|
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Is astral projection pseudoscience?
- 2 Input requested on several fringe-y articles nominated for deletion
- 3 Fringe advocacy over at Talk:Bach_flower_remedies
- 4 #SleepOnIt
- 5 Use of an alt med journal in Adrenal fatigue
- 6 Anthroposophic medicine again
- 7 Antivaxer on the loose
- 8 Alex Tsakiris
- 9 Myofascial release
- 10 Talk:Conspiracy theory
- 11 Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content
- 12 "Techniques to rejuvenate the human body and stop aging"
Is astral projection pseudoscience?
Some discussion on this on the Talk page. Input from wise fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think even psuedoscience gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Astrology is pseudoscience. Astral projection is... a 9th level spell in dungeons and dragons. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- True believers want to weasel their way out of being a pseudoscience on that article. 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Input requested on several fringe-y articles nominated for deletion
I thought readers of this noticeboard would be interested in the following articles relating to fringe subjects that are nominated for deletion:
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/William_Esser
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_DeLuz
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/California_Bureau_of_Naturopathic_Medicine
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gordy_Ainsleigh
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Makaʻala_Yates Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Tomshack Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/David_Singer_(chiropractor) Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Rhodes Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Reed_(chiropractor) Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Parker_(chiropractor) Deleted
-
- What about Parker University? Possibly also an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Leistner_(2nd_nomination) Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Morningstar Deleted
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Clarence_Gonstead
- WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Auerbach Deleted
Fringe advocacy over at Talk:Bach_flower_remedies
You may wish to monitor this talk page. One relativly new user seems to be using the talk pages to promote a fringe POV. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
#SleepOnIt
John Douillard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This alt med practitioner is telling everyone to sleep on their left side because it's "healthier". I notice that his biography here at Wikipedia reads like a snowjob. Can we get some improvement? Or is that impossible?
jps (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Lying left-side down has been shown to reduce recumbent esophageal acid exposure which in turn reduces Gastroesophageal reflux disease and risk of Barrett's esophagus [1] Joshgreene (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
References
- But that is not a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't even something mentioned in the biography that needs citation, I only defend the practice because there is research on it and it was the only objection raised about the person.
- Primary sources (such as the RCT) aren't, no. We need reviews, meta-analyses, etc. from journals. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology isn't WP:MEDRS? Joshgreene (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Related articles
- Related to the above, Joshgreene (talk · contribs) has written a number of articles which may be of dubious notability related to ayurveda:
- Abhyangha
- Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America
- Ayurvedic Institute
- California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine
- California College of Ayurveda
- Churna
- Devi Ma Kunja
- Dinacharya
- Dinacharya Institute
- Mount Madonna Institute
- National Ayurvedic Medical Association
- Sarita Shrestha
- Svedana
- Vasant Lad
- jps (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with the facts or information of an article by all means please raise them, otherwise WP:AGF and stop your POV crusading. Joshgreene (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have an issue with whether these articles all pass WP:NFRINGE. I think many do not. Many appear to be soapboxes for pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Use of an alt med journal in Adrenal fatigue
The reliability and WP:WEIGHT of use of an alt med journal article written by alt med practitioners in describing what actually happens with adrenal glands is being discussed on the talk page of adrenal fatigue, here. Further input welcome. Yobol (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Anthroposophic medicine again
In addition to the usual, we've got some new WP:SPAs (possible WP:SOCKs?) advocating changes to the article to big up claims about Steiner's mistletoe therapy. Could do with vigilance from fringe/medical-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note this is now also an issue at the Viscum album (Mistletoe) article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Antivaxer on the loose
The edits and comments made by Realskeptic (talk · contribs) need watching. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- See here for background, including diffs showing their M.O. (IMHO, these edits speak volumes) This user has wasted a lot of people's time on several talk pages. I'm rather surprised he or she hasn't been indeffed. You can look at their talk page history to see all of the warnings (since removed and not in the talk page archive), including a discretionary sanction warning by EdJohnston. That was removed, calling it a threat. APK whisper in my ear 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you think that a topic ban from vaccination might be justified under WP:ARBPS, consider making a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like someone has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. APK whisper in my ear 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you think that a topic ban from vaccination might be justified under WP:ARBPS, consider making a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Alex Tsakiris
Is this guy notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I had to removed some terrible sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think he is notable enough: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Tsakiris. jps (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Myofascial release
Got an IP determined to remove the "slander" (i.e. well-sourced skepticism) from the article. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Conspiracy theory
There is a discussion at the Talk page for Conspiracy theory [1] that could use some input, and I think editors here would be particularly interested. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there are periodic efforts to add material to the article to reflect a POV that is currently making the rounds in fringe circles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content
At Talk:Genetically_modified_fish#Unreliable_source.3F a discussion has occurred where an editor User:DrChrissy with known WP:OWN problems is insisting their preferred content is okay.
The controversy is that the following source is used as the sole citation for two paragraphs that make a variety of empirical claims about the characteristics of genetically engineered fish:
- Kirkden, R. and Broom, D.M. (2012). "Welfare of genetically modified and cloned animals used for food" (PDF). Retrieved November 30, 2015.
The source in question is a report that apparently did not receive peer review and was "commissioned by Compassion in World Farming and made possible by a grant from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)." This is dubious at best. I suggest either finding a new source for the content that it footnotes or removing the content altogether.
The person who wrote the content and included the source refuses to accept that peer-review is necessary for the content, in spite of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Cross-posted to WP:RSN.
jps (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why is this being posted to this noticeboard and WP:RSN? Surely this is forum shopping?DrChrissy (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is trying venues in sequence until the desired result is achieved; sometimes it's desirable to post to noticeboard in parallel when an issue straddles both their areas of concern, though in such cases I prefer if it's indicated which NB should "host" the discussion, otherwise it can get split. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's generally considered OK to reference an issue on multiple noticeboards as long as the issue is relevant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is trying venues in sequence until the desired result is achieved; sometimes it's desirable to post to noticeboard in parallel when an issue straddles both their areas of concern, though in such cases I prefer if it's indicated which NB should "host" the discussion, otherwise it can get split. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- It would seem fine to me if the source was used with attribution. Not so fine to be using it to make claims in WP's voice though. And even with attribution weight would always be a consideration particularly due to the source being funded by a special interest group. I would think there would be better sources out there though. Sources published in peer-reviewed journals. Capeo (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much JPS, as the Doc is just cocking a snoop at Arbcom and his impending ban from GMO topics. He's doing the same thing elsewhere. Quite why he thinks this sort of thing is acceptable I cannot fathom. I think the best strategy, since ArbCom hasn't been able to pull its finger out, is to ignore any damage he does in the topic until the ban comes into force, then tidy up. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It could be used with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Request Would the OP please indicate why they have posted this on the "Fringe" noticeboard. What aspects of the disputed content are "fringe"? Oh, I also think it is a rather a strategic shot-in-the-foot to spuriously state that I have "known WP:OWN problems".DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is the fringe theory that the source supposedly advocates? TFD (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"Techniques to rejuvenate the human body and stop aging"
Connoisseurs of fringe may by interested in a new WP:WALLEDGARDEN that is being uncovered at WT:MED#Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans (thanks to CFCF for the discovery). Probably a lot to be done in this topic area ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Life extension related topics seem to have these kind of problems frequently. There was an Arbcom case about longevity, this seems to be a similar issue in a similar topic area.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)