Talk:Biorhythm (pseudoscience)

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protoscience or pseudoscience?

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) ALSO - you all discourse from the innate premise that "numeracy" is an unshakeable requirement for the understanding of any and everything in existence. IT IS NOT ! (snobs!)[reply]

This is not a protoscience becasue it has not changed much since it's inception and it Does not follow scientific protocolsGeni 11:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's clearly a pseudoscience. All the books I read about it are written by completely innumerate proponents. All the evidence they propose is based on math errors that give wonderful stories if you want to amuse mathematicians. The concept itself is a magical and numerological idea. --Hob Gadling 18:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry to barge in, not used to all this, but I saw need for a citation for the part about Dr. Rexford B. Hersey, and I just read an article. His work looks like genuine science. Citation would be, "Why We All Have 'Ups and Downs'", Condensed from Redbook, by Myron Stearns; copyright 1945 by The Reader's Digest Association, In.c, (December 1945 issue), condensed from Redbook, November 1945; the whole condensed version having appeared on pp. 131-134 of the hardcover book, "Getting the Most Out of Life" (collection of condensed articles),c.1955, The Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

Dr. Rexford B. Heresy was of University of Pennsylvania, studied the rise and fall of human emotions for over 17 years, collaborated with endocrinologist Dr. Michael J. Bennett of the Doctor's Hospital in Philadelphia. The first research lasted over a year, consisting of visiting four times a day each of 25 workers in a Railroad Repair shop; eventually over 5,000 subjects were involved. Looks for all the world like serious, scientific research, though I haven't seen the original source material.

~~ Serry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.43.17 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm length

I changed "lasts around 23 days" to "lasts 23 days; same with 33 and 28. The reason:

If the first rhythm were 23.01 days (about a quarter of an hour more than 23 days), 100 rhythms (about 6 years) would take 2301 days instead of 2300. So, after 60 years, the rhythms would be 10 days off, and all the anecdotes used to defend biorhythms would be worthless. So it really has to be 23 days, plus/minus only very few minutes. Otherwise the whole body of "evidence" is inconsistent. Not noticing this is one of the many innumeracies of biorhythm proponents. --Hob Gadling 19:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Too much content

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)[reply]

Biological ryhthms do exist in plants, animals, bacteria, humans, etc, (it's basically chronobiology) but the science is NOT what is described in this article (which is pseudoscience or numerology). This needs to be re-written with scientific content.

I think the calculation method is worth including for the simple fact that all information is of value, unless it is mis-information. However I have concerns about the neutrality of this article.

external links need to be cut down

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)[reply]

Looks like it was taken care of; thanks! --Delirium 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Study Shows Body Clock Affects Arthritis Pain

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudoscience

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)[reply]

Hi,

I am adding back the point in the intro about it being a form of pseudoscience. Biorhythms are obviously controversial and as such we should try to present a neutral point of view in the article that describes all opinions on the subject. The purpose of the introduction to the article is to give an overview of the subject, and as the question of its scientific accuracy is an important part of the article, I think it's relevant to mention the debate there. fraggle 07:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on plausability, the following sentence occurs: "The plausibility of biorhythmics is contested by mathematicians, biologists and other scientists." This is very vague, considering that the Biorhythmics section of the Research publications lists 3 papers specifically discounting "biorhythmics". In addition, the reference to chorobiology seems to largely exist to link biorhythmics (which seems to be a pseudoscience) with chronobiology (a recognised field of science). I think the distinction needs clarifying. pvanheus 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first reference to Effects of circadian rhythm phase alteration on physiological and psychological variables: Implications to pilot performance (including a partially annotated bibliography) because the originally listed paper was merely quoting this one. However, I don't have access to that paper so I can't check the quote. Paul Sinnett (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Popularity

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)[reply]

