Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 43

"Neutral" POV

Roswell UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did you know that if we simply state that what crashed in Roswell, NM was a top secret balloon, that this is not a "neutral" POV?

[1]

What crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 was a balloon. It was not a craft filled with ETs. Can we please simply WP:ASSERT this?

Thanks,

jps (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. As far as I know, what is was that crashed is still a matter of dispute. NPOV requires presenting all significant points of view. It's not up to us to settle the dispute.- MrX 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any high quality non-UFOlogy related sources that doubt it was a balloon? If not, WP:ASSERT applies. Yobol (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a single reliable source which claims there is a controversy in the sense of a reasonable debate between equally plausible narratives. jps (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of considerations of WP:ASSERT, this edit smacks of WP:VALID, and I would not call it a neutral POV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with WP:ASSERT for fringe topics in that the two bullet points are asymmetric in meaning: while a "fact" is defined as "information ... about which there is no serious dispute", an "opinion" is defined as something which is merely "a matter which is subject to dispute" (not serious dispute). I've seen a case recently of a fringe proponent pointing to the second definition as reason why anything which is disputed at all cannot be asserted. Personally, I think the definition of opinion should be changed to "information which is subject to serious dispute". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's easily fixed: [2]. jps (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Rbreen has fixed the disputed content. I agree with MrX -except the "the most famous explanation of what occurred is" part-. When this case is analysed piece by piece, it can be seen that, we neither have a real "mainstream view" nor have a "fact" about this incident at hand. We just have a statement from U.S Government and Armed Forces. Were there any scientific challenge/survey against this statement/disclosure at that time? Can we claim that all the statements from U.S.Governments and Armed Forces are unquestionable/unobjectionable? They basically have a strong conflict of interest regarding any incident related to the national security. One of their job is to shape the public opinion; you can't shape it with ultimate truths/facts. This is not a "Mars is a planet" kind of situation, therefore the second bullet point of WP:ASSERT should apply. Logos (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What source is there to provide evidence of a "serious dispute" it was a weather balloon? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several: The Roswell Incident, UFO Crash at Roswell, Crash at Corona, and Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell to name a few. Logos is correct, and to repeat myself, we don't need to make conclusions for the reader. If we did, would we then edit the lede of Jesus to read "Jesus , also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of Galilee, is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God, but he is not. He was just a man."?- MrX 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Those don't look like serious publications. Our policy says we must identify fringe views and state the mainstream view (so no, we don't leave it up to the readers - aka "teaching the controversy" - and for topics like Young Earth creationism the facts are stated here as facts). If indeed it is a fringe view that something other than a balloon crashed in Roswell, it should be clear to the reader how that conflicts with a mainstream/reality-based view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that someone is or is not the "Son of God" is a rather weird red herring to this discussion. Everyone agrees that Jesus was a man, even those who think he was the Son of God. We have no evidence that "God" exists, so to say that Jesus is "not" the "Son of God" requires an empirical question as to what a "Son of God" actually is. We have no phenomenological description of such. In contrast, we do have a phenomenological description of what a extraterrestrial lifeform would entail -- and we know that this is not what was found in Roswell. The appropriate comparison, if you would like to make one, is to privilege the argument that some gnostics make saying that Jesus was not a man and claiming that there is some controversy over whether Jesus was actually a man or was not. Wikipedia has no problem WP:ASSERTing the fact that Jesus was a man. We should have no problem WP:ASSERTing that the thing that crashed in 1947 in Roswell was a balloon. jps (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you define as "serious publications". I assume that the witnesses, researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and (some) readers consider them serious. The Roswell crash has been very widely covered in popular media, so that would seem to refute the notion that it's fringe (not part of the mainstream). WP:PSCI doesn't apply, because the topic is not being presented as science. Airborne objects do indeed sometimes crash.- MrX 13:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI makes plain it applies to "other fringe subjects, for instance ... claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked". By your reasoning here, Wikipedia should treat the supposed faking of the Apollo moon landing as just another POV, and not as fringe! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Yep. Airborne objects do crash. But since we aren't being visited by ETs, we know that what crashed in Roswell was not an ET craft. In many UFO incidents we could leave it right there, but we actually can go one better. We actually do know what crashed. It's been identified: the evidence is clear. It was a balloon. I don't know of any serious, level-headed investigator who says otherwise. To compare, the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly was clearly a rocket and the Tunguska event was clearly a chunk of space rock. We don't pretend otherwise in those articles, neither should we in the Roswell article. jps (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What we know is that the military said it was a balloon/kite and others say it was something else. I ask again, has that dispute been settled? As to the rest of your argument " I don't know of any serious, level-headed investigator who says otherwise", I suggest reading the article and maybe a few sources. - MrX 15:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no sane people who think that what crashed in Roswell was an ET craft. NONE of the sources in the article indicate otherwise. There is no serious dispute about this. The evidence is clearly all on one side and zero on the other. jps (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: We don't need to bring sources for the type of wording we propose, but you need to bring sources for the language jps and others insist on.

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: "We actually do know what crashed. It's been identified: the evidence is clear. It was a balloon." Who were the ones making that identification? If the answer is U.S.Government and Armed Forces, the argument above still stands, and holds true. U.S.Government and Armed Forces are like self published sources, therefore we can not accept their identification as fact in wikipedia. We should take their strong conflict of interest and heavily biased position into account. There should had been independent reviewers/investigators at the time of the incident, which is not possible even today. Can you visit Area 51 as an independent investigator? Since nobody have/had (or can/could have) that probability/possibility, we should use second bullet point of WP:ASSERT. Despite their biased views, even these 3 sane academics do not use that assertive language like the one jps and others insist on: "they point toward the crash of a military balloon as a more likely explanation for the Roswell phenomenon". Logos (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone... EVERYONE who studies this subject that is not a true believer in alien visitations agrees that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the U.S. Government and Armed Forces version. That's independent sources. That's how we find out what the WP:MAINSTREAM approach to the subject is. jps (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Identification is different than evaluating the findings and casting an opinion afterwards; so, the answer can not be EVERYONE. Logos (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think that you speak for "everyone", and citing your own essay is not especially convincing.- MrX 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has cited a single source to the contrary that wasn't written by an insane extraterrestrial believer. The anthropologists acknowledge that there is no serious dispute over what happened, and so we should WP:ASSERT that it clearly wasn't an ET crash landing. Wikipedia simply is not the place for people to promote their peculiar beliefs about aliens as though they have any validity in serious references. jps (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

People really don't seem to understand WP:VALID: [3]. jps (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Not everyone buys the government's line, The Lure of the Edge Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs p25 "Edgar Mitchell who stated on nationwide television that the government was covering up the facts of the crash at Roswell and the facts about UFOs in general. He also stated that he had met people from three countries “who in the course of their official duties claim to have had personal firsthand encounter experiences” with extraterrestrials. Mitchell did not discount their stories." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Mitchell, the most credulous of the astronaut corps, is not a WP:FRIND. Try again. jps (talk) 3:11 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

• As a long-time editor on this article, my personal view is that the incident was a weather balloon and I have reverted many edits that are fringe theories of extraterrestrial visitation. However, the present series of edits by jps have not been neutral and do not take into account the conflicting views and that have surrounded the "incident". The wording of the article, in terms of being neutral, was quite acceptable before the current series of edits commenced. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Which "conflicting views"? We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd as being equally valid. Before, the article violated WP:VALID and now it does not. jps (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You fail to understand what I am attempting to say. I agree that the weather balloon is the most likely explanation and I accept that as fact. Check the article history, you will find many reverts by myself on some of the wacky theories. The neutral tone was perfectly OK before your edits "We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd" is not neutral. Finally, please do lecture me on my own Talk page and post comments in the wrong position. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, "We don't privilege the viewpoints of the ET-UFO crowd" is entirely in keeping with WP:NPOV § WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't privilege the ET/UFO crowd. It presents their the material in proportion to it's prominence in reliable sources. That's how we achieve neutral presentation. We can't simply declare the USAF version of events to be the truth simply because we personally believe other explanations to be less plausible. We follow reliable sources, and until the dispute is settled by some sort of consensus, we have to present all significant viewpoints, without language that declares one view valid over others.- MrX 20:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The "other version" is not simply "less plausible". It is supposed to be on-purpose marginalized per WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to jump in on this. Per WP:EDITORIAL, the use of "although" in the current version's second sentence could undermine the first part of the statement or give undo credibility to the second part of it. Is there a reason that this does not simply state "According to reports released by the United States Air Force..."? It's also no longer clear to me what specific wording is being challenged or what specific wording others would like to be included, so perhaps an example sentence or two could be given. Location (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

On that specific sentence I'm with Location. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. Here is my preferred version with the problematic parallelism removed. jps (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article now states:

The U.S. Government has disclosed that the incident involved a secret U.S. military Air Force surveillance balloon,[1] although some media at the time reported that the object was actually a flying saucer containing extraterrestrial life.

Moving "although" to the second part of the sentence could be construed as just shifting the editorial bias that WP:EDITORIAL cautions us not to make, and "disclosed" might be a violation of WP:SAY on par with "explained" or "clarified". Why not...

Some newspapers at the time reported that the object was a flying saucer containing extraterrestrial life. According to reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997, the incident involved a secret military surveillance balloon.

...? The order is merely chronological in keeping with the order in which the public learned of the information. Location (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997 showed that the incident in fact involved a secret military surveillance balloon." QED Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reports released by the United States Air Force in 1995 and 1997 showed said that the incident in fact involved a secret military surveillance balloon." "Showed...in fact" is the same as "explained" in WP:SAY. Location (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think "showed" would be better than "said" here. It's clear that we can WP:ASSERT this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of concrete proposals for content have been made on the talk page of the article that may be worth consideration. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-title to "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories" ?

I think its the framing of the topic that is the main issue and tweaking the sentences won't really address it. The cure may be a name change to Roswell UFO conspiracy theories which is the actually notable topic. the crash "incident" itself, not so much. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that addresses the root of the problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I support TRPoD's proposal. It makes sense, the conspiracy theories are more the subject of the article than the "incident". - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Articles should be titled using a topic's most WP:COMMONNAME. If we really want to change the article title, the way to go about it is to do a survey of reliable sources and see what they call it. Changing article titles to address issues in the text seems like a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• out of process - Assuming good faith by TRPoD, but renaming and forking discussions should take place on article talk pages. I'm mostly opposed to this proposal, but I will save my detailed reasons for the appropriate venue.- MrX 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this notice board is not the place to conduct a formal rename process. (and I am not the one that pulled the suggestion into a separate section )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just misinterpret/misrepresent the policies & guidelines, and a domino effect comes to the scene. I'm sure the naming was discussed before: [4] Logos (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @Blueboar: WP:Consensus can change but it better not for this specific incident which had occurred some 60 years ago. It is a bit late to change the already established consensus over the naming, because googling gives many instances of "Roswell UFO incident", some of which being credible sources. I believe the current WP:RECOGNIZABLE name was born well before wikipedia. Nevertheless, my suggestion would be "Roswell crash 1947". Logos (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Logos... according to your link, the last discussion prior to this was back in 2008... remember that WP:Consensus can change. I think it reasonable to at least see if consensus has changed since the last time it was discussed. In any case, User:A Quest For Knowledge has it right. First, we should see if there is a WP:COMMONNAME for the event (Possibilities might include "Roswell incident" or "Roswell crash"). I don't know whether there is a COMMONNAME, but if so, then that name should be used as the title of our article (even if it might appear POV... see WP:POVNAMING for more on this). If there isn't a COMMONNAME, then we can devise our own descriptive title. Our WP:AT policy says that descriptive titles we should be neutral (but note... using the term "conspiracy theory" in the context of describing a theory that a conspiracy has taken place is neutral).

So... barring a COMMONNAME, I would support TRPD's suggestion as a good descriptive title (but there are others I would support as well). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really like "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories". Yes, there's certainly an aspect of conspiracy theories about it, but that's not this topic's defining characteristic which is that an alien spacecraft supposedly crash landed on Earth. The conspiracy theory aspect is secondary to that. A very brief search of reliable sources suggests that "Roswell UFO crash" might be the most commonly used name. If editors are seriously interested in changing the name (and someone wants me to), I can do a more exhaustive search. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • show me one "alien spacehip ship crashed at Roswell" claim that does NOT include "and the government covered it up". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Show me a US President without a Vice-President. Does that mean that they're of equal importance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Then we need to cut everything about the crash because what is written about and covered is the conspiracy theories about the cover-ups. In the literature and the academic coverage, the crash itself is the VEEP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sprawl

And quite white this enormous article Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident - built largely from iffy sources - also exists, I don't know. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a POV fork of Roswell UFO incident. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also: Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. jps (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. All this time I must have missed seeing Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. Now I know what an article that treats fringe UFOlogy authors as the ultimate reliable source looks like. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some special proof that they are all lying? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying. To me, this seems like a bland, NPOV article. --Auric talk 23:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that low quality fringe sources like "roswellproof.com" and "Unmasking the Governments Biggest Cover up" don't conform to Wikipedia's reliable sources requirement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The POV forks should go or be trimmed to the stubs that RS would support. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident (3rd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the best compilations of deathbed confessions and posthumous allegations that I've ever seen! Thank you for sharing! Location (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Substantial revisions mass reverted

A series of significant revisions were made to this article using high quality sources and addressing unsourced or undue presentation of fringe material. This series of changes and others were mass reverted diff. No effort was made to restore a variety of edits including the merge proposal tag. I have suggested undoing this revert (restoring this version) on the talk page. Comments and opinions welcomed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's WP:BRD. Obviously there are different interpretations of our policies, and different ideas on how the material should be presented, so I suggest that discussion on the talk page and incremental edits are the best approach. There is a cultural aspect to the subject of the article, with some historical significance that shouldn't simply be removed wholesale. Homeopathy is an example of such an article that careful explains the evolving history of the subject. If we were to simply to present the accepted science, the article would be very short.- MrX 03:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I support discussion on the talk page of the article. I think the version reverted from is a far better base to start from and inclusion of primary and fringe sources for context and explanation could be discussed. The version reverted from represented the assessment of the subject by reliable secondary sources evaluating the subject historically and sociologically. I think that should be the basis of the article. Clearly there is some contention that is why I didn't revert to that version but proposed it on talk. TLDR: It's good version to work from. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative cancer treatments EW

Seems like an EW is brewing at Alternative cancer treatments over inclusion of German New Medicine. A source has been provided and discussion opened on talk page. The last revert was performed without engagement on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty heady stuff at German New Medicine - and there's a BLP aspect for its inventor and his (sometimes young) "patients". Note also a query has been raised at WT:MED about this. I see Gorski has written about GNM (e.g. here) - something by him is already cited. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The EW is likely resolved as the user repeatedly removing content has been blocked. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"a unified process of healing and personal empowerment"

• Vivation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• (Add: a related article) Jim Leonard (Vivation) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

My PROD was decline by an editor who said "as an expert on this subject, it contains entirely neutral language". The topic doesn't have much presence, especially in serious publications ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable language has been removed agreeably. Since this language has been removed, and was the sole reason, besides independent outside sources (which have been added), requesting a cancellation of PROD. Playanaut (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The PROD was contested (by you), which means it has gone away. I still think there's a question whether either (let alone both) of these articles should exist - not finding high-quality sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn - 'both' articles? I am only aware of the one. Can you paste the link of the second, please? Playanaut (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned above, the Jim Leonard (Vivation) article is also problematic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that. Someone added copious amounts of anecdotes and redundant information. I've since removed and cleaned it up. Having done a bibliography search for Jim Leonard turned up over 60 books, including the national best seller "The Artist Way" by Julia Cameron, as well as the more recently popular "The Presence Process" by Michael Brown, who considers Vivation to be among the primary influences of his own work. Jim Leonard's first book sold over 200,000 copies. Given this, I think the 'notability' issue for his entry should be removed. Playanaut (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Breathwork sure has some incredible see-also library! (NOTE: articles linked in this section previously are also included in the list.)

• Rebirthing-Breathwork
• Holotropic Breathwork
• Gay Hendricks
• Hyperventilation
• Pranayama
• Pre- and perinatal psychology
• Psychedelic psychotherapy
• Tummo

jps (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivation & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Leonard (Vivation). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The creator of those articles identified himself here, unsurprisingly he has a massive conflict of interest as he is the "Director of Vivation International and the Vivation Professional Training School" and "train[s] most new Vivation Professionals in the world today" [5]. -- 92.2.66.209 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above post is appropriate per WP:OUTING. The user has removed the information on their user page and use of personal information removed from WP used to in this way seems what is explicitly not permitted per the harassment policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Walled garden?

To the above list add:

• Leonard Orr

The breathwork articles are in very poor shape: what little is sourced is sourced mostly to "in universe" primary publications, fringe claims are asserted, and there is much undue/promotional guff. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Add) I've had a go at improving Rebirthing-breathwork, and am now looking at Leonard Orr: this seems to be lovingly constructed almost entirely out of Orr's own work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Fixed by merging the small amount of salvageable content in Leonard Orr to Rebirthing-breathwork (which in turn might be better merged to Breathwork ... ) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD Apex effect

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex effect last week but it has yet to attract any comments. It relates to Emotional Freedom Techniques and Thought Field Therapy, so this board should have the relevant expertise to dig up sources, should they exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

Some POV-pushing here for example removing any mention e.g. that Craniosacral therapy is ineffective pseudoscience, instead saying it is in "contrast to the traditional medical belief". More eyes needed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Subud, George Gurdjieff, Findhorn Foundation etc

Can anyone help with Subud and associated theosophy etc articles? I gave up trying to help with Subud (culty types, not very Wikifriendly) having tripped over the article and discovered it was written entirely from within this relatively obscure little movement (ie taking the movements jargon etc as commonly shared) and not even mentioning any of the criticism or controversy which has followed it round the world for decades. For example the suicide of the founder's son - which features in academic literature as well as an otherwise hagiographic biography - finds no place. I added a small academic reference to it being called a cult (by the French government among others) but this was deleted on spurious grounds.

Coming back to Subud after a couple of months I found that, as feared, every possible even only questionably critical reference has been removed. It now reads entirely like a brochure produced by and for the Subud group. So as a minimum it needs tagging but which tag do people think is appropriate? On the Talk page I have added some helpful hints for editors as to where some more varied material can be found.

Looking at Subud led me to George Gurdjieff, an article which is just as biased. Most scholars would these days characterise GG as something of a joke - but there is again no NPOV in this article, no criticism, and merely a (to an outsider) baffling, lengthy and jargon-heavy exposition. The bibliography doesn't include a major accessible scholarly work on him and his kind ("Madame Blavatskys Baboon"), no doubt because it is not to the taste of GGs few remaining followers.

Going further I found plenty of other articles which relate to these two subjects - and whose articles are linked in one way or another - but which are similarly flawed. I hope someone might one day take a look at the whole area of theosophy articles (eg John G. Bennett etc)

Finally, some time ago a 'controversy' section was deleted from the article on the Findhorn Foundation (something of a clearing house for esoterica in the UK) and so I have copied that material here, having given up on my attempts to try and keep some balance on that page.

==Controversy==

There have been many critics of and controversies surrounding the work of the Findhorn Foundation since 1962. For example:

• A. Roberts, writing in the Fortean Times, alleges that in the 1960s, Caddy and other 'channelers' believed that they were in contact with extraterrestrials through telepathy, and prepared a 'landing strip' for flying saucers at nearby Cluny Hill.

• In 1993 the Scottish Charities Office commissioned a report into holotropic breathwork, having received complaints about it at the Findhorn Foundation. The report caused the Findhorn Foundation to suspend its breathwork programme. According to The Scotsman, Dr Linda Watt of Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital in Glasgow said that the hyperventilation technique might cause seizures or lead to psychosis in vulnerable people. (The Scotsman, 14 October 1993).

• In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the self-styled Australian guru Jasmuheen (not connected with the Findhorn Foundation), who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.

Testbed (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Update: the last Findhorn reference isn't on The Independent website anymore but it's reprinted online here. Testbed (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• In cases where there has been obvious POV editing and mass redaction of critical material the easiest solution is to just restore the last good version. Yes, that will tick some people off if you are going back a ways, but sometimes that's what's needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks but I wouldn't have come here if I hadn't already tried that - and failed - on both Subud and Findhorn Foundation. Weeks, months, later (slow motion 3RR?) I feel there are more of them, or they have more stamina, or more time. By posting here maybe more experienced / adept editors will show up who find the articles interesting enough to take a look. Testbed (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what the last good version is. But if you revert to those points and add an appropriate edit summary to the effect that you are reverting POV editing I will put these articles on my watch list. If there is an attempt to delete properly sourced material we can then step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles shows some reference sources which have content related to these topics, and there are numerous others as well. I can try to get ahold of any your think might be useful as well as any from the various databanks I have access to and people with subscriptions to some of the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library can probably access additional material that might be available there. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree these articles need work and watchlisting. Post a notice here once a decent version has been reverted to or edited to with a link for each article as you go and I will also watchlist them. If I get a chance I'll try some research and post results on relevant talk pages. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple days late, but there is a discussion of this section at Jimbo's talk page (link). Sunrise (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks User: Sunrise: what did you mean to link to, as I don't see anything about Subud etc on that page? Testbed (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is in the archives here. Mainly it was being used as an example in an attack on Wikipedia generally and treatment of fringe content more specifically. This happens now and then when editors feel that their content is being improperly excluded. Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Any input from people knowledgable in the academic study of history and to what degree professionals in broadly historical field are likely to have their professional opinions colored by personal beliefs and to what degree our content should address such concerns based on that general principle but not much case-specific RS sourcing that I have yet seen , and anyone else of course, is more than welcome to take part in the discussion on the article talk page regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba

Is marketed in dietary supplement form with false claims it can enhance "cognitive function". I recently refreshed the medical sourcing here but the article is now seeing pushback. More eyes could help ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yech. I did this too: [6]. jps (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Sourced text was deleted. The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source and infections is a common adverse effect. Specific examples is appropriate. This edit was counterproductive and the editor seems to not understand. See Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable_source.3F_-_.22From_Alien_Abductions_to_Zone_Therapy.22. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a name I saw in a recent ARCA about this subject. I think you know that AE can be invoked if the problematic behavior continues.John Carter (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Williams isn't a MEDRS, and there are already severe UNDUE problems with coverage of serious adverse events (which are very rare; we don't need to list every opportunistic pathogen). See Talk:Acupuncture#MEDRS_and_WEIGHT_issues_in_recent_edits. Why is this thread even here? Per WP:BRD I'd hoped that QuackGuru would at least attempt to justify his edits at Talk:Acupuncture, but he hasn't even posted there about this issue. Why complain in another venue before even trying to engage WP:DR? --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Infections are one of the more common side effects. Specific examples of the infections benefits the reader.

The encyclopedia is a reliable source and used widely on Wikipedia. The comments at Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable_source.3F_-_.22From_Alien_Abductions_to_Zone_Therapy.22 are misleading. Editors are claiming the book is mainly about extraterrestrials to discredit the book. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again this belongs at Talk:Acupuncture. (For benefit of readers here: Williams isn't a MEDRS. Infections are the most common SAE but SAE's are themselves quite rare, hence the UNDUE problem.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion the encyclopedia is not reliable. The source is used on many articles on Wikipedia. The source about safety says "infections were still the major complication of acupuncture."[7] We should give the source its due weight. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor stated "I haven't yet found where to access that book" but decided to delete the source along with other text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only is the source not MEDRS compliant, but this noticeboard isn't the proper venue; WP:RSN is. Reflexively posting here is simply canvassing. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think the source is unreliable then you would have no problem with making an argument to delete the source from many Wikipedia articles. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IDHT much, QG? Williams can be an RS (depending on the claim of course) but is not MEDRS. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is a lot of overlap between the various noticeboards. The reliability, or lack thereof, of sources is a very common issue when dealing with articles on WP:FRINGE topics. My feeling is you go to whichever board is going to best address the broader issues. But once a topic is raised on one board it should not normally be duplicated elsewhere unless there are very compelling reasons as it just confuses any discussion. With respect to canvassing, I'm not seeing it, though I might have missed something where !votes are being recorded. Is there a related AfD going on somewhere? If so then discussion should definitely be restricted to that venue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, a posting to a WP:NOTICEBOARD can never be canvassing, since noticeboards are for widening consensus, which is after all how WP functions. The large number of eyes means the views expressed are always wide-ranging too (witness the responses in this very section!). The advantage of posting to a noticeboard is that it is likely to get input from editors who are experienced in a particula area - here, for instance, in the application of WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Sometimes it's useful to post to a couple of NBs when the topic overlaps - personally, if I do this, I note the dual posting in the message text. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet in this case, QuackGuru didn't even try discussing at the article talk page. He made two bold-ish posts, both of which were reverted by me with concerns over MEDRS and UNDUE. Then he posted here, and a small edit war ensued [8][9], with still no use of the talk page. That's exactly the opposite of what we needed. QuackGuru should simply have followed BRD -- D meaning Discuss at talk page, not Dash over to a noticeboard first. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is emerging/has emerged not to use Williams as a MEDRS (and to use a different source to support similar, uncontroversial wording). FWIW, further discussion of whether or not to include the list of pathogens at: Talk:Acupuncture#Infection --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The larger point, re infections and adverse events, is that acupuncture is universally agreed to be safe (whatever else one can say about it). Serious adverse events, including infection, are rare. Five deaths from acupuncture are known worldwide from 2000-2009. Most serious adverse events are due to dirty/re-used needles, a problem common in the developing world with needles of all kinds. In light of that, isn't this section bloated? Acupuncture#Adverse_events --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "universally agreed to be safe" is 100% right. If you're getting treatment for a minor complaint (a stiff shoulder say), you don't really expect to be exposed to a therapy which carries a risk of serious infection or death, even if that risk is very low. BTW, something that sticks out about the acupuncture page is that the primary photo shows somebody sticking needles into somebody while not wearing gloves. Is that how it's done, and is that okay (genuine questions)? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's universally agreed to be a relatively safe treatment per sources, and intrinsically is very safe. Most adverse events are due to malpractice.

The whole section is plagued by UNDUE and poor prose, which is basically all down to QuackGuru incessantly pushing everything he can to make acupuncture look horrible. Yet it's used in academic centers all over the place, like Harvard Medical School [10] .... terribly fringe .... but seriously, it's not as hideous as the QG-dominated article implies, and that makes Wikipedia look dumb. (To answer your question: one doesn't need to wear gloves during acupuncture or e.g. intramuscular injections [11], but yes during venipuncture.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 12:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also used at Yale Medical School, listed as an evidence-based practice, no less. [12] Ordinarily this would indicate some degree of mainstreamness -- but, we have WP:FLAT, which explicitly says that Wikipedia needs to depict things not as they're accepted in the world, but as we think they should be. Or did I misread WP:FLAT? --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find those words in WP:FLAT (which is just an essay, albeit a good one) - what do you mean? Just because something is at large in the world (even in a sense "mainstream") does not absolve it of (in WP terms) its fringeiness. Homeopathy is available from national health services; more people in the USA believe in alien abduction than evolution. We should simply reflect the content of the best sources. Having said that, I'm enjoying my break from the acupuncture article as it's a perma-wreck ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I'd used a sarcasm emoticon with my comment about WP:FLAT. Alex, of course things like homeopathy and creationism and global warming denial and the rest are all over the place. But they're not taught in mainstream academia. (Homeopathy is a very good way to leverage the placebo effect, and as such may have a place in an academic "integrative" clinic, but I seriously doubt you'll see them calling it "evidence based".) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As if we don't have a policy on WP:TERTIARY sources; you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary in fact. Logos (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy at the link posted, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles)." and it does not say what Logos asserts, "you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary in fact" as one can read it says something quite different. The statements "should be based primarily" and "to a lesser extent" are not accurately paraphrased as "you can't use" and "when you should use". "Useful in providing broad summaries when there are many primary and secondary sources" and "when primary or secondary sources contradict each other" seem to speak directly to this example. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary" refers also to the relatively low quality of The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, compared to other prominent ecyclopedias. Such a controversial element should be sourced better. If The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not able to present any reliable independent scholarly citation for its remark about infections' being adverse effect, then it is not reliable for this specific case; remember WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Logos (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the proposal was to use Williams not for infection but for the statement about acu not having a long-term effect on any disease. That's a statement requiring a MEDRS, and Williams isn't one, and it looks like there's consensus to use a true MEDRS saying something similar. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 06:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Middle 8, long term effect on disease could be better sourced and there are probably better sources that say something similar. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Infections included mycobacterium, staphylococcus, septic arthritis, necrotizing fasciitis, pneumoretroperitoneum, facial erysipelas, HIV, Listeria monocytogenes-caused arthritis, and infections via Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas.<ref name="Xu S" />

The reader will never know what are the risks of pathogens involved with acupuncture. Too bad. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture again

The tag was added to the article without consensus. There is a supposed list of problems on the talk page without a specific proposal. I disagree with leaving the tag of shame] at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Holotropic Breathwork

Oh my god is this article a mess. What do you think? Mass pruning? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

#"a unified process of healing and personal empowerment". We've got a lot of pruning in the surrounding area too. jps (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Has been with us since 2004, I see. Pure promotion, with no critical perspective beyond a pretty sad criticism section devoted mainly to complaints from representatives of other similar theories/therapies. According to this 2011 note by User:The Communicator, it was the subject of a request for arbitration around 2006, but I wasn't able to find that in the archives. (The user might have meant a request for mediation, because I did find that.)

I've redirected to Breathwork, merging the worthwhile content (a couple of sentences, complemented with a reference from the history and a sentence from Stanislav Grof). Even though Breathwork is a mere stub compared to the bloated Holotropic Breathwork, the reader who types in "Holotropic breathwork" will now nevertheless get better information and a more encyclopedic perspective, as Breathwork provides a helpful introduction to the concept of breathwork, which was sadly lacking in the rhapsodic Holotropic Breathwork. (Almost incredibly, it didn't even link to Breathwork, unless I missed it somewhere in the middle.) Breathwork's original paragraph about Holotropic breathwork was very crappy, by the way, sticking out like a sore thumb in an otherwise very reasonable article.

If/When my redirecting of Holotropic Breathwork gets reverted by the adherents who obviously wrote the article (not to lessen the work of the brave souls who have battled to NPOV it over the years), I suggest either a slash-burn stubbing, or AfD. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Materialization (paranormal)

The IP turned new user persistently adds a text which is irrelevant and in my opinion false. Could someone please have a look at the text and also at the talk page. They are at three reverts already.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this article come under discretionary sanctions? It is not flagged that way on the talk page. How does one verify that an article's subject matter puts it within the guidelines for DS and who can place the notification on the talk page? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

New user trying to get LuckyLouie blocked at WP:ANI Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Filing at 3RR NB. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor is claiming that an author writing in a textbook, should be citing specific scientists when stating, "If it did so, then the mind would somehow have to introduce new energy and force into the physical world. But scientists tell us that this is impossible because it would violate the principle of conservation of matter and energy." It seems to me that it is not a common practice nor considered necessary to attribute basic laws of physics to specific scientists. The editor removing the content also did not respond to the explanation that the source and content are valid for the article per WP:PARITY. The editor also insists there is some differentiation between "paranormal materialization" from plain "materialization" and that the article should reflect that despite an acknowledgement of the lack of such by academia, "it is not logical to expect 'mainstream scientific view' to differentiate 'paranormal materialization' from plain 'materialization', considering its current position against such topics. As the editor has removed the content despite the lack of support on talk and I have restored it, I thought bringing the matter here might get a broader view. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Some more eyes would definitely be useful. Currently, the editor MrBill3 mentions is at 3RR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

See Is this topic notable enough for its own article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not notable enough to have an entire page, should be merged/redirected to the ectoplasm article. Goblin Face (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't merge two different topic into one. When people do not have the necessary expertise, they should either try to gain some or stand back a bit. Logos (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be considered necessary expertise to edit articles on paranormal materialization and ectoplasm, phenomena that have never been demonstrated. The article on paranormal materialization is almost entirely a series of frauds by people who have their own articles already. There is no reliable source on any actual paranormal materialization as it seems to have never actually occurred. Ectoplasm differs little except in the details of a phenomenon that agains seems entirely fictional, again a complete lack of reliable sources for such a thing ever existing. I'm pretty sure "channeled" self published material fails RS spectactularly. So we are left with parnormal materialization, a mythical occurence and the substance of a series of frauds by somewhat notable charlatans and ectoplasm a more detailed from of the same never actually occurring "something from nothing / spirit engery in the physical world". What reliable source discusses this topic as anything other than a slight variation of the same imagined but non existant stuff? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that your misinterpretations/misrepresentations have not ceased yet. Comments, edits, the sources added, reasoning, argumentation are trademarks of a user's expertise. For instance, apart from others and including above, your latest comment about notability of paranormal materialization is a good indicator of your lack of expertise both in paranormal materialization topic and in wp policies & guidelines. Logos (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be helpful to get a wider opinion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Materialization (paranormal) - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Accelerated learning

A garden worth weeding?

• Suggestopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Georgi Lozanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SuperCamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Quantum Learning Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bobbi DePorter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

jps (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good find. The "Quantum Learning Network" seemed to be an advert for something thoroughly unnotable, so I redirected it. I think a couple of others could be good AfD candidates too. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestopedia appears to be the only subject that has gained notice in enough reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. The rest could do with merging, redirecting, or AfDing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience

I have improved this article in the last few days i.e. adding scientific references and this is something I will continue to do over the weekend. Before I started editing this article it was filled with fringe claims and loads of paranormal/spiritualist books being cited that the NDE is evidence for an afterlife. The mainstream consensus on this subject is that the NDE is a hallucination. I do not see why it is biased or not neutral stating this. A user not happy with what I have done has put a template on the article about neutrality, see comments on the talk-page etc. Goblin Face (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also a mess life review. Goblin Face (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Esoteric cosmology

Are there any reliable sources for this topic? Goblin Face (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the definition can be cited, we can certainly get Gnosticism, Kaballah, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and probably the other three bits I'm not as familiar with. So I think this one basically comes down to a notability test. Ignore the examples: Is the term/concept a notable way of collecting such ideas? If yes, keep, if no, delete.

A Google Scholar search causes me to lean delete; but before I prod it, I'd like to hear other views. It looks like it might be an anthroposophical term, which would be bad if we're trying to neutrally describe things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Cosmological General Relativity

Cosmological General Relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stumbled across this recently created article. Just "Physicist John Hartnett and others have extended the theory and used it as the basis for a creationist cosmology" in the lead sets my warning bells ringing. The article's huge and I'm rather swamped right now, so I haven't even attempted to read through it all, but a quick skim through it hasn't eased my sense of alarm (carbon-14 decaying to carbon-12?). Furthermore, opening up the article for editing revealed a huge comment, including

WARNING! Do NOT make any substantive changes to this article UNLESS you have THOROUGHLY reviewed the source material in the references, and understand what you're doing. While CGR borrows terminology from the standard cosmological model, it defines many terms differently, and with different underlying assumptions. Most current understanding of modern cosmology is directly derived from FLRW/Lambda-CDM and most of it either DOES NOT apply or applies in a SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT way.

(emphasis added)

Using established terminology to mean different things is another classic fringe indicator. I'd like some more eyes on this, please. Kolbasz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is unusual. It seems that the theory has been published in the academic mainstream, and John Hartnett was one of the main researchers. But he also supports creation science, although does not publish anything about that in peer-reviewed sources. TFD (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It has most certainly not been published in the academic mainstream. The entire article is junk and sourced to preprint servers. jps (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See Moshe Carmeli, Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large Scale Structure of Space, Time and Velocity, Second Edition, World Scientific, 2002.[13] Also, Carmeli's "Cosmological Special Relativity", Foundations of Physics, 1996[14] Carmeli was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University and President of the Israel Physical Society. What has not been published is Hartnett's use of the theory to defend young earth creationism. TFD (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"World Scientific Publishing". Aren't they the guys who send loads of spam for vanity publications etc? I even have some in my spam folder at the moment which is trying to get me to read some of their crap, Second Quantization (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be confusing it with "World Science Publisher." World Scientific Publishing jointly runs Imperial College Press with Imperial College,[15] which is certainly an academic publishing company. TFD (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG on the FoP citation. That is not a very good journal on which to claim mainstream status. Also, typically people don't publish books to put forth new ideas in cosmology (I can name many monographs that are WP:FRINGE cosmology proposals though published by reputable publishers as tell-all "make a big splash" books). Rather, the currency is journal articles (and not those published alongside Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory papers). jps (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FoP is published by Springer Science+Business Media, a highly reputable publisher of academic books and journals. It's chief editor is Gerard 't Hooft, who is a Nobel laureate in physics.[16] Google scholar lists over 5,000 of their articles, and the hits on the first page are all cited in hundreds of other articles.[17] They indeed did publish Evans' now discredited theories, and then retracted their support for publishing them. Academic journals have published many papers where methodologies were found to be inadequate or mathematical errors occurred or even where test results were falsified. Both SETI and CERN have made announcements they later retracted. None of that disqualifies them as reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FoP is supposed to be a journal on the bleeding edge of ideas, but that means it also suffers from the hazard of wandering into nonsense as what happened with ECE. That object lesson is enough to WP:REDFLAG an idea that is primarily sourced to that journal (and a book which probably did not see anything close to peer review). Note also the relevant publication date is nearly 20 years ago -- back before the current 't Hooft hammer had come down and before the housecleaning of all the nonsense had been undertaken at FoP. jps (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on what jps said: FoP for a long time had a reputation as a bit of a dumping ground, somewhat analogous to Medical Hypotheses. The current editor has done (so far as I have heard) a good job clamping down on the nonsense while still fulfilling the journal's mission to be a bit speculative out past the bleeding edge. Generally speaking, anything cited to FoP needs attribution and a good deal of care. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There are also articles about the theory in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics,[18]] and Frontiers of Fundamental Physics[19] The theory is also briefly discussed in Space, Time, and Spacetime (Springer 2007), p.37.[20] Foundations of Physics continues to publish articles about it under the new editor. Obviously this is an article about a theory, not about a fact, and the requirement of reliability is that the sources accurately outline the theory, not that that the theory has been proved and is now generally accepted in physics. It is in the nature of original theories in cosmology and physics that most theories will not gain acceptance. There is a discussion about the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmological General Relativity. TFD (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

After the disastrous AfD where it seems that people didn't bother to look at how this subject has received no independent journal coverage, I realized that this may be the answer. jps (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As I explained at the AfD, "indpendent" does not mean that writers do not hold a position on the topic they are discussing. It means that the writer or publisher has no financial interest in what is published. For example a website financed by oil companies would not be an independent source for climate change. But it does not mean that articles by writers who hold a position on climate change cannot be used. Otherwise we could not have articles on climate change or would have to strike out most articles about science. Incidentally, there are a huge number of articles about theories in heterodox fringe economics that have only been sourced to publishers controlled by their adherents. It might be helpful for you to take a look at them. TFD (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can ever convince jps about that true nature of independency. Logos (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

Can someone please look at this. Two users keep inserting into the science section a load of fringe thinkers/parapsychologists like Raymond Moody etc. All unsourced as well. Goblin Face (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The controversial content in question has been a bone of contention for a long time, and has been in and out of the article with no discussion on the talkpage as far as I can see. Nobody has responded to Goblin Face's lone talkpage post on 23 August; in other words the people reverting to keep the content in the article have zero input on talk. That's not how it's supposed to work. I've protected for a week to encourage discussion. Please try to reach consensus on talk. It'll clearly never happen through soundbites in edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

What really gets me is that there's an entire section on parapsychology, but everyone's ignoring it to shove all this content into "Science". Hell, the Parapsychology section is probably, in itself, in violation of WP:FRINGE as it stands. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What really strikes me, on the other hand, is that people have an ambition/passion to insert such sections labeled as science into the articles related to cultural artifacts, beliefs or paranormal concepts. If afterlife has such a section, then could christianity, Miracles_of_Jesus, etc. have also. We should move that section into consciousness after death. Logos (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If it makes scientific claims - and by having a parapsychology section, it does - then WP:FRINGE literally requires the fringe section to be put into context. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology section should also be moved to consciousness after death then. Logos (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a split, though, in such a general article. Cut it down, sure, but they need to be linked by summary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Andy has a point. Even if afterlife is a generalist topic, it should be confined to the beliefs. If a concept/subject is beyond the realm of science, then it is synth to report the scientific view about it. It seems that that section was labeled as neuroscience at the beginning. Logos (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that charlatans from the field of parapsychology are always claiming they have scientific evidence for the afterlife from bogus mediums, NDE reports, alleged ghost sightings or haunted houses etc. If you remove the parapsychology section then yes the science section could be removed as well, that is only in there to balance all those woo claims from the parapsychology section. There is no scientific evidence for the afterlife, the whole idea of a metaphysical afterlife is outside the realm of empirical science. It is a religious/philosophical subject. Not all people understand this though and even if those two sections were removed then sooner or later users will just re-add content about silly studies of ghosts, mediums or NDEs. So the best thing in my opinion is to leave both those sections but remove many of the fringe claims from the parapsychology section. I will attempt this at some point. Goblin Face (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminski

The dailymail newspaper have released a piece recently identifying jack the ripper as Aaron Kosminski, apparently this is based on alleged DNA evidence (which has not been confirmed by anyone, just speculated by a single author). There has been high amounts of traffic to this article recently. The recent fringe information added may need to be checked. Goblin Face (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems OK at the moment. The author's self-aggrandising claims of certainty are possibly problematic, but they are clearly presented as puff by the author, not as fact. The issues about handling and provenance, which have been repeatedly raised in connection with the shawl are clearly articulated. The identification of Kosminski as the suspect most favoured by researchers in recent decades is more or less correct. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Stone Tape

This is fringe idea that has run mad. No reliable sources on the article at all and the two scientific papers cited do not even discuss stone tape, so a case of original research. I think this should be taken to AfD. Goblin Face (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it the article was bloated and padded beyond what has been covered by reliable sources. That this offbeat hypothesis was originated by ‪Thomas Charles Lethbridge‬ (there's a one line mention in our bio article) and a BBC TV show gave it cult popularity is really all that reliable non-fringe sources will support. The rest of the article is sourced to unreliable publications by parapsychologists and psychic researchers, and the unrelated but synthesized-in "Pottery hoax" section as well as the well-meaning scientific view section are classic OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Helvie energy theory of nursing and health

Resolved

 – per OP

I recently PROD'd this and that has been denied on account of the article being "well sourced". It seems to me this "theory" has no real coverage and the superficially big reference list is of no relevance (just checking the first, it appears that Helvie was cited in the cited chapter, but incidentally and for something other than this "energy theory"). Thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As you were - further probing of the references show some of them add-up ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In need of a cleanup

UFO conspiracy theory.

Many of the citations are to unreliable sources and the rejoinders pleading with the reader to take the ideas seriously come in the lede.

jps (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems discussed here some time ago. Drop a note on the Talk page if you support a cleanup. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a monologue to me, rather than a discussion. Logos (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture! Again! Still!

Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is locked again (at my request), and we could really use a few extra sets of eyes to work things out over the next week. We have well sourced text being removed, {{cn}} tags all over basic material, disagreement over how to determine when a source is outdated, a passel of disruptive editors gaming around, and all the usual problems seen at articles on fringe topics. How exciting! - 2/0 (cont.) 21:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another "postural integration" type article

Resolved

 – Article deleted per AfD

Newly landed Gokhale Method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. Not finding much/any mainstream coverage ... anybody know any different? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gokhale Method. The article was re-written by the creator, so I am still considering this. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

UFOs crash in Missouri

Resolved

 – Article deleted per AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Girardeau UFO crash.

jps (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That August discussion at Jimbo's page attacking FTN

I don't know if anyone saw that,[21] but it was started by a sock of Til Eulenspiegel, now again indefinitely blocked and again starting to sock. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Raw foodism

This article looks to me like it's in really bad shape: fringe ideas, poor medical sourcing and miscellaneous information giving a whiff of OR. More particularly, the terms "raw foodism" and its supposed alternative "rawism" seem to have little or no coverage in independent sources. Where to look? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Close encounter of Cussac

Resolved

 – Reduced to what reliable independent sources support

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

Not sure what to do with this. Lots more in the French article.

jps (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if I could access the list of sources, I couldn't read them. Found an English source: [22]. - Location (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Late 60s French pop media made a big deal of it, and it's considered a well known notable story in France. Impossible to determine low quality from reliable sources from the huge list of French sources given, so article trimmed of excessive trivia and summarized in a reasonable length. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

does anyone have access to the full skeptical inquirer? it looks like they debunk the claim at Cussac (August 29, 1 967) — a "close encounter of the third kind" that became as famous in France as the one in Kelly-Hopkinsville in the United States — are consistent with a light turbine-powered ... but it cuts off before the critical word, and the snippets [23] dont show enough to make any sensible comments either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the unrestricted text either, but I have identified it as Volume 33.1, January / February 2009. Name of the article is "UFOs: an Assessment of Thirty Years of Official Studies in France" by David Rossini, Eric Maillot, and Eric Déguillaume. Described as "A re-examination of the three decades of 'official' French UFO studies finds serious defects and problems, some systematic." - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Majestic 12

Resolved

 – Fringe weight removed from Majestic 12 and Bill Moore (ufologist)

This is a well-known conspiracy theory[24] based on forged documents[25] but you wouldn't get that impression from reading our article on it, which is stuffed full of iffily-sourced detail, often given without sufficient qualification. For a start, shouldn't this article be Majestic 12 conspiracy theory? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There may also be WP:BLP concerns over assertions that a named individual (apparently still alive) was involved in "an elaborate disinformation campaign", sourced only to MUFON documents. I somehow doubt that MUFON would be accepted as a reliable source for such contentious claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I brought this up last month Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 42#Majestic 12, and it looks like others have previously, too (i.e. [26]). I don't think renaming the article will make as much difference as will eliminating cherry-picked primary sources (used in violation of WP:SYNTH) and various fringe sources. As with anything alleged, the best bet is to start from scratch with discussion that occurs in reliable secondary sources (e.g. those cited in the OP plus things like [27], [28]). The FBI material is reliable primary source material but it must be used very carefully. There is probably a fair amount of fiction to be found in relation to Dark Skies (e.g. [29]). - Location (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's so bad it might even benefit from a WP:NUKEANDPAVE. From the good sources (e.g. Robert Goldberg) it seems the story here is that there were some forged documents describing an "inner circle" in government which - when revealed as clumsy fakes - caused recriminations in the UFO community, who nevertheless believed that even if the documents were fake they somehow betrayed a truth. Our article is full of guff. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Entire sections like the heavily fringe-sourced authenticity debate need to go, so WP:NUKEANDPAVE is a practical option. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Been chipping away and rebuilding from better sources. I'll double check but suspect you're right a lot of this stuff needs to go. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, you are absolutely right regarding that section. I've brought it up on the talk page so that interested editors can be made aware. - Location (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear that the whole article needs to be rewritten. Alexbrn has done a great job in starting to bring some sense to all the unsourced guff. There is far too much "fringe" at the moment. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is now largely cleaned up, however Bill Moore (ufologist) has some sections that portray the fantasy as reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dichotomous cosmology

Resolved

 – Deleted per AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dichotomous cosmology

Also look out for the author inserting this into other articles.

Yheyma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

E.g. [30]

jps (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup - no evidence that this theory has received any commentary whatsoever - and published in Progress in Physics, which seems to specialise in fringe material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Specialise indeed - it's their stated mission, see http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rights.html, their "Declaration of Academic Freedom". Begoon ^talk 07:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Earthing Therapy

Earthing Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This just popped up in the New Pages feed. Is this notable, or should it go straight to AfD? Kolbasz (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a good example for why "indexed on PubMed" is necessary but not sufficient for being medically reliable. I have heard of this, and even heard of people selling devices based on the notion. Obviously the current article is completely unsuitable, but my gut says that a thorough search would turn up enough independent sourcing if someone is willing to wade through the Ground (electricity) confounders. A redirect to Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) might work. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of this before, but it seems all the commentary on it is either from fringe journals, new age websites/books, or skeptic blogs. Is that enough to write an article on the subject? Perhaps. jps (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Related to this is Stephen Sinatra and there is a section regarding "grounding" there. The following appear to be pop discussion in non-fringe sources: [31][32][33][34] Not sure about the reliability of Wikipedia purposes of ScienceBlogs.[35] - Location (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation: After looking at the article, I have no idea what this "therapy" even is. Is that intentional? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely been trimmed too much. An article that doesn't explain what it's about is useless. Kolbasz (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks ripe for AfD. The coverage is a single study with clear COI from a predatory publisher, an article in The Wall Street Journal, an article in Fox News Magazine and a Q&A by Andrew Weil. Not what I would consider substantial coverage to establish notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carson Sink UFO incident

Resolved

 – redirected

Carson Sink UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This incident is attested to by Edward Ruppelt, but I'm not sure that this makes it particularly more notable than others listed in Project Blue Book.

jps (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I would not object to a redirect. - Location (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Owlman

Owlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite being dismissed as semi-notable folklore [36], our article gives primary weight to fringy cryptozoology views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I can help with this. I will try and improve it by next week. Goblin Face (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphology

Some new editors attempting to say that Graphology is somehow mainstream science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Landrace

Despite reliable sources already cited in the article, from the lead on down, that formal breeding of livestock to conform to pre-established standards reduces genepools and introduces genetic risks and problems, one editor keeps insisting on inserting their original research and PoV that only conformation breeding for show purposes, not other purposes, can lead to genetic problems. (One of many such edits, and see the contorted reasoning at Talk:Landrace#Conformation/show breeding). As if genes magically know why they're being selected for, and are going to do bad things if judges and blue ribbons are involved. On the article's talk page, the POV-pusher goes on at some length about "designer breeding" and "weird" breeding, whatever that means, which have nothing to do with the article at all, and certainly nothing to do with the reliably sourced problems associated with breeding to defined standards (at all, not just for show) that the article is talking about as a general matter. Three other editors' source-based views are being reverted by this one, and it's already gone to the 3RR point. The idea is patently absurd and (of course) unsourced, meanwhile the editor keeps denying that the consensus view is sourced, when there are sources cited throughout; the very reason that landraces are of international preservation concern is that they are genetic storehouses against the genepool vigor problems of breeding to breed conformation standards! The sources already cited in the article directly contradict this unscientific "it's only show-breeding that causes problems" fringe nonsense.

It's part of a broader pattern by this and one other editor to cloud and undermine the idea that breed means anything more specific than "whatever some breeders say it means", a patently anti-scientific viewpoint. The landrace article has already been notably weakened in the last couple of months by the same editor (I haven't gone over all that yet). The editor does not like the general biology term "landrace" being applied to horses for some reason, and this seems to be the genesis of the campaign to skew these articles into fringe space. See previous falsification of what a source said about horse landraces by this editor at that same article. More eyes on this article, and on Breed would be valuable. This stuff is having fallout on horse articles where the same editor (sometimes the other one as well) strongly resists any differentiation between a landrace and the formal breed(s) derived from it, despite sources clearly distinguishing them, and often literally refuses to even read discussion about the matter and just goes on reverting, a WP:IDHT tactic frequently used at Landrace and specific horse landrace/breed articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there any published sources that refer to the eccentric or "fringe" view (use of the term 'show breeding' vs 'conformation breeding', or whatever it is)? If not, and it's merely an editor breaking 3RR to add their own unsourced opinion, then WP:AN/EW is the venue you want. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. And the editor is now being careful to bide their time just long enough to avoid 3RR. Here's a similar edit in the same vein: [37]. There are five sources for the sentences, three about genotypic and two about phenotypic genetic diversity, yet the editor is adding bogus {{citation needed}} tags, as if there's some magical third kind of genetic diversity not being accounted for here. Not really sure what to do about this at this point. Over the last month, the same editor has greatly weakened the article, removing all sorts of sourced material with bogus claims that it's not sourced well enough for her, and it's all geared at undermining the distinction between landraces and standardized breeds so she can stop people from applying the word "landrace" to horse landraces. There doesn't seem to be an organized view that conformation breeding is harmless except for show breeding; it seems to be a issue this one editor is advancing. The editor's intense focus on horse breed articles make me wonder whether she's a current or former professional horse breeder. The user's edits almost completely dominate our horse articles. It's mostly a lot of good work, but also a disturbing level of one-editor control, with some resulting biases that are proving very difficult to rectify. At any rate, there is a very common view that "irresponsible" breeding (insert any definition you want to make up here) is responsible for all sorts of problems, such as German Shepherd dog hip dysplasia, the agressiveness of certain breeds, etc., etc., but the entire point of conservation focus on landraces is that all breeding to standards dangerously reduces the gene pools of our domestic animals, and this is very well sourced at Landrace, so this constant string of disbelief edits has to stop. This kind of nonsense would not be tolerated if it were anti-vaxxers changing the Vaccination article to include anti-scientific, personal beliefs like these.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR is a red line, but WP:GAMING the clock to avoid the redline is still editwarring and WP:ANEW can look into it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dean Ornish So many medical claims so little evidence

Dean Ornish is a physician who promotes a lifestyle-driven approach, to cure practically everything is seems. I may work on it, but I would also welcome other editors assistance. VViking_TalkEdits 08:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

‪Exorcism of Roland Doe‬

Resolved

 – Remedied undue weight problems, unreliable sources removed

• ‪Exorcism of Roland Doe‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article leans toward a Christian religious interpretation of events (supernatural type stuff occurred) and conclusions (exorcism is real) based on sources such as Paulist Press, and others. I brought up the issue on the article Talk page, but it looks like NPOV is being interpreted as "balance" between Christian views and "skeptics", so my changes have been subsequently reverted. Other eyes or opinions appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I did remove the book but it's used on the article 5 times. I think it should be removed altogether. Goblin Face (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if that is a fair assessment of the book. It is written by two professors and AFAICT does not say exorcism is real. While the authors may be persuaded that the facts indicate it was a true exorcism, what determines reliability is whether we can reasonably expect those authors to report the facts accurately. TFD (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two professors who believe "Although they are not frequent, exorcisms are necessary for casting out the demonic" and "Cases of genuine possession cannot be explained by psychiatry" etc. [38] No journal would print this stuff, it's not about accuracy of fact, it's about religious belief, published by a religious press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yuck! There are also related issues with William S. Bowdern, Raymond J. Bishop, Walter Halloran, Edward Hughes (exorcist). jps (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theory

Resolved

 – Keep per AfD and rewritten

Actually, it would be more appropriate to file this at OR noticeboard, but since there are many fringe "experts/competents" following this board, their inputs will be valuable I guess. There seems no well established topic/concept of "fringe theory" in literature, other than wikipedia guideline WP:FRINGE. Neither other encyclopedias nor dictionaries have such entry in their databases. Google book search points either to a review (which means the book does not discuss such concept) or to wikipedia articles. The ones mentioning "fringe theory" seems as published after the birth of "fringe theory" topic/guideline/concept in wikipedia. Even encyclopedia.com does not have such an article. Per WP:TITLE, we/wikipedia should not manufacture topics/articles out of nothing, which would be either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If there is no source discussing such concept in a serious sense, then the most wise thing to do is to delete or rename the article pertaining to that concept. In addition to that, it would be better to rename WP:FRINGE guideline to "fringe views" or something similar, due to the scientific connotation of the term "theory". Logos (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that fringe theory is WP:SYNTH. At the very least "theory" seems like it's not the correct word and we explain that in our guideline, in fact. jps (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But, searching a little different brings more than thousand books. Despite the ones prior to 2000 prove might prove the existence of "fringe theory" concept before wikipedia, none of them seems non-trivial. Logos (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should be nominated for deletion. TFD (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this source might be a good start to find out who coined this term first. Logos (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. We all know what a "fringe theory" means and might use it from time to time in polite conversation. That doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic. For comparison, look at this search for the term "foolhardy attempt". jps (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but if there is any recognised/established definition/description of "fringe theory" concept in "expert witnessing" area of legal systems, then this might be a grounds for inclusion. Logos (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In US jurisprudence, the relevant standards to consider are the Frye standard and the Daubert standard, neither of which refer explicitly to "fringe theories". jps (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The article definitely needs work. Several of the citations are incomplete and additional citations are needed. I hope the article gets some much needed attention from the editors here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fringe_theory 10 days is fair enough; noone seems hopeful about this article. Logos (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• "it would be better to rename WP:FRINGE guideline to "fringe views" or something similar, due to the scientific connotation of the term "theory"." That seems completely silly. It doesn't matter if an article exists on the topic or not in deciding whether to use the phrase as a term of art on wikipedia; the word doesn't have to satisfy the notability criteria of wikipedia for us to use it on wikipedia. I would be suprised if anyone even checked if it satisfied notability before using the phrase on wikipedia to describe subjects. What language we use does not depend on notability. Wikipedia has a certain amount of terminology we use, and fringe theory is one such example. We use the term more broadly than most sources do, because it's a term of art for use in wikipedia, Second Quantization (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While posting I didn't think the two separate issues (one with fringe theory and the other with WP:FRINGE) I raised might be perceived as fully correlated/interrelated mistakenly, but it seems it might have been seen so. That is; deleting/renaming fringe theory would/should not have any consequence on WP:FRINGE. In fact, it was a little obvious from what I proposed as alternative: "fringe views" is not more notable than "fringe theories". Logos (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy

I've raised pov issues there about the length and content of some of the entries on this list, as well as the inclusion of some with no articles. I think it should be more like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The lengthier entries are mainly those of those who oppose evolution and such. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just the term "creation-evolution controversy" makes me a bit uncomfortable, TBH. I know we have other articles like MMR vaccine controversy, but in the specific case of evolution VS creationism, the term "controversy" is a classic creationist weasel word ("Teach the Controversy" etc) used to imply scientific controversy. Kolbasz (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"debate" would be a more neutral term. I agree there is no "controversy". Bhny (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm convinced that "debate" is any different or better than "controversy". Both feel like they are giving too much weight to creationists. Beyond the fact that anything in science is technically up for debate, by mainstream standards, the debate between evolution and creationism happened over a hundred years ago, and the creationists lost. I think if anything I slightly prefer the "controversy" wording, since creationism is wrapped up in various legitimate political controversies about what will be taught to children in public schools and whether you can opt your children out of learning about evolution. I'm not even sure this is a significant controversy on the scale of the US, much less the whole English-speaking world, but at least there's a case to be made there. If this article is to be simply renamed, maybe we should consider dropping "evolution" and leaving it as "creationism controversy" or something of that nature, to indicate that it is very much a one-sided situation.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: @0x0077BE: I would support "dispute". Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a false dichotomy inherent in the proposition. Most creationist scientists now seem to acknowledge that evolution by natural selection occurs but dispute the robustness of it. If anything the "dispute" is over whether there is irreducible complexity of single- cell organisms, whether barriers to speciation can be demonstrated, and whether the existence of a non-evolved and uniquely homo sapien "soul" can be demonstrated. It is error, I think, to conflate these disputes under a single heading, tho. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible invasion by ISHAR on Wikipedia articles

Forgive me if this has already been raised but there is a new project by a bunch of fringe proponents looking to create an alternative to wikipedia [39]. Basically they are annoyed their "evidence" for alternative medicine is ignored. All fine I guess they can do what they want. But the owner of the group has turned up on the James Randi foundation forum and has admitted that he and his team are going to insert a load of sources into Wikipedia [40] he also claims "We do not seek to change Wikipedia's rules, but operate within them" which is nonsense of course as all he and his team want to do is insert a load of fringe papers on Wikipedia, he also writes "The primary & secondary sources referenced on ISHAR are peer-reviewed or the academic equivalent (depending on discipline), and anything we contribute to any Wikipedia articles will only be high-quality, peer-reviewed sources." Please keep an eye on this, I don't know who all the ISHAR members are (apparently Deepak is involved) but be sure to expect fringe material being added into alternative medicine related articles possibly soon. Goblin Face (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup - a clear announcement of off-Wikipedia collaboration aimed at promoting their website (amongst other things). A clear COI, and one that needs watching. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I recognize many of the people on the board. The thing is that they are not altogether honest with themselves about how their ideas are perceived outside of a groupthink of mind-is-not-body true believers. Whether this goes by the euphemism "consciousness studies" or "quantum mysticism" or what have you, nearly forty-odd-years of putting together libraries of their own thoughts without outside consideration won't lead to a library that Wikipedia is liable to take seriously. My hope is that they will use ISHAR, if it gets off the ground, as a rallying point to try to clean up and clarify their beliefs internally. We may see users come by from time-to-time arguing that the resource should be used here, but WP:FRIND will take care of whether or not this is the case. Will they archive skeptical WP:PARITY to their claims? I somehow doubt it. jps (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

David E. Kaiser

David E. Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An extra set of eyes on the section pertaining to the conspiracy book, The Road to Dallas might be helpful. An editor with a COI has been removing material that is critical of the book. Additional opinions might be necessary to ensure stability of the article. - Location (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Lonnie Zamora incident

Lonnie Zamora incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since March, this article has been tagged for improvement. Is it improvable?

Incidentally, part of the reason that New Mexico ranks so highly as a UFO hotspot is because there are two scientific ballooning facilities in its vicinity, one in the eastern part of the state and one just east of the state in Palestine, TX. The high atmospheric winds run east to west.

jps (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, the article gives massively undue weight to a credulous book written by non-notable ufologist Ray Stanford and huge (possibly copyvio) copypasted quotes ostensibly from Zamora. There's some OR sections that emphasize the idea that the UFOs speed and acceleration, local weather conditions, and "fused sand" rule out any conventional explanations. (I love the small section where conventional explanations are rebutted and dismissed in Wikipedia's voice) There may possibly be independent sources to construct an objective article from, but I haven't found any. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I found various news reports regarding the allegations; a bit in Popular Science. There are some other sources that might squeeze by. My own view is that there is enough to form a reliable sourced article, but I think we would need to raze what we have here. - Location (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So that interested editors can be made aware, I've brought it up on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati symbolism

New article that needs a lot of attention. It seems to be a hodge-podge of conspiracy theory stuff pretending to be a legitimate article. There may be a legitimate article under all the Fringe conspiracy stuff ... but if so, I can't find it. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Electronic dissolution

Resolved

 – redirected

Electronic dissolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "Electronic dissolution is an Urban legend of the conspiracy theory class..." Are there any reliable sources discussing this? Redirect to Mind control? - Location (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oy. No sources except conspiracy rantings. Redirect to mind control. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Brugger

Resolved

 – redirected

Peter Brugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't tell if this person (or the theory they are supposedly known for) is notable enough for their own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable enough for his own article as there is very little about him but certainly notable in the field of autoscopy/OBE research for his respectable neuroscience publications. I think a redirect to autoscopy would be suitable. Goblin Face (talk)

New route for fringe groups to "fix" their articles

So I've had the Generation Rescue article on my watchlist for a while and it's been fairly stable. Until this. It seems that GR went straight to OTRS and got substantial parts of the article that portrayed GR in a negative light removed. The only line in the article commenting on their fringe views is now "its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community". Errr, some? That's it? Since this is done as an OTRS action, there is no real discussion allowed on this - see the talk page discussion. And of course, the OTRS volunteer is in contact with GR and they are "preparing a draft which will be submitted". So GR will be allowed to rewrite the article with an OTRS stamp of approval. Should be fun as more groups adopt this approach! Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Something similar at Daniel Amen recently, with an OTRS volunteer saying edits countering theirs now needed to be "cleared" before being made. Thing is though, I don't believe there is any policy basis for this and it's an OTRS volunteer overreach. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. It's the same OTRS volunteer on that article as well. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I would presume this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard - that OTRS volunteer needs to lose their powers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting! The current discussion at Talk:Generation Rescue describes what's happening there. Please investigate to see where else this is happening. We need a lot more eyes on this. "Overreach" is true, but that's putting it mildly. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

One person can override consensus? QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_whitewashed.3B_when_reverted.2C_the_whitewashing_happens_again_as_a_supposedly_official_.22OTRS_action.22_that_must_not_be_reverted_.22without_permission.22

This appears to have been backed off from, after it got a bit of sunshine on it. I suspect the OTRS volunteer thought they were acting in good faith, but were rather reckless and didn't bother to actually check what they were told by the fringe organization, which is exceptionally reckless if you're going to then drop the "must not revert me!" claim. The ANI discussion continues; if there's any other examples of this, I'd bring it up there.

Last year there was a similar kind of incident[41] at Deepak Chopra where an OTRS volunteer was essentially enacting edits requested by Chopra via an OTRS correspondent, against NPOV. Eventually it turned out this correspondent (also a pov-pushing editor of the article) was connected to Chopra.[42] This suggests to me we have a systemic problem here where probably well-intentioned volunteers with a shaky grasp of neutrality policy are being somehow led to believe they have super-editor powers allowing them to insist on content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check the previous version of Deepak Chopra. Part of the article was gutted and whitewashed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only way to avoid this problem in the future is to demand that the rules forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Brangifer. This is a serious issue that needs clear guidelines put in place. No intimidation, false claims of authority or involvement with editing directed by COI "secret" correspondence. Clear rationale based in policy with examination of existing sources and new ones to propose changes on talk pages should be established as policy, except in clear BLP cases. No involved editing, no hand waving references to confidential off wiki communications, no assertions of authority just following policy and guidelines in particular COI, NPOV, RS etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• As an OTRS volunteer, I have made a number of edits. I am after all just as entitled as any other WPedian to edit an article on request from a user. If its simple, or hard to explain what to ask for, or in my speciality, I just do it. I routinely deal on wiki with COI editors and corporate articles, and that's what I deal with at OTRS also. What I can not do is claim superior authority in doing so,and that seems to be what's at question here. What I might sometimes need do, but have never actually had occasion to, is to make an edit on the basis of private identifying information, as is done by those OTRS volunteers working with copyright permission. If I say an edit is due to BLP considerations as an OTTS response, it's the same as any such warning I might give as an admin for something I see on-wiki. There are quite a number of OTRS volunteers, and any of us is capable of checking each others, just as admins are--though not all OTRS volunteers are admins, the actual qualifications and quality of vetting is considerable higher than for adminship. I am aware of a number of fellow admins I consider reckless, and I look at their work from time to time: I gave this as my reason for getting the mop in the first place. At OTRS, I have relatively less experience than many others, and I don;t currently do that. I am, however, aware of efforts being made to give additional training to ORTS volunteers, and to keep a watch on what goes on there. But any abuse will be obvious, and can be dealt with on wiki--the actual editing is not a secret process like oversight, not even a semi-secret process like speedy deletion. The only part which is private is knowing whom the correspondents are. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, DGG, you fulfil the role, as I would have expected, correctly and responsibly. However, in this case we have an OTRS editor who clearly did not, and, to date, I don't think has acknowledged that. To quote MrBill3, there was "intimidation, false claims of authority", and "hand waving references to confidential off wiki communications". As far as I can see, he took the word of the (COI) correspondent and blanket removed sourced "negative" details. When called on this, he eventually backed down, a little, after the foregoing events. I believe this was the second occasion, at least. What do you think should happen, both in this case, and to prevent future recurrences? Begoon ^talk 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave my view of this specific case at the ANI discussion (to summarize, removal of the material was in my opinion correct, though I would have argued it purely on the merits. For why it was correct, see my discussion there. Even sourced material defending the truth can be prejudicial overkill. Insisting on including it is promotionalism , albeit promotionalism of a good cause. I think, in fact, that OTTS acted, just as it should, to prevent prejudicial edits, though I would have worded things differently, and responded differently had I run into opposition. But, fuller training for OTRS agents in how to respond, and how to intervene, has long been needed, and is forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You did comment at the ANI, I missed that, my apologies for asking you to repeat it. I think your comment "though I would have argued it purely on the merits" is probably central. Perception is all, and when an editor breezes into a contentious article and makes changes with basically the rationale "secret squirrel - I know stuff you don't - don't alter my important action without 'clearing' it with me", then it gets folks backs up. From that point things are never going to go well. I'm sure, DGG, had you handled this, it would have gone very differently - even if there was not universal agreement for your actions. Regular editors need to see the rationale behind these actions, and there should have been no problem being transparent here. Nothing I can see required the "I can't tell you why I'm doing this" approach. That will result, rightly or wrongly, in a fear that COI edits are being made by proxy without proper process or consensus, via a "back-door". I'm encouraged by your comments about training. Notwithstanding any of that, I can fully understand why folks here want to see some acknowledgement of the errors in approach at least, to be reassured that these concerns are understood and addressed. Begoon ^talk 07:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

First I want to say I have a great deal of respect for DGG as an editor and believe they probably have a solid grasp of policy and it's application. I am still left with a question concerning "as entitled as any other WPedian to edit an article on request from a user". It is my understanding of COI that if one is editing on request from a user with a COI that is COI editing and the guideline should be followed. As Begoon said I think if performed by DGG there would likely have been little or no problem as any edit "argued purely on the merits" on talk is in policy editing. I do remain concerned with "If its simple, or hard to explain what to ask for, or in my speciality, I just do it." I don't see the harm in mentioning the issue on talk and stating the rationale for an edit and that it originated from a party with a COI. This creates transparency, follows policy, allows for comment and likely provides initial rationale for the edit. I can see not waiting on low traffic talk pages, but to create a section to allow for discussion and consensus when making an edit based on input from outside the community (the exact input not being visible, interactive discussion not being possible, clear identification of the motivation for the edit not possible). Individual editors with a history of edits, articles edited, subject area covered, comments on talk pages, disclosure on user page etc. allow the community to interact with known (but anonymous) entities whose behavior, point of view etc. can be reasonably evaluated. An OTRS agent acting on behalf of an undisclosed party (likely with a COI, undoubtedly with a POV, motivation, etc.) eliminates this element of community and consensus. Good OTRS agents with a solid grasp of policy ameliorates this to some extent but it is still a concern. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have posted elsewhere but think it needs widespread attention that there should be clear, explicit and prominent policy that "When an edit by an OTRS team member is driven/inspired/guided/suggested by a party with a COI that MUST be declared on the talk page of the article." I think this is well within existing policy however, that policy does not seem to be adhered to or clear enough. I think the issue of assertion of authority/"super editor status" is an outlier that is being adequately addressed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This seems to be at the heart of some of the problems we keep witnessing. Edits made by OTRS volunteers are by nature COI edits, and are thus proxy/meat puppetry for people/organizations who naturally will tend to pull content away from NPOV. That some OTRS volunteers don't understand this is very alarming. The way to stop this is to make it very explicit, in writing, for all to see. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. Note however that in the Chopra case I have mentioned, when I suggested a COI aspect and it was raised at BLP/N. There was no consensus the OTRS agent had a COI, on the basis the agent was acting as a disinterested advocate. So this may be less than clear-cut. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think transparency is urgently needed. Nothing in posting that a COI suggestion prompted the editor weakens or prevents policy based arguments or improvements. Acting as an advocate based on secret correspondence without disclosure makes the notion of "disinterested" difficult to assume. I am not suggesting that edits be posted as proposals and await consensus just that the connection with a COI party to the edit be disclosed and such disclosure be required by policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Black Eyed Children

Black Eyed Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IPs keep removing criticism, or adding pro-supernatural "balance" [43]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Plants for Human Health Institute etc.

• Plants for Human Health Institute (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Mary Ann Lila (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just possibly enough for one article here about this institute and its "world-renowned" director - but the sourcing is currently very poor, medical claims are made and there's indication of fringeiness not least in the Dr Oz aspect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a minor trim and some tagging. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Face lift dentistry

Face lift dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is exactly what you think it is. I strongly suspect there's some paid editing here somewhere and it was an "AFC special" so the history is a mess. This isn't actually a "procedure" (a claim I've since removed from the article) but a "product" - a series of undefined and not-pre-determined procedures and whatever else promising a "younger look" via dentistry. Dismissed by actual dental experts as a "fad" and a "dangerous" one at that, our article (until my edit) read like a press release and beyond the lede, it still does. It made/makes a series of medical claims about the effectiveness of the treatment with nary a WP:MEDRS source that I can see. I'm not convinced we should have an article about this at all, but if we do, it shouldn't be like this. Feel free to help out if you have a spare 10 minutes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Deprogramming

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

This is a mess of an article. See also: [44]

I made a start on editing it, but, short of WP:TNT, I'm struggling, and would appreciate help. Sorry if this is the wrong place, I wasn't sure. Begoon ^talk 12:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve

Universal rotation curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone with some relevant knowledge able to take a look at this one? Basically one author, also linking it from other articles, but I'm not able, myself, to tell if it's a genuinely notable topic, or not. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 00:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable at all. Basically something that this guy keeps promoting without success to the rest of the academic community. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal rotation curve jps (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I suspected it might be. Begoon ^talk 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AWARE study by Sam Parnia

Need some opinion on this please, it is currently on the near-death experience and out-of-body experience article. Parnia is a fringe proponent who has claimed for nearly 12 years now that consciousness is not in the brain etc and that people can leave their bodies during an OBE/NDE. The problem is that every time he sets up an experiment to test this hypothesis i.e. suspended targets they fail. I personally do not understand Parnia's comment. Why wouldn't the results be hallucinations or illusions... ? nobody saw the targets which was the purpose of the study. Also note that the paper was published by a lot of different scientists who don't all agree with Parnia's interpretation. Is this undue weight? I have not yet seen any critical or skeptical commentary on the paper.

"On October 06, 2014 the results of the study were published in the journal Resuscitation. [45]. Among those who reported a perception of awareness and completed further interviews, 46 per cent experienced a broad range of mental recollections in relation to death that were not compatible with the commonly used term of NDEs. These included fearful and persecutory experiences. Only 9 per cent had experiences compatible with NDEs and 2 per cent exhibited full awareness compatible with OBEs with explicit recall of 'seeing' and 'hearing' events. One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: "This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions [...] In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn't resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events [...] Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice." [46]. Goblin Face (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary study, which as you pointed out has a generally fatal flaw of, "whoops let's change the outcome measured after the fact, since the outcome when the study was devised didn't work." This is one of the major redflags in research, the study should be clearly described and outcomes established in advance. Note Parnia refused to release the raw data when the study was first completed (and the original outcome was not met), another red flag, "we don't want anybody doing indpendent analysis of the data, we would rather find the interpretation that most closely aligns with the desired finding." The sources are the primary study itself and an article based on information from the institution sponsoring the study. Secondary, independent analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the study and it's conclusions and implications is what is needed. Not cherry picking Parnia's comments from primary sources. I seriously doubt this study will hold up to scrutiny (the Greyson NDE scale, hmmm, one claim of visual awareness salvaged, hmmm, recall of a major event after some time, discussion, description etc. [they tell you what who did to you when you are coded, it is required], hmmm), even if it did the response in academia will most likely be, "perhaps further study is warranted". - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I think the Parnia quote should be removed or trimmed down even more than it is, unfortunately a user has re-added it back in. Here is Steven Novella's take on the AWARE study, we can use this reference [47]. Goblin Face (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver cord

Same concerns as the poster above me, just for a different article. I have no idea what this whole nonsense about a "silver cord" is but it sounds like a hodgepodge of new wave religious terms. The article claims that "metaphysical studies" (whatever that means) has extensively poured over the idea of astral bodies being connected to plain, earthly ones. I know of no major university philosophy department that regards any of this as anything more than new wave religion. The series of articles linked to it need some extensive clean up in terms of style. Blurpeace 09:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good candidate for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I get a handful of hits in the Google News Archives: [48]. An argument could be made for a redirect to Astral projection as a plausible search term. - Location (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to say AfD is the way to go. The existing sources are mostly self published, the article reads like an essay. The above search only gave me one result, with no substantial coverage, barely a passing mention. If an argument for redirect is made at AfD it can be evaluated.

Alice Bailey and Lucis Trust might also need a once over the latter in particular. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathists are upset

... about Wikipedia's article, and have signed an open letter to Jimbo written by Dana Ullman and published in HuffPo.[49]. The article here may need more than normal monitoring. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lovely... Thanks for the notification. It's already bad enough with our likely sock puppet trolling the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please notify the editors at Talk:Homeopathy about this. It is the last part of the article ("Practical Solutions...") which we need to address. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus, again...

I know this was posted on less than a week ago (I actually saw that post here and went over there to help out).

But there's an uncomfortable number of users (at least two) suggesting we remove phrases like "most scholars" and "most historians". The fact is that 99.999999% of scholars in the relevant fields (New Testament studies, Historical Jesus research, etc.) consider a guy named Jesus to have at least existed. The majority of historians of other fields (Celtic studies, modern China, late-Heian period Japan, etc., etc.) have not stated an opinion on whether Jesus existed.

It's my opinion that non-specialist opinions from those in unrelated fields should not be taken into account in an encyclopedia article, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. This means that 99.999999% of scholars do indeed allow us to use phrase like "most scholars".

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant field is *history* (ancient history to be precise), not biblical scholarship, so Hijiri's argument does not apply. In addition, we have many sources both inside and outside historical scholarship that impeach the methodological soundness and impartiality of Historical Jesus research. (References supplied on the talk page). It is wrong to misrepresent HJ scholars as historians, quite independently of whether their conclusions agree with those of actual historians. And as it happens we already have authoritative quotations from actual historians that say yes, historians in general believe in the historicity of Jesus and do not take the Christ Myth Theory seriously, so we don't need any pretend-historians to make that statement for them. The views of biblical scholars remain notable of course, and deserve to be quoted, I don't think anyone is disputing that. They should just not be represented in Wikipedia voice. As for the CMT, we have several reliable sources who take it seriously, so whether Hijiri likes it or not, it is going to remain part of the page. I might add that running off to a noticeboard without notifying the editors on the page in question is bad form. This kind of attempted POV censorship needs to be slapped down and slapped down hard. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Terms like "most" or "few" or "some" are a bit weasel-y and feature in WP:WTA. The real trick is to explain without begging the question Template:Whom. We have a few rules such as WP:ITA and WP:YESPOV which may provide some helpful guidelines on how to go about explaining what essentially is uncontroversial (the proposal that there was never any person as Jesus is a fringe hypothesis that borders on a conspiracy theory in the Dan-Brown-ish sense). I think the fringe hypothesis is worthy of at least discussion on the historicity of Jesus page, but it should be couched as such without appeal to who believes what necessarily. If I get a chance, I may take a crack at the wording to see if I can get to a point where this is less problematic. jps (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. In fact it seems like the article itself exists to discuss the fringe conspiracy theory. But pointing out "there is virtually no independent, non-Christian evidence of Jesus' existence" (something that is indisputably true, and "the Testimonium Flavianum is a late Christian interpolation and Tacitus didn't actually talk about the person Jesus", while still fringe, is not quite on the level of "Jesus never existed" and is treated seriously by a number of scholars) and then not pointing out that 99.999999% of reputable scholars find the evidence for Jesus' existence fully convincing, gives the wrong impression to readers. Don't you think that if we have a huge number of reliable sources from the best scholars in the field that all say "virtually all scholars hold this view" we shouldn't go mincing their words and saying "some scholars present X, Y and Z evidence for this view"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL only applies when we say "most scholars say..." without providing a source. The fact is most scholars assume Jesus existed. The argument that most of these scholars are Christian or are descended from Christians is irrelevant. They base their arguments on facts, not their religious beliefs. Furthermore, scholarship does not exist in isolation. If one branch of scholarship is considered to use improper methology then it is not accepted by other branches. For example, pseudoscientific literature, even if accepted by fellow researchers, is not considered science by mainstream scholarship.

The argument for Jesus'; existence is that since numerous people with first or second-hand knowledge of him wrote about him, it is likely that they were writing about an actual person rather than inventing someone they knew never existed. That does not mean of course that the details of his life were accurate, and legends about him probably were invented and incorporated into writings about him.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What seems to be going on (and I confess that it's being a bit hard to follow due to the sheer volume of words) is that there's an attempt being made to suppress we-can-cite-this-with-a-page-number passages from the likes of Bart Ehrman and others of really unquestionable authority to speak for the field when they say that pretty much everyone in the field accepts that there was a historical Jesus (in the sense of there being a real person). As far as I can tell nobody has presented any conflicting authority on this, so I see no problem with leaving those statements in (with their citations). I cannot but conclude that there is some severe viewpoint-pushing going on but with the torrent of responses it's hard to get a handle on exactly what the point is. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One editor said it was driven by Zeitgeist: The Movie, which ties together the creation of Jesus and 9/11, TFD (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE DEFINITELY NEEDS MORE EYES. We've got at least one user trying (desperately...) to include the claim that the resurrection is a widely-accepted historical fact, and at least two users trying to change "most historians" to "a significant minority of historians" because (get this!) "most of the world's trained historians have not published an opinion on the historicity of Jesus". So far everyone here appears to agree with me, but right now it feels like I'm fighting a losing battle on the talk page itself. Can I ask a related question? How do we deal with editors who look like their trolling, asking the same question over and over again even though the page already has an FAQ that answers their question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems: It is true that exceedingly few people not writing about religion and religious history discuss Jesus at all. Christian scholars, amazingly enough, tend to regard the Resurrection as pretty much fact (with only a few exceptions), and Islamic scholars tend to go straight to the Ascension. I would state that the majority of historians who accept the historical existence of Jesus suggest his "mortal remains" (i.e. evidence of an actual death sans Ascension) do not exist. Is there a problem with such a position? Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We'd need a source that says that. Also so as not to prop up one religious view over another we'd need to point out that we don't have the mortal remains for just about any other 1st-century Galilean peasants either. Either way, discussion of the resurrection belongs in the other article. And it's technically not the case that Christian scholars assume the resurrection as a fact. Christians, by definition, believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but Christians who are also historians are not allowed use the resurrection as a historical explanation for the empty tomb, sightings by the apostles, sightings by Paul, etc. The reason is that historians are not allowed resort to miraculous explanations. Dale Martin teaches New Testament studies in Yale, he is a member of a liturgically conservative Episcopalian church, he believes that Jesus was resurrected, but as a historian he accepts the basic rule of his field that miracles are not valid historical explanations, since by definition miracles are the least probable occurrence, and history is defined as what probably happened in the past.

Christians who state that the resurrection is a historical fact are perfectly entitled to say that, but when they say that they are not doing history; they are doing theology. And there are apparently plenty of Christians who have degrees in history, but not tenured teaching positions, who publish books that claim to be historical studies but are in fact Christian apologetics. That's why we WP:WEIGH our articles based on reputable tertiary sources like widely-used undergraduate textbooks.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that there are myths that Jesus left behind no mortal remains similar to Mary, Elijah, Rama, or even perhaps Enoch, these somewhat popular mythological claims don't belong in any historicity article -- inasmuch as they are generally considered ahistorical (I suppose that can be noted as it is a feature of higher criticism, but that's rather incidental to the major questions of historicity which involve what verifiable information about the past can be gleaned from a mythological text). That's about as far as we really should go. To claim that the mortal remains of a human who lived don't exist is a rather extraordinary claim, and we would require somewhat extraordinary evidence to isolate this as a relevant historical statement. jps (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that his mortal remains have not been identified does not mean they do not exist. They may well exist. Like the man said, "Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam—and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel?". Paul B (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Bigfoot's mortal remains have not been identified does not mean he does not exist. He may well exist. Like the man said, "The other night upon the stair/I saw a man who wasn't there..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.134.190 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 September 2014

About Bigfoot we say "Most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax". I'd love to see the reaction if we had the equivalent sentence in Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd analogy. We don't have the mortal remains of almost any notable person from antiquity (unless they were Egyptian of course). Hence the reference to Alexander. No remains. Virtually all Roman emperors. No remains. Re ""Most scientists...", we don't say those about Jesus, because that's exactly not what most scholar think. They think the opposite. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you say, "Virtually all prominent atheist historians (in 'the relevant fields') agree..." No, you can't. So it's not fringe, then. zzz (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the idea or academic belief/support that Jesus did not exist, fringe?

Is it considered a fringe idea or belief that Jesus was not a historical person that existed for the purposes of mention, with sources in the article: Historicity of Jesus? Are such theories and academics/scholars on the fringe?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In the late 19th and early 20th century there was much more academic support for it than there is today. The Dutch radical school for instance supported it, and they included well-known and respected academics. Nowadays there is very little academic support for it, though a few articles arguing in favour of it have been published in academic magazines, at least one academic conference has been dedicated to it, and a handful of biblical scholars support it, consider it possible or at least worthy of further research. It's always been a highly controversial minority position, but it's not fringe. A lot of the material about it in the popular press might qualify as such however. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would any serious, non-Christian academic bother with the question these days? As can be seen from the anger of the believers here, it would be a dangerous and thankless task. An absence of people studying an unsolved question does not make the question go away. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Belief and opinion are also what supports in favor of there being an historic figure, but it is the consensus opinion. The minority opinion is important for balance if given due weight in an encyclopedic article.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we'd need to make very careful distinctions here - it's not just whether he existed or not; it's also what can be confidently said about him. We can't say "consensus is that he did exist" and not qualify that with a much more detailed description of the consensus, which, from what I can tell, is something along the lines of "but the Bible account is almost certainly inaccurate on almost every point, to some extent or other". Honestly, this seems to be an academic argument - I mean, what does "exist" even mean in this kind of case, where we can't state a single fact confidently?

Now, of course, the consensus agreement is that stories of Jesus was probably based on a real person. And we should say that. But we should also make it clear exactly what that statement means, and make damn sure we're not promoting even fringier claims while saying it. Also, we do need to watch our evidence on this.

Finally, I don't think it's a fringe theory. It's merely a minority view. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

...among those who care. There's several positions on this question. Those who, because of their religion, say he did exist. Those who don't have a religious position, and say that he (probably) existed. Those who say he probably didn't. Those from Christian cultures and background who don't strongly believe, or believe at all, and don't really care. Those from other faiths who don't really care. And those who have never heard of Jesus. Plus others, no doubt, I haven't thought of. Don't ask me to put numbers to these categories. That would only start another argument. So which position is a minority one is very debatable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden is right though that many feel the stories of Jesus are based on a real person and there is some speculation (just as an example) that the stories were based on the Caesars. The article makes conclusions and seems to exclude all else from the article. The Jesus/Caesar theory may even be fringe but could be notable enough for mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The main issue to be dealt with is the question of whether those who have recently studied the subject have used reasonable historical methodology in drawing their conclusions. Although some individuals who have studied the matter recently have used significantly different methodologies and have criticized those used by others, within the basically "historical" field of academia, it does seem to be the case that the active disbelief in the existence of Jesus in some form probably qualifies as fringe as per FRINGE. The lack of active belief in the historicity of the existence of Jesus probably does not qualify as fringe, but probably qualifies as minority, probably small minority, opinion. There is a recent book of conference papers on the issue which I intend to consult today or tomorrow, probably tomorrow given how I've spent time today, which probably addresses the issue more directly, and the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, which is at another location, is a comparatively new reference source which probably says something about the issue as well. I think the statements in those reference works, and those in other recent reference sources, are probably the best sources to use regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There have recently been peer reviewed publications by serious academics and several serious scholars take the possibility seriously and encourage more research. I think that rules out the possibility the CMT should be considered fringe. Davies in particular has criticised Ehrman's attempts to label it as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some recent scholarly comments on the topic: Did Jesus Exist and Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For Richard Carrier's list of academics who support the CMT or think its proponents have a reasonable case, see [50]. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the above is that the CMT in and of itself does not necessarily rule out thehistorical existence of Jesus in some form, unfortunately. The CMT and the existence of some sort of historical Jesus in some form are not so far as I have yet seen thought to be necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain that "fringe" applies to either side. From what I can see, more accurate assessment would be that very few non-Christian sources assert that the evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion, and in that group, more assert that the evidence demonstrates that he probably did exist than that he probably did not. Still, the silence on the topic is somewhat deafening.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lockerbie conspiracy theory

See WP:RSN#Is Patrick Haseldine a reliable source for a statement linking the Lockerbie bombing to the Rössing uranium mine?. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Egonivism" versus " Moralistic therapeutic deism"

Might I have a mighty eye (or two) to this issue? IP editor 68.230.82.133 twice now has added an "Egonivism" section to Moralistic therapeutic deism (itself already a fringe topic) (diff, diff) claiming it to be "commonly referred to with the term egonovism" -- and then describing "egonovism" as something decidedly distinct (more like some kind of Omnism). The sources asserted as supporting as such are either unreliable sources or simply fail to draw the claimed connection between the phrases "Moralistic therapeutic deism" and "Egonovism". DeistCosmos (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Assassination of John F. Kennedy

In Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Alternative but non-conspiracy theories, an editor seeks additional opinions regarding the suitability of adding material from Mortal Error to the conspiracy section in Assassination of John F. Kennedy. - Location (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kahanism

The "Christian support" section of this article currently reads

James David Manning has endorsed aspects of Kahane's ideology.

References

If the only example anyone can find of Christian support is a statement by one minister (made famous because he called Obama's mother "white trash"), then including this section in the article might be giving undue weight to a fringe point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychogram

Related to the graphology discussion above:

• Psychogram (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The (lack of) sourcing does not look promising ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Entrancing Flame

The Entrancing Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Undue weight on a non notable book promoting a fringe theory of spontaneous human combustion should probably be redirected to John E. Heymer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Biodynamic massage

Biodynamic massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a newly-accepted article which needs more attention. It definitely qualifies as a fringe therapy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Project Mogul

Some recent activity editing material related to Project Mogul's relation to the Roswell UFO incident. More eyes, as always, helpful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Astral projection

I just wanted to maybe have some fringe-theory-minded people double check my edit at Astral projection here. The gist is that a user had deleted a sourced lede paragraph about there being no scientific evidence for astral projection and replaced it with an unsourced bit about how science isn't a good tool for evaluating the phenomenon; I reverted that edit and restored the sourced version. My thinking was first of all that sourced content is pretty much always (or actually always) better than unsourced, and secondly that the lede should summarize the article, which has a section on the lack of scientific evidence for AP.

All that said, I'm here because I think the other user is likely acting in good faith, and I understand, even if I largely disagree with, their point about a science vs pseudoscience debate not being useful in (what they describe as) a religious article. Thoughts? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Astral projection is a term that is usually not used within organized religions and it certainly is not only found in the provenance of religions. Rather, it is a term that has been adopted by paranormal enthusiasts for a type of story that shares remarkable similarities to Near death experience stories. It is also used within certain strains of spiritualism, but there isn't any consistency to what is meant when someone invokes the term. New Age religions do not have the benefit of heavy independent scholarship being invested into how their claims were developed unlike, for example, Christian dogma of the Holy Trinity. The subject needs to be treated as a group of claims by those who believe in a kind of enchanted reality for which there is no scientific evidence, and the fact that independent commentators have felt it necessary to explain how and why there scientific evidence for it is part of the notability of the claim. jps (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The talk page indicates that someone thinks that astral projection is beyond the realm of scientific investigations and explanations, and so refutations of the claims should not be mentioned. I imagine the argument goes like this: "Astral projections exists." "Prove it." "It is outside the realm of proof." -Location (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Graphology

Hi! A few days back, I tried to edit the Wikipedia article on Graphology. The edit was reverted as it was described to be "non-neutral" and I was advised to take it to the talk page. I did start a discussion under the title "Need to Revise the Article" [51]. I pointed out that graphology also had several peer-reviewed research studies in support of it. [52] In the edit, I mentioned both invalidating and validating studies and I believe that this is a more neutral article. The NPOV article says that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". However, the present article ignores the many reliable and verifiable studies [53].

Graphology is significantly different from pseudosciences. The Wikipedia article on Fringe Theories gives guidelines for differentiating between psedusciences and questionable science WP:FRINGE/PS . Now, does graphology have a substantial following? Definitely. Does Graphology have supporting research? Yes, it has experimental and clinical studies supporting it. The link is given above. Does graphology involve proposing changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs? Absolutely not! There is nothing mystical about graphology. Handwriting has been clearly described as expressive behaviour by Allport. Modern graphology is founded on empirical research by Abbe Michon (not on sympathetic magic as Beyerstein claims!) Hence, according to the Wikipedia guidelines itself, Graphology fits better under Questionable sciences rather than Pseudosciences and according to the same article, it cannot be described as a pseudoscience.

Graphology is well respected in several countries and in countries like Italy, Hungary and Argentina, graphology is recognized by the ministry of education and it is well supported by psychologists in France, Germany, Switzerland. [54] There are currently four universities in Europe which offer an accredited degree in graphology (The Wikipedia article points that out). As you can see, graphology is different from pseudosciences and should not be classified as one. I have mentioned the above points on the talk page but some editors stick adamantly to their preconceived viewpoint. They also don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject. I edited the article to include both viewpoints as Wikipedia says “The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article”. [55] Remember that I did not present graphology as a well validated science. However, that too was reverted by some editors. The current article ignores many validating studies.

Once again, Graphology is different from pseudosciences - Taught in accredited universities and has several supporting studies. I hope something can be done about this. I'll be more than happy to answer any more questions you may have on the subject. (If you are going to point out to Beyerstein, I highly recommend that you read the book "The Beyerstein Book: A Critical Examination" by an excellent questioned document examiner and graphologist, Marcel Matley. It points out to the misconceptions and lack of understanding Beyerstein had about the subject and the major flaws in his claims). Thanks for reading!

Investimate (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits rise and fall on the merits of the sources. I already see that your claim that there are "several peer-reviewed research studies in support of it" falls rather flat when evaluating the source you cite. Laundry lists that include master's theses and pop psychology articles some of which do not explicitly indicate that this is anything more than pseudoscientific wishful thinking are not a good way to make your case. The other leg of your contention, that graphology is taught in accredited universities, is also not a convincing argument. Most pseudosciences find a home in some university somewhere, you might be surprised to find. Rather, graphology shares the characteristics with other pseudosciences that we discuss on Wikipedia.

If you want to make your case stronger, you will need to pay close attention to WP:FRIND and find sources that are independent of the major individuals and groups who involve themselves in graphology. Rather than posting a laundry list of sources or protestations about university courses, find the best article you can on the subject and show how it has been cited widely as confirmatory even by independent evaluators. I don't see that present yet.

jps (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My HRM teacher said that graphology as a workforce selection tool is very reliable, but it is invalid. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While I compile a lost of supporting studies by independent sources, I would like to say this. Sure, independent sources have done allegedly "invalidating" studies on the subject, but the fact is that this is done at the cost of ignorance. Many of these studies are done by those without any knowledge of the subject. For example, I was reading a study ("Handwriting as a Correlate of Extraversion" in the Journal of Personality Assessment) done to examine graphologists' claim that extraversion could be measured using handwriting analysis. In this study three handwriting measures, line slope (alignment?), letter slant, and letter width were chosen, and the relationship between these measures and extraversion as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory was studied. At the end of the study, they say that "No significant correlations between the handwriting measures and extraversion were found, nor were there significant intercorrelations between the three handwriting measures."

Any good graphologist knows that these three graphic elements alone cannot evaluate extraversion. Writing speed, dimensions of the three zones, left/right trends, spatial arrangement (margins, word and letter spacing etc.), connective forms (garlands, arcades, angles, threads etc.) are have to be considered in relation to each other in order to get a proper picture about the tendencies of extraversion of the writer. About the intercorrelation among these three elements, it is very often that one comes across a handwriting with a left slant and wide middle zone letters. It usually points to conflicts within the writer. It would be foolish to think that there must be an intercorrelation among these features. Graphology is not just about saying that "the writer is extroverted"; rather, it can identify in what situations the writer may be very extroverted and in what situations, his/her extraversion is limited and by what. It is not about just identifying individual traits but rather about giving a whole dynamic picture of the character of the writer, handwriting being expressive movement.

I can't put this better than Victor Clark, a member of the American Psychological Association, Division 24 and a certified graphologist by the American Handwriting Analysis Foundation (AHAF), does.

"The validity for graphology has been demonstrated in both clinical (Cronje & Roets, 2013) and experimental research (Binet, 1905?) with statistical methods that preserve the individual wholeness of the subject in a psychobiologically dynamic model of development (Magnusson & Torestad, 1993; Murphy, 2011; Stern). In contrast, when clinical and experimental subjects’ individual wholeness is fragmented by psychometric inferences made from rating individual differences against a group mean (Allport, 1924) verification of graphology cannot be validated because of low statistical correlation scores resulting from this classical test theory method of validity verification.

These low correlations between graphological judgments against the ranking of personality traits is simply a psychometric error in the inferences made when interpreting this type of data analysis: Statistical inferences at the population level of group analysis cannot logically have explanatory value at the individual level of analysis (Lamiell, 2003).In other words, rating scales of individual differences in personality traits that analyze personality differences at the group or population level with personality trait testing methods do not directly correspond (correlate) when compared with the analysis of dynamic patterns in expressive movement of handwriting at the individual level of character evaluation using graphology (Allport & Vernon, 1933).

Low correlations between graphology judgement and personality rating simply confirms the distinction between a graphological analysis at the individual level contrasted with analysis of personality test scores at the group or population level."

Investimate (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is true that, as you intimate, independent sources aren't doing the necessary work to make fair or high-quality evaluations of graphology, that's a situation for which there is no remedy here. We cannot right such great wrongs. We report what the sources say when they meet the standards outlined in WP:RS. jps (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point and it certainly is sad that nothing can be done about it. The tagging as a "pseudoscience" has, in my experience, turned many away from this fascinating field with great potential. Many assume that it is just another pseudoscience and think that it is like phrenology and astrology. Anyways, there are some supporting studies by independent sources, most in German. Let me see if I can find them. Scientific graphology was founded and developed in Europe. I think this is the reason why it is well accepted there. In America, just as there are many pop-psych books, there are umpteen number of books written by authors with minimal knowledge of the subject. Many are highly oversimplified versions and they make extravagant claims. Anyone who reads a book on the subject can call himself/herself a graphologist. If I remember correctly, in Israel, in order to become a member of the Scientific Society for Graphology in Israel (SSGI), one needs to have at lease a bachelors degree in psychology. This is also true in a few other countries. Investimate (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The best thing that can be done by you is to convince some high quality sources to publish supporting materials about the subject. Flagship journals, in particular, would be the standard that we would look for as WP:REDFLAG would have us want to evaluate carefully any claims that would run contrary to the criticism which seems to come from more than a few big names and prominent organizations. jps (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Here is a short list of reliable supporting research studies on the validity of graphology. I've only selected the ones in English.

references

Binet, A. (1907). Crucial experiments in graphology. Philosophical Review, 64, 22-40. Crumbaugh, J.C., & Stockholm, E. (1977). Validation of graphoanalysis by “global” or “holistic” method. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 403-410. Drory, A. (1986). Graphology and job performance: a validation study. In B. Nevo (ed.). Scientific aspects of graphology. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Eysenck, H. (1945). Graphological analysis and psychiatry: An experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, 35, 70-81. Lemke, E., & Kirchner, J. (1971). A multivariate study of handwriting, intelligence and personality correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 35, 584 – 592. Lewinson, T., & Zubin, J., (1944). Handwriting Analysis. King’s Crown Press. 2nd Ed. Linton, H., Epstein, L., & Hartford, H. (1962). Personality and perceptual correlates of primary beginning strokes in handwriting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 15, 159-170. Nevo, B. (1989). Validation of graphology though use of a matching method based on ranking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1331-1336. Oosthuizen, S. (1990). Graphology as predictor of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 715-721 Riggio, R.E., Lippa, R., & Salinas, C. (1990). The display of personality in expressive movement. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 16-31. Satow, R., & Rector, J. (1995). Using gestalt graphology to identify entrepreneurial leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 263-270. Sonnemann, U., & Kerman, J.P. (1962). Handwriting analysis—a valid selection tool. Personnel, 39, 8-14. Van Rooij, J.J.F., & Hazelzet, A.M. (1997). Graphologists’ assessment of extraversion compared with assessment by means of a psychological test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 919-28. Wellingham-Jones, P. (1989). Evaluation of the handwriting of successful women through the Roman-Staempfli Psychogram. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 999-1010. Williams, M., Berg-Cross, G., & Berg-Cross, L. (1977). Handwriting characteristics and their relationship to Eysenck’s Extraversion-Introversion and Kagan’s Impulsivity-Reflectivity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 291-298.

Investimate (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing recent then. That would be because this nonsense was debunked a while ago. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have quoted studies from the 70's, 80's and 90's. Please look up the supposedly "invalidating" studies. They are from the same time period if not earlier! Please do look up your sources before making such comments. Graphology certainly is no nonsense! Investimate (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I request that graphology be made to come at least under the section of "Questionable Sciences" rather than "Pseudosciences" which it is not, as per Wikipedia's guidelines require. WP:FRINGE/PS

Investimate (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's in Shermer:

• Berger J (2002). Shermer M (ed.). Handwriting Analysis and Graphology. ABC-CLIO. pp. 116–120. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help)

which is a good RS for it being pseudoscience. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Graphology is clearly a pseudoscience, and must be labeled as such according to our policies. It has failed to thrive and produce results that can be replicated and confirmed, and its predictions have no more proven value that wild, uneducated guessing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The pages mentioned in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudosciences is a very poor description of what graphology is. Graphology is NOT about saying that the letter 'k' deals with violence, 's' with money etc. That is simply outrageous. Yes, there are many pop-graphology books which make such claims written by "graphologists" with limited knowledge of the subject (just like there are pop-psych books). However, this not not what graphology is. Graphology involves analysis of the writing movement, form, distribution of space and analysis of the stroke in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the personality of the writer. You cannot take the most extravagant claims made by some "graphologists" and credit all graphologists with it. Gordon Allport in "Studies in Expressive Movement (with Vernon, P. E. (1933) New York: Macmillan.)" said that handwriting was expressive behaviour along with Body Language reveals several aspects of the writer's personality. (Also see Riggio, R.E., Lippa, R., & Salinas, C. (1990). The display of personality in expressive movement. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 16-31.) Allport gave handwriting a special place. He said that handwriting is a "crystallized form of gesture, an intricate but accessible prism which reflects many, if not all, of the inner consistencies of personality".

A few major misunderstanding in the Skeptic Encyclopedia:

"Traits have many meanings": A cough doesn't necessarily mean that the person has a viral infection in the respiratory tract. It could be caused by a number of other health problems. By taking all the symptoms into consideration, a medical practitioner can pinpoint the disease which has caused it. Similarly, the meaning of a graphic trait depends on the other graphic traits in the writing. That is why a trait may have many interpretations.

Environmental factors: Yes, environmental factors do affect handwriting, just as it does affect body language. For example: Crossing the arms in front of the body indicates defensiveness. However, the same gesture may be used by an individual in cold climate. Also, it would be erroneous to make a conclusion by observing the body language of a person in a crowded bus. Similarly, the environmental conditions do affect handwriting and an ideal sample to be analyzed is a sample written under normal conditions. If a person is sleepy or tired, yes the writing will slow down, but the writing will also show some other changes - low pressure, neglected forms, slack movement, change in slant and size etc. which point to the fact that the writing was not written in "normal" conditions but in a state of fatigue. Every knowledgeable graphologist is aware of this. A analysis is made by professional graphologists only after ruling out environmental causes.

An excellent book on graphology which clearly describes the environmental factors which affect handwriting is "Experiments with Handwriting" by Robert Saudek. Only if the author had taken the time to read that before making such comments.

If the author didn't know, graphology does have nationality considerations. Printed writing does not have to mean "constructed minded". Nationality of the writer is one of the things a graphologist must know about before interpreting the various handwriting elements and that is known by every knowledgeable graphologist.

Dr. Marc Seifer in his book "The Definitive Book of Handwriting Analysis: The Complete Guide to Interpreting Personalities, Detecting Forgeries, and Revealing Brain Activity Through the Science of Graphology", extrapolating from Dr. Rudolph Pophal , Dr. Alexander Luria and Dr. Werner Wolff wonderfully describes the neuropsychology of handwriting (Part 2 of the book). He talks about how the five major areas (cerebral cortex, limbic system, basal ganglia, cerebellum and the spinal cord are involved in the process of writing and how handwriting can accurately reveal mental, emotional and physical states of the writer at the time of writing. A must read for skeptics.

Investimate (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's helpful linking to a number of fringey articles here which badly need attention/deletion! Look, for any pseudoscience there may be devotees who write about it, advocate it, believe in it, love it, and make their living from it. The long-settled mainstream rational view of graphology from outside that bubble however is that it's pseudoscientific rubbish. To be neutral, Wikipedia shall reflect that mainstream view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if you have no knowledge of the subject nor about Allport, Luria or Saudek. Obviously facts cannot convince highly biased individuals. Have you read a word of what I have written? Apparently not! Nor does it seem that you have read the Wikipedia guidelines for differentiating a pseudoscience and a questionable science....

Investimate (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's a current psychology textbook which flat-out refers to "the pseudoscience of graphology" and uses it as the basis of an exercise for students to exlore bogus claims and hone their critical thinking:

• Goodwin CJ (2010). Research In Psychology: Methods and Design. John Wiley & Sons. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-470-52278-3.

When something is labelled as a canonical example of pseudoscience even within its own field then you've got about as clear a case as you could hope for. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, in many European countries graphology is widely accepted and used by psychologists (Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary etc.) and in some, it is even recognized by the Education Ministry [56]. The science is more advanced and researched there. It is mainly in the US that one sees this kind of skepticism, mainly due to the large number of incompetent graphologists who have made several false claims regarding what graphology can reveal and what a graphologist studies. The fault is not with the science but with the practitioners.

Investimate (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to this study it is a "myth" propagated by the graphology industry that it's widely used in Europe, which has the damaging effect of permitting a "tolerant attitude" for practice for which there is "overwhelming scientific evidence of its lack of validity". So Wikipedia won't be buying into that particular piece of spin either. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Its not a myth. Here are studies and articles which testify to that. That too, the studies mentioned were done by skeptics!

1) Marilou Bruchon-Schweitzer et Dominique Ferrieux, « Les méthodes d'évaluation du personnel utilisées pour le recrutement en France », in "L'orientation scolaire et professionnelle", 1991, 20, n°1. This study says that 93% of French companies use to select their candidates for employment , 55% do so on a regular basis .

2) Marilou Bruchon-Schweitzer, « La graphologie, un mal français », dans Pour la science, février 2000, n° 268. This trend was confirmed in 1999 when a survey of 62 French firms found that 95 % use graphology , 50% on a regular basis. These numbers have reduced but it is still used In other European countries, these numbers go from 2-12%.

Here are two articles I found. The first one does not support graphology but admits that it is used extensively especially in France and Belgium.[57] This one came a few months back. It is a supporting article.[58] Sources are not mentioned in both the above articles.

Investimate (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're contradicting what a reliable source tells us. Your sources are two old studies and some weaker (magazine) sources rather likely to be propagating the very "myth" that our strong source informs us of. Unless some new strong sources can be produced I think this matter is now settled: there is no reason to doubt the pseudoscience categorization of graphology that RS carries. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And Investimate, you asked for opinions here and received several. The matter has been clearly explained to you, so there is no point in beating a dead horse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your second paper title translates as :"Graphology, a French disease". Unless there's something very strange about that title, the author is complaining that French employers are using graphology. I have seen this discussed in Le Monde, not least because it contradicts equal opportunities policies that demand that recruitment be based on relevant criteria. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

According to psychologist David Lester, Ph.D., "... a majority of the studies support the validity of graphology and the accuracy of graphologists. Furthermore, as long as there is a fair number of studies that demonstrate the success of graphological judgments about people, and there does appear to be a fair number, we must accept that graphological judgments can be valid. "(The Psychological Basis of Handwriting Analysis, The Relationship of Handwriting to Personality and Psychotherapy, David Lester, Ph.D., Nelson Hall, Chicago, 1981, page 53). While there are reasonable explanations for the invalidating" studies, which include faulty analytical methods and lack of knowledge about the subject itself, there have been no good explanation as to why many studies have shown that graphology is valid and reliable.

There surely is reason to doubt the categorization of graphology as a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, "The matter has been clearly explained to you"? The only thing that has been clearly explained is that some people are not able to accept and consider any viewpoint other than their own. Ignoring a large number of reliable supporting studies, you are saying that graphology is ipso facto a pseudoscience because it has to be a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

An AfD to contemplate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Seifer has now begun. jps (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Dream telepathy

Resolved

 – I fixed the problem

Content added by an IP:

"However, Alcock did not provide an analysis for his assertion, whereas Sherwood and Roe conducted a meta-analysis that found significant support for dream ESP.(Source - Sherwood, S. J., & Roe, C. A. (2003). A review of dream ESP studies conducted since the Maimonides dream ESP programme. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6,7), 85-109.</ref> A recent study further supported their claim (Source - Watt, C. (2014). Precognitive dreaming: Investigating anomalous cognition and psychological factors. Journal of Parapsychology, 78, 115-125.)"

The Journal of parapsychology is not a reliable journal. Have a look at the other source though. Should this be included? Goblin Face (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed James Alcock has actually responded to Roe and Sherwood in his article "Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi"... so I will cover this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda and modern medical terminology

There is an editor on the Ayurveda article who believes that ancient Sanskrit ayurveda terms can be "translated" with the names of modern allopathic mecical disciplines, such as:

Śālākya-tantra = Otorhinolaryngology and Ophthalmology

Bhuta-vidya = Psychiatry

Note that these are ancient Sanskrit terms, not modern Hindi medical terms.

I believe this violates WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and most of all WP:GEVAL because this gives a patina of legitimacy to this fringe topic and gives the impression that Ayurveda is a developed modern science. Opinions would be appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I believe this oversimplifies the comments made by multiple editors. The discussion is here(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

Not only translating into modern equivalents, but also wikilinking to the articles on pediatrics for example. The implication of equivalence is imho outrageous. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think FORUMSHOPPING applies here, because at least 6/6 people on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine#MEDRS verification have refuted the DONTLIKEIT explanations of both Roxy the Dog and Dominus Vobisdu. It can be laughable for anyone to claim that the publications of Oxford University,[59] Rowman & Littlefield(Lexington books),[60] and many others "are promoting FRINGE". Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Translation are never Wikipedia:FRINGE, Dominus Vobisdu, who already lack any competence has been told by others[61] to read every guideline carefully, but he's just not going to hear. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that DV has been given a 48 hour block for WP:BATTLE behaviour around this subject. This has had a chilling effect. I am gobsmacked by Blades misrepresentation of the discussion above (eg 6/6) and his WP:CANVASSING. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not imply equivalence between modern medicine and old folk-tales. It is wrong to say that "Translation are never Wikipedia:FRINGE". I think that links might be acceptable if we can give them some context, to avoid misleading readers. bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't the right translations, but cut a bit of slack in case there are editors who don't have English as their first language. Instead of "ophthalmology" we should prefer "treatments relating to the eyes", but not everyone immediately understands the kudos that Latin confers in Western Europe and North America. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Attacked by UFOs!

Robert Taylor incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does being the only UFO incident that was subject to a criminal investigation make this particular incident notable? I'm not convinced, but maybe there is another argument for notability.

jps (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There really isn't any non-sensational coverage available. But the "criminal investigation" aspect is overblown and misrepresented. The police weren't investigating the possibility he was attacked by aliens from a UFO. He apparently came back from the woods with scratches and his wife called the police to report he had been assaulted. [62]. Notability is questionable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Have since located stories in the Economist and Telegraph so it may be notable. Article could still use a good cleanup of all the credulous claims sourced to ufologists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Without corroborating witnesses for any of the details, ALL the claims of Taylor need to be prefaced with "He said..." or "He reported..." or even "He claimed..." There is very little in his story that can simply assumed to be true (e.g. "Taylor, who was at the time working for the Livingston Development Corporation, parked his pickup truck at the side of a road just off the M8 motorway with the intention of examining the progress of some saplings in the forest." should be "Taylor, who was at the time working for the Livingston Development Corporation, said he parked his pickup truck at the side of a road just off the M8 motorway with the intention of examining the progress of some saplings in the forest."). - Location (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Further cleaned up [63]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! - Location (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Consciousness after death

This article has been a constant battle of edit warring between users and IP addresses, and is in a mess. New material is occasionally added/deleted. Any suggestions welcome. Goblin Face (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request page protection? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream scientific assessment of climate change

Opinions of neutral uninvolved eds eagerly sought!
We have a

• main article, Scientific opinion on climate change
• sub article, List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming

Discussion of the latter article is often chaotic, as many editors talk about diverse issues in the same breath. However, the issue I'm trying to present is laser-focused on the leads of the two articles.
The lead of the main article tries to summarize the mainstream scientific perspective. To comply with WP:FRINGE's requirement to establish the context for fringe statements, the lead of the latter article does that too. However, for a long time they have been out-of-synch, using overlapping but different text and sources. A poll question has been posted asking

Given that the mainstream assessment is summarized on the basis of the RSs with greatest WP:WEIGHT at the main article "Scientific opinion on climate change", would a neutral uninvolved editor reasonably expect the same sources to be used to present the same summary [at the sub-article "List of scientists opposing..."] unless there was a really good RS-based reason to do something different?

Please offer your thoughts in the thread located at the subarticle via this link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at these articles, here is a view: in general good material should be in sync. across Wikipedia articles. Per WP:PSCI I'd expect the mainstream view of climate change to be prominent in the list article, and would be suspicious of arguments that it shouldn't be. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... I only intended this as a pointer Please consider repeating your comment at the subarticle linked above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting variety of forums you adress your case, NewsAndEventsGuy. As long the scientific opinion includes the major "known unknowns" stated by leading IPCC players, I agree with the approach. There is however a difference between the current "science mainstream" and the IPCC approach, as the IPCC assessement reports naturally a) lag behind the science edge and b) the IPCC mandate limitations on current human impact on global climate. The IPCC covers only a part of the actual research, with regard on current and past natural climate change and studies with a more regional focus. However thats being possibly covered by additional articles. Serten (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I have added an Articles for Deletion for Dr. Steven Willey and bundled the deletion with Willey Exertion Scale the AFD can be found here. VViking_TalkEdits 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS policy content

I'm seeking more input at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Coherence catastrophists

I went through and identified some "coherent catastrophists" that seem to be of marginal notability and WP:FRINGEBLP does come somewhat into play here since some of their fame rests on certain devolutions of the Velikovsky affair. You can find a few of them included at the Velikovsky Encyclopedia.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Clube
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Napier (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Asher

As this developed, I also found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers which isn't related to WP:FTN but the synergy is somewhat interesting.

jps (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement

More promotion of toxic quackery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Now featuring sockpuppetry for your dining and dancing pleasure. Could use a few more watching eyes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already watchlisted it, but the changes today are not showing up. Strange. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Association induction hypothesis

Association induction hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In need of eyes from science knowledgeable folks (and a machete) .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ouija

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

New edits slanting article towards POV that religious views are of primary importance, Ouija is dangerous, leads to spirit possession, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome

This needs more eyes. A bunch of crap has been dumped there. I just removed an EL to a convicted baby killer (his own child) and a fringe MD. Read my edit summary and then start culling poor sources and external links. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, there are many issues in the article as I see it. As with many claims in forensic "science", diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome on the sole basis of the triad is not as surefooted as was touted in the 80s and 90s. [64] There are plenty of good sources we can use to document this (certainly a personal blog is not such a thing), but I think the article doesn't really do justice to the subject. jps (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are still problems with using fringe sources and non-MEDRS sources. The EL section is becoming a dumping ground, and the article is being used as a place to push one POV using such sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Summerwind

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

Just in time for Halloween, an article loaded with extensive detail regarding a supposedly haunted Wisconsin house. Except there's little to no coverage on the subject by reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summerwind. And HuffPo being argued as a reliable source of fact [65]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article passed afd. HuffPo is a reliable source.--Auric talk 11:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

K. Paul Johnson

K. Paul Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been pruned of a lot of stuff. I reverted saying that the pruning left an article that suggested lack of notability, and the editor involved, User:JEMead, has posted to my talk page saying he agrees. I don't care. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The items I removed were added by User:SERGEJ2011 who put a negative focus on his theosophical book on the Masters and he then also added several articles from a web site magazine which is not a reliable source. JEMead (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an afd situation. None of those sources on the article are reliable and he is not notable. The article should be deleted, or at the minimum his article redirected. Goblin Face (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

1972 Eastern Cape UFO sightings

Resolved

 – redirected

1972 UFO sightings in the eastern Cape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently, 1972 was the big year for sightings of UFOs in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. However, it seems that the only sources who claim this are those ufologists who breathlessly accept most of the eyewitness claims they come across.

So, what do you think? Notable enough that we should have an article on the subject?

jps (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Based on a quick glance, I'm leaning towards a "no" to the above question. I am decidedly not impressed by the sources cited, some of which appear to be dead links. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

is there an upmerge parent article? the event in Beufort appears to have become vaguely notable as a lore for the local tourist traps, but its hard to see two passing mentions in tourist books establishing notability for it as an "incident"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly UFO sightings in South Africa? jps (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

R. H. Naylor

While it might just be the very short length, this seems rather pro-horoscope:

“ Naylor himself explained, "Here is the 'horoscope' of the baby princess" and predicted over three columns of text that she would lead an "eventful life", in which forecast he was correct. The rest of the article gave general forecasts by birth date. ”

“ In September 1930, Naylor forecast that "A British aircraft will be in danger" in October. On 5 October 1930 the R101 airship crashed and burned in Beauvais, France. ”

This feels rather like the standard keep the hits, forget the misses thing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It feels more like so vague they can't be misses. For example, if the R-101 had survived, it still would have been in danger. For that matter, the prediction was “A British aircraft will be in danger” between October 8 and 15.” [66] R-101 crashed on the 5th, Edward321 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorrowful God

Resolved

 – Del and redir per AfD

This could use a bit off looking into. There's a bunch of fold crap stubs about supposed Polish mythology at AFD right now but this one at least I could trace back to Marija Gimbutas in her late fringey phase. I don't know the field though so it's possible that someone actually cares about this. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have responded there. It appears to have been referenced in a few academic sources. -Location (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hodgson Report

Article consists of mostly unsourced original research, sources that mention the report are mostly fringe. Any ideas about this? A redirect might be appropriate. Goblin Face (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is one of a nest of impenetrable Theosophy POV forks probably deriving from this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple academic sources that reference it (e.g. J. Gordon Melton[67], James A. Santucci[68]), but I'm not convinced that there is enough for a stand-alone. Gary Lachman, bassist for Blondie, mentions it in his biography of Blavatsky, but I did not look carefully to see if it is a fringe source. Redirect to Helena Blavatsky? - Location (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter‬

‪Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is a leftover from a time when it was acceptable for UFO articles to argue the UFOlogy point of view (e.g. who calls it "Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter" or "Kelly Green Men Case" except UFOlogists?) Objective sources are largely ignored in favor of credulous UFOlogy sources (I love the part where Wikipedia asserts that the witnesses charging the public an admission fee to see their farm was intended to "keep people away"). It may be time to clean out all the unreliable sources and trim down the sensationalized narrative to only what reliable sources support. Some possible news sources: [69] [70] - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's long overdue a rewrite from better sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uri Geller

Edits being done to this article with a new section created "2013 BBC documentary" and to the lead claiming he is "a serious psychic who has worked for various intelligence agencies". The source for this is a dubious documentary that featured parapsychologists such as Russell Targ, also unreliable sources have been added such as imdb etc. Goblin Face (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tollmann's hypothetical bolide

I stumbled across Tollmann's hypothetical bolide (and by extension Alexander Tollmann) today - it seems that most of the article is about the fact that this is a fringe hypothesis, but the lead is very positive and doesn't mention any criticism at all. Seems like it could maybe use some attention. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:0x0077BE Have you made any discussion on the talk page? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't gotten around to it. Anyone can feel free, though. Doesn't look like a very active talk page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Series of deletions of skeptical sources and opinions

I'd like to see more eyes on this situation. An editor, Harizotoh9 (talk · contribs), has been on a roll, removing lots of skeptical opinions and websites, some of it on dubious grounds. I left a message on their talk page. Please read it and check out their recent contribution history. I'm not saying they're all wrong, but I think they are going too far. NPOV requires the inclusion of critical sources and their non-NPOV language. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion after a series of edits at Natural News and came here to find this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is an especially nasty series of POV edits which can best be described as whitewashing of a very fringe and misleading website, ergo the edits serve to promote it. I won't even mentioned the "worst" interpretation. It certainly reveals a gross misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no fan of Brian Dunning and PZ Myers. I rolled back most of the edits from the last day or so. Someone should inform admins. jps (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Johrei “purification of the spirit”

If someone has the time and inclination, Johrei is a treasure trove of Fringe. The talk page mentions there are misrepresented studies used as references, there are Med claims throughout, however not cited to any creditable source. I worry that I took a first stab at the article cleaning it up there would be nothing left. Can someone please help to sort out the wheat from the chaff in this article? VViking_TalkEdits 10:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)