Misplaced Pages

I still think "showed" would be better than "said" here. It's clear that we can WP:ASSERT this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of concrete proposals for content have been made on the talk page of the article that may be worth consideration. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-title to "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories" ?

I think its the framing of the topic that is the main issue and tweaking the sentences won't really address it. The cure may be a name change to Roswell UFO conspiracy theories which is the actually notable topic. the crash "incident" itself, not so much. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that addresses the root of the problem. Alexbrn 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I support TRPoD's proposal. It makes sense, the conspiracy theories are more the subject of the article than the "incident". - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Articles should be titled using a topic's most WP:COMMONNAME. If we really want to change the article title, the way to go about it is to do a survey of reliable sources and see what they call it. Changing article titles to address issues in the text seems like a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• out of process - Assuming good faith by TRPoD, but renaming and forking discussions should take place on article talk pages. I'm mostly opposed to this proposal, but I will save my detailed reasons for the appropriate venue.- MrX 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this notice board is not the place to conduct a formal rename process. (and I am not the one that pulled the suggestion into a separate section )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just misinterpret/misrepresent the policies & guidelines, and a domino effect comes to the scene. I'm sure the naming was discussed before: Logos (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @Blueboar: WP:Consensus can change but it better not for this specific incident which had occurred some 60 years ago. It is a bit late to change the already established consensus over the naming, because googling gives many instances of "Roswell UFO incident", some of which being credible sources. I believe the current WP:RECOGNIZABLE name was born well before wikipedia. Nevertheless, my suggestion would be "Roswell crash 1947". Logos (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Logos... according to your link, the last discussion prior to this was back in 2008... remember that WP:Consensus can change. I think it reasonable to at least see if consensus has changed since the last time it was discussed. In any case, User:A Quest For Knowledge has it right. First, we should see if there is a WP:COMMONNAME for the event (Possibilities might include "Roswell incident" or "Roswell crash"). I don't know whether there is a COMMONNAME, but if so, then that name should be used as the title of our article (even if it might appear POV... see WP:POVNAMING for more on this). If there isn't a COMMONNAME, then we can devise our own descriptive title. Our WP:AT policy says that descriptive titles we should be neutral (but note... using the term "conspiracy theory" in the context of describing a theory that a conspiracy has taken place is neutral).

So... barring a COMMONNAME, I would support TRPD's suggestion as a good descriptive title (but there are others I would support as well). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really like "Roswell UFO conspiracy theories". Yes, there's certainly an aspect of conspiracy theories about it, but that's not this topic's defining characteristic which is that an alien spacecraft supposedly crash landed on Earth. The conspiracy theory aspect is secondary to that. A very brief search of reliable sources suggests that "Roswell UFO crash" might be the most commonly used name. If editors are seriously interested in changing the name (and someone wants me to), I can do a more exhaustive search. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • show me one "alien spacehip ship crashed at Roswell" claim that does NOT include "and the government covered it up". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Show me a US President without a Vice-President. Does that mean that they're of equal importance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Then we need to cut everything about the crash because what is written about and covered is the conspiracy theories about the cover-ups. In the literature and the academic coverage, the crash itself is the VEEP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sprawl

And quite white this enormous article Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident - built largely from iffy sources - also exists, I don't know. Alexbrn 08:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a POV fork of Roswell UFO incident. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also: Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. jps (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. All this time I must have missed seeing Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. Now I know what an article that treats fringe UFOlogy authors as the ultimate reliable source looks like. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some special proof that they are all lying? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying. To me, this seems like a bland, NPOV article. --Auric talk 23:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that low quality fringe sources like "roswellproof.com" and "Unmasking the Governments Biggest Cover up" don't conform to Misplaced Pages's reliable sources requirement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The POV forks should go or be trimmed to the stubs that RS would support. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident (3rd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the best compilations of deathbed confessions and posthumous allegations that I've ever seen! Thank you for sharing! Location (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Substantial revisions mass reverted

A series of significant revisions were made to this article using high quality sources and addressing unsourced or undue presentation of fringe material. This series of changes and others were mass reverted diff. No effort was made to restore a variety of edits including the merge proposal tag. I have suggested undoing this revert (restoring this version) on the talk page. Comments and opinions welcomed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's WP:BRD. Obviously there are different interpretations of our policies, and different ideas on how the material should be presented, so I suggest that discussion on the talk page and incremental edits are the best approach. There is a cultural aspect to the subject of the article, with some historical significance that shouldn't simply be removed wholesale. Homeopathy is an example of such an article that careful explains the evolving history of the subject. If we were to simply to present the accepted science, the article would be very short.- MrX 03:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I support discussion on the talk page of the article. I think the version reverted from is a far better base to start from and inclusion of primary and fringe sources for context and explanation could be discussed. The version reverted from represented the assessment of the subject by reliable secondary sources evaluating the subject historically and sociologically. I think that should be the basis of the article. Clearly there is some contention that is why I didn't revert to that version but proposed it on talk. TLDR: It's good version to work from. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Sourced text was deleted. The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source and infections is a common adverse effect. Specific examples is appropriate. This edit was counterproductive and the editor seems to not understand. See Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable_source.3F_-_.22From_Alien_Abductions_to_Zone_Therapy.22. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a name I saw in a recent ARCA about this subject. I think you know that AE can be invoked if the problematic behavior continues.John Carter (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Williams isn't a MEDRS, and there are already severe UNDUE problems with coverage of serious adverse events (which are very rare; we don't need to list every opportunistic pathogen). See Talk:Acupuncture#MEDRS_and_WEIGHT_issues_in_recent_edits. Why is this thread even here? Per WP:BRD I'd hoped that QuackGuru would at least attempt to justify his edits at Talk:Acupuncture, but he hasn't even posted there about this issue. Why complain in another venue before even trying to engage WP:DR? --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Infections are one of the more common side effects. Specific examples of the infections benefits the reader.

The encyclopedia is a reliable source and used widely on Misplaced Pages. The comments at Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable_source.3F_-_.22From_Alien_Abductions_to_Zone_Therapy.22 are misleading. Editors are claiming the book is mainly about extraterrestrials to discredit the book. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again this belongs at Talk:Acupuncture. (For benefit of readers here: Williams isn't a MEDRS. Infections are the most common SAE but SAE's are themselves quite rare, hence the UNDUE problem.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion the encyclopedia is not reliable. The source is used on many articles on Misplaced Pages. The source about safety says "infections were still the major complication of acupuncture." We should give the source its due weight. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor stated "I haven't yet found where to access that book" but decided to delete the source along with other text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only is the source not MEDRS compliant, but this noticeboard isn't the proper venue; WP:RSN is. Reflexively posting here is simply canvassing. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think the source is unreliable then you would have no problem with making an argument to delete the source from many Misplaced Pages articles. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IDHT much, QG? Williams can be an RS (depending on the claim of course) but is not MEDRS. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is a lot of overlap between the various noticeboards. The reliability, or lack thereof, of sources is a very common issue when dealing with articles on WP:FRINGE topics. My feeling is you go to whichever board is going to best address the broader issues. But once a topic is raised on one board it should not normally be duplicated elsewhere unless there are very compelling reasons as it just confuses any discussion. With respect to canvassing, I'm not seeing it, though I might have missed something where !votes are being recorded. Is there a related AfD going on somewhere? If so then discussion should definitely be restricted to that venue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, a posting to a WP:NOTICEBOARD can never be canvassing, since noticeboards are for widening consensus, which is after all how WP functions. The large number of eyes means the views expressed are always wide-ranging too (witness the responses in this very section!). The advantage of posting to a noticeboard is that it is likely to get input from editors who are experienced in a particula area - here, for instance, in the application of WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Sometimes it's useful to post to a couple of NBs when the topic overlaps - personally, if I do this, I note the dual posting in the message text. Alexbrn 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet in this case, QuackGuru didn't even try discussing at the article talk page. He made two bold-ish posts, both of which were reverted by me with concerns over MEDRS and UNDUE. Then he posted here, and a small edit war ensued , with still no use of the talk page. That's exactly the opposite of what we needed. QuackGuru should simply have followed BRD -- D meaning Discuss at talk page, not Dash over to a noticeboard first. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is emerging/has emerged not to use Williams as a MEDRS (and to use a different source to support similar, uncontroversial wording). FWIW, further discussion of whether or not to include the list of pathogens at: Talk:Acupuncture#Infection --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The larger point, re infections and adverse events, is that acupuncture is universally agreed to be safe (whatever else one can say about it). Serious adverse events, including infection, are rare. Five deaths from acupuncture are known worldwide from 2000-2009. Most serious adverse events are due to dirty/re-used needles, a problem common in the developing world with needles of all kinds. In light of that, isn't this section bloated? Acupuncture#Adverse_events --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 10:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "universally agreed to be safe" is 100% right. If you're getting treatment for a minor complaint (a stiff shoulder say), you don't really expect to be exposed to a therapy which carries a risk of serious infection or death, even if that risk is very low. BTW, something that sticks out about the acupuncture page is that the primary photo shows somebody sticking needles into somebody while not wearing gloves. Is that how it's done, and is that okay (genuine questions)? Alexbrn 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's universally agreed to be a relatively safe treatment per sources, and intrinsically is very safe. Most adverse events are due to malpractice.

The whole section is plagued by UNDUE and poor prose, which is basically all down to QuackGuru incessantly pushing everything he can to make acupuncture look horrible. Yet it's used in academic centers all over the place, like Harvard Medical School .... terribly fringe .... but seriously, it's not as hideous as the QG-dominated article implies, and that makes Misplaced Pages look dumb. (To answer your question: one doesn't need to wear gloves during acupuncture or e.g. intramuscular injections , but yes during venipuncture.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 12:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also used at Yale Medical School, listed as an evidence-based practice, no less. Ordinarily this would indicate some degree of mainstreamness -- but, we have WP:FLAT, which explicitly says that Misplaced Pages needs to depict things not as they're accepted in the world, but as we think they should be. Or did I misread WP:FLAT? --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find those words in WP:FLAT (which is just an essay, albeit a good one) - what do you mean? Just because something is at large in the world (even in a sense "mainstream") does not absolve it of (in WP terms) its fringeiness. Homeopathy is available from national health services; more people in the USA believe in alien abduction than evolution. We should simply reflect the content of the best sources. Having said that, I'm enjoying my break from the acupuncture article as it's a perma-wreck ... Alexbrn 14:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I'd used a sarcasm emoticon with my comment about WP:FLAT. Alex, of course things like homeopathy and creationism and global warming denial and the rest are all over the place. But they're not taught in mainstream academia. (Homeopathy is a very good way to leverage the placebo effect, and as such may have a place in an academic "integrative" clinic, but I seriously doubt you'll see them calling it "evidence based".) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As if we don't have a policy on WP:TERTIARY sources; you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary in fact. Logos (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy at the link posted, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Misplaced Pages articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Misplaced Pages articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Misplaced Pages itself (see Category:Misplaced Pages and Category:WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles)." and it does not say what Logos asserts, "you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary in fact" as one can read it says something quite different. The statements "should be based primarily" and "to a lesser extent" are not accurately paraphrased as "you can't use" and "when you should use". "Useful in providing broad summaries when there are many primary and secondary sources" and "when primary or secondary sources contradict each other" seem to speak directly to this example. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"you can't use a tertiary source when you should use a secondary" refers also to the relatively low quality of The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, compared to other prominent ecyclopedias. Such a controversial element should be sourced better. If The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not able to present any reliable independent scholarly citation for its remark about infections' being adverse effect, then it is not reliable for this specific case; remember WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Logos (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the proposal was to use Williams not for infection but for the statement about acu not having a long-term effect on any disease. That's a statement requiring a MEDRS, and Williams isn't one, and it looks like there's consensus to use a true MEDRS saying something similar. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 06:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Middle 8, long term effect on disease could be better sourced and there are probably better sources that say something similar. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Infections included mycobacterium, staphylococcus, septic arthritis, necrotizing fasciitis, pneumoretroperitoneum, facial erysipelas, HIV, Listeria monocytogenes-caused arthritis, and infections via Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas.<ref name="Xu S" />

The reader will never know what are the risks of pathogens involved with acupuncture. Too bad. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture again

The tag was added to the article without consensus. There is a supposed list of problems on the talk page without a specific proposal. I disagree with leaving the tag of shame] at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cosmological General Relativity

Cosmological General Relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stumbled across this recently created article. Just "Physicist John Hartnett and others have extended the theory and used it as the basis for a creationist cosmology" in the lead sets my warning bells ringing. The article's huge and I'm rather swamped right now, so I haven't even attempted to read through it all, but a quick skim through it hasn't eased my sense of alarm (carbon-14 decaying to carbon-12?). Furthermore, opening up the article for editing revealed a huge comment, including

WARNING! Do NOT make any substantive changes to this article UNLESS you have THOROUGHLY reviewed the source material in the references, and understand what you're doing. While CGR borrows terminology from the standard cosmological model, it defines many terms differently, and with different underlying assumptions. Most current understanding of modern cosmology is directly derived from FLRW/Lambda-CDM and most of it either DOES NOT apply or applies in a SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT way.

Using established terminology to mean different things is another classic fringe indicator. I'd like some more eyes on this, please. Kolbasz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is unusual. It seems that the theory has been published in the academic mainstream, and John Hartnett was one of the main researchers. But he also supports creation science, although does not publish anything about that in peer-reviewed sources. TFD (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It has most certainly not been published in the academic mainstream. The entire article is junk and sourced to preprint servers. jps (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See Moshe Carmeli, Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large Scale Structure of Space, Time and Velocity, Second Edition, World Scientific, 2002. Also, Carmeli's "Cosmological Special Relativity", Foundations of Physics, 1996 Carmeli was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University and President of the Israel Physical Society. What has not been published is Hartnett's use of the theory to defend young earth creationism. TFD (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"World Scientific Publishing". Aren't they the guys who send loads of spam for vanity publications etc? I even have some in my spam folder at the moment which is trying to get me to read some of their crap, Second Quantization (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be confusing it with "World Science Publisher." World Scientific Publishing jointly runs Imperial College Press with Imperial College, which is certainly an academic publishing company. TFD (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FoP is published by Springer Science+Business Media, a highly reputable publisher of academic books and journals. It's chief editor is Gerard 't Hooft, who is a Nobel laureate in physics. Google scholar lists over 5,000 of their articles, and the hits on the first page are all cited in hundreds of other articles. They indeed did publish Evans' now discredited theories, and then retracted their support for publishing them. Academic journals have published many papers where methodologies were found to be inadequate or mathematical errors occurred or even where test results were falsified. Both SETI and CERN have made announcements they later retracted. None of that disqualifies them as reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FoP is supposed to be a journal on the bleeding edge of ideas, but that means it also suffers from the hazard of wandering into nonsense as what happened with ECE. That object lesson is enough to WP:REDFLAG an idea that is primarily sourced to that journal (and a book which probably did not see anything close to peer review). Note also the relevant publication date is nearly 20 years ago -- back before the current 't Hooft hammer had come down and before the housecleaning of all the nonsense had been undertaken at FoP. jps (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on what jps said: FoP for a long time had a reputation as a bit of a dumping ground, somewhat analogous to Medical Hypotheses. The current editor has done (so far as I have heard) a good job clamping down on the nonsense while still fulfilling the journal's mission to be a bit speculative out past the bleeding edge. Generally speaking, anything cited to FoP needs attribution and a good deal of care. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There are also articles about the theory in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics,] and Frontiers of Fundamental Physics The theory is also briefly discussed in Space, Time, and Spacetime (Springer 2007), p.37. Foundations of Physics continues to publish articles about it under the new editor. Obviously this is an article about a theory, not about a fact, and the requirement of reliability is that the sources accurately outline the theory, not that that the theory has been proved and is now generally accepted in physics. It is in the nature of original theories in cosmology and physics that most theories will not gain acceptance. There is a discussion about the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cosmological General Relativity. TFD (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

After the disastrous AfD where it seems that people didn't bother to look at how this subject has received no independent journal coverage, I realized that this may be the answer. jps (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As I explained at the AfD, "indpendent" does not mean that writers do not hold a position on the topic they are discussing. It means that the writer or publisher has no financial interest in what is published. For example a website financed by oil companies would not be an independent source for climate change. But it does not mean that articles by writers who hold a position on climate change cannot be used. Otherwise we could not have articles on climate change or would have to strike out most articles about science. Incidentally, there are a huge number of articles about theories in heterodox fringe economics that have only been sourced to publishers controlled by their adherents. It might be helpful for you to take a look at them. TFD (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can ever convince jps about that true nature of independency. Logos (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Subud, George Gurdjieff, Findhorn Foundation etc

Can anyone help with Subud and associated theosophy etc articles? I gave up trying to help with Subud (culty types, not very Wikifriendly) having tripped over the article and discovered it was written entirely from within this relatively obscure little movement (ie taking the movements jargon etc as commonly shared) and not even mentioning any of the criticism or controversy which has followed it round the world for decades. For example the suicide of the founder's son - which features in academic literature as well as an otherwise hagiographic biography - finds no place. I added a small academic reference to it being called a cult (by the French government among others) but this was deleted on spurious grounds.

Coming back to Subud after a couple of months I found that, as feared, every possible even only questionably critical reference has been removed. It now reads entirely like a brochure produced by and for the Subud group. So as a minimum it needs tagging but which tag do people think is appropriate? On the Talk page I have added some helpful hints for editors as to where some more varied material can be found.

Looking at Subud led me to George Gurdjieff, an article which is just as biased. Most scholars would these days characterise GG as something of a joke - but there is again no NPOV in this article, no criticism, and merely a (to an outsider) baffling, lengthy and jargon-heavy exposition. The bibliography doesn't include a major accessible scholarly work on him and his kind ("Madame Blavatskys Baboon"), no doubt because it is not to the taste of GGs few remaining followers.

Going further I found plenty of other articles which relate to these two subjects - and whose articles are linked in one way or another - but which are similarly flawed. I hope someone might one day take a look at the whole area of theosophy articles (eg John G. Bennett etc)

Finally, some time ago a 'controversy' section was deleted from the article on the Findhorn Foundation (something of a clearing house for esoterica in the UK) and so I have copied that material here, having given up on my attempts to try and keep some balance on that page.

==Controversy==

There have been many critics of and controversies surrounding the work of the Findhorn Foundation since 1962. For example:

• A. Roberts, writing in the Fortean Times, alleges that in the 1960s, Caddy and other 'channelers' believed that they were in contact with extraterrestrials through telepathy, and prepared a 'landing strip' for flying saucers at nearby Cluny Hill.

• In 1993 the Scottish Charities Office commissioned a report into holotropic breathwork, having received complaints about it at the Findhorn Foundation. The report caused the Findhorn Foundation to suspend its breathwork programme. According to The Scotsman, Dr Linda Watt of Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital in Glasgow said that the hyperventilation technique might cause seizures or lead to psychosis in vulnerable people. (The Scotsman, 14 October 1993).

• In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the self-styled Australian guru Jasmuheen (not connected with the Findhorn Foundation), who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.

1. Castro, Stephen J, 1996. Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation
2. Roberts, A, Saucers over Findhorn, Fortean Times, accessed 12-08-08.
3. Braid, Mary, "The Magic Kingdom", The Independent, 12 June 2001, accessed 27 March 2009

Testbed (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Update: the last Findhorn reference isn't on The Independent website anymore but it's reprinted online here. Testbed (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• In cases where there has been obvious POV editing and mass redaction of critical material the easiest solution is to just restore the last good version. Yes, that will tick some people off if you are going back a ways, but sometimes that's what's needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks but I wouldn't have come here if I hadn't already tried that - and failed - on both Subud and Findhorn Foundation. Weeks, months, later (slow motion 3RR?) I feel there are more of them, or they have more stamina, or more time. By posting here maybe more experienced / adept editors will show up who find the articles interesting enough to take a look. Testbed (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what the last good version is. But if you revert to those points and add an appropriate edit summary to the effect that you are reverting POV editing I will put these articles on my watch list. If there is an attempt to delete properly sourced material we can then step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles shows some reference sources which have content related to these topics, and there are numerous others as well. I can try to get ahold of any your think might be useful as well as any from the various databanks I have access to and people with subscriptions to some of the Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library can probably access additional material that might be available there. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree these articles need work and watchlisting. Post a notice here once a decent version has been reverted to or edited to with a link for each article as you go and I will also watchlist them. If I get a chance I'll try some research and post results on relevant talk pages. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple days late, but there is a discussion of this section at Jimbo's talk page (link). Sunrise (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks User: Sunrise: what did you mean to link to, as I don't see anything about Subud etc on that page? Testbed (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is in the archives here. Mainly it was being used as an example in an attack on Misplaced Pages generally and treatment of fringe content more specifically. This happens now and then when editors feel that their content is being improperly excluded. Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative cancer treatments EW

Seems like an EW is brewing at Alternative cancer treatments over inclusion of German New Medicine. A source has been provided and discussion opened on talk page. The last revert was performed without engagement on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty heady stuff at German New Medicine - and there's a BLP aspect for its inventor and his (sometimes young) "patients". Note also a query has been raised at WT:MED about this. I see Gorski has written about GNM (e.g. here) - something by him is already cited. Alexbrn 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The EW is likely resolved as the user repeatedly removing content has been blocked. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD Apex effect

I created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apex effect last week but it has yet to attract any comments. It relates to Emotional Freedom Techniques and Thought Field Therapy, so this board should have the relevant expertise to dig up sources, should they exist. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

Some POV-pushing here for example removing any mention e.g. that Craniosacral therapy is ineffective pseudoscience, instead saying it is in "contrast to the traditional medical belief". More eyes needed. Alexbrn 07:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Accelerated learning

A garden worth weeding?

• Suggestopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Georgi Lozanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SuperCamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Quantum Learning Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bobbi DePorter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

jps (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good find. The "Quantum Learning Network" seemed to be an advert for something thoroughly unnotable, so I redirected it. I think a couple of others could be good AfD candidates too. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestopedia appears to be the only subject that has gained notice in enough reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. The rest could do with merging, redirecting, or AfDing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Any input from people knowledgable in the academic study of history and to what degree professionals in broadly historical field are likely to have their professional opinions colored by personal beliefs and to what degree our content should address such concerns based on that general principle but not much case-specific RS sourcing that I have yet seen , and anyone else of course, is more than welcome to take part in the discussion on the article talk page regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba

Is marketed in dietary supplement form with false claims it can enhance "cognitive function". I recently refreshed the medical sourcing here but the article is now seeing pushback. More eyes could help ... Alexbrn 15:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yech. I did this too: . jps (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

Can someone please look at this. Two users keep inserting into the science section a load of fringe thinkers/parapsychologists like Raymond Moody etc. All unsourced as well. Goblin Face (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The controversial content in question has been a bone of contention for a long time, and has been in and out of the article with no discussion on the talkpage as far as I can see. Nobody has responded to Goblin Face's lone talkpage post on 23 August; in other words the people reverting to keep the content in the article have zero input on talk. That's not how it's supposed to work. I've protected for a week to encourage discussion. Please try to reach consensus on talk. It'll clearly never happen through soundbites in edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

What really gets me is that there's an entire section on parapsychology, but everyone's ignoring it to shove all this content into "Science". Hell, the Parapsychology section is probably, in itself, in violation of WP:FRINGE as it stands. Adam Cuerden 16:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What really strikes me, on the other hand, is that people have an ambition/passion to insert such sections labeled as science into the articles related to cultural artifacts, beliefs or paranormal concepts. If afterlife has such a section, then could christianity, Miracles_of_Jesus, etc. have also. We should move that section into consciousness after death. Logos (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If it makes scientific claims - and by having a parapsychology section, it does - then WP:FRINGE literally requires the fringe section to be put into context. Adam Cuerden 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology section should also be moved to consciousness after death then. Logos (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a split, though, in such a general article. Cut it down, sure, but they need to be linked by summary. Adam Cuerden 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Andy has a point. Even if afterlife is a generalist topic, it should be confined to the beliefs. If a concept/subject is beyond the realm of science, then it is synth to report the scientific view about it. It seems that that section was labeled as neuroscience at the beginning. Logos (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that charlatans from the field of parapsychology are always claiming they have scientific evidence for the afterlife from bogus mediums, NDE reports, alleged ghost sightings or haunted houses etc. If you remove the parapsychology section then yes the science section could be removed as well, that is only in there to balance all those woo claims from the parapsychology section. There is no scientific evidence for the afterlife, the whole idea of a metaphysical afterlife is outside the realm of empirical science. It is a religious/philosophical subject. Not all people understand this though and even if those two sections were removed then sooner or later users will just re-add content about silly studies of ghosts, mediums or NDEs. So the best thing in my opinion is to leave both those sections but remove many of the fringe claims from the parapsychology section. I will attempt this at some point. Goblin Face (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Holotropic Breathwork

Oh my god is this article a mess. What do you think? Mass pruning? Adam Cuerden 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

#"a unified process of healing and personal empowerment". We've got a lot of pruning in the surrounding area too. jps (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Has been with us since 2004, I see. Pure promotion, with no critical perspective beyond a pretty sad criticism section devoted mainly to complaints from representatives of other similar theories/therapies. According to this 2011 note by User:The Communicator, it was the subject of a request for arbitration around 2006, but I wasn't able to find that in the archives. (The user might have meant a request for mediation, because I did find that.)

I've redirected to Breathwork, merging the worthwhile content (a couple of sentences, complemented with a reference from the history and a sentence from Stanislav Grof). Even though Breathwork is a mere stub compared to the bloated Holotropic Breathwork, the reader who types in "Holotropic breathwork" will now nevertheless get better information and a more encyclopedic perspective, as Breathwork provides a helpful introduction to the concept of breathwork, which was sadly lacking in the rhapsodic Holotropic Breathwork. (Almost incredibly, it didn't even link to Breathwork, unless I missed it somewhere in the middle.) Breathwork's original paragraph about Holotropic breathwork was very crappy, by the way, sticking out like a sore thumb in an otherwise very reasonable article.

If/When my redirecting of Holotropic Breathwork gets reverted by the adherents who obviously wrote the article (not to lessen the work of the brave souls who have battled to NPOV it over the years), I suggest either a slash-burn stubbing, or AfD. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Near-death experience

I have improved this article in the last few days i.e. adding scientific references and this is something I will continue to do over the weekend. Before I started editing this article it was filled with fringe claims and loads of paranormal/spiritualist books being cited that the NDE is evidence for an afterlife. The mainstream consensus on this subject is that the NDE is a hallucination. I do not see why it is biased or not neutral stating this. A user not happy with what I have done has put a template on the article about neutrality, see comments on the talk-page etc. Goblin Face (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also a mess life review. Goblin Face (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Esoteric cosmology

Are there any reliable sources for this topic? Goblin Face (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the definition can be cited, we can certainly get Gnosticism, Kaballah, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and probably the other three bits I'm not as familiar with. So I think this one basically comes down to a notability test. Ignore the examples: Is the term/concept a notable way of collecting such ideas? If yes, keep, if no, delete.

A Google Scholar search causes me to lean delete; but before I prod it, I'd like to hear other views. It looks like it might be an anthroposophical term, which would be bad if we're trying to neutrally describe things. Adam Cuerden 04:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stone Tape

This is fringe idea that has run mad. No reliable sources on the article at all and the two scientific papers cited do not even discuss stone tape, so a case of original research. I think this should be taken to AfD. Goblin Face (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it the article was bloated and padded beyond what has been covered by reliable sources. That this offbeat hypothesis was originated by ‪Thomas Charles Lethbridge‬ (there's a one line mention in our bio article) and a BBC TV show gave it cult popularity is really all that reliable non-fringe sources will support. The rest of the article is sourced to unreliable publications by parapsychologists and psychic researchers, and the unrelated but synthesized-in "Pottery hoax" section as well as the well-meaning scientific view section are classic OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminski

The dailymail newspaper have released a piece recently identifying jack the ripper as Aaron Kosminski, apparently this is based on alleged DNA evidence (which has not been confirmed by anyone, just speculated by a single author). There has been high amounts of traffic to this article recently. The recent fringe information added may need to be checked. Goblin Face (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems OK at the moment. The author's self-aggrandising claims of certainty are possibly problematic, but they are clearly presented as puff by the author, not as fact. The issues about handling and provenance, which have been repeatedly raised in connection with the shawl are clearly articulated. The identification of Kosminski as the suspect most favoured by researchers in recent decades is more or less correct. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy

I've raised pov issues there about the length and content of some of the entries on this list, as well as the inclusion of some with no articles. I think it should be more like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The lengthier entries are mainly those of those who oppose evolution and such. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus, again...

I know this was posted on less than a week ago (I actually saw that post here and went over there to help out).

But there's an uncomfortable number of users (at least two) suggesting we remove phrases like "most scholars" and "most historians". The fact is that 99.999999% of scholars in the relevant fields (New Testament studies, Historical Jesus research, etc.) consider a guy named Jesus to have at least existed. The majority of historians of other fields (Celtic studies, modern China, late-Heian period Japan, etc., etc.) have not stated an opinion on whether Jesus existed.

It's my opinion that non-specialist opinions from those in unrelated fields should not be taken into account in an encyclopedia article, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. This means that 99.999999% of scholars do indeed allow us to use phrase like "most scholars".

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant field is *history* (ancient history to be precise), not biblical scholarship, so Hijiri's argument does not apply. In addition, we have many sources both inside and outside historical scholarship that impeach the methodological soundness and impartiality of Historical Jesus research. (References supplied on the talk page). It is wrong to misrepresent HJ scholars as historians, quite independently of whether their conclusions agree with those of actual historians. And as it happens we already have authoritative quotations from actual historians that say yes, historians in general believe in the historicity of Jesus and do not take the Christ Myth Theory seriously, so we don't need any pretend-historians to make that statement for them. The views of biblical scholars remain notable of course, and deserve to be quoted, I don't think anyone is disputing that. They should just not be represented in Misplaced Pages voice. As for the CMT, we have several reliable sources who take it seriously, so whether Hijiri likes it or not, it is going to remain part of the page. I might add that running off to a noticeboard without notifying the editors on the page in question is bad form. This kind of attempted POV censorship needs to be slapped down and slapped down hard. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Terms like "most" or "few" or "some" are a bit weasel-y and feature in WP:WTA. The real trick is to explain without begging the question Template:Whom. We have a few rules such as WP:ITA and WP:YESPOV which may provide some helpful guidelines on how to go about explaining what essentially is uncontroversial (the proposal that there was never any person as Jesus is a fringe hypothesis that borders on a conspiracy theory in the Dan-Brown-ish sense). I think the fringe hypothesis is worthy of at least discussion on the historicity of Jesus page, but it should be couched as such without appeal to who believes what necessarily. If I get a chance, I may take a crack at the wording to see if I can get to a point where this is less problematic. jps (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. In fact it seems like the article itself exists to discuss the fringe conspiracy theory. But pointing out "there is virtually no independent, non-Christian evidence of Jesus' existence" (something that is indisputably true, and "the Testimonium Flavianum is a late Christian interpolation and Tacitus didn't actually talk about the person Jesus", while still fringe, is not quite on the level of "Jesus never existed" and is treated seriously by a number of scholars) and then not pointing out that 99.999999% of reputable scholars find the evidence for Jesus' existence fully convincing, gives the wrong impression to readers. Don't you think that if we have a huge number of reliable sources from the best scholars in the field that all say "virtually all scholars hold this view" we shouldn't go mincing their words and saying "some scholars present X, Y and Z evidence for this view"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL only applies when we say "most scholars say..." without providing a source. The fact is most scholars assume Jesus existed. The argument that most of these scholars are Christian or are descended from Christians is irrelevant. They base their arguments on facts, not their religious beliefs. Furthermore, scholarship does not exist in isolation. If one branch of scholarship is considered to use improper methology then it is not accepted by other branches. For example, pseudoscientific literature, even if accepted by fellow researchers, is not considered science by mainstream scholarship.

The argument for Jesus'; existence is that since numerous people with first or second-hand knowledge of him wrote about him, it is likely that they were writing about an actual person rather than inventing someone they knew never existed. That does not mean of course that the details of his life were accurate, and legends about him probably were invented and incorporated into writings about him.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What seems to be going on (and I confess that it's being a bit hard to follow due to the sheer volume of words) is that there's an attempt being made to suppress we-can-cite-this-with-a-page-number passages from the likes of Bart Ehrman and others of really unquestionable authority to speak for the field when they say that pretty much everyone in the field accepts that there was a historical Jesus (in the sense of there being a real person). As far as I can tell nobody has presented any conflicting authority on this, so I see no problem with leaving those statements in (with their citations). I cannot but conclude that there is some severe viewpoint-pushing going on but with the torrent of responses it's hard to get a handle on exactly what the point is. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One editor said it was driven by Zeitgeist: The Movie, which ties together the creation of Jesus and 9/11, TFD (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Helvie energy theory of nursing and health

I recently PROD'd this and that has been denied on account of the article being "well sourced". It seems to me this "theory" has no real coverage and the superficially big reference list is of no relevance (just checking the first, it appears that Helvie was cited in the cited chapter, but incidentally and for something other than this "energy theory"). Thoughts?