| Revision as of 17:59, 13 September 2013 view sourceRocksanddirt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,954 edits →Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:59, 13 September 2013 view source 71.202.210.61 (talk) →Talk:Orthomolecular medicine (again)Next edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| :::I have not found this to be the case. Articles with a bunch of NOTFORUM, in my limited experience, tend to have more issues with content, to say nothing of spamlinks etc on talk pages. I don't know whether it's reverting of NOTFORUM or just the topics in general, but i think the two are separable. YMMV though i guess. -- <span style="font-family:monospace">] ~/] ]# ▄</span> 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | :::I have not found this to be the case. Articles with a bunch of NOTFORUM, in my limited experience, tend to have more issues with content, to say nothing of spamlinks etc on talk pages. I don't know whether it's reverting of NOTFORUM or just the topics in general, but i think the two are separable. YMMV though i guess. -- <span style="font-family:monospace">] ~/] ]# ▄</span> 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I didn't get the NOTAFORUM impression. By "rant" I didn't mean an irrelevant tirade, but an on-topic push for fringe with many references. Who knows, maybe there's one reference that can be fished out from the sludge. As a practical matter, once the fringe-pusher has made a case, there seems to be no harm in letting it sit. Otherwise the fringe mentality is such that the problem will escalate with claims of "oppression" and "censorship" etc. ] (]) 22:44, 12 September 2013 |
::::I didn't get the NOTAFORUM impression. By "rant" I didn't mean an irrelevant tirade, but an on-topic push for fringe with many references. Who knows, maybe there's one reference that can be fished out from the sludge. As a practical matter, once the fringe-pusher has made a case, there seems to be no harm in letting it sit. Otherwise the fringe mentality is such that the problem will escalate with claims of "oppression" and "censorship" etc. ] (]) 22:44, 12 September 2013 | ||
| ::::I have removed the Sheldrake commentary and placed it in the appropriate talk page. The article, as it stands currently, is a violation of the ] policy, since solid sources are in support of Sheldrake. | |||
| {{collapse top|Please stay specifically on topic. We aren't here to have irrelevant discussions, particularly those of the volume you are attempting. ] (])}} | |||
| ⚫ | ::::As for NOTAFORUM concerns, in one case it was not inappropriate, as I was responding to another user making comments violating NOTAFORUM and their edits were not removed. For instance, this was in response to a tangential comment about nutrigenomics, which addressed the point rather succinctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=next&oldid=572669056 | ||
| :::::The word "severe" is uncalled for, as this is a specific refutation of the points you made regarding Sheldrake on why it was "justifiable" to marginalize him. For the orthomolecular article, the refutation had large reviews in mind, along with specific sourced criticisms of those reviews and examples corroborating those criticisms. Incidentally, the "fringe" perception is well grounded with regards to orthomolecular medicine, given that in a 2008 review "Does pharmaceutical advertising affect journal publication about dietary supplements?", Kemper, et al., report that "Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about DS. The percentage of major articles concluding that DS were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02). The percentage of articles concluding that DS were ineffective was 50% higher among journals with more than among those with fewer pharmads (P = 0.4).": http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11 | |||
| ⚫ | ::::For the other I hatted the other comment that refuted other criticisms of misconceptions regarding orthomolecular medicine that could be seen as similar to forum posting, as I did not want it to interfere with the discussion, and for the other points relevant to the article, put forth unhatted refutations based on solid sources. | ||
| ::::Also, the word "fringe" does not necessarily mean false. What should matter is if solid sources can substantiate a statement, and when that criteria is applied, there are many "fringe" arguments that can supersede "mainstream" ones. Misplaced Pages purportedly has a mechanism to address this, the ] policy, which states that alternative views can be expressed if they are substantiated by solid sources. That is reasonable - it is perfectly all right to argue a view if it can be substantiated by a solid source. Unfortunately, many editors fail to adhere to that policy, and engage in censorship even when the opposing view is well substantiated. Such behavior shows a frightening use of the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, and lends itself, ultimately,to the type of authoritarian collectivist attitude displayed with Maoism and Soviet Communism. | |||
| :::::Your points are based on the logical fallacies (from the latin fallere - to lie) of ] and ] - and also, regarding your most recent comment, a subtle ]. It is also based on a faith on government and regulators is provably false when we confront the fact that government is inherently in conflict of interest. For that, I would like to encourage you to look into the work of Clint Richardson, a disciple of Walter Burien, who brings to attention important implicit fundamental flaws, in his overviews of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, showing that that so called "budgetary deficits" are fictions, that billions and billions of dollars that have nothing to do with what we are taxed are hidden in various governmental accounts as investments in multinationals. Thus, the idea of "regulation" is a fiction, public theater, as government and industry are one hybrid entity that serves its own interest, and not the public: http://thecorporationnation.com/ - a more technical overview, again, all linked to extremely sources, is provided here, but Richardson's overviews are a simpler overview: http://www.cafr1.com/ | |||
| :::::His reading of the CAFR for the education-related entity CORE reveals very disturbing information, and further refutes the worldview implicit in your argument, showing the essentially global plantation nature of the world we live in: http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/core-making-children-stupider-around-the-world/ | |||
| :::::Incidentally, regarding Sheldrake, on a related matter, according to an Epoch Times article, "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other.": http://m.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html | |||
| :::::So use of the ] classification for that is less warranted than you present it to be.] (]) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | For |
||
| It appears that editors here are engaged in a concerted effort to censor and suppress alternative views, because they don't want people to know that the view they are pushing in the article itself is intellectually bankrupt. Misplaced Pages policies are being violated, since my counter is based on solid mainstream sources. That was the same for the ] article. For Rupert Sheldrake, I noted replication of his experiments using solid sources. I also refuted the idea that it is not consistent with current science by noting the support given with the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that Bohm believed that Sheldrake, via a different angle, came to the same realizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=572407570&oldid=572407366 - and the Bohm interpretation leads "to experimental results compliant with quantum mechanics", and has been presented as a useful means of understanding quantum phenomena in top journals like ''Foundations of Physics'': http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018861226606 | |||
| The Nobel Laureate ] has also defended Sheldrake: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5833/pdf/293594b0.pdf | |||
| And ], former executive director of the ] in Germany, has specifically refuted the idea that Sheldrake's work is inconsistent with modern science in his article "Sheldrake's ideas from the perspective of modern physics" in the journal "Frontier Perspectives": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-182664602.html | |||
| Also, the general opposition to Sheldrake revolves around misconceptions concerning psi research in general. There was a recent Baysean analysis entitled "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences", published in 2011 in the journal "Frontiers in Psychology": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/ | |||
| A table from that showed that Baysean analysis of Ganzfeld ESP experiments yielded a Bayes factor of 18,861,051: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/table/T1/ | |||
| A Bayes factor of greater than 100 is considered to be "decisive". | |||
| Case closed. QED. Incidentally ], a notable scientific figure, incorporated "morphic fields" into his own theories here, in order to explain results like this, in an article in the journal Dynamical Psychology: http://academicpublishingplatforms.com/article.php?journal=DPs&number=1&article=1529, http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/MorphicPilot.htm | |||
| Goertzel stated that Sheldrake's work "is absolutely not pseudoscience, and would be better characterized as “frontier science.”": http://wp.goertzel.org/?p=495] (]) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Again, gosh. --] (]) 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 13 September 2013
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
German Acupuncture Trials
Just noticed this article, which seems to contain a lot of biomedical pronouncements sourced heavily (exclusively?) to primary medical sources. I am concerned that by creating a article specifically about a medical trial, no matter how large, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for information about the results that differ from those found in more reliable sources; in this case the article gives a strong impression of acupuncture's effectiveness which is a bit out-of-WP:SYNC with out main Acupuncture article. (Cross-posting to WT:MED.) Alexbrn 10:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Velikovsky-related article up for deletion
I'd like any and all input as this particular topic can tend to confuse:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (2nd nomination)
jps (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
More AfD fun
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Society for Interdisciplinary Studies.
Input, as always, is most welcome.
jps (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Rupert Sheldrake (yet again)
Anonymous editor is trying to right great wrongs with little respect for WP:FRINGE policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm out of 3RR reverts (anon is on 4). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Baraminology
Baraminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Any ideas what to do with this article? I don't know if the WP:FRINGE guidelines would have it as notable enough for an article. In any case, it seems like it doesn't have very many reliable sources being mostly a little jaunt by about six creation science advocates. These kinds of creationist off-shoots seem to be a dime-a-dozen, though, and I'm not sure this particular one deserves an entire article.
jps (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that this concept is notable but it is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-creationist sources writing about it. With that said, the criticism section could probably be expanded to include a more thorough explanation of its irrationality and incongruence with reality. The lead touches upon this but obviously there is much more than can be said and I'm sure more sources can be found, though I'd be surprised if the present sourcing doesn't already have more to offer. Additionally, something about calling it a "creationist taxonomic system" bothers me, even though it is a factually accurate description. Unfortunately I cannot think of a succinct way to qualify that statement in a single sentence. Nformation 01:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The issue I'm having is that it is no more notable than, for example, any one of the ICR's "research" projects: http://www.icr.org/research/ For example, their RATE project where they go and look for helium in billion-year-old rocks as evidence that radiometric dating is wrong or the proposed "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" of John Baumgardner. You can find plenty of non-creationist websites crowing about these endeavors too, but they aren't very serious rejoinders because they aren't very serious projects. While most of the creationists on Misplaced Pages have been driven off, I don't understand if baraminology is "notable" why every other hare-brained creationist scheme is not. After all, it's something of a cottage industry on the intertubes to make fun of creationists so the "sourcing" would be at our fingertips, even though the sourcing is not very good (and indeed suffers quite a bit at baraminology). What can be done to improve matters? jps (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly familiar with those projects but technically if they are covered by the same quality of sources currently in the bariminology article (which are rather high quality: National Academy of Sciences, National Center for Science Education, etc.) they might be notable, at least in WP's context. Let's just be glad no one has taken the time to write them.
- The issue I'm having is that it is no more notable than, for example, any one of the ICR's "research" projects: http://www.icr.org/research/ For example, their RATE project where they go and look for helium in billion-year-old rocks as evidence that radiometric dating is wrong or the proposed "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" of John Baumgardner. You can find plenty of non-creationist websites crowing about these endeavors too, but they aren't very serious rejoinders because they aren't very serious projects. While most of the creationists on Misplaced Pages have been driven off, I don't understand if baraminology is "notable" why every other hare-brained creationist scheme is not. After all, it's something of a cottage industry on the intertubes to make fun of creationists so the "sourcing" would be at our fingertips, even though the sourcing is not very good (and indeed suffers quite a bit at baraminology). What can be done to improve matters? jps (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it's hard to say whether it's better for an article like this to exist - so we can explain how it's factually wrong - or whether it's better to ignore it all together. I lean towards coverage myself but as it stands we don't have the ability to delete this kind of stuff anyway; the best we can do is make our articles as accurate as possible. Keep in mind that WP articles are many times the first result on search engines and I'd say better that someone come here and read our article on bariminology (or any fringe topic) than get bad information from AIG, anti-GMO environuts, etc. True Believers™ won't be swayed but those actually looking to learn may be convinced before they go off the deep end. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure we share the same distaste of giving attention to the undeserved but I think it's often outweighed by the value in offering education. With that said, while you're right that most overt creationists have left there are still plenty, they just aren't as obvious anymore since the obvious ones get topic/site banned fairly quick.
- Oh, not sure if this policy was around when you were active but we have some decent protection to counter poor fringe sourcing: WP:PARITY. Nformation 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The NAS has certainly not addressed the topic of baraminology specifically, the article is referencing a more general criticism of creationism. The NCSE takes it as their duty to expose problems that may show up in educational settings and, as such, has a whole series of work about the problems with the ICR's pseudo-intellectual approaches and gets down to brass tacks. I don't, however, think that this justifies an article. Another alternative might be to merge this subject back into something like creation science. Having individual articles about each creationist project is not advisable, IMHO.
- I'm glad WP:PARITY has made it into the lexicon. It was one of the parts of the Fringe guideline I wrote.
- jps (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, not sure if this policy was around when you were active but we have some decent protection to counter poor fringe sourcing: WP:PARITY. Nformation 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Who has some extra time and feels like fixing up an article?
Free energy suppression is currently in a fairly poor state. It doesn't advocate any fringe theories but it is in dire need of solid sourcing, rewriting to remove WP:OR and to conform to encyclopedic tone, and formatting (e.g. section headings). I also suggested on talk that it be moved to Free energy suppression conspiracy theory under the "Merge" section heading. Any takers? Nformation 01:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did a little cleaning but it really should be merged into the list of conspiracy theories as the hatnote suggests. Bhny (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
AltMed
Talk:Alternative medicine could use a few more eyes to keep the discussion moving forward and focused on our coverage of the topic rather than the topic itself. I have made a proposal to get at least the lead whipped into shape, but it could use some sprucing up. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Gary Null (Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gary_Null_is_not_a_Quack_or_a_crackpot
Anonymous editor is claiming that this subject's article is somewhat biased. I haven't looked into this in depth, but I suspect that the scientific community aren't generally too kind to him. To me, the criticism in the article looks somewhat tame. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Orthomolecular medicine (again)
I removed a really extensive segment of FRINGE/NOTFORUM (mixed with a bit of content about the article itself, maybe) from Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, which was inserted by 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an editor with FRINGE issues at this article in the past. They have just reverted my removal, and I am (voluntarily) at 1RR already. more eyes, etc. -- # ▄ 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the page back to the state you left it, but it took me 3 edits to do it. I still haven't figured out how to revert more than one edit at a time;) --Roxy the dog (bark) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like this person should have been blocked in response to his recent Rupert Sheldrake edits. Instead, the article was protected. But in any case, I don't really see a problem with letting people to rant on the talk page. If they are allowed to have their say, they'll be more likely to move on instead of disrupting the article. Vzaak (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have not found this to be the case. Articles with a bunch of NOTFORUM, in my limited experience, tend to have more issues with content, to say nothing of spamlinks etc on talk pages. I don't know whether it's reverting of NOTFORUM or just the topics in general, but i think the two are separable. YMMV though i guess. -- # ▄ 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't get the NOTAFORUM impression. By "rant" I didn't mean an irrelevant tirade, but an on-topic push for fringe with many references. Who knows, maybe there's one reference that can be fished out from the sludge. As a practical matter, once the fringe-pusher has made a case, there seems to be no harm in letting it sit. Otherwise the fringe mentality is such that the problem will escalate with claims of "oppression" and "censorship" etc. Vzaak (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2013
- I have removed the Sheldrake commentary and placed it in the appropriate talk page. The article, as it stands currently, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since solid sources are in support of Sheldrake.
- As for NOTAFORUM concerns, in one case it was not inappropriate, as I was responding to another user making comments violating NOTAFORUM and their edits were not removed. For instance, this was in response to a tangential comment about nutrigenomics, which addressed the point rather succinctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=next&oldid=572669056
- For the other I hatted the other comment that refuted other criticisms of misconceptions regarding orthomolecular medicine that could be seen as similar to forum posting, as I did not want it to interfere with the discussion, and for the other points relevant to the article, put forth unhatted refutations based on solid sources.
- Also, the word "fringe" does not necessarily mean false. What should matter is if solid sources can substantiate a statement, and when that criteria is applied, there are many "fringe" arguments that can supersede "mainstream" ones. Misplaced Pages purportedly has a mechanism to address this, the WP:RGW policy, which states that alternative views can be expressed if they are substantiated by solid sources. That is reasonable - it is perfectly all right to argue a view if it can be substantiated by a solid source. Unfortunately, many editors fail to adhere to that policy, and engage in censorship even when the opposing view is well substantiated. Such behavior shows a frightening use of the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, and lends itself, ultimately,to the type of authoritarian collectivist attitude displayed with Maoism and Soviet Communism.
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) may, according to Quackwatch, occasionally pratice fringe techniques such as cranial manipulation more often than their MD counterparts. Whether this should be mentioned in the article, is currently a topic of debate and the cause of some edits back-and-forth. More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- off the top of my head, unless DOs are generally practicing fringe stuff, I think that random comments that some provide quackery is not appropriate for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)