Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 3

message: Rotating magnetic field has flared up again... its a telsaphile magnet; has been a redirect for ages, now resurrected by user RMF and the talk page unexplainedly "archived" William M. Connolley 18:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotating magnetic field 

message: User:Perpetual motion machine (talk • contribs) returns to Cox's timepiece (briefly mentioned above) and insists that it's a working "perpetual motion machine". I'm not in the mood to further argue with this guy's ramblings and twisted definitions, especially since any points I could make would get attacked as NPOV anyway (in a style that I suppose might be reddily recognizable to those with more experience in handling it than I have). Could somebody be so kind as to tell him that his oh-so-neutral interpretation of the second law is, what was that b-word, bunk please? Femto 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added my rv... such a lot of words on the talk page! William M. Connolley 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cox's timepiece 

message: Hi all, I am ccing here a message I just left in Talk:WikiProject Physics because I think it should be of interest to members of this project also:
Hi all, a new user, , who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics.  Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.
Haisch also edits as an anon from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA) 
# adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
##5 June 2006 removes internal link to Bernard Haisch from List of UFO researchers
## 12 June 2006 confession of IRL identity
## 25 April 2006 implicit confession of IRL identity
##26 April 2006 example of edit adding citation to his own book (I think this is linkspam, although some of these are more justificable than others)
# adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
*the pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain (SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the Bay Area)
# adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
##10 June 2006 refers to Haisch's career as "my career" in insulting talk page message
Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all  know has been permabanned.  I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch.  In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occassionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain.  Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch!  (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently),  apparently also edits as the anon  and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch.  However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)
Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to 
#not overreact to some questionable anon edits by Haisch 
#be helpful to Haisch as a WP newbie (despite Digital Universe)
#not overreact to violations by  of WP:NLT-WP:CIV-WP:AGF
Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:
Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar financial incentive :-/ to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner.  I find this deeply disturbing.
In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line.  I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself.  I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes.  However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant.  He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant).  I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this.  Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV.  TIA ---CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable edits by [[User:Haisch]] and anon socks

message: I have begun a discussion of NPOV issues related to this group  here. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issue

message: I've just noticed that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/to_do has gone missing. Nothing turned up checking for an AfD. Could one of the admins lurking here check the deletion log to see why it was pruned, and by whom? --Christopher Thomas 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing to-do list

message: Dunno if anyone other than the Chris Hillman and Christopher Thomas are still reading this, but this article is a real problem in terms of presenting pseudoscience as respectable, misstatements of fact, and so on.  ---CH 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still here too. It is just difficult to work on the article, since it is more of a tedious rant. Most of it probably needs to be removed. --Philosophus T 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll add a debunking section.  --Michael C. Price talk 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Done.  "Mainstream Critique" section added in an attempt to provide some balance.  --Michael C. Price talk 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was a constructive action! To have a separate critique section may enable to more thoroughly present the counter arguments; as a bonus it might reduce the edit war with KraMuc, as it implies less text interference. Harald88 16:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, glad you liked it.  It also makes is harder for cranks to dilute the mainstream view without being detected.  Perhaps, though, I should have placed as the first section after the intro.  What do people think in general?  --Michael C. Price talk 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that it is standard, after an introductory summary that mentions the status of affairs, to first develop the topic and next the criticism. Harald88 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, we don't want the criticism section hidden away from the reader by being at the end of a very long article. We need some way to balance these concerns in articles that follow this format. -Philosophus T 22:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Modern Galilean relativity]]

message: I've created a banner template for talk pages, somewhat as a test, at Template:WikiProject Pseudoscience. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. It would increase our visibility, and might attract other helpful editors to the project - I do know there are quite a few people who probably aren't part of it only because they don't know that it exists. On the other hand, it might cause some controversy, though it would at least be on the talk page. There is also the question of what articles to apply it to - just physics-type pseudoscience, or articles like Astrology as well? For fun and to see the results, I might try addng it to Astrology, which is undergoing a large pseudoscience/not pseudoscience debate. --Philosophus T 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that template: you phrased it in such a manner that it can hardly cause controversy. And the astrology Talk page is certainly appropriate. Harald88 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My main concern with the banner is that it points people to this talk page, without making it clear that this is _not_ the place to discuss specific articles. Other than that, it looks fine to me. --Christopher Thomas 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the text a bit to try to make that clear. However, there is the problem that talking about specific articles, especially asking for help on specific articles, seems to be the main use of this page despite its intended purpose. That use seems to be working well, and we probably need to consider it. --Philosophus T 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was originally supposed to go to PNA/Physics, and has since been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. After I archived threads and put up the big notice at the top of the page, this page stayed clear of article-specific threads for a surprisingly long time. I'll do another archive/move purge some time within the next couple of months. --Christopher Thomas 06:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The revised version looks fine to me. By the way, we still need feedback about the proposed tweaks to the perpetual motion machine template noted above. --Christopher Thomas 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner template? 

message: An editor here keeps removing a "scientists consider Reiki to be pseudoscience" statement in the introduction since the editor claims that it is not relevant. It would be nice if someone else could look into this. A similar discussion is also taking place at Talk:Astrology, by the same editor. Essentially, the argument is that since supporters of the two areas don't claim that they are scientific "in the modern sense" (but Astrology can still be "the oldest, and best documented science in the history of humankind"), any view that the topics are pseudoscientific doesn't matter. --Philosophus T 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reiki]] ([[Talk:Reiki|talk]]) 

message: Science section of Astrology is highly prone to POV changes and insertion of pseudoscience. Could someone take a look at it please? Jefffire 14:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, someone can take a look at it, but with the well entrenched supporters there, changing anything is difficult. --Philosophus T 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible, more like, since we are in the minority!  --Michael C. Price talk 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble on the science front. 

message: Thanks to User:MrDolomite for this priceless quote:
:  Muscle & Fitness and Esquire are not proper citations for what presents itself as a scientific topic.  
This saved my day, which started getting an Amazon advertisement mail:
:Amazon customers who have bought "Lectures on Quantum Theory. Mathematical and Structural Foundations" by C. J. Isham are also interested in books of Myron W. Evans. So we want to inform you that  "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory - The Geometrization of Physics - Volume II" by Myron W. Evans is now available.
Aaaaaarrrggghhh.
Pjacobi 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The light side of fighting pseudoscience [[Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement|vanispamcruft]] 

message: I realize that this is somewhat removed from the original physics focus of the project, but a few editors brought this article up on IRC as having problems with pseudoscience and POV editing issues similar to other articles we have dealt with. I'm not really in a condition to evaluate those statements right now, but am putting it here anyway, so that others can look at it. --Philosophus T 11:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably put Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine on alert. linas 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dental amalgam controversy]] 

message: The Australian Ufology is apparently not on the watchlist because it was nominated for Good article status! I have read it and found it miserably failed to come even close to the criteria. I thought people involved in this project might like to know. Pascal.Tesson 03:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Ufology 

message: Hi all, you might be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help me defend my policy related research into wikishilling

message: Perhaps I'm the last one to notice this, but I just noticed, how valuable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch is to find articles which may need attention. Examples:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=jnaudin.free.fr
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.rexresearch.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.blacklightpower.com (Wow, Mass formula is real gem!)
Pjacobi 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My brain hurts enough without dealing with these myself at the moment, but thanks for the technique pointer. First on my priority list when I'm not on sabbatical is to deal with the template changes made by PMM and with the guidelines changes made by Harald88. --Christopher Thomas 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special:Linksearch 

message: Our friend from 134.193.* is at it again. Signing off now, someone want to handle this? Femto 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Free energy (disambiguation)]] 

message: The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves.  linas 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Orthomolecular medicine]] 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Wolff, then Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-08-06#Milo_Wolff.  Note that  previously created Myron Evans, misleadingly portarying him as a mainstream, a ludicrously misleading claim.  Solmil might be a sock for .---CH 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Milo Wolff again 

message: Article for deletion: EmDrive  linas 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  news flash! conservation of momentum violated! 

message: Of possible interest to contributors here is this bit about "New Scientist" magazine. --ScienceApologist 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Of possible interest

message: I note with growing concern that this page increasingly resembles a diatribe written by someone with a serious grudge against Evans.  
Don't worry, I am not going over to the dark side--- far from it--- but I have become increasingly alarmed about edits by a group of users (apparently single purpose accounts used only to edit this article):
* (first edit 9 September 2006); similar interests to other users in this group
* (first edit 13 September 2006); edits Myron Evans exclusively
* (first edit 28 August 2006); edits Myron Evans exclusively
* (first edit  2 February 2006); edits Myron Evans almost exclusively
* (first edit 16 August 2006); edits Myron Evans exclusively
* (first edit 5 February 2006); edits Myron Evans almost exclusively
Inquiries on their talk pages about their identity IRL and their personal connection to Evans have so far not yielded satisfactory answers.  I fear that these users appear to constitute a group of meatpuppets (or sockpuppets), and they appear unable or unwilling to explain why they feel that Evans (who to me seems a very minor crank of little importance in the big picture) warrants a steadily growing article with two dozen links to the half-crazed AIAS blog (hardly a reliable source!) but remarkably little hard information.  While these users no doubt feel they are "fighting the good fight", I am concerned that they have lost sight of the goals of the Wikipedia.
I believe that User:Pjacobi has come to similar conclusions, but unfortunately I just saw a message on his user talk page stating that he will be AFW (away from Wikipedia) for several days.
I have some additional concerns about this situation which I think I should only mention in emails to users I have come to know and trust.
Anyway, I am proposing at Talk:Myron Evans to stubbify the article and cut down the links to perhaps three links:
#to the AIAS blog, which will tell sane readers all they need to know about Evans, in his own words,
#G. t'Hooft's essay using "ECE" as a classic example of a crank "theory",
#G. W. Bruhn's page on "ECE".
Comments would be welcome at Talk:Myron Evans.---CH 04:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Myron Evans]], with a twist

message: As I just wrote on the WikiProject Physics Talk page, the article Heim theory has been proposed for deletion.  Comment as you see fit.  Anville 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heim theory AfD 

message: The subject of this article seems to be of a highly questionable nature, and the article does not have any reliable and reputable sources. I have thus nominated it for deletion here. I expect that others will be able to investigate the matter more thoroughly. --Constantine Evans 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aluminium battery]]