their rivals, but here it was writ large. 'Fringe' in no way implies that the scientists doing the research are not using mainstream scientific techniques and approaches, or that they do not hold a respectable position in a respectable research institution. If their conclusion differs significantly from the consensus of the community, and the community is unwilling to admit the possibility of their alternative, it is fringe. Arguing the standing of a given scientist in no way changes this. Complaining about pathological skepticism doesn't change this - it takes a change in the consensus. Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
@Mastcell & Andy. Luigi Paganetto is not one scientist, he didn't even do cold fusion research himself. He is the president of ENEA and he states that ENEA has conducted experiments that proved the existance of the phenomenon.
@Agricolae. I mostly agree with that. But how does one change a consensus if one part is unwilling to listen ? Cold fusion is a fringe topic and arguably in the midst of becoming protoscience, several top notch research institutions have given credit to the existance of the phenomenon. ENEA has a host of "real" hot fusion scientists and that organization openly backs the cold fusion phenomenon. It is not yet accepted fully, but there is certainly an ever increasing willingness to accept the idea of the phenomenon. It appears to me that you will not be able to find many informed scientists nowadays who will denounce cold fusion outright like they did in 1989, but you will be able to find a host of uninformed ones I guess.
We are doing our editing work for the WP-reader and not for ourselves. So I believe the information of the status of cold fusion should be presented here in WP in a fair and NPOV way. And in this case, coming from the dark ages of the early 1990s, NPOV means adding content instead of deleting. The problem I have is not so much with the outside real scientific world, but with the way the fringe label is misused by some editors as a carte blanche to just delete any content and call other editors fruitcakes and POV pushers of pet projects, like Andy does. WP does not allow for an agenda to keep WP fringe free. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The 'fruitcake' comment was about Truzzi, not you. As for the rest of your comments, as I've repeatedly told you, if you want Wikipedia policy changed, this isn't the place to do it. For now, anything not accepted as mainstream science is fringe science, for Wikipedia purposes - though you seem to be keen on pushing the E-Cat, which isn't 'science' at all, as far as any reasonable definition of the term can be concerned. That is POV. If you want cold fusion/LENR research to be taken more seriously, don't confuse the issue by bringing in dubious contraptions that seem to exist only in the mind of the inventor. As long as Rossi refuses to allow proper independent examination, there is no more reason to assume the E-Cat produces heat by cold fusion than by burning unicorn poop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So you go on record for calling the man who coined "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." a fruitcake.
I am not pushing POV on Rossi, the device isn't scientifically proven yet. I have stated that several times, but I do not expect your to read all the comments I make. On the other hand you seem to be claiming that Rossi is a fraud. Pathological skeptic make claims without showing proof. So if you are not a pseudoskeptic, then you will certainly now show us your proof. --POVbrigand (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Jesus Christ, proof of what, brigand? You sure know how to take a discussion down a rabbit hole. Either you have some idea how you'd like to edit an actual article based on a reliable source or you don't. If you do the place to discuss it is at the article's talk page. If you don't, please bugger off and stop trolling this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Steven, parts of this thread might have been avoided or put on an article talk page. In hindsight the pathological skeptic wording took this discussion in the wrong direction. I was actually hoping for a discussion in the form that Agriclae is currently doing, which I appreciate very much. I think that part of this thread is worth it and appropriate on this noticeboard --POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm calling a man who believed in ESP and "psychic detectives" and became "an advisor to IRVA, the International Remote Viewing Association" a fruitcake. And he didn't invent the 'extraordinary claims' concept either. As for whether Rossi is a fraud, is self-deluded, or is indeed on to something, clearly only time will tell for sure, but the evidence is that he's been involved in making similar claims before - which have come to nothing. The evidence is that 'free energy' schemes are two-a-penny, and they've always led to nothing in the past. The evidence is that Rossi has made multiple promises to permit proper scientific tests, but always backed off so far. The evidence is that he is touting for 'investors' and 'customers' for a device for which he makes extraordinary claims and provides no proof whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Time will tell, the rest of the Rossi drama we can discuss on the talk page. I certainly didn't want to discuss here about Rossi. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Paganetto is not an independent source - he is supporting the work done by his own institute. It is somewhat circular to use his statements as a basis for cold fusion achieving mainstream (not that it hasn't happened before, but would you expect him to say the work of his people is nonsense?). For better or worse, the whole P&F fiasco has tainted the field, and what it will take to rehabilitate it is to have reviews and commentaries, preferably written by experts in the field (or by scientific journalists relying on quotes from such experts) who have no connection with the research, concluding that it is real and respectable. A commentary in Nature or Science saying that in spite of the initial nonsense, there appears to be something there. A formal review accepted by a major physics journal. Something like that. It inevitably is going to be treated with more skepticism because of the perception left in the wake of the UU circus. Is it fair that it now has a higher hurdle? No, but who said life is fair? A good start would be a detailed mechanism that can and has been tested quantitatively. That would start things in the right direction. Then maybe it starts to get mentioned in textbooks, for the science and not for the controversy. At some point enough of the community will start to see it and learn it as established, valid science, and then the consensus will have changed. Bear in mind though that a lot of valid and accepted science is still so non-notable that it doesn't bear detailed mention on Wikipedia anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
With Paganetto I wanted to present an authorative mainstream organization that is openly backing the phenomenon, like the recent quote from Bushnell. Naturwissenschaften is a major journal who have published a review: "Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881". It is mentioned in Wiley's nuclear energy encyclopedia published this year. Rob Duncan turned from skeptic to supporter after he informed himself on the topic for the 2009 ABC 60 minutes program. So to me it seems times are already a-changin'. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the times haven't changed yet, and there is always the possibility of retrograde motion. Had you followed the case I mentioned earlier, of pre-Clovis settlement, you would have seen it on the verge of acceptance twice, only to recede again as the status quo reasserted itself and found reasons to dismiss or ignore what had seemed incontrovertible evidence, so WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL must be invoked. Agricolae (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Luigi Paganetto is a professor of economics. [39] He is not an expert on physics or chemistry, so I have no idea why POVbrigand is citing him here or anywhere else on wikipedia as if he were an expert in that area. That has already happened in the article cold fusion and will only mislead readers. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He is the president of ENEA, A credible organisation that is also involved in hot fusion projects like ITER. As a president he is representing his organisation in backing the existance of the phenomenon, thus ENEA backs cold fusion phenonemon. What his qualifications are that made him president of ENEA and if these qualifications allow him to personally review the work is irrelevant. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all; it is certainly not how wikipedia is edited in science. ITER is an international project run by physicists here in the South of France. Where results are expected only after 20 or so years from now, they are very cautious with any pronouncements or predictions. Perhaps things are done differently in Italy. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
"ENEA’s Fusion Division participates in the design of ITER through the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) and has made substantial contributions in the fields of superconductivity, plasma-facing components, neutronics, safety, remote handling and physics." Your innuendo towards Italian research is quite nasty. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What innuendo? ENEA is an Italian government agency and what you have reproduced is just their own blurb from their website, i.e. a primary source. As far as new energy is concerned, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the MagneGas of Ruggero Santilli and the Energy Catalyzer of Andrea Rossi. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Forget the innuendo, maybe you meant it differently. It is not just a blurb. ENEA published a book where they discuss all cold fusion research in Italy including research not done by ENEA, thus the book is not merely primary source. In the preface of that book the president of ENEA makes a statement that based on the evidence the phenomenon is proved to exists and that they think that "The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon." If it is hard for you to see any difference between ENEA and the other stuff you mentioned than discussing further with you will be a waste of our time. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You are referring to conference proceedings published by ENEA. That is a primary source and not usable on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not conference proceedings. It is a book about the cold fusion research history in Italy published by the ENEA. And in the foreword of the book the president of ENEA states something. "Primary source not usable on WP" that statement is not correct. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, if ENEA is endorsing this, it means that they aren't a reliable source. When this thing starts producing commercial power, then it will be proven and the considerable consensus against cold fusion will be overturned. The long sequence of questionable demonstrations does not cut it. All of the little teaser "someone might buys this" don't cut it. When it produces significant power in a situation not controlled by its inventor, then it can be treated as a proven concept. Right now it's still in the "probably a scam" state. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ENEA is not endorsing Rossi, where did you get that from ? ENEA is "endorsing" the existance of the phenomenon based on the results from experiments that several renowned research institutions have done in the last couple of years. The existance of the phenomenon has nothing to do with the claims of a working commercial device that Rossi makes. The fact that the phenomenon is real does not mean that the Rossi device is actually working. There are worlds apart between what ENEA is stating and what Rossi is claiming. You must differentiate between the two, or better, you must leave the whole Rossi story out of this, because for now nothing is scientifically proven about his device. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing in what I just said that restricts it to Rossi's device. I remember some twenty-thirty years ago when magnetohydrodynamics was going to solve our power problems. Well, it didn't, and now it has been reduced to a tiny paragraph in an article that's largely about the solar wind. Cold fusion hasn't even gotten as far as MHD ever did; if ENEA is endorsing even the existence of the phenomenon, they are out of line and have to be treated as fringe-mongers. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ 9000 years of documented medical use in Meso-freaking-America my arse
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_28&oldid=1079845598"