Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 12 November 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ayurveda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should this article be covered by Arbcom sanctions on Pseudoscience, and should it also be categorised as such? I think it should be covered and is pseudoscience fwiw. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't notify on Talk:Ayurveda about this discussion, I have done that for you. Any articles, I mean just any can be non-controversial and less irritating when they don't have editors who lack general competence and bases their rationale on dubious I don't like it approach. Yes I am talking about you, you didn't even knew the definition of Vandalism, thus a topic ban on such a editor is possibly enough for solving remaining tensions, if there are any. Otherwise if there is some ongoing trend of many editors(I don't see any except you) fighting for a long time on this article, then sure it can be brought under sanctions. But for a long time I don't see any reverts but meaningful discussion made by everyone else, excluding you. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, can you explain how any of that has the slightest bearing on the question Roxy asked? If you have issues with Roxy's editing, please discuss them elsewhere - nobody is going to topic ban anyone here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And back on topic - no Ayurveda isn't in of itself pseudoscience. As a belief system it long pre-dates science. What may be pseudoscientific are modern claims of efficacy regarding specific Ayurvedic practices not supported by appropriate evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly and we have to stick to Misplaced Pages:MEDRS about every particular claim about medical efficacy, there was clearly no possibility to include any of the claims that would contradict the authoritative medical researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti: Roxy is well aware of the definition of vandalism, and your comment seems to be quite tangential to the original point. You should stop making up things to discredit editors that you disagree with. bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer to the question is no. I was about to bring this subject to other noticeboard for discussing its content and here I can see at least 2 sections have been opened about this article, and this one wasn't needed because it should have been discussed on the article talk(page) first. You cannot find any discussion there. That's why my comment was mostly about Roxy, rather than his question. Bladesmulti (talk)

In response to the specific question of whether the article is covered under discretionary sanctions, I would assume the answer is yes. I would refer to this request for clarification at ARCA on the topic of chiropractic, and especially this diff which was endorsed by several arbitrators. The relevant quote is: "pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Misplaced Pages article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed)."

That said, it is a different matter whether categorization as pseudoscience is appropriate or not. :-) Sunrise (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a different matter. I agree with Andy that it's basically protoscience, although some recent advocacy of it would count as pseudoscience. It shouldn't be categorised as pseudoscience but the discretionary sanctions should apply. It definitely comes under the scope of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I obviously don't hold a mop, but can I place the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template on the talk page? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DS says, "Any editor may advise any other editor"...Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. I intended to paste the DS content here but ran into some coding problem which I don't understand, so here's the first and last of it at least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

For the record, I've placed the above template on the AV talk page, and warned a fringe editor of said sanctions -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I had asked Sandstein and according to him, "that would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources", when it comes to the Arbcom sanctions, related to pseudoscience. Although this subject is not one and we don't have any reliable citations that would support. When I attempted to find at least one citation, I found opposite.(Oxford univ.) In a matter of few hours, if Roxy the Dog or any one else happen to find some reliable citations that would state(and describe) that AV is pseudoscience, then only we can consider. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Blades, you have changed the above post some four hours after you originally made it, without acknowledging the change. I will WP:AGF and continue to believe that the fact that multiple editors have pointed out that the citation you gave actually says the opposite to what you say it says, and your new ref may not be relevant to the subsequent conversation on this thread, it could not possibly be your intent to deceive us in this case. I would like to point out that this change may confuse new editors to the page, as much of the following conversation is predicated on it. Bad form though Blades. tut tut. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really pointed to it, as discussion still seemed to be relevant about the source I had specifically highlighted. I was by far only pointing to the lines openly told me many times, that they practice, most often ayurveda, couldn't specifically copy and paste due to copyright issues. Bladesmulti (talk)

The source you pointed to says, "Both are labeled 'pseudoscience' in the official agenda of the rationalists" It goes on to provide a quote about those who consider ayurveda scientific don't know enough about the topic. The section starts with the sentence, "There are some ideological realms where the official agenda of ANiS is not applied in the ideal way by a majority of it's members." it is discussing ayurveda and astrology and clearly both the author and ANiS consider them both to be pseudoscience. I would have to say the source supports the label of pseudoscience not "quite the oposite". Before putting forth a source it is a good idea to read more than a single sentence generated by a search. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3; Cherrypicking a few sentences wouldn't speak enough. ANiS means Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti, and the paragraph is after all about the organization's views. Author doesn't seem to be holding any of his own view about AV in whole book. So there's still no reason to consider AV to be pseudoscience. ANiS is concerned with Astrology, that it is pseudoscience(see last paragraph and next page), not AV. If you have any particular citation that would describe AV as pseudoscience then only we can establish something. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First this is the source you provided in an attempt to assert ayurveda is not considered pseudoscience. Second try giving the whole page a read. It makes it clear that the organization (ANiS) clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience. If you try reading some more of the content of the book it is mostly about ANiS and the book is about "a movement that is based on the explicit intent to challenge belief in magical powers of irrational efficacy as well as the influence of charismatic gurus." It was you who cherry picked a single sentence. Read at least the full page you pointed to and perhaps the introduction also, context matters. BTW the position of an organization published in this context is a reliable source, it need not be the opinion of the author. The organization clearly considers ayurveda pseudoscience and the author seems to be in agreement (context matters). I really suggest you read the book.

See also, Semple, David; Smyth, Roger, eds. (2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780191015908. Which includes ayurveda in the discussion headed pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's members are also saying that they don't consider it as pseudoscience? Not even a matter because it is about a irrelevant organization. Author has clearly stated none of his opinion.

As for your second citation, it is no where describing ayurveda, and there is only a unreferenced flying mention. While author has cited reference for others. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It has an entry in this encyclopedia of pseudoscience, which is suggestive. Alexbrn 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

While many of the pages includes the paragraphs about places, historians, just a paragraph in a book is not enough, only because book's title includes the word pseudoscience, it is not saying that AV is pseudoscience or anything close to it. While it has generally considered other concepts like Psychic surgery to be pseudo-scientific. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And this book on science in India tells us that some people view it as pseudoscience (or worse). Looking at the sourcing I think neglecting to mention that (at least) some people view ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscience would be a touch coy ... we should be neutral here. Alexbrn 16:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Should be described in relevant reliable sources. Flying mentions about some view cannot be considered to be descriptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For good measure: Wanjek, Christopher (2003). Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O. John Wiley & Sons. p. 168. ISBN 9780471463153. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not describing as such, can you quote here? Your citation Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, doesn't include the word pseudoscience or anything close to it, if its about AV. Just bringing up many irrelevant references wouldn't solve anything. Read Misplaced Pages:OR, Misplaced Pages:SYNTH. A source has to state 2+2=4 then only you can refer at such, in fact, if it has referred 2 & 2, it wouldn't be considered as 2 plus 2. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is counter factual. Semple & Smyth explicitly use the word pseudoscience and describe how ayurveda is pseudoscience. Quack presents the explicit statement of the official position of ANiS (which the author endorses, read the book). Inclusion in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is also fairly explicit. Paranjape also explicitly uses the word pseudoscience (again look to context, the book is about science in India, the positions represented are those of the scientific community). I think Wanjek's description can be fairly paraphrased as describing ayurveda as pseudoscience and it includes "faulty science". I think paraphrasing 2 & 2 as 2 plus 2 is not what consensus would consider synth or OR (of course context matters). Your contention that the references are irrelevant is nonsensical. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to your request for quotes, Semple and Smyth, "These pseudoscientific theories may be based on authority rather than empirical observation (e.g. old-school psychoanalysis, New Age psychotherapies, Thought Field Therapy), concern the unobservable (e.g. orgone energy, chi), confuse the metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine), or even maintain views that contradict known scientific laws (e.g. homeopathy)." (italics in original). - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing means written representation or account of object, it should be detailed. How a flying mention could be considered as a description? I only talked about irrelevant references, you misunderstood that part.

Pranjapae starts with people who rate AV as "proto-scientific system" and ends with "yet there are others" who reject it as pseudo-science, all in all, it is just a one liner. "Faulty science" is of course not the term that we would be using on encyclopedia, how you found it to be 100% related with pseudoscience?

Now since we have citations about Traditional Chinese medicine, Psychic surgery, and many other concepts. Why we couldn't have one good citation about AV, stating that it is pseudoscience, it seems to be very hard compared to rest of the pseudo-scientific concepts.

In your search, can you try including the terms like proto science or pre-science/pre=scientific, you would happen to find many citations with detailed instead of these 2 or 3, because that is how AV is usually described. Proto-science largely differs from pseudoscience. Question is, that what is normally accepted? That's what we stick to. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semple & Smyth are describing pseudoscience and it's characteristics and list ayurveda as an example. The description is adequately detailed and the characterization is unquestionable. Pranjapae states, "It may be pointed out that varied views are prevalent on the epistemological nature of Ayurveda. There are people who would rate Ayurveda as a proto-scientific system of thought, yet others would go so far as to reject Ayurveda as pseudo-science altogether, not to speak of characterizing it as unscientific. Today, Ayurvedic professionals are struggling to prove the so-called 'scientificity' of Ayurveda." So in discussing how ayurveda is characterized in science clearly there are those who call it pseudoscience. This is also supported in Quack. What source do you have that states "what is normally accepted" or "usually described"? Pranjapae supports the contention that multiple descriptions are used, explicitly including pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

On the same book of Pranjapae, you can find "Ayuveda exemplifies proto-science at best and would have been fared better if it had shed the remnants of the magico-religious tradition out of which it developed and turned into a more rational approach to healing." Then there are many paragraphs about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the authors gives their own view - but that does not somehow negate the information that some view Ayurvedia as pseudoscience; since some good sources agree on this we owe it to inform our readers such a view is held. Alexbrn 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct and I am not actually saying that we should disregard those who consider it as pseudoscience otherwise I would be at Pseudoscience and removing the mention of AV. But like we all know that there are mentions, and indeed such view is held. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So Pranjapae says "proto-science at best" if that is the best possible characterization what would be the "normally accepted" or "usually described" characterization? He specifically stated it is characterized by some as pseudoscience. Notable science journalist David Bradley wrote, "One area of non-western science that many western medics and scientists say is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap is Ayurvedic medicine." - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Manohar, PR (April 2013). "Uniform standards and quality control of research publications in the field of Ayurveda". Ancient Science of Life. 32 (4): 185–6. doi:10.4103/0257-7941.131968. PMC 4078466. PMID 24991064.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) a marginal source provides a decent discussion that essentially reveals research into ayurveda as pseudoscientific and states, "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda." (goes on to point out Beall's bias but supports his contention). - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the best possible characterization, but certainly one of them, because pre-scientific/proto-scientific seems to be more in common. Commenting on sciencebase article, what they say is purely speculation, though he ends with "Perhaps it is time modern science took a closer look at the multitude of alternative remedies that sit under the Ayurvedic umbrella." And "perhaps science should consider the holistic approach to drug discovery with a view to coping with the side effects and improving efficacy overall." It seems to me like you are naming me every single page which has included ayurveda and pseudoscience together or any similar term, but you are not telling that how they are describing. The best you had was Semple & Smyth, who just added ayurveda as one of the example, but didn't explained about it. Let me repeat once again, it would depend how it is described in relevant reliable sources.

The journal you have cited, Manohar further writes "Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda and uses this opportunity to spice up his arguments against Ayurveda, it is important to realize that the lapses within the Ayurvedic community makes the latter vulnerable to criticism." So we are going to take a biased opinion? If no, then how we can only believe on the first few lines, but not the rest? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources with a bias are acceptable, read the policy. WP represents the published sources including their opinions, the opinions and biased statements of notable, relevant authors are acceptable content. In some cases attribution is appropriate, but Pranjapae has published it as an opinion that is held in the field at least by some. What medics and scientists say is not "purely speculation" it is a description of the view of at least a portion of the scientific/medical/academic community. It has been clearly established that there are multiple published sources that support the statement that ayurveda is considered pseudoscience by members of the scientific, medical and academic community, given that including that information in the article is appropriate.

Beall, Jeffrey (2013-10-01). "The open access movement is fueling the emergence of pseudo-science journals". Scholarly Open Access. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the first few lines at most. I am not saying that any of them should be disregarded, since they are generally considered as good sources like we have discussed above, and this discussion was more about the sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If it could be considered as one, then obviously I wouldn't have problem if it is within the range of sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ayurveda+pseudoscience+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl Ayurveda is known to be a pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If it could be considered as one" Multiple sources have been supplied, quoted and explained. QG's search link returns a large number of books which "consider it one". The only counter arguments have been "maybe science should" "proto-science at best" nothing in any way countering the clear characterization in multiple sources. It is clear that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience so "it is within the range of sanctions". No policy based, sourced backed argument has been put forth that challenges the assertion that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience. Good faith is being strained. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sources can be added to the article and summarised in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New discussion started for this edit and this change. See Talk:Ayurveda#Violation of ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I added another source and it was deleted. No matter what source is used it will likely be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Above discussion was just about putting article under the arbcom sanctions on pseudoscience, but there was some requirement of sources, if they consider AV to be pseudoscience, and we did it. No agreement for categorizing/generalizing it as pseudoscience. If recognition is the case, AV has been added to Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and it's been a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So ayurveda is listed both as a pseudoscientific concept and in the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. That seems to indicate there is fairly strong widespread consensus to categorize ayurveda as pseudoscience on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not a main subject, it is Alternative medicine which is categorized as pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not have to be a "main subject" if something is listed as a specific example within a category or list, that indicates it is within that category and meets the criteria for that list. Just to provide a clear theoretical example, "Water can exist in a variety of states, liquid, frozen (e.g. ice) etc." This statement although not providing verbose discussion of ice, supports the fact that "ice is water in a frozen state". A list with a variety of sub headings and examples under those subheads and even specific instances of the examples, places those examples and instances clearly within the criteria of the list that's is what an example and instance are. Another example, a list of birds, the subheading flightless birds, the example the emu. Your tendentious arguement would say emu is not a main subject it is flightless birds that are categorized as birds, thus this list does not support emus are birds. Your behavior is becoming to tendentious to the point of disruptive. Disruptive editing is violation of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it is you who is trying to have same circular discussion on here and Talk:Ayurveda. Above part has nothing to do with the subject and since the authoritative definition of AV has no relation with the pseudoscience, there should be no dispute. If you think that creating a toxic environment is going to help, you are incorrect. I recommend you to read DR, it describes how to work in case of disagreements with others. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You stated this discussion was regarding applicability of the pseudoscience sanctions and suggested the issue of characterization in the article be taken to Talk:Ayurveda. "since the authoritative definition of AV has no relation with the pseudoscience, there should be no dispute." What authoritative definition of AV? Regardless what matters is "how it is described in reliable sources." AV is described as pseudoscience in multiple reliable sources, a number of which have been presented, quoted and explained here.

Using just the content of the article at this time, pseudoscience is clearly indicated a medicine system with no scientific evidence for efficacy and reliance on the classical five elements is precisely pseudoscience. Do you have a definition that isn't something pretending to be science with no evidence base and underpinnings of concepts long since dismissed by science in a reliable source? Several reliable sources have described ayurveda as precisely that and characterized it as pseudoscience.

I am familar with DR, and WP:DE § WP:IDHT. I have also noticed you have refactored comments after they have been replied to, failed to take any of the sources you claim don't support the proposals to RSN, suddenly jumped away from discussing characterization of ayurveda here when overwhelming evidence was presented after having ongoing discussion of that here. Bringing this to FTN is a part of dispute resolution process. I am not creating a toxic environment I am pointing out to you that it is your behavior that has started to become an issue and this will likely go to the appropriate forum to address that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean you are not going to explain this revert? QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done, on the talk page. Above discussion is probably over, let's keep further discussion there (Talk:Ayurveda). Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

<ref name="SempleSmyth2013">{{cite book|author1=David Semple|author2=Roger Smyth|title=Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=5h9FAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20|date=28 February 2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-101590-8|pages=20–}}</ref> I formatted another source to add to the article. Reliable sources belong in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nofel Izz, Inventor?

• Nofel_Izz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Nofel_Izz#WP:FRINGE_problems?

Izz is a businessman who sold his online recruiting firm, Jobs in Dubai, for $9 million in 2011 according to a published announcement.

He's promoted himself as an inventor, having patented a type of condom wrapper, and actively promoting his designs for an emergency oxygen mask and a space tower. In a recent RfC, multiple editors argued against presenting these inventions, and they've been substantially de-emphasized. However, these comments ( ) bring up points that might be best dealt here, as the inventions appear simplistic to the point that it's likely no science or engineering journalist would ever take them serious enough to even mention them. How should we treat this given we're unlikely to ever have sources beyond his own p.r.? Have similar inventors been discussed here? --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These concerns have been extensively if not exhaustively discussed on the article talk page, particularly under Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, where the consensus is that the article as at revision 629505495 is properly cited with reliable sources and passes WP:NPOV. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That version makes mention of "the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell" which will be nonsense to our readers, so if there's a local consensus in favour of this version of the article it's probably right to kick it upstairs to this noticeboard. Alexbrn 13:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. There's no consensus for such nonsense , but that's for WP:COIN and WP:ANI to address.

So, what has been done with other articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alexbrn, the reliable sources cited and majority of the contributors to the talk page discussions do not think that the mention of the concept of Telescopic Exo Shell in the article is "nonsense to our readers"; note that that revision has since been improved upon, and I have rephrased that particular line too. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not addressing the relevant policy and guideline issues here. You're once again claiming consensus and a majority (which is often irrelevant to consensus-building) despite the majority of editors involved disagreeing. As noted, these problems need to be addressed at WP:COIN and ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My words are quite clear, that the contents are supported by citations to reliable sources, it meets WP:NPOV and passes WP:UNDUE, and of most of the contributors, you alone is consistently disagreeing with this—Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of asserting your "majority" (which appears to include only yourself), you'll have to identify exactly who and how they agree (diffs will suffice). Meanwhile, you've still demonstrated no understanding of the policy/guideline concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-relevant discussions from archives:

• BlackLight Power Company, but we're already rejected Telescopic Exo Shell. One editor just wants to be sure to mention the name "Telescopic Exo Shell" in the article on Izz despite it being a nonsensical phrase.--Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Lamarr as an inventor. In contrast to Izz's claims, hers are well-documented and clearly worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the "inventions" discussed to support their notability. Lack of characterization as "inventor" or discussion of "inventions" in reliable sources. The inclusion of these inventions and the characterization as inventor is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article is now in accordance with wiki rules and guidelines, this is a biographical living person article, there is no need of the significant coverage of a single profession, while the subject has as a whole significant coverage its works and its all activities are covered by third party, it is crystal clear. Persisting and focusing unneeded issue, displays some kind of personal interests under gaming the system and a kind of harassment, it should be stopped.Justice007 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the work, but it's not clear at all how to resolve such concerns, much less that we have done so. Again, it's extremely unlikely anyone is going to take his mask or tower ideas seriously, so we're never going to have any sources beyond his own pr, which is what we have now. As for the patented condom wrapper: WP:PATENTS and the lack of sources beyond his own pr again suggest it deserves little or no mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve

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

The AfD crashed and burned and I'm trying to deal with the damage. So far, we have had no help from editors except to say that because there are inline citations to Salucci's papers, we therefore have a reliable article. (It's total WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). Help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks dreadful but I don't have the physics knowledge to help much. The article is lacking anything about the extent to which these ideas are accepted in science. It also needs in the lede, a short clear statement about what the usual scientific explanation is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, tried the merge again. We'll see if it is accepted this time around. jps (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Series of deletions of skeptical sources and opinions

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

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

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

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

Johrei “purification of the spirit”

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

Need admin on Talk:Homeopathy

We have another SPA User:TineIta who is engaging in disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so forth - in clear violation of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Talk:Homeopathy. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could swing by and verify whether a dope-slap is needed. TIA SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A huge waste of time, with IDHT behavior and fringe POV pushing. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Typically, admins should be alerted either on WP:ANI or WP:AE (if arbitration sanctions are relevant). Anyway, I see the user in question was blocked for 31 hours by an admin for violating discretionary sanctions. jps (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No bureaucracy needed, this can go straight to enforcement by escalating blocks IMO. Having failed to persuade by cherry-picking factoids, the user is now being obdurate and disruptive. We don't need a rule to define how we apply the rules about rules, this is a pretty obvious POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Chelation therapy

A series of edits needs to be examined. The all-caps REDUCED is a dead giveaway of a POV editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Friends of Science

Friends of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yikes. This astroturfing organization has an article which doesn't even seem to indicate that the organization itself is an advocacy group for promoting global warming denial. Probably a victim of the climate change wars of 5 years ago. Should this article exist? Can someone clean it up? I notice it claims certain members who are not currently listed on the website.

Very confusing. Very in need of help.

jps (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on reading the article, they don't deny that Global Warming exists... they simply disagree with the mainstream as to the causes. (not quite the same thing). In any case... given the number of sources in the article, I would say they are notable enough to have an article. They may be fringe, but they are WP:NOTABLE fringe. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Climate change denial" or "global warming denial" can mean a denial of the basic fact of climate change (which is a position that is being gradually pushed further to the fringe) or a denial that human activities are the most important cause: the okay-it's-happening-but-it's-not-our-fault position that most of the old it's-not-happening-at-all groups and special interests have retreated to in their rearguard action against science. (Read "climate change denial" in the same way you would read "AIDS denial"—the latter term doesn't just include individuals who don't believe the disease exists, it also includes the belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

They are pure denialists. The web site boldly says "global warming stopped naturally 16+ years ago" Bhny (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what do people think of this framing ? I am trying to establish the context of this kind of organization. jps (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity Merger

Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride Toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non-WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non-WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE 13:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Bushman

Boyd Bushman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this "Lockheed engineer reveals aliens exist" hoax deserve its own article, or just an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Merger to list of hoaxes. BlueSalix (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This problematic article needs some attention. A Halloween traffic spike has brought in a majority of frivolous Keep votes at the the AfD, so the article is likely staying around -- but is currently a playground for SPA's inserting arguments and original research,frivolously requesting citations for obvious information, and even modifying newspaper quotes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This crap is being spread to other articles via User:HafizHanif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall we first see if it is in fact a hoax before calling it crap? The 'doll' theory is just that until a manufacturer and additional information has been shown... isn't this journalism: to show the facts and let people judge for themselves? The man is who he said he was... and that is the danger in what he has spoken in that video. It is the occupation of some to dispute things by use of harsh language, name-calling and other lowbrow methods instead of letting the facts speak. Let the facts be revealed and learn from them.HafizHanif (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

• Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2010 FTN
• Discussion on the reliablity and use of Skeptic magazine as a source
• Discussion on rewriting controversy section chronologically and including skeptical viewpoint

How do we address cases where a fringe theory has become accepted science/medicine?

While EMDR is now well supported by medical research, but it was highly controversial from its inception in the late 1980s, through the 1990s and beyond, because of its inclusion of eye movements that were not supported by research at the time. Basically, the criticisms were that EMDR was just a combination of techniques that were already known to work, with an eye movement component added to make it appear original.

Recently, research has been published demonstrating the eye movement component has some effect. This has resulted in editors rewriting the article, especially the controversies section, to repeatedly highlight the new research and remove the skeptical viewpoint from the article (the topic is covered by reliable skeptical sources including Quackwatch, Skepdic, and Skeptic). While this is ultimately a NPOV/MEDRS problem, it would be helpful to know how similar problems have been addressed in other Misplaced Pages articles or on this noticeboard. We could also use help going over the medical research to see what criticism's have and have not been addressed by subsequent research. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If sceptics in this case have been proved wrong (which happens in many areas of scholarship), then the scepticiam should be included as part of the history of the reception of the idea. If the sceptical position now seems less likely to be true, we should give the reasons why the latest research suggests that. There are many cases in which matters are unresolved. For example the Homo floresiensis article has had to accommodate an increasing number of theories and arguments on both sides of the debate. The difficulty is knowing on what basis to give due weight to differing views. Paul B (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Anyone know of a MEDRS example? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Lawton

Having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this guy. Goblin Face (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he's the Architect of Rational Spirituality, a radical new "evidenced based" model of the soul - which seems to mean the usual paraphenalia of 'psychic research': lots of tales of out-of-body experiences and memories of past lives. His work has been acclaimed by luminaries such as "pioneering regression therapists" Edith Fiore and Hans TenDam. There're certainly lots of references to him in spirity-new-agey literature, but I can find nothing in sources beyond that. Looks like a candidate for AFD. Paul B (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake; activities of Iantresman, etc.

An official representative for Sheldrake (maybe himself?) has opened a thread with some concerns, and of course they should be taken seriously and treated civilly. We need more eyes.

• Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_this_article_via_Rupert_Sheldrake_directly

I also wonder if Iantresman is violating his topic ban in that thread? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to ask on WP:AE for an answer to the last question.

The focus on the lede is understandable, but the focus on the sources for the lede is not. The lede is supposed to summarize the article and so people should make references to the parts of the article which the lede is referencing and argue about the sources in the article body. jps (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, re-retiring. jps (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda again

Here is a new proposal without the misplaced ref. Is there any reason to exclude this now based on Misplaced Pages policy? Talk:Ayurveda#Reliable sources added is the old discussion. A new discussion is at Talk:Ayurveda#Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If its a new proposal should it be discussed on the article talk page before it comes to a NB?(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

It appears as though the purpose for posting on this noticeboard was to solicit input in that discussion. -Location (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

More sources for expanding the article can be found at Talk:Ayurveda#Characterization of ayurveda as pseudoscience in sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That extensive post was removed because of copyright concerns. I have reposted the sources only. The original post is still in history. I am not posting a diff here until the copyright concerns have been addressed. Some content from these sources belongs in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEGOAT

I wrote this essay to fill a little niche in the ecosystem of essays. Maybe the niche is already covered by an existing essay, or maybe it would be better as part of an existing essay, or maybe what it says is best left unsaid. In any case feedback/contributions are welcome. vzaak 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No complaints from me. That has been written well. Goblin Face (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson

New Editor deleting mass chunks of the article and accusing Misplaced Pages editors of being biased. Goblin Face (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

She's now at 4RR. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Also see the related Xenoglossy. IP keeps inserting links to psychical journals and massive undue weight to paranormal books. Goblin Face (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as jihadist

There's a running debate over multiple threads over the past month regarding how to deal with the term "jihadist" as a descriptor for militant group ISIL/ISIS. This descriptor is widely used in Western sources without qualification, however it is used by Al-Jazeera with "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers. A collective of 126 Islamic scholars that published an open letter described in the ISIL#Criticism section saying that the group's actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality".

The currently active discussion can be found here. The choices, as I understand it, come down to how much weight should be given to this issue; whether is should be prominent in the lead, in the lead but in an {{efn}}, or just left as is in the #Criticism section. I recently introduced the idea that the Fringe guidelines may apply and we are looking for guidance as to how much weight this concept should be given.~Technophant (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WP:FRINGE applies. There isn't any fringe theory being advocated. It's really a question of vocabulary and language more than anything else. jps (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anybody else that has a different opinion on this? There seems to be parts of the guideline that could be helpful in this matter.~Technophant (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Near-death experience

New user adding spiritualist books to the lead and claiming "neuroscientists generally assume" or are making assumptions that the NDE is hallucination. Typical rant on the talk-page about 'bias' or skeptical sources in the article or about "materialism". The talk-page also reeks of sock-puppets. Any extra eyes on this appreciated. Goblin Face (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Functional medicine

Primary sources being used to insert content. Some eyes would help. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Danube civilization

As far as I can tell, this is something sourced to basically fringe sources (from the archaeological perspective), mainly followers of Gimbutas with no archaeological qualifications. It's certainly a mess of original research with most of the sources and linked articles not mentioning a "Danube Civilization". Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You will not recognize any of the sources? I think that if you read the sources there will be no doubt. You will not recognize serious people working on the subject. You will not recognize that the terms Danube civilization and Old Europe are the same thing, just different names (depending of the scholar). You make it sound like it is me trying to make up some kind of fantasy?

Mihail Videyko is a leading expert on Trypillian culture and are employed at Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine. Do you not recognize him when he writes about Old Europe (the same thing as Danube civilization). In this source called "When we were in Old Europe"

Quoting him -

"Let’s start with the fact that “Old Europe” was initially constructed not by political scientists, politicians or even by journalists, but… by archeologists. This term has existed for a few decades and it is applied to quite different territories of our continent and in terms of time cultures which are considered to belong to Old Europe are separated from modern times by lots of time which amounts to six or eight millenniums. The civilized part of that “first” Old Europe included the eastern part of the Apennine peninsula, the Balkans, the territory of modern Hungary, the CzechRepublic, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and part of the territory of Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Dnieper. Its separate oases also existed beyond the mentioned above borders and were connected, first of all, with the expansion of the bearers of the Neolithic culture of Linear Band Pottery. The Cucuteni-Trypillian civilization which is more known in Ukraine as the Trypillian archeological culture was part of Old Europe"

On page 17 you can see a map of Old Europe with the different cultures.

Do you not recognize the Brukenthal National Museum Sibiu where they write about the Danube civilization several times? One needs to understand that this civilization are known under different names, Old Europe or Danube civilization, Danube valley cultures and it consisted of many sub cultures like the Trypillian, Vinca, Varna and so on. Lactasamir (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So Lactasmir is now saying he created an article on the same subject as Old Europe (archaeology), an article that he knows exists. But his citing the paper above by Marco Merlini just proves my point that his main sources are fringe and not archaeologists. Merlini trained as a political scientist although he does have a PhD in “Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script” - not archaeology again. - and like several of Lactasmir's sources, is from this "Institute of Archaeomythology" which promotes some of Marija Gimbutas's ideas and seems to have no one on its board who is actually an archaeologist. Lactasmir, besides having problems with copyvio, doesn't seem to accept that sources must actually discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into me versus you Dougweller :) Please don't try to make me the bad guy here. you mention problems with copyvio? not anymore. I work hard not to copyvio and the last couple of months there have been none to my knowledge, and if there been some it is not intentionally. And please stop making it sound like the Institute of Archaeomythology are some kind of sect followers of Marija Gimbutas. She is a very respected scholar. And you disrespecting the members. I feel that you harassing me a little bit and I don't like it, I makes me fell very unpleasant. I have always been nice to you and other Wikipedians. As I told you before i am disabled and it is very hard for me just to be a part of Misplaced Pages without any help. So please when you write that i am poor in English, and that i dont' posses the knowledge about a subject, or that the article about the Danube civilization is a mess, it makes me very sad. I don't want to use more time in this discussion, it's to hard. I think it is very sad that there are no place for me in here without you correcting many of the edits i do.

If there are consesnsus then just merge the Danube civilization into Old Europe, i think there is a lot of good information. It is not because i don't want to discuss it anymore, but i can't, to hard. Have a nice day my friend :) Lactasamir (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand the points Dougweller is trying to make. His comments have nothing to do with being a bad guy, being nice or feeling sad. There is already an article on Old Europe, the english expression in Danube civilization is poor and the cited references are either not up to WP standards or don't use the term in question. So why have it?Nickm57 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. If the subject of the 'Danube civilization' article is the same thing as the 'Old Europe (archaeology)' article, we don't need another one, regardless of the legitimacy of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Byrzynski

I'm wondering what's really going on here with all these solo edits. There is no collaborative editing occurring here:

Diff of thirteen+ edits, ending with an "under construction" template, but no activity. I want to AGF, but this needs more eyes. Some of the edit summaries, especially the first one (23:22, November 7, 2014‎ ), are dubious, if not worse. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been suspicious, but hadn't found specifics before going to bed last night. we'll see. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Veganism

This article has plainly had a lot of care taken with it, but some aspects make me uneasy from a WP:FRINGE perspective. For example:

• The old idea that a vegan diet "prevent, and might reverse, certain chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers" is floated, but not framed within a mainstream context (The American Cancer Society, e.g. counsel that reliance on vegetarian-type diets is obviously not a good idea).
• Some of the sourcing seems a bit iffy. Sanjay Gupta's senationally-entitled TV programme "The Last Heart Attack" is given space (albeit for no outright medical claims). But is that due?
• We hear a lot about "disagreement within the vegan community" over whether the diet typically requires vitamin supplementation. But I get no clear sense of what the mainstream medical view on this question is (assuming there is one!)
• The main health section is entitled "Health arguments" and begins with a nutritionist informing us of "growing body of scientific evidence" in favour of the vegan diet. This is backed by a foureight-works-in-one bundled reference covered by a editorial note saying that in some works "vegetarian" can be read to mean "vegan".

Would appreciate other views on whether there is anything here that should concern this noticeboard. Alexbrn 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Theories on the Front Page?

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

The "On This Day" hook for today's anniversary of Dorothy Kilgallen's death looks really dicey to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed this. Per Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/November 8, the hook is:

"1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse, in what was rumored to be a murder because of information she had regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination."

I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the application of the specific guidelines regarding "On This Day", but it appears as though this would fail WP:OTDRULES #3 (i.e. "The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance"), particularly since the idea that Kilgallen's death was a "suspicious" is a fringe theory started two years after her death. This appears to have originated with conspiracy theorists Mark Lane (author) and Penn Jones, Jr. and unquestionably spread by her biographer, Lee Israel; all of these sources are unreliable enough that their statements normally would require at least in-text attribution. Misplaced Pages should primarily reflect mainstream views and the mainstream explanation for her death was a combination of alcohol and barbiturates, and it was uncertain as to whether this was suicide or accidental. If Misplaced Pages is to keep this entry, it should state:

"1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates."

It appears as though this was initially added by TheCustomOfLife on November 7, 2004 (diff). Gentgeen, Zzyzx11, and Howcheng (all administrators) have been involved with editing the entry and moving it in and out of the queue, so I'm pinging them here in the event they wish to contribute. - Location (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's understandable that OTD would wish to attract readership with snappy prose, but they should not be using fringe theories as a form of journalistic "hook". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If they want the conspiracy theory hook, they should at least be up front about it: "1965 – American journalist Dorothy Kilgallen was found dead in her New York City townhouse from a combination of alcohol and barbiturates. Her death would later lead to conspiracy theories that she was murdered because she had information regarding controversial stories such as the John F. Kennedy assassination." Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's too wordy. —howcheng {chat} 06:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, once you redact the fringe stuff there is nothing there that merits mention on the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. - Location (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Surely there's much more notable things that happened on this day. Kilgallen was a notable journalist who should have an article, but her death is not an event that is even remotely comparable to the other events selected for that day. Why not replace it with this much more notable event: " The Bodleian Library, one of Europe's oldest libraries, opened at the University of Oxford." Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• On a side note I have added a Fringe Theories tag to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology‎

This new article was nominated for deletion, but the template removed. I'm not sure if this is notable enough, or if it's good. Take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

National UFO Reporting Center

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National UFO Reporting Center

Seems like almost like a WP:VANITY article to me.

jps (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are enough reliable sources that it would pass WP:ORG. - Location (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wales UFO sightings

Wales UFO sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should this article exist?

jps (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. Fails WP:EVENT due to the lack of persistent coverage in reliable sources. - Location (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tinley Park Lights

Tinley Park Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can anyone find any WP:FRIND sources that would justify this article?

jps (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cape Girardeau UFO crash. - Location (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay: jps (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Just a heads up, on Talk:Ebola virus disease, there have been recent attempts to have various "hypotheses" and "traditional approaches" to ebola treatment added to the article, based on minimal/unreliable sourcing. It would be helpful if people could spend some time looking over articles and talk pages related to ebola, ebola treatment and ebola outbreaks to ensure that fringe theories are not being smuggled in to them. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Arcacha Smith

Sergio Arcacha Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of the first article was sought by Jim Garrison during his investigation of the assassination of JFK and the Trial of Clay Shaw. This was reported in the papers of the time and, as with almost everything else associated with assassination, made its way into the HSCA report. And if it's in the HSCA report, it makes it way into conspiracy books. As far as I can tell, the only way to make an article out of this is using either primary sources or fringe sources. Redirect to List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw? Thoughts? (Articles based on all of this are: Friends of Democratic Cuba, Crusade to Free Cuba Committee, and Cuban Revolutionary Council.) Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No significance outside of being named in trial records and the HSCA report, and what little there is can be covered at List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw. Redirected per WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Plane (esotericism)

Article is a serious mess and a problem with fringe claims. I have to admit the article is rather an embarrassment. No reliable sources on this article, only occult or credulous 'esoteric' books being cited. The article reads like 'factual' or an advert with these planes with fairies or spiritual beings on actually existing. I am not sure what to do here, I would suggest nuking a lot of the article and weeding out some of the dubious claims, not sure what would be left though? I doubt there are any mainstream scientific sources that have evaluated these fringe about different occult planes. The article seems to mostly use theosophy sources, not really reliable. There may be a struggle to find good sources. Any suggestions here? Goblin Face (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How bout this for a solution? jps (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that solution, in fact I would have suggested something similar. The problem is that many occult fans who edit these types of article related to spiritual planes will probably revert you. If this happens I will talk it to afd and see what others think. Goblin Face (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the source itself, but Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Parapsychology/Encyclopedic articles indicates that the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, 4th edition, ed. J. Gordon Melton, Gale, 1996, ISBN 0-8103-5487-X has an article entitled "Worlds, planes or spheres (theosophy)" which might be of some use. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The article needs work, but it is a notable subject in the context of a number of religious/philosphical systems. Redirecting to a narrower article is not a good idea. A better solution would be copyedit for a more encyclopedic tone and better sources.- MrX 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Xenoglossy

Fringe claims sourced to psychic journals being added to this article by 74.195.244.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has consistently re-added these fringe sources a number of times after being asked to seek consensus first (see talk-page). Goblin Face (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution