Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:27, 20 April 2016

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.

Fire needle acupuncture

• Fire needle acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amazingly, passed AfD. There is now resistance to using decent sources (Cochrane) and having a pseudoscience category. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That does not remove it from notability. Valoem 22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger, yet again

Got some activity at Michael Greger again (deletion of skepticism, addition of health claims) which could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Much in need of more peer reviewed science links not personal opinions from blogs.Timpicerilo (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Now got criticism from Science-Based Medicine being removed by a suspiciously fresh a/c. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And now an IP is removing criticism ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disturbingly little criticism, agreed... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatment techniques

Diversified technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An article may be appropriate for this topic. Diversified is the most commonly used form of thrust joint manipulation used by DCs, PTs, and OTs; diversified is taught in all chiropractic schools internationally and is the form of manipulation being taught in 97% of PT schools in the US today; almost every study on spine manipulation published to date has been looking at diversified thrust joint manipulation.

I recommend a merge to Chiropractic treatment techniques. A quick AFD discussion can resolve the debate. Same with the other techniques below. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• No merge, this type of merge discussion and all the following below are best of AfD. Sources determine notability. Each article needs individual attention and possible expansion. It would be hard to avoid bias if these discussions are clumped into one. Valoem 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Valoem, there are zero independent sources in the article. If it were nominated for deletion it would probably be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonstead technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not notable on it's own. Used as a primary approach by only a small percentage of US chiropractors, very little clinical research of spinal manipulation available that uses Gonstead approach specifically.

This admittedly a little dated reference claims use of Gonstead by 58% of (presumably American) practitioners. Mangoe (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This strongly passed AfD, there for is notable. Valoem 03:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is still a stub. There is plenty of room in the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

Neuro Emotional Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It was nominate for deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neuro Emotional Technique. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NUCCA

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Trigenics

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Activator technique

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

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference above claims 62% of practitioners use it. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques. Should it be nominated for AFD? QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sources found Secondary sources found News Day, , Orthospinology Procedures: An Evidence-based Approach to Spinal Care. No merge expansion needed. Valoem 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that there's basically two sentences of content (the quote looks frivolous), it looks very mergable if there's somewhere appropriate to put it.

• Newsday link: A random reader's letter to the editor in the opinion pages is not a reliable source.
• Book link: There's zero meaningful content there. Two completely empty passing mentions.
• Chiroeco link: I don't know what reputation it has for reliability, but as a website of long running print magazine the default expectation is that it qualifies as RS. However it's hard to tell if that's supposed to be an actual magazine article. 1/3 of the way through the tone switches to some sort of personal testimonial. Very strange. Alsee (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sports chiropractic

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

Unreliable sources everywhere. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This article also reads like an advertisement. Geogene (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is plain garbage. Misplaced Pages is being misused for advertisement. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The is a huge field. Try a little next time please. And there are references here which clear by MEDRS. Valoem 03:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique (again)

Koren Specific Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I propose merging into Chiropractic treatment techniques. If it survives AFD then we can still merge it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we get it. Valoem 03:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is a stub like Gonstead technique. There is a lack of reliable sources for a separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A merge was proposed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was unsuccessful. Stubs are allowed, without them ever being expanded, although that is welcome. I smell deletionism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated "Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus."

User:ProgrammingGeek stated "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." See WP:STUB. There is no mention of it in the main article. User:BullRangifer, a merge is better than another AFD that could result in deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic neurology

Chiropractic neurology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I ended up on this one somehow after visiting sports chiropractic. Same issues as all of the above. Just wanted to add it to the list so I don't forget about it. Will comment more on discussion below. PermStrump(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles

• Comment With a polite nod to QuackGuru's long record of fighting pseudo-scientific medical nonsense on the project, I am not altogether clear as to what exactly brings all of these articles, flawed though many are, to FTN. Is there an assertion that they are all promoting some kind of pseudoscience or other Fringe Theory? Just wondering... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is suggesting that these fringe articles could all be merged into one, called chiro treat techs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropracty is a fringe subject (based on pseudoscience and BS, but incorporating a small bit of actual medicine). That being said, I'm not sure that different techniques within it are non-notable. There are a lot of chiropractors out there and they have a lot of patients. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Medical quackery and pseudoscience is not one of my strong subject areas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge all the techniques into Chiropractic treatment techniques. For example, each technique can be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with merging most chiropractic techniques. Like someone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if certain techniques are notable enough for their own spinoff article, but Koren Specific Technique, chiropractic neurology and sports chiropractic should be on the short list to merge-ville. Ad Orientem, I had no idea how much quackery there was to chiropractic until, like, last week. When I've seen a chiropractor, she never said anything to me about their alternate definition of "subluxation" or the other really foo-foo woo-woo sounding things that are apparently a major part of chiropractic philosophy. I think I'll still pop in to see my chiropractor from time-to-time (she's different, I swear), but it's definitely a field that attracts a lot of fringier fringe on top of the base fringe. At its core, it's not accepted by the medical community anyway, but it's sort of "mainstream" in the sense that a lot of normal people go to chiropractors and like them and there's at least validity to the techniques they use that overlap with PT and DOs. But the people using those techniques aren't the ones beating down the door to create vanity articles on WP. PermStrump(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: this podcast interviews a retired psychiatrist turned debunker who says pretty much the same thing you just did. I just thought you might be interested in this. Don't let the channel or podcast name fool you: this episode is about exactly what the episode name suggests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also OK with the merger, as what we have is a bunch of short articles when it would be better to see them together, for comparison's sake. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Support merger to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. Most of these haven't enough notability for standalone articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I spotted another page. Spinal_adjustment#Adjustment_techniques is similar to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. I think Spinal adjustments are for techniques in general while Chiropractic treatment techniques is for only Chiropractic techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• No merge, sources suggest this is notable, some are notable quackery others have legitimate studies. It is ridiculous to clump all these into one discussion. Valoem 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Before an editor creates a new article the main page should be expanded first otherwise the new article could be considered a FORK, especially if there are few reliable sources on the topic.. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I dislike like the idea that if any editor who fails to have a subject delete, can "merge" the subject, also nearly every editor here has voted to the delete the subjects in the past. BullRangifer and DGG, is this neutral editing? Valoem 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem, you restored the unreliable sources and disputed content against consensus. Is that appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is that undisputed against consensus. Valoem 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Violation_of_consensus. The diffs show you restored unreliable sources against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• These articles should be merged to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques because there is insufficient material based on reliable secondary sources to cover them separately. Keeping them as separate articles encourages people to pad them out with fringe health claims with sources that completely fail WP:MEDRS, as shown, for example, at Koren Specific Technique. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is wrong, WP:MEDRS does not have to apply to notable quackery. The article is also neutral with various criticism of the subject. AfD was used to determine sources are adequate for a stand alone article. Valoem 20:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to padding like "technique is considered to be gentle and safe"—that is a medical claim and requires WP:MEDRS. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that MEDRS sources are even needed for Johnuniq's example above, as long as the source is attributed. EG: "The developer of the technique describes it as gentle and safe" would be perfectly reasonable IMO with a source from the developer. It is good for an encyclopedia article to provide descriptions from attributed 'in-universe' sources. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:85F:DAD1:53CE:674A (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I edited Koran specific technique, to make it less pro-fringe. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion. See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Selective_merge. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Diversified technique

Gonstead technique

Atlas Orthogonal Technique

Koren Specific Technique

I think these are the top four to merge. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposes merger Misplaced Pages:Does deletion help - best to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory over leaving our readers to search the web for said information.--Moxy (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Does deletion help is not applicable. There is plenty of room in the main article. Before a new page is created it should be expanded in the main page. This is not what happened. Koren Specific Technique is not mentioned in the Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Techniques section. The Techniques section is a vey short and can be expanded.

Diversified technique contains only two sources and both are non-independent sources.

Gonstead technique contains only two independent sources.

Atlas Orthogonal Technique contains only two sources.

Koren Specific Technique contains only four independent sources. All four pages could easily be deleted. I want to preserve the content and merge it to one page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed

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

Fans of Andy Wakefield's anti-vaccine conspiracy propaganda film are infesting this article. More eyes, please. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

On it. 24.61.145.145 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

Does the opening sentence over-attribute the mainstream view, with too many qualifiers? It seems odd, at the least, to write:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

After a closer look I agree that the wording was problematic. I see you have fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Does it really need the "Infobox paranormal term"? That thing seems to be a leftover POV workaround from when someone was going around trying to define things according to a paranormal dictionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In related news Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Template:Infobox_paranormal_term. jps (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert Bruce (author)

Robert Bruce (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't tell if this person has any notability outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, but if he's notable within the fringe bubble, that may be enough to warrant his own page. However, we need reliable secondary sources for that, and the article appears to be built upon primary sources (the writings of the guy, himself), and so may end up at AfD real soon. It's been tagged already, but if no-one finds any sources, I'll put it up for deletion myself in a few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

His name is really common, so that makes it hard to search for him without being too broad or too specific. I did searches for "robert bruce" "out of body" and "robert bruce" obe in the database of journals my work subscribes to. With or without the "peer-reviewed only" filter, there are 2 hits. Both mentions are in book reviews written by Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi (odd?). The first one is a passing mention in the Journal of Conscientiology (AFD/Journal of Conscientiology) from 2009. de Bianchi says Bruce was talked about more in the book he was reviewing though (Astral Projections by Michael Ross). The second one, also a book review by di Bianchi, this time in the Journal of Scientific Exploration from 2013, talks about Bruce for a whole paragraph in the context of praising the book's author for refuting some of Bruce's hypotheses in a 2002 letter to the editor of... the Journal of Conscientiology. Apparently my library only has online access to Conscientiology for the years 2008 and 2009, so disappointingly, I could not access this letter. Letters to the editor don't go through the peer review process anyway, so regardless of the caliber (hehe) of peer review that usually happens at a journal called "Journal of Conscientiology," it wouldn't apply to that source. I'm thinking there's no way this guy passes WP:NBIO. PermStrump(talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree. I did a google search for Robert Bruce "out of body" and got nothing but breathy praise from non-notable fringe sources and harsh criticism from non-notable skeptics. And -of course- the WP page was the second link, right after the amazon page for his book with the obe phrase in the title. I think it may be time to do an AfD. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ADHD controversies

This article is full of Scientology fringe and all sorts of other fringe. I've been trying to work on it, but it's a beast, so I could use help if anyone has time. It doesn't look like anyone is necessarily paying attention to my edits... at least not yet. PermStrump(talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a controversy article, so let me rephrase... There's a lot of fringe views that need to be revised per NPOV and WEIGHT, but I guess some of them belong with the right context. Some of it is just ridiculous (e.g. Hunter vs. farmer hypothesis -- an article I'll have to take a look at later). PermStrump(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It does look like there is a soft pushing of views and opinions that are outside of mainstream science and medicine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "soft" before I posted this. :) I tried to take out the obvious stuff, but I still need to go back and it's really long. I don't even know what the second half says yet. PermStrump(talk) 03:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on deleting fringe science here as well, my main problem is that the "Financial Conflicts of Intrest", Which pushes fringe science, is pretty cleverly worded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Birthday effect

This isn't fringe per se but it touches on a lot of the kinds of problems we deal with in research. It's a statistical appearance that people are more likely to die within a few days of their birthday (and there appear to be Christmas and Passover effects as well)— except that some studies show it and some don't. From the one study I could readily see into the effect is very small. Someone who is more familiar with dealing with this sort of research than I am could help sort this out. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal reports

Needs eyes. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it MMR vaccine controversy or MMR vaccine conspiracy theory?

Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Rename article

Some outside input may be helpful there.

jps (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory, as it has been thoroughly discredited by science. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory is quite a loaded term which is largely a perjorative term. Being concerned about the effects of MMR vaccination and also the effects of other vaccines, and their proliforation, vaccines such as Gardasil doesn't connote or imply any "conspiracy" or "theory". Controversy is the more neutral term. Probrooks (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Activated phenolics

Revitalizer created a new page called Activated phenolics, a concept that falls outside current thinking about the physiological fate of ingested polyphenols ("phenolics"). Although research is extensive on potential physiological and anti-disease effects of polyphenols, there exists no in vivo evidence that they survive metabolism and extensive rapid excretion to play any significant role in the body, let alone being "activated" (no definition for how this occurs). In my opinion, this content is not worthy of article status.

Revitalizer uses old citations, mostly weak in substance, to support what seems to be a WP:OR theory certainly on the fringe of current science. Possibly, this is a student science project -- the user is a new contributor to Misplaced Pages as of Feb 2016.

I provided feedback on the user's Talk page, then transferred the discussion to the Talk page of Activated phenolics. --Zefr (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Zefr mentioned no affiliation with any reputable scientific institution nor substantiated expertise in this topic. I suggest if Zefr indeed believes that those "old" and "weak" studies are wrong, please go to the journals which published those studies and scientifically criticise it. Zefr implied that this is a possible student science project is not only offensive but unfounded. So is the comment of me being a new contributor, suggesting that just because Zefr has been a contributor longer than I have somehow gives Zefr more authority? Revitalizer (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finding use of the term "activated phenolics" in sources. This looks like some terminology that Revitalizer invented. Beyond the definition, the article loses coherence and becomes a personal essay about "superfoods". I recommend deleting the article, per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Geogene (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I patrolled the page when it was first created; unfortunately, I didn't have the scientific to feel comfortable nominating it for deletion, so I added {{reflist}}, added a few cleanup tags, and moved on. I believe that if there's the possibility of false medical information being on Misplaced Pages, it needs to be removed or rephrased. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a good half the page full of fringe science, Problem is revitalizer is really pushing the validity of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a AfD page, but I messed up, need someone to fix it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Provided the deletion template. --Zefr (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian cancer pill

Need more eyes in phosphorylethanolamine: . Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't my expertise, but I'll see what I can do. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Henry

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

There appear to be two SPA accounts systematically removing all criticism from this bio of a celebrity/TV psychic medium. One of them has been warned and blanked the warning off his user page, I'm going to go call that attention of admins in a second. The two accounts are Brando628 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gizza2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Krelnik (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted most of the fringe science material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I dropped a friendly note on one of the talk pages. It might be a stretch but I will give the benefit of the doubt and AGF for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --Krelnik (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

SPA currently stripping criticism from the article again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Linda Moulton Howe

Linda Moulton Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a fringe author who'd rather be known as an "investigative reporter" overloaded with excessive puffery. I gave it a recent cleanup (BEFORE and AFTER) but eyes appreciated as Howe fans frequently attempt to revert it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On it, and will continue to track page.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think adding snarky comments to the article text is a good thing. Will you revert it? Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism sidebar

I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the Anarchism sidebar; I do not. This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved. I am posting about this on this noticeboard because I argue that Anarcho-capitalism 1) exists pretty much only on the Internet and in theoretical journals and think-tanks whereas the other Anarchist schools of thought (with some exception; in Template talk:Anarchism sidebar I mention several other pages which probably also do not belong in the Schools of Thought section) have a long real-world history and shared ideological and social tradition, 2) is still not widely accepted as an Anarchist school of thought by mainstream scholars, 3) is already in another section of the sidebar where its best connection to the rest of Anarchism, whether or not it actually is part of it, is discussed. It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.

What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this page belongs on this sidebar? I'm asking on this noticeboard because I think that "Anarcho-capitalism" is a fringe theory in regards to Anarchism. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 24.197.253.43 and welcome to Misplaced Pages! You have probably posted this on the wrong board. This forum deals mostly with FRINGE THEORIES, pseudoscience weird conspiracy theories and similar things. What you have going on sounds like a content dispute. Here are some suggestions. First stop edit warring and leave the template alone for now. You are guaranteed to loose this debate if you keep reverting edits. Seek consensus on the talk page of the article and make your arguments in a calm and measured manner. Don't get into a shouting match even if the other party doesn't show you the same courtesy. If this isn't working take a look at the guidelines for dispute resolution. They are usually pretty helpful. And my last piece of advice, is sign up as a registered user. It's not fair but sometimes IP's just don't get the level of respect that they deserve around here and in an argument between an IP and an experienced editor there is too often a prejudice in favor of registered editors. There are other more concrete advantages to signing up. If you have any more questions or concerns drop me a line either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your contributions, and again, welcome! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing something how this is that fringe, seeing as how it has a well-known academic behind it (Hans-Hermann Hoppe). Maybe its crackpot, but then, a cynic might say that of everything in economic theory. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a fringe issue, this is in the wrong section for this, try the politics noticeboard. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture

• Biodynamic agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some disagreements here about sourcing and weight after a burst of activity from a newish WP:SPA and eggers-on. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't ever explain why you used edit warring (three reverts) to remove material in the Effectiveness section that was sourced to a research review and to three studies in scholarly journals related to agriculture. It's easy to get the impression that you didn't closely review the material and that you were reflexively reverting. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my impression as well. HGilbert (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears editors would rather focus on others than address the problems. More eyes needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

Andrea Rossi is suing an investment form that decided his perennially-unproven Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a bust. There are sources! The lawsuit itself, with Rossi's untested claims, and two low low low tier news reports which seem to be churnalism and contain quotes only from Rossi fanbois. It's all over the cold fusion crankosphere and I cannot find a single mention in any quality source at all. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hindu and Triangle Business Journal are not quality sources, yet no such complaint about the material sourced to the How Stuff Works and ScienceBlogs? See also CANVASS. This is way over the top.- MrX 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this article for a while but surely given the subject matter How Stuff Works and ScienceBlogs are going to be useful sources per WP:PARITY. Anything which implies legitimacy for Rossi's stuff needs a super heavyweight source of course. If there's a good source reporting the legal action I don't see any objection to mentioning it, but not in a way which implies legitimacy for magickal energy contraptions! Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, as I understood the recent lawsuits, Rossi is suing a former investor for not paying him money he thinks is due, the investor is saying the money wasnt due because it didnt work. I think the lack of sources is mainly because everyone *knows* it doesnt work so is devoting approx zero-to-nil manhours to reporting on it. Far from legitimising it, I would expect the primary sources to enforce the general opinion (its rubbish). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work. Delete the links that say it does. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

RMS Titanic alternative theories

RMS Titanic alternative theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks heavily WP:PROFRINGE to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the PROFRINGE element, the sourcing ranges from poor to appalling. One section has none at all and many others rely heavily on fringe (non-RS) sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ICE CAN'T MELT STEEL HULLS! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! 4/14 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, come on now. It was clearly aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources there are appalling. It almost seems as if the article exists there to promote the conspiracies of just a few crackpot writers. Without reliable secondary sources, should this be a AFD? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is slightly notable. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, just because an article's bad, don't delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find enough (non-fringe) RS coverage to justify mentioning most of the theories. IMO they pretty much fail the notability guidelines in WP:FRINGE. Gardiner's work is the exception. It has gotten quite a bit of coverage (most of it scathing) but I think that it passes the notability test. But the write up is absurdly unbalanced. The Gardiner theory needs a brief one or two paragraph summary of the essential points followed by a clear and concise refutation making it clear that the theory has been dismissed as risible by every reputable maritime historian. As for the rest of the theories, I think they can just be deleted unless someone can find enough RS coverage to warrant mentioning them. Just because someone posits a screwball idea does not mean it's entitled to coverage in an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure how useful this will be, but I am a skeptic who loves to read, and used to be a hardcore True Believer (in just about every sort of BS). So I've found "Have I heard of it, and where?" to be a very useful heuristic for determining the notability of conspiracy theories and psuedoscience. Generally, if the answer is "Yeah, from a couple places," that means it's notable. In this case, the only alternative theories I've heard of were the "it was the sister ship" and "it was ice floes". So, while I don't have the time to check myself, I would bet that there might be a few RSs for those, but none for the rest. I'll watch the page and try to do some digging for RSs over the course of the next few days. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest it probably should be entirely about the sister ship/insurance scam theories, as they actually have some legs and supporting evidence to them. The rest constitute a one line 'Alternative unsupported theories including aliens, ice floes and whale attacks also exist'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholly concur. Well, the ice floes theory might warrant two sentences, but other than that; absolutely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try and post some sources to the article's talk page in the next day or two.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Busby, 7/7 Ripple Effect

• Christopher Busby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 7/7 Ripple Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 82.113.46.93 (talk · contribs)

While trying to figure out if this removal was appropriate (seems ok given the burden of BLP), I looked at the ip's editing history and saw that the immediately prior edits were similar in nature but much larger (to Christopher Busby , and 7/7 Ripple Effect . I think both articles could use some review with an eye to FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The removals at the Busby article were clearly POV pushing. I've re-inserted them. I'll look into this IP's other edits later. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That was my impression from skimming the removed sources. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Athari

There's only 2 creeds in Sunni Islam Ash'ari & Maturidi. Athari is being pushed as a third on several Sunni Islam related pages. Athari has 1 or 2 books written on the subject, it has no encyclopedic entries while britanica for example mentions the 2 schools . I believe the Athari article should be deleted what do other editors think? Misdemenor (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, Athari is well cited, and you've already been reverted by myself and one other editor for deleting sourced sections here and here. You've also been up front that you declare all followers of the Salafi movement here and here - the movement is usually associated with the Athari creed. No mainstream Muslim scholars declare them "outside the fold of Islam" and coupled with your straight up deletion of sourced content, I'm getting the idea that you're consistently pushing an extreme POV across multiple Islam related articles: that anybody you disagree with is heretical or anti-traditional. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedia entry for this subject its fringe, not notable. If no significant coverage has been given to the subject it shouldnt be on wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you counting on the people who check this board simply ignoring the diffs for what you deleted? The sources are clearly there: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah and Alam al-Kutub are professional publishing houses whose books are sold all over the Arabic speaking world. Suhaib Webb is a respected, moderate North American Muslim scholar. You're deleting reliable sources because the info isn't contained in another encyclopedia...are you even considering your edits before performing them? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I started this thread to discuss wheather Athari article should be allowed to stay on wikipedia. So unless you have any comments on that I suggest you take the other issues to relative talk pages Misdemenor (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just did leave by comments on that: you deleted reliable sources from both respected publishing houses and a respected American Muslim scholar. This is in addition to your POV pushing on articles related to Atharism, which is quite troubling. This is not only a repeated pattern of POV pushing but also forum shopping as you've jumped from user/admin talk page to talk page and noticeboard to noticeboard, pushing an extremist point of view that involves you declaring millions of Muslims at a time to be heretics or fringe against reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject has very low notability im sure you know that already. I simply told @Doug Weller: to revert my edit so how is that forum shopping? Also which other noticeboard have I brought this issue up? Are you simply making things up now? Misdemenor (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I was indeed asked my Misdemenor to restore his deletion. I replied " my problem with reverting myself is that not only do we have Athari, which is sourced (eg), there's a recent book on this discussed here.". I don't know why Misdemenor hasn't mentioned these sources. These don't suggest it is fringe. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”" Doug Weller talk 08:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly why you wont find it in encyclopedic entries, "anti school-school". Its more of a movement then a school, it is against using human reason which is the basis of ash'ari and maturidi creeds. It might be better to merge it with Hanbalism per . Hanbalism already has a strict text approach thus it would be suffice to merge Athari. The book you cited confirms Athari creed is outside mainstream with he following statement "This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school" ...The same source also refutes Athari arguments against the orthodox schools with the following "The reader will, of course note that there were no Muslim theologians (nor was there any need for them) during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, thus making any ahadith ascribing rebuke of kalam (among many other things) to the Prpohet clear fabrications, especially those identifying particular groups or schools of thought. Traditions ascribed to Ahmed ibn Hanbal have also been fabricated with Athari scholars citing his alleged rebuke of al-Ash'ari and his followers despite the fact that Ibn Hanbal died some eighteen years before al-Ash'ari was even born.."' WP:NFRINGE Misdemenor (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So should Athari be deleted or merged into another article? The impression you're giving is that you don't have a clear idea in your mind of what should be done with a supposed fringe view (which Athari isn't, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here).

Additionally, I don't think you've actually read Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. Fringe ideas are not deleted, nor must they be merged.

Also, Hanbalism isn't Atharism and vice versa. The overall picture I'm getting here, when coupled with you declaring millions of other Muslims at a time to be heretical non-Muslims, is that if you just don't like something, your inclination it to declare it blasphemy and try to wipe it off of the encyclopedia (re: your deletion of reliable sources on multiple occasions). I don't think this discussion was started in good faith. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought this issue here for editor opinion on the matter if I had wanted to delete it I would of proposed that at afd. I would like other editor opinion seeing that you have shown considerable bias in my previous encounters with you. You have implied that the majority of sunnis are deviants but i dont want to get into this here. Well the question is whether Athari is notable enough to have its own article ,I dont believe it has extensive references like the other creeds. It seems other users have brought up the issue here Misdemenor (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Abolitionism (bioethics)

Abolitionism (bioethics) is up for AFD, and there was a call to action on Facebook which has resulted in the predictable. Anyone else think they can explain Misplaced Pages sourcing rules to advocates, would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessarily condescending. People, at least in their view, have read over the rules and genuinely disagree with you on the AfD. That doesn't mean you just need to "explain" the rules to convince them your position is correct. But yes, the canvassing was unfortunate. Empamazing (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Some have, most clearly haven't, or haven't bothered bringing any evidence they have. Look at the edit records of most of the people saying "keep!" without a reason - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No doubt individuals have all sorts of weird or idiosyncratic views. But to dismiss an entire bioethical tradition, ranging from the religious and utopian ("May all that hath life be delivered from suffering" - Gautama Buddha) to the scientific - or purportedly scientific - is too quick. None of this is to say that the existing entry can't be substantially improved. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be dismissing the little-supported neologism, which seems to be used only by ... you - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's already an article on this subject. It's called Suffering. The article in the OP is just so unbelievably vague as to be useless as an article. I'm not saying the information within is useless, but it should be mentioned in the article I linked, not given its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

David, if I were either to write, or contribute to, the entry, then I promise it would be (very) different. My point here wasn't to defend a linguistic usage - or the quality of the existing entry - but rather to query whether abolitionist bioethics - feel free to substitute whatever term you judge most apt - deserves to be placed under "fringe theories". Suffering? I wish the long-term goal of its abolition were always treated as axiomatic - in which case I'd agree with you. Sadly this isn't the case. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in stating that I don't think anyone believes the goal of eliminating suffering in any given field is fringe. It's pretty much by definition the mainstream approach to medicine, technology, charity, art, etc, etc. I think the issue is that the current article reads like an article about a fringe theory, and it's extremely difficult to write an article about a subject so vague as "eliminating suffering in " that doesn't read like a fringe theory. Especially because it's associated with transhumanism, which is a fringe subject (note that 'fringe' is not a derogatory term, but a descriptive one). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Faced with the choice of investing time, effort and energy working on an entry that needs improving and opting for "delete", the latter option is almost always going to be easier. I just worry that sometimes it's too easy...--Davidcpearce (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's serious discussion in philosophy of abolitionism in bioethics by that name that's not by you, it would be quite apposite to list it in the AFD even if you felt you shouldn't add it to the article yourself - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution