Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 1 May 2012

Paul Bennewitz

Did you know that "Air Force Counterintelligence" is behind a "disinformation campaign" to suppress the evidence of a UFO-related somethingorother? Neither did I! - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the crap, I found a citation for some of the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the page still need tags or is the problem fixed with what you removed? I don't see anything in particular that I would dispute, unless I'm missing something. SÆdon 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Much improved. Untagged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

186.221.209.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - An SPI edit-warring to marginalize mainstream view, add undue weight to fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean WP:SPA. And watch out for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I meant SPA. I was probably thinking of the other Sao Paulo IPs I'd seen making similar edits to other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

World Healing Day

The main website for this seems to be . Some of it seems to be promoting Tai Chi. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggsting that Tai Chi is a fringe theory? How so? Is psychoanalysis also a fringe theory? Meditation? — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Biochemic cell salts

Biochemic cell salts - more pseudoscientific woo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it. The ratio of warning tags to actual words of content was rapidly approaching parity, and without mainstream coverage or a WP:MEDRS on whether or not the stuff actually works, it's simply impossible to give it neutral, encyclopædic coverage. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, this is not AfD material. I find the stub quite neutral, and though virtually lacking in citations, its content is not such that requires deletion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Manuka Honey

I'm concerned that some of the sources used are non WP:MEDRS compliant. FYI, This is an expensive type of honey which has been shown to display some antibacterial properties in in-vitro studies. As I understand things, Manuka Honey has not been shown effective against any medical condition, however it is often marketed by health-food shops as a cure-all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty balanced now after changes by Agricolae. Added to my watchlist since it appears to have a history of making undue medical claims IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On a closer examination there are still major issues with the undue nature of text. I am looking at the studies and will refactor the text accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention its most important property, which is its remarkable flavor. (That's OR, unfortunately.) Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree - it's really tasty stuff. It's such a shame that proponents resort to nonsensical claims concerning this delightful product. Speaking of nonsensical claims: Health effects of honey. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to fix the atrocious description of the science and some basic structure, not the UNDUE and MEDRS issues, per se. I did just add a little about the taste of it, but the sources aren't the best (one self-published, the other from someone calling themselves 'Crescent Dragonwagon'). Can I suggest we move this to the article's Talk page or someone will be yapping about us conspiring behind people's backs again? Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Root race

Root race article needs to be sorted out. It is presented as factual and there are no third party references, the concept is little known outside of Theosophy, so an overview or criticism will be hard to find. Martin Gardner did a couple of pages on the root race concept in his book on pseudoscience but that is about it. As it currently stands the Root race article is only using Theosophist sources mainly from Powell or Leadbeater. I noticed the root race concept is already discussed in detail on the Blavatsky article, so I was thinking a redirect. But any opinions needed. GreenUniverse (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical centre of Earth

This seems like a nonsense / crank idea: An article about finding the "centre of the earth" on a two dimensional map. Sure we can find the geometric centre of any 2d shape, but does this acquire new notability when applied to a map? I suspect not --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like original research due to the creator of the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder... if you use a map that places North America on the right side instead of the left (so that the map centers on the Pacific, as opposed to the Atlantic... as seen here) won't the geographical "center of the earth" change? I would certainly assume it would, but I could be wrong. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is mathematically possible to identify a spot on the globe which minimizes the average surface distance to every land point, and I would imagine that said point is roughly where indicated. That said, the articles on the various centers of various countries and continents show a lot of disputation; the USA stands as one of the few undisputed cases. Also, most of the centers are actually centroids, and of necessity there is a second centroid on a globe opposite the usual case, because dividing "lines" are great circles. Anyway, given the degree of documentation for such centers in general, I don't think there is a problem with notability, but the Great Pyramid thing probably can be clipped out entirely as irrelevant fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict)This is basically how we (human) defined the map (probably as per international date line?). So this centre will change as our defined map changes. There are bunch of such articles at Geographical centre. I would suggest keep only if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Abhishikt (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution