Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

We have several articles that have repeatedly been subject to paranoid editing -- directed-energy weapon‎ is one of them, and it is currently in the midst of an episode. Additional input would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In this instance it seems if someone's edits are against wiki policy and other editors explain that and even link to a description of that policy, that someone can just say you didn't provide a reason why once you've tired of explaining it to them.

I think your explanation that it was "weakly sourced paranoia" was more than sufficient for anyone not suffering from delusions. (not that I'm saying anyone involved is)Batvette (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.78.205 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013‎

The 'normal protocol' when material is improperly added - by citing invalid sources, or engaging in synthesis - is to remove it. I have just had to remove a citation to a document uploaded to scribd.com from the article, as it cannot possibly be used as a source, for two reasons. Firstly, there is no way whatsoever to verify the authenticity of an uploaded document, and secondly, if it is authentic, it has apparently been uploaded in breach of Crown copyright. Wikipedia does not cite copyright violating material. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To "unsigned", there were discussions opened from the beginning, providing specific examples of how the material did not meet wiki standards, links were provided to wiki policy pages describing the way policy prohibited this type of editing, even text of that policy CP'd to walk the editor through it. It would be disingenuous to believe this editor has not been provided "reasoning" why his conspiracy theory pushing edits are being reverted- and from looking at the OR content he's introduced from the beginning (as I CP'd an example of on the talk page) that's what's going on there. His repeated claims we aren't giving details or reasons are just obscuring the issue and shifting the "problem editor" issue on others instead of himself. At this point it's useless to give a detailed description of reverts as this reaches a point of edit warring which I loathe, but also won't waste energy attempting to reason with the unreasonable. Batvette (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

During the FA try on this article it was suggested that Sarmila Bose be used as a source, I discounted her as a source as she is, in my opinion fringe. So I was then asked to post here. Bose is a known revisionist historian with regards to the Bangladesh Liberation War. In one paper she claimed the Pakistani army had committed no rapes, in another she says, a few thousand at most. She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00 men on the ground, it was 90,000. The generally accepted figure for rapes in this conflict is 200,000, with a high estimate of 400,00. There is an academic consensus the war was a genocide, Bose say it was not one. Is this author fringe? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say that she is a minority academic view. I see that the book has attracted some blistering criticism. It should be used with great care if at all. It may be appropriate at some point to mention her view but it must on no account be presented as the only view. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As I'm the FA reviewer who encouraged this be sent here ... there's never been any question that she holds a minority viewpoint that has attracted a great deal of academic criticism (and, to be fair here, occasional support). The big question is whether she's "just" a minority viewpoint, such that an article on the topic should mention her as a dissenting viewpoint, or whether she is a fringe source that should be excluded per policy. For reference, the sources under consideration include her book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War (Amazon, with some preview) and potentially her 2007 paper in Economic and Political Weekly (JSTOR), for use in the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:HISTRS as an academic source, thus can be included, but then the question is how much weight to give it. It may be very bad history but it isn't pseudohistory. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you said above is correct I would disagree. A source that has received substantial criticism for factual areas is not reliable. If what Darkness Shines says is correct, it is a fringe viewpoint. i.e it has no acceptance amongst academics. Further, if someone is well known as having done a bad job in a work, then the work is not reliable and should not be used in any circumstance unless attributed. Weight should only then be assigned to Bose if secondary sources assign Bose's views weight so as to address the poor quality of the work; otherwise it would be undue and violate NPOV. Any neutral coverage would mention the poor reception of the work. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if it is mentioned at all it should be as the minority view that it is. It's not exactly fringe as in the main purpose of this board, but, now I have seen some more reviews, it seems that it is such poor history that it shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source. It's not really encyclopaedic to mention sources only to discredit them. If they add nothing to knowledge, ignore them. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Squeamish, I searched her book, it does not even mention the rapes that I could find. We have two papers from her that I know of, one say no rapes by Pakistani army and only 34k men on the ground (both wrong obviously). The other says the rapes were only a few thousand at most, and their was no genocide (off the top of my head on this, not at home) We have a commonly cited figure of 200,00 as being most likely, and of course their is an academic consensus that this was a genocide, Bose flies in the face of this. She is fringe. I have in fact yet to see another researcher or author make the claims she does. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes the book has received some "blistering criticism", but many of those critics are hardly unbiassed themselves. There has been quite a range of responses. The fact remains that she is scholar in a major institution, published by a serious press. Perhaps Darkness Shines can tell us where Bose said there were no rapes (which would be a truly extraordinary claim to make about such a war, or indeed almost any war). She says "possibly several thousand true rape victims" in the 2007 Economic and Political Weekly article. As for genocide, she argues that the killings by the West Pakistanis did not fit the definition. Frankly, I think the bandying about of the term "genocide" in this way, by both Bose and her opponents to be unseemly: as if technicalities of defining what it means to target an 'ethnic' group allow one to wave the word around like a banner of pure victimhood. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe discussion aside, I'd just like to note that, yes, Dead Reckoning does include some discussion of rape in the context of the 1971 conflict, although mostly not in pages available in the online preview. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In answer to my own question, in her 2005 article, Bose does not say there were no rapes. She is reporting on a series of specific case studies. She says no rapes by Pakistani soldiers were reported by eyewitnesses interviewed in these studies. These are the actual words:

No rape of women by Pakistan army found in the specific case studies: In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the few specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in the popular narrative the allegation of rape is often clubbed together with allegation of killing. Rape allegations were made in prior verbal discussions in some cases and in a published work on one of the incidents. However, Bengali eyewitnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place in these cases. While rape is known to occur in all situations of war, charges and counter-charges on rape form a particularly contentious issue in this conflict. The absence of this particular form of violence in these instances underlines the care that needs to be taken to distinguish between circumstances in which rape may have taken place from those in which it did not.

In other words she clearly says that rape "always" occurs in such wars, implicitly accepting that it did happen, but is saying that the mantra, as it were, that has become established in this instance - of rampaging rapes and murders combined - is not supported by the evidence of these specific case studies. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Supplement to this: DS argues that Bose is fringe because "She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00[0] men on the ground, it was 90,000." I don't know where DS gets this statistic, though the same claim appears on this blog [1]. However, Bose is quoted as saying that the West Pakistani deployment comprised "34,000" combat troops plus "another 11,000 men" in support roles (making 45,000). The 90,000 figure is arrived at by combining "54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces". It's clear that "paramilitary" forces are not included in Bose's figures, so in reality we have a discrepancy between 54,000 and 45,000, which could be explained in any number of ways, and is, in any case, largely irrelevant to the issue, since even if she did make a mistake errors can be found in almost any work if you look hard enough. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

90,000 POWs prove you wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"The other was the fate of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers held by Indian forces in Bangladesh after their surrender" Human Rights in the Twentieth Century p273 Cambridge University Press Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is so feeble, it's hardly worth responding to. A passing phrase in a generalist book using the word "soldiers" does not mean that all 90.000 were members of the regular armed forces. If you were less dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance, you might get a more sympathetic hearing. This is part of the problem. You are just looking for any source to support what you want to say. You are not interested in the detail that gets to the truth of the matter. Bullying is not a helpful tactic. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You saying 90,000 men would not be able to rape 200,000 women in a nine month period? That is what Bose says. I am not bullying anyone, such accusations are not a helpful tactic. If you want to say there were not 90,000 men on the ground rampaging through the country take it up with the sources, not me. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Bose may be in the minority, but I fail to see how she could be construed as fringe. On a related note, I believe Pakistani atrocities during the Bangladesh war have been greatly exaggerated. As I recall, the official Bangladeshi figure of 300,000 civilians killed was mistranslated into English as 3 million, and this lie made its way around the world while the truth was still getting its shoes tied. However, upon looking for the best recent scholarship, I find the 300,000 figure close to the truth, if not on the high side. "Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world health survey programme", for example, estimates 269,000 civilians were killed; the authors note that this is far higher than a previous estimate of 58,000 from Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (note that the latter figure is roughly double the Pakistani estimate of 26,000). Now, the study has received strong criticism from academic journals for significantly inflating war death tolls, but none for underestimation that I could find. Nevertheless, the relevant Wikipedia articles all seem to insist that the death toll was in seven digits, citing dubious sources like R.J. Rummel and emotional pleas from Bangladeshi sources. With this in mind, I would hardly be surprised if Bose was right about the rapes--and based on past interaction with the editor, I would hardly be surprised to learn Darkness Shines is a major reason why some of these Wikipedia articles are so ridiculously biased.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's a minority of 1, then that is a fringe viewpoint, being only shared by the one scholar. For example, to draw a parallel with physics, Conformal cyclic cosmology is a fringe position because it has only one notable proponent; Penrose himself, with no real acceptance even as a minority position. Now that doesn't mean there is an issue with CCC advocates pushing material on wikipedia (there isn't), but it is still a fringe position since it has no real acceptance. We have an article on CCC, but it's not something that necessarily has weight to be mentioned elsewhere, and it's short comings should be mentioned in other articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that argument stands up in cases such as this. You are talking about a scientific theory that is rejected by other scientists. In this case we are discussing a recent book, based on specific research undertaken by the author. This is not a case in which other scholars "have failed to replicate" an experiment, or have found methological flaws that invalidate the model. Historical research is not like that. Often in the humanities a single book will be the only source putting forward a particular point of view and it will be based on research unique to that work. Responses may take many years to filter through, so that it is really impossible to establish what the consensus of opinion in an area really is. When you add to the mix political and ideological motivations, it becomes even more difficult to assess the matter. These exist in all fields to some extent, but are far less of an issue in the kind of science you give as an example. The radical feminist Susan Brownmiller accepted the highest figures for rapes in Bangladesh because it suited her ideological agenda, and for example in this book Bose's argument is criticised, not because the author has any evidence that it is inaccurate, but because "the silencing of gender violence" "does harm". In other words the objection is ideological, not evidence-based (and of course Bose has not "silenced" anyone at all). Paul B (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on Brownmiller, she uses the generally accepted figure of 200,000 and says so in her book. The hig end figure is 400,000. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You are being less than transparent again. She wrote "200,000, 300,000, or possibly 400,000 (three sets of statistics have been quoted) women were raped". 200,000 is the minimum figure she gives. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks am I, Brownmiller gives the generally accepted figure of 200,000. Yes she also gives the other estimates but she says 200,000 is the generally accepted one, so how exactly am I being less that transparent? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the sentence I quote is the only one in the book in which she gives figures. The whole passage is as I've given it, with no suggestion that one figure is more accepted than another. So there is no reference to 200,000 being the "generally accepted" figure. You appear to have made that up. Of course Brownmiller is not any kind of expert, so her figure is really irrelevant. I only mentioned it to make the point that ideology is implicated in the discussion. You only latched onto it, because, seemingly, it's the only thing you felt able to "reply" to in your dismissive sneering way. And you don't even get that right. of course I'm perfectly willing to accept that Brownmiller may have changed the text in different editions, or written about it in other contexts, but again, you care less about the details than in ramming your dogma down editors' throats. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, had not seen this response. I did not mean Brownmiller said it was the generally accepted figure, I meant she had cited that as well as the other estimates. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What Bangladeshi sources? Look at the article in question, you will not find one. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Genocides in history (which Darkness Shines and I have disagreed on because of his proclivity to delete academic sources as "fringe" without taking them here) even cites the Guinness Book of World Records as a source about Pakistani atrocities during the war! (One of their "Top 5 Genocides"....)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never cited the Guinness book of records? And I remove fringe genocide deniers from an article for good reason. Bose is the only author who says the rapes were in the thousands, and that it was not a genocide. Hence she is fringe. And also wrong obviously. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still hesitant about this one. It is not pseudohistory like the 1421 hypothesis, but comes from within the academy. This isn't the webpage of a pseudohistorian. Therefore we should judge it by how it has been received in academia. I find just two reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Gill, John H. Journal of Military History 76:3 pp927-929 Jul 2012; and Singh, Priyanka. Nations and Nationalism 18:3. I haven't accessed the Gill, have read the Singh. Singh is polite but it is a very negative review, rejecting the main argument of the book, the methodology, the approach to calculating casualties, and the way that rape is described. Among non-academic serious press reviews, Martin Woollacott is quite favourable in the Guardian, whereas this review in Economic and Political Weekly is a complete debunking. I must say that I find the debunking persuasive. It isn't really a question for this board. It's a sourcing and balance question. I wish that WP:HISTRS (which remains simply an essay) could be usable in cases like this, but I don't think it is. The onus is on those who want to see material included to demonstrate that it is worth including. So there are two options. Either leave Bose out entirely, on the basis that those conclusions of hers that are well-founded will at some point be echoed by other research. Or cover both sides of the controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So where do we stand on this? As stated 200,000 is the generally accepted figure for the mass rapes, see Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia D'Costa Routledge pp120-121 "Although the exact number of rapes is still heavily disputed, the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months". With Bose we have one paper saying none (in a few case studies, so not really usefull?). And I do not know what figure she gives in her book, has anyone looked? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Ademar José Gevaerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Enjoy.

jps (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with a working knowledge of Portuguese and familiarity with Brazilian culture look over the news sources in this article? They seem like tabloids - unusually credulous. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Been tagged since the beginning of this year. What shall we do?

jps (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say merge with the author of the eponymous book … Question: Why are there two articles about him? Are occupational forks, for want of a better term, acceptable?—Odysseus1479 04:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have two articles on the same person. Since Don Beck (management consultant) is clumsily-titled and starts with Don Beck, co-author of Spiral Dynamics theory, has a more complete and significantly well-referenced page at Don Edward Beck", I'm redirecting it. More work is needed on the target article... bobrayner (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

More work is needed on the target article -- surely an understatement. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous articles I've read in a long time. jps (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on Don Edward Beck. Quite a lot of the sources didn't actually support the content, or didn't mention Beck, &c. Rather than purely WP:FRINGE, I think we also have more general problems of WP:NPOV and maybe a whiff of WP:COI. It's probably a good idea to check related articles like MEMEnomics too. bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

So far down the rabbit hole. Did you know that this is an emerging field of study?

jps (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you're keeping track, I did some weeding of a garden. Will there be backlash?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transdisciplinarity
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral psychology
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral leadership
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral art

Yes. Yes, there will be a backlash.

jps (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of rubbish in the articles, and spamming of ideas which are at the edges of the social sciences. Transdisciplinarity, though, is a respectable concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't get "transdisciplinarity" confused with cross disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity, now :P jps (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Could use some additional eyes at Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Studies_in_peer-reviewed_journals to see if I am misrepresenting things. I feel like I am getting some wikilawyer-stonewalling about if WP:PRIMARY studies by proponents of TM meet reliable sourcing guidelines, with the other editor claiming that since these are "social sciences" things like WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me figure out how Transcendental Meditation research is not a gross violation of WP:SYNTH. Can anyone explain that to me? jps (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Haven't read the entire article but the claim that "More research is needed..." in the lead is definite WP:SYNTH and seems a bit of wishful thinking, given that sources only say that sample sizes are too small to be conclusive. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be a prolific academic publishing material on the dangers of vaccines. Much of his works seems sufficiently new there is little or no mainstream reaction to it. Not sure how/if fringe guidelines apply ... ?

Slightly stubby right now. Certainly the thiomersal business has been thoroughly debunked by a number of reliable sources including the CDC, the the FDA, and Quackwatch, but you don't want to synthesize here. The question is, have any of his publications been noticed by people other than Joseph Mercola accolytes? If not, then removing mention of that work from his article is appropriate. jps (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an issue with having the lead of this article about a well-known conspiracy theory proponent actually say he is a conspiracy theory proponent. Discussion has not been fruitful. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to include differentials, but for now I am busy with other activities. I want merely to respond so that I do not seem to be ignoring this. Anyway, LuckyLouie's claim is not only an utter but an absurd falsity. As to the "James H. Fetzer" article, I never once opposed the lead saying that Fetzer is a conspiracy theory proponent. I opposed LuckyLouie and someone else's insistence to say that he was a proponent of government conspiracies—an inane statement. Fetzer is the very opposite—an opponent of government conspiracies—since he is a proponent of conspiracy theories. Wikieditors cannot recognize their stark category mistake, conflating conspiracy theories (type of explanation) with alleged government conspiracies (types of crimes).

When someone instead said that he was a "proponent of conspiracy theories", I endorsed that—and criticized other unexplained changes for violations of Wikipedia guidelines. Yet someone came along, irrationally thinking the problem was the word proponent, and wordily and unclearly said he was a "proponent of his beliefs in conspiracy theories", although for the life of me, I cannot see how that would address the problem if it were the word proponent. At that uselessness, I simply changed it to "a leading conspiracy theorist". This was all yesterday, and since then, everyone's edits—even LuckyLouie's—have kept my phrase "a leading conspiracy theorist".

The actual conflicts are two. One is whether it should be deleted from the lead that Fetzer investigated or researched alleged government conspiracies—which reliable sources clearly stated is how Fetzer become a leading conspiracy theorist—since, according to Lucky's Theorem, citing no reliable source, Fetzer is only either a proponent of or an investigator of the unicategory conspiracytheoriesgovernmetnconspiracies. The other is whether it is insignificant, and thus should be deleted from the lead, that Fetzer, before becoming a leading conspiracy theorist, was a leading philosopher. In some, subspecialties he was—and remains—the preeminent one. In the 1990s, he was author of perhaps the most authoritative undergraduate textbook on philosophy of cognitive science, and—exceptionally for a philosopher—was advising and debating alongside some of the most eminent computer scientists on controversies in theoretical computer science. I cited ultimately authoritative sources—in the disciplines themselves—to show this. I cited Springer website saying in 2013 for a 2010 volume, co-edited by Fetzer and contributed to by Fetzer, including republication of a 1998 paper on scientific explanation, that Fetzer is among "renowned philosophers".

The Wikieditors simply ignore this and wage their opinions—while unable to even read straight, let alone cite scholarly sources. When I found that article, it had only two—one with a broken link [version immediately before my edits began]. I have seen no editors add a single one. All of them there in the article, I added. They had been asserting that we should delete nearly all of the information about his eduction and career, however, and leave it nearly only conspiracy stuff, since allegedly Fetzer was "neither known nor important" in philosophy or cognitive science or was "at best a minor academic" aggrandizing himself via "ridiculous conspiracy theories". Ignoring those two actual disagreements but curiously continuing editing to push LuckyLouie's agenda on those two, LuckyLouie now drags me here to the "Fringe theories" inquisition while pulling out the woodwork the inanity that the problem is that I opposed the lead saying he is a conspiracy theory proponent?!

I am the one who actually made the strongest statement—that he is a leading conspiracy theorist. Merely, I assert that the lead ought to make clear what else he is prominent for: leading movements to investigate alleged government conspiracies, and, like it or not, being a leading philosopher indisputably, a reality that Wikieditors with agendas as to conspiracy theories seek to suppress in order to depict Fetzer as only a leading conspiracy theorist, someone merely jabbering paranoia, period. In fact, that was LuckyLouie's argument—Lucky's Theorem, via binary hypothesis—to contradict reliable sources and claim proof that Fetzer has not investigated, for, according to LuckyLouie, Fetzer is a proponent of conspiracy theories. — Occurring (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's getting very soupy on the Talk page. Maybe someone else can make sense of odd accusatory rants like these. I'm at a loss. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet if you look at it, you see that actually, in response to LuckyLouie's accusations, I did not make an odd accusatory rant—I cited the dictionary, cited my paragraph in question, and asked LuckyLouie to explain LuckyLouie's categorial but unexplained accusation. LuckyLouie never did. Rather, someone made an odd accusatory rant about my edits, and I responded mostly not with accusation but mostly defensively and explanatorily. My accusation was fully explained via principles of philosophy of science, perhaps "odd" for individuals insistent to flout principles of reasoning and wage mob rule by folk rhetoric via fixation on conspiracy theories. — Occurring (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To note the obvious, we have a WP:SPA here with a serious case of WP:OWN. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you clarify your evidence base for the putatively obvious—and at whom your accusations are directed? Possibly obvious are observations, not an explanation of them, for any set of observations can host multiple possible explanations. To reason otherwise is the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, an extremely common and tempting reasoning error. For succinct clarification, see article "Inductivism"—which is such development of explanation as your post suggests—section "Scientific method", subsections "Affirming" and "Denying". As the type of explanation that you seem to have concluded, that is, one deterministic and thereby obvious, see article "Deductive-nomological model". For the actual type of explanation that you struck—one defensible as perhaps "probable" but quite fallible, thus ceteris paribus—see article "Fundamental science", subsection "Versus special science". You are posing putatively deterministic, realistic, and true explanation of social phenomena, and asserting this at not even merely the population level but at the individual level—a thoroughly dubious and controversial stance to take—but specify no observations as evidence, let alone explain your inferences, or even deign to clearly direct your categorical and absolute accusations. Please, I ask not repetition of but refrain from such severely and ironically fringe methodology — Occurring (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not edit my post to notably delete any of its content, and in itself it is quite relevant generally, applying likewise to LuckyLouie and the editors at the Fetzer article. Still, I genuinely do not know at whom the accusations are directed. Actually, I myself believe that other Wikieditors at article are the ones bypassing the Talkpage and surreptitiously slipped controversial changes into the article via edit notes neglecting those changes but ostensibly targeting mere "wording" and such. I find that they have violated guidelines on biographies of living persons and made it a stealth soapbox to narrowly depict Fetzer as only a prominent conspiracy theorist, thus violating neutral point of view, undue weight, reliable sources, and tendentious editing.

Although the general public is unfamiliar with academia, once someone is prominent in academia—as Fetzer indisputably was before becoming a prominent conspiracy theorist, while Fetzer remains a "renowned philosopher" according to an authoritative reliable source—that is a major point of view itself. An encyclopedia is to educate the public—including about major viewpoints in academia—not only to reflect pop knowledge of someone. Thus, all told, I actually cannot tell if you are alleging that someone else—perhaps someone that I was responding to on the Talkpage or even the individual who dragged me here to this tribunal via absurdly false accusation—is the serious case of presumed ownership of the article, even with a singlepurpose account. Thus, if the accusation was not about me, I apologize for the biting tone of my above response, which, however, is legitimate in itself as a general call for fewer accusations and presumptions of obvious truth, but rather more evidence and explanation, please. — Occurring (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the article taking a fringe pro-matriarchy position? Or even a fringe anti-matriarchy position? Is everything in there relevant? Specifically for now, what about the use of Scalingi, P. L. (1978). The scepter or the distaff: The question of female sovereignty, 1516-1607. The Historian, 41(1), 59. This is a perfectly acceptable academic article, but... Scalingi uses "gynecocracy", and sometimes "government by women" to talk about the debate in the C16 about whether queens could rule (at all). Does this have anything to do with matriarchy? (Given that the debate assumed monarchical government, and even the maintenance of male-preference primogeniture, so that, as in contemporary UK, a country would have a queen for a while, followed by a king.) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is doing a disservice by conflating an instance of rule by a woman due to a quirk in royal succession (and not the first - see Urraca of Leon and Castile) to a gynecocracy or matriarchy. There was nothing matriarchal about Elizabeth's England - the kingdom and society were still entirely patriarchal, even if it happened temporarily to have a monarch with different equipment. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have recently attempted to improve this article. I may need some help on this as I am not sure about some of the sources an IP has raised (some seem reliable, some do not). Please see the talk page for the Dean Radin article. Any input please appreciated. Dan skeptic (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So we learn from our article on Sotai, a kind of posture therapy. The article is long on words but short on good sources; and there doesn't seem to be much out there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am impressed.

According to Dr. Masunaga (founder of Zen Shiatsu), who has assigned psychological functions to the Functional Circles, the meridian of the gallbladder stands on behalf for the function of short-time decisions: "Do I go to the right or to the left?"

bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I see a couple of us have edited this article, me and User:LuckyLouie. Having reverted the addition of art and writing as psychotechnologies by an IP twice I realised that the paragraph the IP was adding to was copyvio, so reverted to an earlier version. A big problem is that even as a stub the article is about two different subjects, "any application of technology for psychological purposes" and "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome". We can't have an article about two such separate concepts, and I'm not at all sure that the latter isn't fringe, although I see books mentioning the phrase. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, this article was discussed at FTN because it once became a target for conspiracy-related mind control fringe cruft. But the "application of technology for psychological purposes" definition does seem to have a less sensational profile in the mainstream world. As for the alternate definition of "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome", as I understand it, this is an archaic term for Applied psychology. Maybe it can be renamed Psychotechnology (psychology) and get redirected to Applied psychology until someone wants to write an article about it. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Read it and use it.

The acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and qi#scientific investigation articles are obvious targets.

jps (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no, not a fantastic source. Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. Shoddy history of ideas. Perhaps if the author has something in a peer-reviewed journal we could consider it. At least it would be referenced. Mao invented this, that - not a single reference to Mao. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the work? The title is sensationalized, but the content is excellent. I mean, you got something against Alan Levinovitz? He's not writing an empirical paper here that requires peer review, he's pointing out some facts that are rather plain: namely that the conceptualization of "traditional Chinese medicine" in the West can be traced directly to Great Leap Forward-type propaganda push for improving medicine in China by Mao. jps (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And his sources for that? I don't deny that traditions were revived, rediscovered, reinvented, even invented from scratch during the 20th century. A historical account of that process in relation to TCM would have to make reference to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While your concern for Levinovitz's scholarship is admirable, the implication that we should sort of daisy chain sources like this is, I think, somewhat misguided. This is certainly not the only thing he has written on the subject, and if you want to critique his corpus, that's a separate exercise from what is normally done here. The fact is that this is an appropriately scaled source for our purposes. While we could always use more sources, as you indicate with your reference to Chinese culture outside of the PRC, deprecating a decent source by a subject matter expert like you did in your first comment, I think, is not the right approach. It would be much like someone disputing an article about astronomy by Phil Plait in Slate because of the lack of peer review. jps (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the references in TCM, and I see one reference is to Sivin, Nathan (1987). Traditional Medicine in Contemporary China. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-89264-074-4., which I can readily see is basically supportive of what the Slate article says. I also see that far and away the most common reference in the text is to Wiseman and Ellis's translation of a modern Chinese text, which is problematic under the circumstances. There's a considerable contradiction here with the statement that "Starting in the 1950s, these precepts were modernized in the People's Republic of China so as to integrate many anatomical and pathological notions with modern scientific medicine." I'm not so inclined to dismiss the thesis simply because it appears in a medium which isn't all that conducive to extensive footnoting. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence you quote from the TCM is very problematic to my reading, nearly putting the cart before the horse, I would argue. I changed it and began to re-wade into the acupuncture morass as well. jps (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some sourcing issues and their effect on neutrality being discussed here; wise eyes very welcome ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update – the article has now undergone a major re-write. A big overhaul of the sourcing has led to a quite different weighting and presentation of the core concepts and has taken it (in my view) much closer to neutral. Maybe even the POV tag can come off? Would appreciate scrutiny from fringe fanciers ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick look response....The article is ok, though goes a little far in labeling and judging the subject, rather than reporting/describing it. So, not quite neutral. Would be good to massage some of the labeling to either relect the opinion/source more clearly or remove altogether. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If we reflect the sources more clearly I think it's likely we'll end up being more, rather than less judgemental: the RS seem to hold (mild understatement) a pretty poor view of the topic. I couldn't find much independent sourcing of what AM actually *is* - I'll raise this in Talk. Anyone here know? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute on the talk page over this article on Oxford Bibliographies by Simon Payaslian. It revolves around the Bosnian genocide, Payaslian figures it began in 91, the guy arguing that Payaslian is fringe says it began in 92, the start of the war. However people have been indicted for crimes of genocide in 91 "Krajisnik... Was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992" Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic Duke p288. Yearbook of the United Nations 2006 p1489. "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" Given that the genocides had obviously started in 91, else why were people indicted for it? Is it fringe for Payaslian to say the genocide ran from 91-95? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please weigh in on the appropriateness of an acupuncturist editing acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine here: User talk:Middle 8#Acupuncturist. My opinion is that the user's input on the talk page would be welcome, but their WP:ADVOCACY in the article itself is very, very problematic. jps (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The most active editors at TCM and acupuncture, including Middle 8, are respectful of sources and careful to not misrepresent the conclusions of MEDRS. If you do not seek the contributions of people who are knowledgable about the subject, you risk errors based on lack of context. In the last three years the only disruptive and misrepresentative editing that has occurred has been by the skeptical editors PPdd, and more recently Dominus Vobisdu and Tippy Goomba, who were found to knowingly misrepresent Ernst in an attempt to push an anti-acupuncture POV. Please spend some time with the edit history and talk page before accusing a good faith editor of COI. To me, it looks like you came out of nowhere slinging mud, whereas those of us who frequent that article regularly have a respectful relationship even if we disagree. btw, posting this at the fringe theory noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at recruiting or vote-stacking. Herbxue (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to shed some light on what is a very dark area of Wikipedia I've stumbled upon. It is extremely reminiscent of the issues with homeopathy and chiropractic some years back. This is not acceptable. Our articles right now are parroting terrible sources to claim that there is evidence for efficacy of acupuncture when this is just not the case. See the citation to Orac below. Now, hopefully, some careful people will not be afraid to stare into the abyss because I think we will be successful in ridding ourselves of the pro-alt-med bias that has creeped into those pages. Yikes! jps (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I so totally dominate those articles. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to look here: [2]. Don't hide behind your other activities. jps (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were really OWN-y I wouldn't ignore it like I have for so long. I might have been OWN-y 2-3+ years ago but not recently at all. Who cares about old news around here? People change. Well, some do.... --Middle 8 (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. JPS, you miss the main point of COI, which is biased edits, and mine aren't. In fact your accusation is pretty WP:KETTLE given how hard you're having to distort the literature. Short version: sci consensus is determined by the peer-rev literature, not blogs. Could the blogs be right after all, in their bolder stance? Sure. I think there's a solid chance they are, or at least mostly -- e.g. about most of point specificity, other than for trigger points and maybe the odd P6. But are we sure they're right, enough for an encyclopedia to depict the debate that way, and unequivocally? Nope. Please find another topic if you want to depict consensus as all settled (global warming is always good, and important too), and for the sake of WP, find another site if you want to go all WP:BATTLEGROUND ... the last time you did that here, it sucked for all concerned, except the drama addicts. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are essentially behaving as User:DanaUllman did on homeopathy. I am not amused. Stop editing in mainspace, please. jps (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm afraid you are behaving as User:ScienceApologist (literally -- you're the same guy), one of the most disruptive editors ever, who was tending to turn this place into both a battleground and a kindergarten, as FayssalF memorably said. Your complaints about me and others are sloppy, hyperbolic, and huge, huge WP:KETTLE. You seem to have learned nothing during your latest, long siteban, and are on a trajectory toward more and more drama and disruption, more heat, less light. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about me, Middle 8. This is about you having the following WP:COI: you get paid to perform acupuncture and then you edit in the mainspace of the acupuncture article to remove criticism of acupuncture, reposition criticism so it's not as harsh, or promote biased sources and writing so that it looks like acupuncture is effective. That you continue to insist there is nothing wrong with this is the problem that this section is about. Contribute on the talk page, fine. I would value your personal experience in how the subject is handled. But that you continue to edit the article is shameful and in direct conflict with the SOP of Wikipedia. And you should know better. jps (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one to suggest I had a COI in 3 or 4 years, and I hardly ever get accused of bias because I don't play fast and loose with sources (cough), and you're disrupting all over the place and talking trash about several other editors, so yeah, it kinda is about you. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just agree to stop editing in article space and we can close this thread now. The evidence is clear. You have a conflict of interest with respect to acupuncture. Read WP:COI. jps (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't going to happen. Your opinion on the subject carries no weight with me at all. Like I say, your request/accusations are WP:KETTLE, in a big way. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of watchers of WP:FTN. We'll see what they think about an acupuncturist editing the articlespace of the acupuncture article to include claims that acupuncture is effective. jps (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you focus on sources and stop with this attempt at marginalizing an editor who has been around for years without making problems? You are making problems jps, focus on content or else this is starting to look like harassment. Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You should also not be editing in article space, Herbxue, since you are a "teacher of Neijia", you are also inclined to want to promote acupuncture and other qi-related subjects. See WP:COI. jps (talk) 1:10 pm, Today (UTC−4)

General idea: nobody who JPS disagrees with should edit article space because it's too much trouble to actually collaborate. Because we're all so disruptive and stuff. :-D --Middle 8 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer it if people who have a financial interest in promoting pseudoscientific practices did not edit articles in Wikipedia on those practices. This is not a controversial desire, as far as I can tell, and WP:COI seems pretty clear on the matter. jps (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no problem there! There's no consensus among scientists that acu is pseudoscientific. Or even a majority view, for that matter. I've looked for such sources; I know many of us have. One might think that acupuncture ≠ homeopathy or something.... You know, you might want to try just collaborating with me. I'm very easy get along with when I'm not being bombarded by spurious complaints and attempts at sidelining. Funny how it works that way. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek outside advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. In this case it has become an extension of the article talk page with the same editors making the same arguments. I am closing this thread, and I strongly advise the editors involved to go to WP:DR and follow the advice given there. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you know that acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine were being WP:OWNed by acupuncturists and practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine? This is not good. Please read Orac's scathing review of a source they are relying heavily upon at acupuncture here: [3] and then try to help. Thanks, jps (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) The following WP:TAGTEAM is going to be difficult to work with, I can see: Mallexikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Herbxue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) We need some people that can see their way to explaining why a source that has been roundly criticized here, here, here, here, here, and here should probably not be trumpeted as evidence that "ACUPUNCTURE WORKS! OMG!". This is bad. Really bad. Why aren't there people working on these pages? jps (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC) a) I'm not an acupuncturist nor a practitioner of TCM. b) I don't WP:OWN the articles you talk about. c) I find your accusations (WP:TAGTEAM?) quite appalling. d) There has been a lot of discussion on the acupuncture page before, but it's always been resolved. Now we're on the verge of an edit war just 3 days after you and QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived on the pages (at exactly the same time. Odd.) e) We have more than one high-quality source describing evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture. And your critic of Vickers' meta-analysis has so far not been backed up by hard evidence. Why are we discussing this here, and not at the RS noticeboard? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) It seemed you added original research promotional language to the lede. There was no endorsement. There is a discussion on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Ye shall know them by their fruits, or something like that. I don't know what you're on about, but the aping of Vickers is a WP:REDFLAG. Having the discussion here is necessary because, for example, the Vickers source is emblematic one of the big issues in WP:FRINGE, namely an out-of-the-way published works that everyone know is shitty being used to promote a fringe position. This is what we have here, but the problem is bigger. As QuackGuru pointed out, the safety issues related to acupuncture are not properly handled either. Shape up, please! Stop POV-pushing and try to help us get back to a mainstream reference. jps (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Sources should meet MEDRS except for certain sections, e.g. history should meet HISTRS. Does that not resolve things? Itsmejudith (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC) No, not in this case. Would that it were that simple (see my comment below about state of debate). --Middle 8 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I wish it would, Itsmejudith. Unfortunately, there is a coordinated group of editors who keep inserting out-of-the-way sources that promote acupuncture and claim a false balance with the gold standard work by Ernst and others showing that there is no evidence acupuncture is better than a placebo. This is not being communicated in the evidence sections at all, and attempts to conform these sections to proper sourcing standards are either reverted, or, more problematically, additional references to things like Vickers' poor meta analysis are inserted on top of everything else (as happened recently at TCM). This is about pseudoscience taking over the "evidence" section of these articles. It is really disturbing: I haven't seen it this bad for a while. jps (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Who is that "coordinated group"? Me, Herbxue and Mallexicon, you say? Dude, those are just three editors you happened to disagree with in the last 48 hours. A glance at the edit history will show we don't always agree (but surprise, we are collegial). You had barely read the article or talk page before making all these sweeping complaints. Your first edit was to the lede, obviously without having even read the body, because only when I reminded you that the lede should follow the body did you start talking about Vickers. You're barely paying attention, yet laying on the hyperbole about how awful things are. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC) You are acting to promote pseudoscience, as I see it. Protest all you want, the evidence is pretty plain to see in the history of the article. jps (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (outdent) I'll repeat what I said to JPS on my user talk page: I actually agree that it's possible that acu will -- despite the blinding issues -- eventually be recognized by sci consensus to be all or nearly all placebo. But your attempts to depict the literature as such are premature. If you were right you wouldn't have to prevaricate about sources (and editors) that disagree. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC) jps' criticism of Vickers' meta-analysis has so far not been backed up by hard evidence (and no, blogs of people being critical of acupuncture don't count); according to all we know, Vickers article is a MEDRS. And we also have more MEDRS in our article that see efficacy of acupuncture: Ernst, E.; Pittler, MH; Wider, B; Boddy, K (2007). "Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing". The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 35 (1): 21–5. White A, Foster NE, Cummings M, Barlas P (2007). "Acupuncture treatment for chronic knee pain: a systematic review". Rheumatology 46 (3): 384–90. Selfe TK, Taylor AG (2008 Jul–Sep). "Acupuncture and osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of randomized, controlled trials". Fam Community Health 31 (3): 247–54. So I really don't understand that clamour about "fringe". I think jps just wants to block out evidence that doesn't fit his POV. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) The clamor is you guys are inserting poor resources and invoking an unequal "balance". The Vickers source has been impeached, but the Ernst source is widely cited as the best around. You are claiming that they are somehow equal, but WP:GEVAL says otherwise. Please stop this POV-pushing. jps (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a not a reliable source. Vickers has not been "impeached". Nor have the other sources. I'll always be happy to have a discussion about sources (because that's what WP is about), but as I said before, this is not the right place. Can you please take this to the reliable sources noticeboard? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not taking this to RSN where people aren't familiar with how fringe theories are promoted. This is the appropriate location and, as I demonstrated above, the use of the interpretations that Vickers relies upon in our articles on TCM and acupuncture are very problematic. You can't GET a better expert than Ernst, and he is directly quoted saying that the source does NOT support their interpretation that acupuncture is better than a placebo. And yet, no mention of this salient point is made. This is absolutely deplorable. It is basically pseudoscience promotoin taking over the article. jps (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC) So mention it already. Stop complaining about the sky falling and seek consensus on talk for wording that properly weights Vickers and Ernst. Just do that, instead of making silly proposals like removing the Vickers source altogether just because Ernst and some science bloggers criticized it. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) See, even with this comment you betray your bias. "Ernst and some science bloggers" is a dismissive comment meant to minimize the critiques that completely impeach the interpretations that the source itself offers and should make us consider removing the source entirely. Because it's an example of what happens when fringe proponents have friends on editorial boards of low-impact journals. jps (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC) WP:SPADE is that you want to remove the source with scant reason, and that those blogs, many of which are very good BTW, aren't RS's here. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Ernst is a reliable source for criticizing fringe theories. jps (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) My quick review of this conflict does not support jps's interpretation of the situation. While these two subjects (TCM and acupuncture) have a high potential for misbehavior the editors identified don't seem to be doing it. Less heat, more light. focus on sources and clear language, not editors. jps's enthusiasm for finding problematic material is laudable, but finding trouble where only the potential exists isn't a very scientific approach. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) What do you think of Vickers et al. (2012)? Should it be used to state, "A 2012 meta-analysis found significant differences between true and sham acupuncture, which indicates that acupuncture is more than a placebo when treating chronic pain." or "A 2012 meta-analysis concluded that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain." as it currently states in the acupuncture article? You think that's an acceptable situation here? That's a good use of Vickers et al.? jps (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) So light a candle on the talk page rather than cursing the darkness over here! Why all this drama and trying to sideline editors? Why do at this page what could easily and much less disruptively be done at Talk:Acu? Curious... --Middle 8 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC) We haven't yet gotten to the root of the problem yet, I don't think. jps (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) STOP! This isn't the article talk page, and there is no need for a long discussion. If you have made over four comments already, please stop posting and give someone else a chance. What you are doing is on the edge of becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Paraphrasing of 2006 source from Ernst I think continuing to restore OR is a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) QuackGuru, the version you prefer is also OR considering the original source describes the outcome of SOME studies, while the text you prefer suggests that all of acupuncture is due to placebo. Whether that sweeping general statement is true or not, it is not supported by the sources. If you want a sharpened statement, you should properly contextualize it - one reviewer noted some studies that conclude that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo. Herbxue (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC) There are different ways to write the text. You can read my last comment here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Sure. But... please find my reply at Talk:Acupuncture#Recommend reverting. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (outdent) Hidden. Not meaning to be peremptory, but this issue is minor and in this context distracting. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"able to focus different types of radiation alike to magnifying glasses, including the types of radiation coming from biological objects" Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. I spent some time looking, absolutely no reliable references on the subject. I would suggest a redirect to Nikolai Kozyrev. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Kozyrev went nuts at some point with his ideas about life in other planets of the Solar System. This one does not seem to be notable, should be redirected indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Update Talk:Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev#Merge proposal. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Advocated an anti-cancer diet which included oil and vitamin pills. Apparently:

her method starts to be well-acknowledged by some mainstream scientists

Although the article has a stab at skepticism, it doesn't quite strike home. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Update - I have rewritten the article, adding some references and largely removing the unsourced/undue content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Kombucha tea has been promoted as a cure-all for a wide range of conditions including baldness, insomnia, intestinal disorders, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and cancer". (says the American Cancer Society). A new account is minimizing the documented dangers associated with Kombucha - more eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Still needs help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you need to eat and drink to survive? Apparently not. Do you need to have reliable sources to back claims inserted into Wikipedia articles? Apparently not.

Recent edits could benefit from a wider consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Over on Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, a new editor is very keen on including a review of said book by Neil Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by NARTH, a so-called "ex-gay" therapy organisation that offers treatment to try and change people's sexual orientation, a process considered to be at best unscientific and at worse abusive by a number of prominent professional mental health organisations including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.

The Journal of Human Sexuality seems to me to be in the same ball-park when it comes to sexology and study of human sexuality as, say, publications of the Institute for Creation Research—far on the fringe. I am posting here to seek clarification: is the Journal of Human Sexuality a valid source for critiques of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why given the WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policies? Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made for including Whitehead's review, and a case could be made against it. I don't feel strongly about the issue. The Journal of Human Sexuality could be considered fringe, but not necessarily to the same extent as a creationist publication (claiming that sexual orientation is not innate is not scientifically on the same level as claiming that the Earth was created in six literal days circa 4000 BC). Whitehead apparently does have scientific credentials relevant to reviewing LeVay's book, and that should count for something, even given that the Journal of Human Sexuality is arguably fringe. If the Journal of Human Sexuality is fringe, that's more because of the claim made by its publisher NARTH that sexual orientation can be altered through conversion therapy than because of the claim that sexual orientation is not innate. These issues are often confused with each other, but they're in fact quite different. The former of the two claims is by far the more controversial.

Beauvy's insistence on including the review, despite opposition from several other editors, is part of a pattern of disruption, and that needs to be recognized. The disruption isn't simply the result of inexperience; it seems increasingly to be deliberate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything is saying pseudojournal to me. I can't even find a website. Not to be confused with the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality or the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Its website is, as you would expect, part of NARTH's website. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And he is not amused as you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.

(C/P: Talk: Rupert Sheldrake#Chopra on skepticism in Wikipedia)

jps (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been smouldering away for months and is likely to continue yet. Does Chopra make any points we should reflect on? It is important his article in scrupulously neutral & fair. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just repeating the guff one of our "psychic" editors said on the Sheldrake talk page. It even links to his blog. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

He's unhappy that we're accurately reporting that his views aren't mainstream. Actually, Chopra's biography is surprisingly kind to him. Sheldrake's is more along the lines of what we're looking at although it still needs some more work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Poor, deluded Deepak Chopra. He wants Wikipedia to allow claims that cannot be verified, and he imagines that somehow magically this will allow only the unverified claims he likes, while -- again magically -- excluding the unverified claims of scientologists, holocaust deniers, or partisans on both sides of such issues such as abortion and gun control. Let's hope he never gets what he is asking for, because he definitely won't like it if he does. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Relatedly, perhaps: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Found this when looking at recent edits to Mummy about commercial mummification. Looks like fringe rather than just some weird religion as "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Promotional and we probably don't need 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Found some old fringe stuff about the Lenape being Vikings at Timeline of pre–United States history and similar stuff added at Norumbega today. It would be useful if people could put these articles on their watchlist as I suspect it will return. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Should such an article exist?

jps (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been redirected to Meade Layne which was nominated for speedy deletion. I've removed that template as Layne seems notable enough for an article. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations to fringe journals being added with the assertion "The lead should indicate that there is indeed scientific evidence of PK activity". User seems intent on righting this great wrong. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: One editor is pushing Foundations of Physics (same rag that published the Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory and Tom Bearden's perpetual motion claims) as a reliable source for the claim that Psychokinesis exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

An editor is proposing a substantially different version of this article example diff which, from what I can see, presents significant fringiness issues concerning one of the most prominent channellers. I gather from the discussion thus far that this may be resolved satisfactorily but it bears watching. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The proposed version omits some key criticisms, and at least in part, treats the fringe concept of channeling as factual. It is interesting to see Jimbo Wales presenting these issues in a common sense way rather than citing a laundry list of policies. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The altmed practice of "cleansing" the colon, promoted for its supposed health benefits. The article needs more eyes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty balanced right now, describing what the fringe theory is, and then the established medical opinion of that theory for every section. Is there something you think in particular is being presented without proper medical/scientific context? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes: the promotional stuff for IACT (sourced to IACT) and the medical information sourced to a quack book called The Purification Plan: Clear Your Body of the Toxins That Contribute to Weight Gain, Fatigue and Chronic Illness are glaring problems (not to mention removal of FDA warnings). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The other user is a Doctor, and I have verified it, it's not POV, or COI, and she has reasonable sources. Let's keep it neutral for now, and the differences aside. The way it's going looks fine to me as well. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this book (used a source to "however" the American Cancer Society) is quackery, and the article now also contains health information sourced to commercial and lobby sites selling and promoting quackery. Whether the user is a doctor or not (what kind of "doctor"? a naturopath?) is irrelevant besides the requirement for having neutral content on fringe material in line with WP policies and guidance. It may be we also need input from WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The current wave of edits is certainly pushing the article past balanced and into POV. Negative information being removed or severely watered down - this diff. And anything sourced to Quackwatch is removed as "unreliable". Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a blatant use of Wikipedia for fringe promotion. And ... I see we now have the Daily Mail being used to tell us how colonics have led to Simon Cowell's youthful appearance. It's the kind of episode that leads one to think that maybe Wikipedia is a bad thing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take it easy on this, and I am not going to decide who is right and wrong, quack book/quackwatch is rubbish. All I can suggest is, no more edits on the mainpage, and have it resolved on here, or the talkpage, before editing resolve it, make a draft, then put it, agreed by all parties. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important here that policy and guidance is observed. The policy that particularly applies to colon cleansing can be found in WP:PSCI. This is a pseudoscientific/quack (and dangerous) practice according to the reliable sources which we are obliged to use prominently (and QuackWatch in this context is very much a high-quality RS). We must not give false balance to fringe claims. I'm frankly astonished to find push-back against this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I am not a medical student, going to be neutral about this, and the article is taking a promotional tone, you may revert it. And I suggest both of you to make a draft first, or any other editor, to avoid issues like this. Don't get frustrated this is how it works, stuff like this happen. Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Both parties need to sit together, create drafts etc.., if one user thinks quackwatch or any other source I sun reliable, give citations sources etc... Otherwise this issue still remains. Alex you should contact the user if not on the talk page both need to come forward.Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted about this incident at AN/I. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A series of recently proposed edits seem to indicate an attempt to reduce the appropriate portrayal of HIV/AIDS denialism as fringe. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing of LewRockwell.com AIDS denial

I hope I'm not intruding here (will revert if asked to), but an illustration of what OP talks about can be seen in the wiki entry LewRockwell.com. The website has repeatedly published articles promoting the Duesberg hypothesis (and indeed hosted conferences on AIDS where Duesberg presented his views) that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and does not cause AIDS; we have RS documenting LRC's promotion of these views. In 2010, User:MastCell cited RS documenting LRC's publishing of AIDS denial articles n order to characterize the website's science articles (which also featured claims that vaccines cause autism) as "fringe" (1). This consensus lasted three years, but now User:Srich32977 and others keep deleting attempts to clarify the fringe nature of AIDS denial and another science published and promulgated by LRC. (e.g. (2).Steeletrap (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what edits MrBill3 is referring to. We do not have diffs. Steeletrap is referring to the adding & removal of fringe science and AIDS denial categories to the LewRockwell.com (LRC) article. But these categories do not address the "essential—defining—characteristics" of LRC as required by WP:CAT. LRC publishes a lot a stuff on many different topics from many authors. It would be improper to add article categories related to all or any of those different articles. Publishing stuff about a topic does not give LRC essential, defining characteristics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich is correct here re: categories. Additionally, regarding intrusion, Steeletrap is pushing a broader issue which was resolved months ago, if not in Steeletrap's favor. The issue was discussed ad nauseam on the LRC talk page in May at which time Steeletrap brought it to this noticeboard and was advised it belonged at NPOV Noticeboard. But here it is back again with no new evidence. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There were definitely violations of WP:ITA in the section on AIDS denialism. It is not appropriate to make it seem like rejecting AIDS denialism is a minority opinion by using in-text attribution of a common criticism of AIDS denialism to a single author. jps (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not clear if User:jps is replying to the original thread or the "instrusion". Thanks. CM-DC talk 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I (MrBill3) was referring to the discussion on the talk page of the article. If someone could take a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. The discussion has become tedious with points being made repeatedly and as I said it seems there is an underlying purpose to give undue weight to HIV/AIDS denialists. In particular by an IP who signs as Peter the Roman. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Please read her biography.

jps (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is terrible. I don't even know where to begin fixing it. Statements made as fact that are preposterous. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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

An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.

An editor claimed "I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Wikipedia."[4]. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Pseudoscience. The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. It was the understanding of editors that no final version had been published. However, the source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.

Abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness."[5]

Text from the source: "The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."[6]

More text from the source: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."[7]

• Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2011). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. 102 (3): 392–405. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21751996.

Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the 'Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.

Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.

The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS. That is not the question when the text is obviously sourced. The issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. [this message by QuackGuru - removed elaborate sig as it was corrupting the page]

Matute is a good source for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked the article history. This edit deleted text for no good reason. And then even more text from the demographics section was deleted from the article. The text should not have been deleted from the article. If the text was not about demographics then why wasn't it moved to another section of the article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to be bold and proceed with the proposed edits. This discussion should probably be copied to the talk page of the article though, right? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am concerned about Instruction Creep and the fact that dealing with the issue of pseudoscience is once again becoming the "tail that wags the dog" in this policy. Wikipedia probably needs to say all of the things mentioned in the proposals... somewhere... but I am not sure that this policy is the right place in which to do so. Please remember that pseudoscience is only one type of Fringe topic, and this policy has to relate broadly to all forms of Fringe material. Perhaps it is time to spin off a separate (but related) WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE sub-guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Several articles on the deformed Paracas skulls are based partially or largely on work by this fringe writer, who clearly fails WP:RS for this subject. They are, at least, Paracas culture, Artificial cranial deformation, and Elongated human skulls. Brien Foerster, a co-author of the source used, is also mentioned - for more about him, see[8] and [9] (lost technologies all over the world). He runs tours with Lloyd Pye[10] - the Starchild skull guy. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow.

I did this in response: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elongated human skulls.

jps (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And for this notice was accused of canvassing by User:Colonel Warden. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Occupational hazard of the job. jps (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across this while looking at an old FT/N entry on questionable sexuality statements and articles. Well, it's still questionable, worse than questionable. It's nothing more than an elaboration of Tripp's queer theory speculations, which as far as I can tell nobody else has any use for. Taking this to AFD isn't going to succeed, but I'm thinking that WP:UNDUE should be invoked and this relegated to a one sentence mention in the main article, if that. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not request a merge with Abraham Lincoln? It's not as if the article is very long. It's only Tripp's idea plus some padding. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I was suggesting; I should have said which article was the main article in question. Mangoe (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is 150kB, so merging subarticles in solely for length reasons is not very sensible. I do not quite understand Mangoe's post here. Are you claiming that discussion of Lincoln's sexuality falls under WP:FRINGE? Because that seems like a bit of a stretch. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not really discussion; it's pretty much filing Tripp's name off a series of allegations, ending with the admission that nobody else takes this stuff seriously. And there's no trace of it in the main article at all, which is entirely interested in the three women he's associated with. But I'm quite happy to merge it into Tripp's article instead, which says virtual nothing beyond "he's a Kinsey guy who had this theory." And yes, this sort of undue prominence is well within our purview. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I also favor the merge. The article as it is contains largely speculations and overstretched conclusions, with no serious proof to think of Lincoln otherwise. This seems to be a part of a modern series of attempts to milk everything possible from one's biography in order to advance a POV. Tripp seems to be in a minority here. Brandmeister^talk 21:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not there is any reliable historical information to justify drawing a historical conclusion that Lincoln was not straight, the subject has received massive amounts of attention in popular culture. Again, given the length of the Lincoln main article a merge does not make sense. If the article focuses too much on Tripp, then that is a reason to edit the article, not remove it. Minority does not equate with fringe, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

From an historical perspective, Tripp's work is certainly fringe. Even a sentence in the main Lincoln article would be too much. My recollection is that this article was created as the result of a long and acrimonious debate involving its inclusion in the main article. You may or may not be correct when you say "the subject has received massive amounts of attention in popular culture". IMO "massive" is a massive overstatement; it seems like it is rarely mentioned nowadays other than in LGBT targeted publications, except as a punchline. We do have an article Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions where it might be appropriate to include this material in lieu of maintaining the current article. However any proposals should be made at the Lincoln sexuality article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. Tripp may well be fringe, but then again we have an article on Moon landing conspiracy theories. The Lincoln article already contains a number of mainstream sources that address questions about Lincoln's sexual orientation, so the subject demonstrably has received attention in mainstream sources. A merge here is not tenable due to length issues, hence: article. I may well have massively abused the word massive above, but this certainly has received pop culture treatment - Lincoln Lover immediately came to mind. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact the sexuality stuff is exactly as old as Tripp's book. It was inserted in December 2004 in this edit by an IP, and Tripp himself was put in the article in this edit by an LGBT project member. Arguing about this commenced immediately and can be traced across three other archives at least. Looking for reviews there's a pretty consistent pattern of people like Gore Vidal who like to indulge themselves in this kind of speculation liking Tripp's book, and everyone else outside the sexuality academics being at best dubious and more commonly dismissive. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not understanding how you take the information you just stated and then come up with the conclusion that this article should be effectively if not literally deleted. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Crimsonreports (talk · contribs)
• Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Organ regeneration science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Potential Regenerative Cell ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pluripotent Stem Cell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Regenerative substance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rong Xiang Xu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rongxiang Xu and a walled-garden of related articles (Organ regeneration science , Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science, Regenerative substance ‎, etc ) have been created by User:Crimsonreports as apparently entirely promotional, POV and in many cases infringing. I'm not really familiar with the area, but suspect that they're WP:FRINGE as well. I've redirected some to the biography, which seemed the longest and best referenced of the lot. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have properly sourced and cited all the pages. If you feel some deserved to be merged, you can discuss it. If you feel I haven't properly cited or sourced, than tell me. And only a few minor lines were infringing on one article, and those have been corrected already. Taking the drastic action of redirecting nearly all the articles is unwarranted, and should be discussed first, I believe. --Crimsonreports (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur that these articles meet the citation requirements. In the case of the biography page (Rongxiang Xu) and the textbook (Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science), nothing screams fringe to me. All of these articles are properly cited, however, so I don't see any reason for the re-directs.--2602:304:44A9:C6F0:4CD3:7960:62B5:3F0C (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV and FRINGE concerns. WP:ARB/PS most likely applies as well. Definite WP:BLP violations as well. All the primary sources, press releases, etc make it look like it's all part of an advertising campaign.

I've gone ahead and restored the redirects. If the remaining articles deserve to remain, and it's not clear that they do, then they need substantial rewrites from far better sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected Potential Regenerative Cell because there sources were just press releases and patents - nothing indicating that it deserves to be mentioned in an article, let alone have it's own article. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the relevant discussion has stalled, I'd like to request an assistance on whether pre-1750s claims about Shusha should have the same certainty and weight as the 1750s foundation. Particularly, the article currently asserts that prior to the 1750s Shusha has been not only a settlement, but already an Armenian town with fortress. Meanwhile, the sources that indicate the town and fortress of Shusha were founded by Panah Ali Khan in the 1750s include (largely referred to in the article and/or talkpage):

• at least one epigraphical evidence from the wall of the town's mosque (now lost, but quoted particularly by Vasily Potto);
• at least five primary or otherwise historical accounts (Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, Mirza Yusuf Nersesov and Raffi);
• some 19th-century sources, particularly Russian Nastolʹnyĭ slovarʹ, vol. 3, 1864;
• encyclopedias: Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Iranica;
• Russian Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 2000;
• Russian Geographic Names of the World: A Toponymic Dictionary, 2001 and The Dictionary of Modern Geographic Names, 2006
• Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
• some modern authors from the opposing Armenian camp, such as Ohannes Geukjian and Varazdat Harutyunyan; the latter, despite trying to argue to the contrary, acknowledged that "the emergence of Shusha is usually associated with the construction of the unassailable residence-fortress of Panah-khan in 1751".

One of the issues is that nothing indicates that Panah Khan destroyed an earlier fortress to build a new one, but some apparently fringe sources say that the earlier fortress was ceded to him. The article cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Raffi who specifically say that Shusha was founded on an empty and uninhabited place. Also, as it was already noted at talk, there is a separate, small settlement nearby called Shushikent or Shosh, with which some fringe sources possibly confuse Shusha. Brandmeister^talk 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, this is a wrong forum for handling the dispute on Shusha. WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case. The disagreement is not about mutually negating viewpoints arising from conflicting approaches in science and faith (e.g. pseudo-science or conspiracies) but about adjusting timeline of a series of historical events. Those visiting this section should also realize that User:Brandmeister has been under sanctions for edit warring on the Shusha article. Just recently, Brandmeister was topic-banned on all articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, for two-years [11]. Hablabar (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to support the request for the community involvement in the disputes in the article about Shusha. The problem is that there are two conflicting versions of the foundation of the town. One is supported by most academic sources and encyclopedia, and the others is less popular. At the moment the minority view is presented as a fact in the article, and is given an undue weight. I would like to ask for the uninvolved editors to provide their opinions and help resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster mischaracterizes the situation as an issue of WP:Weight in order to avoid creative handling of timeline. Hablabar (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see we have a number of articles discussing this "compendium of mystical knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane."

Akasha

Chitragupta

Levi H. Dowling

The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ

Charles Webster Leadbeater

Sanat Kumara

Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association

And quite a few more[12] (some are about the musical type of record). Some of these are ok, others need work, eg the first 2 and the PBMA). Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What specifically do you see as being the problem here? It's a little unclear from your post. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at them? For a start, what in the world is Akasha meant to be? It looks like a cross between a dab page and an article. Is there a relationship between the various meanings and if so where is the source that says there is? Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Looked at the first. Akasha seems simply to be an article about a word. I'm not sure what you think the problem is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see some but they are probably not that important. But the first is actually Akashic records - comments? Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made a cut at fixing up the main article, which surely needs more work and better organization. Note that I've been able to make use of a major new academic reference on theosophy for this, which we will probably want to refer to elsewhere. Unfortunately it's insanely expensive. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The mention of akashic records is probably the least problem in this apparently-written-by-a-follower article on a notorious Philippine cult. There is good info out there but a better starting point is Ruben Ecleo, which though more fact-based is hampered by the confusion between the father and son, both leaders of this cult and both in serious political and legal trouble. I would be tempted to roll this all into the PBMA article in order not to have three articles on the two leaders (Sr., Jr., and disambig) but if someone else would like to take a quick look and offer an opinion I would be grateful for the advice. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me as it might be clearer to the readers, and redirects will sort out any other problems. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell how accurate this is. If I follow this correctly, this is something that was dreamed up by the early theosophists and then glommed onto by a bunch of modern New Agers including Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Benjamin Creme. It may have some actual Indian antecedents. It's rather disorganized and seems to have included a bunch of stuff on other figures in one of these groups whose relevance is unclear. A large chunk of it seems to have been written by someone familiar with the material and I am not (yet) concerned about how factual it is, but it's rather hard to make sense of, and I haven't gone through the sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I can raise this over at Wikiproject India, see if anyone is interested. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here other than the usual problems with Hindu mythological figures. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn't have listed that one, sorry. How about Akashic records though? And thanks for your attention, apologies for not having come back earlier. Dougweller (talk)

This one had a hit, with a classic "reference to a nonexistent page" citation. I've removed the material pending someone supplying an authentic reference. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got some help on this one and found a solid reference which should afford a clear and accurate section. Mangoe (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ is a legitimate reference: a section titled "What are the Akashic Records?" begins on page 11 of what is apparently the original 1908 edition. The article itself on Dowling is fairly terrible otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

has been newly created and is categorizing a number of fringe articles. The category itself seem to violate WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The category I created, Censorship of science, includes both fringe articles, such as Free energy suppression and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell; and non-fringe ones such as Sham peer review and Who Killed the Electric Car?; and one that's ?semi-fringe, Wilhelm Reich. Are you concerned that excessive mixing of fringe and non-fringe articles in the same category might give the former undue weight? Then again, I qualified the category with, “Known or alleged cases where science or technology has been censored or suppressed.” (Bold not in the original.) This suggests that the category may include fringe or non-fringe articles, do you think? Should some of the fringe articles be removed? How about the two subcategories referring to conspiracy theorists?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There are so few true cases of censorship of science that I think this category should not exist. To pass WP:V a reliable source would need to describe a censoring agent with the means action (a government e.g.), something that was "science", and then document the use of censorship on that science. You've put Max Gerson (cancer quack) and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell (pseudoscientist) in your new category without this kind of sourced basis. This fails WP:V and is POV-pushing, verging on disruption in my view. Please stop until a consensus forms, to minimnize any clean-up that may be required. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I won't add any more pages to the category, at least for the time being. You can delete the category if you like. Several other categories I've created have been deleted before. I have a strong fondness for creating new categories. I apologize.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the categorisation from the Gerson page, then saw this. I agree with Alexbrn it is a poor category and shouldn't really exist. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Alxbrn. RS would be needed to support categorization. I don't see any likely RS for censorship of science. Creator has expressed OK with deletion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 22#Category:Censorship of science. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"believed to cure many rare diseases by the use of natural herbs" Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Add) So a handful of press pieces on this practice which, so they relate, might "possibly provide cure for complicated diseases like cancer and AIDS, and at a very low cost"; yet nothing reliable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No book hits, no GScholar hits, no JSTOR hits: it's going to AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hodopathy is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Where Troy Once Stood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has quite a few history and archaeology categories, but is clearly fringe. These were removed by User:Ultra Venia and reverted by User:Antiphus, both edits I'm sure in good faith and with reasoned edit summaries. I don't these books like this should have one history or archaeology category, let alone 20. This may be one of those situations where policy forces us to misrepresent a subject, but as I haven't run across this before I'd like to know what others think. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

“Kitty is one of the leading Naturopathic Herbalist in the UK. She has been a regular contributor to What Doctors Don’t Tell You and The Herbal Review.”

A BLP with fringe overlap. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the poorly sourced and unsourced puffery (which left basically nothing). I tagged it for notability; if no independent, reliable sources are forthcoming, then it should probably go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Between the notability and NPOV problems, I think this would be a good candidate for deletion. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Request to change the editors of Santilli's article where Santilli is going on about "continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists" and reverting his edits. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We should tell the IP (whom of course we can't positively identify as Santilli) to get stuffed - or words to that effect. Wikipedia does not pander to antisemitic paranoia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I know this is likely unpopular given Lamarr's beauty, but I think (and verifiable sources confirm or question) that she no more invented WiFi (or anything related to it) than the whomever thought up the wheel invented the motor car. I've been accused of using original research and yet, the entire claim is based on unreliable sources (albeit a lot of them) and most if not all of those sources derive from the same source. Although there are many smoking guns (earlier patents and use in Germany during 1914-18 war) the primary source seems to stem from a patent filed in 1941 (Lamarr in her married name and George Antheil). Another smoking gun (I don't know how many you need) is in Lamarr's own words where she fails to even describe the "invention" to a reporter - perhaps she was just playing dumb, but we can't know for sure. The evidence strongly suggests she didn't have so much as a clue what the spread spectrum was or how it worked. There's a slightly cynical view from a reputable patent attorney published here: http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/ although as I've been at pains to point out elsewhere, this isn't the only elephant in the room. At least one academic has written about this in his book which I have cited elsewhere but the chapter is here: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/spread_spectrum.html.

Citing a patent is, to me, a poor example of proving invention. Many inventors (myself included) don't have our names listed on our inventions for any number of reasons. Mine have been mostly professional - so although I know I invented something (as do others) so far as the patent is concerned, I had no part in it and that crown goes to another. The "original research" here might be to question how Lamarr came up with the idea - I have my own hypothesis and that's all it is because all the witnesses are long dead. However, assigning the entire technological development of everything from spread spectrum to WiFi, CDMA, Bluetooth etc. to one single - parallel development noted on a long-forgotten patent is an insult to the memory those who actually did do the work; and whose names ARE available.

It's easy to dismiss this as me bitching or cry original research, but ask yourself first: why would I go to all this trouble? There's lots of slavish copies of the same old recycled story of Hollywood legend being secret inventor. The truth is rather less glamorous - but should we really ignore it because it's unpleasant?

The thing with patents is not unlike the reason that Jocelyn Bell Burnell ^[1] (a lady I am enormously in awe of) didn't receive a nobel for her discovery of pulsars.

I'm hesitant to address this issue directly as it's almost like committing thought crime (so deep this meme is embedded in popular culture). Yet the published evidence is clear. The patent exists; Lamarr's name is on it: but the technology claimed in the invention (spread spectrum) existed long before that and was well and widely understood. Smidoid (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say Hedy Lamarr invented WiFi? Our Hedy Lamarr article says her co-invented "frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis" for subsequent technologies (such as WiFi). LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of a negative correlation between beauty and intelligence - and accordingly, I see no reason to assume that Lamarr's looks should be considered relevant to the question as to whether she was indeed responsible (along with Antheil) for the patent. As for whether the patent had any real influence on later developments, that is another issue. One Wikipedia will defer to other sources to determine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Attention grabbing headline aside - how do you think I came to question it? Wikipedia's Hedy Lamarr article *actually* says: "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM (used in Wi-Fi network connections), and CDMA (used in some cordless and wireless telephones)". This misinformation is a primary source of reference for people who (for whatever reason) want to give credit to Lamarr for something she didn't do. It also says this: "She and composer George Antheil invented an early technique for spread spectrum communications and frequency hopping, necessary for wireless communication from the pre-computer age to the present day" - which is overstating the contribution even if it were true.

1. People widely assume that Lamarr's "invention" gave us the technology we need for WiFi (etc.) Radio serves a basis for WiFi, Bluetooth, Cellphones but we don't credit Hertz, Marconi, Maxwell (or many others) with those technologies - or mention them on their pages. That would be ludicrous.

2. We don't really know if who had the idea between Lamarr and Antheil. We DO know, however, that they didn't invent Spread Spectrum (aka Frequency Hopping). Rediscovered, perhaps... but not invented.

I know this idea isn't popular, but there's a widely accepted myth (propagated by Lamarr's fan base) that her idea gave us all these technologies - and the article cites a number of them. Several of dubious repute and mostly sourced from "that" autobiography which Lamarr had, ironically, try to prevent publication of.

Allow me to quote from the attorney representing the publishers said if Lamarr: "[her] reputation for morality, integrity and honest dealing was notoriously bad." ^[2] This seems to lend credence to the hypothesis that she had little or no input into the patent and simply went along with it. We can never know for certain - but there is some evidence that she was a fantasist; and a litigious one at that if this is to be believed. It's said that when CDMA was developed, a patent search brought up the long-dead Antheil-Lamar patent and Lamarr sued for royalties. Even though (it's separately claimed) that she had given the patent to the US Military.

Ref 13 in the article leads here: http://www.insidegnss.com/node/303. The author of which is Eliza Schmidkunz who is: co-owner of Gibbons Media and Research LLC, publishers of Inside GNSS. Making that reference about as much use as the electrons used to deliver it.

In that article is a key find: "...wireless technology developer Wi-LAN, Inc. acquired a 49 percent claim to the patent..." although the citation offered is now, sadly a dead link. Given that the patent had expired long ago, one wonders how or why anyone would need to "acquire" a claim to it? Patents expire into the public domain.Smidoid (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)smidoid

Andy - there is a relevance to her beauty here. Compare another female inventor, Barabara Cartland: known for her romance novels but not for her co-invetion of a military towed-glider. The primary push to recognise Lamarr as an inventor of... [insert claim here] comes from her fan base and her undoubted beauty as a young woman. If there is a correlation between physical attraction and intelligence it would be the first I've heard of it, but there's an excellent correlation when it comes to women (in particular) being able to beguile men of all ages. Smidoid (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)smidoid

I think AtG is getting confused with "Hedley Lamarr". You are welcome. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me that this is more an issue for WP:RSN than this noticeboard. There is no question about the patent existing, and there is no question that it describes something that is somewhat similar to techniques used later - there doesn't seem to be any 'fringe theory' as such. What seems questionable, as far as our article on Lamarr is concerned, is whether sources that state that Lamarr & Antheil's patent was significant to later developments can be considered reliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. That would seem to be the case - as a noob to Wikipedia (something I try to be at pains to point out) I do have some difficulty in finding the right place to start. The talk page has been pretty useless so far. So, yeah. I'll take it over there WP:RSN and thanks. Smidoid (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph appears in both the Lamarr and Antheil articles, and is virtually identical in both, so I don't know why such heavy weather is being made of the supposed distorting influence of Heddy's heady beauty and the "myths" propagated by "Lamarr's fan base" (ah yes, that vast body of fanatical Heddy Lamarr fans, who will vilify anyone who says a word against their goddess). In fact the article could do with some attention from her fans, if there are any, as it's rather ropey thing at the moment. Paul B (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the main discussion over to WP:RSN (and while I'm a Wikipedia noob, I'm not a research noob). If you want to know what the myth being propagated by her fan base is - you need to look no further than Facebook and Tumblr (plus others) - where claims are made that she "invented" WiFi, Bluetooth, CDMA and you name it. When I cross-referenced this and found the error was largely sourced from Wikipedia I was called a ignorant sexist (and worse). These aren't primary fans of Lamarr (I think the EFF award probably came from one particular fan, although I can't be sure) but *secondary* ones who are too damn lazy to check their sources. These aren't Lamarr fans as such, they are revisionist sexists who will attempt to cling vehemently onto any claim that a woman invented something that a man did. Doesn't matter to me if a wide-mouthed, 14-toed, bisexual sentient axolotl invented something - I only care that it receives the credit. Because Lamarr is (OK, was) beautiful and a screen siren - they use her to prove that a beautiful woman can have a brilliant mind. Pretty lame if you ask me, I know some very attractive scientists - of both sexes. Another claim doing the social media rounds is that an African-American woman invented CCTV. Go figure - but once these ideas get into the wild people stop at Wikipedia to check and if that confirms their belief - they stop looking. I know better and it didn't take me long to find that the meme was inaccurate in a number of ways: largely due to poorly source and unchecked inaccuracies on Wikipedia. The same sources feed back in to Wikipedia and so the myth snowballs. The MMR is myth still trucking on despite being proven wrong almost from the get go; this is more of the same.

Unless you think that Antheil's devastatingly handsome features and fan base are influencing the content of his article, I don't think there's reason to bring up these supposed distorting effects, since the two articles are virtually identical regarding this content. Yes, there will always be pop-feminist claims of this sort. Like pop-nationalism and pop-anti-racism it's all about saying that "we", whoever "we" are, really did loads and loads of great stuff, more than "they" are willing to accept. It happens all the time here with inflated claims about the contributions of [fill in blank] people in science and culture. All we can do is follow the best sources. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a detailed writeup in ISBN 0881750123 pp.60-63, which is an authoritative text (need to check for more recent edition). They're credited with a practical FH-SS system, partly inspired by his earlier work using piano-rolls for synchronization. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I people bottle the sarcasm and get back to NPOV. The best sources we have are the patents and prior art traces (Google has a prior art search now). LeadSongDog - that reference is good, but there is a later text (ISBN-13: 978-0471202578) which has been able to track FF-SS to earlier patents and declassified data - and I've confined they do exist. The best information in 1985 was not as good as it was in 1997 (EFF award) and not as good as it is now. The best I can figure is that although they did a version of FH-SS, it was a branch on a tree whose roots date back to the very earliest days of wireless communications. All I'm trying to get is some common sense back into the Lamarr article - and at least credit her with what she actually DID not what she might have done.Smidoid (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see the fringe theory here. Your issue is probably better discussed at WP:NPOVN. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time we re-visit the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" article and have opened an RfC to that effect. Please join in that discussion:

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#RfC - Should we change the focus & title of this article?

SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tina Resch claiming that the article runs afoul of WP:BLP due to inclusion of material regarding the subject's alleged psychic powers being defined as a hoax by multiple reliable sources such as Terence Hines, Kendrick Frazier, Joe Nickell, James Randi, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me. What happens to editors who make legal threats against us here? They get banned. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re user conduct, the legalistic argument is disturbing. Re article content, I think the question is if we have an overwhelming number of RS sources opining that Resch was deliberately hoaxing, can this be stated in WP's voice, or does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply? LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If they are reliable sources, why would we ATTRIBUTEPOV?

However, I'm wary of automatically blocking people who raise possible libel problem on a BLP. Quite often it's a sign that our our content can be improved. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

An administrator deleted a post of mine from Talk:Tina_Resch#Factual_accuracy_disputed and deleted all record of it from the history log. As a long time member of the ACLU, I have noted my objection to this free speech censorship on that talk page linked here. My only intent in starting the topic was to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from defamatory material in the article, per WP:LIBEL and WP:BLPCRIME. 5Q5 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, nothing of 5Q5's has been rev/del'd or oversighted, the editor must have thought an edit was saved but it wasn't. Admins like me can view rev/del'd material and can see that something has been oversighted but can't view it. We can see that there was a revision, that's all. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are currently two, yes two, RFCs concerning statements about the sex of Gabriel. Please see Talk:Gabriel#Gabriel's Sex/Gender for the epic saga. I am posting here because the issue of Gabriel being female has been called fringe before, and seems confined to New Age type circles, so perhaps some experts on those things can assist in the dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these is a proper RfC. The first asks about reliability of sources, so should be on RSN and the second is about NPOV and should be on NPOVN. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's five minutes I'll never get back! People will argue about the most meaningless things, won't they? "A says X, B says not X, C says maybe X or maybe not." There are no reliable sources on matters of faith, just on religious doctrines. Fringe doesn't enter into it. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't she the one with the eye patch? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Need to bring this to attention here. Problems are:

1. The "neutrality is disputed" by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash criticism from Sheldrake's page in violation of WP:FRINGE. Fans of Sheldrake seem to be incapable of rationally judging the state of his career progression and incapable of comprehending the clear WP:FRINGE state of this article. This is despite many clear criticisms. It is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page.
2. The "neutrality dispute" is entirely frivolous - no objection has been made with a clear and full understanding of policy. The notice however has been edit-warred onto the top of the article.
3. I think that WP:ARB/PS needs to be applied.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, having a NPOV tag is an important indicator when a dispute is ongoing (as this one is). It should be used whenever there is a coordinated editing effort to alter the content of an article in light of a claimed "bias". So the dispute exists and I think that resolving it is going to require simply more editors who insist that the article not fall into credulity traps when the mainstream understanding of the claims of Sheldrake are so clear. One option is to start removing the discussion of his ideas which haven't received outside notice. jps (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of Sheldrake's fans is that the article should be whitewashed as much as possible. Such an article would not be in line with policy. Unfortunately, I cannot see there is any way of resolving it, when some people have basic WP:COMPETENCE issues caused by having a mental block on understanding basic policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing is not okay. Paring down might be fine, however. Maybe the easiest way to resolve this is with a well-sharpened cleaver. jps (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs), previously banned for edit warring on this article, has submitted an entirely frivolous complaint to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's what's really happening. The neutrality of the Sheldrake article was overturned by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash the Sheldrake page in violation of NPOV. Opponents of Sheldrake seem incapable of rationally judging what constitutes balanced presentation of his work. Though it's already been repeatedly explained to Barney, WP:FRINGE clearly has no applicability. Sheldrake's article is about his life and his views. The task of editors is to present those views and responses to them fairly. Given his fringe status, to discuss his views on a page devoted to, say, ontogeny would indeed be inappropriate. To prevent a balanced discussion of his views on his own page is scandalous. It is indeed difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion on the talk page, but the real difficulty is translating problems raised on that page into changes in the article, and this is because Barney and friends revert every edit that would restore balance.

The credulity trap is precisely the problem. Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices are proven wrong.

I was banned for three days because I was seeking to restore a description of an experiment conducted by neuroscientist Steven Rose that was intended to falsify Sheldrake's hypothesis of long-range causation among organisms but instead seemed to verify it. Given their fear of science, it was inevitable that the anti-Sheldrake editors would revert the edit. I was blamed for the edit war only because I was acting alone in the face of a tag-team determined to keep any mention of real science out of the Sheldrake article.

As I demonstrate on the NPOV noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article, Barney's previous complaint against me for edit warring was not only frivolous but based on an obvious falsehood, one that Barney himself should have seen. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We now have more of this nonsense on the whitewashing noticeboard WP:BLP/N. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green, you have my sympathies. There is no reason not to discuss the man's views in his article. Some people want to put in only the criticism without bothering to even explain what the views are, which is absurd. CM-DC talk 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To discuss the man's views in his article we need good sources. Is there any specific proposal to improve the article using good sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are almost 100 references in the article. The Guardian and Observer sources are online. The only major archive source I don't have access to is New Scientist from the 1980s. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that refer to Sheldrake as a biologist or biochemist. There are others that do not. Both sets of reliable sources should appear in the article. Since this is a BLP, it's especially important that this living person's biography include the fact that he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge, in the lead, and not just in an infobox, as if it were history. It's not. He remains, to this day, a biochemist and very recent reliable sources call him a biologist. However, militant FRINGE-fighters delete biologist, biochemist, or scientist every time someone inserts it into the lede. The rationale is usually that the BBC, the Guardian and other reliable sources of general circulation are WRONG, and that the specialized scientific press is RIGHT, and so we must ignore the former and rely exclusively on the latter, because that's the truth. Of course, that's not what the RS, BLP or NPOV policies actually say, but, what the hell, readers are stupid and if we allow even the smallest smidgen of reliably sourced reference to Sheldrake being a biologist in the lead, they'll be hopelessly misled and start communing with their dogs. (I'll provide reliable sources for "biologist" shortly.)David in DC (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake. He talks about the relationship between science and religion."

[13] BBC 2012.

"Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist gave a speech which was loosely based on his book, The Science Delusion in which he refutes enduring dogmas which he claims are holding back legitimate scientific enquiry."

Ted Conference Censorship Row The Independent 2013

Wrong Turn Biologist Rupert Sheldrake On How Science Lost Its Way The Sun (magazine) February 2013.

"Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist who studies the psychic staring effect, has found that people who observe others for a living – such as police officers, surveillance personnel and soldiers – are convinced that the psychic staring effect is a real phenomenon."

Ask a Scientist SUNY-Binghampton University Newsroom June 2010.

"They have had several notable successes and also a few false alarms, said Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of the books, Dogs that Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and The Sense of Being Stared At."

Can Animals Sense Earthquakes? National Geographic News. October 2010.

"In this book and subsequent ones, Sheldrake, a botanist trained at the University of Cambridge, details the theory."

Rupert's Resonance Scientific American October 2005.
David in DC (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This has to stop. I've brought this up at WP:AN/I#Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent_Bullying_of_Rupert_Sheldrake_Editors. Yes, let's ignore policy and focus on "bullying" instead. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

These were clinical trials run in the early 2000s in Germany. There is some debate about whether/how their suggestions about the effectiveness of acupuncture should be included. More eyes welcome. (Also posted to WT:MEDRS.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I this a WP:MEDRS problem? I'll have a look... bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in addition to the above two mentioned noticeboard there are threads at WP:AN/I and WP:RS/N - and an AfD in progress. So, plenty to get your teeth into :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is littered with primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself are not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The mass policy violations have continued. The concerns about the coatrack information raised at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials have been ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether BLPs of practitioners of fringe medicine is within the scope of this noticeboard, but I could use some eyes on Debasish Kundu, a researcher of Spagyric Homeopathy. The article is very promotional and reads like a resume. I did find some citations from him on Google Scholar India, but much of what is in this article seem to be accolades from- and associations with- organizations that are fringe themselves. - MrX 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

First things first. Are you sure he is notable? Not looking particularly so. This article is in scope of the board. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure he is notable at all. I almost AfDed the article until I saw the Google Scholar citations. There's so much resume-cruft in the article, that it's hard to separate fact from fiction. - MrX 22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I share Itsmejudith's concern. Kundu may have written some stuff, but what have other people written about Kundu? Coverage of the topic by independent sources is key to the notability guideline... bobrayner (talk)

It doesn't look like he meets WP:PROF. Publication of a few journal articles doesn't count, and the journals may not be properly scientific anyway. Listing in Google Scholar doesn't mean much. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been through the list of claims and most of the organisations don't seem to exist in the real world. As for the journals - I have learnt a lot about the phenomenon of 'predatory open access journals'. There are lots of flashing red lights in the mentions (unaccredited degree mills, journals with a clearly commercial function, online articles very badly written, and organisations whose websites link to Viagra sales). It's possible that I have been too ruthless and removed stuff that is genuine but I don't think so. Anyway, if the author can provide genuine citations to back any of these up, we could look again. But right now, it's a candidate for speedy deletion. (not something I usually do, I would normally err on the side of keeping stuff in). --Rbreen (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. I was struggling with how to fix this article, but it seems that it probably just needs to go. - MrX 00:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody on the talkpage said that [14] shows his importance. Incredibly, that site photoshops his head into other people's photos to make him look more important & professional. For instance, here and here. bobrayner (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. - MrX 13:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(For those not watching; please consolidate responses there) WT:MED#Is Acupuncture a form of pseudoscience? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie started out by deleting large portions of the article, and is demanding that he recreate it from the ground up, apparently without interference from the earlier editors ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article."[15]). I'd rather let others with more knowledge of the subject deal with this person.

Maybe they have a lot to bring to this topic, but they know nothing about collaborative editing, ownership, and edit warring. They aren't listening to advice. Here are some relevant links. Their contributions is a good place to start:

• Orrerysky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Plasma cosmology - history
• User:Orrerysky/sandbox#Plasma_Cosmology

Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added this to an ANI report on Orrerysky who is now under a 1R restriction at Plasma cosmology: I don't know if we need an SPI or not, but there is something going on with the plasma cosmology and Ruggero Santilli related articles. At Santilli we've had an IP claiming to be him (and almost certainly is him) and at least one SPA who has just arrived. With Orrervsky we have him adding a file to his sandbox[16] within minutes of it being uploaded by Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs).[17] And we have another SPA, Reid_Barnes (talk · contribs) editing the Santilli related article Stephen J. Crothers which was created by Wavyinfinity (who we also see supporting Orrerysky at Talk:Plasma cosmology[18]). And what non-Admins can't see is that Wavyinfinity's first edit was to create the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. Wavyinfinity also created Grey dwarf, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey dwarf. - Dougweller (talk) 18:54, November 26, 2013‎ (UTC)

We also have a new editor whose only comment is to praise Orrerysky in a manner that reveals some knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And another who only makes one edit to praise him. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The other discussion is located at AN/I. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:BullRangifer for collecting the information here. If any of these brand-new editors with fringe interests start making article edits (and not just cheering on the team) then we may need to do a bunch of notifications under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There might have been a couple of sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. They haven't edited more recent stuff; I'm just pointing out that it sets the tone for later use of multiple accounts. However, I'm skeptical about the cost:benefit ratio of an SPI around Orrerysky. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the Plasma cosmology article should be semi-protected and limited to auto-confirmed editors. That would force newbies, meatpuppets, and socks to discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection could mitigate the risk of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, but we have lots of eyes on it, and that's the most effective control of all. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Unclear whether semiprotection is needed, since there are few edits by non-autoconfirmed people. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky has created Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. Besides other problems, File:Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson.jpeg, uplifted by User:Wavyinfinity seems to be copied from [19]. I see one of the editors above is posting about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Crothers on Facebook.[20] so we can expect more SPAs. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

None of this user's edits to articlespace in cosmology that I reviewed are worth keeping. Please keep an eye. jps (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We do seem to have a problem with this editor. They don't seem to be here to create an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV. It's time for a topic ban until they learn about the purpose of this place and how it works. They may have competence in their chosen fringe area, but don't demonstrate competence here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the introduction of Orrerysky on 21:13, 23 November 2013 [[21]], when Orreyskies first appeared, there has been +144,000 words just on the talk pages; Talk:Plasma cosmology, Talk:Plasma-Redshift Cosmology, and Orrerysky within just eight days. The disruption here has been immense and costly (time-wise), with so much time spent nicely guiding this individual rather than doing anything remotely useful editing. He still bizarrely says, "Arianewiki1, I find nothing non-neutral about the article." [[22]], when it is clear this is where the weakness in his various edits.

Yet, Orrerysky continues to plainly avoid confronting issues (evading the spirit of WP:NPOV with WP:NPOV and WP:POV policy, skirting mostly around this basic Wikipedia tenet. I have just made 20-odd edits of the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page mostly to highlight the lack of references/ citations to this issue, and of either WP:NPOV and WP:POV, being made as an intent of giving useful example to try modify this user's behaviour.

There surely must be some mechanism where new users are limited in modifying or contributing to articles as they get use to the editing syntax and editing style. (Perhaps limiting new user to x number of edits per week for, say, a month. Even limiting this to fringe science subjects might be of considerable use.)

If feel that this new user has had ample guidance and kindness to join into this community-based editing, but has abused this to his own advantage, which I do honestly suspect this has not been with WP:GF but to deliberately avoidance of real consensus.

I would like to kind request that Orrerysky be given the more opportunity to engage in editing and learn of methods of style before he be possibly removing or merging this recently created page. Please kindly consider this before possible enacted [[23]] .

Thanks here to all for their overall tolerance in this matter. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I think we could use some editors cleaning a bit of this article. Did you know that this Lysenkoist is considered "the Charles Darwin of the 20th Century"? I didn't either.

jps (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, he also had a theory of stellar evolution, in which planets are simply stellar bodies that progressed a bit further through the lifecycle. (I'd love to see an H-R diagram for that). Doesn't this sound familiar? bobrayner (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You might not think an IP claiming the Ainu are white (despite the genetics) is being fringe, but he's basing this on a real crackpot, Edo Nyland[24] who thinks all languages are descended from Basques - he just sent me the link. He's also adding the Japanese to the Turanid race article claiming they are 'Turanese' (and the Mongols). Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Turanid article seems to have a couple of problems of its own! bobrayner (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgot that. The university IP address editing Turanid race (and thanks for your work there) has also been editing Arabid race - the most recent source for that I find on GBooks is a 1976 Mankind Quarterly (spit) article. It cites a 1974 edition of John R Baker's Race but Arabid isn't in the 2012 edition's index. It talks about it as though it's a currently used classification. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably 212.174.135.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person as 212.174.135.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In the article on the Insite supervised injection site in Canada there is a section called #Research. In three paragraphs is says that "the site has been the focus of more than thirty studies, published in 15 peer-reviewed journals" gives some examples of findings from CMAJ, NEJM and Addiction. One of these articles is from the Lancet and it states that the number of "overdose deaths have dropped 35% in the Insite area since it opened, much more than a 9% drop elsewhere in Vancouver". This last study is then critiqued by a organization called Drug Free Australia (DFA) in the two following paragraphs. (They urged Lancet to retract the article in a letter to the journal [25] The letter was published [26] and got a reply from its authors in the same issue [27]. Lancet have not retracted the article. Drug Free Australia also accused the scholars of scientific misconduct. The University of British Columbia subsequently investigated the matter and concluded that the research was stringent and solid. [28].) The last paragraph of the section is also from Drug Free Australia and presents their view. A view that is contrary to what studies in peer-reviewed journals found and is presented in the thee first paragraphs of the section.

I have tried to chunk most of these three paragraphs. For a number of reasons including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. Editor Minhpie say that it should stand, as the critique echoes concerns that a number of (political) organizations have with supervised injection sites and thus that their "research" is needed for balance. (Drug Free Australia, REAL Woman of Canada and similar believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to suppress negative findings of certain abuse related programs and confabulate positive findings about the same to sway public opinion. They claim that these researchers, editors-in-chiefs, reviewers, excreta - just like them - have a political agenda and that's why the Lancet and other peer-reviewed papers publish what they do.) Minphie also claim that "medical" doesn't apply as it rather is a social outreach program then something bio-medical. While DFA might not be MEDRS, the contrarian view presented in the latter paragraphs is attributed to DFA and DFA is a reliable source for the views of DFA and thus there is no problem with the reliability of sources neither, Minhpie claims.

So how to view this? Steinberger (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Political operatives and ideology-driven lobby groups are so used to borderline slander they hardly notice they're engaged in it. Surely Drug Free Australia and REAL Women of Canada have the same access to publishing in scientific journals as anyone else. If they suspect what a researcher reports, let them follow the scientific method and report their reproducable findings, not just their minimally-notable opinions. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is essentially one big list and the primary contributor, User talk:Chalquist, seems heavily invested in the subject. It was voted for deletion six years ago, albeit with not much input. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article title seems to be a neologism and the subject seems to be mostly original research. At least some of the sources are self-published, and other may be unpublished papers (I'm not certain). If this is a notable subject, the article needs intensive care. Otherwise, it should be deleted as consisting almost entirely of original research. - MrX 00:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The related topic Ecopsychology appears to have similar faults. It's ultra fringe stuff and also seems to be a non-notable neologism with little or no currency within the field of psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This article was previously the subject of an AFD discussion. I think it should be again! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrapsychology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Richard BB 15:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's being PRODed, by me, but given that it was a previously deleted article would it be appropriate to turn the PROD into an AFD? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's already what's happened. Your PROD was removed by the article's author (claiming that the article had just as many sources as other articles, which is a fallacious reason, given that it's quality not quantity), so I took it to AfD. — Richard BB 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I just started an AFD for Ecopsychology: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopsychology --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I had to withdraw my AFD for Ecopsychology, however shortly afterwards I noticed that about 1/3rd of the article is a cut & paste. I've included the relevant details in the article's header. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you know which parts are copyvios simply remove them, no need to wait. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This journal, which seems to be on the fringe, is currently at AfD and the discussion could use some more input of knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a journal of fringe topics, however I'm not sure there's anything fringe about the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Other than the likely fraudulent claim of peer review in the lead? Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It need not be fraudulent - merely meaningless. 'Peer reviewed' can mean almost anything - or almost nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There's discussion ongoing on the talk page of this article -- user Seppi333 is promoting what seems to me to be an implausible reading of WP:FRINGE, and it would be nice to have one or two more opinions. --JBL (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Seppi is quite correct on WP:FRINGE. WP:MEDRS should apply to anything that looks like a medical claim, although news about science can be sourced to a science newspaper, or even a mainstream newspaper. In the meantime, the article subject doesn't seem to meet notability criteria and the article should be going to AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe website used as a source for around a dozen articles about Indian history. The site publishes pseudoarchaeology with a religious agenda, and the theories that it promotes has no support among historians. It makes the claim that there was a "Hindu colonisation of America", basically a South Asian version of the crackpot Gavin Menzies' equally ridiculous ideas about the Chinese in the Americas. It alleges that "The largest temple in Mexico City was the temple of Lord Shiva, the War God of the Mexican whom the Spanish invaders found entwined by golden snakes" and that "the Astec calendar known as the Astec Chakra of the Hindu Astronomers. It is the foundation stone of Hindu culture in America. The ancient Americans believe in the four Hindu ages (Yugas or cycles).."

There are more fringe articles on the site. One claims that Ancient Troy had contact with Mesoamerica, while another claims that the Phoenicians were Indian. There's even one that links together Atlantis, the Celts, a psychic named Edgar Cayce, Ancient Egypt, and the "Goddess Danu". Thoughts?--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be said really. It's clearly unreliable. Is there any actual dispute? Paul B (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just double checking before beginning a mass cleanup.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth reporting a list of articles that (ab)use this source to WP:RSN. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the only one left. I'm bringing it here as it appears to have a lot of fringe in it and no reliable sources. As an example, the first source is a technical support guy.[29]. I'm not sure what to do with this. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We have lists of loanwords? Why? Shouldn't they all be in Wiktionary instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Terence_McKenna#Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This section looks like a lot of promotion and original research to me. Is there anyone here who has the time to go through and figure out which of these ideas has received independent notice and which are the sole provenance of McKenna's speculations?

jps (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In an article about Terrence McKenna it's totally appropriate to list out his fringe ideas. He was somebody primarily notable as a promoter of fringe ideas. The important thing is to verify that these really were his positions and not wishful thinking from later generations of suburban shamen projecting their own crackpot ideas onto McKenna. --12:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but which of these ideas received the requisite independent notice? jps (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about that call-out box that discusses aspects of theoretical physics which seem to be utterly unrelated to McKenna's work or writing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah to that. I was alerted to the problems when I received notice that the article was linking to metric expansion of space. jps (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I am having a hard time making heads or tails out of this. It kinda reminds me of the Disclosure Project only French and from the 1990s. Anyway, it's being trumpeted in the lede of UFO right now, so I think we could use some help. I'm going to santize the lede of UFO, but would appreciate someone with better French skills than myself work on the article on COMETA. --jps (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The COMETA currently links to the "English Language Version" of the COMETA report. I cannot see any provenance for this version of the report - it seems to be entirely unofficial. The French language version of this article makes no mention of any non-French translations of this report. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. The English article needs loads of work. "High-level" needs to go. There's lots in the French article that isn't in the English one. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Our article makes it seem that the project was closely connected with the IHEDN, which isn't a think-tank but a military college. Confusingly, it says that the authors of the COMETA project were former "auditors" at the IHEDN. I had to look this up, but Wiktionnaire did the trick. "Étudiant qui assiste aux cours sans avoir le titre d’élève, dans certaines grandes écoles." Roughly: "Someone who follows classes but isn't enrolled as a student, in certain higher education institutions." And the long article in fr;wiki on IHEDN makes it clear that the institute has thousands of such people attending every year. So a "former auditor" is just someone who has attended a short course or seminar! No wonder that IHEDN completely dissociated itself from COMETA, a fact that is in our article, but right down at the bottom. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So is this even worthy of an article? What are the independent sources describing it? jps (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, check out the links to this article. There is quite a walled forest of UFO articles here in Wikipedia. What an embarrassment! jps (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article in French, which is on the report, not the project, has a section on how it was received. They have a quote for it being ignored by most of the press, and also quote sarcastic headlines in Liberation and Le Canard Enchaine. It seems that it was treated as a bit of an embarrassment and a joke, to the extent that it was noticed at all. There's enough for a stub at least, or for a paragraph in a merged article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Notability says, however, "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." If it is only being treated as a joke, it is probably not notable. jps (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the exact same sense of the word 'audit' used in the English language. It means to attend a course without being an official member of the class. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody checked the sources for this article? They are all rubbish. I'm starting to think that what we have here is bordering on a hoax, or at least an article that blurs the line between dishonesty and incompetence. I've removed some of the dead links, and now there's very little to support the claims of the article. I'm thinking we are ready for an AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMETA LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Many of the same claims can be found here: [30] --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the article go and just have the mention in the UFO article alongside the Disclosure mention. No doubt that this stuff is very fringe, the only question is whether it's notable fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced advert for one man's self-published research project. The closest thing we have to notability was that it was (allegedly) mentioned once in the X Files, but not episode data is given. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few books that at least mention the organization. Admittedly, I haven't read any of them. - MrX 00:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

According to whoever wrote this article - Bill Clinton was interested in UFOs and even issued an executive order to change the classification rules of UFO-related secrets. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and original research. The executive order exists [31], so that's something. - MrX 01:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned. "PresidentialUfo" is not a WP:RS. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

To round out our discussion of UFO articles for the week:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirius (film)

Cheers,

jps (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Another weakly sourced report of a UFO flap. This one has (apparently) been mentioned in a TV show and a book about UFO flaps. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there are just enough legit sources like this available to establish some notability. However there's no shortage of extremely weakly sourced UFO articles hiding in the dark corners of Wikipedia, for example, this one. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly a "team of scientists" consisting of prestigious physicists and a parapsychologist found that telekinetic powers unleashed by an emotionally distraught secretary were the cause of spinning picture frames and electrical failures in an office. Sourced to German language parapsychology books and a sensationalistic article in Der Speigel. Try as I may, I can't find any reliable, objective sources with which to transform this into a viable, encyclopedic article. Options are to redirect it to the main poltergeist article or send it to AfD. Or I may have missed something. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the first step should be to cut out any statements in the article which cannot be derived from a source. The end result may be that we are left with a stub. If notability cannot be established with reliable sources then it may be an AFD candidate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should cut any unsourced material, or improperly attributed statements. There seem to be plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG though, for example this and these. As long as the article treats the subject as "reported phenomena", I don't see a problem. - MrX 15:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I located some additional sources and critique, and have remedied most of the problems. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another poltergeist fan edit warring at Enfield Poltergeist. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

An "anti-autism" diet that has recently had some mainstream press coverage in the UK. I have just expanded the article a bit, and it may be worth watchlisting this and/or taking a look over it. Thanks, Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just proposed deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody please have a look? This is not really my field at all, but it does not look like a fully credible article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a fringe issue so much as an issue with notability. It appears to be an interesting movement -- Slavic peoples trying to recover their indigenous religion following the demise of communism. But there are almost no sources, unless you read the Cyrillic script. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is some discussion about how to present an opinion about 'flu vaccination, and its claimed link to Alzheimer's. Could benefit from more eyes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Article has been semi'd for a month apparently due to someone using multiple IPs, who I reported to WP:ANEW. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Eyes are needed on Rupert Sheldrake; the regular eyes are no longer there. vzaak (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

agreed - people like me just aren't enough. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BobRaynor saves the day, or at least, prolongs the battle over the definition of WP:NPOV, and whether or not WP:SPOV is indistinguishable therefrom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, people are being driven off Wikipedia by having to deal with WP:AGF-stretchers. No doubt it's enough to send create mental health problems. And yet the admins do absolutely bugger all about it. Meanwhile, we have WP:FRINGE which 74 conveniently ignores. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any arbitration cases dealing with massive and extended off-site canvassing from proponents of fringe theories? How Wikipedia can deal effectively with such a situation is an interesting question. Wikipedia suffers when editors need to spend more time on one article being targeted from off-site. A possible outcome is that the non-canvassed editors will drop out from exhaustion, which would set a very bad precedent. vzaak 20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead paras of Narconon have been moving steadily away from the idea that it's a Scientology organisation with a fringe theory of drug rehabilitation, towards giving the reader (or at least, the reader who doesn't read the rest of the article) the impression that it's a mainstream drug abuse treatment programme. I'm attempting to move it back, input from experienced editors would be appreciated. --82.44.96.198 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Should List of government responses to UFOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) even exist? Some of the items on this list are articles we have previously discussed as possibly fringe. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Per a comment found on the Talk page, the article name is misleading. The items are a collection of UFO related links (some rather dubious). Suggest redirect to UFO. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

is the list referenced to reliable sources? Does the list give appropriate weight to the sources and the various points of view surrounding items on the list? That's what matters, not what the subject actually is. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It survived an AFD attempt fairly easily. The bigger problem, it seems, are the articles themselves, which as far as I have looked show government endorsement of the reality of extraterrestrial UFOs. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Haven't read all of the articles but Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident seems to give UFOlogist's fringe speculations (editorially emphasized with boldface type) undue urgency and weight. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Same problem - IPs repeatedly deleting sourced content from lede. I suspect it is probably the same person, IP-hopping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) states that

"Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus used lodestones, or naturally magnetized pieces of the mineral magnetite, to treat conditions such as epilepsy, diarrhea, and hemorrhage." and that "Nikola Tesla is often considered by historians to be the father of modern electrotherapy because of his research into electromagnetism. His methods and patents in the early 1900s for the Tesla coil [1]" that were used for power distribution transformers were also used for electromagnetic medical devices". --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some more recent papers I found through PubMed on the topic: [32] [33] [34] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually used for some things, but fringe-y presentation at the moment. a13ean (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's about the size of it, though we should really not treat all quackery as fringe, some of it is so commonplace as to approximate mainstream. Using static magnetic fields (e.g. magnetic bracelets) as a (valueless) therapy is one such instance. This article, though, is about pulsed fields, which do have plausible mechanisms of action and an evidence basis, although still somewhat limited. Unless there is a published source which characterizes this whole field as fringe, we should be very cautious about doing so. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are definitely some fringe claims in the version of the article I most recently reviewed (especially the Nikola Tesla stuff) - that's not to say that the whole field is fringe, merely that the article has become entangled with nonsense. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• read some research papers from NASA. used on astronauts. it cannot be a fringe theory coming from NASA. Cyrinus (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

For this to be helpful, it will need to be much more specific - exactly which research papers from NASA do you expect will prove illuminating to us? Otherwise one would have to look through the entire publication record of NASA to find the needle in the haystack. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Cyrinus might be referring to the NASA patents pulsed EMF therapy. You can find them in an older version of the article (before I removed those irrelevant links). --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I will find the article and post it here. Happy Holidays!!! Cyrinus (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• A Countermeasure for Bone Loss and Muscle Atrophy

• NASA Study

• NASA/TP-2003-212054

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

UFOs beam death rays at helpless Brazilian citizens, a super secret military task force is assembled, someone commits suicide. I don't see anything here worth saving. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just AFD nominated this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Would any FTN folks be willing to help review the sources on this article (it probably will not take much time). --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

TK cell therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I wish the researchers behind this sort of thing every luck in their project, I think we all understand the gravity of articles which present highly speculative cures for cancer. Could somebody with a more biomedical background assess the validity of this article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is in a Phase III trial, I suggest that it isn't highly speculative any more. I'm not a medical expert mind. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it's quite a common 'scam' for highly speculative treatments to stay in Phase III trial forever. That means we have a treatment that may be proven not to be immediately toxic but has not yet been proven to be effective. Some organizations use Phase III trial status as a cover to push unproven quackery. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To cast aspersions in this way without any evidence is just wrong. Aside from Stan The Man Burzynski, can you name any other scammers who have had phase III trials going as a scam for thirty years without publishing results? Your broad brush condemnation of this is very unfair, and paints the researchers involved as unethical. How many other Phase III trials will you condemn this way? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not condemning phase three trials, however I'm illustrating the fact that a Phase III trial is not of itself a notable thing and one should not be swayed by it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless we have reason to believe that that sort of chicanery is going on in this case, I'm not sure it's appropriate to make that sort of suggestion. Looking at the timeline of trials for this particular therapy, I'm not seeing any big red flags, but someone with more experience with clinical trials may want to chime in. There was a preceding Phase I/II trial KT007/NCT00423124 that ran from July 2002 to December 2011, with an intermediate Lancet Oncology publication in 2009. The current Phase III trial KT008/NCT00914628 is set to run from February 2010 to June 2016, which sounds like a reasonable window, given that their primary endpoint is disease-free survival.

The tone of the article could stand to be less cheerleadery, though. For instance, declaring in the first sentence that the therapy is "...in a Phase III clinical trial – final investigation stage prior to market approval" implicitly assumes a positive trial outcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing attempt to recast the Koch brothers' global anthropogenic denial as "skepticism". This is inaccurate, and inconsistent with our sources, but they're edit-warring and ignoring citations. MilesMoney (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right to reject the use of the term "skepticism" to describe the Kochs' view in this regard. Climate change denial accurately reflects the scientific consensus on the views of the Kochs. (I know nothing about climatology, but all that matters is what mainstream sources say, and they uniformly reject "skepticism" of APGW as not only false but pseudo-scientific. Steeletrap (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I made the change. My prediction is that it will be reverted, even though it's supported here. MilesMoney (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

When you come to a noticeboard you come to get third parties opinions, not to have a discussion among two editors who work closely together and generally agree with each other. I have no interest in getting involved in the debate, especially since no relevant diffs were offered, but I do like to see noticeboards used properly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep making it personal, Carol, and then wonder why you make no progress. MilesMoney (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training - Marko Punkanen; PhD, Esa Ala-Ruona; PhD Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Jyväskylä, Finland - Marko Punkanen, Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Mesikkäkatu 7, 15610 Lahti, Finland Email: marko@nyanssi.net; Music and Medicine, July 2012; vol. 4, 3: pp. 128-135., first published on May 17, 2012.

Abstract: Click and read the abstract

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.

• Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library

• Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.

• Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7 Maalche Raamat.

• Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947 (1993)

• Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum 1983

• Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc. ISBN 0-918812-72-0 1992

• Music in der Medizin , ed. R. Spintge , R. Droh. Springer.Verlag ISBN 3-540-17265-3, ISBN 0-387-17265-3. 1983 and 1985

• Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag ISBN 0-387-18862-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. 1988

• MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199

• Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)

• ISBN 978-88-548-3603-7 Aracne Editrice 2010.

• And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.

• Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT

• Neuro Rehabilitation Vol 25, No.4 (2009). King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat

• Just another vibroacoustic research reference list independent research list

• The Effects of Sound Wave Vibration Therapy on Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease Vibration Therapy in PD

• Many secondary sources here.

• Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy

• LFSS

• Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed

• King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed

• van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed

• Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget

• Anjum Nayyar. Good vibrations: using sound to treat disease. 2012. University of Toronto News

• Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

|}

A simple question: which of these sources are you suggesting complies with WP:MEDRS guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• for example PubMed and ref from universities. Cyrinus (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not directly related, but I wonder if "Music in medicine" might actually make quite an interesting article. In searching to see if we had it already, I discovered this gem: Music Therapy Is The Alternative Medicine For Diabetes !!! 13:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rammstein !!!! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of these sources could be used in the article on Music Therapy, i'm not convinced that VAT is a distinct modality from Music Therapy, at most it seems to be a minor variation of this more established healing practice. Most of the researchers in the cited above seem to come from a music therapy background. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is a huge difference between music therapy and sound therapy. VAT is not VAM (vibroacoustic therapy is not vibroacoustic music therapy). Those who started with VAM have agreed VAT is the way to go... Music cultural biased. Pure sound is not - frequency works directly on your body. Whatever PEMF (pulsed electro magnetic filed) can do - VAT (viberoacoustic therapy) can do without any side effects or danger... Wiki allowed pemf - why VAT is fringe theory and PEMF is not. Complimentary medicine and integrative medicine are adopting VAT here in north america now - and VAT was adopted in scandinavian countries for more than 30 years. I will refine the content with the references listed below. Much better article than PEMF, which was accepted by wiki admins.-- Cyrinus (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to our attention. This is a very bad article, and certainly not the standard we are aiming for! I strongly suspect that the PEMF article will not survive a review as it makes a number of quite dubious biomedical or theraputic claims with very poor sourcing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Salim. but VAS is already allowed in wiki and it is not a fringe theory. If VAT is fringe theory - VAS is fringe theory too. VAT is VAS. The definition in wiki for VAS is wrong - it is only defining Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation now - which is a subset of VAS... Many references available for Physioacoustic Therapy which is the same as VAT/VAS. PEMF uses pulsed electro magnetic field (NASA research papers available). VAT uses pure sound frequencies (not music with beat - which is music therapy - psychologist with guitar)... Music goes through ears (similar to binaural and isochronic frequencies)... VAT goes through body... -- Cyrinus (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The FDA has listed physioacoustic equipment as a Class One medical device and allows the claims of relief of pain, increase of blood circulation, and relaxation. -- Cyrinus (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The FDA does not set policy for what is acceptable in wikipedia topics. In wikipedia the policy is defined by WP:MEDRS. Please avoid making Wikipedia:Other stuff exists type arguments. Each article needs to be edited according to it's own subject's merits. The presence or absence of other articles is not relevant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• FDA approval as medical device means it is not a fringe theory. FDA is not going to approve something based on fringe theroy. That is the point. -- Cyrinus (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Read up on what Class 1 approval means: it just says that it's not likely dangerous. A tounge depressor is a class 1 device. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

more references added to my talk page:

• Neuro Rehabilitation Vol 25, No.4 (2009).

King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat

• Just another vibroacoustic research reference list independent research list

• The Effects of Sound Wave Vibration Therapy on Motor Symptoms of

Parkinson’s Disease Vibration Therapy in PD

-- Cyrinus (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyrinus, I've been reading through some of your own VAT related publications (via the Cyrox.ca site you previously invited us to read). In one item you claim to have produced a sound waveform which would be specifically beneficial to Alzheimer's disease paitients, and another which might benefit FX traders. You also claim that specific frequencies have specific responses, e.g. 40hz stimulates blood circulation, but 50hz can be used to treat asthma. One question - which of the sources you have previously identified provides evidence that sound-waves can produce such specific effects.

Furthermore, do you stand behind some of the statements on your site, such as this quote: "“The body is being held together by sound... the presence of disease indicates that some sounds have gone out of tune.” --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to find anything by reliable sources backing up Cyrinus claims of efficacy. In fact, we may eventually find quite the opposite. I found a story by freelance news writer Michelle Altman posted on her writing samples blog [35] but haven't been able to locate where it was published. The relevant paragraphs:

"Some music therapists argue that evidence on the effectiveness of vibroacoustic therapy is lacking. In his own work with autistic adults and children, Ari Amir, a master’s student at NYU’s Nordhoff-Robbins Center for Music Therapy, has found that listening to and creating music can produce physical results. But vibroacoustic therapy, he says, “is considered as a form that may help but hasn’t been clinically proven to help so far." Biology professor Carol Shoshkess Reiss at NYU’s School of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief at The Journal of DNA & Cell Biology, goes a step further. “It’s quack work, absolutely quackery,” said Reiss. “I did a web search in PubMed, which is the accepted review site for peer-reviewed publications, and in the last twelve years there has been not one paper on this.” While Reiss doesn’t feel the treatment could be of any medical harm, she does worry about a patient’s financial “waste”."

LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Read the research articles from Finland and Canada. Anyone can write a blog. They teach VAT in degree programs.

• Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy

• LFSS

• Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed

• King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed

• van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed Cyrinus (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyrinus has been campaigning to keep this article, however I believe the end result has been to draw yet more attention to the aspects of this article which originally concerned us. This is starting to fit the pattern of almost all fringe medical claims - a WP:Coatrack of very suspect sources which have included NASA patents, unpublished theses and and FDA approvals.

@Cyrinus, In one paragraph on this page you explain that VAT is traditionally considered to be a form of music therapy. A few lines later you insist that VAT is completely different to music therapy. Please stop and consider the effect this kind of inconsistency has on other editors! I'd urge you to end this campaign. By all means work within the policy to find acceptable sources which might help us save the article, but please work within the policy rather than constantly seeking to bend the rules! --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Olav Skille's post about VAT on wiki

There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

-- re-posted Cyrinus (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyrinus: this is almost the polar opposite of what you were asked to provide. This is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative research effort. We care very little what persons with close connections to the subject have to say about it; instead we care was reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. This is why you have been asked, repeatedly, to focus on the quality of source as opposed to quantity and provide something that meets WP:MEDRS. Your failure to do so makes it pretty clear that this subject is too far in fringe territory to warrant an article. VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• already provided. click on my talk link. several reliable secondary sources added. I assume that is enough. I will add more from Canada soon. Cyrinus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Which of these sources are you claiming meets the requirements of MEDRS: Biomedical journals? LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• most of those articles listed Lucky - including the PubMed articles. I will update the content with more references soon. I have updated the list on my talk page and here. Happy Holidays!!! Cyrinus (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyrinus: as near as I can tell we are still waiting for a single WP:MEDRS-compliant source. Making silly claims such as suggesting every garbage source on your talk page is reliable does not help your case - it makes it impossible to take you seriously. I am undecided as to whether the concept you are promoting is notable enough to merit an article, but it is pretty clear that if it does end up having an article, it will be an article about a fringe theory. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Single? - All references posted are compliant with WP:MEDRS. reference list I provided are reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge and published in reputable medical journals (including PubMed), academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies including universities from Finland and Canada. I am not promoting any new concept - VAT is used in hospitals for more than 30 years. Approved by the FDA in the USA and three medical claims are allowed: It improves blood circulation, reduces pain and relaxes muscles where applied.Cyrinus (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep this article the way it is. I think we should simply remove all of the offending material (possibly deleting the article entirely) - and when Cyrinus is back from vacation and can present these WP:MEDRS-acceptable sources, we can consider reinstating that material. There is no good reason to keep an inadequately sourced article hanging around because someone who might be able to provide sources is going on vacation. If/when we get well-sourced material, we can easily recreate it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Cyrinus has substantially re-edited this page [36]. Many of the suspect sources have returned, plus a bunch of others. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"noted business consultant, author, media commentator and speaker" and author of UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry which is currently up for an AFD right now. I strongly suspect that this subject may be insufficiently notable to pass WP:BLP and WP:GNG. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thieme is definitely notable, but the article was doing a poor job of presenting it, and the sourcing was awful. I've gone ahead and rewritten/overhauled the article, and thrown in a couple handfuls of sources. --Elonka 00:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello folks.
Just declined a WP:A10 on this, as it is quite a different thing to the prenatal procedure Vibroacoustic stimulation.
I, erm, don't really know where to start with this article, and need a whole lotta help.
Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who tagged both Vibroacoustic therapy and Vibroacoustic Stimulation for A10 deletion, since at the time they were in fact both duplicates of Vibroacoustic stimulation. I didn't however see at the time that the latter had until recently been a genuine article (no pun intended) that had just been completely replaced with fringe material. Kolbasz (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes claims regarding medical efficacy. Sources accordingly need to comply with WP:MEDRS. I suspect that they don't - and most of the sources cited seem to date to that 1990s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Could try a WP:PROD if you think it's appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should begin with a clean-up. Let's remove any source that cannot be verified or makes a MED claim and appears to be obsolete, and then we will see if the stub is worth preserving. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

First cleanup done, would anybody else like to wade in? There's not much left. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's getting reverted by a SPA that recently created another duplicate, Vibroacoustic Therapy. I saw it at NPP and may have blanked the wrong one; honestly it's such a mess I do not have time to approach it tonight. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, now we have real problem here. I was just going to suggest that AfD might be a better option, as it means a re-creation can be tagged WP:G4. Which is still what I would suggest. Vibroacoustic stimulation is simply a test of fetal health used in evidence-based medicine. It's now been page-moved to Vibroacoustic therapy, the reason why we're here. I'll try restoring Vibroacoustic stimulation without using the sysop buttons, though I suspect there might be cut-and-past move problems. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me now - two distinct articles with no page history issues or WP:CUTPASTE problems.

• Vibroacoustic stimulation
• Vibroacoustic therapy

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My clean-ups from last night were reverted by User:Cyrinus, he's added back all the rubbish sources as well. What's the best action now? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Better suggestion - you understand the topic first. It is not a fringe theory... FDA approved the claims... They teach your so called fringe theory in university under music therapy... Salim do not get confused and confuse others -- vibroacoustic stimulation is not fetal vibroacoustic stimulation or FHR... It is simple as providing stimulation using sound frequency - not falls under medicine (remember there is a huge theory about vibroacoustic stimulation applied to building too)... how can you coin that major word to OBS - Fetal stuff in medical field? and do not call it rubbish - if you do not understand... You are irritating a lot of vibroacoustic therapists... VAT and VAS are in use - especially in scandinavian countries from late 1960's Cyrinus (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• From a quick look there are certainly (at least) many very poorly-sourced medical claims in the VAT article. These need to go: biomedical claims should abide by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please also note Cymatic therapy and Energy medicine (which is where Vibrational medicine redirects). We may have a better opportunity to merge some information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - please try to write in coherent sentences. Can you point to any published peer-reviewed double blind placebo-controlled experiments that show efficacy of this treatment that is better than placebo? My assessment as a non-expert is that there could be something in this that might take this out of the sphere of "alternative medicine" and into evidence-based medicine. Have any of these studies been repeated on a larger scale? There is a purportive physical cause and effect mechanism, and the claimed effects seem not to be extraordinary. However, because of the oxymoronic nonsense that is "alternative medicine", I hope you understand that we have to be careful about medical "treatments" that throw up any WP:REDFLAGs. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) at the risk of having to order up very obscure and out of date medical references, could you kindly point us to two sources which can attest to the notability of this subject, are online and meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be taken to AFD. I could not find any high quality MEDRS discussing this (as opposed to vibroacoustic stimulation, which does have information about it, and is a completely different topic). Yobol (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. FYI to Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - the easiest way to overturn AFD (articles for deletion) proposal is to simply show good quality sources. As somebody with an interest in this topic you ought to be able to show something which can easily be verified and shows beyond doubt that this article is notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a more basic COI SPAM problem, with the editor repeatedly inserting spam links to his own website. Amazing how many people have never heard of the Streisand effect! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

funny now it is spam. At least one person understand cymatics and energy medicine. vibraoacoustic is similar to pulsed electromagnetic field therapy - only difference - pure sound wave is used instead of magnetic wave. we had many issues when people introduced unltrasound - same problem here. Barney: I can do that barney - placbo controlled experiments are enough to show efficacy of any treatment form? then why doctors are killing cancer patients? why your oxymoronic doctors are creating integrative medicine? Dr OZ explain this even a moron can understand. Many morons wrote similar comments when they introduced ultrasound too. you do not even understand where main stream evidence based medicine is going. Yes I can provide many references and research - even clinics that are using it now. vibroacoustic stimulation you mentioned has a wrong definition on your wiki page. it talks about fetal vibroacoustic stimulation. Cyrinus (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus (talk · contribs) - if you have the studies then give us the reference for them so we can look them up. I asked you to write in coherent sentences. "Barney: I can do that barney - placbo controlled experiments are enough to show efficacy of any treatment form? then why doctors are killing cancer patients?" is not a question, but a statement with a question mark. The gold standard is evidence-based medicine; we need that evidence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• We are not talking about medicine. We are taking about vibroacoustic therapy. There are many studies - I post a few links here. Go and read it.

http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html We are talking about a therapy form - not evidence based medicine. how did wiki approved pemf?Cyrinus (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, if you are incapable of understanding that 'medical treatment' refers to more than 'medicine' despite being repeatedly told to read WP:MEDRS, I have to ask whether you lack the necessary linguistic skills to edit the English-language Wikipedia. The policy applies just as much to a therapy using sound as it does to pills or potions - what matters is whether the sources are claiming medical efficacy, not what form the treatment takes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyrinus (talk · contribs), it's probably worth explaining that the Medical Reliable Sources Policy is intended to be read broadly and includes just about any therapeutic or health-giving claim. Wikipedia requires somewhat higher standards of verification for these kinds of articles than for others, hence please understand that our criticism is not intended to disparage your field of interest. We are merely pointing out that the sources we have seen to date do not come up to the required standard. As I previously stated, the best solution to this problem is to go and find better sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fibromyalgia Study: http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html
• Rett Syndrom: http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm
• Vibrac Center: http://www.vibrac.fi/tagit/vibrac-centre

Cyrinus (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All of these sources appear to be Self-published or sourced to non-accredited research organizations. At best we could use these sources to clarify what proponents of VAT have claimed, but they do not give us anything which clears the hurdle of the Medical Reliable Sources policy.

The first link (Fibromyalgia study) is a small non-blinded study which appears to be hosted on the website of a private clinic which offers this service. It's precisely the kind of source that the policy advises us to not use to back up biomedical claims.

Many of the same concerns hold true for the second link: It's a single page on a website for Rett Syndrome carers. The page is mostly a compilation of references to other studies, plus some comments about VAT and Music Therapy, written by a music therapist. It's not actually saying all that much beyond the opinion of the author that VAT is a good thing.

The third link appears to be some kind of blog run on behalf of an individual or organization who is promoting VAT. As such it's clearly not much use as a WP:MEDRS.

I'd say that if these really are the highest quality sources available to us then we are definitely looking at an WP:AFD nomination. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is an individual opinion of a person who cannot read. Just for example on the first link - "The role of Low Frequency Sound Therapy (VAT) in the treatment of patients with Fibromyalgia" has been a clinical study in collaboration with Dr. Heidi Ahonen, Professor of Music Therapy from Wilfrid Laurier University, Director of Manfred and Penny Conrad Institute for Music Therapy Research (CIMTR) and Dr. Lee Bartel, Professor, Associate Dean-Research at the University of Toronto, director of Canadian Music Education Research Centre (CMRC)". Those collaboraing universities are not private clinics. Very credible universities. Those sources are provided for you to do your own research. Same goes to other links provided. More than enough to validate that VAT is not Fringe theory. Do not twist and turn and manipulate the fact for you own narrow thinking or hidden agenda. Do the research. VAT exists from 1960s. The whole world know the inventor Olav Skille's work. Because of these Salim characters wiki is losing credibility and supporting funds. Cyrinus (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Salim - needs deleting. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, what matters isn't where the people are employed or what their titles are but where the work is published. They can be employed by the most prestigious university in the world or the least - what matters is the reliability of the publication. Kolbasz (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article are copied verbatim from this page -- looks like stuff taken out of context in an attempt to support the pseudoscientific claims of "vibro acoustics". LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Article now at WP:AfD here. (My apologies to Kolbasz, Salimfadhley, and VQuakr for my comments above that might appear to be snarky.) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"

• Abstract

Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined. Cyrinus (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention", I think a brief mention of VAT on the Music Therapy article should be sufficient. I do not believe the sources we have today justify an entire article dedicated to the subject. The field appears to be inseparable from Music Therapy in that many of it's practitioners, founders, modalities and apparatus are exactly the same! --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• it is not music therapy. it is pure sound frequency. a form of sound therapy but similar to pemf because we use pulsed sound frequencies applied directly to the body (where in Binaural or Isochronic frequencies applied through ears). Hope this helps to understand the vibroacoustic therapy. -- Cyrinus (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cymatic therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be almost exactly the same thing as Vibroacoustic therapy but invented by a British Guy in the 1960s. Coincidentally it also has an AFD active right now. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic therapy (2nd nomination). --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - because wiki editors and admins could not understand sound therapy, music therapy, vibroacoustic therapy, physioacoustic therapy - practiced in many countries as allied health profession. FDA approved for medical claims - Degree level education up to doctor grade available in universities in Finland and Canada, but AFD activted and vandalized by wiki meta puppets, including you... Shame. Cyrinus (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inability or unwillingness to work within the Wikipedia community's rules is the only source of shame here. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, you appear to not wish to engage with the game-rules here at Wikipedia. Did you know that there are other Wikis which might have rules which are more to your liking. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia what counts as a medically reliable source is somewhat narrowly defined. FDA Approvals, degree level education and having a bunch of doctors practicing something in a few countries count for nothing. I humbly suggest that Conservapedia would probably have no objection to the kinds of edits you have been making recently. It is an excellent site for WP:TRUTH seekers such as yourself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is chelation therapy is a fringe treatment or a legitimate treatment for mercury poisoning. Could anybody more familiar with this topic kindly review this section? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Every non-woo medicine site specifies chelation as a treatment, e.g. this page from the NYU Langone Medical Center Department of Pediatrics. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Chelation is a perfectly legitimate treatment for heavy metal poisoning (see e.g. Kosnett, Michael J (2013). "The Role of Chelation in the Treatment of Arsenic and Mercury Poisoning". Journal of Medical Toxicology. 9 (4): 347–354. doi:10.1007/s13181-013-0344-5. ISSN 1556-9039.). What's fringe is using it when there is in fact no dangerous heavy metal overload - i.e. for "detoxing" or to treat autism. Kolbasz (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re its (mis)use for autism spectrum disorders, doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.06.005 or here pertains.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with medical expertise please take a look at Tumor Treating Fields? To my layman's eye, it looks a lot like a Rife Machine.

Here are some links that may be of interest:

https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/536.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.44.2.115/pdf

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=573260

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See also the closely-linked Novocure article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tumor-treating fields are actually a legitimate (albeit highly investigational and experimental) area of scientific inquiry. Promoters of fraudulent Rife machines have tried to jump on the bandwagon, but these are very different approaches. To my knowledge, no serious, reputable source conflates TTF with Rife machines or Rife's claims. Novocure recently received FDA approval for a TTF device, to be used for patients with a highly aggressive malignancy (glioblastoma multiforme) after all other options have been exhausted.

Of note, the device's approval was controversial within the FDA ([37]), in part because the key clinical trial submitted by the manufacturer failed to show any benefit of TTF over standard medical care. (The trial had several other substantial methodologic flaws as well, which are probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard). Interestingly, with longer follow-up there was a suggestion that survival was actually better with standard care than with TTF (see Fig. 2 here). Nonetheless, the device was approved because relapsed gliobastoma is a highly lethal condition where even the best standard therapies are highly unsatisfactory. In that setting, and given the evident safety of TTF, the device was approved as a "last resort" with a rationale that boils down to what's-the-harm?

While it's fairly unusual for a device to be approved on the basis of a single clinical trial—especially a clinical trial which failed to show superiority to standard care—there is another randomized Phase III trial underway which will hopefully clarify the value of this approach. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)