Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 25 September 2015

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.

Faith Healing

Join the discussion at Talk:Faith_healing#Pseudoscience_inclusion Raymond3023 (talk)

Earth system science

Earth system science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be some unduly weighted borderline material in this article which seems to spend quite a bit of time discussing the Gaia hypothesis which, depending on how deeply you dig, may or may not be a bit fringe-y itself (certainly some of Lynn Margulis's and James Lovelock's ideas after a time were way out on a limb).

Anyway, some experienced editors would be welcome at that page to see what, if anything, they can do to improve it.

jps (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Earth system science" is a real thing, and the first three sentences of the article make a fair description. But it goes downhill pretty fast from there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird ideas become the BLP's main focus

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

I was alerted to this WP:FRINGEBLP issue today. Is it really the case that this politician's peculiar ideas are what we need to spend most of the article discussing?

jps (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Homo Naledi critisism and science denialism" The section name has sources. It should be moved. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It does rather look like WP:UNDUE given the length of the article. However, the comments are well sourced and the politician stuck to his guns, so the claims deserve a mention. QuackGuru's remark "It should be moved." begs the question: "where to?" Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It might help if someone could expand the article. If this is the only thing that this politician is notable for then we might consider deleting the article. If the politician is notable for more, then spending most of the article on this incident makes the article read like some sort of hit piece. jps (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As an MP, he's notable under WP:POLITICIAN (and he would be for his position within the ANC or premiership alone as well). Kolbasz (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry Dossey

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

This article was brought to my attention by a fantastic new editor A little angry (talk · contribs). I see the issue: the WP:FRINGEBLP exists in a space where much of the sourcing is laudatory of his fringe claims. If people could help clean it up a bit (having a "reception" section in a BLP is a bit weird, for starters, but I'm not sure what more can be done).

jps (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this. I think Dossey is important because he is a well known pseudoscience proponent like Rupert Sheldrake. There is a big piece by Victor Stenger and a physician Jeffrey Bishop that heavily criticizes Dossey for abusing quantum physics, misrepresenting medical studies etc

Retroactive Prayer: Lots Of History, Not Much Mystery, And No Science, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Victor J. Stenger. British Medical Journal. Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1444-1446. There are also three negative reviews for his books in the Skeptical Inquirer. So far I only added one. I can help on this article but there will be a lot of criticism in the article about Dossey's pseudoscientific ideas. The user who created the article may object to me doing this (so far he seems to want the article 'balanced' with positive things about Dossey from mainly newspapers), so I will hold for now. See what other users think. I don't want to write an entirely negative bio for this guy but practically all the scientific sources written by experts dismiss him as a quack. I found some positive things about his books in religious journals but these don't seem that reliable to me. A little angry (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what's missing is a section describing what specific fringe concepts Dossey is advocating. A "reception" section can then be useful to show the response to these fringe concepts from science-based medicine using WP:FRIND sources such as the journal above. The newspaper stuff (which I see includes opinions from Oprah) can be contained in a Popular culture section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The British Medical Journal is a good source, but you have to be careful with the Skeptical Inquirer as it's not an academic journal. 95.89.18.195 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian thinkers in science

Is this list questionable? It seems to have little encyclopedic value, given there's minimal evidence for the majority of them that Christianity had any connection with their work, or even that they had any significant writings on Christianity. Adam Cuerden 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it even specifically notable as per WP:NOTABILITY? John Carter (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. nominated. Adam Cuerden 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of Things That Misplaced Pages Is Not that could be applied here. But the topic of the article has clearly received substantial coverage by reliable and independent sources. If it is not notable, then why is List of atheists in science and technology notable? Most of them didn't write anything substantial about that topic. The existence of the other lists necessitates this list, especially for the pre-modern era where all Europeans were Christian by default. (This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF; it means that without this list every scientist born before 1700 was Jewish or Muslim.) Roches (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of the people on here are actually notable Christian thinkers? I'll grant you Hildegard of Bergen and Isaac Newton. Name ten others from 1401 and later. Adam Cuerden 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the talk page about whether the article is a list of scientists who were notable Christian thinkers or a list of scientists who were Christians. I think it is the latter. List of Christian scientists redirects to this article, but that phrase is associated with Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. Changing the title, or changing the introductory content, could be done without deleting the article. Roches (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an irredeemable mess. Newton is listed but he was a natural philosopher not a scientist, and he actually refused to take Holy Orders even though it was, at that time, mandatory for metriculation from Cambridge (he did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity). There's an interesting intersection between Christianity and science in the Jesuit community, the Pope has a science degree, but this is not an article about that, it's an article that seeks to show that there is no incompatibility between science and religious dogma based on fallacious appeals to authority, syllogistic fallacies and begging the question. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST:

• List of Buddhist thinkers in science
• List of Islamic thinkers in science
• List of Jewish thinkers in science
• List of Hindu thinkers in science
• List of Zoroastrian thinkers in science
• List of Sikh thinkers in science
• List of Shinto thinkers in science
• List of Deistic thinkers in science
• List of New Age thinkers in science

jps (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was kept on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT, removal of the philosophers and natural philosophers was reverted on the basis that people want to present all of scientific thought since forever as being science, a move to list of scientists with Christian faith was reverted for no reason at all. This article is a festering sore. The group of editors who own it seem to think there is no problem at all with calling Isaac Newton a Christian thinker despite his rejection of the Trinity, refusal to take holy orders, and the consensus of sources that he was deist not a Christian, oh and byb the way he was a mathematician and natural philosopher not a scientist. This article is WP:SYN from the title down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking that this is something which might have to be taken to DRN or ANI myself. I am the first to say that for all I know there might be notability for the topic, maybe, but I haven't seen anything which addresses the matter of of criteria for inclusion or exclusivon. That being the case, this looks to me like having some serious behavior issues involved which probably have to be addressed somewhere by some independent parties. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an instance where AfD was probably not the best answer, though WP:TNT is tempting when an article is as BAD as this one. I started going through and removing unrelated commentary and poorly sourced material. There is a lot of it. Realize that to be included on the list the person has to be referenced in a third-party source as (1) being in science and technology and (2) having prominent Christian beliefs that third-party sources have identified as relevant to their notability. Otherwise, remove the people. Also, a lot of the commentary that is being included in the article is irrelevant. This is a list so WP:MOSLIST we should follow. jps (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Church incited martyrdom

User:BlackCab has used a WP:SYNTH from a variety of critical ex-Jehovah's Witnesses sources and secular sources to make a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that "The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God". He has reverted my recent edit accusing me of an SPA (which has been notified to admin page) and belittling my concerns in the talk page. There is no evidence given in the sources how the leadership instructed JWs to pursue martyrdom. Its a blatant Synthesis. He combines source from three ex-JWs and two secular sources not peer reviewed to make a single false claim in the main article of JWs. I want to notify this here. ----Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The single sentence to which he objects is properly sourced and I have provided quotes on the talk page. It is not synth and this is no fringe theory. It is a statement of belief by a range of respected authors (and William Schnell, a polemicist whose work is widely cited by other authors). Roller958 neglects to state that he is a JW who has claimed that this statement is untrue because Jehovah's Witnesses don't know about it. If he is relying on the Watch Tower Society as his sole source of information in life, he is in deep trouble. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Roller958: Black Cab is right, you are wrong. The content is well sourced, you are a single purpose account. That's about all there is to say here other than that if you keep it up you'll likely be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on the reliable sources noticeboard as there is no relevant fringe theory as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that a person's opinion on a subjective matter cannot be subject to peer review. Roches (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallbladder (Chinese medicine)

• Gallbladder (Chinese medicine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While looking for GA articles related about animal products used in alt med (to assist in a rewrite of Velvet antler), I found this stub article. "...This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture. So, to avoid conflict and to keep an open mind, one must realize that these notions evolved in a different culture and are a different way of viewing the human body."

I think a complete rewrite is in order. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MiHsC

Thoughts and comments welcome.

jps (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations

Another article that is a synthesis, in my opinion. Please comment.

jps (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Look at this article. The lede includes nothing about the fact that water fluoridation is perhaps one of the most successful public health initiatives ever undertaken (where it hasn't bee sabotaged by pseudoscientific conspiracy theorists). The entire thing treats the conspiracy theorists as though they have a valid point. Can we get some help here?

jps (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has established many articles that IMHO were created to appease a virulent anti-fluoridation crowd. Water fluoridation is a strong article that remains well curated because the antifluoridation advocates have not been able to find WP:MEDRS sources that would make fluoridation anything but a major medical breakthrough. The antifluoridation groups are (fortunately for those supporting fluoridation) scientifically illterate so they are having trouble articulating what they feel so strongly about/against. The trade-off is that since the antifluoridation advocates cannot make any headway on the main article, many subsidiary niggling articles have been created:

• Fluoride therapy
• Fluoride poisoning
• Fluorine deficiency
• Water fluoridation controversy
• Dental fluorosis
• Skeletal fluorosis
• History of water fluoridation
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Water fluoridation in Australia
• Fluoridation by country

So that is my view. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I just stepped into a scene from Dr. Strangelove? On a more serious note, this is clearly POV pushing on a large scale. A lot of these articles should be trimmed or simply merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They are unlikely to be merged, as they are mostly fringe gumf they wont be allowed into the main articles due to lack of reliable sourcing and scientific support. Or any science at all in some cases. It would be like trying to merge Homeopathy into cancer treatments... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought Dr. Strangelove should be mentioned earlier in the article, because the fluoridation conspiracy is presented in that film as patently insane. Now, the Soviet Union fluoridated its water, but I guess there's nothing stopping them from using a Commie mind control plot on their own people, provided that it turns people into Communists. That would also explain why they stopped fluoridating in 1990. No Communism, no fluoride. Or maybe it had something to do with the economic collapse of the USSR. When water fluoridation is discontinued, it's for economic reasons. The article doesn't say that at all, as far as I can tell. When the program was introduced, people drank more tap water than they do now, and had less access to 'targeted' fluoridation from toothpaste and dentist visits. The changes mean that people get enough fluoride from other sources, so it's no longer cost-effective to fluoridate all the tap water. Roches (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic pharmacy

• Anthroposophic pharmacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure this is needed in addition to Anthroposophic medicine, but from the current article you'd hardly know that the underlying concepts were as absurd as they are, as reported in non-fringe RS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is one of those cases where no WP:MEDRS sources have covered the subject at all (because it's, well, patently ridiculous); a PubMed search for "anthroposophic pharmacy" gives just a single hit, and it's irrelevant (a literature review where anthroposophic drugs were excluded). A merge to anthroposophic medicine might be best, especially since it's the only article linking to it. Kolbasz (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that sticking a cow horn in the ground does not induce magical properties? Shame your your narrow-minded reductionist so-called "science". Guy (Help!) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

This AfD was closed "no consensus". I find the article Self-creation cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to still be very problematic. We need either a cleanup or a new AfD, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I offer this redirect as an option for how to handle the situation. jps (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Aaaaand nonsense pushback. jps (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari

Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this talk page could use some more eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad - discovered America in 889?

Anyone want to rewrite this which presents a person in a story as real? was removed as a source for a critical comment, but the only fact is that Al-Masudi presents this as a story known by every Spaniard and that Al-Masudi casts doubt upon the possibility of crossing the Atlantic before mentioning this story. Doug Weller (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See for a source of one of the quotes, which doesn't seem accurately reported. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. What exactly is the point of contention? From what I can see here he sailed "east" from Delhi to somewhere, maybe Oceania, Hawaii, the island from Lost, some damn place, anyway. Or is it, maybe, a question regarding notahility of the article itself, which, honestly, I'm not really sure is necessarily established? John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither notability nor is the question of whether this person ever lived is established, but the article is written as though there is no doubt that he existed. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen on google some books discussing this subject, but only in the context of either the book which mentions it or the claim to having discovered America or something. The other relevant article on this topic seems to be Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, but this individual doesn't seem to be mentioned in the "Claims of Arab contact" sect8ion, assuming Aswad was an Arab of course. Maybe add a sentence or two to that article regarding this claim and then nominate it for deletion as non-notable? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution