Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:18, 26 May 2012

Paul Bennewitz

Did you know that "Air Force Counterintelligence" is behind a "disinformation campaign" to suppress the evidence of a UFO-related somethingorother? Neither did I! - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the crap, I found a citation for some of the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the page still need tags or is the problem fixed with what you removed? I don't see anything in particular that I would dispute, unless I'm missing something. SÆdon 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Much improved. Untagged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

186.221.209.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - An SPI edit-warring to marginalize mainstream view, add undue weight to fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean WP:SPA. And watch out for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I meant SPA. I was probably thinking of the other Sao Paulo IPs I'd seen making similar edits to other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

World Healing Day

The main website for this seems to be . Some of it seems to be promoting Tai Chi. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggsting that Tai Chi is a fringe theory? How so? Is psychoanalysis also a fringe theory? Meditation? — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All three are within the scope of this board. And the article is simple promotion of an event and needs to be rewritten or deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Biochemic cell salts

Biochemic cell salts - more pseudoscientific woo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it. The ratio of warning tags to actual words of content was rapidly approaching parity, and without mainstream coverage or a WP:MEDRS on whether or not the stuff actually works, it's simply impossible to give it neutral, encyclopædic coverage. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this is not AfD material. I find the stub quite neutral, and though virtually lacking in citations, its content is not such that requires deletion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what leads to deletion, it was the lack of the existence of reliable sources that caused it to be deleted; there article had no potential of being reliably sourced ever. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of RSs that could have been used to improve the sourcing of the article. Look here. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at these during the AfD, if you look at the individual books I think you will conclude that none are reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Manuka Honey

I'm concerned that some of the sources used are non WP:MEDRS compliant. FYI, This is an expensive type of honey which has been shown to display some antibacterial properties in in-vitro studies. As I understand things, Manuka Honey has not been shown effective against any medical condition, however it is often marketed by health-food shops as a cure-all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty balanced now after changes by Agricolae. Added to my watchlist since it appears to have a history of making undue medical claims IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On a closer examination there are still major issues with the undue nature of text. I am looking at the studies and will refactor the text accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention its most important property, which is its remarkable flavor. (That's OR, unfortunately.) Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree - it's really tasty stuff. It's such a shame that proponents resort to nonsensical claims concerning this delightful product. Speaking of nonsensical claims: Health effects of honey. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to fix the atrocious description of the science and some basic structure, not the UNDUE and MEDRS issues, per se. I did just add a little about the taste of it, but the sources aren't the best (one self-published, the other from someone calling themselves 'Crescent Dragonwagon'). Can I suggest we move this to the article's Talk page or someone will be yapping about us conspiring behind people's backs again? Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Root race

Root race article needs to be sorted out. It is presented as factual and there are no third party references, the concept is little known outside of Theosophy, so an overview or criticism will be hard to find. Martin Gardner did a couple of pages on the root race concept in his book on pseudoscience but that is about it. As it currently stands the Root race article is only using Theosophist sources mainly from Powell or Leadbeater. I noticed the root race concept is already discussed in detail on the Blavatsky article, so I was thinking a redirect. But any opinions needed. GreenUniverse (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical centre of Earth

This seems like a nonsense / crank idea: An article about finding the "centre of the earth" on a two dimensional map. Sure we can find the geometric centre of any 2d shape, but does this acquire new notability when applied to a map? I suspect not --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like original research due to the creator of the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder... if you use a map that places North America on the right side instead of the left (so that the map centers on the Pacific, as opposed to the Atlantic... as seen here) won't the geographical "center of the earth" change? I would certainly assume it would, but I could be wrong. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is mathematically possible to identify a spot on the globe which minimizes the average surface distance to every land point, and I would imagine that said point is roughly where indicated. That said, the articles on the various centers of various countries and continents show a lot of disputation; the USA stands as one of the few undisputed cases. Also, most of the centers are actually centroids, and of necessity there is a second centroid on a globe opposite the usual case, because dividing "lines" are great circles. Anyway, given the degree of documentation for such centers in general, I don't think there is a problem with notability, but the Great Pyramid thing probably can be clipped out entirely as irrelevant fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict)This is basically how we (human) defined the map (probably as per international date line?). So this centre will change as our defined map changes. There are bunch of such articles at Geographical centre. I would suggest keep only if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Abhishikt (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The only mathematical sense I can make of the concept is the following: a probability measure (in this case the probability that a given surface point is on land) on a solid spherical and convex body (the earth) defines unambiguously a point in the interior of the sphere. That, however, is only marginally more meaningful than the article itself. Far more significantly all the references are either outdated, unreliable or self-published. The first reference is to a book written in the late 19th century by the Scottish astronomer royal who made statements about pyramidology that earned him a bad reputation amongst egyptologists. The second is to an article in a creationist blog which is not by the claimed author (the blog is run by the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas and discusses unpublished documents of the ICR). The rest concerns unreviewed claims of Holger Isenberg, who might or might not have some connection with the creator of the article. He appears to run a site called "Mars News." So dubious mathematics and dubious sources. I do not see how the article can survive in any form whatsoever. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By some "odd" coincidence, the main author of article happens to share the name of one of individuals who calculated point. Ravensfire (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the quality of the math, it doesn't matter. It could be complete nonsense as long as it's notable nonsense. In this case, the original 1864 calculation may be notable, if it earned a notable person a bad reputation among his scholarly peers, but this might be a case where the converse of WP:ONEEVENT applies - that the calculation is only notable as it relates to the author and his career and not on its own. All of them since then are not. An ICR source talking about an ICR Technical monograph is not independent coverage. A calculation that can only be found via the Way Back Machine is certainly not notable, and a calculation that has only been self published by a fringe author on his own web page doesn't qualify either, and the use of both are WP:OR violations. That the author appears to be identical to the editor only adds {{WP:COI]] concern to an already hopeless scenario. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd be right to keep the article on this nonsense if it were notable nonsense, but check the sources the guy uses. Pure shit, top to bottom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, regarding the claimed "mathematical content": WP cannot publish nonsense mathematics, no matter how individual editors wikilawyer. But, regardless of that, the sources are the problem here. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages can. Misplaced Pages contains all kinds of nonsense - just look at all of the pages on astrology. Agricolae (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Just to amplify this, there is a town in Kansas that has been broadly reported in the national media as the Geographic center of the contiguous United States. That this was determined by balancing a cardboard cutout of a two dimensional map on a pencil point and hence has little mathematical accuracy does not prevent its presentation as a cultural meme. Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It also seems a bit arbitrary, the article even states that "Using a Pacific-centric map (more commonly used in Japan, China and Australia) moves the "center" off-center", so it's all a matter of choosing which map you choose and what you have on the left and right etc. I somehow doubt this is notable though I haven't checked. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter, unless you are using an actual map rather than plotting on the surface of a sphere - the answer to the question of the point or points representing the shortest distance from all points of land on the surface of a sphere should not change depending on how one chooses to represent that sphere in two dimensions. The claim that it does change suggests that the whole technique is flawed - certainly the unreferenced claim in the figure legend is flawed. Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What I gather from the article is that they are basically saying that in the european form of the map (presumably with some standard projection) used if you gave all the land equal weight, and then tried to balance it somewhere then it would balance at pyramid in Giza. I fail to see how this could possibly be notable. I suspect these sources will list historical opinions by different cultures of where the center of the world was believed to be but not actually say X is the location because of the assumptions needed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if we get into historical notions, there is quite a body on that - Jerusalem, Mecca, etc. That could actually be a notable topic as a cultural concept, rather than a mathematical or modern geographical one. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that centrality as a metaphor for cultural importance sounds like a legitimate topic, however the discussion has convinced me that the mathematical and esoteric claims related to geographic centrality have no notability at all. Unless we have objections I'd like to move to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am ambivalent - I suspect that the concept of a Geographic Center of the Earth (or World) has been written about enough to represent notability. A quick search reveals scholarly mention of the concept in Mayan cosmology, its placement in Athens by the Greeks, in Jerusalem and at Mecca (which were really more than metaphoric - the medievals believed that one or the other of these was the actual geographic center, such as seen in the classic T and O maps). I also see the term being used to refer to the site of intersection of the prime meridian with the equator, and scientific analysis of the actual center (i.e. middle) of the earth with regard to magnetism and rotation. I think this namespace could be home to a viable article, but the one it currently hosts isn't it. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The geographical center of North America is in North Dakota, but Lebanon Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 states. — GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence the use of the word 'contiguous', but again, this is just where, when they made a cardboard cutout of a 2-dimensional map and placed it on a pointed object, it balanced. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some new sources have been added to this article. It's recently been de-PRODed. This article seems to increasingly concern itself with esoteric aspects of egyptology. It's not about geometry at all! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany Johnson AFD or CSD?

This article was referred to me on my talk page by a concerned editor. It appears to concern a non-notable radio-paranormalist. I think it's sufficiently bad to be worthy of an AFD, however this might also be a candidate for speedy deletion since the links appear to be mostly nonsense. (One of them is a link to pokemon.com) --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a CSD to me. — GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fails notability, not to mention credibiity. Fringe nonsense at best, CSD-suitable. --Seduisant (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as CSD under A7, G11. Can try AfD if declined. --Seduisant (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by Alexf. --Seduisant (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

David Juliano

Completey non notable paranormal researcher, has published nothing apart from one self published book. Can not find any references apart from his own website about him, article filled with original research and claims which are probably not true. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What's scary (pun intended) is that this guy has gotten mentions in a number of Halloween-themed news stories over the years:

• 1.Web Winners , The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2006 Sunday, BUSINESS; Pg. E06, 357 words, Reid Kanaley, Inquirer Columnist
• 2.Virtual Haunts for Your Inner Goblin. The New York Times, October 30, 2003 Thursday, Section G; Column 3; Circuits; Pg. 3, 795 words, By LISA NAPOLI
• 3.This one's a scream; Mantua asks whether cemetery sounds are supernatural. The Philadelphia Inquirer, NOVEMBER 28, 2004 Sunday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY & REGION; Pg. B03, 898 words, Wendy Ruderman INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
• 4.In Pursuit of Spirits Doing Time in the Afterlife. The New York Times, October 29, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section E; Part 2; Page 42; Column 1; Leisure/Weekend Desk , 2247 words, By MARGARET MITTELBACH and MICHAEL CREWDSON
• 5.Looking into things that go bump in the night, South Jersey Ghost Research investigators are on call to check out region's wayward spirits. The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 28, 2002 Monday CITY-D EDITION, LOCAL NEWS; Pg. B04, 1194 words, Edward Colimore Inquirer Staff Writer
• 6.Time for hayrides, haunted houses; There are many ways in South Jersey to get in the Halloween spirit - not all scary. The Philadelphia Inquirer, SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Sunday N-CAMDEN EDITION, NEIGHBORS CAMDEN; Pg. CH01, 891 words, Jake Wagman INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
• 7.Home study course in spirit hunting is certifiable. Copley News Service, October 6, 2003 Monday, WASHINGTON WIRE; TODAY'S SCENE, 1984 words, Scott LaFee Copley News Service
• 8.Jersey Devil: Masterpiece of Franklin's ghostwriting? Philadelphia Inquirer, October 31, 2005 Monday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY; Pg. B01, 817 words, By Frank Kummer; Inquirer Staff Writer

LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems not - CSD refused. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated this as an AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

Appears to be a very minor variant of energy medicine: Claims that "Healing can be achieved through manipulation of complementary (or polarized) energies" - which sounds remarkably similar to what just about every energy medicine proponent claims. This looks like yet another candidate for merge into Energy Medicine. Would anybody care to offer a second opinion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I proposed this article for deletion today: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Polarity_therapy --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented at the AfD. Lots of sound and fury here, but I think it all signifies nothing. Moreschi (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance

Purports to describe a set of military countermeasures against bio-terrorism used from the 2nd World War onwards, however the sources seem to imply that this is a newer development. I'm slightly concerned that it might be a hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to worry when a GBooks search gives exactly four hits, two of which are for the same document. GScholar gives exactly one hit out of Ft. Detrick. I think this is a synthetic term as I get no hits anywhere that deign to define this phrase. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur - this seems to have been a military neologism that never caught on. It might actually refer to a real concept. I'm sure modern armies take bio-terrorism seriously, however the attempt to show it as a historical military practice seems incredible to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a classic Fringe Theory but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the West. The tidbit about the Russians searching for poisoned wells in WWII is followed by a bunch of passing mentions of epidemiological concerns in various obscure Eastern Europe docs. Could be a merge, but where I don't have a clue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a foreign term which has been badly translated? Is there some kind of military history / technology wikiportal we could refer this whole thing to? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history might be one place. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

A couple of dedicated SPA redlink accounts doggedly pursuing insertion of SELFPUB and non-notable material praising Ryden, lending credibility to her supposed ability to get messages from God, and puffing up the importance of her supporters - oblivious to the encyclopedia's requirement for independent secondary sources. See Talk:Vassula_Ryden#cdf-tlig.org_website and WP:ANI#True Life in God: Possible Vandalism?. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton

Regulars may wish to weigh in on John F. Ashton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the related AfD. Article on a minor creationist, written mainly from the creationist viewpoint. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FTN stalker: As the article expander, I wouldn't mind another pair of eyes, although Hrafn has found it necessary to raise sudden and (often) easily dismissed objections to the article. Perhaps someone could straighten us both out about the proper application of policy to this debate. JJB 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is a complete nightmare and has been stuffed with terrible references. I think it has not been demonstrated that the references actually exist to create a decent article and WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF were not met. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know it's already TLDR, but please read most of the AFD so that you can see where several prongs of AUTHOR have been met essentially unrebutted; sorry, but I don't know how to take your comment as more than a knee-jerk otherwise. PROF 3 also appears to be met and PROF 1 is still arguable. AFD is not about decent articles (that comes later), it's about WP:N. To argue that none of the criteria (also including GNG and BASIC) have been met requires dealing with each criterion separately, which nobody has done. JJB 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely TLDR. I've reviewed some of the sources which were attached to the article. None of them seemed particularly suitable. I've not got the patience to digest a seven-pronged article based on a novel meta-theory of cumulative notability. Feel free to simplify the argument for my benefit. Why not just show one or two reliable secondary sources which substantially cover this subject. I don't need to see seven convoluted arguments, just one or two good sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I said WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF have not been satisfied based on reading the AfD. WP:GNG has not been met either. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that this AFD has reached deadlock. JJB does not feel that it's his responsibility to try to present his case in a manner that other editors can easily understand, and I'm totally fine with that. I've invited our fellow editors to vote on whether to end the discussion. Do please weigh in as you see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement about me is incorrect. JJB 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

• The AfD ended as 'no consensus' and all scientific criticism of Ashton and his creationist views has been scrubbed from the article. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like JJB is back at it with his walls of text and obscuring arguments approach. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As advised, the scrubbing was done by User:David Eppstein, who has a different view of balance than you two (or I) do. I do invite editors to the RFC you placed at Talk:John F. Ashton. I do like to give my full view when you invite me to comment. Please feel free to demonstrate any obscuring arguments, as I am not in a mood to contend with very much right now. Interesting that I clicked here to respond to Hrafn and got to respond to two of you. JJB 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This page has been moved into JJB's userspace. You can find it here: User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cold spot

Although the lead makes it clear the term is specific to the ghost busting crowd, the article descends into in-universe mode, e.g. the explanation of Why Cold Spots Form wraps fringe theories within fringe theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you can't write "It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots" when there is absolutely no evidence that there are ghosts - or that there are actually cold spots as defined in the article - and even if there were, there is certainly no evidence that ghosts might be the cause - let alone what the mechanism for their formation might hypothetically be. This article needs to be heavily rewritten with a more encyclopedic view. "People who claim that there are ghosts that cause cold spots find it difficult to explain why they do so.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. The first sentence says it all: It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots. I removed the section as undue, both books were self-published. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The page appears to be full of self published content. See WP:LSP for a list of some self publishers. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the scientific statement in the lead saying this whole thing is WP:Complete bollocks is terrible synthesis -- probably because they couldn't find a scientist who could be bothered to state that cold spots (along with millions of other superstitions, urban myths etc) are bollocks. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed a fair bit of stuff, and deleted some repetition. More could go. I left an orphaned ref, but the article is hardly worse. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From a scientific perspective, the most directly important complaint is that a hypothetical entity that could create useful energy by reducing the temperature of the ambient air around itself would be in flagrant violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This isn't synthesis because the RS says that no process whatever is capable of doing what the paranormal investigators claim - and that obviously includes "ghosts". SteveBaker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis is in that while the source says "no process whatever", it is not explicitly addressing the Cold Spot. An editor has linked it to the topic by making the connection that "no process whatever" includes the Cold Spot idea (as small as that leap is). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've heard two interpretive schools of thought on this. #1 is that once an article makes scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream, an explanation of how the fringe claim differs from the mainstream understanding of the topic is required by WP:FRINGE. #2 is that scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream but have not been addressed by the mainstream automatically fall below the minimum standard of notability and should be deleted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what the source states is "1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work." & "2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body." (emphasis original) Given that neither cold spots nor the ghosts purported to produce them have ever been scientifically observed, it would not seem possible to state definitively that the former is the "sole result" of the latter. I therefore cannot see the source as even making a general statement on a set of phenomena that would clearly and unambiguously include the purported phenomenon of cold spots. It would seem highly likely that the purported phenomenon is too vague and poorly defined to be amenable to a rigorous thermodynamic debunking. 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haunted house#Possible causes

Can someone take a look at the sources used in this section? It looks to me that it's using one pseudo-science to debunk another.

Creaking floor-boards, sure. CO Poisioning, seems plausible. ... But Ionizing radiation? EM Field Exposure? That can't be right.

The references for that section are all print sources. Judging by the titles of the references they're probably fringe publications, but I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure.

APL (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good find, unreliable sources are being used to make rather dubious claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What you have done to the article is not helping, now theres no explanations left. Your right you are not familiar with the publications. The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity. The other explanation that is currently held by researchers is that these "hauntings" are caused by known physical energies. No not "non-physical", we are talking here about known physical energies. As far as I can see there is nothing mystical or magical about this at all. GreenUniverse (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please. Cite reliable sources for claims not the unreliable sources that were being used. The claims of Telepathic communication from Michael Persinger are not well documented and are completely undue. Claims that they can cause hallucinations etc should be cited to reliable sources. FYI, you are constantly under "EM Exposure", i.e light. Also calling it physical energies implies that there are non-physical energies. I've also removed some of the primary sourced claims in Michael Persinger which were added to an unreliable journal and a self published source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using this. Or this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. Please see my comments on the talk page of the Haunted House article. I am confused over this issue, lets say a notable parapsychologist publishes a book on hauntings and advocates a specific theory, then these sources are not reliable at all and can not be used? Take for example the book on poltergeists by Alan Gauld which discusses specific theories on hauntings, can we quote from that book, or there 100% has to be a third party source to mention his theories? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The EM Field stuff is back in the article. Referenced with this lovely document. APL (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the field well enough to judge whether mentioning a particular theory would give it undue weight... but, given the nature of the subject, if we are going to mention a particular theory we should attributed it (in the text) so readers know who says what. I have added such. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the stuff about Persinger has just been tagged again. The reason for this is that it is a primary source, I think some third party coverage is needed to back up his claims? Is that right? GreenUniverse (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the stuff about Persinger a primary source? Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The material which begins "According to Michael Persinger..." is sourced to Michael Persinger. It is a primary source as the source given is Michael Persinger himself stating what he thinks. A secondary source would be a source that is not written by Persinger and which summarizes the original thought of the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not how Misplaced Pages defines "Primary". Secondary sources can contain author conclusions and thought and attributing a source to its author does not make the source Primary. (question: would I be correct in assuming that you are from a science background... if so, please note that Misplaced Pages uses the definitions of Primary and Secondary that are common in the Humanities and not the definitions of those terms common in the Sciences... this has caused confusion in the past so I thought I should point it out). Even if we use the scientific definition and consider the source Primary... Our policy is that Primary sources are allowed... as long as we are careful not to misuse them (please see WP:PSTS). In this case we are not misusing the source. I am not trying to say that the material should not be removed (I don't know enough about the topic to make that call)... just that you are using the wrong policy to justify removing it. If Presinger is pseudo-scientific hokum, I would suggest that you look at WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE) as a more appropriate policy based justification for removal. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. (I am doing a PhD in theoretical physics so you are correct with that) I will query at WP:OR to try and get a somewhat rigorous definition of primary, secondary etc for the future. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we are, original research articles are considered primary: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary-source articles about randomized experiments, including randomized controlled clinical trials in medicine. Also: Be careful of articles published in disreputable fields or disreputable journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem that User:APL and User:IRWolfie- are alluding to is that a "varying electromagnetic field" is an electromagnetic wave - which is what physicists call: "electromagnetic radiation". Which can be gamma rays, radio waves, visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, microwaves and X-rays - and technically includes something a mundane as someone waving a magnet around or turning some source of electricity on or off!

So statements like "The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity." have to be read with great care.

I don't doubt that this statement is true. If you stick someones' head into a microwave oven then, yes, there will certainly be some "fault in brain activity" as their brains are cooked. We know that Photosensitive epilepsy can be caused by strobe lights, and one of the symptoms of that is a bunch of weird sensations that we might describe as a "hallucination". The trouble is that while the statement is doubtless true - it's only germane to feelings of being haunted if those exact kinds of "varying EM fields" happen to be present in the house at sufficient energy to cause these effects.

In essence, the author of that paper is guilty of a serious synthesis - which should have been caught by peer reviewers and shot so full of holes that it have never been published. He's saying:

1. Brains are affected by varying EM fields.
2. If there is a varying EM field present, then this explains the feelings of haunting in that house.

The trouble is that not all varying EM fields produce these kinds of effect, we know that staring out of the window (and thereby exposing yourself to visible light - a "varying EM field") doesn't cause any damage or hallucination whatever. There is zero evidence presented in the paper that the very specific EM fields that these "researchers" are measuring are of the right intensity and frequency to have any measurable effect on the brains of their supposedly hallucinating subjects. Which means that this entire paper is premium grade bullshit.

To use a simple analogy, it's like saying "People have been killed by machines with wheels in them" (like getting run over by a car or mangled in a horrible meat-grinder incident) - and from that deducing the statement: "Therefore we can explain this otherwise inexplicable death because there happened to be a hotwheels toy in the room". That explanation would be laughed at by any reasonable person - and that's why we're all laughing at this paper.

This source is pure pseudoscientific bunkum - the only question is: Under which Misplaced Pages guideline should it be excluded (or at least judiciously hedged and explained) so that our article no longer contains blatant untruths.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest everyone read WP:NPOV (and especially WP:Undue weight)... when dealing with fringe topics (such as ghosts), whether a source contains pseudoscientific bunkum may not matter as much as whether that bunkum represents a significant viewpoint. In other words... if enough of the people who are searching for a "scientific explanation" for hauntings believe Presinger's theory (and note that I said "if"), then to cover the topic accurately and with neutrality we should mention it (whether it is bunkum or not). If, on the other hand, his theory represents the view of a tiny minority of those searching for a scientific explanation for hauntings, then we can omit it on the grounds that mentioning his theory at all gives it Undue Weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fair play but have you read this though? French, C.C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R.E. (2009). The “Haunt” Project: An attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45, 619-629.

"Recent research has suggested that a number of environmental factors may be associated with a tendency for susceptible individuals to report mildly anomalous sensations typically associated with "haunted" locations, including a sense of presence, feeling dizzy, inexplicable smells, and so on. Factors that may be associated with such sensations include fluctuations in the electromagnetic field (EMF) and the presence of infrasound." Nothing controversial here, I see no reason why this shouldnt be included. Also see Ghostly magnetism explained GreenUniverse (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the study by Chris French, it explains the fringe position and provides a study on it. I think this is a good compromise. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question round the billionth

Shakespeare Authorship Question has picked another suspiciously skilled and knowledgeable SPA today, Wightknightuk (talk · contribs). Possibly a sock, possibly not, but either way determinedly a proponent of the time-honoured principles of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Discretionary sanctions are in place so this could use some administrative eyes just in case he keeps refusing to get the message. Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am gratified to have been described as 'skilled and knowledgeable'. Thank you.

Unlike I have no dog in this fight. I support no particular authorship candidate but I feel the issue is important and some of the rhetorical techniques used (by all sides) are particularly unmeritorious. The tone of debate also, including certain comments to which I have been subjected today, leaves a very great deal to be desired!

This is not an SPA. This issue is the first that has prompted me to become involved in Misplaced Pages. I have contributed (briefly) to the debate today, observing all necessary protocols and principles. I was disappointed to have been greeted with discourtesy and disrespect.

Any attempts to persuade the editors with logic and reason, to suggest amendments and achieve consensus by conciliation, fell on deaf ears. I was instructed that I should take "take (my) complaints to any relevant board " which I found inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's underlying values and objectives.

Having said that, I have taken at his word and initiated a request for Mediation. This, in my humble opinion, raises significant issues for Misplaced Pages over the extent to which an active group, even representing as they do a majority position, may properly use their influence to suppress the referencing on Misplaced Pages of relevant, independent third-party material. For those of you reading this who may be wondering to which particular 'fringe' publication I might be referring, I will tell you - it is the New York Times.

If you wish to follow the case or participate in relevant debate then you will find further details ]. I have no intention of making any further attempts to edit the article in question until the mediation is resolved or the character of the editorial community that controls the article has changed.

Courtesy and a lack of profanity in any further exchanges would be very greatly appreciated.

wightknight 23:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is unfortunately one of those nasty WP:TIGERS corner cases. The problem, good sir, is that it is actually impossible not to have a dog in the fight on SAQ. Either you follow the mainstream consensus (the Stratfordians), or you follow the fringe theorists (the rest). Now, of course, one could also be undecided on the issue, but that is also not the mainstream academic position and it is precisely that mainstream academic position that Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect. Neutrality here is entirely false. As Dbachmann used to put it, we do not write Penguin via argument between penguins and non-penguins, and this is in many ways exactly the same problem. Moreschi (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's impressive that such a new editor found this board so quickly. It's also striking that the method of argument replicates that of so many previous editors:

• The demand for ritualised politeness so formal that it would have impressed the court of Louis VIV.
• The instant wounded moral outrage at anything that can be considered un-PC (i this case the wholly unwarranted pieties about the the analogies to the Holocaust article and the eyes-rolled-up-to-heaven pronouncements about "courtesy and lack of profanity"). The finest example of that was user:Smatprt's instant moral outrage when I said he was "blind" to some issue - because I was belittling and denigrating the unsighted community, including his unsighted friend.
• The attritional mode of argument - endless repetition of the same points and claims to be guided by WP policies and systems, to which florid deference is shown. Talk space is filled with the same points repeatedly in an attempt to wear down opposition in way that cannot be 'faulted' because of visibly rhetorical deference to policies.

The disingenuous nature of this approach is all too obvious to experienced editors in this area -- and the agenda is equally clear: mix up mainstream attribution studies with the fringe theories in order to make the latter seem like a reasonable extension of the former. Responses on the talk page may well seem curt, but that is because this is a familiar and very very often repeated pattern/tactic. As WP:FLAT says "At the present time, Misplaced Pages does not have an effective means to address superficially polite but tendentious, long-term, fringe advocacy." Paul B (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your more constructive response on this issue.

My 'personal opinion' for what it is worth, is that the issue of who was the principal author of the Shakespeare canon should be determined by the same standards of academic rigour as any similar question of literary history. From my limited, but growing, review of the relevant evidence, it appears that no particular side is able to deliver a 'knockout blow' and there is an increasing number of agnostics who are interested to see more, and more rigorous, academic work undertaken. The recent document produced by the Shakespeare Authorship Trust provides good evidence of the existence of the debate, although not necessarily the quality of the arguments employed in that debate.

This is where I feel the article in question is faced with something of a dilemma. It is either a page which proposes to weigh to a nicety the various theories in support of the authorship candidates, in which case Stratford Shakespeare must rank first and the others beneath him will appear more or less preposterous, in turn (or not according to one's particular perspective and prejudices). But that process itself gives credibility to the Question, which it seems is antithetical to the Stratfordian position.

However, today stated that "this article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians" in which case the anti-Stratfordian position (and in this I concede that there is an argument that the agnostic viewpoint may also be viewed as anti-Stratfordian, although I do not necessarily accept that the rationale of that interpretation should prevail) is more than a "fringe theory". Indeed, if the article is about the argument between the Stratfordians and the non-Stratfordians as says, then it demands for its very existence the vital and thriving form of its very nemesis. The one cannot exist without the other.

So there you have it, a rhetorical dilemma, which may explain part of the great difficulty that this page has been experiencing.

Other solutions naturally present, but I would just say that it would be unwise to make assumptions about the credibility or good faith of any author without first making full and proper enquiry of all the available evidence. But then, I suppose that is exactly my point.

wightknight 00:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@ WP:FLAT is not a justification to be rude. I presume that by Louis VIV you meant Louis XIV?

As a point of information, I came across this page by chance when researching Misplaced Pages's policies and definitions of 'fringe theories'. It was serendipity, no more no less. I'm sure there must be an appropriate conspiracy to explain the coincidence. However, if your concern is to talk about me outside my knowledge then I am sure the internet is sufficiently vast to afford you that opportunity.

Respectfully, simply because someone holds a different view to you does not mean that you can suggest that their arguments are disingenuous. Very respectfully, your post is substantially off point. I have set out my position and I have substantiated with referenced material and a logical argument. I have no agenda other than to see the Shakespeare Authorship Question represented properly on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to engage with the argument then kindly do so on its terms.

I apologise for being polite. It is an unfortunate consequence of long habituation to the exercise of consideration towards others.

wightknight 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known WP:FRINGE issue that is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, see WP:ARBSAQ. Actionable proposals, with suitable sources, should be made at the article talk page. There is no need to spread the issue to two noticeboards since there has been no response (other than changing the subject) to the explanations at the article talk. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for people to debate who wrote Shakespeare's works. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you begin here. All the answers to your questions can be found multiple times in the 27 pages of archived discussions. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert O. Becker

In the Robert O. Becker article someone is trying to add lots of undue, unsourced and OR material . Comments etc welcomed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Esoteric astrology

Theres no third party reliable sources on this article, the references consist of Theosophist authors only and a look through the internet reveals that the concept of esoteric astrology has not been covered by many, is the topic notable enough to have its own page? GreenUniverse (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Major source credibility issues here, starting with the claim by Alan Leo that Blavatsky wrote on the subject. A bit difficult seeing as how she had been dead for a couple of decades. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Googling shows this is referred to in some survey books on astrology, though I couldn't tell you how a good a sources they are. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I taged it for merger. Blavatsky's notions might merit a sentence or paragraph in astrology.Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to the good folks at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard for their excellent work in keeping Misplaced Pages mainstream and above-the-board. 209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how long I'll be allowed to stick around with the WP:RANDY police, but I made some midnight raids today I thought you all should know about:

1) Cold fusion. A wired.com source is being used to claim that DARPA is secretly funding cold fusion through SRI International and Michael McKubre in particular. It may be true that McKubre received some money laundered through the DARPA funding scheme, but wired.co.uk is not a reliable source to expose this and the DARPA document the cold fusion proponents want to cite seems to simply not say anything of the sort. There is this game being played of trying to "legitimize" cold fusion research by claiming quiet funding by the likes of NASA, the US Defense Dept, etc, but these claims are usually dubiously sourced and seem to be mostly soapboxing. Still, expect some pushback and anger from the dedicated cold fusion advocates on that one.

2) Masreliez. Search the archives for more on this one.

• I AFD'd this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

3) Plasma cosmology. An organized campaign has happened off-site to try to commandeer this article. Poor sourcing seems to be par for the course. I commented on User talk:Art Carlson's page about my major concerns on this one. Keeping an eye on it would be good and also the fringe physics proponents who are most active there lately.

4) Fractal cosmology. Could use even more clean-up than I gave it. The end of greatness is more-or-less observed and, though there are some who don't believe this, it is a pretty damning falsification of this proposal. One can look at the maps of the cosmos themselves for more on this.

5) Fringe theory: I see a lot of action there, but kept out. Keep up the good work, folks. Educators everywhere thank you for your diligence.

• I reverted one recent unhelpful edit, however the article does not appear to be in such bad shape. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the best,

209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

SA / VanishedUser314159

I think there is sufficient evidence to assume the IP is a SOCK of SA / VanishedUser314159. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think an IP is a sock puppet the best place to take this is: WP:SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton, Non WP:MEDRS sources in a book-review, claims concerning the antiaging effects of chocolate

John F. Ashton is a living food-scientist and young-earth creationist. This short paragraph describes a book he published. It's taken from a section which is about his mainstream work, rather than his creationism advocacy.

Ashton's book A Chocolate a Day, coauthored with his daughter-in-law Suzy Ashton, claims that a single chocolate bar contains more antioxidants than six apples and has a stronger anti-aging effect than red wine,

The cited sources seem to be WP:RS for the content of Ashton's book but probably not WP:MEDRS for the claims being made.

For example, The notion that red wine has an anti-aging effect is a fringe view that's often expressed in popular media. Does it make any sense to compare the life prolonging effects of chocolate to another substance which has not been proven to prolong life? Ashton has almost certainly claimed this, however I think we need to find a way to show that these views are not regarded as mainstream amongst nutritionists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. Suggestion: I would remove any mention of red wine, and basically cut that whole chocolate paragraph to something like "Ashton co-authored two books, the first with his daughter-in-law Suzy Ashton and the second with Lily Stojanovska, extolling what he believes to be the health benefits of consuming chocolate. (ref)(ref)" I would avoid any specifics about the chocolate discussion unless it is specifically addressed by a MEDRS compliant secondary source that can place it in context. As this is a popular book rather than a scientific research publication, we should be focusing on its reception by the public through book reviews rather than debating the scientific merits of the contents. Yobol (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this same question on the article's talk page. I agree - the focus of the discussion is wrong. This was in part my own fault. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on pseudoscience section in lede of astrology

I have started an RFC on the pseudoscience section of the lede of astrology where I have proposed new wording. Your comments are appreciated at Talk:Astrology#RFC_on_change_to_pseudoscience_summary_in_lede. Thanks. SÆdon 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon has unfortunately done more than simply proposed new wording; he has edit warred to try to force through a POV version of the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum to discuss Saedon's behavior. We should all be concerned by the original paragraph: Statements such as "astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" seem to be self-evidently false. Astrology has not resembled science since the Enlightenment! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than try and point out faults in others I would suggest you look back on your own comments, some of which appear to be uncivil such as accusing someone of making "Blathering posts" etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Salimfadhley, I agree that astrology is no longer a subject that can be described as a science, but as the accompanying reference and the National Science Board article it leads to demonstrates, a very significant proportion of the public are under the impression that it is. That is the reason why the label 'pseudo-science' has been given to astrology. If astrology didn't bear some kind of superficial resemblence to science it would not be able to be defined as a "pseudo-science". The original paragraph summarises this correctly. What would be self-evidently false (or indeed very worrying) would be to suggest that the scientific community engages in testing of the subject whilst not taking the subject seriously. -- Zac Δ 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that astrology might have been miscategorised. Given that we both agree it does not resemble science it might be better to categorize it as a form of esoteric belief or possibly divination. I would normally use the word pseudoscience to describe things which engage with an apparently scientific process e.g. Steorn. I cannot think of any sense in which astrology resembles science - superficial or otherwise.

As far as I am aware there is little or no testing of the concepts of Astrology, however there may have been research into the subject by mythologists. In other words scientists do not take-seriously the notion of a causal relationship between star-movements and mundane or human events. The subject of why people believe this and how the belief has evolved has been the subject of extensive study. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You said: "I would normally use the word pseudoscience to describe things which engage with an apparently scientific process". That's a profound and important misunderstanding of what the word means. May I recommend the Wiktionary definition (which agrees with most other mainstream dictionaries): "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method." - it specifically applies to things like astrology that profess to provide a science-like explanation - but do none of the serious experimentation, math, etc that goes along with the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If the reliable sources characterize it as pseudoscience then so should we, to do otherwise is to engage in original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A thought - I think the section of the lede under discussion would be improved if it more clearly noted the contrast between historical views of astrology (until around 1600 astrology was considered a legitimate branch of science by western scientists, one that was indistinct from astronomy and influencing other branches of science like medicine), and modern views of astrology (that it is a pseudoscience at best, and perhaps not even that). It might also help if the lede noted who disagrees with the mainstream scientific view (ie who objects to the label "pseudoscience"). I am not suggesting that we present astrology as being "legitimate"... merely that we could do a better job of neutrally informing the reader as to who says what, and in what context they say it. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that around 1600, few (if any) of the things that were then called "science" were following "the scientific method". Saying that "astrology used to be a science" is misleading to a modern reader because the meaning of the word "science" has changed since the 1600's when a contemporary writer might well have placed astrology in with the other "sciences". Our articles Scientific method and History of scientific method clearly explain that our current understanding of what constitutes "science" didn't form until the late 17th or early 18th century. That's why astrology ceased to be considered a science - it wasn't that astrology, or our understanding of the universe changed - it's that the very definition of what a "science" is changed as the ideas behind the scientific method began to form with the formation of the Royal Society in the 1650's. Using the modern meaning of the word "science", we have to say that astrology could never, at any time have been considered to be a science. Since we don't write Misplaced Pages using archaic meanings for common words, we should not describe astrology as ever having been a science without carefully hedging that language with some statement of the meaning of the word. Astrology is properly called a "pseudoscience" because that's the word we use to describe ideas that profess to provide testable scientific predictions without following the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Steve wrote. "astrology used to be a science" is not completely wrong, but too many WP-reader will simply misunderstand it. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Leon Cowden

Subject claims to have recorded the first live conversation between the living and the spirit world. Also says his band has achieved cult status with their vast internet following. Maybe I'm missing something but they both sound like non-notable fringe theories to me. It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out the editing histories of the four largest contributors to the article: User:321stop, User:212dream (Huh! Similar name!), User:82.7.114.193 and User:194.168.255.76. Each of those accounts has done almost nothing but edit articles where Cowden is mentioned. User:212dream added a claim that Cowden attended Fort Gibson Public Schools - which isn't something that's mentioned in any of Cowden's public bios. I smell WP:COI and WP:SOCK. That's not necessarily grounds for AfD - but it's a gigantic red-flag. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies

• Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on this WP:FRINGE organisation is rather badly sourced, largely accepts it at its own self-assessment, and does little to establish notability. Is it simply an under-written piece on a notable piece of woo, or is it beyond saving? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see reason to merge it elsewhere, but see the following section. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Catastrophism

This is related to the article discussed immediately above. My fringey sense tingles reading this, because "catastrophism" is also a code word for Velikovsky's ideas. I am highly doubtful that the paradigm shift it presents actually obtains in real geophysical research. Any other opinions? Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-Velikovskian catastrophism can be considered a superseded theory. Catastrophism vs. gradualism was a running argument among geologists and biologists in the 19th century. The dispute which was settled by adopting components of both theories in the Uniformitarianism_(science) theory. The uniformitarian article gives a much better account of the historical context than catastrophism. While the topic deserves its own article, the Velikovsky stuff - which is textbook fringe - can be deleted or merged into his main article. Skinwalker (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Velikovsky stuff should be merged into Immanuel Velikovsky if it's not there in enough depth already...which I think it is. The historical version might one day need it's own article - but to be honest (as you say) the coverage in Uniformitarianism (science) is already better than the catastrophism article. So the only effect that the catastrophism article has is to conflate and confuse between the historical version and the Velikovsky version - which might be fun and games for the pro-Velifovsky fraternity - but it's not true and it's unsupported by WP:RS. I'd support an WP:AfD on this one. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer something in the order of a disambiguation page (either formally arranged as one, or in text form doing the same thing) - a statement that the term can refer to two distinct concepts, the historical one (with a link to Uniformitarianism) or alternatively to the recent woo, linking to Velikovsky, and leave it at that. People interested in either form may use this search term, so there needs to be some kind of page, and a simple redirect one way or the other is not up to the task. This way people get where they want to go with one extra click, but are also clearly told that the two aren't flavors of the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I like that idea! Thanks! Dab the concept to subsections of the two existing articles that cover the idea better anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mound builder (people)

I removed some 50% of the article on Mound builder (people) which was devoted to fringe theories and grossly violating WP:UNDUE. Some additional voices and eyes would be useful, especially as it may be okay to add a limited amount of the material removed back into the article.

128.59.171.10 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This was a section of cited material explaining various debunked theories of the last 200 years to explain the Mound builders. Please do not remove it again. This is not what WP:FRINGE is about. It is not promoting any of those debunked theories as the "TRUTH", merely noting them and explaining them. Heiro 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't appear to be a WP:FRINGE issue. I'm nervous about some of the unreferenced claims though - those don't look like they'd be hard to find references for. (eg The article says "Lafcadio Hearn suggested that..." - so surely we know in which book or journal this person made that suggestion?). If it is even slightly difficult to find references for them then it's highly likely that they are either not notable or not reliable sources of information. Incidentally, from a formatting perspective, I don't like the many headings that contain links to other articles. The correct way to do that is have the text in the heading un-linked and to use the {{Main|xxx}} or {{see also|xxx}} templates immediately after the heading to refer the reader to the parent article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All of that seems fine with me, and probably needs doing. I dont have time to hunt down references right now for the uncited stuff, but it does need doing.. Heiro 21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the links from sections headers you mentioned. Heiro 21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I got bored and searched the Lafcadio Hearn one: Hearn, Lafcadio. "The Mound Builders". The Commercial, Cincinnati. April 24, 1876 , also ref'd in: Kenneth L. Feder. Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries - Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ. McGraw Hill. at p. 154. (PDF) --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added them. One less uncited bit I guess. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not read a real book? Your copy of 2666 is still unopened. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't got any pictures. ;-) –92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation. I know the majority of the uncited stuff in that section is basically accurate, or else I would have removed it long ago myself. I tend to concentrate more on expanding and creating articles about the actual cultures that get lumped as "mound builders" rather than concentrating on this article about an outdated and debunked racial stereotype. Unfortunately, way too many archaeological site articles here on wiki link to this article, rather than to an article about specific archaeological cultures that are connected to said sites. Heiro 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Masreliez

FYI, there's an AFD open for this article - which should really have been called "Masreliez (family)". The notion that this family is important in Swedish art-history seems to be a fringe view unsupported by significant coverage in mainstream sources.

The article concerns a group of people, some of whom may be individually notable in Swedish visual and performing arts. I'm not convinced that the family is notable in itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter

A group of rural Kentuckians claim they fought off an attack by extraterrestrials, but when police arrived they found nothing. Yet to read the article you'd think beings from outer space were the cause, or at least, something otherworldly and mysterious. Like many of our UFO articles, this one is slanted toward credulous interpretations rather than a dispassionate reporting of claims. Much of the article is spent on trying to connect several unrelated events. Undue weight is given to describing claims in the most graphic and sensational way possible. Parsimonious explanations are buried at the end of the article and positioned as an afterthought, or alternatives to the extraterrestrial/mystery default view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the article, as written, violates Wiki's neutrality policy, as it features virtually no detailed and referenced skeptical arguments or explanations for the event (except for two tiny bullets listed at the very bottom of the article). I know that skeptic/debunker Joe Nickell investigated the case and argued that it was caused by owls or some other type of bird; certainly his explanation deserves mention, and in some detail if the article can be found. Also, as you noted the article is very poorly-written in that its points don't connect smoothly and the article is a disjointed series of paragraphs. The article needs to be rewritten to include the pertinent facts of the case (with references), followed by the most common skeptical explanation(s) and/or rebuttals (if available). Just my two cents. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You can tell there's something amiss with an article when an authoritative "overview" of the subject is given in Misplaced Pages's voice but written from a UFOlogy point of view. I will get around to fixing it one of these days. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I think I've identified at least part of the problem. Somewhere along the line, Jerome Clark became the go-to guy for people writing much of WP's UFO-related content. While it may be true that Clark's writings are often more objective than many UFOlogists, his 'objectivity' spans a very wide range - from mildly skeptical to uncritically accepting - and his reporting can lapse into the well-worn Fortean storytelling technique of closing off all evidentiary doors except those leading to the conclusion that something mysterious is afoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that Jerome Clark shouldn’t be the only source, or main source, used in UFO articles, then I agree. If you mean that the problem with some Wiki UFO articles is that they are obviously biased for one side and feature no discussion of multiple views, then I agree. And that doesn’t even get into the fact that some UFO articles are poorly written with numerous typos, disjointed paragraphs with no point, etc.

However, if you mean that UFO articles should be reduced to little more than stubs that provide few details of the event and make no attempt to mention multiple points of view then I would disagree. You said that Clark is biased, but what about UFO debunkers such as Philip Klass and Robert Sheaffer? I’m curious as to what you think an ideal Wiki UFO article would contain, assuming you’re in favor of even having such articles.70.145.229.162 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe in including all notable points of view in an article when they have been covered by reliable and independent sources. Points that have not been discussed in independent sources don't have the notability required by our policies and should not be given space in articles. In the case of UFO articles, many do end up as stubs since once the dubious sources like "Above Top Secret" and "Alien Evidence" etc. are removed only a handful of reliable sources remain. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This source appears to have a good summary: . IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Continental drift

This discussion may be of interest: Talk:Fringe_theory#Continental_drift_-_bad_example. Continental drift is a bad example of a fringe theory that became mainstream because the suggested mechanisms were all rejected in favour of a completely different mechanism: plate tectonics. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Porter Roberts

Any thoughts on a merge and redirect of Bruce Porter Roberts to Gemstone File? There is some verifiable information about Roberts (searching combinations of "Bruce Roberts", "Gemstone File", and "Skeleton Key"), but I'm not sure there is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Per this source, little is known of him except that he died of a tumor. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Process oriented psychology

This is a theory or belief system developed by one person, Arnold Mindell. It is studied by students at Arnold Mindell's Process Work Centre in Portland where there has been an investigation into that organisation's academic standards and the master's degree they offer in Process Work. Arnold Mindell may have a PhD in psychology but he is reported in the local Portland press as not being licensed as a psychologist in Oregon. This may be why he does not us the title 'Process orientated psychology' in the US (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-285-dream_academy.html). Arnold Mindell and Process Work are not notable, and people checking their validity may rely on the wikipedia entry. It is not a theory taught in psychology departments in institutions or universities other than Mindell's own which has been criticised as functioning as a visa scam.

Wow! What an impressive list of 18 references! Oh...wait...twelve of those are by that one guy...and one is by his wife...and three more are just conference notices with no actual content...and one more is for some kind of unspecified document that doesn't show up anywhere on an online search so I can't read it online or buy it - and the last one doesn't actually mention the subject or back up the claim it's tagged against - but I'm sure that hardly matters.

So - no acceptable references, no demonstration of notability, no secondary sources, decidedly WP:FRINGE. Most of the editing is by single-use IP accounts and people like User:Diogenes who self-identifies as an author in this area. Possibly this is all just one guy pushing his books. Sounds like an WP:AfD to me. SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No skepticism against meat-puppy recruiters?

I have been trying to submit research information in Robert O. Becker, but this work has been consistently disrupted by deletions. After one of these ("explained" with merely the label "undue"), the deletionist IRWolfie- (who fails to see the significance of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH) reported my submission(s) here on this noticeboard.

This would have been a valid invitation to cooperation if it had contained an explanation like: "Can anybody explain what is undue about Becker's research on stimulating regrowth after an amputation or bone fracture, and what the due methods for such stimulation would be?". But no such explanation was given, nor requested. The "explanation" was implicit, from the context: The Fringe theories Noticeboard. (Becker worked with conventional physiology, combined with conventional physics. Nothing fringe here.)

The following day Salimfadhley, active on Fringe Noticeboard, arrived at Robert O. Becker, and started by posting a Notability tag - after IRWolfie- so conveniently had weakened the article's notability information by e.g. slashing away the last 21 of the 33 peer-reviewed papers for which Becker was the first author - unlisting e.g. three articles printed in Nature. (And IRWolfie- placed an Undue Weight tag on the few science description sentences remaining - without explaining this in Talk.)

Conclusion: The POV-based disruptive editing was attempted reinforced through the recruiting of a meat-puppet. When such deletionism effectively scares away those willing and able to write for Misplaced Pages, discussions in quite large forums are called for. (An undisrupted version of the article is on Wikinfo.org.) OlavN (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution