Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

This is being reconstructed, but I found an incident of a negative study being used to say something had been "evaluated for" the treatment, and that sort of thing, and a few cases of using unreliable, promotional web sources to make claims. I think this is done in good faith, but a little watchlisting now will keep it high-quality during the revision. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article to my watchlist and removed a couple of claims substantiated with spam sites or sources that did not meet WP:MEDRS. I have reservations about the extraordinary and nonsensical claim that garlic is "widely used as an antibiotic". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to list of plants used in herbalism. Hopefully this will help to get a better focus on things. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just getting worse and worse, with editors claiming hat stating the source's negative evaluation of the claim the article makes is POV - so that they can use a source saying there's no evidence that something works, to say it can be used for that purpose. [1]

Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls. 86.177.230.221 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be worth posting this on WP:RSN, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be worthwhile posting at WikiProject Plants, and setting up a Medicinal Herbs Task Force within that project to facilitate the big clean-up job required on these articles. Article content guidelines, advice on appropriate sources, a noticeboard for problematic articles, that sort of thing. I'm starting from the fact that a plant is a plant, and an article on a plant should prioritise the botanical facts, mentioning any culinary use, use in traditional medicine and use in modern medicine as part of the article if and only if those aspects apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted requests for more eyes to the medicine, pharmaccology and plants project pages. The task force sounds like a good idea. The number of spam links and unreliable sources that have to be cleaned up is enormous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it today, it's only getting far worse. This is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone is interested, there appears to be a lot of fringe science/pseudoscience on Dewey_B._Larson. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've left a comment on the deletion also. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash keeps happening, letting his crank theories stay in, but removing all criticism of them. 86.182.19.180 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the IP address above 86.182.19.180 is also this user:

• 86.176.222.119
• 86.182.19.180
• 86.177.230.221
• 86.182.191.108
• 86.178.192.40
• 86.182.20.197
• 86.184.85.227
• 86.178.193.2

This is clearly socking, note how he also backs up each one of his IP addresses in various conversations on this board by making out he is a different user. It is all the same guy, on more than three of these accounts he has deleted material or lied about what is in the references on the Stuart Pivar article, why does he also feel the need to create three sections about Pivar on this board?.

Seems to be spending all of his time only on this Wiki Fringe Board (he has never added anything to wikipedia, so why is he even on here?) he only reverts edits on these "fringe articles" and leaves abusive comments. See his latest edit on this Stuart Pivar article:

"No criticism, no description of the quack theory" - Hes just deleted valid references and calling Pivar's work "quack" and elsewhere "utter crankery". This user has obviously not read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly NOT socking. There's no rule that says editors must register accounts. The user at IPs beginning with 86 is clearly using an internet connection that frequently assigns him a new address. He has never, to my knowledge, pretended that each IP represents a different user. The IP has been consistently doing excellent work dealing with fringe content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) [2]

Note that 212.219.xx.xxx keeps deleting all criticism of Pivar. [3] [4]. I don't have the book in question; I didn't add the book in question. It wouldn't surprise me if, as the IP said on the talk page, the page number for calling Pivar pseudoscience is different from the one given; but the IP,, instead of trying to better summarise Pigalucci's views, decided to delete all criticism of Pivar's theory,. which has 0 acceptance in biology. Either this is a notable crank theory, and criticism can be found to describe it, or it's not a notable crank theory, and this article is a WP:COATRACK, trying to use a trivial mention of Pivar's work with Warhol to claim notability for his crankery. And it is crankery: you will find no peer-reviewed biology based on it. However, based on Pivar's website and Pivar's book (the only sources in the section on his crank theories that he's complaining about me removing), he wants to keep in a section bigger than the rest of the article combined promoting his crank theory. Here's my change. I also removed a brief mention in the section on his life, but the source didn't even mention his crank theories.

Just to be clear here, here's the only thing that could even be considered reference to his crank theories in any non-primary source:

Source (pg 2):

[a bit later]

Former use in the article, which is arguably copyvio, due to being so near the way it's phrased by the NWT :

Article:

This in the middle of an article describing his interesting home, which does not have any further elaboration or even direct reference to him having a new theory about human embryonic development. It does not justify giving over the vast majority of the article to primary sources.

As for my IP changing, like most British internet users, I have a dynamic IP provided by British Telecom's internet service. (I also have been having some problems with it - it resets a lot of late) There is nothing I can do about that. I have said this many times, but can't very well say it every time. 86.184.86.157 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that Pivar did some art collecting makes him all that notable, but if his article is to stay then there should at least be some mention of his theories, and of criticism of them. A couple of sentences should suffice. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the criticism is there, sure, but not if it's going to be as it keeps being changed to: a coatrack for promoting his theories, while finding bullshit reasons to exclude criticism. For instance, Pivar sued PZ Myers over his blog post criticising his book. Given that the section on the book was primary sources, including Pivar's website WP:PARITY says that the notable post by Myers should be fine. But if this is just going to be promotional, no way. 86.181.103.102 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD result was keep, so this article is going to need a lot of anti-fringe care. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of his claims won't do any harm as long as the reaction of critics is given. Interestingly, his ideas are clearly related to his attempt to revive nineteenth century artists's anatomy lessons. It looks like they are linked to his experience in the world of plastics too. After all what he apparently did was make "flexible plastic toroidal tubes filled with fluid and flexed them and twisted them". [5] It's a pity we have nothing on his career as a plastics guru. This, it seems, is a man whose first invention was a special plastic spray to disinfect dustbins with floral fragrances. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get a minor point sorted, what could "cognate with the Indo-Scythians" mean? Does it mean that the Kambojas are assumed to be identical with Indo-Scythians? That they were a group of Indo-Scythians? All I can see to be commonly agreed is that the Scythians probably lived in central or south-west Asian and probably spoke Iranian languages. Or Scythian is the word by which the Greeks and Romans knew the Iranians - no because they also knew the Persians well. If someone can describe the situation clearly without making nationalistic claims, would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undergoing attempts to shove all negative material to the end of the article, and keep it from being summarised in the lead. Keep an eye on it. A couple of us are considering trying to get this article to a state where it could reasonably be nominated for GA, but, at the moment, it's a battle just to keep it from getting worse again. 86.176.74.179 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be AfD'd, about 7000 ghits does not show a term (which serves only as a neologism for a combination of two relatively minor quack diagnostic tools) is widespread; appears to have minimum takeup. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assesment. AFD is the way to go. I've watchlisted the page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can't nominate for AfD, however, since we can't create new pages. =/ 86.178.194.188 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I set it up. You ever try to do that as an IP? It's not fun. Managed in the end, though! =) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not fun as a non IP, so thanks. Did you not want to start an account, 86? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, really. It's easy enough to spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_plants_used_as_medicine#G - Seriously, this article is a bad joke. Most of the sources say that evidence is lacking, or even that they don't work for the conditions, but in a huge POV-push, the article claims that it can be used to treat that disease ANYWAY.

This really is an abomination. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is, it is dreadful. I think it is here to stay though. I had one idea. That is, not to say - at all - what plant "is used to treat" what. That very formulation "is used to treat" is highly problematic. OK, it could be interpreted just to mean that some source recommended X herb to treat Y condition. However, in many cases it is unwarranted to propose that traditional use had any concept of Y condition. So the article simply lists the plants with one or more sources for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it on the talk page there; I don't think we can get that through from afar. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima de Madrid seems to be the creation of a women's science advocacy group, out of heaven knows what material. I cannot find anything on this Hypatia of Moorish Spain. Some other eyes would be useful in this deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon grass appears to be another super cancer-killer. Cymbopogon is not too terribly bad but the species articles are more questionable. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single in vitro study. I just delete those on site, explaining that such styudies are mere hypthosis generating studies, which rarely pan out. Watchlist it in case it comes back, but... 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another typical herb article. If you smell the stuff you can tell it is antiseptic. Sure it has been used since ancient times for preserving things. Of course people are trying to find out what it contains and what else its ingredients are good for. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another plants list with lots of questionable medical claims. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as vbad as most, though, as the claims are (mostly) quite plausible, and it doesn't claim to treat specific diseases. If we checked the more extreme claims for White sage, Yerba mansa and Yerba Santa, this'd be fairly reasonable. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still illustrates what an uphill task we are facing with all these articles. Apparently drinking a tisane can prevent dehydration. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Imagine that. =P Though I suspect it MIGHT be trying to talk about the well-known use of succulents as a source of water in the American desert, which includes Yerba buena. Someone obviously took that, and then decided to commercialise. *eyeroll* 86.176.222.245 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, I'm thinking Yucca. So... just nonsense. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just nonsense. Meanwhile... feverfew. I naively thought this would be straightforward. From its name it is a febrifuge. I thought it was probably an analgesic as well. I thought a few people would be using it as a herbal tea, like with camomile. Turns out not only is it a marketed herbal remedy but also it might be effective in migraine or might not, we don't know what the active ingredients are, there could be side effects. Lots of minor and contradictory studies cited. A microcosm of the difficulties. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix up feverfew. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better now, many thanks. Parthenolide is still problematic. The whole thing is still a microcosm. Clear that the plant has active ingredients that do something to the body. I wouldn't mind betting that it really can reduce fever. I think it probably is an analgesic too, but that might depend on what is being tested and how. Don't get me wrong, I would expect it to have all sorts of side effects. Plants do stuff. They are full of nutrients and active ingredients that are really good for you in small concentrations, really bad if you overdose. That's why it's recommended to have a varied diet. Typically, in the Parthenolide article, the potential effects like febrifuge, analgesic, that are easily researched have been eclipsed by the search for an anti-cancer magic bullet. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting a bit out of hand here. Are these synonyms, or not? Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Dealing with all these medical claims is clearly proving to be a major problem. I propose to set up a joint task force under the appropriate Wikiprojects to go over these and also get rid of some of the content forking of the main articles (e.g. multiple lists of plants, are Phytotherapy and herbalism different, what about western traditional herbalism and modern alternative systems such as homeopathy ...). We need specific standards about what claims can included and how they can be characterized. Probably there are other things to be hashed out.[reply]

Herbalism is under the following projects:

• WikiProject Plants
• WikiProject Medicine
• WikiProject Alternative medicine
• WikiProject Rational Skepticism

and this seems like a good starting point. I've never been involved in a task force and I don't know how one sets up a joint force or even if it can be done.

Do other people think this is a good idea, and would be willing to help out? Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd help, for what it's worth. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join but only temporarily because it needs botanists on the case, and people well versed in MEDRS. At the moment things are so bad even I can see the multiple issues. BTW I am interested in the history, and the point at which scientific and non-scientific views diverge. A lot of plants were materia medica/pharmacopaeia, and that was good medicine at the time. The value of a plant in, say the 18th century, and the value today are two different things.Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the usual brave maverick idiot. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime problem article, largely because of the lack of actual independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. He's probably non-notable, and I'd support an AfD nomination, but what will happen is that a bunch of people will show up to argue "keep", the AfD will be closed as "no consensus", and all the "keep"ers will disappear, leaving us back at square one. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For someone with his position as being on the previous incarnation of NCCAM, he should be notable. But there really is no significant, independent coverage of him in reliable sources (and I looked pretty hard back this past winter). Would support an AFD as well. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a prod first. They're often less frustrating, and, frankly, AfDs are annoying because even the slightest misframing of your initial argument can mean that they go completely off-track. Hell, best way to troll Wikipedia'd be to do really badly-argued AfDs for things that actually should be deleted. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP seeking a "balanced view" of the scientific acceptance of telepathy inserting own views into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the parapsychological things are pretty awful, because all the scientific stuff gradually degrades over time from battles with true believers, and not enough people work to try and improve them. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also seems to have removed the "generally regarded as pseudoscience" notice from the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed there's usually a small spike in fringy edits to such articles in the weeks leading up to Halloween. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to the FTN community. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where to start, or if this is even fringe. This just seems like the most likely place to discuss it. The article has no independent sources or footnotes, just some internal links that all look promotional. This might be a non-notable neologism, or possibly a personal essay. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on this is problematic (lots and lots of false hits) but I'm not utterly convinced that this is any different from socially responsible business. Doing a Gnews search in particular produces a paucity of hits; GBooks seems to indicate that someone is trying to bring this term into existence. And the big comment on Talk:Conscious business shows a HUGE COI in authoring this.

Even more problematic is the related Conscious enterprise, which lacks any real citations. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're both deletable. I'm not sure what's the best way to go, prod, afd or speedy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up for speedy since it's an unambigous promotion of this concept for this business. IRWolfie- (talk)

Thoughts on this? At the very least, I think the heavy emphasis on anti-vaccinationists (and the attempt to relabel some of the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement mere "vaccine critics") is problematic, but what's the point of the article in the first place? 86.185.3.153 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unencyclopedic hotchpotch. In there is perhaps a List of people associated with vaccination and a List of vaccines. Can't see anything else. Someone has misunderstood the purpose of a list and a category. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion - if you see anything to spin out, please remove the prod, move it to an appropriate location, and cut out what shouldn't be there. 86.176.216.59 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe neo-Pagan religious article which is mainly about Canaanite religion, not Natib Qadish itself. I brought it up at WP:NORN but I think it's relevant here also, if not just delete this. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is all original research. I have redirected the entry to Semitic Neopaganism, another entry that could use some attention. In fact I'm not sure that entry should exist either. The only scholarly sources I can find relate to the Goddess movement within (mostly ethnic) Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected to this so it is now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be speedied as a recreation of a page previously deleted per AFD? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It was deleted 3 years ago and I think that makes a difference, at least in the spirit of the matter. However, like I said I'm not sure. Clearly I'd be happy to see it deleted that way or this way.Griswaldo (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attempts to assert fringe 'science' as fact - and not even following the sources cited. The whole article needs input from neutral contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any Italian speakers they would be particularly useful for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 79.10. editor is italian and the article is already benefitting. At least it was before the recent deletions started. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everybody know that User:IRWolfie- seems to be deleting Energy Catalyzer into oblivion. Great fun. Whoohoo --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of synthesis, original research and undue weight content. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth has this obvious WP:POVPUSHing WP:QUOTEFARM lasted as long as it apparently has? If someone wants to start an AfD nomination page (IPs can't create new pages), I'll document why it should be deleted. 86.182.21.252 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem rather OR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created an account just for doing this sort of crap. As you can see, my username is very creative. 86.** IP (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coooool username. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this kind of thing makes my spidey senses tingle. 86.** IP I mean no offense if you're a legitimate new(ish) user who never had an account before, but if you're not such a user nothing but drama will result from your involvement in controversial topics like this. The reason I say this is that you sound awfully familiar with Wikipedia terminology for someone who edits from an IP just now registering an account. That said I agree with you that the entry is original research and inappropriately using long quotations.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had an account a long time ago, found Wikipedia taking up far too much of my time, and, now that I have the urge to do some editing again, I am taking steps to make sure the timesink doesn't happen so easily again, and that I can break off easily. Beyond that, I don't see how it's possibly any of your business. I wouldn't have even got an account if I didn't feel bad about asking others to do things for me. 86.** IP (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please appreciate the fact that in contentious areas of the Wiki there are a number of banned users on either side of controversies. When someone new shows up out of thin air talking the talk like a pro it is quite possibly innocent, but also quite possibly a returned user. Whatever it is it can lead to drama and can increase the battleground atmosphere and preventing that is everyone's business. Like I said already, if you're not such a user then I meant no offense. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I tagged the entry for OR and quotefarming. I also started a discussion on the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it has already been through AFD four times (and DRV once), and survived each time. It has been a couple years since the last AFD, so the result might be different, but I wouldn't count on it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a concensus reached on the page I will remove the pointless quotes and any OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DRV, the !vote at the last AfD was 45 to 31 in favor of delete with a large number of non-policy-based arguments on the keep side and a resolution of "no consensus". Given all this, I don't think a successful AfD is out of the question now that two years have gone by. That article really, really sucks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the article would be kept. Its complete junk.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find out how! 86.182.17.33 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly written from the perspective of fringe theory practitioners, which gives excessive weight to their views. 86.** IP (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some of the excessive veneration of Japanese and Chinese language. Beyond that I'm going to leave it to others because personally I think that breathing exercises and meditation might be quite good for you. (Although articles should simply reflect what RS say.) Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While clearly a notable subject, the article rather focuses on antivaccinationist and pre-vaccination viewpoints. It wouldn't take much work to get this up to shape, but I've been editing way too much today. =) 86.178.198.186 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal of Cosmology (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I was a little surprised to find that this fringe science online publication has not been listed here before. The article and the talk page have recently been semiprotected because of trolling by ipsocks of banned user Bookworm44. The disruption seems to have spilled over elsewhere.[6] Perhaps more watchers of this noticeboard could follow what is going on there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in communication with the actual owners of the Journal of Cosmology website, and I think it's best that the article entry for the Journal of Cosmology is deleted from wikipedia, they agreed, infact they even see the article on wiki as an attack against them and an ongoing problem, theres arguements on there everyday on the article for JOC on wiki, it aint neutral, and it really is just copping up problem after problem, it isnt a mainstream journal, and to be honest doesnt have many references. I suggest we all have a vote and nominate it for deletion. Would be best that way. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal wishes of the website owners have no bearing as to whether the article should be deleted (and not just because we would just be taking your word for it that you really were in contact with them). When you consider the goals of Wikipedia, we'd be in trouble if we start throwing out cited, relevant information just because the subject feels it unflattering. Kansan (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was discussed here. 86.** IP (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be compelte rubbish, but others might want to take a look at it. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment. 86.** IP (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Becoming a POV-fest. Lots of people claiming global warming denial isn't fringe, because... they hold the belief, so it's fine to have a huge POV push. 86.** IP (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird one. It has a lot of big quotes from contemporary material, which, while fascinating in their awfulness, aren't contextualised. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these a pair of WP:POVFORKs? I particularly like the see also at the top of Climate change denial. 86.** IP (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger was proposed back in December 2009 but consensus to keep was overwhelming. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather awkwardly argued, though. I wonder if it's worth reconsidering? 86.** IP (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely problematic article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a more paranoid version of Continuity of Operations Plan, which is pretty paranoid to begin with. Sourcing is extremely problematic, as it all seems to come from highly WP:POV paranoia sites. At least, that's my impression; I'd feel better if someone else would take a look at it. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. 86.** IP (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]