Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Global warming scepticism as "Fringe"

I would like the assembled masses to provide insight as to whether global warming scepticism is "fringe" as defined in Wikipedia. While this scepticism is not mainstream, there are nonetheless significant papers published by notable scientists in reputable academic journals (here's one of the latest) and there is significant support within the scientific community. Therefore, I would classify global warming scepticism as a minority viewpoint. I ask in particular because two editors are apparently deadset (I'm trying to determine their exact position) against any statement from a global warming sceptic supporting Jim Inhofe, using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as their argument. Honestly, the argument that the article cannot include a quote from a (or any) sceptic supporting Sen. Inhfoe is just incredible to me. Madman (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Global Warming scepticism" is a fairly abigous term... It can refer to those who believe in climate change, but have concerns about how data has been collected as well as those who out right deny that Global Warming exists (and a host of opinions that fall between these extremes). Some scepticism is definitely Fringe, some scepticism is mainstream (at least in the general population... the scientific community is fairly solid)... So I would say it depends what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar nails it. On the one hand there are some alternative hypothesis that are not generally accepted but at least are scientifically plausible. On the other hand there's the far side of fringe, like the stuff this guy is pushing. We have to take it case by case based on criteria like whether hypotheses have been published in reputable journals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the talk page, it does seem that the editors to that article are having some POV and ownership issues. But that does not surprise me in an article on such a controvercial topic. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pace Gore, the science is not settled, and the opposition—right or wrong—is not fringe. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which "science" is not settled, exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Every science in the world. To say that science is settled is to say that science isn't self-correcting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an erroneous conclusion. Climate change scepticism is like creationism: a largely political controversy about an issue on which there is scientific consensus. There are, to be sure, some "dissident" scientists who reject the consensus, but they are very much a fringe within the scientific profession, just as scientists who dispute evolution are a fringe element. The science is "settled" (not fixed, note) in the sense that the overwhelming majority support the consensus viewpoint and its key conclusions, which are not in any serious dispute any more than the key principles of evolution by natural selection. That doesn't mean it's not self-correcting - it simply means that all the lines of evidence have converged on a single point which is now overwhelmingly established and accepted. They could in principle be overturned by some new discovery but this isn't a field which rests on one single point of failure, any more than evolution or atomic theory, so such an event is pretty unlikely.

Because the CC controversy is essentially political rather than scientific, unfortunately this means we get a considerable number of non-scientists who (just like creationists) falsely claim that CC is a "theory in crisis", that their views are being suppressed and that some new event or discovery has disproved all of climate science overnight. Anyone who is familiar with the tropes of creationism will recognise the same tropes being used by climate change sceptics (who are, in reality, anti-science political activists) and, indeed, some of the parties in both controversies are the same, like the Discovery Institute of intelligent design infamy. We have to be on our guard against attempts by political activists to make false statements about the science. Just because some journalist or politician makes a claim, that does not mean that it has any scientific validity - which is true for any area of science, not just this particular one - and we have to avoid giving the false impression that it does. When it comes to scientific issues, we follow the scientific consensus view. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor analogy. Skepticism in this matter doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, only the belief that people are human and can be mistaken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The origins of the "scepticism" actually aren't relevant. The point is that in both cases the "sceptics" hold a prior belief - motivated by religious, economic or political concerns, it doesn't really matter - that the scientific consensus is wrong, regardless of the state of the actual science. It's not a matter of a "belief that people are human and can be mistaken", which might apply if the science was based on a single poorly-documented premise. Creationists and CC "sceptics" have a common, rather naive belief that the science they are attacking has a single vulnerable point which, if "discredited", will overturn the entire science. That is why, every time some minor controversy arises, you get swarms of such people trying to declare evolution / HIV / cosmology / climatology to be a busted flush. The challenge for us as Wikipedians is to manage such influxes of the clueless and naive. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Have you seen Penn & Teller's take on the subject? Search YouTube for clips of the "Global Warming" Bullshit episode.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it, but I do know their claims were pretty much eviscerated. I think you need to aim a little higher than Penn & Teller for your scientific knowledge... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched YouTube for the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Global Warming episode and got this. [1] ;) Dynablaster (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in our article about the dangers of Confirmation bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course the science isn't settled. Science very rarely (never?) is. That's the whole point of science. The most that can be said is that there is a general consensus, which there does appear to be, and per policy Wikipedia should reflect that. If this was the 15th century Wikipedia would have a described heliocentricity as coming under WP:FRINGE: that's just the way we work. Global warming may turn out to be of no more validity than geocentricity, or it may turn out to be as valid as heliocentricity. I don't know, and don't really care. As far as this website is concerned it doesn't matter. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate between scepticism and denialism. Scepticism includes a wide range of opinions... Scepticism includes those who are have concerns about the way the evidence for global warming has been gathered;, it includes those who agree that Global temperatures have been rising, but don't agree with why the rise has been happening; it includes those who don't question the evidence, but do question the conclusions as to what will happen next. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not really about consensus. There was a scientific consensus in the thirteenth century about Aristotle's physics and biology. The question is about the weight of the evidence attaching to the theory. See my remarks below. Also, it's not about whether Wikipedia should reflect scientific consensus. Yes it should. But that is different from whether it should label sceptics as denialists or cranks or pseudoscientists or whatever. The weight of evidence for the current consensus about the age of the Earth justifies labelling 'creation science' as pseudoscience. On GW scepticism, I'm not so sure. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the Global Warming or Climate Change skeptics I think it is counter productive to label them fringe. The term fringe is often used to establish preconceived ideas and lead people to believe one point of view before the research is done. Regardless of whether you call it fringe or not the same scientific process should be done to determine whether anything is true or not. Furthermore another big problem is the excessive coverage on the most controversial aspect of pollution. This is distracting the public from other important aspects of pollution that are not in dispute or shouldn’t be like the pollution of many lakes and rivers depriving the people of clean water to drink and deforestation. These things are clear and they need to be addressed yet they are being ignored. If more attention can be drawn to other aspects of this it could lead to productive activity rather than never ending debate and more pollution. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia can't fix society's infatuation with the global warming controversy. And the scientific process is still in progress, but all the evidence to date says the deniers are fringe. Skeptics are still working with the data, trying to find answers to their questions; deniers outright ignore the data and simply say "it isn't so!" — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They are in-line with my thoughts on the matter as well. Madman (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not fringe

I do not want to take a strong view on this particular issue, not being an expert. But, the extent to which a sceptic is judged a crank or denialist or what have you depends on the evidence underlying the position to be denied. Generally, anyone denying established mathematical theorems is regarded as cranky in the mathematical profession. That is because of the rigour of mathematical proof, and because there is no empirical evidence required for mathematics. Anyone denying accepted science for which there is a great deal of disparate and different evidence, is rightly regarded as cranky, rather than sceptical. E.g. the weight of evidence on the age of the earth comes from so many different sources and disciplines that any other explanation is highly improbable.

Turning to global warming. What probability attaches to the empirical evidence we have? Scepticism about the long-term historical temperature may be justified because of of the Divergence problem. The short term historical record shows a recent increase in temperature, but what probability attaches to it being a trend, rather than noise? I don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, but looking at the temperature record does not suggest the recent 'trend' is a six standard deviation change or anything like that. I believe I could easily generate a random number sequence with similar characteristics.

Turning to the theoretical evidence. This seems stronger, but again, what probability attaches to it? If a very high one, why the need for empirical evidence at all? We don't check different triangles to see if the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees. The theory of triangles is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do this. From what I have read in the climate change literature (I mean academic peer-reviewed papers) there is considerable uncertainty about the climate models.

I'm not saying any of the theory is wrong, nor that the weight of probability does not support the current scientific consensus. What I am saying is that the probability of the current consensus being wrong is high enough that we shouldn't call a global warming sceptic a crank or a denialist, both of which are pejorative terms. I'm a GW sceptic, in that nothing I have read suggests strongly to me that there is a warming trend caused by human activity. Some of the evidence is compelling I admit - but not compelling in the way that the evidence for the age of the Earth is compelling. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS A site search of crank.net does not include any global warming sceptics. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What you think or do not think is irrelevant. The most reliable sources, that being those produced by experts in the scientific community, view global warming as fact and its cause as being due to human beings. That's the description that Wikipedia must provide. The fact that there are denialists who insist that this isn't true does not negate this simple fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for missing my point entirely. Was I saying that Wikipedia should not represent this as true? No. I was saying that the probability and weight of evidence for AGW does not justify calling the sceptics 'denialists' or 'cranks'. That is the issue. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Historian. I certainly understood your point. The consensus here is that global warming scepticism is not mainstream, nor is is fringe. Madman (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is safe to say that consensus here is that the denialists are fringe with respect to scientific thought. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Madman. It is certainly not mainstream, but to say that "denialists are fringe with respect to scientific thought" is POV (of course, I'm guessing that skeptic = denialist ~ Holocaust denier in the minds of AGW proponents). At any rate, see this to see how fringe subjects are defined and handled in Wikipedia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand "fringe with respect to scientific thought". What other kinds of fringe are there. 'Fringe' has the connotation of 'lunatic' or 'cranky', 'denialist' has the connotation of being in denial, i.e. in denial of something subconsciously accepted because self-evident, deluded etc. Comparison of GW-sceptics with creationists is absurd. 'Sceptics' is the right term. A sceptic doesn't necessarily deny a theory. He or she is cautious about a theory until there is enough evidence to make it unambiguous and certain. Also, there are degrees of scepticism. Richard Lindzen doesn't deny AGW. He agrees that there is an effect. He simply doesn't agree with some of the extreme predictions. Or rather, he has expressed scepticism and caution about the extreme predicted effects, arguing that extreme actions to counter the extreme predicted effects are only justified when there is reasonable certainty about the prediction.HistorianofScience (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You chose an example that shows how broad WP:FRINGE is here at Wikipedia. "Fringe" just means that you are an outlier in the distribution of understanding on a particular subject, which Lindzen certainly is. Take other accomplished fringe scientists such as Halton Arp in regards to cosmology, Linus Pauling in regards to disease prevention and cure, or Brian Josephson in regards to psychic activity for apt comparisons. It can easily be argued that each of these "mavericks" aren't/weren't "denialists" but instead just thought that there was something the mainstream is missing. Lindzen is in the same "fringe" category with respect to his denialism of the straightforward understanding of the science behind global warming. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew there were serious problems at the Global Warming article when the encyclopedia of record failed to answer a query I had. Rather than upset everyone with an ignorant edit, I posted Who is Dr Will Happer? to the TalkPage.

The responses in that TalkPage section are astonishing, a microcosm of the things going wrong at the article eg Dr Will Happer is "... an atomic physicist at Princeton. Despite his claims to the contrary, I can find no publications by him that are directly related to the physics of climate change." and "This article accurately reflects the information published in peer reviewed journals. ... The fact that "facts" that do not appear in the peer reviewed literature show up here on the talk page, and not on the article, is a strength, not a weakness, of Wikipedia"

With the killing of any chance of getting serious scientific objection referenced in the article (because of purely local policies, as far as I can see), I raised another obvious problem, that of "paid lobbyists for alarmism". An established and very respected editor asked me to point such people out since they "would most certainly have to be pruned". Another skeptic pointed out "James Hansen would be a prime example. He lobbies congress all the time"". No action was taken by the guardians of the article - James Hansen remains in the text and in the references, and in the "See Also". In fact, he's now there a total of 7 times, up from 6 times when we were promised such use would be pruned! Meanwhile, my TalkPage is starting to carry expressions of support for my views. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I appreciated taking quantum mechanics from Will Happer at Princeton, he is certainly not a reliable source when it comes to the science of climate change. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone based on the Divergence problem, thinks that long-term historical temperature is wrong (as in completely faulty or wildly erroneous). Then they belong in the fringe group. There are simply too many other proxies (benthic foraminfera, ice cores, stomatal changes,...) that show that the divergence is a problem limited too some Tree's and only in some locations. This is a good example of non-viable scepticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

D'Arrigo, who I think is not a sceptic, says "Reconstructions based on northern tree-ring data impacted by divergence cannot be used to directly compare past natural warm periods (notably, the MWP) with recent 20th century warming, making it more difficult to state unequivocally that the recent warming is unprecedented."[2] Why does she say that? Do benthic foraminfera, ice cores, stomatal changes,... show that the recent warming is unprecented? I'm only asking, not an expert. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the mainstream view of the current warming trend were that it is definitely "unprecedented", this would be relevant. It is not. A level of uncertainty is recognised on this question. --TS 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah so the mainstream view is that the recent warming is not unprecedented? In all history, or recent history (last three millenia say)? All these things you are coming out with are very interesting, how sad not to see them in the articles about global warming (perhaps I'm mistaken). HistorianofScience (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that it is more likely than not, that the last part of the 20th century was warmer than any period in the last 2000 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then this becomes not a scientific judgment than an editorial one. That it is 'more likely than not' is not the impression I get from many of the articles in Wikipedia. Mathematicians do not say it is 'more likely than not' that triangles have 180 degrees. Geologists do not say it is 'more likely than not' that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. The balance of probability ought to be reflected in the Wikipedia articles. I'm not seeing that. Mostly I am seeing every article being a long list of scientists and organisations who say that global warming is a fact. I'm not seeing much science, i.e. explanation of why scientists think that (and also why they think sceptics are not justified). And I'm not seeing the long list of people saying 'more likely than not'. 11:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are mixing up different things. It doesn't matter whether the MWP was warmer than the CWP as to whether warming is caused by increases in greenhouse gases or not. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am mixing things up is because the articles are mixed up. There is no clear definition given anywhere of what the GW hypothesis is. It is a mixture of (1) the theory that the emission of greenhouse gases causes warming, which most informed people would not deny, because it is elementary physics (2) speculation that the effect of this cause will be extreme, say 4 degrees, which is not a matter of certainty at all (3) empirical claims that the average temperature is higher today than in the past. All these need to be carefully distinguished in any accurate reference work. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unequivocally" is different from thinking that the reconstructions are completely off-base, and in fact i do not think that the scientific assesment is that it is "unequivocally" - but that it is more likely than not (if i recall correctly the NAS panel estimated it to be >66% chance). Nothing in the science demands that the last decade of the 20th century must be unprecedented (in fact the "unprecedented" is only with regards to a limited period, since we know that the Holocene climatic optimum was likely warmer). It would have some influence on some calculations of Climate sensitivity (increasing it), but that would make expected warming higher. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I like 'more likely than not' very much. Can we please reflect that in the articles. And can the vilification of those who find that the balance of probability less than 50%, rather than slightly more, please stop? HistorianofScience (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as i can tell that is already reflected in the articles. As said above, you are conflating issues. If someone says that "GW cannot be mostly caused by humans, because the MWP was warmer than the current warm period", then that person is certainly not only out in the fringes - but also completely and utterly off-base with regards to the science. (AGW does not hinge in any way or form on what temp the MWP was). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [as someone said above it is typical "pseudo-scepticism" to think that any scientific theory hinges on a single line of evidence (and in this case it is not even a line....)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You confuse me. You place the argument "GW cannot be mostly caused by humans, because the MWP was warmer than the current warm period" in the mouth of a sceptic. Does the term "GW" refer to the hypothesis that the current period is statistically abnormal? Or to the hypothesis that this abnormality has a specific cause? These are different things. I think the sceptic wants to argue that the current period is not abnormal because such 'abnormalities' have occurred in the relatively recent past, and therefore not abnormal. This is not unreasonable. Or the argument might be that the current temperature increase may not be caused by humans, because similar increases have occurred before in the absence of such causes. That is also a good argument. If on the other hand the argument is that forcing does not exist because etc, then it is a bad argument. But you must be very clear about the actual argument you are imputing to the sceptic. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you say "it is typical "pseudo-scepticism" to think that any scientific theory hinges on a single line of evidence ". Agree, but once again you need to be clear about which 'theory' is intended. If the theory (or rather the observation) that the current period is abnormal, then this seems to rest most on a single line of evidence. See e.g. "Tree rings provide a primary data source for reconstructing past climates, particularly over the past 1,000 years". [3]. (I assume they mean 'the primary', rather than 'a primary', since 'primary' means 'first'. Or perhaps they mean 'main'. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition in WP:FRINGE

The posts above took me to the policy page. I note that most of the page talks about fringe theories rather than scepticism. GW scepticism is not a theory. All scepticism is negative, anti-theory. A sceptic simply wants to be persuaded. Their job is to point out flawed logic or assumptions or methodology in other theories, not to promote their own. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Most global warming sceptics do as it happens adhere to alternative explanations of the current warming trend, and they are mostly fringe theories. There are also interpretations of the trend that say it has stopped, and this is definitely a fringe interpretation of the available data. So while scepticism may well not have a fringe status, the theoretical basis of much, if not all, global warmings scepticism is fringe science. --TS 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you distinguish 'fringe' from 'not mainstream'. There are differing theories about how humans evolved, one (regionalism) that they evolved separately, the other that everyone came from Africa. The regionalists are not mainstream, but no one would say they are fringe. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do make that distinction. The alternative theories of climate change are all definitely fringe. --TS 11:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions/criteria and citations please. The article Multiregional origin of modern humans says that there is near-consensus against regionalism. But regionalism is not fringe, as far as I know. So we can't take difference-from-near-consensus as a criterion for fringe. What criterion are you using then? My view of 'fringe' is that it is pronouncedly eccentric in argument or logic or methodology or whatever. Although it's a difficult point. In my subject (history) there is deep disagreement about how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. All pseudoscientists give reasons, sometimes detailed and clear ones, for their hypotheses. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two editorial activities. One is when Wikipedia articles in the text are allowed to call something "fringe" and the other is whether we as editors use the guidelines at WP:FRINGE as an aid to edit particular articles. In this case, the question as to whether we call denialists "fringe" is one that is answered only if by considering what third-party independent sources say about them. The question as to whether WP:FRINGE applies to articles about global warming 'skepticism' is, unequivocally, "yes." ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What third-party sources say what sceptics are 'fringe'? HistorianofScience (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can find a few good sources:

• Corbett, J. B., and Durfee, J. L. 2004. Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming. Science Communication, Vol. 26, No. 2, 129-151.
• Dearing, J. W. 1995. Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science 4 (4): 341–61.
• Stocking, S. H., and L.W. Holstein. 1993. Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 15:186–210.

Generally, these sources are all in agreement that the "fringe" are those who contradict the conclusions of mainstream climate scientists that, for example, global warming is happening and that it is being caused by humanity.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come to this article to hear "the conclusions of mainstream climate scientists" since I can find better exposition of that on their blogs (RealClimate is a good one, perhaps the work of expert editors here?). I came here expecting to have my questions answered and real areas of uncertainty treated in an NPOV fashion. That's not happening, worse, there is serious opposition to it happening. Here's a question for you - is it fair to call James Hansen a "paid lobbyist for alarmism"? One of your fellow believers told us that the contributions of such people "would most certainly have to be pruned". Please explain why the contribution of Hansen has increased since then. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't real areas of uncertainty when it comes to the science of global warming. Your argument seems to stem from a supposed identity and contributions of editors of Wikipedia. This kind of dispute has nothing to do with content. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Instead it is the place where the most verifiable, reliable sources on a subject are used to write about a subject. You may wish to "impeach" the verifiability and reliability of work by James Hansen, but unless this impeachment is done verifiably by reliable sources, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you think there is a conflict of interest, I recommend going to a different noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is James Hansen really editing global warming articles? What is his Wikipedia username? If you tell me I'll take a look at his contributions and see if they're problematic. --TS 14:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"More likely than not"

See above. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. yet there are those who deny the Cantor's mathematics [4]. There are those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust [5]. But they are surely in a quite different category from AGW secptics. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming basically means that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activities and we urgently need to do something about it because the sea levels are going to rise significantly and plenty of species are going to die out if we don't. There is a strong scientific consensus about this, much stronger than "more likely than not". Unfortunately there seems to be an alliance between those who don't want to believe it and those who understand it but are profiting from the current situation and want to postpone the time when effective countermeasures are implemented.

This has nothing much to do with the question whether the current warming is unprecedented in recent history. It is now, more likely than not (this is where you have that formulation from). But in any case it will soon be, with great certainty.

If there is a fish bone in your child's throat the question whether the child's complexion is bluer than it ever was without one is not all that relevant to an adequate understanding of the situation. Most parents would start taking effective measures without waiting for that kind of symptom. Most politicians would not, in the analogous situation. Unless the real trouble is going to start while they are still in office, they will always leave it to their successors. Hans Adler 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the scientific consensus that (a) the warming has a definite cause also include the additional views you state that (b) we urgently need to do something about it (c) sea levels are going to rise significantly (d) plenty of species are going to die out if we don't? These all seem to be different things. I might agree with (a), in fact I probably do. But since I am not sure how significant the warming would be, I'm not sure I agree with the others. Even if I were sure about warming of say 4% I am not sure whether it would cause (c) the sea-level rises, because I have not seen any closely argued case for this. (d) I don't know about. As for (b) that is a moral and ethical or practical conclusion, I am not sure that is included in the GW hypothesesis. Your point about the fish bone I tend to agree with, and the argument is a version of Pascal's wager. But that is a logical point, and not related to the science of GW. Like many other of the arguments I am seeing on Wikipedia about GW, you are conflating about 150 different points into one great big logical soup. On your point about 'more likely than not' I was commenting on Kim Petersen's point about. She (he?) said it. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the scientific debate about the extent of global warming is mostly about whether the effect will be more or less a linear function of the accumulated greenhouse gas (resulting in a quadratic increase of temperature under the assumption of constant production of greenhouse gases), or whether there will be a strong positive (e.g. the rock under a molten glacier reflects less heat back into space than the glacier did) or negative (similar effects that would make the warming slow down) feedback loop.

As to me conflating things, that's tall. Kim D. Petersen said: "The mainstream view is that it is more likely than not, that the last part of the 20th century was warmer than any period in the last 2000 years." You argued, intentionally or negligently, as if "more likely than not" had referred to global warming rather than one specific point.

To turn your Holocaust analogy into something more reasonable: Serious people can argue whether it was really 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust or whether it was 5, or 7. A historian might say it was more likely 6 than 5. But for some reason the difference between 6 and 5 only seems to really matter to those who want to argue that the official numbers are wrong and "therefore" the Holocaust never happened and was invented by a conspiracy. Hans Adler 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You jolly well did conflate claims (a)-(d) into 'Global warming basically means'. The debate you reference above seems a good summary of the debate. But is the 'Global warming hypothesis' the view that human activities will significantly increase temperature, or just any increase. If the latter, then there are probably no sceptics. On your holocaust point, holocaust deniers typically reduce the numbers fantastically, to tens or at most hundreds of thousands. That makes it a completely different case from AGW scepticism. HistorianofScience (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The question, "What do we mean when we say 'global warming'?" is one that is characterized well in the sources. The mainstream take on global warming is, for example, well-summarized in the IPCC report. Have you read that? I'd take that as a starting-off point. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at the report, and I think any definition should reflect that. Offhand, what is their definition? HistorianofScience (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Denying global warming is pseudoscience, unfortunately it is not fringe as it has lots of media coverage and has significant political and industry backing. An interesting political / cultural issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As a pseudoscience, it is fringe defined by Wikipedia: WP:FRINGE. However, as a political trope it has been mainstreamed over the last half-decade or so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SA that is what I meant.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greater India Society and Kamboja-cruft

How do we handle old history books and articles by members of the Greater India Society (e.g. Majumdar, Bagchi, see Greater India for a helpful explanation of where they were coming from)? Should ideas sourced to them be taken out completely on the basis that their scholarship was nationalistic and is now long superseded? Or do we need to take a more subtle approach? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, they are primary sources that can be cited as primary sources for the topics of Indian and particularly Bengali nationalism and cultural chauvinism. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. In instances where the scholarship has not fundamentally altered, we might as well leave such references in place, but in cases (probably the majority) where their work has been superseded, we relegate them to the status of primary sources as per Dieter. Moreschi (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, so I need to know what the best recent sources are for this period of Indian history and use them to the full, now and again calling on the earlier texts as primary. Further guidance and more eyes very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with R.C Majumdar. Assorted Marxists and Islamophiles don't like him, but smearing him as a "Greater India society ideologue" or whatnot deserves even more contempt than this sentence would suggest. rudra (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No-one called him an ideologue. I can see he was a scholar. It is just that all this happened a long time ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

An IP editor keeps introducing WP:OR with unreferenced "claraifications" for the vaguer parts of this vague piece of pseudo-science. Furthermore thye IP editor is claiming I have a WP:COI because of my materialist and skeptical user badges on my user page. Eyes needed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to help out by improving the article Gonefishingforgood (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately those "improvements" consist of removing criticism and whitewashing flaws. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnet therapy is no longer pseudoscience it seems

See here. Now, I don't know about these studies, but I do know sourcing a major statement in the lead with primary sources which negates a statement sourced with multiple secondary sources, and restating the reasoning behind the conclusions is a major red flag.

From:

Magnet therapy is considered pseudoscientific due to both physical and biological implausibility, as well as a lack of any established effect on health or healing.

To:

Magnet therapy was originally considered as pseudoscience, primarily due to inconsistent research findings. (same secondary sources source this statement as the previous)

However, more systematic research has confirmed that strong static magnetic fields from permanent magnets are able to constrict and dilate the walls of capillary blood vessels. This reduces inflammation and increases blood circulation respectively.[6] Static magnet therapy has potentially effective applications in relief of pain and swelling after sports injury and blunt trauma, as well as wound healing after surgery.[7][8]

It seems the latter paragraph is some primary sources strung together with a bit of OR. It looks like there could be something to these studies, but I'd like a to see a review from a reliable medical journal that supports these studies. Auntie E. 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They're cherry-picking positive results. It's worth investigating, but the studies done so far are poor[6] and lack dosing information so are mostly uninterpretable.[7] Also see [8][9][10][11][12]. A better summary than the use of the word 'pseudoscience' would be to say something like "Magnet therapy is used for conditions such as pain and osteoarthritis, but clinical studies have mostly been poor and lacking information on dosing, and there is little evidence for its efficacy". Fences and windows 22:17, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

If I may, maybe this is what they are talking about. It's called a cervical-stim Bone Growth Stimulator which is supposed to help get the blood moving for healing and reducing swelling or something like this. [13] I got this after my neck surgery to wear around my neck 4 hours a day to help speed the healing processes. I'll admit feeling totally ridiculous wearing the thing but I did get my healing done quite fast. I plan on taking a picture of it for use in the project. If you would like more info I did put the site down where you can read about it. My husband did a search of it and found some reasonable stuff on it when it was given to me. Thought this might help with some of your questions, hope it does, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns voiced by Auntie E. and Fences and windows. It appears that Spades and an IP (possibly their's) is single handedly and as an SPA totally rewriting the article. I notice that I had previously reverted what at first appeared to be vandalism, but maybe I shouldn't have done that. It might have been the right thing to do.

What's not being dealt with properly is the difference between alternative medicine use and mainstream use. Previously the article dealt with alternative medicine use, but it looks like the SPA is mixing things up in a confusing manner. If it's proven to work, then it's not alternative medicine, yet there is still unproven and quackish use of magnets going on. The differences need to be made clear.

I have noted my concerns on the talk page there. More eyes are needed there pretty fast as the SPA is working fast. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at article but I seem to recall things about static electric fields and bone growwth. Searches on magnetic pickup a bunch of MRI but see some cites here,

http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=magnetic+field+%22bone+growth%22

wikimed script outputCount is 16 versus 16 Guo, X; Chan, YL; Cheng, JC; Burwell, RG; Dangerfield, PH (Nov-2005). "Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis--result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE". European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 14 (9): 862–73. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMC 10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMID 16133084. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Stanosz, S; Wysocki, K (Sep-2004). "[The appreciation of bone growth factor in women with osteoporosis exposing on freetransition magnetic field]". Polski merkuriusz lekarski : organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego. 17 (99): 229–31. PMID 15628046. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Johnson, MT; Nindl, G (2004). "Noninvasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: current and emerging therapeutic potential". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 40: 469–74. PMID 15134003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Markaki, AE (Aug-2004). "Magneto-mechanical stimulation of bone growth in a bonded array of ferromagnetic fibres". Biomaterials. 25 (19): 4805–15. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMC 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMID 15120527. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Linovitz, RJ; Bernhardt, M; Green, D; Law, MD; McGuire, RA; Montesano, PX; Rechtine, G; Salib, RM; Ryaby, JT; Faden, JS; Ponder, R; Muenz, LR; Magee, FP; Garfin, SA (1-Jul-2002). "Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study". Spine. 27 (13): 1383–9, discussion 1389. PMID 12131732. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Hanft, JR; Landsman, A; Surprenant, M. "The role of combined magnetic field bone growth stimulation as an adjunct in the treatment of neuroarthropathy/Charcot joint: an expanded pilot study". The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 37 (6): 510–5, discussion 550-1. PMID 9879046.

Mitchell, MJ. "Radiation-induced changes in bone". Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 18 (5): 1125–36, quiz 1242-3. PMID 9747611.

Linder-Aronson, A; Rygh, P; Lindskog, S (Dec-1996). "Tissue response to space closure in monkeys: a comparison of orthodontic magnets and superelastic coil springs". European journal of orthodontics. 18 (6): 581–8. PMID 9009422. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

McCleary, VL; Aasen, GH (1991). "Low magnetic field effects on embryonic bone growth". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 27: 205–17. PMID 2065156.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Papatheofanis, FJ (Mar-1989). "Short-term effect of exposure to intense magnetic fields on hematologic indices of bone metabolism". Investigative radiology. 24 (3): 221–3. PMID 2753637. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Dormer, KJ; McGee, M; Hough, JV; Shew, RL (Nov-1986). "An implantable hearing device: osseointegration of a titanium-magnet temporal bone stimulator". The American journal of otology. 7 (6): 399–408. PMID 3812640. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Dunn, AW (Dec-1984). "Electrical stimulation in treatment of delayed union and nonunion of fractures and osteotomies". Southern medical journal. 77 (12): 1530–4. PMID 6390697. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Haupt, HA (Jan-1984). "Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis". Southern medical journal. 77 (1): 56–64. PMID 6364371. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Smith, RL (Dec-1983). "Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on bone growth and articular cartilage". Clinical orthopaedics and related research (181): 277–82. PMID 6641061. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Reddy, GN (Oct-1983). "A variable pulse-burst electromagnetic generator for electrical stimulation of biological systems". Journal of biomedical engineering. 5 (4): 336–9. PMID 6632846. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Reddy, GN; Tuai, GL. "A pulsed electromagnetic stimulator for bone-growth studies". Medical instrumentation. 17 (5): 347–50. PMID 6646021.

I was also concerned about reasoning from plausibility, not necessarily in a negative way but you have to be careful. I'm pushing the improved predictive value of literature but you want to reason from the known, not the lack of knowledge and AFAIK these isn't much known about this and it doesn't obviously require that accept alws be ignored. ( corrections appreciated) Confirmation bias, or reasonaing along the lines of "this has to work" has been a problem.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Which shows why we have to have secondary reliable interpretations of these studies to show that they are indeed relevant and the result of "magnet therapy" as defined. Auntie E. 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to argue merit from statistical tests, you only need to run 40 or so and publish the successes to show it works :) Without knowing all the trials its hard to come up with a stats based conclusion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to argue the merit of the tests. Entropy's point is that we don't cite directly from those tests, we wait for reliable sources to publish conclusions based on them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

Response from Spades07

I'd like to provide my response to your shared concerns regarding the changes to the Magnet Therapy article. It was not my intention to drastically change Magnet Therapy from "pseudoscience" to "proven medical treatment". As noted in my response on Talk:Magnet_therapy, Magnet Therapy more closely fits an experimental medicine phase. It is not clearly proven, nor unproven. Dosage parameters and applications as a therapeutic method are not agreed upon. However specific health effects (beyond "pain relief") have been proven and repeated, and a general consensus exists for the theory of its mechanism of action (affecting ion channels).

My disapproval is strongest for the opening description used in the original version of the article, which states:

"Magnet therapy is considered pseudoscientific due to both physical and biological implausibility, as well as a lack of any established effect on health or healing.":

This statement is completely false based on several hundred studies that can be found on PubMed focusing on the health effects of Static Magnetic Fields (SMF).

To prove my point, consider the evidence supporting SMF effects on blood microcirculation. This is blood flow in capillaries. Fences and windows stated I was "cherry-picking positive results". Fences also adds that, "the studies done so far are poor and lack dosing information so are mostly uninterpretable." I cited 3 studies and 1 article specifically in relation to SMF research on microcirculation. To some, it may appear to be cherry-picking, however the cumulative evidence is overwhelming.

I'd like to post a list of research studies found on PubMed specifically centering on SMF effects on blood microcirculation and capillaries. Nearly every one of these studies states specific dosage (magnetic field strength used, exposure time, etc.), and have noted significant effects as compared to control groups. This information alone disproves the original article's opening introduction claiming "physical and biological implausibility" and "lack of any established effect on health". These are ALL the studies I could find. If you find more, please bring them to my attention.

Understand I am not here to "vandalize" the article. The article, as was written, is severely biased. It omits a vast amount of information. Far worse, several of the reviews and primary research studies cited in the article are completely unrelated to magnetic therapy. (see my Response in Talk:Magnet_therapy)

I welcome future discussion and assistance to help avoid confusing Magnet Therapy as "mainstream medicine", which apparently my writing was faulty of. However, to balance the equation in an unbiased manner, the Magnet Therapy article needs to be re-written to convey the current status of related research and reviews (both positive and negative), its current (unproven) usage, and the potential applications being investigated. (Spades07 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Research on Static Magnetic Field Effects on Microcirculation and Capillaries

Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Luedemann S, Brix G, Dellian M, Berghaus A, Strieth S (2009). "Static magnetic fields impair angiogenesis and growth of solid tumors in vivo". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 8 (18): 1756–62. PMID 19633422. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Eichhorn ME, Dellian M, Luedemann S, Griebel J, Bellemann M, Berghaus A, Brix G (2008). "Static magnetic fields induce blood flow decrease and platelet adherence in tumor microvessels". Cancer Biology & Therapy. 7 (6): 814–9. PMID 18340115. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Morris CE, Skalak TC (2008). "Acute exposure to a moderate strength static magnetic field reduces edema formation in rats". American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 294 (1): H50–7. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00529.2007. PMID 17982018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Brix G, Strieth S, Strelczyk D, Dellian M, Griebel J, Eichhorn ME, Andrā W, Bellemann ME (2008). "Static magnetic fields affect capillary flow of red blood cells in striated skin muscle". Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994). 15 (1): 15–26. doi:10.1080/10739680701410850. PMID 17952798. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Morris CE, Skalak TC (2007). "Chronic static magnetic field exposure alters microvessel enlargement resulting from surgical intervention". Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985). 103 (2): 629–36. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01133.2006. PMID 17478604. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Gmitrov J (2007). "Static magnetic field effect on the arterial baroreflex-mediated control of microcirculation: implications for cardiovascular effects due to environmental magnetic fields". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 46 (3): 281–90. doi:10.1007/s00411-007-0115-2. PMID 17530271. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okano H, Ohkubo C (2007). "Effects of 12 mT static magnetic field on sympathetic agonist-induced hypertension in Wistar rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 28 (5): 369–78. doi:10.1002/bem.20307. PMID 17330852. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Gmitrov J (2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi:10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Gmitrov J (2007). "Geomagnetic field modulates artificial static magnetic field effect on arterial baroreflex and on microcirculation". International Journal of Biometeorology. 51 (4): 335–44. doi:10.1007/s00484-006-0056-5. PMID 16983578. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Xu S, Tomita N, Ikeuchi K, Ikada Y (2007). "Recovery of Small-Sized Blood Vessels in Ischemic Bone Under Static Magnetic Field". Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM. 4 (1): 59–63. doi:10.1093/ecam/nel055. PMC 1810364. PMID 17342242. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Li Z, Tam EW, Mak AF, Lau RY (2007). "Wavelet analysis of the effects of static magnetic field on skin blood flowmotion: investigation using an in vivo rat model". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 21 (1): 61–8. PMID 17354615.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Okano H, Ohkubo C (2005). "Effects of neck exposure to 5.5 mT static magnetic field on pharmacologically modulated blood pressure in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (6): 469–80. doi:10.1002/bem.20115. PMID 16108042. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okano H, Masuda H, Ohkubo C (2005). "Decreased plasma levels of nitric oxide metabolites, angiotensin II, and aldosterone in spontaneously hypertensive rats exposed to 5 mT static magnetic field". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (3): 161–72. doi:10.1002/bem.20055. PMID 15768432. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Mayrovitz HN, Groseclose EE (2005). "Effects of a static magnetic field of either polarity on skin microcirculation". Microvascular Research. 69 (1–2): 24–7. doi:10.1016/j.mvr.2004.11.002. PMID 15797257. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Morris C, Skalak T (2005). "Static magnetic fields alter arteriolar tone in vivo". Bioelectromagnetics. 26 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1002/bem.20047. PMID 15605401. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okano H, Ohkubo C (2003). "Effects of static magnetic fields on plasma levels of angiotensin II and aldosterone associated with arterial blood pressure in genetically hypertensive rats". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (6): 403–12. doi:10.1002/bem.10139. PMID 12929159. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okano H, Ohkubo C (2003). "Anti-pressor effects of whole body exposure to static magnetic field on pharmacologically induced hypertension in conscious rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 24 (2): 139–47. doi:10.1002/bem.10092. PMID 12524681. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C, Okano H (2002). "Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 23 (3): 224–9. PMID 11891752. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Okano H, Ohkubo C (2001). "Modulatory effects of static magnetic fields on blood pressure in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 22 (6): 408–18. PMID 11536282. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okano H, Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C (1999). "Biphasic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". Bioelectromagnetics. 20 (3): 161–71. PMID 10194558.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Xu S, Okano H, Ohkubo C (1998). "Subchronic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 12 (4): 383–9. PMID 9706489.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Ohkubo C, Xu S (1997). "Acute effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits". In Vivo (Athens, Greece). 11 (3): 221–5. PMID 9239515.

Gmitrov J, Ivanco I, Gmitrová A (1990). "Magnetic field effect on blood pressure regulation". Physiologia Bohemoslovaca. 39 (4): 327–34. PMID 2150561.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Lud GV, Demeckiy AM (1990). "Use of permanent magnetic field in reconstructive surgery of the main arteries (experimental study)". Acta Chirurgiae Plasticae. 32 (1): 28–34. PMID 1694619.

Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide

At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes there have been claims that the concept of "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide in Genocide: a sociological perspective by Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is a fringe theory? Any comments? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the bigger issue is the validity of the article. Simply put, no one sensible doubts that communist regimes, by their inherently anti-consensual nature, are more prone to mass killing than most other types of government. However, whether the field of study of comparative analysis of communist killing is big enough to sustain a Wikipedia article is up for debate. If this is just going to be a synthesized list it's nothing but a drama magnet.

As a side-note, this is strictly my personal opinion, but it really irks me when people call the Holodomor genocide. For a genocide to be genocide it has to be aimed at a genus, and the terror-famine was aimed at crushing the resistance of the peasantry to collectivization, not at annihilating the Ukrainians. Of course, the Ukrainians were much less inclined to knuckle under than others, so naturally the blow fell hardest there, but this was a secondary consequence. "Crimes against humanity", yes, monstrous barbarism yes, genocide, no.Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Drama magnet? Communism has been dead and buried for about 20 years and this is still a drama magnet? Regarding people call the Holodomor genocide? I guess this is a complaint that should be addressed to Raphael Lemkin the one who coined the word genocide and first referred to the famine in Ukraine as "Soviet Genocide in Ukraine"[14], [15]. But that's not the point or the question here. Is Helen Fein a fringe theorist because she has termed the state sponsored mass killings in communist run countries as Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide?--Termer (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Communism may, for the most part, be dead and buried, but sub-Marxist sludge is still around in various forms, and of course nationalism of all shapes and sizes is very much alive. Hence drama magnet.

No, doubtless Fein is not a fringe theorist, but this is simply not the point. It's scratching around the surface of the problem rather than addressing it directly. For a decent article to be written here the author (you?) has to establish the existence of a body of academic literature dealing with, and analyzing in depth, communist killings as a whole, rather than just individual works discussing separate events. And then you have to cite from that body of literature, of course (and note that this body of academic literature has to be distinct from general genocide literature, in addition). If you can do that, well, bully for you, and we should get a decent article as a result. If not, this falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, any SYNTH concerns could be raised at a relevant notice board or for example taken directly to Cornell University Press & Benjamin A. Valentino PhD on Communist mass killings etc. And thanks for your opinion on Fain! That's yet another source that has analyzed communist killings as a whole.--Termer (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On "sub-Marxist sludge is still around in various forms, and of course nationalism of all shapes and sizes is very much alive. Hence drama magnet".So its a bad idea to have an article about Israeli–Palestinian conflict on wikipedia becaouse that must cause some real drama? I can't agree with you on that one. The world is the way it is and our job here is not to ignore it but provide wikipedia readers with all possible viewpoints on any subject, describe the dispute if any, without any drama.--Termer (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• You really are not understanding my point. There is no point taking this to another noticeboard when we can discuss it in perfect comfort here, and I am certainly not writing to some university press about synthesis concerns in Wikipedia articles!

• Alright. Since there are evidently some sources for this, the article should be based off them. That is, the right way to write this would be to make the current cursory "causes" section the entire article, and discuss solely causes and results, with events themselves covered in passing as part of that discussion. At the moment this is a "List of big communist state killings" with a little section discussing in little details the views of various authors as why these events have happened. Either make it one or the other. But if you want to have both, we need separate articles for that.

• By the way, it really grates to see big lists of "Foo said X" pretending to be encyclopedia articles. Ideas X should be introduced and discussed, and then cited to specific authors. Not before. The whole "causes" section, right now, is a terrible example of this kind of semi-writing.

• Oh, and naturally we don't delete articles because they are drama magnets. But if an article serves no encyclopedic purpose and is a drama magnet, then there are excellent reasons for deletion. Moreschi (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All these are excellent points and have been brought up and addressed on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes several times. I only posted this here to find out either the term "Communist genocide" refers to a fringe theory like claimed on the talk page. It appears its not, it's just a way some scholars among them Helen Fein has called the state sponsored mass killings in communist countries. And at the moment there is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here is what I'm talking about [16].--Termer (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

After a relatively quiet period there's lots of dispute on this article once more. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been up on this board at least half a dozen times already. Each time consensus is clear: this is a fringe theory (specifically, the theory that Christ never existed and is a purely mythical figure) of a highly kooky nature and should be written about as such. We are now moving into the stage where discussion ends and sanctions begin. If it's just the same few voices coming up again and again then they need to be topic-banned: if different accounts each time, then we need some kind of article parole in the style of the Obama articles probation. Moreschi (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After spending a couple of hours reading and commenting on this issue, I have to agree with Moreschi - this is indeed a fringe theory and sanctions should begin. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems the New Testament is a WP:RS now and anybody who questions it is a fringe theorist, and this is what consensus on wikipedia says? this is scary!--Termer (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Termer, that's not it at all. Try reading up on the subject, huh? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see it on black and white up here, Christ myth theory is considered a fringe theory according to consensus. At the time when it is a fact that all evidence on Jesus' existence come in scripts written about 200 years after the supposed events. And most of those scripts were bound into the New testament. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus Christ is most likely a character from literature created in the beginning of first millennium. But consensus on wikipedia has declared the possibility that the stories about Jesus Christ are simply a myth a fringe theory? Or am I missing something here?--Termer (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're mistaken about what the theory is--it's the idea that Jesus didn't exist. One can easily think that Jesus was a real person and believe that the Gospel accounts are largely mythical/fictional/exaggerated. Very few mainstream scholars, if any, take the Gospels as reliable historical documents on their face. On the other hand, nearly all scholars think that Jesus existed, too. (Also, you're pretty far off on the dates of the Gospels, but that's neither here nor there.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

everybody is free to believe whatever they want. One thing is for sure though, it's not our job here to take sides in such controversial questions by declaring it fringe according to wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Termer, try applying some clue before sounding off. The existence of Jesus is not disputed in academia, ergo it is not disputed on Wikipedia, ergo theories to the contrary fall under WP:FRINGE. Simple as. Really! Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

well, lets see about this, Constantin-François Volney, Charles François Dupuis, Bruno Bauer, Will Durant, George Albert Wells, Robert M. Price etc. are all fringe theorists? But as long as someone knows what exactly the Truth is, what can I say.--Termer (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Durant is not a believer in the theory (he is quoted to summarise its claims). The other writers are either woefully obsolete, misrepresented, or, yes, fringe. Also, no-one thinks that the gospels were written 200 years after Jesus's lifetime, and the earliest attestations of Jesus were written well within living memory. For some reason some non-Christians seem to confuse belief in Jesus' existence with "belief in Jesus", as if believing in Muhammad's or Marx's existence were the same as being a Muslim or a Marxist. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are missing is...wait...let me cut/paste some of my comments from the talk page in question:

...since there is more textual evidence for the existence of JC than any other historical figure of that time, then the historicity of Julius Caesar, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Herod the Great, etc., are in even in more doubt. So, those who would deny the historicity of JC would also be forced to deny the historicity of all of the aforementioned personages, and the pursuit of ancient history becomes a meaningless endeavor.

Unlike the "hard sciences", accurate history is determined by the probabilities assessed by individual historians, and consensus by groups of historians. (Ancient historians don't offer proof; rather, they offer evidence.) In other words, the probability that JC is a historical person is high enough to make the vast majority of historians to come to the consensus that he really did exist.

Also, although the NT is a reliable source, it is NOT (generally speaking) a WP:RS because it is written by authors with a POV; a POV that they were willing to die for. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, must be written with NPOV, and are not concerned with truth but with verifiability. So, is the NT a reliable source for JC's claims? Yes. Is the NT a WP:RS for the truth of JC's claims? No. The NT can only offer evidence that JC's claims are true; it cannot verify them.

So, as of right now, the "Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory, but it is certainly possible (although not probable) that that can change in the future. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The NT is not a "reliable source for JC's claims". Its a reliable source for early claims about "JC". In WP terms it's the equivalent of using the website of an organisation to describe its beliefs. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The NT makes certain claims "about" JC, is true enough. Hmmm...I thought that is what I said...but, whatever. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it matters, but you said it's a "reliable source for JC's claims". Assuming that JC is Jesus Christ, since he was not the author we have to take the word of the Gospel writers that he said what they say he did. Among nonliteralist scholars, afak, Mark is generally thought a bit more reliable than John, but neither is taken as...gospel. Paul B (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, we agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The people you list above are probably not the best examples as we have actual primary sources (that is sources written by themselves) from 5 out of 6 (not to mention contemporary epigraphy regarding 3 out of the 6, especially a lot of epigraphy concerning Caesar and Herod), so strictly speaking from a historians viewpoint we do have more certain knowledge of the existence of these persons than of Jesus Christ, as we only have later secondary sources on him. But other than that I agree with you, Christ myth theory is fringe based on Wikipedia criteria. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is your citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying_fringe_theories Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have indeed dealt with this over and over again, with the same end result (it's Fringe). It is time to move this debate up the dispute resolution ladder. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some advice from a skeptic. It is indeed a fringe theory. While there are myths about Christ, myths are nearly always created around some existing person, and if they aren't, they remain children's bedtime stories without any disciples who are willing to die for what they experienced. Could/did the disciples and other followers start embellishing on the Christ they knew? Sure. But that doesn't mean he didn't exist at all. Somehow those who deny the existence of Christ seem to be threatened by that fact. They shouldn't. One can believe that he existed without having to believe in him or his teachings. It almost seems like deniers are just as religious in their denials as Christians are in their missionary endeavors. That's unnecessary. Just ignore him if you don't believe. Cut that umbilical cord and get on with your life. Your very denials keep you tied to a Christ you don't believe in. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One can question whether there was a singular historical Jesus without being threatened if it turns out there was. The historical record is present but weak if one excludes the new testament. I would say that it is equally likely that there was an historical Jesus as it is that there was an historical Gautama Siddhartha Buddha and that the record for the existence of Socrates is somewhat better than for the existence of either of the above. On the balance of probabilities I'd say it is nearly certain the last of the three existed and that it is more likely than not that the other two did. I'd say that neither had any supernatural abilities of any sort provided they existed; any such stories are myths built around the figures. Regardless, considering that the records of Jesus are weak (though present), I'd say that it is a bit harsh to call those who doubt the existence of an historical Jesus fringe theorists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not our personal evaluations of the topic that matter, it's what scholarship says. The scholarship unambiguously calls this a fringe theory. And anyway, if you look at my original posting above, the problem is not currently whether the theory is fringe or not. There are specific content issues at the article that need outside voices. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I can see from all the discussion and the sources that it really is regarded by scholars as a fringe theory. By "scholars" we mean mainly theologists and they mainly have a Christian background, although it is not necessary to be a Christian to be regarded as a scholar of Jesus. I was surprised to see how thickly they were laying on the comparisons with holocaust denial etc., but they do seem to be doing that, so there you go. I'm not sure if it needs to be stated so heavily in the lede, though, and it would be better to write the lede without the need for citations. Also, I thought the talk page discussion was mostly reasonable, but as usual an injection of AGF wouldn't go amiss. Someone mentioned a scholar who has a more generous view of the "myth" writers - it would seem to be important to include her somewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As ever, Judith supplies a nice dash of UCS. The lead should of course not contain inline citations (and, as a consequence, should not contain {{fact}} tags either). As per WP:LEDE, it should also summarise the article, so unless the comparison-to-hololcaust-deniers stuff is developed upon and discussed in the body of the article, it should be in the main text, not the lede. On cursory reading I don't see any such development? Moreschi (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem about the holocaust denial phrase alone, or does the problem also apply to the comparisons of "flat earthers" and "faked moon landings"? Also, if the sources for the holocaust denial don't "develop" it (and I doubt that they do, since it seems to me to indicate merely the extreme level of fringe-ness), the comparison should remain in the lead. But if they DO develop it, then it should appear in both the lead and the body, as Moreschi suggested. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} Well, yes, Judith always is good at the UCS stuff. My statements were rather a specific response to Brangifer's comments. As somebody who does not consider the historicity of JC to be entirely settled but who is entirely unthreatened if it turned out that he did exist I felt a response was necessary. Judith has, as usual, cut nicely to the heart of the matter. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments gave the impression that skeptics were fringy types. Not at all. It is the theory itself that's considered a fringe theory. Many reasonable people believe it, in fact some are extremely intelligent and very well-articulated. I meant no aspersions on the skeptics as persons. I just believe they shouldn't feel threatened. You seem to have a healthy skepticism, and that's a good thing. It is Christians, OTOH, who have a lot invested in whether Christ existed or not. They are the ones who would become unglued if their beliefs were shown to be false. They are the ones who have something very fundamental to lose. Skeptics have nothing to lose, so they shouldn't get emotionally entangled in the subject, and yet some of them do. I suspect some of them might be former Christians who realize that if their skepticism is wrong, they are lost. I could well be wrong, but I suspect that in some cases that's why they react so strongly. It's just my opinion, so it really has no weight in the grand scheme of things. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Christ myth theory is there are WP:RS that show the idea is not exclusively the idea that Jesus didn't exist but that he has been mythologized so much little if anything remains of the actual man. You have Dodd, C. H. (1938) who said t could include reports of an "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name", Price called Wells a Christ-myth theorist in 1999 and 2002 even though Wells was accepting a historical 1st century teacher behind Q back in 1996, and Pike with his "Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin."

The list of supporters is little help either as even people like Schweitzer get confused and change their positions of who belongs where. For example, Schweitzer includes James George Frazer (who held there was a historical Jesus) with Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in 1931. Bromiley has similar problems as he mixes in Lucian and Bertrand Russell together with Wells. The debate is not if the non-historical position is fringe--we can all agree that is fringe but if the very term "Christ myth theory" is exclusively use in that manner and the WP:RS shows it is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb has raised this objection over and over again on the article's talk page and every time he has been shown to be wrong (even some of the sources he's provided in defense of his view have backfired on him). So now he has begun advocating here it seems. The sources used in the lead make it very clear that the subject of the "Christ Myth theory" article is the belief that Jesus never even existed. To give only a single example out of very many, "Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder." Goguel, Maurice, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 117-118. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement analysis

Just wikified this and took out a large number of potentially BLP-violating examples. It seems to be a valid technique - google scholar gives a few hits - but the article is currently unreferenced and it does seem that a lot of really daft and unverified ideas can attach to the field. Has anyone any expertise in this area, or can help find an expert? I'm not sure that there's a relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting bit of original research.....the text probably currently overstates the effectiveness, but without sources.....who can tell? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

it also seems to have some pretty solid copyvio stuff. grrr. i'll axe some away. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible to find sources for this topic. I'm not sure whether "Statement analysis" is actually the main term that is being used to describe the topic. Maybe different terms exist in different professions and academic field. In sociology, de:Objektive Hermeneutik would be a closely related method. (Sorry, that links to a German article, I don't know whether an English article exists on that topic.)  Cs32en Talk to me  01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

An editor has proposed changes to the Tom Van Flandern article, here: Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion. Flandern's ideas have at times been labelled fringe, so any input from editors who watch this page would probably be appreciated. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the deal with User:6324xxxx? Something deeply suspect going on there. Artw (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out User:Mikevf which is Van Flandern's son's talk page . Akuvar (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that needs to be mentioned is his marginalization and, indeed, denigration by mainstream scientists who have bothered to comment. This seems to be lacking right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how to word that or provide any source material/citations. Although it is accurate, I think without an external reference the people that are guilty of that behavior would insist it be removed from the article. If you can create a statement that can be cited or referenced, please post it under the TVF discussion page or on my Talk. Thanks Akuvar (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. I do not beleive anything good is going to come out of that situation. Artw (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, that's not the way to handle these issues. I think the first thing to do is look for third-party independent sources and rewrite the article based on the summaries and details they provide. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a revised and updated article being proposed to replace the current entry. It can be found on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion it had strong support but the Nomination to delete the article has placed any changes on hold until 1-13-2010. Akuvar (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Plovdiv

In this article, it is being claimed that Plovdiv has a history going back 6000 years and is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities. Yet this claim is sourced to a single source that is primarily environmental, not archeological in focus, and hence off-topic and inappropriate. Even worse, the phrase is lifted verbatim from the source, and then cut-and-pasted twice in the article (firstly in the second sentence of the lead, then again in the history section). Further on, in the History section it is claimed that an established settlement existed in Plovdiv since the 7th millennium BC. This is sourced the Plovdiv Museum website (a dead link) and to two inaccessible Bulgarian language publications. These are exceptional claims, and exceptional claims require high-quality sources. If the claim that Plovdiv is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited city were reflected in the international academic consensus, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream English-language reliable sources that would reflect this consensus. This is clearly NOT the case here, the case here being one of "antiquity frenzy", fringe-POV pushing, WP:UNDUE and manipulation of WP:RS. The arguments put forth by the users that support these claims are even more outrageous [17], using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sarcasm, and sophistry. I brought this up on the article talkpage [18] and this [19] was the response I got. Any help in dealing with this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is WP:Fringe as much as it is a violation of WP:RS, because the one source is indeed "off-topic and inappropriate". Also, the response from Avidius is rude and snarky. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Claiming a continuous history of over 6000 years based on dubious sourcing is definitely fringe and WP:UNDUE. --Athenean (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not also fringe. What I was trying to say is that the first WP violation is WP:RS. Once a source is given, then we can apply the "fringe" label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't we actually have a List of cities by time of continuous habitation? That would be worth looking at to see what caliber sources we typically accept for claims of this type. Moreschi (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For Plovdiv, the same source is used in that article as well. List of cities by time of continuous habitation mostly relies on high-quality archeological sources, but I also note the occasional website [20] and Complete Idiot's Guide type source, not to mention tertiary sources as well. --Athenean (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem also is organization. That list could use a little work: IMO dubious ones (and it's not just Plovdiv either) should not be bundled with in dead certs. Ideally there should be a dead certs list, and then underneath that a shortest of ones that are academically controversial. Moreschi (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The list can certainly use a lot of work, although I think better sourcing is the best remedy. Ideally, for each city that is dubiously sourced (e.g. Byblos, Plovdiv), a better source should be sought. Back to the subject of Plovdiv, though, where does that leave us? Do we go with the Rodwell source because that is better than nothing, or remove the "6000 years of continuous habitation" on the grounds that it is dubiously sourced (which is going to be fiercely resisted)? --Athenean (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way it is the same in Sofia: "One of the oldest cities in Europe, the history of Serdica-Sredets-Sofia can be traced back some 7000 years;" And this completely unsourced. There is some serious antiquity frenzy going on in these articles. --Athenean (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Same in Stara Zagora: According to the city's chamber of commerce, it is one of the oldest settlements in Europe, being at least eight thousand years old.. Similar in Varna. --Athenean (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-sourced statements like that can and should be deleted outright. And I agree that even in the Plovdiv article there should be more reliable sourcing to establish such a dubious claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Radon therapy

Resolved

Back in September, I nominated Radon therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion because I felt that no article was better that that article. The result was a NAC keep for lack of grounds to delete. Since then, it's improvement has been decidedly underwhelming. Article essentially claims that radon therapy should be generally recognized as safe and effective. See talk page for brief discussion of "big pharma" (a hallmark of medical fringe theories and pseudoscience). Since radon hasn't seriously been used as a treatment since ~1970's (at least in the U.S.), the article needs some help (at a minimum; I think it should ideally be completely rewritten). --Thinboy00 @216, i.e. 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also some copyright violations in there - several sections are directly listed from some of the "sources" used in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Uggh, its first paragraph reads like an advertisement, even if one suited more for a medical journal. And it doesn't get much better... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now been gutted to due (apparent) copyvio and sourcing, and now basically a stub. Should we mark as resolved? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged it as a stub (under "alternative medicine"). I think we're done here. --Thinboy00 @002, i.e. 23:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually it seems to me that Radon therapy is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. It is an historical/cultural phenomenon that began after the discovery of radon and was linked to the quasi-magical properties it was thought to have at the time. A history of its use would be a desirable article if it could be sourced. Paul B (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Our Skin

Some of you may or may not remember some of the issues related to advocacy for chronic Lyme disease here awhile back (if not, Talk:Lyme disease and its archives bear mute witness). In any case, I've found myself in a bit of a back-and-forth with another editor at Under Our Skin, an article about a film which advocates one side of this political/medical controversy. The article appears generally untrafficked, so to break the cycle of back-and-forth I'd like to invite outside eyes and opinions. MastCell ^Talk 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

Having had some problems at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, I decided to see how many article reference or mention Menzies. A lot, it seems, see [21] - anyone want to help clear up any misusing him as a source? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the situation isn't nearly as bad as you might think. Most of the references to Menzies' works are used specifically to cite his claims, as in Mahogany Ship, for example. (Of course, issues of undue weight could remain.) I removed all instances of clear misuse of Menzies as a source a few days ago; except at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, these edits seem to be sticking. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Mylodon? I can't see any justification for using Menzies for this. WP:UNDUE? Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nei Jing

An essay entry I found. It is about a concept that I am told is "salient" and also "the key to unlock the secrets of advanced kung fu". --dab (𒁳) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I used some nei jing on the essay, to reduce the unencyclopedic-ness of it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh! Let me help! Simonm223 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a content fork with Nei Jin. I turned it into a redirect. BTW: tempted to move Nei Jin to Nei Jing as the latter is correct pingyin for the term. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

excellent work, and quick! Pure wiki kung fu. --dab (𒁳) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

it turns out it should probably all be merged into Neijia. See also pushing hands,Silk reeling. --dab (𒁳) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neijia would work. One of the fun things with CMA is that there is frequently 3 or 4 terms for the same thing. More if you include the Cantonese ways of saying stuff too. Simonm223 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it, Nei Jing and Nei Jia are not synonymous: Nei Jing is the skill and Nei Jia are the schools teaching this skill. For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is still one single topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed a couple of double redirects. There really does seem to be quite the walled garden here, vigorous merging definitely required. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also spent some more time tending this corner and I think it's reasonably ok, albeit poorly referenced in general. But there is Internal alchemy which is completely inacceptable in its nonchalant conflation of Taoism and Hermeticism. --dab (𒁳) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

never mind, this one just needed redirection to Neidan. --dab (𒁳) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone un-redirected Nei Jing, so I re-redirected it. Please watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis#Mediterranean fact vs. conjecture

I reverted an edit at the main article as the editor has a clear COI, and he had changed cited text. He has, as I ask him to, brought it to the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if someone less involved with the article took a look. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That article always gives me a headache. Can't we just turn it to a redirect for "plato's imagination" and have done? Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's useful for keeping cruft out of Atlantis, if nothing else. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, true enough. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What's fun is when proponents edit war. The important thing I think is to keep people from adding trivial ideas/websites etc. I don't think talking at a conference entitles anyone to a place in the article. Being mentioned in a reliable source, or maybe in the news depending how prominently, would do, but these conferences seem to accept anyone who can pay their way. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory

I've looked at this after I left it alone for a couple of months. A classic WP:FRINGE case, not all-out lunatic, but as mad as you can get and still be scholarly reviewed. In fact rather similar to the problems we see at New Chronology (Rohl). There are a number of polite reviews but nobody would even dream of subscribing to the core thesis. There are the usual problems with presenting the topic duly, i.e. accurately without creating the impression that anyone is taking it at all seriously, as usual further complicated by a couple aficionado editors who want the theory seen presented in the best light that is at all arguable. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Watchlisted. Do we have any tertiary sources discussing the topic on which an overall evaluation could be based? Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Some WP:DUE issues. Article might benefit from being stubbed a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anatolian hypothesis

The academese used to write this IP edit makes it rather hard to figure out what is actually being proposed here, but I think it could use some attention. Moreschi (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch

Entirely sourced to conspiracy websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, and UFO literature. Article infobox asserts this "location" is "active". Criticism is ghettoized (and largely OR, since no reliable sources appear to give this topic any attention). Ripe for cleanup. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of internal contradiction and dubious claims. Beginning preliminary reading and tagging. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or should it be AfD'd if there is not a single RS? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still reviewing. There appears to be some local "mystery spot" hyping style RSes. Also there is Coast to Coast AM which is touted as an RS by fringe proponents. Still... a good stubbing would be good for now pending decision on the reliability of available sources. Gotta finish reading it first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to a place called the National Institute for Discovery Science as doing some kind of "research" connected to "the military-industrial complex". It's beginning to sound like an urban legend to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Found a decent ref in a book of Utah legends and stubbed the article down accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome job LuckyLouie. I was in the processing of a not-as-good stubbing when you finished. I trimmed some of the external links that went to defunct newspapers and bookselling sites. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM

I've put it to question wheter this counts as a WP:RS at the appropriate message board. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marian apparitions

A lot of material about Marian apparitions appears to be quite credulously presented. A short list from what I briefly encountered today:

• Virgin of Guadalupe#Beliefs and Miracles
• Our Lady of Lourdes (Please note the "secular views" section, which provide little such substance)

• Also, the fork Lourdes apparitions

• Our Lady of La Salette
• Our Lady of Fatima

The attention of some FTN regulars to this topic area is desperately needed. A lot of secular and skeptical authorities have written about the general phenomena and most of the notable apparitions. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is excessive skepticism, it is undisputed that these apparitions are "real" in the sense that people do experience them. Not even the Roman Catholic Church claims anything beyond this, other than that it is a matter of Faith to choose to interpret such experiences as divine, so there is nothing fringy about it, it's just human religious experience. Creating separate "secular view" sections would appear as of the lady-protests-too-much kind. It is perfectly straightforward to treat visionary experience as a secular (neurological) topic beginning to end, no "however" clauses are necessary. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at them all in detail, but the main article seems to me to be reasonably well-constructed; my one possible quibble with it is the prominence it gives to some recent cases which may not really be that important. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. The articles appear to be mostly well-written and place belief in the apparitions/phenomena in the context of religious experience rather than fringe claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not objecting in any way to material about the religious faith or experience thereof involved in the miracles. Taking one example, Virgin of Guadalupe#Beliefs and Miracles very clearly and explicitly makes materialistic and scientific claims that are mostly certainly fringe claims. I'm not even objecting to the material existing in the article. I just think that the fringe science and archaeology material should be properly counterbalanced by more mainstream and skeptical interpretations and rebuttals. That should not be controversial or excessive by any measure. Vassyana (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. No WP:RS supports the supposed claims of Richard Kuhn. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user

User:William S. Saturn seems to be an ideologically-motivated user with no regards for WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Recently he unilaterally moved the page "Iran and state terrorism" to a new POV-tainted called State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime [22] without filling a request for move, seeking a consensus, or initiating any discussion at all, to the dismay of other editors. [23] Further, he made a bunch of questionable edits, as outlined by another user here. [24] He has also been edit-warring on Iraq War to add Iran as a combatant of the war. [25] Given his history of edit-warring, POV-pushing and stubbornness, I really don't wish to get engaged in an edit-war with this person, and appreciate it if the other editors here could share their thought on how to handle such an editor, and keep an eye on these pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime" is not a fringe theory so much as a political opinion, or a politically biased choice of vocabulary in discussing recent headlines. Try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

If I may say so, Iran and state terrorism is an appaling example of "zomg NPOV" weasling gone wrong. How many perpetrators of state terrorism can you have per state? That's right, just the state itself, otherwise it wouldn't be state terrorism. Hence "Iran and state terrorism" is a silly title. --dab (#56435;) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about par for the course for this editor. He spent a month trying to get "Waterboarding is a form of torture" out of the lede for that article. He's blinded by his PoV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, the claim that waterboarding is torture is somewhat controversial, with many persons arguing that it is not torture. Since the term "torture" is only loosely defined, I can understand persons of good will doubting that waterboarding is torture. (I am not one of those persons, but the fact that someone else is doesn't mean that he is blinded by his biases.) Phiwum (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but I'm pretty sure that the more commonly held view in WP:RS is that Waterboarding is considered a form of torture. WP articles should reflect the prevelant view (NPOV) with significant minority views being noted in the article and fringe minority views (Waterboarding is a form of relaxing exercise) either ignored totally or given a small mention. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn. and I was just about to add in a scan of the "Spa Guantanamo" brochure the CIA has been distributing. Waterboarding, high-intensity manicures, hot/cold treatments, drug therapies... the newest thing in spiritual retreats. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(To Ravensfire) Yes, and I'm not saying that William S. Saturn was right in trying to change the lede. I'm merely saying that his attempt to change the lede in the waterboarding article is not good evidence that he's blinded by his biases. (Of course, he might well be so blinded.) Phiwum (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Numbers

More editorial and administrative eyes would probably be useful at House of Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a film that espouses AIDS denialism, and it has proven quite popular as a forum for accounts which espouse a similar agenda (currently, Sarcher70 (talk · contribs) is up to 5RR or so). Anyhow, more eyes would probably help ensure that the site's policies are not getting trampled in the rush to prove that HIV is harmless. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Any idea what Sarcher70's previous/main account might be? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The movie happens to have brought a few AIDS denialists out of the woodwork. Given how small this particular fringe is, the likelihood is that most new denialist agenda accounts are either socks or (more likely) solicited by the various AIDS-denialist newsgroups which occasionally complain about Wikipedia's coverage of HIV/AIDS. I think this is probably the latter, and it doesn't trigger any obvious sock alarms. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that this will have an impact similar to the movies about quantum mysticism and creationism? Are there are particular articles that need to be watched? Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect

• See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, TM, etc. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 4#TM-Sidhi Program and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Maharishi Vedic Science

The Transcendental Meditation movement of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi proposes that the group practice of meditation advanced techniques, the TM-Sidhi program, leads to two separate phenomenon. First, they assert that practitioners spontaneously rise off the ground in the first stage of a three stage progression toward full flying. They have demonstrated this phenomenon and outside observers say that it appears to be ordinary hopping.

Second, the movement asserts that even this first stage of Yogic Flying is sufficient to create a field of coherence which radiates out to affect the surrounding population of non-practitioners and protect them from negativity, including everything from crime and accidents to bad weather and pollen. They call this the Maharishi Effect (ME) and say that it makes communities and even nations invincible through a mechanism comparable to the Meissner Effect, and which is propagated through quantum consciousness. They, and no one else, have conducted dozens of scientific studies which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. At least three of those studies have received outside notice and comment, almost all of which is skeptical of the hypothesis and some of which say that the studies were flawed. The theory and practice have been called "pseudoscience". One of the proponents, John Hagelin, appeared in the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? and received an Ig Nobel Prize for his research. Some editors assert that it is not a fringe theory since it has been published in peer reviewed journals and has received popular attention. Other editors, including myself, say that there is no sign of it being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

For the purposes of this guideline, would it be correct to categorize Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect as fringe theories? If it is, how much weight should be given to studies of the effect conducted by members of the movement which have not received comment in any secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd further like to ask for a clear delineation on these points:

• Opinions on a clarification on what Wikipedia considers a fringe theory, and whether 40-50 or so peer reviewed studies can be defined as fringe studies or are they studies that have been done on a so called fringe theory, if what we have here is a fringe theory.

• Is there a difference between using a study to support a claim made outside of a study, as opposed to listing with explanation studies done on the ME to help[ explain and define the research carried out on the theory...while making no claims except what is contained within the boundaries of the studies. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

I have always thought that people will need to be really desperate for a guru before choosing to follow this one. I don't think this falls under "fringe theory" so much as pseudoscience, similar to other quasi-religious topics like Scientology etc. The fact that they apparently managed to get some of this stuff into peer-reviewed journals (on what?) might actually raise (not lower) this topic to the status of "fringe theory", but I would be hesitant to go so far to call something a fringe theory just because some scholars were annoyed enough to note they think it is nonsense. For all practical purposes, this is just pseudoscience of the quantum-mysticism type. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of our fringe categories, this falls into "obvious pseudoscience", I'd say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are 50 or so peer reviewed studies can this still be called pseudoscience...Wouldn't that number of studies start to put the research more into mainstream... I really don't know where the line is. Certainly the idea itself might be called a pseudoscience idea until or if it becomes well accepted or even proven as an idea. Any further thoughts on that.(olive (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

the number of studies has nothing to do with it. Counting studies is as bad as counting google hits. This would move out of the pseudoscience corner if (a) some studies were written by people unrelated to the TM movement, ideally at large universities, or (b) if there were reviews on these studies, ideally not all condemning, written by relevant scholars, ideally holding tenure at large universities. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would peer review by independent journals be considered biased. Wikipedia values peer review per Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals", and WP:RS says,"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". Sorry but I think you may be off on this. From my point I don't care if the studies are used or not but if not, for the right reasons and as per the policy and guideline as I am quoting them. Thanks for your comments.(olive (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

The reason they'd be considered biased is because the researchers themselves are not independent. You have former Maharishi University presidents, professors, TM teachers writing research, often proposing Fringe ideas like "pure consciousness" (most neurologists would say the physical brain gives rise to consciousness, not something called pure consciousness) and associating it with highly speculative hypotheses like the so-called "Maharishi Effect" which associates "pure consciousness" with a quantum field effect, supposedly creating beneficial effects in the physical world, a pseudoscience claim.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's best not to ask hypothetical questions. I think, olive, you are insinuating that the ME has been subject to 50 peer-reviewed papers that confirm its existence. This claim needs to be looked at in context. First of all, the Maharishi-associates are notorious for trying to make their pseudoscience seem as scientific as possible. So they throw as much shit against the wall as possible in a vain effort to make themselves look respectable. This is not unlike creationists who have historically used the same tactic to make their claims seem reasonable. Secondly, a careful analysis of the claimed "50 papers" will reveal a hodge-podge of fringe journals, poor editorial standards, and irrelevant nonsense. In point of fact, the ME has no independent third-party verification as to its existence. Truly, Maharishi is a relevant subject for Wikipedia, but it is not even close to being scientific, mainstream, or not fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SA. I have commented on my position on this theory later on the thread and agree with Vassyana below, that it is indeed a fringe theory. I feel you are making some massive generalizations but that is your prerogative. Your comments are somewhat more neutral and measured than most on this page.(olive (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

(to Judith) yes, in wiki-jargon, we do not tend to distinguish pseudoscience from fringe theories, it's all "WP:FRINGE". Strictly speaking, a fringe theory is on the fringe of scholarship, not well outside anything reasonably discussed in scholarship. Pseudoscience on the other hand is simply outside scholarship and sold to the credulous hoi polloi. TM is clearly not "fringe" but "pseudoscience" in this sense (I mean, levitation due to a "Meissner Effect" of "quantum consciousness", I ask you...), but it has aspects of religion. Thus, it is partly obvious pseudoscience (the parts dealing with studies and "quantum consciousness" and what not) and partly a new religious movement to be discussed as such. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

it turns out that problems these article suffer is apparent WP:COI editing on the part of Littleolive oil (talk · contribs). Apart from this, there appear to be a number of good editors already giving attention to the article. This should be comparatively easy to fix. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You comment is astonishing in the extreme. Do not accuse me of what you cannot support. You spend five minutes on an article and you make those kinds of accusations. Do not. Take it to the Notice board or keep it to yourself, but do not post on these pages where such comments are out of place in a civil discussion. You are out of line. And rather than spend your time attacking me you might add an opinion about an honestly asked question above. (olive (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

Astonishing? The only thing astonishing is that you would continue to assert that you are exempt from the requirements of WP:COI. Your personal conflict of interest has been authoritatively and repeatedly documented at COIN, as you well know.Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on real or imagined sanctions and violations are out of place on this Notice board. I have replied on your user page.(olive (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Dbachmann isn't the first editor to raise questions about the COI editing of TM-related articles. There have been five separate threads on the COIN, in addition to complaints on article and user talk pages. Promotion of fringe or pseudo-scientific theories by people associated with the companies or institutions that offer goods, services, and training is typically problematic, and in that regard this is little different from many other topics where similar problems have been seen before.

Relevant to this discussion, the headquarters of the Transcendental Meditation movement is in little Fairfield, Iowa, and so is the institution conducting almost all of this research, Maharishi University of Management (MUM). We have editors here who are associated with or even employed by MUM adding studies done by MUM faculty to promote a fringe view held only by members of what is often called a new religious movement. Wikipedia is not here to promote fringe views or pseudo-scientific theories.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, this is not the place to once again attempt to hang editors for what you consider to be COI editing. If you have a complaint take it to the COI Notice board. (olive (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

So you can assert, once again, that no-one at COIN call tell you not to directly edit articles involving organizations and entities with which you have a well-documented conflict of interest? What would be the point of that exercise?Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion has gotten way out of hand, this is the Fringe noticeboard and not the place to attack or make accusations of COI against other editors - the COI noticeboard is thataway - take it there, start an RFC or go to ArbCom, but this is not the place to be making such comments about other editors - especially by administrators who should know better. Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing focus and reason to this discussion, Dread. --BwB (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And, exactly what purpose would that serve, given the arrogant defiance of the TM-Org employees who are making a career out of POV-pushing on the TM-related articles, and who insist that no-one can tell them that they are not allowed to do that? Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in reference to how COI editing applies to fringe or pseudo-scientific topics. Fringe or pseudo-scientific topics often have problems with editors who are very close to the field making POV edits. That behavior is not unique to those. Try editing articles on multi-level marketing companies! In this case, the only people who conduct studies on this field are those who work for the movement, and similar problems extend down to reporting on those studies on Wikipedia. COI is a factor with editing of fringe theories, but there are several others so let's not get bogged down in just that.

What's most relevant here would be evidence of efforts by non-involved researchers to replicate the results from the TMM researchers. That, or other evidence that Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect have credence outside of the movement. Without that it seems this is not a set of theories that are within the mainstream scientific consensus, and therefore should be considered fringe theories or pseudo-science for the purposes of this guideline.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also interesting to note that editors own belief systems and opinions on the topic guiding the comments, for example "(I mean, levitation due to a "Meissner Effect" of "quantum consciousness", I ask you...)". Should not the discussion and analysis here be based on Wiki guidelines applied in a neutral, objective way? --BwB (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, at least not in the sense you seem to be implying. The main purpose of our rules is to make us write a serious encyclopedia. When the bogosity gets as obvious as mixing notions of natural science together in ways that can only be understood as metaphors, while trying to appear scientific, then the question cannot be whether it is pseudoscience. Wikilawyering is useless in this case: If the rules prevented us from treating this as pseudoscience, then the rules would be changed, not the treatment of the silliness. But they don't: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." (From WP:FRINGE.) The field of study in this case is clearly science. These people are making claims of specific physical effects such as flying, and create pseudo-explanations that have nothing to do with science. Hans Adler 12:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, his may be more complicated than I thought. Apparently, the TM topics have a history of years of dispute and meatpuppetry. Anyway, I am confident a vigorous burst of input from some regulars on this board will work wonders.

For the record, the "Yogic flying" is indeed hopping. The hopping is sold as the "first stage" of levitation. The TM people do not claim that they have gone beyond that stage yet. They just hope that if they keep hopping, they might one day achieve levitation (from the horse's mouth; Group practice of Yogic Flying, YogicFlyingChannel). So, there are no fringe claims that anyone is in fact levitating, and thus nothing to be falsified. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here; the issue of whether "yogic flyers" are actually flying or only hopping, or even only just practicing some advanced form of meditation which might, but doesn't necessarily, include either physically hopping or flying, is not at issue here. The pseudoscience at issue is that the "TM-Sidhi program" (called interchangeably by TM followers "yogic flying" whatever it entails) creates a coherence of consciousness that produces widespread effects in society as a whole, affecting a wide range of societal indicators.

TM proponents claim that there are some 50 studies "replicating" this effect, but the studies are not replications in any normal sense of the word, since they each use different variables to measure the improved quality of life produced by the Maharishi Effect. The variables claimed to be significantly impacted by "yogic flyers" in the various studies include, but are not limited to: war deaths in Lebanon, traffic fatalities in Canada, crude materials prices, the growth rate of the monetary base, air traffic fatalities in Massachusetts, the pollen count in Rhode Island, crime in one particular police district near Liverpool, cigarette consumption, work days lost to strikes in Canada, President Clinton's approval ratings, infant mortality, divorce rates, fatalities due to fire, the number of patent applications, unemployment statistics, divorce rates, public statements by the US president about the USSR (most of these studies date back to the Cold War), crime in Washington D.C., the number of degrees conferred by U.S. universities, stock prices for Washington D.C. corporations. There are some 25 more variables on the list I've compiled from the various studies, but this sampling should give you the flavor. This is the research that's at issue here, and this is the question before this board, how should this research be covered in this article. And dbachman, I'm glad you've revised your earlier assessment that this should be easy to fix; it has defied all efforts so far to bring it into line with serious encyclopedic standards, and I personally see little hope of that ever happening. Woonpton (talk)

Sounds like a textbook case of data mining. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there has never been a reported study that failed to achieve a positive effect. OTOH, there appear to have been many demonstration projects that were never written up as studies.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

you are right, there is a phenomenological claim, quite apart from the ideological bizarreness, and that phenomenological claim was examined and failed to be found with any statistical relevance. That's just bad research and can be debunked as such, no problem. --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just remind everyone that the ME and Yogic flying are sections within the Wiki article on the TM-Sidhi program and are not articles in their own right. The article is about a meditation technique. Yes, there are claims made by the TM organization that the technique of Yogic Flying (a sub-section of the TM-Sidhi technique) has an effect in the field of consciousness to reduce crime, disease, accidents, etc., and studies have been conducted to see if this proposed effect is measurable. These studies have been published in peer-review journals, and so, within the context of the overall TM-Sidhi article it seem reasonable to discuss the Maharishi Effect and the studies to test the theory (however bizarre people may think it is). We have reliable sources to support these section of the article. --BwB (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

of course we should discuss these studies. But we should discuss them for what they are, within our WP:FRINGE guideline, i.e. we should discuss them, making clear that they hold no water. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What continues to amaze me about these discussions on WP talk pages is the unrivaled arrogance of some of the editors. Please, dab, convince me that your opinion is superior to those of the peer reviewers of the dozen or more peer reviewed, mainstream journals that have critically reviewed the articles on ME research and found them acceptable in their mainstream journals. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Publication by peer-reviewed journals does not indicate acceptance by the scientific community. "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, my comment was referring to this comment of dab's above "...we should discuss them, making clear that they hold no water." He/she is saying that his/her opinion is superior to those of the dozens of peer reviewers who reviewed the papers in question and found them acceptable to the mainstream journals in which they were printed. Replying to your point, the fact that this many research articles have made it into mainstream publications after review by dozens of peers does make something acceptable, at least as a hypothesis or theory. This is a very different situation than referring to something based on a single research article. We are not discussing here whether the hypothesis or theory has been "proven," but simply that it is an active research topic in the mainstream of its areas of study--meditation research, social indicators, conflict resolution etc. ChemistryProf (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

look, ChemistryProf, we are talking about paranormal claims to the effect that hopping about with crossed legs will reduce crime rate. I daresay it is not personal arrogance on my part to dismiss such claims out of hand under WP:REDFLAG until excellent sources of complete and dumbfounded acceptance of irrefutable evidence on the part of mainstream scholarship is presented up front. If you are really a ChemistryProf, you will be familiar with the "drawer effect". Say crime rate tends to fluctuate by 20% on a day-to-day basis. So, if you publish a report announcing "we did some yogic flying and lo and behold, crime rate went 18% below average that day" this report tells us nothing. If I am wrong and statistical relevance has been established, let's see the flabbergasted reviews conceding that it is statistically relevant. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What dab is saying, in a nutshell is that correlation does not equate to causation. This is an intro stats concept. At best the yogic flyer studies may demonstrate a correlation. There is no indication that the correlation is causal. For all we know the lower crime rates caused people to attempt yogic flying. Most likely there is no relationship in the slightest - as is common when people dredge statistics to indicate an unlikely correlation such as this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what all the busy noise is about here. The Maharishi Effect and Yogic Flying are obviously both fringe theories/topics. There are reliable sources that document claims about both. Those reliable sources should be used (in proper proportion) in the appropriate on-topic articles, just as we do with any other far afield topic or view. That's what the OP was asking and most of the discussion here is neither here nor there to his question. Vassyana (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

it appears that this has been simmering for quite a while. I agree with Vassyana that it is all very straightforward, but someone needed to sit down and do it. I just invested some time to clean up the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article. Other TM related articles still await treatment. Feel free to help. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to put the TM articles on my watchlist. I think that the first item would be to determine whether studies published by MUM constitute reliable scientific sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Simonm223 check out a preliminary list of WP:FRINGE non-compliant references currently used on the TM-Sidhi program [26].

Simon, the ME research studies were not all published by MUM. Many appeared in peer-review journals such a s the Journal for Conflict Resolution, a non-MUM publication. --BwB (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Journal for Conflict Resolution" doesn't resolve down to a single prominent journal; googling exactly for it gives a scant three pages of results and apparently picks up several different unrelated publications. My alarms are going off. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard for those who are interested. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Vassyana as I understand his comment, that the ME is on the edges of so-called mainstream science, but that sources that support multiple views are necessary for NPOV in the article. Seems very simple.(olive (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

We can use the views of those who are in the Maharishi cult to source their opinions about what they do. But the facts that they have no scientific evidence or independent verification of their claims means that we must necessarily describe their beliefs as without evidence and without independent verification. Aside from this, it is our continued duty as editors to make sure that no one comes away from articles written about the Maharishi cult believing that there is some sort of legitimate scientific controversy as to the claims made by the cult members and their supporters. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the ME hypothesis is the fringiest of the fringe. It has exactly zero acceptance in mainstream science. Those contending that getting a paper published means anything other than the paper getting published either completely misunderstand, or are deliberately misrepresenting what the peer review process is and means. None of these studies are ever cited by any non-TM Org related researcher, except when they are being dismissed as utter nonsense, data manipulation and the work of crackpots. Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For additional information on this topic I suggest Littleolive oil read here. Pay particular attention to independence of sources. As a WP:FRINGE issue that and the parity of sources section detail how to properly adhere to WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my comment from above WITH CORRECTIONS. "What continues to amaze me about these discussions on WP talk pages is the unrivaled arrogance presumptiveness of some of the editors. Please, all of you, convince me that your opinions are superior to those of the peer reviewers of the dozen or more peer reviewed, mainstream journals that have critically reviewed the articles on ME research and found them acceptable in their mainstream journals." Finding an article acceptable for publication does not mean that either the reviewers OR the journal accepts the theories to be valid or the hypotheses to have been DEFINITIVELY TESTED. However, IT DOES MEAN THAT THE STUDIES MAKE THE CUT AS SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE IN THESE MAINSTREAM SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS. It means the methods used are acceptable, and the conclusions are acceptable AS PART OF A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. This is the important thing. Papers are published every day that present hypotheses with experiments and results relevant to to those hypotheses that many would not acknowledge into their world view. Albert Einstein's first paper, on special relativity, was ignored by most physicists for years. Finally, Max Planck, one of the "big guys," read it and was impressed. He brought it before others and a whole new field was born. This is the way science works. When paradigms are challenged, most ignore the challenge for a generation or more. The hypotheses and theories relating to the Maharishi Effect are part of a new paradigm, and as such will take years to be accepted as valid, IF INDEED THEY ARE VALID. If they are not valid, proof of that too could take years. But the topic has been accepted for publication in over a dozen mainstream journals by dozens of peers in several mainstream areas. Therefore, this is an acceptable academic topic, and indeed has been referenced in other scientific articles. If some of the editors here want to be serious about neutral editing, it would be appropriate to first read the dozen or so articles on the topic that have been published in mainstream journals. MANY OF THE ACCUSATIONS LEVELED HERE REVEAL THAT THE EDITORS MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS HAVE NOT READ THE ARTICLES. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Corrected by ChemistryProf (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why you should think you need to repeat your comment. Your comment has received due replies the first time around. You quite apparently do not understand the concept of peer review. Your tangent on Einstein is hilarious, as it makes you score big on the crackpot index. --dab (𒁳) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ChemistryProf, if you consider the Pseudoscience journal The Journal of Scientitific Exploration[27], a "mainstream journal", I do believe you are sadly mistaken. I believe the most recent "peer reviewed" journal article to include Maharishi Effect research is this clearly Fringe journal.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to advise ChemistryProf that accusing other editors of "unrivalled arrogance" violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Referring to other editors as "ignorant" also violates WP:CIVIL. I would suggest he review those policies. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's not get too kettley here. It is possible for accounts who are overly-focused on "reforming" Wikipedia's presentation of pet beliefs to end up reformed. Sure, ChemistryProf is being uncivil, but he or she seems to be reacting to the general tone here at this board and at the talkpages of the relevant articles where we are working to try to dislodge dedicated ownsership. There are Wikipedia regulars appropriately acting to oppose what looks superficially to be an organized attempt by TM-org, MUM, and other related groups to overstate the evidence and theoretical basis for the claims of Maharishi magic. But any time this kind of action happens feathers get ruffled and ganders get gotten. If we are going to resolve these issues peaceably or efficiently, everyone needs to take a deep breath and try looking at the conflict from the other side. It cannot be nice to feel that your pet idea is being sent through the ringer here at Wikipedia (deservedly or not). Likewise, it is not okay for Wikipedia to treat with kid gloves subjects which have been determined by outsider reviewers to be, essentially, patent nonsense. The goal of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE is to provide the reader with the appropriate breadth and depth of information to allow them to see exactly how the subject lies in the context of and according to the best sources written about the subject (ala WP:MAINSTREAM). If the organized disruption is really preventing this from happening and there are too few level-headed editors to help, by all means escalate to higher rungs on the disputer resolution ladder. I give it better than even odds that we go to arbitration over this before 2010 is out. At this rate, we'll be there by the end of the month. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Simonm223, you are right that my choice of words was unfortunate. Emotionally loaded words tend to direct attention away from the main points being made. I have gone back and corrected those words in my statement just above and would appreciate it if the editors who are engaged in this conversation would re-read the substantive argument and respond in like manner (without the loaded words). ChemistryProf (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Publication of a study in a peer-reviewed journal does not indicate that the mainstream scientific community accepts the hypothesis. Is there any evidence of acceptance besides these studies?   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review means that a sufficient number of experts have reviewed a particular study to decide whether it deserves publication or not. Because it is a rigorous, impartial process, peer review holds a significant amount of authority . That is the reason why Wikipedia considers peer review studies to be extremely reliable. The fact that you do not like a peer review study or disapprove of is not a reason to remove it, rather the opposite, I would think, as it means that it is stimulating thinking and discussion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have avoided the question. Let me repeat it, "Is there any evidence of acceptance besides these studies?" --Ronz (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation: The studies, as far as I can see, have been published in some second tier sociology journals (such as Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law etc) and the scientific community has not bothered to look into the claimed physical principle of the Maharishi Effect. It doesn't really help to confuse such different fields, and refer to "scientific publications", "scientific discourse", "scientific discussion" etc as in some of the above comments. Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sociology is not a pure science, it is true. Sociology is somewhat like a science, somewhat like philosophy and somewhat like a humanity. It's because it's not practical to develop experiments involving whole cultures.  :)

Notwithstanding that I'm surprised that these studies, with the clear statistical errors in them, got through peer review at a sociology journal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be instructive to read the issue of Journal of Conflict Resolution (32(4), 1988) in which one of these articles was published. One of the peer reviewers (who had reluctantly recommended publishing because the article met the minimum standards of the journal for publication) requested space in the journal for a comment, in which he discussed flaws in the research and in the peer review process, and the editor of the journal also wrote an editorial comment on the publication of the article, in which he expressed his own ambivalence about publishing. "Yet the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally executed." In other words, if the theory and hypothesis seem to hang together internally (IF there is a unified field of consciousness that's all connected all over the planet, then it sort of makes sense that a bunch of people meditating in Iowa could affect cigarette consumption in Canada, or whatever) and if on the face of it the research has the reasonable appearance of competently-executed scientific research, then it meets the journal's standards, and the decision was made to publish in spite of the reservations of at least one of the reviewers and of the journal's editor himself. Two years later, a formal critique of the research was published in the same journal. [Schrodt, Journal of Conflict Resolution 34:750-(or so)] accompanied by a rebuttal from Orme-Johnson, the lead author of the original article. Apparently, according to an unpublished dissertation, there were two more critiques planned for publication in the same journal, but neither was published there for reasons we can only speculate on. One was later published in a different journal, without rebuttal; the rebuttal was published last year, 21 years after the initial publication of the research, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which touts itself as a peer reviewed journal, which kind of shows that the concept of peer review become absolutely meaningless. But this brief summary may help give some insight into the kind of peer review we're talking about.

But this brings up another problem with editing these articles. The TM researchers insist on writing a rebuttal to every critique, and these published rebuttals, although they invariably fail to address key points of the critique and tend to focus on trivial or even irrelevant points as a way of attempting to discredit the critique, are given more space and weight in the article than the independent critique itself, and it's very wearying to get into one of these discussions, because they just go around and around the same sticker bush and never get anywhere. Woonpton (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this right to infinite rebuttal in other articles where new religious movements make pseudo-scientific claims. Not really that different from Scientology or the FLG. Even if a religion is involved WP:FRINGE applies and that lays out guidelines for parity of sources. That should provide a framework for dealing with that issue.Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental_Meditation scientific research

I am surprised that our TM article does not cite the most authoritative source on the subject:

Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. (June 2007.). Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research (PDF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

which concluded:

Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.

Overall, we found the methodological quality of meditation research to be poor, with significant threats to validity in every major category of quality measured, regardless of study design.

A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage overhealth education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients; RR was not superior to biofeedback in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients

Our TM article reaches almost the opposite conclusion based on quote mining and synthesis of primary sources; really needs to be rewritten. Abecedare (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) PS: It actually does cite the above review in the middle of Medical research subsection, and then tries to "balance" it by misrepresenting the conclusions of a later paper. Abecedare (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It apparently took an edit war [28][29][30][31] and much talk page discussion to get the Ospina/Bond paper included.[32]   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing that a scattered survey of primary sources by wikipedia editors (some with declared CoI) is being preferred over, and used to contradict, a comprehensive, systematic review by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. I have posted a request at Wikiproject Medicine Noticeboard for informed editors to review the article. Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. We seem to be finally getting somewhere. I am keeping a somewhat loose eye on this and it's very evident a vast chunk of cleanup is needed here: walled gardens cannot be allowed to spiral out of control. Rigorous application of WP:REDFLAG is evidently of the highest importance. Moreschi (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

indeed. it is my experience that the way forward in such situations is to ignore the talkpage bickering and cut right to the chase, locating the most authoritative references. It is always a waste of time to tell editors they are being incivil, as this invariably degenerates in a schoolyard fight over who was incivil first, to the point where the actual question is buried and forgotten. The recommended course is to, whenever somebody begins to discuss civility, go straight to the relevant sources and compile a no-nonsense account of their take on the situation. In this case, Abecedare has done the honours. We shall now include these references and structure the article to reflect the mainstream judgement they establish. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AHRQ reported on a range of studies and effects and drew a range of conclusions based on a number of meta-anlayses. Regarding hypertension, the overall conclusion was that TM produces a statistically significant reduction (see the Results section in the abstract). The meta-analyses also found statistically significant reductions in heart rate, cholesterol, and verbal fluency. There have been two meta-analyses published subsequent to AHRQ that included studies outside the scope of AHRQ (which excluded research not on adults and research published after 2005). There have been a number of randomized controlled published trials since 2005, including one in December done at American University with over 200 subjects. TimidGuy (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

( one edit conflict alrady ) Certainly an interesting topic to consider . As I understand this, you do have peer reviewed work on levitating yogi's who seem to think due to same effect as the levitating high-tc demo that is now common. Some editors have apparently expressed the opinion that the peer review must have failed and made a merit determination, or that is how it sounds when their approach is presented in a few lines here. While these issues come up with religion, flying yogi or Christ rising from the dead, eyewitness testimony from conflicted parties is a recurring criticism in many areas when you probe merit. In terms of theory, quantum mechanics is used glibbly to explain ( usually rationalize ) various questionable observations in many hard-core fields including thermodynamics. First, it is important to avoid inflicting good intentions onto the article with merit presumptions that distort the prominence, this is an issue with all sides. ( more late, just wanted to post to avoid edit conflict as I need to do somethingelse now). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"The studies, as far as I can see, have been published in some second tier sociology journals (such as Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law etc"

"You have former Maharishi University presidents, professors, TM teachers writing research, often proposing Fringe ideas like "pure consciousness" (most neurologists would say the physical brain gives rise to consciousness, not something called pure consciousness) and associating it with highly speculative hypotheses like the so-called "Maharishi Effect" which associates "pure consciousness" with a quantum field effect, "--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the peer review process right here. Assuming these two quotes are correct the problem is that even the most prestigious Sociology journals are not qualified to peer review articles on quantum field effects. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

TG's comment above is typical of the process by which these articles have gotten twisted by editors with acknowledged COI. As you can see from the talk pages that Will linked to above, the first effort from these editors has been a coordinated tag-team edit war to exclude any mention of this report from the article. The second effort, when the first proves unsuccessful, is to attempt to cherry-pick statements from the body of the article which will represent their employer's position in the best possible light, even at the expense of misreprepresenting the conclusions of the study. The conclusion of the Ospina-Bond meta-analysis is, in a nutshell (i) that the vast majority of meditation research is so badly conducted that no conclusions whatsoever can be derived from it (ii) taking into account only those studies which meet the bare minimum for consideration, no valid conclusions can be derived from them about the efficacy of meditation as a treatment; (iii) there is no basis in these studies to prefer one meditation technique over another. Contrary to TG's statement, the study did not conclude that TM produces a statistically-significant reduction in hypertension. If we look to the subsidiary findings of the study, what it actually found was that, out of the hundreds of TM studies that the TM Movement repeatedly claims to have conducted on the benefits of TM, the majority were insufficiently documented to even be considered for analysis; of the remaining 230 studies that were at least sufficiently documented to even be considered in the meta-analysis, only three were considered to be of "good" quality; of these, only the short-term study showed any statistically-significant change in SBP favoring TM, the other medium and long-term trials showed no statitically-significant benefit to TM versus simple health education; compared to no treatment whatsoever, TM showed no statistically significant benefits in either SBP or DBP. It is that complete misrepresentation of independent findings that first drew my attention to these TM-related articles. I am thrilled to see, finally, that a wider group of editors are taking a close look at these articles and reacting with the same level of dismay that has concerned me and a relative handful of other editors.Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would remind editors here that the core policy, WP:VERIFIABLE and guideline, WP:RS favour peer reviewed studies, and these are peer reviewed studies. Reliability of the publication is a necessary given. Second, the studies are not being used to support a claim but are examples of research on a particular topic which is the topic of the article. No editor opinion trumps a policy, and especially a core policy nor does a guideline like the Fringe Theories guideline supercede a core policy. Finally, I would assume that in advising deletion of all of the studies editors here will have read the studies or at least looked at the abstracts

Finally editors should not in my opinion be editing WP: Fringe theories while taking part in discussion on the Fringe theories Notice Board, nor should they be going to the article in question and advising deletion of the studies in the middel of discussion about those studies on the Fringe Theories NB.

I would mention that the "walled garden" analogy is not an apt one since the so called TM articles have been edited continuously for years by multiple kinds of editors. The suggestion that the condition of the articles for anyone who has read them, and for whatever that condition may be considered to be, is the work of a few biased editors is ludicrous in the extreme. I would suggest here compliance with the core policy, some serious reading of the studies and the articles and then some educated discussion on the matter. Right now incivility is being not only exercised but condoned by some editors, and multiple aspects of this discussion as noted by Vassyana, a truly neutral admin., are not really pertinent to the discussion, and are red herrings.(olive (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually, what is favored is secondary sources rather than primary sources. Peer review is fine, but we have WP:PSTS in place to prevent the kind of POV-pushing that is taking place here with the emphasis on primary-source peer-reviewed studies that have not been scrutinized by a wider audience. Peer review is not magic pixie dust. It does not automatically pass the muster with our editorial policies. Our policy is explicit that cherry-picking primary source peer-reviewed papers from low-impact journals that have not received sufficient notice or citations by independent reviewers is a bad practice. You would do well to keep this in mind, olive. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What an astonishing position! You seriously contend that previously uninvolved editors posting on this noticeboard should keep their grubby mitts off your TM articles? Why? Would that make it all the harder to protect them, and to assert that Noticeboard input and consensus is something that you are free to ignore with impunity? Do you somehow view posting on both the noticeboard and on the article in question as as a conflict of interest? How ironic. You have the policies exactly backwards: WP:RS and WP:V don't trump WP:FRINGE; it's the other way around - an encyclopedia does not present fringe theories as part of the scientific mainstream when they're not. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what other people are saying, Littleolive oil's statement about WP:RS is wrong. It does not favour studies as sources, peer reviewed or otherwise. Academic peer reviewed litereature is favoured, for sure, but WP:MEDRS and other policies make it clear that the secondary literature is favoured and primary studies have only a limited place. A primary study cannot, for example, establish its own importance and the weight that should be given to its findings. If the literature reviews ignore or dismiss the primary study, so should we. Colin°^Talk 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif no, and that is your misunderstanding and mischaracterization. However, I no longer feel it necessary to address your rude, uncivil comments and often untrue statements, nor to attempt to explain to any other editors whose language is consistently offensive. I've made my points here and they rest on the policy and guidelines. (olive (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Addressing your points in order;

1) Yes WP:RS tends to give preference to peer reviewed articles. However WP:MED gives preference to reviews of research over the original research itself. As most of the claims are of health effects WP:MED certainly applies. Furthermore there are serious questions about the process of peer review as the sociological discipline contains literally 0 research on quantum field effects and yet the majority of peer reviewed articles were from sociological journals.

2) I am perplexed by this statement. Why should editors from the fringe theories noticeboard not edit fringe science topics? Some of us have areas of expertise which make us actually well equipped to dispassionately address fringe claims.

3) The walled garden analogy referenced the fact that TM articles link to other TM articles but few non-TM related articles. It did not speak to the editors at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Two other articles that need attention:

• Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation, which seems to be a fork/subset of the Transcendental Meditation#Scientific research
• Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, especially the subsection dealing with Maharishi Amrit Kalash research studies, which contains redflag claims such as, "At Ohio State University, MAK-4 and MAK-5 were studied individually and together and were shown to be "highly effective against breast cancer" according to Christine Horner in her book, Waking the Warrior Goddess. Horner, who sells Ayurvedic remedies on her website, but not Maharishi Amrit Kalash or any Maharishi Ayurveda products, goes on to say that MAK is "an effective anti-aging supplement" and "alleviates the horrendous side effects of chemotherapy". The tone and value of that book as a medical source can be judged by sentences like, "Taking it [Amrit Kalash] is like supplying your Warrior Goddess with Star War deflector shields".

Wikipedia really needs to start scrutinizing medical claims as it (in theory) deals with WP:BLP issues, because such hokum propagated through wikipedia has a similar chance of doing real world harm. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The "fork" was created by one editor with out editor consensus or agreement, and I agree strongly that suggested "claims" made that could impact real world lives must be carefully considered and supported with multiple sources. (olive (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Fladrif wrote, "Contrary to TG's statement, the study did not conclude that TM produces a statistically-significant reduction in hypertension." Here's what it says in the Results section of the abstract: "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." Simonm, I believe Olive was referring to the person who was rewriting WP:FT even as we were discussing the specific application of this section. Regarding Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, discussion has been ongoing on the Talk page, and we recently concluded that, as here, we would select research based on reviews and meta-analyses where possible. We found a review that includes Amrit Research. The intention is to remove the section that's there and replace it with a summary from the review. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Using third-person oblique references is not appropriate. If you have problems with a particular editor, discuss it with that editor. Don't talk about people, talk to people. Asking editors to parse vague accusations and insinuations about nameless editors is rude, arrogant, and not conducive to a healthy editing environment. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, unfortunately the studies you refer to are non-Independent, and therefore should be removed, along with any cites. The good news is however, the "Ospina study" is Independent and includes a convenient table [33] which shows how well TM fared in Blood Pressure reduction compared to other meditation and relaxation techniques. TM was the poorest of all meditations studied by Independent reviewers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy this is the text of the conclusion section of the abstract. Emphasis is mine.

The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with

uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be

rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results

Not precisely the results you are claiming. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempted to carry out the suggestions made here by adding scientific reviews and removed primary research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An important point that no one here or in the WP guidelines has yet discussed is that secondary sources, including even systematic, quantitative meta-analyses, are subject to methodological weaknesses and biases just as primary peer-reviewed sources can be. Editors are not generally in a position to make that decision about a review. However, when third parties publish critiques, they need to be aired in the article. Evidence that the AHRQ review had multiple weaknesses nullifying a variety of its conclusions has been mentioned before in published articles and in various WP talk pages. If the group of editors here wants seriously to create better WP articles, then this qualification of secondary sources needs to be integrated into the guidelines. For certain purposes, secondary sources may legitimately supersede primary sources, but the opposite is also be true in some cases. I do not have time to lead a modification of these guidelines, but if some of you would take on that worthwhile task, it would benefit the quality of many WP articles. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes reviews may have problem but usually much less than primary research. If you wish to continue with this issue we should bring it back to the talk page for TM. Or you could bring it to WP:MEDMOS WP:MEDRS for further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the arguments for/against primary research papers vs reviews have been discussed to death. WP:MEDRS is the relevant guideline, not WP:MEDMOS, which is just a style guideline. In addition, we already have policy devaluing primary literature as a source. Those arguing against reviews typically believe they could do a better job of researching the primary literature and they are less biased that the reviewers and that we should allow the publication of their original research. Sorry, if you think you can do better than the existing publications then go get your own literature review published and we'll cite that. There are flaws in all our sources, editorial systems, etc. Put it this way: if a literature review was on a self-published website/blog, written by an anonymous source with no editorial control, would we cite it? No. Then why should that blogger be able to do the same as a Wikipedian? Colin°^Talk 10:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful in this case to know that the argument that the Ospina et al meta-analysis is "flawed" comes from a unpublished (except on his personal blog site) "critique" by Orme-Johnson, retired MUM professor, author of some of the TM-related research and of several off-the-point "rebuttals" against independent critiques of the TM-related research. This critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the meta-analysis, but is trotted out as a reason not to include the meta-analysis every time it comes up, because we shouldn't be citing "flawed" research. Woonpton (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Ome-Johnson, who is the retired dean of reasearch at MUM, did publish his critique in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine [34], but obviously such non-independent commentary does not invalidate or even balance out an authoritative AHRQ review. Abecedare (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The talk page arguments have linked to the page on his site, so I mistakenly thought it was unpublished. In that case it shares the problem of undue weight with the other published TM rebuttals. Woonpton (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

some people's idea of a controversy is just keep saying "no it isn't" indefinitely and hey presto, you have a "controversial" claim that the "Maharishi Effect" has been measured. --dab (𒁳) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to relate a little story

I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is scary that 39% of teachers though that Wikipedia could be used as a primary source. I would hope none of the teachers would allow WP to be used as a primary source and 61% is an very low number.

I have invited you to bring this critic to the talk page of the TM article. BTW I read it and I am not sure what comments from it you see as critical and that you wish to add would you be able to elaborate?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it absolutely hilarious that ChemistryProf appears to argue that because many people think "1. Not an accurate source of info", Wikipedia should include more reports on fringe "research " advocating the "Maharishi Effect". It is appalling that only 61% of "those asked" were aware that Wikipedia should under no circumstances be cited as a primary source. We should aim at raising this figure to at least 90% by linking to Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia more often. For your reading convenience:

Regarding ChemistryProf, if this user is really associated with "professional societies" involved in studies on Wikipedia, perhaps now would be a good time for him to begin familiarizing himself with the project fundamentals, the project aims and the project's scope. As for "37. information controlling coup.", it is true we lose quite some good editors because of WP:Experts are scum, but I am convinced that User:Ararat arev and many many others we have taken great pains to remove from the project would also gladly sign under "37." Understand this, as long as the "information controlling coup" has a clue and serves WP:ENC, this is actually what we are trying to achieve here. For the alternative, go there.

Quite frankly, because of the consistent failure to grok a point exhibited by the user, I begin to be annoyed by the grandiose "university professor, researcher, and author/editor". On Wikipedia, you are what you show you are capable of. If you want to wave around your real-life honours, you should at least go for {{User committed identity}}. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to remind everyone with WP:CIVIL. Message not the messenger. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And for a fairly novice editor, how do we reach consensus, finality, or conclusion on this noticeboard. It does seem odd to me that if editors are trying to come to some resolution on this topic, that they are also making edits to article being discussed as if a result had been achieved here. Am I wrong in this? --BwB (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a notice board. It exists to draw editor attention to articles that may be affected by systemic issues or topics. As such it's actually 100% within expectations that people participating in conversation here will edit affected articles. In fact, in theory, all that should be here is the original notice, after which point conversation would move to the applicable talk page. That's not really the way any noticeboard actually works but... doesn't change the fact that if Fringe theory noticeboard posters are now editing those articles the system is working right. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks Simon for the clarification and helping me understand the function of the noticeboard. --BwB (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Hypnotherapy fringe?

Pretty sure this is the right place for this, if not send me to NPOV. An editor has noted on the talk page that the POV of the article seems to lack due criticism. This is not something I know about, but I'm hoping someone who watches this page does. Auntie E. (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some interpretations of hypnosis and applications are fringe or bogus, but there is a scientific core (distinct from the unscientific mesmerism) - although there is still debate about where it fits in psychology (a form of advanced suggestion or a phenomena in its own right). It does have clinical effects and is covered in many mainstream texts. Past life regression as therapy is bollocks. --NottsStudent09 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda like chiropractics. There are mainstream uses, but there are a lot of fringe practitioners and "techniques" floating around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good response. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. It is a well researched field so one can make definitive statements about health effects. Pubmed has over a thousand published reviews. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian Drapeau

Lots of spurious stuff in this article about a self-styled "stem cell expert". I'm going to attempt some radical article-surgery, but this will probably need more eyes. See this web page for more info. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Drapeau meet the WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE notability criteria? Because the absence of in-line citations and references makes me think a prod may be the best route. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

His name pops up almost immediately in Google in connection with a MLM scheme involving an algae extract (see here and here). Even Wellness Clubs of America thinks he is a crank (see here). There is of course no real news coverage; he does show up in GScholar but some of those hits are bogus journals and others don't seem to relate to the issue at hand. The article is a classic SPA dump with no other edits at all. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He has genuine publications as a co-author while he was a graduate student, but I didn't spot any reputable first-author publications. In the meantime I have stubbified the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Root race

Wow, this article makes some audacious claims with little in the way of analysis or rejoinders. It relies almost completely on primary source documents. Here are some choice quotes:

“ Some emigrants from the remaining islands in the Atlantic settled on new islands to the east which later consolidated into what is now the district of the Abyssinian highlands and lands somewhat to the north. Atlantis perished through flooding and submergence in 9,564 BC. ”

“ The second root race was colored golden yellow. Hyperborea included what is now Northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Northern Asia, and Kamchatka. The climate was tropical because Earth had not yet developed an axial tilt. ”

“ The Lemurian root race began 34 1/2 million years ago, in the middle of what was then believed to be the Jurassic; thus, the people of Lemuria coexisted with the dinosaurs. The first three subraces of the Lemurians reproduced by laying eggs, but the fourth subrace, beginning 16 1/2 million years ago, began to reproduce like modern humans. ”

We need to find some meta-analysis of this racist, (pseudo)scientistic theosophical doctrine. Anyone up for some serious reading on where Blavatsky got her ideas and how much of this mythology she or other theosophists actually believed?

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to read up on it, but perhaps the best solution in the short term is to merge Root Race with Theosophy. Have you looked at Annie Besant and her interest in Co-freemasonry as steps on the route from enlightened rationality to lunacy? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me note that this has been discussed on FTN before, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Root race. Didn't get anywhere, though, as I recall. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blavatsky's sources... that could be an interesting puzzle. I'm just concerned that it will turn out to be an archaic form of WP:MADEUP though. Simonm223 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)\

Oh dear... that article needs some serious work... or fire. Fire would work. Simonm223 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with fire. I've heard of this "Lemurian" nonsense before, but this takes the cake. I'm going to cut down the non-RS stuff and the OR, but that leaves us with an article that's far too detailed on this book. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's apply WP:BOOK standards. It's probably more contentious but... I've done it before.Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See here for details Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok there already was a book page. I am going to be WP:BOLD and redirect Root Race to The Secret Doctrine we may want to review that page for WP:BOOK compliance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. We can focus on making a good article out of The Secret Doctrine, as that does appear to satisfy WP:N. We need to add some inline citations to that article to bring it up to standards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Root Race concept is sufficiently significant in Theosophy to merit its own article. Of course it's a ludicrous "theory", but is historically significant. It was also developed and modified by later writers. I don't actually think the article is all that bad. As long as you read it as a potted summary of B's theories, it's informative and useful. You don't have to believe that the "second root race" was "yellow", to find it a valuable piece of information - should you want to impress your friends with your knowledge of theosophical lore. I think it's absolutely fndamental not to confuse describing historical theories with promoting them. Otherwise we'd be deleting articles on stories from Greek mythology on the grounds that they are "fringe" beliefs. Paul B (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Asiagh

This article on some ancient Indian tribal group is up for deletion. A quick viewing shows the likelihood of extreme nonsense (e.g. the need for a map of Jutland in the article). Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, never before did I know that "Jats entered Scandinavia around 500 BCE and their leader was Odin Singh." Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

fantastic, Mr. Odin Singh not only pre-implemented Grimm's law, he even had the decency to forgo the word-initial w-before-o for the convenience of his Scandinavian descendants. An amazing bunch, these Iron Age Jats, I must say. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, this is no better or worse than a majority of the gotra/clancruft articles. Most of them intermix mythology and history, fact and opinion and come up with some really bizzare articles that you'd find only on Wikipedia. Some of these magical works of fiction would put Tolkien to shame. For some spam now, some articles that could do with some fresh eyes: Category:Jat clans, Category:Khatri clans, Category:Gurjar clans, Category:Nair. There's a lot more where they came from, so you don't have to worry about just having about 300 articles to go through, this is just a starting point. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

we need a WP:GOTRA guideline for more efficient processing of these. I cringe at the thought of trying to clean this up single-handendly, against the active resistance of hundreds of Indian editors each protecting the article on his own family name. The Jat gotras appear to be particularly bad, what with the constant Scythian legends thrown in. If we can clean out these, we should be in a position to tackle the rest. Therefore, bold Wikipedians, I give you {{Gotras of Jats}}:

--dab (𒁳) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we come at it from a different angle? Notability guidelines for Indian social groups? It would also be good if we had somewhere (ideally on WikiProject India) a note about reliable sources for information on Indian social groups. Having this earlier would have saved me many hours of fruitless toil on Reddy, not to speak of Kambojas and related. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with Itsmejudith on this one.Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to put the whole 999 yards up for deletion, personally, but perhaps that's a bit too hostile to do all at once. WHat alternative forum should be used to present this? Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Simon. Of course my comment wasn't meant to be in any kind of opposition to dab and Spaceman's heroic efforts in these fields. As a contribution to a sources discussion, can I ask if we have agreement that the 19th century colonial administrator Edgar Thurston is never sufficient on his own. Also outdated: History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon, first published 1938. It's cited by 7 articles and many more link to the Joon bio. The bio says he "is" a historian but since it also says his son, an army major, was killed in 1940, I think it's very unlikely the father is still living. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can add in the 1934 work described here. These articles seem to be a magnet for casual drive-by vandalism that goes un-noticed, vast accumulations of cruft, and occasionally outright lunacy. This needs a major slash and burn campaign. Oh, and once that's done I endorse the suggestion of writing up a notability guideline. Moreschi (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I think the problem is being underestimated here:

1. Notability itself is usually not the issue. The subject of these caste, gotras and clans is often notable enough for an article (or at least a section in a larger article); however once created, the article inevitably gathers all kinds of cruft. Compare for example this version of the Viswakarma article, to the present day version:, especially the Pillars of Indian Culture and Civilization section.
2. I wish the issue was only keeping drive by vandals at bay! Instead, each of these articles is usually manned by a dedicated group of SPAs who will sock, editwar, and wikilawyer to protect their version of "truth". These pages are often created and maintained in lieu of community websites, and given that few neutral editors have the resources or dedication to spend hours on such subjects, the SPAs often get their way.

That said, I wholeheartedly support the efforts to clean up these walled gardens (what's an appropriate collective noun ?), and think creating some guidelines on notability and unacceptable sourcing would be a good start. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There are indeed significant numbers of gotras that would seem to have enough material in RS to justify a valid encyclopedic article. But there also appear to be significant numbers where this is not the case, and the the gotra has got just a passing mention in some general work. What we probably need is a List of Jat gotras - or something similar - where the most basic stubs can be redirected to. Moreschi (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo Abecedare's comments on this one, it's not a question of notability as much as verifiability; the editorial issue is not restricted to drive-by vandals either. Most often, the "owners" of these works of fiction are established editors with 2000+ edits who operate through multiple socks on different gotras to push their POV giving the appearance of multiple editors (e.g. this case of a sockmaster with 4+ socks of 2000+ contribs). In a lot of cases, this kind of nonsense stays within the walled gardens so extensive damage isn't done to the 'pedia and it's easy to ignore (while it's a very absurd way to look at things, it helps me retain my sanity). However, the fact that they've been allowed to do this emboldens these warriors and you soon find this benign tumor suddenly turning malignant and the creepers get out of the walled gardens to cause problems in general. Take the case of Category:Places named after Gujjars (at CfD currently), now this has a list of a few in it that are entirely unsourced and a cursory search doesn't confirm anything; this goes on to give misinformation about topics like Ambala and Gujarat that are more important to the readers of the encyclopaedia than these random assortment of gotras. Also take a look at Kshatriya, I had to full-protect a horrible page because of further crap being added in. This page has 500+ views per day and 79 watchers. Compare that to a random gotra -- Dhetarwal which has less than 30 watchers (likely one or two) and less than five views per day on average. But both articles compete with each other on the % of junk within. However in terms of raw crap index, the Kshatriya page wins easily.

tackling Category:Punjabi tribes

Given the above, I think we need to approach the topic from a different angle. Start with the broad groups and then move down to the gotras. Addressing the gotras, while necessary, has minimal benefit because no one really reads them other than the casteists themselves, while articles like Kshatriya etc have a much broader audience and has a greater potential to do damage. I'd suggest the following steps to address the caste/clan/gotra cruft:

Order of focus:

1. The four varnas and associated topics (the articles in Category:Varnas in Hinduism
2. The castes (the articles in Category:Indian castes, although there are clans/gotras incorrectly listed in this cat)
3. Clans/sub-castes/gotras (the sub-categories in Category:Indian castes, this is too much effort, but this is also the least beneficial at this point as these articles have the least number of readers)

The other part of the activity is to qualify the sources, most of the articles in a caste category are single sourced to something written by a caste "historian" and we should address that particular work before getting into clean up of the related set of articles. If there are a few people ready to take on this task in a structured manner, we can create a project space for this under Wikiproject India and deal with it. Opinions? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A point I forgot to mention earlier, if we follow this order, addressing sources becomes easier. The hierarchy of sourcing follows the above, and it's easier to address a consolidated list of sources at the caste level than to handle them individually at the gotra level. -SpacemanSpiff 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I like your exposition of the problem. Regarding the sources, they almost invariably start out with Tod, and a handful of other 19th century British ethnographers. Sometimes, a more recent work by a caste historian (i.e. a member of the caste in question who has written a book about his own caste, most of the time in Hindi or Punjabi). I would further note that this problem is mainly seen at Kshatriya caste gotras, and to a lesser degree Brahmin gotras. The Brahmin gotra articles are a pathetic mess, but they usually do without all the crazy fantasies My suggestion would be:

• redirect gotra articles to the article on the relevant caste or tribe article by default unless there is referenced, credible evidence for an argument that the gotra is of such notability that it deserves a standalone article. Just as we have done in the extreme "Kambojas" case, resulting in a clean list of gotras as part of the main article.
• we need to pinpoint the problem more accurately than saying "Hindu gotras". There is a hard core of articles creating tremendous trouble. We need to identify these, get more people to watch them and clean them up so addition of more cruft isn't encouraged and more easily recognized. These articles are are Kshatriya, Jat people and Rajputs.

Compare to the hair-rising cruft we get in Rajput or Punjabi/Jat Kshatriya articles to the comparatively polished Iyer or Brahmin communities. There is a lot of Brahmin listcruft (e.g. List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames) but at least it appears the Brahmin family historians do not indulge in "pure Aryan bloodline confirmed by eminent historians" type narratives. Based on this, I think we can say that the root category of this entire problem is Category:Punjabi tribes. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"...science in general is socially constructed, rather than evidence-based"

From Zang-fu: "A growing number of social scientists are referring to Chinese Medicine as a mature scientific system, noting that science in general is socially constructed, rather than evidence-based.[1]" Can someone look into this? I can't address it now. Sifaka ^talk 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The source which I have on electronic scan does not align with the sentence that I can see. Rather than posting a verification failed template, I removed the offending sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

( 2 edit conflicts)

Commenting on sentiment rather than source, we need to have some idea that fringe and maninstream notions are more subjective social than a permanent testable attribute of nature. I think in hgh school the slogan on the physics book was something like "physics, a human endeavour" ad of course no one is finding anything new in a lab, just "its new to us." Then the larger question, is science is what scientists do, does that include Chinese scientists? Are they different in any relevant way? etc. When people start trying to inflict good intentions and the POV that "must be right" and the "only one that helps the reader" based on what they think is right, that creates problems both for documenting ths state of human thought and often for making progress in getting to the reality of a given situation. I guess everyone wants a reader to come away with thoughts about a topic that are accurate statements about some permanent feature of nature- and I have lots of sympathy as this histrically has been a huge problem to get science going as everyone wants to inflict an opionthat " Iknow is right." I guess its impotant to remember that even hard-core sientists needs to undestand he social climate for many purposes if they want to get funding, pick a good research topic or try to understand why research group A used Acme Brand Assay knoon to have certain artifacts etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another comment on sentiment: this view, expressed here in its crudest terms, is less fashionable than it was but is still reasonably mainstream in the philosophy and sociology of science. If need be, we can track down impeccable sources that consider science as both "socially constructed" and "evidence-based". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is often a confusion between "socially constructed" and "imaginary", as if the former term implies that claims to truth are somehow unsustainable. It's possible for something to both true and socially constructed, and it's certainly possible to be both evidence based and socially constructed, if the "social construct" of science requires an evidence base. The sentence as written is a false antithesis. Of course science exists and is constituted through social processes, which determine funding, reliability, publication, assessment of merit, etc. But "evidence base" is part of that social construct, not something separate or alien to it. There's also a degree of equivocation here. Chinese Medicine is certainly "a mature scientific system" if you take it on its own terms. So is homeopathy - and crystal healing. But the sentence wants to use "science" as a standard determined outside the system, while also asserting that the system is science because it defines itself as such. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but usually the social issue revolves around "evidence"- I wish my section on the Dendreon related protests was still there intact. See if you can find sources on Dednreon and death threats to oncologists. I don't remember exactly what happened but some took body guards to ASCO at one point IIRC. The point is that even in US the idea of science varies- it is likely now that the protesters were right about merit but none of that still changes the evidnece presented to FDA along with what they could assume about biases etc. So, I'm not sure what to conclude from this but some people become very offended when you suggest that personal testimony could be anything other than conclusive of something. Anyway, again, I'd just remember to not be too militant nor confince science or truth to a laboratory. Not all science will be right or even procedurally likely to produce new conclusions. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

part of the problem here is that what constitutes 'evidence' is itself socially constructed. so (for example), in Chinese medicine they have a long-held practice of 'muscle testing': this amounts to getting a patient to held a medicine in one hand while pulling on a circle formed by the forefinger and thumb of the other hand - if the finger/thumb circle is weak the medicine is the wrong medicine; if it's strong the medicine is good. they also have a another diagnostic test that compares the relative strength of the pulse at three points along the wrist (where different qualities of pulse indicate different systemic issues). The first might be testable under western medical procedures, the second surely couldn't be, but both are accepted within CM circles as authoritative diagnostic procedures. for them it's evidence, for us it isn't - that puts us in the unfortunate position of playing the 'my evidence is better than your evidence' game, which invariably involves synthesis of one sort or another. knotty problem. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, empirically you can always test a marketting claim. at least statistically. The trial at least has to support safety and efficicy for a specific indication so you could write a label explaining how to use it. Assume you are a GP and want to refer a patient to a faith healer. You read the prescribing directions ( " this faith healer is shown to extend life by years") and don't really care if there is a defined molecular entity or credible causality. If you follow the instructions for the right patient it is likely to help. So, you don't need to test if a specific approach causes anything, just determine it reproducibly works. I've criticized dendreon's drug on similar grounds- it is more of a process than a drug and they aren't able to prove MOA very clearly even though it was a designed therapeutric process predicated on having certain observable things happen in the patient leading to therapeutric effect. Quite interesting story really. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

The page is full of {{fact}} templates which is always a bad sign. While there appears to be some legitimate concern about this, the page at the current is a mess, e.g. "charging that the HAARP could be seeking ways to destroy or disable enemy spacecraft" "Other theorists extended the power of HAARP: "HAARP... can change weather patterns over whole continents, jam global communications systems, disrupt mental processes, manipulate the earth’s upper atmosphere." (emphasis mine) Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Physics and Society reference is false. I have found the article cited on-line (see here) and it is in fact a discussion of EMF risks from power transmission lines. There's no mention of HFAAP or the ionosphere or anything else that I could associate with the article, so that section is going bye-bye. And Hal Lindsey?? Sheeeeeeesh. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch Mangoe. I was just going to Google Scholar to check on that ref when you did all that stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also nuked the "immersion heater in the Yukon River" line since it seems to be a bit of conspiracy-cruft passed from site to site; nobody with a name ever actually said it, apparently. The Pravda bit is crackpot but I don't see what can be done with it. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikify Pravda and date the comments. Within the context of cold-war fear mongering it can be seen for crackpot propaganda. Wow... 2005. I expected an earlier date than that for that brand of crazy. I don't know what to think. I do, however think that my wiki-fu is off today. I mis-read the date twice after I went back and checked! Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, Pravda Online is a rather notorious outfit for promoting sensationalistic pseudoscientific canards, conspiracy theories, and paranormal claims of all stripes since it started in 1999 (note it is not related to the Soviet propaganda machine except that many of its employees were former writers for the now-defunct party publication). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware. Simonm223 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the tinfoil hat brigade propelled HAARP to the status of a media trope in the 90s. There seems to be enough coverage in news sources to create a paragraph or two dealing with HAARP "conspiracy theories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's like Chemtrail conspiracy theory and should have a similar article plus a factual one on HAARP. [35] [36]. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Touch of Death

Experiencing a teensy bit of self-doubt over a contentious edit so I want to provide a diff that encapsulates it for review. [37]

My issue is with the use of two pieces of somewhat purple prose: 1) "Vibrating Palm was revealed to the world by Kah Wah Lee in the February, 1972 issue of Black Belt Magazine."

And 2) "This was the first published articles to address the Vibrating Palm with details of the technique and scientific/conceptual explanations." (referencing an IKF article).

The first example is simply a matter of peacock words. That's not the main area of my self-doubt. The second is the one on-topic for the fringe theories noticeboard.

A lot of work has gone into the touch of death article to address this mythical technique from a neutral and, above all, rational perspective. Most serious martial arts research tends to discount Qi techniques as being an outmoded belief at best and fraud at worst. The touch of death appears, upon scrutiny, to have mainly fictional sources, literally fictional as very few references to such Dianxue can be found outside of Wuxia novels prior to the second half of the 20th century.

I deleted this paragraph twice partially because of the peacockery in the first half and partially because of the suggestion in the second half that there were scientific explanations available for the fictional technique of the "Vibrating Palm".

Unfortunately high quality references are hard to come by in the martial arts community. The magazines mostly hire freelancers and they are not peer-reviewed academic journals by any definition of the word. Bullshido is not a WP:RS because it's a web forum. Heck, it's hard enough just keeping it from getting AfD'd. Am I being too harsh excising this paragraph? At least one other editor on the page thinks so - and said as much on the talk page. As it involves fringe claims I thought I'd see what you guys think.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the lede needs to be more explicitly organized around the points that

a) It first pops up as a fantasy technique in the wuxia literature

b) A whole bunch of people made claims about doing it for real in the early 1970s martial arts craze, but

c) There's nothing to it in reality.

I notice for instance that the July 2009 version: "It originates in the Wuxia genre of Chinese martial arts fiction" has been softened to "Tales of its use are often found in the Wuxia genre of Chinese martial arts fiction." THe lede has to be a lot harder-nosed about the fakery of it all. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• What Mangoe says. As a side-note, Bullshido is a fun site. Some of their investigations are quite strongly reminiscent of some of the work that we see at this noticeboard :) Moreschi (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a ref for it first appearing in Wuxia. Chinese Wikipedia has a single Qing dynasty reference to Dian Xue in a "shaolin" derived manual. Considering that precursors to Wuxia got going in the Qing dynasty (building on Ming historical novels) that's not surprising however until somebody (I fear it may be me in the end) comes out and writes a reliable source on CMA history in English it's all piece work. And, yes, Bullshido is a fun site. I used to post there occasionally. The harder line lede was largely based on my OR. It had to be softened because it was (admittedly) OR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After going through Category:Chinese Martial Arts for a few minutes I think we now need an oral traditions noticeboard to deal with this mess. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

rummages in tool box for hammer to hit own head - I don't disagree that we need a way to deal with oral traditions as a valid source of historic context for many many subjects that come here....but a noticeboard? whack --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that creating a new noticeboard is not the answer to every problem. We have a few good editors watching this board, and so it works, but a noticeboard is nothing if it isn't watched by good editors, and too many boards just spreads the available attention more thinly. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think we need a tool for addressing articles where the majority of sources are drawn out of an oral tradition. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with oral tradition is WP:Verifiability... there is no way for the reader to verify oral tradition. We have to wait until a published source discusses the oral tradition. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's not be all reasonable about this. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gas chamber

Resolved

An editor of Gas chamber is repeatedly reinserting passages denying the use of gas chambers in Nazi death camps. WP:RSN has soundly rejected the sources, and WP:POVN has rejected the editors assertion of a lack of neutrality by not including these claims. Please give opinions on the whether these inclusions are fringe. Example edit: [38]. Hohum (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Professional Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I don't mind looking for more opinions here, but I don't really see the point, either. They're going to be the same as every other opinion that's been expressed about PA. At this point, I think it's next step, WP:ANI and a likely indef block for him. Let's just see what he does next. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking about opinions about the article, not the user specifically. In an attempt to sidestep the reliable sources issue, the BBC was used as a source (although it's just mentioning what David Irving said, not giving its own opinion.) So I came to the fringe theory noticeboard to seek advice on the overall theory being presented. Hohum (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that looking at this would just be a waste of our time without any effect on the outcome of the dispute. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers is fringe. As fringe as it gets. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor Professional Assassin (talk · contribs) is now blocked indefinitely. Assertions that gas chambers did not exist in Nazi extermination camps are fringe. Assuming that the issue has been discussed before, I'm closing this thread as resolved. (Non-admin closure.)  Cs32en Talk to me  01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would sort itself out pretty quick. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

not so much a case of WP:FRINGE but of WP:TIGERS. We do tend to be able to deal with these rather more effectively. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy

There has been a proposal to make large changes to this article, and some overtagging in response to my revert of those changes. I reverted as they were fairly large changes and not discussed. More eyes, review and discussion would be welcome at the article talk page. Verbal chat

Overtagging no doubt, but the article is clearly full of unencyclopedic stuff. I took a shot at cleaning up the very worst part, but a lot more cleaning is needed. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit deleted sourced text. The edit summary does not give a valid reason for the deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit summary gives an excellent reason. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Dbachmann. This edit summary provides an inadequate reason however - the material was removed because it is not neutral but was re-inserted on the basis that is sourced - since when has WP:V been a sufficient condition for inclusion?

Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists.

That statement may have source but its usage in the article is mind-bogglingly POV. Since when does Wikipedia express an opinion on what scientists ought to believe? CIreland (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when, you ask? Some people don't believe in, or know about, necessary and sufficient conditions at all, and think that's the way Wikipedia works. Exhibit 1. rudra (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CIreland. It is extremely-POV, and if included in the article, needs to be attributed as an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of that wording is a quote, so put it in quotation marks and attribute it. Problem solved. Since its the mainstream POV, our policies regarding weight and undue allow require giving it prominence. Normally such wording is just plain commonsense, as in "the earth is round", but since some people question it (of course supporters of quackery will always dispute such statements...duh..!), attribution and putting it in quotation marks solves the problem. That it should be removed because it's a POV is a nonsense argument, since much content here is by nature a POV and has to be sourced, and in very controversial situations we can attribute such statements. Interestingly enough, if the POV had been favorable to naturopathy, we probably wouldn't be here....

Read our policies folks:

• WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an #Footnote referencing." (emphasis original)

That condition is fulfilled because the wording is properly sourced. If you aren't going to bother to read the source, then you shouldn't be editing here and complaining. But to help our readers it should probably be in quotation marks so they don't think its editorializing.

• WP:NPOV: "...material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"..."

That's why the objection is nonsensical ("removed because it is not neutral" "mind-bogglingly POV"). It shows a failure to understand NPOV. Wikipedia itself doesn't make POV statements, but its sources certainly do and we are supposed to quote them. Wikipedia documents reality. The quote can also be framed by introducing it: "Critics of alternative medicine also criticize naturopathy...."quote"...".

Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific metrology & Civilization One

Could use some attention. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While interesting, I guestion the name.I was expecting to find things to measure psychic fields and stuff like that. This seems to be more a list of untestable claims about how various units were derived. Is there a page on "mesuring tools for quantities of dubious value?" And I'm not even claiming that there could be no such thing as a psychic field, just I'd be curious to see what is there. Kirlian photography, for example, was thought to measure life force and now is generally thought to measure water content. I guess it could have an entry as a false way to measure a soul. This also gets to varous credible EM theories of consciousness- sometimes, when working with the unfamiliar you do need to try things that seem silly. Since you don't know exactly what you are looking for, it is hard to know what ot control or keep constant or in this case measure. Nerdseeksblonde (talk)

What we have here is a number of assertions which looks as though they are presented as cited facts. This is basically due to the way the material from Butler & Knight was added. What's odd is that we have an article on the book Civilization One although the Pm article has much more detail than the article about the book that's the source for the material. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NORAD and 9/11

For the past 2 years or so, a dynamic IP user has been adding information to the North American Aerospace Defense Command article. The consensus on the talk page is that this info is misleading and highly POV, and does not belong. I restored the pre-POV version, including unrelated info that the IP removed, last month. Today, the IP has again re-added his POV material, including badly formatted citations which are generally out of context, per this diff.

The IP user signed one of his posts as "Dean Jackson", so I decided to look his name up on Google. Well, out of many different people, I found this link. He's not citing his own "report", but he is adding the same sources, and making the same conclusions. From Dean Jackson's website - DNotice Corrects Wikipedia On NORAD's Monitoring Capabilities Of American Skies On 9/11 at http://dnotice.org/ From another website Dean Jackson is a writer and 9/11 researcher in Washington, DC. His website, DNotice.org provides rigorous analysis of major issues concerning government malfeasance.

He has posted copious defenses of his material on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command over the past year and a half, much of it repetive! He does not link to his own sites or works in WP, but much of what he posts is OR or Synthesis. His apparent premise is that that NORAD lied about not tracking and watching civilian air trafic within the US, and so therefore this proves they were in on the 9/11 attacks, as the had to know about it, but did't stop it.

Any help in resolving this matter would be appreciated, as it has been going on for some time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, all the folks on this board can do is offer opinions on whether his edits are WP:FRINGE or not and help keep an eye on the article. In my experience, the more fringy an editor is, the less likely he is to listen to what anyone else has to say. However, if you get a consensus that his edits are bad and he just keeps repeating them, the consensus should justify taking a revert-on-sight approach to what he's doing. If you want to actually stop him from doing it, you can try to get his IPs blocked (possibly not helpful, since he may have a near-unlimited supply) or get the article semi-protected to keep IPs off it. That may be your best bet, since if he's making unfounded allegations of complicity in the 9/ll attacks, that sounds like a WP:BLP issue. BLP is a strict policy that is vigorously enforced across Wikipedia even on non-Biography articles. You can pursue that at WP:BLPN. Or you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP if you can convince an admin there that the article is getting heavy vandalism from IPs.

But, from what you've said it looks like there a lot of policies he's ignoring, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, talk page disruption, BLP, OR, WP:SYN and maybe a couple of others I can't think of right now. Since there are so many issues, it might be best to go to WP:ANI and see what the admins think about it.

I haven't even looked at the article yet. Let me do that and come back here in a few. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The page doesn't get a lot of trafic, so there is not an overwelming consensus against his edits. My problem is how to get more editors to review this without canvassing. I have talked to an admin, and it is curretly semi-protected, but his further advice was to get a clear consensus! - BilCat (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You can leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject September 11, 2001.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case you did the right thing. Posting to noticeboards is not canvassing. You can also try WP:MIL. Oh, never mind. Just did it myself. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Bill, did you realize the the IP you're having trouble with is a sockpuppet of blocked User:Brian78046? He's not supposed to be editing at all, y'know. You can just go to the admins and have him blocked. And revert on sight is more than justified in those circumstances. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks to both of you very much! - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fringe theory article

I've removed twice reference to the "Shakespeare authorship question" from this page as I believe it is a very poor example, and requires undue prominence to be explained properly in the (very) short article. It also seems to be a spreading of a disagreement from other pages. The Apollo moon hoax is a better example to my mind, but without good reason I don't think we should be littering the page with examples. We already have the list of pseudosciences for similar things. Review, opinions, compromises, etc welcome on the talk page (as usual). And it's nice to see you all again. Best, Verbal chat 09:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a good example, except that one of Wikipedia's "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" advocates refuses to accept it as such. So yes, the article is better off without it as modified by a fringe theory advocates. - Nunh-huh 10:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand there's supposed to be a difference between fringe and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. I would put the anti-Stratfordians in the first category and moon-hoaxers in the second. This makes the Shakespeare authorship article a better example. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They are both "batshit crazy", to use your colourful metaphor, to anyone in the relevant field. ;) More laymen are likely to have heard of the apollo hoax (and quite a few, unfortunately, believe it) than have even heard of the ridiculous Shakespeare question. Verbal chat 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

( edit concflict)

The problem here is distinguishing merit from promience, "fringe" generally refers to quantity of supporters not the quality of their thinking. In any case histoory is not testable, at least not the same way scientific theories are. You can always find some reason to doubt or believe a given piece of information and can't reproduce history without a time machine. The goal of the encyclopedia is to document human thought, not settle arguments or add new ideas. The reader may have interest in factual merit of a topic or reasonably want to know what the overall thinking is for the purpose of doing his own research of some type that fits into what is currently known( if you ignore dead ends they tend to keep re-surfacing and someone has to go to effort to find the old results, play with them, and probably conclude what others have concluded but only after a lot of wasted time. ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The fringe theory article should indeed make the distinction between fringe-within-academia and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. Many items move from the former into the latter category over time, when a formerly arguable academic hypothesis becomes solidly refuted but lives on in crank publications. A useful criterion is that academic mainstream may be wrong at any given moment but forces itself to make progress over time, while fields of crackpottery simply grow weirder over time, possibly fracturing into subsects but never making any progress. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction as described by dab should be made. And Nerdseeksablonde makes reasonable points as well. I am concerned by the characterizations made by Verbal in that he/she seems to be unaware of the number of academics (including hundreds of English Lit professors) that do, in fact question the traditional attribution. Several colleges now teach courses on the subject. I doubt that can be said about moon landing hoaxes. At least now I understand the reverts made by Verbal, who is obviously very opinionated about the issue, as am I. It would be interesting to hear from non-aligned editors about this particular edit, as stratfordians such as Verbal and Nunh-huh, and Anti-stratfordians such as I are (obviously) pretty entrenched! :) Smatprt (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions about others to yourself. I am not a "Stratfordian", I'm simply not an idiot. If respectable research shows there to be a likelihood of alternative authorship, then fine. This hasn't yet happened and it is a very minor fringe theory pursued by cranks rather than anyone with standing in the field. The fringe theory article is not a list of examples, and nor should it become one. Verbal chat 15:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, being called a "Stratfordian" is a little like being called a "round-earther": the implication that someone who calls you that is that there's two equal camps, when in actuality, there's just the one that's rational, and you're in the right one. - Nunh-huh 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow - calm down. I didn't mean to offend, but of the two sides, you certainly have come down on the Stratfordian side. That was not an insult. But calling me a crank or implying stupidity is not needed. According to your definition, 1/3rd of the Supreme court, Freud, Walt Whitman, Henry James, hundreds of college professors and thousands of others are cranks or stupid? Can we avoid the name calling and just stick to the question? I think it is pretty clear where you and I stand - which is why I asked for some non-aligned editors to weigh in, which they have. Again - sorry for any perceived insult.Smatprt (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that the Shakespearean authorship thing would qualify as an example of the fringe-within-academia category, while the Apollo hoax stuff is solidly in the off-the-wall-batshit-crazy one. Verbal, the question is not "is there likelihood of alternative authorship" but "has this question been detailed in academic debate". --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, should it be included in the article, and I see no reason why this example is better than millions of others - and this is not a list article. I think they're both silly, and both have had "serious" academic study of similar level. Verbal chat 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the article in question is to explain to our readers what a "Fringe therory" is. The examples we use should work towards that goal. So, if there a better example than the Shakespeare one, I have no problem with swapping it in. If not... leave it. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

nobody tried to make it a list article, but to my mind Shakespeare authorship question is an excellent example of a fringe theory, quite opposed to the Apollo moon hoax which is not a fringe theory in the classical sense so much as random nonsense dreamed up on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that both are actually prime examples of fringe theories. The only difference is that the Shakespeare Authorship fringe theory originates from academic cranks while the Apollo landing hoax fringe theory originates from more random cranks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Apollo moon hoax pre-dates the internet. Better examples may be 9/11 conspiracy theories, homeopathy and other unscientific medical theories, anti-vaccination campaigns, etc etc. Verbal chat 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion would make a much better example, also. Verbal chat 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Shakespeare authorship issues can be cosidered "fringe within academia". It has consistently been promoted by amateurs, and support within academia, even taken in a broad sense, is vanishingly small. However it is a good example for the article, precisely because it has been promoted for so long. It is possibly the most 'venerable' and persistent example of a fringe theory, the mother of them all. It does not require detailed explanation. Only certain editors' desire to muddy the waters creates t5hat impression. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd need to see RS to support that contention, and If that is the case then it may be a good example. However, Cold fusion is well known, had serious research, and is still researched by some groups while being clearly in the "fringe" camp (at the moment, not judging here). Cold fusion would be a much better example that can be supported by references, whereas the Shakespeare question is mostly amateurs. Verbal chat 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this at talk, but that very brief conversation was unfortunately cut off. At the policy page it states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Also "Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." Unfortunately, the article does not convey this broadness very well. And that was the point of my edit, and to show that some theories receive increasing support, as is the case with this one. I would think that different examples would help make those points. I had agreed to a rewrite of my original edit with a regular editor of this page so I thought things were good. After looking at the article again, I tried a slightly different edit - instead of lumping it with plate tectonics, I used it as an example of a "novel re-interpretations of history]]". Is this better? Smatprt (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your goals seem to be to get Wikipedia to endorse your position, when the goal of the page in question is to define fringe theories correctly. Your view on what is fringe in this case doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, and since you won't let the authorship question stand as an example of fringe theory, it seems we can't use it. - Nunh-huh 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wo - I'm not sure what it is you are saying so it makes a reply difficult. I certainly am not asking or expecting Wikipedia to endorse anything so your first sentence makes no sense. I do think there is great confusion over the word "fringe" (wiki editors understand the broad usage, but general readers do not). Is that what you are referring to? Smatprt (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There are very few academics who feel that there is solid evidence that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote those plays. But there are lots of academics who feel that the information we have about Shakespeare's life is too sparse to permit certainty one way or another. So I am inclined to agree that this is not a good example for the Fringe Theory article. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. There are very few academics who think there is some uncertainly about who wrote Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 is a bit more accurate. Solid evidence is lacking, but there is plenty of uncertainty to go around. But remember the very broad definition here on Wiki: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". Now considering this policy: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Does anyone dispute this is the case here?Smatprt (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Uncertainty" is not a theory. I would think you, for example, would "dispute" that alternative authorship is a notable fringe theory; I would have no problem with that description. The only question here is whether the presence of fringe theorists working to advance their fringe theory on Wikipedia means we must forego this particular example of a fringe theory. There is no shortage of academic scoffing at the sorts of arguments the fringe side presents; for example Sylvan Barnet's introduction to the Signet Shakespeare:

Perhaps it is well to say at the outset that there is a good deal of evidence supporting the idea that William Shakespeare of Stratford and London wrote Shakespeare's plays. Several dozen other names have been put forward, the most notable of which are Bacon, Raleigh, Marlowe, and Queen Elizabeth; perhaps the most amusing candidates are a nun named Anne Whately and an alleged illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth. But there is no evidence to support any of these claims, all of which begin with the assumption that "the Stratford poacher" or "the Stratford butcher-boy" simply could not have written great plays and poems. A suitably learned or aristocratic candidate must then be found, and if the candidate has written under his own name, verbal echoes between the plays and the candidate's undisputed works must be collected. Sometimes ciphers are detected; for example, in the comically long word honorificabilitudinitatibus in Love's Labor's Lost (V.i.42), Bacon is said to have planted a Latin anagram, Hi ludi F. Bacon nati tuiti orbi ("These plays, offspring of F. Bacon, are preserved for the world"). It is true that a similar long word, honorificabilitudine, appears in a manuscript that contains some of Bacon's essays, but slight variations of this word appear elsewhere too; indeed, the word in the exact form in which it is found in Love's Labor's Lost had appeared in print a century before the birth of either Shakespeare or Bacon. Moreover, other anagrams can be extracted from it—for example, Ubi Italicus ibi Danti honor fit ("Where there is an Italian, there honor is paid to Dante").

Against all anti-Stratfordian theories stands the fact that scores of Elizabethans spoke of Shakespeare as a playwright, and no Elizabethan is on record as having believed that Shakespeare did not write the plays. If the actor William Shakespeare was a mere front for another author, how was the secret kept so well? Why, for example, was it never detected by Ben Jonson, who both in print and in conversation spoke of William Shakespeare's plays? (One answer which has been offered is that Jonson called Shakespeare the playwright because Jonson himself was the author of the plays but wished to hide his identity.) In short, if Shakespeare did not write the plays, a great many people were fooled during the thirty-five or so years between the date of the earliest plays and the publication in 1623 of the collected plays. Did the actors—some of whom worked with Shakespeare for about twenty years—never suspect that their dull colleague could not have written the plays he was passing off as his own? Or if, as another approach holds, so many people were not fooled but rather were in on the secret, how is it possible that in its own day this widely shared secret never leaked out? According to another desperate theory, which recognizes that the plays were regularly attributed to William Shakespeare but refuses to tolerate the idea of the Stratford poacher as an author, the plays were written not by William Shakespeare of Stratford but by another man of the same name. But to the charge that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not William Shakespeare the actor and playwright there are many replies, at least two of which are simple and compelling: Jonson and others speak 0f the playwright as the "swan of Avon"; and in the Stratford man's will bequests are made to some actors in the London theatrical company who acted Shakespeare's plays, thus indisputably linking the Stratford man with the London theater. Not until 1769 was any doubt expressed about the authorship of the body of work ascribed to Shakespeare, and this doubt was founded on the a priori assumption that the plays must have been written by a learned man.

It seems reasonable, then, to believe what so many Elizabethans believed, that William Shakespeare of Stratford and London wrote the works of William Shakespeare.

.

So there is the one side with evidence, and the other side with uncertainty...that's more or less the definition of fringe. - Nunh-huh 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you really need to follow some hard sciences. In a commercial setting esp, lack of doubt is a huge problem. Doubt, uncertainty, explicit statement of limitations of data is often hard to elicit. Tone of presentation doesn't reflect quality of underlying data- somtimes confidence is called for, but usually the problem is too much of it. Certainly criminal trials would be a closer analogy but the whole notion of knowing how much doubt or confidence to attribute to anything is quite subjective. People who express no doubts don't always turn out to be right (duh). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Comparisons between history and hard sciences in this way are fairly useless. There is no point in "doubt" for its own sake. We can doubt that Milton wrote Milton or that Wordsworth wrote Wordsworth if we like. It's impossible to prove that they did. Even their manuscripts could be copies of destroyed originals by the "true author". Such theories are unfalsifiable. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that while documentation of Shakespeare's life was sparse there was literally no compelling evidence suggesting any other author. This makes for a classic application of Occam's Razor in the most literal of senses - when one entity is sufficient and when there is no evidence of the actions of a second entity the most likely assumption is that the only involved entity is the one known to be involved.Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is problem with catagories and maybe dabate should be included in def of fringe (" often held by passionate minority and dismissed by majority " etc ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend taking this back to Talk:Fringe theory at this point. This is quite apparently a dispute between two users both with preconceived opinions on the Shakespeare question and not about he definition of "fringe theory" at all. To resolve the dispute, more outside input will be needed. Fwiiw, I sympathize with Paul's point that the Shakespeare authorship debate deserves a place of honour in the article as the "mother of all fringe theories". --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all about "two users" but about all acknowledged experts vs. a few wikipedians who care so deeply about their fringe belief that they will not let the lack of any persuasive evidence in favor of it deter them from trying to use Wikipedia to persuade others to believe it, too. - Nunh-huh 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see one user who is strongly advocating this theory, and if there is some decent RS for this being the "mother of all fringe theories" then perhaps it does deserve a mention. Otherwise, it is not a one of the most notable fringe theory in the context of all fringe theories. If there are good sources for that, fine, otherwise - no thanks. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)