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

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[1]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated as it involves a fringe theory. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the listing of individuals is inappropriate. Some of the organisations and publications they are associated with may be notable, in which case they should be mentioned as part of a description of this movement. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-gay people was deleted as a BLP nightmare (among other reasons). Presumably the same concerns apply here, although good luck getting people to acknowledge that. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the list is a list of persons associated with the ex-gay movement. The individuals listed need not be "ex-gay" themselves, although many are. The major issues are notability, relevance and poor sourcing, although there are BLP problems as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think the implications of being "associated" with the ex-gay movement are not that different from those seen with list of ex-gay people, but that's just me. In any case, who determines whether someone is "associated" with the movement? The sources used to make this determination in the article seem singularly poor, especially from a BLP perspective. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ex-ex-gay? That seems likely to contain the same sort BLP issues. aprock (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. WP:BLP applies to both. However, there are other issues involved, and BLP hasn't been the central focus of the discussion so far. It would be appreciated of you and MastCell could look at the discussion [[2]] and leave your comments in the RfC section [[3]]. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious approach is to treat it like the social/political/religious movement that it is. Readers want a dispassionate account of the movement, its different components, i.e. notable organisations, publications, points where it has surfaced into public debate. That definitely involves mentioning people, but in their capacities as website host, author of a book, all that. Not just a list of "people involved", which is much less informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,
There is a slight dispute over at Emotional Freedom Technique; extra eyes, or any suggestions on how to improve the article, would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even try to describe it: this new article has to be seen to be believed. The only question is whether it should be reduced to a two-sentence stub or deleted entirely. I am also wondering whether it may be a recreation of a previously deleted article, but I couldn't find an AfD for it. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, and I still don't believe it. I can't see any reason to retain any of it. The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh Tribune and Indian Express sources are not really articles, but announcements obviously based on press releases by the proponents. The other sources are crap. Fails on notability alone. Recommend nominating it for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Swami Budhpuri Ji which has the encyclopedia claiming that he has not eaten food since 2004, and Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga "may be used easily by one and all to alleviate all physical, mental and spiritual problems". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems. Add it to the AfD to do list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor(s) responsible for the Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga article created this article Swami Budhpuri Ji the day this article Swami Buddhapuri Ji was deleted. Sneaky little bastards, ain't they. I recommend we discard AGF and move to directly to deletion of both [[Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji. There is no doubt that they are just spam added in bad faith by the two perps, user:ssky and user:ssky2. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the temptation to call editors names, it is never helpful. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was about to AfD it, but Fastily fortunately saved me the time. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request a speedy delete (db-g11). And it was deleted within a few minutes. You might want to change your AfD to speedy delete, and link to the present discussion in the edit summary. I'm reporting the perps at ANI now. They are both spam-only accounts with no contructive edits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROBABLE SOCK: Bcsadhak (talk · contribs) - because it's NOT AT ALL suspicious that the users first and only edit oi to remove a template warning the page was copyvio. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who remember the Kamboja fancruft mess we had a couple of years ago (parts of which we still do), it might be cropping up again, only it now extends to Atlantis and Egypt. —SpacemanSpiff 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely bonkers. I think it isn't out of control at the moment, but we still have lots of the old cruft around. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do editors agree that the new Category Cross-quarter days is unnecessary, and tending to promotion of fringiness? And indeed the category Quarter days is unnecessary. For info, quarter days were important in European calendars from the Middle Ages onwards, coinciding roughly with the equinoxes and solstices, and linked to Christian holidays. There are also festivals occurring between the quarter days, but identifying them as "cross quarter days" is surrounded by much unfounded supposition. I cleared a lot of that out of the article, and am now dismayed to see a category founded. And we see Chinese festivals now assimilated to the European ones, which is weird given that Cross-quarter days is a subcategory of Christian festivals and holidays. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the category quarter days (they are undoubtably significant, and worth grouping therefore), but "cross-quarter days" should only be kept if it's proved that this term is actually used in Neo-paganism, and then only as a descripption of Neopagan belief, like the equally apocryphal Burning Times (the idea that the witch trials were persecuting genuine groups of real witches, hence proving the Catholic Church right? (I'd be surprised if significant non-modern usage is found.)86.178.193.2 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even if Neo-Pagans do group these days as cross-quarter days, they are also traditional and/or Christian holidays, which is their meaning for many more people than follow Neo-Paganism. I am going to put it in Categories for deletion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it being part of Neopaganism AND something else necessarily means it can't be categorised in the Neopagan way (it's just a couple words at the bottom, after all), but agree there's no evidence this is a common division, even there. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my proposed solution. Keep Category:Quarter days. Add Candlemas, Lammas, Martinmas and Whitsun on the grounds that they were quarter days in Scotland. Make sure that the Scottish system is discussed with sufficient prominence in the article Quarter day, and that Term day is a redirect. Merge Cross-quarter day with Wheel of the year, which is where the parallels with Lughnasa, Beltane et al. can be discussed. Propose deletion of Category:Cross quarter days. (If I can work out how to propose a category for deletion, because it seems cumbersome.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. =) 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an opinion on whether these studies of the dog whisperer amount to fringe theories? These have previously been deleted as "self-published" and again as "original research" and it is now suggested that they are "fringe theories":

The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.

A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries.^[6]

In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals.^[7]

A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes. ^[8]

In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression.^[9]

Sources:

• 1.Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Walsh, Froma Family Process:

• 2.Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.

Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos

• 3.Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.

Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies

• 4.Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S. , Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.

Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science

I think a more important issue is that they are primary sources. Even if they are from reliable journals we shouldn't use them on that basis alone, as we are not in a position to judge their relative merit. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is an interview, a letter or personal communication. A published journal article is a secondary source, it is one step removed from the original information - the dog owners' experiences. Marj (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor: There seem to be several issues. The content was moved to the talk page until the concerns could be ironed out. Its worth looking more closely at the Primary source issue. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Marj, that's not quite correct. Journal articles that the results of research done by the author of the article are generally considered primary sources--the author is not one step removed from their work. We generally require secondary sources that evaluate a journal article to be able to use them. I would also suggest that studies about pets which do not directly treat the TV in depth would be of very limited value for an article about the show. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Nuujinn you are saying that Wikipedia editors cannot use journal articles - they must find another article that evaluates the first journal article and only use that second article. Wow! That really turns Wikipedia editing on it's head. It's hard enough to find reputable publications in the first place, but having to find other articles that comment on the first. Marj (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn is correct that journal papers such as studies or surveys are primary sources for their findings. Primary sources can be used within narrow limits. Note that many studies begin by reviewing existing literature or previous studies, and that portion of the papers would be secondary sources for those prior papers.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marj, we use Journal articles all of the time, and that's perfectly fine. The particular articles above seem to be articles about research performed by the authors, and those are primary sources. Will Bebeck is entirely correct that to the extent that such articles include reviews of prior research, they may be also consider secondary sources. Links to the articles themselves would help. You mention that it is difficult to find reliable sources, sometimes when that is the case, it is because the information is not really suitable for the article in question. Dog Whisperer is a TV show, and sources about that should be easy to find. These articles appear to be more about training methods and pets in general, only the Jackson-Schebetta seems that it might be appropriate for use in an article about the show--do any of the other three go into any depth about the show itself? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once something is published it is no longer primary source material. Google a definition. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html Marj (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia uses the terms a bit loosely, but according to the Wikipedia definition, things by people too close the subject of an article are considered too close to the subject to be fully reliable sources for the discussion, e.g. personal webpages, or books by the person. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia does not allow the use of research conducted by experts in the discipline, reviewed anonomously by people familiar with the content and the method for accuracy, edited by a journal editor, and published in an authoritative academic journal - saying that the resultant journal article is a "primary source". That is just nonsense. Personal webpages, press releases, self-published books, yes. Peer-reviewed articles??!!Marj (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, this is one area that is pretty sharply defined, see WP:PSTS. Research articles are primary sources. Jackson-Schebetta has some promise as it is analytical, but it is using the show as a jumping off point. Mere publication does not a secondary source make. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A jumping off point for what, exactly? The whole article is an analysis of the program.Marj (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they meant a jumping off point for future research into the subject. Either way, the policy on sourcing is pretty clear. One problem with primary sources is that journals will publish research on novel ideas that have not necessarily been replicated yet and thus aren't accepted by the scientific community. Some articles are also published as "risk" articles, that is, articles that come to novel conclusions on previously established science that are interesting enough to publish but again, not replicated. Using primary sources on Wikipedia is difficult because interpreting data is beyond what editors are expected to do. Hence, we use secondary sources that can interpret the data, and then we report what they say. N^oformation ^Talk 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the reasons for not using "primary sources". But these are not primary sources, and there are no novel ideas.

• Millan works to establish boundaries and heirarchies in the families on Dog Whisperer.
• Two very different methods of dog training are currently popular, one is shown on Dog Whisperer.
• "Dog Whisperer" fits a tradition of stories where humans have dominion over animals.
• People provoking dogs using techniques shown on "Dog Whisperer" have been bitten.

These would all seem to be in the category "You needed research to tell you that!" Not in the category of 'novel conclusions' not widely supported.Marj (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia rather than google, such research studies/articles are primary sources, unless they are published in reviews or meta analysis, and in this case possibly veterinary textbooks or other more academically driven publications. We can't in an encyclpedia interpret research and use those interpretations as references/sources for claims made in an article. (olive (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dog Whisperer uses sources such as People Magazine, Paw Nation and People and Pets - and checking the links above these contested articles and the journals they were published in are as "academically driven" as you can get. Not sure what is going on here.Canis5855 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because primary research is "academically driven" doesn't really say anything about the quality of the research. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta's "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan" was written for the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)). To answer the original question, then, ask who is the ICAS. Critical animal studies (CAS) was introduced by Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella, II and Richard V. Kahn in 2006/7, as an attempt to provide an interdisciplinary academic forum for the wider theorization of animal liberation politics through the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA). Keep digging and the fringe nature of the organization and the "research" becomes clear. People magazine may not be great, but there's a transparency to their editorial board, their credentials and their agenda. These "academic" sources may not even be able to surpass the low threshold of People magazine. 842U (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a year-overdue AfD-mandated merge done, avoiding merging in any of the unsourced or marketing claims. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section per WP:UNDUE and because whoever Lias is, his ideas don't seem to have been reported elsewhere and he himself doesn't seem important enough to have his ideas reported in the article, he is apparently someone that was found just to add a postscript to Salibi's book which promotes a fringe theory that the place names of the Bible refer to places in Arabia. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done a fair bit of work to defringe this. Not thrilled with the sources for the remaining section on Ayurveda - would much rather have actual historians or even primary sources for the history of use than a herbal company, but it MAY be good enough for now. See what you think? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second the request. 86.178 has done a lot to improve the article and others on Ayurveda. If we can be sure it is right then we have a model for articles on herbs in alternative medicine. A specific question is: without a disclaimer explicitly saying "this doesn't work", could the article be too close to promoting use of this herb? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't be too hasty to say doesn't work; I mean, it's claimed to have analgesic properties, but so does willow bark, so it wouldn't be surprising if it had effects. The key is to only show the reasonably well-documented, plausible ones, and not let this grow into the all-too-common "this herb can cure E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!" that unchecked articles devolve into.

A good guide might be that minor, plausible effects - e.g. this herb is an analgesic, this herb can repel insects when rubbed on the skin, this herb is a stimulant - can probably be left in with a well-done study in a decent journal, but things like "this herb is anti-cancer", "this herb cures diabetes", "this herb cures disease X" would need a HELL of a lot more evidence to be allowed in. I'm also far more inclined to allow documented, widespread historical uses, e.g. "Galen said the herb could treat...", and pretty much forbid modern herbal supplement claims (which are A. less notable and B. far more likely to be made up.)

Some care will, of course, be needed here, but that's the basic principles I think should apply. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a pattern of odd editing at the Origin of language page which seems to have been going on for a number of years. A subsection entitled "synergetic approach" purports to describe the theories of the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School", which apparently claims that visual 'language' preceded spoken language and that language evolved through four stages in which the evolution of spoken language is mirrored by the evolution of writing systems:

• Stage I: Phoneme = sentence (pictographic language);
• Stage II: Phoneme = word or phrase (ideographic language);
• Stage III: Phoneme = syllable (syllabic language);
• Stage IV: Phoneme = sound (phonetic language).

[4]

This all seems a mixture of the rather obvious and the incoherent to me, but what do I know? I find nothing reliable about the "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" or this "synergetic" model. The information is cited to broken links. It has recently been deleted. It was then re-added by a new account called User:Wedanta, whose only edit this is. A look through the edit history reveals a number of red-link SPAs adding, re-adding or supplementing this section. Does anyone have any information about this topic? Paul B (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to copy the link from there to here:

• Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Mammadov J.M., New system of language, thinkings and reality. // “The Papers of independent Authors” (volume 14). Israel. 2010
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Language and History. Baku, 2004
• Kazimov Q.Sh., Mamedov M.B., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Gnatyuk R.V., Azerbaijan Linguistic School
• Ludmila Esipova, Syntax in schemes. Novosibirsk, 2006.
• Original of this fragment in Russian. // Wedanta (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting further on the substantive issue at this point, I would like to point out that the first link is to a Wikiversity article, and as such will not be regarded as WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that others are in practice self-published, but we need a Russian speaker to look at this, I think. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No results for "Azerbaijan Linguistic School" in English Google Books. No results for Азербайджанская Лингвистическая Школа in Russian Google Books. This looks absolutely fringe. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's approach the issue differently. Let's not create a theory of "Azerbaijan linguistic school," and a group of scientists. Then what to do? Ибадов (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several sockpuppets of BookWorm44 created a bunch of articles on people and topics which would be considered unorthodox by many (Big Bang denial, Darwin denial, etc...). Now these articles might be perfectly fine, but given the history of these sockpuppets, it's very possible these articles are PR pieces and puffery which gives undue prominence to unotable people and topic. I've nominated the bunch of them to AFD, so we can weight the merits of these articles, identify cleanup issues, as well as establish their notability and NPOV (or lack thereof) and identify cleanup issues. The discussions can be found at

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian origin of modern humans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Schwabe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European origin of modern humans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Woodward Warder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herotheism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial Bipedalism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Le Fanu
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Reid Moir
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rene Noorbergen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pivar

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mothman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit-warring IP now with a brand new user account wishing to add material connecting Mothman to 9/11, all sourced to message boards at Mothmanlives.com, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just trying to correct the idea that the sightings stopped in 1967. You still haven't stated what sources you feel are appropriate but, since you don't like interviews with experts on the radio (I notice you made some drastic edits the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast), I do have sources from books, magazine articles, and the like that are totally appropriate for Wikipedia. I have offered to send them to you so that you can post them yourself (since you are more familiar with the coding), but if you are not interested in helping I will figure it out myself. As for 9/11 or any other sighting of Mothman, it is not up for you or I to decide whether or not they are real, but to report that the sightings were reported and appear not to be hoaxes, since no one is trying to benefit from them. Western Fortean (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on the Talk page, we require sources that meet the encyclopedia's WP:RS and WP:FRINGE policy. Non-fringe, non-sensational publications, like major newspapers, magazines, etc. You've offered to send sources that meet these policies? Post them and we'll gladly review them. Regarding my making edits "the same night that Mothman was discussed on Coast to Coast" I have no idea what you're talking about. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just to clarify, the idea that the Mothman sightings stopped in 1967 has not been printed in any major newspaper or acknowledged by any expert in the Fortean field. It has only been bandied about on various fringe TV shows, and repeated in these venues for so long that it is now accepted as fact by those unfamiliar with the topic. It is laughed at by anyone knowledgable in the field. Even the fringe skeptics exclusively featured on the page - none of whom are acknowledged experts on the Mothman case - do not make this claim. When you say you would like to me post sources, what exactly are you referring to? Making the edits on the page itself, or posting them elsewhere? Western Fortean (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get attention for Mothman sightings and the opinion of Mothman 'experts', your best bet is to get a reputable news organization or mainstream scholar to publish them. Wikipedia can only report what has already been published in reliable sources, such as The Toronto Star ("The sightings ended abruptly on Dec. 15, 1967, the day of the collapse of the Silver Bridge, which linked Point Pleasant to Ohio. Forty-six people were killed, and since then people have speculated the sightings were connected.") or even USA Today which covers Coleman's claim that "sightings continue" (also reported in our WP article). In a nutshell, I don't think anyone has a problem having the article say, "Conspiracy theorist John Doe believes Mothman is connected to 9/11 and other disasters and says the creature has been sighted far and wide" as long as we have a reliable secondary source (like the news articles mentioned above) reporting it first. Since you are new to WP, it's probably best to post the urls here or at the article's Talk page first before adding any material. If you have sources that meet WP's requirements, I'll be glad to help you add material to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please watchlist this - people keep trying to add in a study showing it can cure cataracts... when you damage a chick embryo's eyes with steroids then rub diluted Chyawanprash on them before the cataracts start. This is hardly a study that shows anything about real world use. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am watching it. The notion that it might have an effect on the eyes is historically interesting, as sugar and honey were eye remedies in medieval Arabic medicine. With all those spices in, it should be quite antiseptic, and might well help in conjunctivitis (not medical advice!) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but, at the same time, direct application to artificially damaged eyes in embryos isn't particularly relevant to a product meant to be eaten. It's misleading at best. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It sounds delicious spread on toast, and I would definitely try it. But I wouldn't cancel my optician's appointment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on this one too; there's an unsourced, probably original research rant that's been getting readded. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful article, no good sources. I noticed it was prodded and then the prod was removed. I think AfD but have no energy for that today. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see deleting this outright, as there's a section on it in pretty much every general work on Aryuveda I've come across. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth nominating it to see if the rescue squad can fix it, though. It's such a tiny topic that it'd need either really good sources, or merging somewhere. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to take this one on in my place? I grow a little weary of trying to strip the infinitude of health claims that inevitably descends on a supposedly medicinal herb. Can't we make a guideline setting out what counts as the minimal standards for health claims and such? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed is the standard for health claims. A difficult article to start on; I have no more stomach for it than you do. Solanaceae, full of alkaloids, cultivated as a crop, no wonder both science and pseudoscience home in on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed is a fairly weak standardd. There's lots of tiny mouse studies on pubmed you could cherrypick. And Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)I, for one, don't think we should allow mere in vitro studies at all, without further evidence. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment wasn't very helpful. We should stick to WP:MEDRS in the sections of these articles that are about medical/alternative medicine use. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Plants may be able to help. I've also looked at Saffron, which is a featured article, but it too might be a bit generous in what it includes about research into possible medical effects. There are a number of other plant FA, but I don't think many of them are traditional medicinal herbs. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that many of our articles on "medicinal herbs" contain ridiculous claims which are rarely referenced to anything more than a single in vitro study on the plant extract. I can't tell you how many times I've removed "treatment for cancer" from these types of articles. WP:MEDRS is definitely the guideline to go by. Deli nk (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]