Talk:Biorhythm (pseudoscience)

message: Here's what an angry reader said to the "authorized editors":
---
What a stunning bunch of intellectually constipated wiki-fascists.
How many centuries have humans KNOWN that we are just as susceptible and influenced by various cycles as everything else?
You bunch of orifi have passed judgement on a subject much bigger than this page, your ability to discern truth from minutiae, and the purpose of Wiki.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I am disgusted with you, and shocked at the small minded turtle puppet club that edits Wikipedia.
You have betrayed the idea of open information.
I curse at you and spit between my fingers at your feet.
--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.253.85 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoscience or pseudoscience? 

message: Do we really have to have the fully "calculation method" in an encyclopedia? It should be removed if a good reason is not stated not to. --80.221.13.43 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much content

message: Wikipedia isn't a link directory nor a place to advertise sites, so it's not really appropriate for an article to have 20+ external links, much less 10 nearly identical ones linking to different biorhythm calculators. --Delirium 13:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was taken care of; thanks! --Delirium 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links need to be cut down 

message: * "NPR.org Audio Article" Arthritis sufferers often feel more pain in the morning than in the evening. A new study explains these fluctuations are driven by the body's internal clock. Sydney Spiesel, a Yale Medical School professor and contributor to the online magazine Slate, talks with Alex Cohen. --Travisthurston 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is evidence of the Circadian rhythm affecting pain, not of the concept of biorhythms.  The circadian rhythm relates to chronobiology, not this article. --Interested2 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Shows Body Clock Affects Arthritis Pain 

message: The answer to the "controversy" surrounding Biorhythm resides in the very first sentence of the article, "daily lives are significantly affected by rhythmic cycles". As a 45+ year observer, the word "significantly" needs to be replaced with "subtly". For those just beginning, every few weeks, take time to review/reconcile/reflect upon your previous calendar period versus the events that occurred in your life. Eventually, you will recognize useful patterns. For instance, "Which day will be most favorable for that upcoming Dental appointment?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithf (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: I remember this was something of a fad in the 1970s.  The real significance here seems to be that biorhythms were a part of popular culture - perhaps that could be mentioned in the article if anyone cares to find references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwayrules (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s Popularity

message: I've undone George585's edits. Adding links into the prose like this is still a violation of WP:EL. It comes off a little like an advertisement, as if we're promoting those products over any others. This isn't a directory of links. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, right now it looks as if you are promoting "Biorhythms for Windows" in the first paragraph of that section. How is that better than the products I listed? I therefore presume that that footnote should also be removed, as it is a link to product's homepage and not to an RS that cites the pilot using that program, which is what that sentence is about. Secondly, why did you remove my text as well? Removing links is one thing, and removing the text is another thing. It therefore creates an impression that there is only one good biorhythms program, which is simply not true. I therefore re-edited that section, with no links this time.--George (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem hellbent on keeping the BinaryMark mention in the article. It was established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biorhythms Calculator, an AfD for an article you created, that the product is not notable. Haakon (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all notability was established for the whole article, not for the mention in another article. Wikipedia's policy, makes a clear distinction between these two cases. Secondly, if you were careful enough, you would have noticed that I included company names for all three software products mentioned in that section, nothing special about BinaryMark at all. Company name serves to clarify the name of the software titles, so that those interested can find it, because names such as Universal Biorhythms or Biorhythms Calculator are no good in that respect. --George (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I didn't comment on other sections of the article, but I would promote removal of promotional stuff as a whole. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found and added a source for the use of biorhythms software by United Airlines, which looks like it was the book on which our text was originally based. As an independent source, it passes the minimum bar for mention, though it is not necessary. Given that Biorhythms for Windows is unlikely to have existed in the 1970s, I would be okay with rewording the specific program out. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion it would be best to keep all three software titles in here, as otherwise this article is rapidly turning into a 1970s encyclopedia stub, which I guess is what some of the users here want many articles to look like. In any case, if you do remove the two titles I added, also remove Biorhythms for Windows, because nowhere is there a reference to a source that actually says this particluar product was used by a pilot as is mentioned in the section. --George (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to stay true to the sources. If the source doesn't say Biorhythms for Windows was used, then it should not be included. Any text that's in here that's not attributable to a source is inherently original research. And adding a link to a product as a reference doesn't work for that either, by the way. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem as I see it is the following: 1. The main idea of that sentence is about a pilot using biorhythms in his daily life, not about the software. 2. Leaving only that software title in the whole article goes against the principle of objectivity, especially considering the fact that software (and websites) nowadays plays a major role in biorhythm application. In that regard, either Biorhythms for Windows should be removed from the text, because now it looks like advertising to me (at least the way it is phrased), and for the reasons listed above; or else this section be expanded and a few other software titles be mentioned.--George (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's gone. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: The "calculations" section mentions a 38-day "intuitive" cycle, which is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Dare one say "citation needed"? 91.105.6.92 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth cycle? 

message: Opening sentence:
:"Biorhythm is an attempt to predict various aspects of a person's life through simple mathematical cycles."
Does this sound like correct English to everyone else? "Biorhythm is..." sounds strange to me. 86.179.117.174 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd phrasing? 

message: It doesn't seem very plausible to me that a biological cycle of, say, 28 days could keep so exactly in sync throughout someone's life that one could pinpoint an exact day when the cycle peaked after forty years or whatever has elapsed. Is that what proponents believe? I'm wondering whether they think the cycle is automatically kept in sync by the daily rhythm, thus preventing it from drifting from an exact whole number of days. That would be much more plausible. I can't find out anything about this, and don't see it mentioned in the article, unless I missed it. I'd be interested to see these issues discussed in the article if anyone knows anything about it. (In case people get the wrong idea about my stance on this, yes, I know the whole theory is actually total nonsense, but that doesn't, and shouldn't, prevent us from documenting what supporters claim!) 86.179.117.174 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Menstrual synchrony#Criticism. There is some discussion on how the cycles are difficult to measure and how they can be confused with random variations. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synchronisation 

message: In the workplace, railroads and airlines have experimented the most with biorhythms. A pilot describes the Japanese and American attitudes towards biorhythms."A man named Joseph and we knew him not!; Interpretation of Biorhythms regarding Flight Operations". (ed. Anecdotal evidence; pilot describes the Japanese and American attitudes towards biorhythms.) He acknowledges, researching his pilot logbook, that his greatest errors of judgment occurred during critical days, but concludes that an awareness of one's critical days and paying extra attention is sufficient to ensure safety. A former United Airlines pilot confirmed that United Airlines used biorhythms until the mid-1990s, while the Nippon Express air freight still uses biorhythms.
The source given is a personal blog -- anecdotes are not great sources. It refers to another article for which it gives no reference. The blog does not back up the rest of claims about railways and airlines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.196.59.36 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/dubiously sourced paragraph removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biorhythm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212181753/http://ammonsscientific.com:80/link.php?N=10326 to http://ammonsscientific.com/link.php?N=10326
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biorhythm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040107062337/http://www.wws.princeton.edu:80/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1991/9108_n.html to http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1991/9108_n.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I contest the recent move from Biorhythm.  Biological rhythm is the article about more scientifically accepted material.  Calling this "Biorhythm theory" is a bit confusing (it's not really a scientific theory) and is also not the WP:COMMONNAME...  —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  There is clearly some disagreement about whether the move should have taken place, and whether it should have been to this name or something else.  I was tempted to simply move it back, but there had been a few weeks since the move to this title and it seemed quite a time to just revert it.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

text: But I do not see any reason for creating an additional disambig. page Biorhythm (disambiguation). If this should be a disambig. page (yes, I agree it should), this should be page Biorhythm itself. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the 1970s when this was faddish there wasn't nearly as much of the gatekeeping on the word "theory" as there is now. Psychoanalysts, in particular, loved to argue over each other's "theories". Don't know if this context helps or not, but that's all I've got. jps (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sure, but this is getting ridiculous. Could you please look at the following and say what you think: Biorhythms->Biorhythm->Biorhythm (disambiguation) (since someone created a disambig page). Is not it something obvious? My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Seems to be a lack of good faith discussion, with attempts to use the old name of this page for a different purpose before reaching consensus here.  So I'm opening a formal move discussion to focus minds.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: - Seems like an exploration of perception by people of the idea that such biorhythms really exist. Clearly undue. Can anyone even explain what these researchers actually did?  My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed