Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 8

Collaboration of the Month?
Do we have something like that? I think this Project would be improved if we had something like that, which we could use to focus on specific articles. --Havermayer (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

pseudomedicine Anthroposophical medicine
The article Anthroposophical_medicine needs the attention of someone knowledgeable. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria
Can someone point me to the Criteria for including articles in this project? Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't exact criteria: it's articles related to the paranormal, to skepticism and critical thinking, and foundational issues in science. The Skeptic's Dictionary site is an overview of the sort of topics to be covered, but isn't a complete list by any means. Use your judgement, and if you think the inclusion of an article might be controversial, feel free to discuss it here.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Hi. I noticed massive blanking in this article, which is listed of interest to your project. A little further investigation shows that it is being heavily edited by several IPs who were cautioned for edit-warring on the article in 2009. Frankly, on page size alone it seems that it could use some pruning, but I have no knowledge of and little interest in naturopathy, and the content at least appeared to be well-sourced. I have restored it, but it is in the process of being removed without comment again. (Since the IP seems to rapidly cycle, it's possible that the contributor had not received my notice.) I thought that it might be worth bringing the article to the attention of the projects under which it is tagged in case some repairs may be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Skeptic Toolbox
I'm totally overwhelmed with the Rational skepticism Project page so not even sure if I'm doing this right. I can barely edit but am working on adding links here and there (and pictures I've taken over the years). I think we need a page for the Skeptic Toolbox but I'm not comfortable doing it. I have some newspaper articles that I'm sure someone working on the project would be interested in having. But I don't know where to post them. Also would love someone (who is patient) to kinda talk me through this project, I sorta understand what is going on but have lots of questions and don't want to post them all here so everyone will know how slow I am. LOL Sgerbic (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to respond to questions on my Talk page. We were all beginners once, and it's taken me years to really "get" how Wikipedia works, so don't worry. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical consusions
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here. PPdd (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

BIORHYTHM : a much maligned and misunderstood wisdom.
An internet dictionary defines "biorhythm" as a noun, meaning: a recurring cycle in the physiology or functioning of an organism, such as the daily cycle of sleeping and waking; a cyclic pattern of physical, emotional, or mental activity said to occur in the life of a person.

I would concur that this is a good common sense definition. But now, in its more specialized usage, the word "biorhythm" has come to be known to refer to a graphical instrument which is purportedly useful to present historical information about a human person and for also presenting future information about a person. After reading some of the wikipedia literature about the "biorhythm" system it appears that it has fallen somewhat into disrepute and has been categorized as pseudoscience.

In defense of the real "biorhythm system" I would like to point out that several years ago (in the early 1990s) I happened to find an old book on the subject and read into it. This old book stated that the original "biorhythm" system sprang from a formal medical study conducted in Scandinavia during the 1940s. A statistical analysis was conducted by a panel of medical doctors there who sought to discover whether there was a "cycle" to be found associated with or to be found correlated to the vulnerability or immunity of school age children to public contagions. It was noted that when all of the school age students were in contact with various contagions that not all of the children contracted the illnesses though the children were very much alike in other respects.

The old book disclosed that the statistical study proved fruitful to identify three main cycles. These came to be called "biorhythms" and only later were all three lumped together by the public into a general system which we today call "biorhythm" or "biorhythm system." Further now, I would like to point out that when statistical methods are employed in formal clinical trials that the language of mathematics of statistics leaves little room for unobserved errors.

Since I had extensive mathematics and sciences and health sciences background and education to independent post graduate level I attempted to generate charts using the information from the book. As it was claimed to be statistically correct and true that the periodicities and frequencies of each of the three parameters––physical, emotional, and intellectual--are 23, 28, and 33 days respectively, and with no mention whatsoever of any intuition scale nor any other inferred or implied parameters or modes, I relied upon them for the basis of my charts. I compared the information disclosed by my charts to my lived experience, and found a high number of very good hits mixed with a large number of substantial discrepancies.

From my earlier statistics education, I understood that the requirements to overcome limits for accuracy of information derived from the statistical tabulations of the clinical trials had been satisfied. I was able to infer that 'N' was very well past the minimum n=30 and the clusters of 'n' were drawn from numerous repeatable events. In short, the doctors attempted to highlight, in statistical terms, a very clear body of information. The discrepancies brought me to suspect that the "biorhythm system," as presented, carried an intrinsic error. But what could it be? If "biorhythm system" was proved statistically certain to a high coefficient of determination to be correct with school age children, why would it show large discrepancies with older people?

To be honest, my first suspicion to rise to the question was that there must be a cumulative error that formed the essential or intrinsic error. I thought the graphs were thrown off from accuracy through an error of periodicity - that the doctors had misjudged the length of days in each parameter. But no... I had to dismiss that idea since it was established as correct by statistical methods. Next I went to the general frame of reference. The school age children were statistically proved to conform to the model, but older people could not be "proved" to that degree of consistency. That did not pan out logically either because we do not become less human with age. If anything, people become more vulnerable and consistent with age. So, my feeling sent me to look at the next layer of the onion - the time scale.

The doctors plotted the statistical information on the time line of the Gregorian calendar. I attempted to plot the three periods on the sidereal time scale, and reconciled the errors virtually to line thickness error on the graph. In the first two decades of life the apparent difference between the curves plotted on the Gregorian and sidereal scales of time is near to none at all. The differences in these decades fall within one standard deviation and could have been attributed to normal distribution within the test group. As it was a study of school age children there was no extension of the model into the later years, though the expectation was that it applied equally well to older people. However, the difference of almost four minutes per day between the length of the sidereal day and a Gregorian day accumulates to significant amounts of time beyond two decades. This amount of error worked against the general credibility of the old original classical biorhythm algorythm. Still later I found that numerous obituary dates of elderly people who died from natural causes coincided with repeated positions of the three waves. Their locations with respect to each other on the chart formed consistent patterns on the days of their death moments. The graphical wave patterns presented the vulnerable death days of many people in about six clusters. A statistical out-flier was probably due to extraneous causes, perhaps even an assassination by slow poisoning. That is, that while a person was, say, ill with a serious condition, he would not become critically vulnerable to it until his/her underlying strength-weakness came into coordination with the threat. That strength-weakness presents as a pattern on the graph on a date.

The sidereal biorhythm system provides the suggestion that these three rhythms are man's link to the cosmos; that periods of vulnerability and strength in those three modes are influenced by the global environment of the rise and fall of solar gravitation visited upon humanity throughout the rotation and orbit of the planet earth around it.

As a result of this, I believe people have erroneously presumed that the "biorhythm system" is pseudoscience. I believe it deserves closer examination to unroot the intrinsic error; to bring its full utility into the light of the day.

Starlight engram 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Starlight engram (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Starlight, the proper place for this discussion is on the Biorhythm talkpage. Please remember that as this is an encyclopaedia, all material has to be sourced to a reliable, notable and verifiable source. It is not the function of wikipedia to publish original research. You will see somebody has posted some links to our policies on your talkpage. Fainites barley scribs 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it isn't appropriate there either. It's original research and posting it there would be using the article talk page as a forum for original research, not a good idea. I've commented on this at Starlight's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Starlight engram (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for re-evaluation of Anthroposophical medicine
WP:Writing for the enemy, I did a total rewrite of Anthroposophical medicine. Both POV's seem happly now. Can the article be re-evaluated? PPdd (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion related to promulgation of alternative medicine articles on the same topic
AfD discussion related to promulgation of alternative medicine articles on the same topic such as acupuncture point and acupuncture is here. Pleae participate. PPdd (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals - Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Review New Entry for Vancouver UFO Sighting
I have created my first new entry for Wikipedia (currently under my userpage) on the Vancouver, WA UFO Sighting. Is this a place where I can request feedback (and get encouragement) to continue? Realityinvestigator (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Creating in your user space and then asking for feedback is an ideal way to proceed. Your general style is good. I worry though that you seem to have used user comments on a news web site as a source. Anyway can write anything on these, so we don't count them as reliable sources. Without those sources, the article may well fail the relevant notability criterion, WP:NEWSEVENT. I'd fix the sourcing and ask again. By the way, you have duplicate references: it's better practice to add a name to your ref tags so you can use one citation multiple times. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Tarot Cards
I will shortly be merging the tarot cards into their suits and I am trying to contact the interested parties for comment. There are significant issues with them being split not least of which is maintenanceTetron76 (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet based planned mass attack on WP alt med articles by “concerned professionals”
There is an admitted mass attack on WP alt med being prepared to deliberately introduce POV and create a new “consensus”, as posted at a discussion forum of “professionals”. For example, they just OR invented new “accreditation” at WP for their “doctorate” degree. The already started edit warring at TCM, to make a point about new age dress styles not being appropriate for their profession and trying to eliminate content on snake oil because it “makes them look bad” from its history. Is this WP:MP? PPdd (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting us to this. By the way, do you mean WP:POINT and not WP:POV? Can you give us a list of affected articles so we can watchlist them? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as citation, cite journal, cite web...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place id (or worse http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use 0123.4567, likewise for id and http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 &rarr; 0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):



Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

History of perpetual motion machines
History of perpetual motion machines appears to be within the scope of the wikiproject. I've made many changes to remove some of the particularly fringe claims (but further removals are inevitable as they appear to be mostly unnoticeable events). Should this article be added to the wikiproject to draw more eyes to it? (I'm not too sure how to go about that). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mentioning articles here on this discussion page helps. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science
Review & help is urgently needed for this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Creating a Photo To-Do List
We all know that pictures really make a Wikipedia page, and many of the skeptical bios are missing current pictures. I'm a photographer that attends many skeptical events and would like to create a to-photograph list. Once in awhile I come across a page that is missing images, or the one we have is old or not flattering. I should have been keeping track of those pages but just made a mental note, now I've forgotten who needed them. When you get a chance can you please jot down some names so others can also help out? They might have a picture but haven't bothered to upload it yet. Case in point Barry Beyerstein's page lacked a picture until I found a horrible one I took many years ago. I cleaned it up best I could and now he has something. His daughter gave me one of the last pictures taken before he died but I can't get it to load from Flickr. Hint Hint Sgerbic (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking through some of the articles and found a lot that are missing pictures...here is a start to the list. Charles Moore, Claude Allegre, Farrell Till, George Abell, Isidor Sauers, Robert Jahn, Robert Sheaffer, Sven Hansson, Stanislaw Burzynski, Andrew Weil, Stephen Barrett, Bart Bok - deceased, Chris French, Drauzio Varella, Eddie Tabash, James Oberg, James Moseley, Jerome Clark, Kendrick Frazier, Linda Howe, Michael Goudeau, Sanal Edamaruku, Sherwin Nuland, Philp Klass - deceased, Dean Radin, Robert Priddy, Victor Stenger, Curtis Peebles, Donna Kossy, David Jacob, Gerald Glaskin, Greg Epstein (needs new picture), Joseph Farrell, Terence Hines

Sgerbic (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I just updated Robert Todd Carroll with a picture I took at SkeptiCalCon May 30, 2011. While there I was also able to add pictures from other speakers that were not on this list. Peter Gleick, Anthony Pratkanis and now Yau-Man Chan has a second picture up besides his ping-pong one. Sgerbic (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you find articles that need pictures, try adding Image requested to the talk page (at the top, under WikiProject banners etc.) - the one you'll probably need most is . —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Infobox Pseudoscience
There have been some effort to remove this infobox from a number of pages. Some discussion can be found here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Previous posting and discussion here on Fringe Theories Notice Board (olive (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC))


 * "Some effort" is misleading. Doc James initially placed the info boxes himself . One involved editor and two uninvolved(per Fringe Theories NB) agreed the boxes are inappropriate. Only at that point where the boxes removed. Doc James reverted the boxes removal. That's the accurate history.(olive (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Another one was removed here after this discussion  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * James what is your point. There was agreement to remove the info box in that discussion at that time. Could you please be accurate or your comments will mislead editors here.(olive (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Simply I do not keep an eye on all pseudoscience/TM related pages. There was no discussion on the talk page of the MVAH page before the removal. Thus I reverted. Further discussion is needed. We have an issue here with a group of editors who deal only with TM. A wider viewpoint is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again you are posting inaccurate and misleading information. The discussion had been taken to a FTNB in which pseudoscience info boxes in general were discussed. That posting was part of a discussion in which Will Beback in line with the NB removed the info.box. Will Beback by reputation is  not a so called TM editor. Further please deal with the issue and refrain from poisoning the well with your comments about editors. The issue seems to be with an editor who doesn't agree with one NB and is trying another to find support of his personal POV. While further input may be fine inaccurate misleading information isn't nor is poisoning the well. (olive (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

(undent) "YOGIC FLIGHT Yogic flight is an ability claimed by those who study the philosophy of transcendental meditation (TM) and its offshoot TM Sidhi." from

In my opinion there are several issues that have to be delineated: (Repeated from FN/NB in reference to clarifying the terminology)


 * The program is itself a meditation technique not a science, so calling it science or pseudoscience would be a misnomer.
 * However there has been research on the purported effects of the technique. That would obviously qualify as science.The papers on the technique number 40-50 most peer reviewed, again, most in reputable journals, most listed by the ISI. While the claims seem outside the norm of everyday thinking, the peer review and ISI listing indicate this is real science. The way to deal with the fact that this area falls outside of the norm is not to slap an info box on an article whose topic matter is not science at all, but to provide the pro and rebuttals of the research itself in the article section devoted to the research on the technique. As is happening here. (olive (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC))


 * No actually claiming you can fly is physics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments: uninvolved editors

 * I think that infoboxes have the potential to be problematic in the same way as categories - they're not so good for nuanced positions which could be better expressed in prose. However, systematic removal of pseudoscience infoboxes would be needlessly pointy; in an ideal world I'd rather see the uses of infoboxes like this superseded gradually, in the long term, as various articles are rewritten to integrate the infobox's position into the article text (presumably with a mention of pseudoscience in the lede). However, removing the infobox without that integration is likely to be a change for the worse - if there's any disagreement about how to word that text (or how prominently), I'd be happy leaving the infobox in place until agreement is reached. bobrayner (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. Agreement on wording would be very difficult for us to achieve, if the past is any indication. Your mediation in helping us find consensus on the talk page would always be appreciated if you should feel so inclined.(olive (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Rewriting Qigong
Hi all. Just to give you fair warning, I'm making a vague attempt at rewriting Qigong. It's sort of part of the Falun Gong movement, I think. In any case, I read the article, saw the claims that it cured cancer and was "not accepted by traditional Western Science, but instead by modern Chinese Science", and knew that something was afoot. I'd really appreciate your help. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Academic peer review of science articles in the press
Is this piece on Scientists should be allowed to check stories on their work before publication worth linking to somewhere in the guidelines for this project? (If not, never mind.) --Trevj (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be allowed to check. But it is more of an opinion piece and controversial at that. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rumors about the September 11 attacks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Somatotype and constitutional psychology - having problems with addition of yet more complete (and racist) nonsense
A contributor to Somatotype and constitutional psychology,, has been adding more complete (and racist) nonsense; said nonsense is not even a proper description of the original subject of the page, as revealed by examining the citations and their lack of relevance. Removal of said material has resulted in this editor restoring it and placing yet further nonsense; attempts to discuss the matter on the talk page have resulted in personal attacks. Some assistance - particularly of anyone with administrative access - would be appreciated. Allens (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is needed primarily now is some calming down of people. Multiple people have been engaging in near-edit-warring (possibly in edit-warring, I can't tell). I will probably be asking for help at WP:DRN soon... Allens (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to be one editor inserting racist nonsense into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon For TFA !?
Hi, I suggest you nominate 2012 phenomenon as Todays Featured Article at Today's featured article/requests. Please check first for unwise editing that may have occured after FA promotion. --Ettrig (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe that would be a great one for December 31? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cas, very strong idea. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Better for December 21, rather. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But...but...A Rugrats Chanukah is already there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
I'm not a serious editor, but I care about Wikipedia and I was hoping this wikiproject could help with the article "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". I've been involved in discussions over the article, trying to convince some of the regular contributors that the article is poorly written, biased and heavily focused on conspiracy theory. I don't know if this is the proper forum to request help, but if some of you could check out the article and help out with the editing and discussion that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.90.242 (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful Latin ...
What is the origin of Ex dubius veritas, the project's motto (see above)? It is not Latin, even though it sounds like it is. If you want it to be Latin, then "In dubio veritas" or "Ex dubio veritas" might work, or "De dubio ad veritatem", but not "Ex dubius veritas". Cf. File_talk:WP_RationalSkepticism_Logo.PNG -- J N  466  06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

 * Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
 * Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New Age
The New Age article could use some attention. Someone somewhere decided it's a Good Article but there isn't a single mention of any skeptical views in there. New Ageism is for the most part a belief system like any other, it should be written about as such. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.
There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the care taken (or not taken) to approach the issues of rational skepticism in the article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
The article needs some work. It presents a lot of claims by conspiracy proponents as is and gives them undue weight to a fringe position among historical academics. On the talk page we're also discussing what can count as a reliable source. At least I recommend adding the page to your watchlist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Theory promoters?
Do articles about individual fringe-theory promoters fall under the purview of this project?

I've recently been involved with a number of discussions concerning the notability of alt-med healers, new-age shamen, energy wizards etc. Usually these get posted to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, however it occurred to me that this might not be the most appropriate place to present my findings. FTNB is more properly a place to note NPOV and UNDUE issues.

In general I'm concerned about a class of apparently non-notable individuals whose claim to (modest) fame consists of little more than a few self-published texts, a gaggle of new-age disciples and usually a few quirky quotes in minor or fringe publications. I've long suspected that these people try to get Wikipedia articles as a form of personal advertising.

The question: What if anything is to be done? Is there an appropriate forum to raise these topics? I've learned from bitter experience that moving directly to AFD proposal is not always a good way to deal with this kind of content, so perhaps the better approach would be to improve the article from a more neutral perspective? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do articles about individual fringe-theory promoters fall under the purview of this project?"


 * Yes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think they do, if that's the core of their article. If somebody is notable for something else and the fringe theory just gets a paragraph at the bottom of their article, no. (In other words: I think that David Icke deserves attention from this project, but not Adolf Hitler, even though the latter backed some pretty fringey ideas...bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although this project isn't particularly active. If you need help, WP:FT/N might be a better venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?
There is currently a debate at Fringe theories/Noticeboard on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding biographies
Being unfamiliar with the scope of this Project and missing any obvious mention of scope relating to this, I thought it best to drop this note here. I've just added bios of Derek Acorah and Ciarán O'Keeffe to the Project. There seem to be some bios already included and these 2 seem to be relevant candidates. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Feedback for a new article on BodyTalk
The article is currently in my namespace. I am concerned about potential deletion, but I do believe the topic has become sufficiently notable, for better or worse, as demonstrated by the references in my draft of the article (most of which are more recent than the last deletion in 2007). Any contributions or suggestions would be appreciated. -Hugetim (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It has some synth (second sentence); it combines references to make conclusions that aren't present in the references themselves. First paragraph second sentence; ideally there would be a single source that states something like that. Second paragraph is undue and not really encyclopedic, reads like puffery to make it appear notable. I've personally never heard of medscape so I'm not sure if that passes WP:MEDRS (maybe WP:RSN archives have the answer). You don't actually say much about it at all and after reading it I don't know what BodyTalk is exactly or why it is pseudoscience. If the sources don't exist to explain both of those things then there is significant problems for notability (per WP:N and WP:FRINGE). That is, significant coverage in reliable independent sources is required for a topic to be considered notable. Further, for fringe topics there is an addition requirement that it must have "been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great! I've heard of BodyTalk, and it seems to me that there are enough secondary sources to demonstrate notability. I think it might be a good idea to add some more info from the JAMR article to add a little more weight to the article. Maybe add a quote from the Skeptic's Dictionary or Skeptical Inquirer to spice it up a little.Dustinlull (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It has no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability. I do not think it will survive AfD. If this article is put into article space as is, I will nominate it for deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you about that, IRWolfie. (Thanks, I've never seen WP:FRINGE.) The Telegraph article is a fluff piece that makes unsourced claims about the Obamas using the technique. And BodyTalk is only given minor mentions in the Skeptic's Dictionary newsletter and the Quackwatch article. The JAMR issue looks basically self-published (full of typos, the articles are mostly descriptions of techniques by the founder). I'll keep it in case more significant coverage does happen some time, but otherwise I don't plan to move it to article space - feel free to make edits to the page. Dustinlull, I can't access the Skeptical Inquirer article to see what it says - anyone have it available? -Hugetim (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For future reference though.. I've edited the second sentence a bit. Do you still think it violates WP:SYNTH? I'm not sure what to do about the second paragraph - I just thought those sources should be included. By the way, I found a related technique at Neuro Emotional Technique - looks like it could use some attention, and I tagged it for the relevant WikiProjects. -Hugetim (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The part you removed wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the sentence which reads: "It has been described by both critics and practitioners as closely related to applied kinesiology". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I don't understand. How is that advancing a position or implying "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Each of the sources say it is closely related to "applied kinesiology," and I simply describe the sources as both critics and practitioners. I thought of breaking it into two sentences, one about the critic describing it as such and one about the practitioners describing it as such, but that just seems cumbersome and not what WP:SYNTH is about. -Hugetim (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are combining different sources and arriving at a conclusion that isn't in the individual sources. That is a synthesis. The sources just don't contain the text saying that critics say it is closely related. You have concluded that from your own reading of the source and that quackwatch counts for the opinion of "critics"; but that is WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, now what do you think? I also tried to expand the (old) second paragraph. I suspect the (new) second paragraph may qualify as WP:OR (any suggestions?), but I think the new third paragraph might be ok now. Actually, do you think it might pass notability now that it does explain a bit what it is and why it is pseudoscience from good sources? Thank you so much! -Hugetim (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Genesis creation/flood narrative" page titles
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Genesis creation narrative over whether Genesis creation narrative and Genesis flood narrative should have "myth" in the title like every other article about creation and flood myths. Civil contributions would be welcome. - Cal Engime (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on Ian Stevenson (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative medicine article discussion to restore MEDRS and NPOV content and sources such as Annals of New York Academy of Sciences and Journal of Academic Medicine
A discussion to restore the first 14 sources of this version, including Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Journal of Academic Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Attention needed
I don't know if anyone uses this project anymore, but a new editor is promoting Ozone therapy as if it was an accepted mainstream medical specialty. TTBOMK it's only a fringe alternative medical practice without any scientific support and with some dangers. They are editing and creating articles and also adding categories, all in an attempt to make this seem like an accepted practice. It seems like they are using Wikipedia to create an alternate reality and notability for the practice. Their edits need to be checked for NPOV and for adherence to MEDRS. I don't have time to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"A start ParkSehJik (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is psychiatry a pseudoscience?
I made this edit, and plan more similar edits as I find MEDRS for them. The term "psychiatry" was coined to mean "medical treatment of the soul". Discussion begins here, and be expanded, especially re forensic psychiatry (the modern equivalent of testimony by an exorcist-priest in a witch trial, with almost identical personalities of the players, and identical descriptiopn of "symptoms" but for a change in terminology to create the facade of scientific respectability - all to be reliably sourced, of course). ParkSehJik (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and related articles be held to a lower MEDRS standard than alternative medicine and its related articles?
Discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here.

Following discussion re MEDRS, ontologic status of psychiatric categories, and controversy re the scientific methodologies for attaching the term "disease", "disorder", and :lifetime" to the categories (if they really exist, e.g., Penis envy), in the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, Bipolar disorder, and related article talk pages, FiachraByrne correctly wrote (bolfaced added by me for emphasis of most relevant part, and whose comment I may have distorted by excerpting just a part of it in order to raise the following issue) -


 * "Psychiatry is one of the oldest medical specialisms. It's designation as medical practice is a disciplinary/professional attribute that has little to do with the actual content of psychiatric knowledge or the nature of psychiatric practice. To establish this it is unnecessary to evaluate whether in any or all instances psychiatry adheres to the so-called 'scientific method'."

However, the designation of psychatry always being medicine, and not just some parts of it, with the associated implications of established efficacy in healing real diseases, at Wikipedia, is a WP:MEDRS issue, not just a matter of determining the common usage on the street. The part of FiachraByrne's comment quoted above raises issues being glossed over by other editors at those multiple talk pages, where it is declared to be "common knowledge" that psychiatry is for the most part evidence and science based, that its designated categories (eg., penis envy and bipolar disorder) are real, that the DSM designation of their being "disorders" estabishes with MEDRS that they are, and that they are lifetime, and questioning this violated WP:COMMONSENSE, and is WP:BATTLE because it is unquestionable, even with MEDRS and RS saying otherwise, all because Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the self-proclaimed "bible" for practitioners, is always unque3stionably MEDRS. Furthermore, RS and MEDRS content is being totally deleted from any WP:MOS (lede) "controversy" paragraph as being UNDUE, by simply citing the declarations in DSM, even when contradicted by other MEDRS sources.

The same WP:MEDRS standards should be applied to psychiatry as to alternative medicine articles. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is also one of the oldest "medical" practices. There is rigorous enforcement by WP:MEDRS hawks (of which I am one) that assertions re TCM being healing "medicine", as defined in that article and by MEDRS standards. The only allowable edits are that TCM practitioners "claim" to heal. TCM uses supernatural etiological objects ("qi" flow blockage causing qi, not the heart, to propel the blood inadequately), and outright false statements about anatomies, developed without the "cutting" of the "tom" in "anatomy" (Greek "tom" means "cut", as in "a-tom" – meaning not further able to be cut, as atoms were thought to be), has also historically been designated "medicine". MEDRS has different standards than accepted common usage, and for good reasons well argued in setting up the policy.


 * Should the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, Bipolar disorder, and related articles be held to a lower WP:MEDRS standard than alternative medicine and its related articles, as to its designation as a healing "medicine", with implications to claims of efficacy and intent of all areas of its practice (e.g., forensic psychiatry, or psychiatry practiced under the color of being "medicine" at Guantanamo), when there are substantial MEDRS sourced content that at, least part of psychiatry, is not based on science at all, and other parts are not intended to heal anything?


 * Should Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V be continued to be unquestioned as MEDRS, and citec as "common knowledge" which, if questioned with MEDRS or RS, is claimed to be WP:BATTLE and violate WP:COMMON SENSE, as was DSM IV, especially in light of comments such as that of Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV Task Force - "DSM 5 will accept diagnoses that achieve reliabilities as unbelievably low as 0.2-0.4 (barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board".

Discussion is here.

ParkSehJik (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIR corn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metatheories of religion

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9

This category has been proposed for deletion, and the result will be that Skepticism may be categorized under Religion, rather than Philosophy. The category was created to make a distinction between theories that govern the formation of religious beliefs which are limited by scholarly, academic, empirical, skeptical philosophical methodology and reason; and religious belief. Please look into this matter.Greg Bard (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)