Software

Copied from my talk. The edit in question is here. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I guess that's a better place to post my comment. Why did you remove product names and links altogether? I think it's not the way it should be! This is supposed to be an objective, factual, and modern encyclopedia. Biorhythm software is a major part of biorhythm application today! In fact software nowadays in the area of biorhythms is much more important than it used to be in the 80s when biorhythm were more popular. Thus simply mentioning it in one phrase generically does not suffice at all, in my opinion. Besides there is an enormous amount of articles that mention software and do include external links. For instance this is the article I came across yesterday - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dlna - and under PC Integration it mentions all major software products for DLNA and their external links! In that regard I see no reason not to mention 2 or 3 most popular and recent software products for biorhythms and external links to them. I certainly see your point that Wikipedia is not a directory; however the inclusion of links to prevaling software on a particular subject, in my opinion, by no means violates this rule. In fact, there exist so many pages on Wikipedia that actually compare different software in their functionality anbd of course include external links. Sure, biorhythm software is not as popular as say Photoshop, but it cannot be a reason to ignore it, because within the area of biorhythms, it is an important part of today's subject on biorhythms.--George (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that section of the article, it was my impression that the primary purpose seemed to be to drive traffic to a particular website rather than to edify our readers. Basically, we need to offer more information and deeper coverage than is available simply by scanning the first page of search engine results; almost as importantly, article content cannot be based on our own original research. Saying that a particular company offers the best biorhythms calculator or interface without citing a reliable source makes your text look like spam. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the discussion here. I certainly agree with you for the most part on that. However, in that respect there are several things to keep in mind: 1) "edifying readers" and "driving traffic to a particular website" more often than not, cannot be separated. Because through mentioning factual and objective information about anything (including a particular software product), you have to provide meaningful reference that a) proves what is written in the Wikipedia article, and b) allows those curious readers to investigate the subject matter further. Thus, in this sense driving traffic (which may or may not occur) is nonetheless just a side effect of the main point, which is to substantiate claims in the article by providing references and allow readers to investigate further; 2) While the search engine results are certainly not the best way to judge importance/popularity/relevance of anything, in some cases, there may be a few alternatives, as is in this case here, because a) most if not all books on biorhythms would not mention software, as they were written way before software became popular, and b) since the whole subject is rather very small and niche-oriented, you would be unlikely to find any detailed reviews of any biorhythm software.--George (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but the unlikely to find any detailed reviews of any biorhythm software still makes me worry that this is giving undue weight to this aspect of the topic. Would it be alright with you if we ask for a neutral, uninvolved third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion? I would word it as Question regarding inline external links at Talk:Biorhythm#Software. If you think that that wording is unlikely to bias whoever answers the call, go ahead and copy it over there or indicate here and I can do it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the undue weight - I would disagree, - how can we have a section on biorhythms application, nowadays the biggest part of which is software, - without mentioning a few prevalent software titles and referencing these titles with appropriate links? I would like to also point out, however, that this article is tagged with {{morefootnotes}}, and thus putting small inline references inside the text only improves the article, by addressing the issues outlined in this template. I have no objection to third opinion, however I think it may be best to let this discussion stay for sometime to collect more different opinions on the matter. --George (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I removed the links again before I noticed this discussion. However, I would agree completely with 2over0, and I am convinced a third opinion would site with removing the links. George585 seems to have a conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the footnote for Biorhythms for Windows doing in that section then - which is quite outdated and a much-much less featured program then the two ones that were listed? Besides I emphasize once again the importance of mentioning specific software titles, as it constitutes a major area of biorhythm application. And no, I do not have a conflict of interest at all. I simply want a more through, relevant, and up to date presentation of information on biorhythm application. --George (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply missed the other link, no ill faith was intended. I'm also not going to get into a revert war with you (note that you are now reverting two different people, which may be an indication that consensus disagrees with you), so at this point we need a third opinion. I have requested this here.

Can we take your statement that you have "no conflict of interest at all" as a declaration that you are not George Stivenson, owner of binarymark.com? Haakon (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I simply happen to be a user of some of their products that I like. I have no idea who the owner is. And in fact George585 is a nickname not a name! I also read on your userpage your attitude towards external links, however I think it is plain wrong to remove all relevant external links, even if some of them may link to commercial websites, because as was pointed out above by me, they serve a purpose of 1) edifying interested readers, 2) referencing factual information in an article, and 3) making encyclopedia contemporary (vs what you could read in a paper encyclopedia of 20 years ago). The reason I reverted your edit, was because I felt it was worng on your part to simply delete the links, without first discussing it here, so take no offense please. --George (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I changed the format of the links and turned them into footnotes, as I guess that's what the debate was about, and footnotes are probably more appropriate in this case.--George (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating whether they should be footnotes or links on some other formats; we're discussing whether or not Wikipedia should serve as a repository of external links if those links are perceived by some as "relevant". This involved interpreting or changing Wikipedia policy, which is why I requested a third opinion. Haakon (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We're not debating whether they should be footnotes or links on some other formats" - originally this was the exact issue that was debated! I would like to also add that simply mentioning the fact that there exist some software on biorhythms is not substantiated. In fact I say once again that this article was tagged that it needs more footnotes, and by mentioning specific software titles in the appropriate section with footnotes one is actually improving this article. --George (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the exact issue was this edit, with an edit summary pointing out WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- Wikipedia is not a directory of links to products. The "footnotes" issue is not about footnotes as in the typographical practice, but about citing sources. A collection of links to products is not the same as citing sources. Haakon (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And now it's gone. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced all external links with a link to Dmoz. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth cycle?

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)[reply]

Odd phrasing?

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)[reply]

Synchronisation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unsourced/dubiously sourced paragraph removed

In the workplace, railroads and airlines have experimented the most with biorhythms. A pilot describes the Japanese and American attitudes towards biorhythms.^[1] 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)[reply]

References

^ "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.)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biorhythm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote at end of lead

What is the quote ("The theory of biorhythms is a theory...") doing at the end of the lead. There are sources attached to it, but the text of the lead doesn't say who said it, or why it is notable - it's just sitting there randomly. It seems to be restating what the lead already says, and would suggest deleting it; if anyone thinks it's particularly important, it should be properly attributed, and probably put into a separate paragraph.Girth Summit (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I fixed this a little. The article has a number of problems. One of them: what is pseudoscientific here, exactly? Is it the existence of such rhytms [sources?!], the correlation with certain events or correlation with your mental/physical state (those are different things and should be distinguished), or everything [sources]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. What's pseudoscientific are the idiotic assumptions that

there are three such rhythms which, for some reason, coincide with three important philosophical categories,
those rhythms are exactly integral multiples of a day,
they start at zero with the birth,
they can be interpreted at will, with zero points as good or bad or minima as bad.

The rigidity of those rhythms - you can tell exactly, decades ahead, when which part of the curves will happen - it at odds with everything we know about biology. the only remotely similar thing are the prime intervals of 13 and 17 years between population peaks of cicadas, but insects are far more attuned to annual rhythms than humans to circadian ones.

Like astrology, there is a plethora of data points you an pick and choose to associate them with things that happen.

The concept is surrounded by stupidity and ignorance. Biorhythm proponents pick a family, take their birth data, compute the differences in days, and show that those differences can be written as the sum of multiples of 23, 28, and 33. (That is what happens when you pick three, or even two, integers which have no common factor.) This they view as proof that 23, 28, and 33 are very special numbers. Biorhythm books have one example after the other of that, to show that it works consistently. Of course they do not try the same with other integers without common factors, and when mathematicians tell them that every number can be written as the sum of multiples of any random pair of integers without common factors, they get angry, say that of course they know that and that it has nothing to do with what they were doing. Obviously the words and the concepts go over their heads and they do not want to admit it.

There was a study where accident days were compared with the critical days of the people who had the accidents. Result: Critical days were not more dangerous than other days. But the people who did the study were not happy, looked for the mistake they must have made, and found it: if someone is born shortly before midnight, then has an accident on the day after a critical day, shortly after midnight, it should be counted as a hit. The same in the other direction. So, they also counted the day after a critical day and the day before a critical day. Obviously, they got almost three times the expected number of accidents! Of course, they forgot that this change of methodology did not just increase the measured value, it also increased the expected value by the same factor, making the effect size zero again. No matter: Three times more accidents on critical days than expected! Biorhythm proved.

Regarding pseudoscientificity, biorhythm is really on the same page as homeopathy, creationism, and astrology. Calling it a theory is a big fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But what renaming would you suggest? Simply calling this "biorhytmm" would be incorrect. Here is the usage of "biorhythms" in Google Scholar. It is used as a synonym of "biological rhythms", and among 10 sources on the first page of the search only #3 might do something with pseudoscience. Same search for the theory produces this, which does lead to sources describing the subject of this page. So, my renaming was an improvement. If you can suggest something better, let's rename it again, after discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. Google Scholar, being restricted to scientific publications, would not list as many publications about pseudoscientific subjects as any other method. But "biorhythm" as a name for the pseudoscience is vastly more popular than for any biological rhythms. How about Biorhythm (pseudoscience)? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not do it because "Biorhythm theory" in Google Scholar produces the set of references (above) exactly on the subject of this page. Google Scholar is something we need to use on the scientific and pseudoscientific subjects (i.e. we need strong scientific sources to disprove pseudoscience). After looking at these sources (e.g. [1], [2]), I am convinced this is correct title. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote some of the text in this article, but it was atrocious. I am not the best writer, but I tried to fix this in any case. The irony is that the sources being used were fantastic (I have read some of them and the rest I was able to access through my library). jps (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to fix this page. This is not an area of my interest, I was just amazed that we had no article about biological rhythms and wanted to fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move

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... —Paleo Neonate – 01:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: WP:RM should then be used for this after reverting, —Paleo Neonate – 01:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

First of all, "theory" does not necessarily means science. Consider conspiracy theory. Secondly, the move was made per WP:COMMONNAME. Here is the usage of "biorhythms" in Google Scholar. It is used as a synonym of "biological rhythms", and among 10 sources on the first page of the search only #3 might do anything with pseudoscience. Same search for the "biorhythm theory" produces this, which does lead to all sources describing the subject of this page like (e.g. [3], [4]. We need to use Google Scholar the scientific and pseudoscientific subjects (i.e. we need strong scientific sources to disprove pseudoscience). Finally, perhaps per your arguments Biorhythm should be made a disambig. page leading to either this of "Biological rhythms" pages. For these reasons, I would oppose to renaming it back. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 11 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: we see discussion below that brings WP:OTHEROPTIONS to mind. There is strong opposition to the requested title, while at the same time it is obvious that consensus is also against the current title. So the result is: moved to Biorhythm (pseudoscience). If any editor prefers a different name (that isn't the name from which this page was moved), a new move request may be opened at any time. The other issue addressed in regard to titling the disambiguation page with the base name will also be engaged. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biorhythm theory → Biorhythm – "Biorhythm" was the title of this page until about a month ago when it was boldly moved here. Per WP:COMMONNAME, almost no lay person would call this subject "Biorhythm theory". There have been attempts to redirect Biorhythm to a new page Biological rhythms, about the more scientific study. It is perhaps more commonly known under its plural title "Biorhythms", so could be a rare case of a plural title. Special:WhatLinksHere/Biorhythm_theory shows that the vast majority of wikilinks are to Biorhythm or Biorhythms, not directly to Biorhythm theory, because nobody refers to this topic as "biorhythm theory". Lithopsian (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for three reasons:

Merriam-Webster dictionary tells that biorhythm is an innately determined rhythmic biological process or function (such as sleep behavior). Also : the internal mechanism that determines such a process or function Those are biological rhythms, i.e. the biological processes which exist as a matter of fact, not a pseudoscientific concept (the subject of this page).
To the contrary, Biorhythm theory IS the WP:COMMONNAME, but Biorhyhtm is merely a shorthand or a synonym of Biological rhythm, at least in the scientific literature, and the biological rhythms IS a legitimate scientific (biological) subject. Here is the usage of "biorhythms" in Google Scholar. It is used as a synonym of "biological rhythms", and among 10 sources on the first page of the search only #3 might do anything with pseudoscience. Same search for the "biorhythm theory" produces this, which does lead to sources all of which describe the subject of this page like (e.g. [5], [6]. We need to use Google Scholar for scientific and pseudoscientific subjects (i.e. we need strong scientific sources to disprove pseudoscience).
This issue can be resolved by making Biorhythm a disambiguation page. And BTW, that was bad edit by Lithopsian because it was made to bypass the existing disambig. page Biorhythm (disambiguation). My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to biorhythms I see that there are a few instances where biologists (perhaps unwittingly?) have used the term "biorhythm" to mean some sort of "biological rhythm", but I'm not convinced that this is the main "umbrella use" for the idea. I am sympathetic to user:My very best wishes's points, but I think that even given the evidence cited from Google Scholar, for example, a significant plurality if not outright majority of mentions of the term "biorhythms" are referring to this Fleischian proposal. I suggest moving to biorhythms which, though unorthodox article title in MOS considerations, seems to be a more common way this subject is presented -- it is very unusual for someone to talk about a one of the purported "biorhythms" in isolation, for example. A standard note at the top sending people to a disambig page for more mainstream topics would be advisable. As such, I think the inclusion of the word "theory" just is not necessary on the balance. jps (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the dictionary definition of term "biorhythm", as well as Google Scholar searches (links above) show that the primary usage of word "biorhythm" (aka biological rhythm) is a type of biological processes, not the pseudoscietific theory. But using a disambing page helps to resolve this, just as in many other cases with disambiguation. I do not see anything special in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of "dicdef" arguments. You'll have to do better than that to convince me. See below re: Google Scholar. jps (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, there are 16,000+ cases in Google Scholar when biologists use "biorhythm" merely as a shorthand for biological rhythms [7]. That is how this term is usually used in Biology. That's why the title of this page for a pseudo-scientific theory ("biorhythm") caught immediately my attention as something outright ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google Scholar link does not show what you claim it to show. Many of those "16,000+" articles are explicitly about the pseudoscience and in my spot-check, it looks like it may even be a majority of them. jps (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. For example, on page 1 of the search [8] only #2 among 10 references is about the subject of this page (something about stocks). What else? Please compare with the search for "Biorhythm theory". The "dicdef" say only about one meaning of the word/expression in the language, and that is not the subject of this page. Which means a reader should expect to see the biological rhythms on page Biorhythm, with an additional reference at the top of the page to the "theory". And it IS a theory/a concept, not the actual biological rhythms. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also pseudoscientific (look at the proposed biorhythms and citations). jps (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it seems to be about Circadian rhythms, effects of menstrual cycle and lunar cycles. This is mainstream science and a different subject. And just in case, the importance of lunar cycles in biology is well established ([9] - random publication about fish, which is NOT subject of this page). My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

circaseptan rhythms? I think NOT! Agreed that this isn't the classic biorhythm, but it is still rank.

This one too. jps (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't assess the quality of the publication on psychology, but it is not on the subject of this page, because it is about cycles with a period about hours, not weeks, unless I am mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with the above, it is about whatever timeframes the authors feel like -- they do extend to very long periods out of some sort of vain hope. jps (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it tells about "frequencies faster than 15 min/cycle" or slower. But your reply here is a perfect illustration why this page should not be moved back. An unsuspecting reader might think that any scientific publication with word "biorhythm" is a pseudoscience, just like you. This is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this page will be moved to Biorhythm, then one must provide the "dicref" definition in the 1st phrase (this is NOT a theory, science or pseudoscience, but a group of biological phenomena) and re-write this whole page completely, including removing the undue content about the pseudoscience. But that would be bad. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Biorhythm (pseudoscience) or at least Biorhythm theory (pseudoscience). This numerological pseudoscience needs to be separated clearly from the scientifically accepted rhythms. And the word "pseudoscience" needs to be in the introduction. (I am using it in this contribution so often to compensate for its gaping absence there.) Are we having a miniature Ayurveda imbroglio here? I am not aware of any pseudoscientific idea which is more pseudoscientific than this pseudoscientific idea. On a scale from 0 (not pseudoscientific) to 100 (pseudoscientific), creationism, homeopathy and this one have a value of 100. That some have called it "biorhythm theory" is neither her nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an alternative suggestion I could agree with because it does not cause confusion. One clarification: it was not me who called this subject "Biorhythm theory". That's the sources [10]. The idea that word "theory" makes it more scientific is actually WP:OR and incorrect. See List of Pseudoscientific Theories. See Conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another clarification: it was you who deleted the word "pseudoscientific" from the introduction.

The idea that word "theory" makes it more scientific is not OR, first because nobody wants to write that into the article, and second, because nobody has even proposed it. Only pseudoscientists think that appending "theory" makes things scientific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It tells right on the top of this page: "This article is about the pseudoscientific beliefs.". I am glad we agree that word "theory" does not make it science. Therefore, I think that adding word "(pseudoscience)" in the title, as you suggest, would be excessive. But at least it would not be misleading, so I do not have significant objections. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it insulting that you entertained the thought that I would believe that adding "theory" makes something science.

"This article is about the pseudoscientific beliefs." is not part of the intro, it is a navigation help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thank you for fixing the lead. Indeed, this suppose be exactly n days, that's the point. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE to Biorhythms since that is the WP:COMMONNAME and it already redirects from there anyway. The actual scientific biological rhythms already have an article, so we don't need to worry about that right now. If that changes we can always add a disamb page. GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is that COMMONNAME if according to Merriam-Webster dictionary definition biorhythm is an innately determined rhythmic biological process or function (such as sleep behavior)? Those are biological rhythms, i.e. the biological processes which exist as a matter of fact, not the pseudoscientific concept (the subject of this page). My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other definitions for the term existing doesn't stop it being the WP:COMMONNAME in any way whatsoever. GliderMaven (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the dictionary provides only one definition of the term - as above, i.e. biological rhythm, the actual biological process. Same in all other dictionaries: [11], [12], [13], [14],[15], [16]. But even if there are several meanings of the term, then "byorhythm(s)" should be a disambig. page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, for the reason already stated, and that's not my !vote. Your understanding of the policy is completely flawed, and I am not changing my !vote. GliderMaven (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this pseudoscientific concept has never been referred to as a theory, and since the concept refers to a plural of things - they are biorhythms and not a singular biorhythm. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think so? It is referred to as "biorhythm theory", as Google scholar shows: [17]. Same in books: [18] It does not mean the theory is scientific. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per User:My very best wishes. Biorhythm may need to become a disambiguation page but that can be done without moving this one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I would support a move to Biorhythm (pseudoscience). — Wug·a·po·des 00:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move as proposed; I would also support moving this article to Biorhythm (pseudoscience), and disambiguating Biorhythm between the pseudoscientific usage and the actual scientific usage. BD2412 T 00:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed

[19] - 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)[reply]

[1] "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.)

[1]