This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'd like to direct a bit of attention to this article, which I've just AfD'ed. Looie496 ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On the physics portal page there is a headline for an article that has little significance and certainly isn't the consensus in physics world or even being discussed. I have reason to believe that one of the authors of the article in quesiton has added this 'news'. Every time I take the line of news off it is reverted by the same person and I'm not the only one that has taken it off. how can this be resolved? - Captainspirou ( talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:In any case... The first step is to raise the issue on the portal's talk page, explaining why you think the item does not belong in the news section, and inviting the editor who keeps adding it to explain why he/she thinks it does belong. Only after this has been attempted should you move to other forms of dispute resolution.
Blueboar (
talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am apparently once again bullying and suppressing information on the claims of Royal Rife. Any outside input or eyes at Royal Rife and Talk:Royal Rife might be helpful. MastCell Talk 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In related news: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In our ongoing drama to make a good list of subjects that have been deprecated as pseudosciences by reliable sources, we have come to something of a crossroads. For a number of months, a proposal has been on the table to reorganize the list thematically rather than by sources. I think we are finally coming to a stable state of an article that has this feature.
The next challenge is two-fold:
I encourage people here to look over that page and see if they see any problems. The more eyes we get looking at that page the better.
And thanks to all the editors who went over there at any time in the last few years to help fix what was once a much worse list than it is shaping up to be.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We need some wider input on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. A basic google search for "migraine triggers" will bring up many pages listing of possible triggers, and MSG is on most of them. That's not science, and it has not been conclusively proven or disproven that MSG is a migraine trigger, but there is wide agreement among people who suffer from migraines that MSG might be a trigger and many migraineurs are careful to avoid it. Whether or not MSG has been proven by science to be a trigger, that it is widely considered to be a trigger is notable and verifiable and appropriate to mention in the article. As one example that reliable sources support this, here is a fact sheet from the University Health Services at University of California, Berkeley. I'll post this on the article talk page also. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
These have just showed up. Its a bit surprising that neither article has more links, but right now the only links are to a couple of fringe authors whose notability I question. Maybe the answer is just to add more appropriate links? dougweller ( talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if Chris is notable enough for an article (and I'm not sure he is, just because I'm very familiar with his stuff doesn't mean its notable!), this article is a bit of a mess. Someone needs to nicely explain to Arthur Warrington Thomas ( talk · contribs) something about our policies and guidelines. It also looks as though he plans to create a number of other articles for fringe writers, some of which may have been deleted in the past through AfD as not notable. dougweller ( talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this claim for a Nazi super weapon that could take a look at the article? Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 10:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame anyone who says "good riddance" to trying to improve this Article, having just had a thoroughly disagreeable experience myself at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Criticism.2C_not_review. Yes, someone has nominated Seth Material for Good Article, and the misleading way that the GA review was set up prevented me from delivering a review in keeping with GA criteria!
If you know the intricacies of the Good Article process and for some masochistic reason are interested in reviewing…
This experience has been one of disillusionment for me. During the discussions in December when turning the Article into a redirect was at issue, I consistently pleaded for patience so as to enable the article to get better. In my opinion, it is no better now than it was then. But its supporters have figured out how to tick all the right Wikipedia boxes and that makes it okay.
Next time when someone is being bold, don't count on me to hold back the bloodhounds.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this notable in the field of dowsing, or should it be AFDed ? Abecedare ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This may be slightly off topic for this board, but I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It is now clear to me that one of two things needs to be done to clarify how WP:Undue weight applies to articles about Fringe theories. I have illustrated the two choices. #1 makes explicit what would seem to be an implication of a literal reading of an earlier statement. #2 removes the implication by qualifying said statement. As I have mentioned on WT:NPOV, the context leads me to believe that that meaning is not intended, which is why I currently favor #2. But I know some editors favor an interpretation in line with #1, and if that truly is the community consensus then it should be made more clear. I thought this would be a good place to mention it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For those unaware, a related ArbCom case is discussing the editing of fringe topics: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. Check it out and add any input. — Scien tizzle 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
sigh, I hope to be proven wrong, but I firmly expect the arbcom to make a splendid mess of this. -- dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems dubious/POV/synthesis. It's a list of things with a Muslim hand in it, although it seems very dubious to list American Muslims (like Muhammad Ali) as "Islamic World" and also other people who have moved from Muslim majority countries to the US when they were young. Seems also to be random intersection/synthesis or religion taking credit for science etc. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world. Nommed YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A periodic conspiracy theory has been cropping up in the Sarah Palin article that her youngest son Trig, who was born this past April, is not really hers, but instead her daughter Bristol's, and that Sarah Palin faked the pregnancy to cover for her daughter. The theory was originally promulgated at Daily Kos a day or two after her VP selection by McCain (the diary making the allegations was later removed by that site). Its most prominent current proponents are Andrew Sullivan, Jack Bogdanski, and an anonymous website/blog named "Palin's Deceptions". The most prominent piece of "evidence" that makes the theory impossible is that Bristol Palin gave birth to her own son, Tripp Johnston, in December, so the math makes it impossible for her to have given birth to both children. People hanging on to the theory are now alleging that Tripp Johnston has not, in fact, been born. Here is an example of a message left at Talk:Sarah Palin discussing this. Kelly hi! 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
wait, so Tripp is Bristol's child, while Trig is Sarah's, and the conspiracy theory is that that it's the other way round, or vice versa? With these crazy monosyllabic baby names this is a bit like trying to keep track of the Pokemon family tree of Tolkien's dwarves :oP --
dab
(𒁳) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to give undue weight to a series of (somewhat contradictory) claims that he was assassinated, out of proportion to the generally accepted view that he was not. LeContexte ( talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Article is up for wikifying, which I can do, but I would appreciate another eye or two. From the description it doesn't sound very fringey, more like a version of cognitive behavioural therapy. In which case, what does it do that CBT doesn't; is it notable? On the other hand perhaps it is classified as CAM. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put the Jane Roberts article up for AfD and have given my reasoning on the AfD page - anyone who wants to, feel free to share your opinions either way in the AfD discussion. Sticky Parkin 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just put two new categories, Category:Scientifically proven paranormal phenomena and Category:Clinically proven homeopathic remedies, up for deletion. If anybody has a better solution, I am open to ideas. - Eldereft ( cont.) 06:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs to be properly disambiguated, I guess, but as an astronomer I've never heard of this particular variant of origin of life proposals. Is it as idiosyncratic as I think? Also, is the nursing usage more prominent? The cursory research I did on the subject left me more confused than when I started.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
These very extensive related articles may contain POV and give undue weight to a minority view on the subject. Just thought I'd list them in case anyone wants a challenge and is willing to try and WP:NPOV them if need be.
Zoophilia Zoosexuality Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism
Sticky Parkin 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh here's another one- Zoophilia and health (!) Sticky Parkin 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Created by a new editor with very strong opinions on the causes of myopia, the article is an attempt to discuss the theories from the book Myopia Myth without an understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. The situation is more difficult in that Myopia needs a great deal of NPOV work itself (clear and prominent statements on current medical consensus, clear differentiation between key areas of ongoing research vs fringe theories, etc). -- Ronz ( talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be complete balderdash, but what do I know? Mangoe ( talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The articles on Harold Puthoff and Gordon Novel seem one-sided attempts to push the fringe POVs of these individuals (who are, incidentally, of dubious notability) LeContexte ( talk) 17:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs help. Also check other areas of this walled garden of woo. I made a first pass at this article, but imagine that someone a bit more delicate than I could help in rewording some of the more clunky statements.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties at Jesus myth hypothesis (which really ought to be called Christ-myth theory) with an editor who insists on defining the article's topic through original research rather than through reliable sources. Some additional voices might be helpful. --Akhilleus ( talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
One question... is an article, or articles, which discuss the academic hypothesis that either Jesus, a Christ, or both never existed actually a fringe theory? It strikes me that the majority of humanity probably believes this. This is true certainly in the case of the existence of a "christ". Objectively speaking, the existence of a Christ figure is taken on faith, rather than proof, so it is far from a fringe theory to discuss the possibility that no such figure existed at all. That said, if we are looking at this from the perspective of a myth hypothesis within Christian theology, then it would obviously be fringe, but if we are speaking generally, then an NPOV treatment of the topic would begin with the fact that most people on the planet do not believe in Christ to begin with. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The difficulties of the Gospels evaporate, however, with the aid of Spong's key—actually two keys. The evangelists did not conceive of their writings as history, he declares. Rather, they were stories, never intended to be taken literally, which served to illustrate the meaning of Jesus (that is, the presumed historical Jesus) according to a longstanding Jewish practice. This practice was known as "midrash". In this particular expression of midrash (there are many ways this word and concept can be applied), the writer retold an existing biblical story in a new story and new terms, basing many of its details on specific scriptural passages. Thus Jesus was portrayed as a new Moses, in settings and with features which paralleled the stories of Moses; he was represented as performing actions such as "cleansing the Temple" which embodied ideas expressed in prophets such as Zechariah. In this way, all the significances and associations of the older context would automatically be soaked up by the new one. To the knowledgeable reader or listener, a story or anecdote modelled on an identifiable prototype in scripture would convey a meaning and inspiration far deeper and more detailed than that contained in the simple words themselves. This was the power of midrash.
never mind, I had forgotten this was the " Eurabia" guy. It's not worth investing time in this. -- dab (𒁳) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
that would seem to be the scope of our
historicity of Jesus article... --
dab
(𒁳) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)The Jesus Myth hypothesis does NOT question whether the deity of a given faith is historically accurate but if the portrayal of its founder which is said to be history is accurate. Muhammad is regarded as a prophet and is not Allah; so questioning if Muhammad really existed doesn't question if Allah existed. Similarly Buddhism doesn't have one holy text and none of them purport to be historical accurate eyewitness accounts as the Gospels supposedly do. There are some Rabbi who question if Moses existed and the Exodus even happened-that doesn't mean Yahweh didn't exist. The existence of L. Ron Hubbard can easily be proven by the staggering amount of contemporary evidence regarding him. This does show there is some confusion about what the Jesus Myth hypothesis is. That you have definitions all over the place certainly doesn't help.
Even in the 1st century not all Christians believed that Jesus was God. Paul himself didn't seem to regard Jesus as God as he talks about them as if they were separate entities.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent) "The JMT is one very narrow, radical stance on the historicity of Jesus: Jesus never existed, at all, and all of the NT narrative is just a confused rendition of assorted Near Eastern myths. Period." Sorry, Dbachmann, but that definition is not supported by all reliable sources. For example, Dodd, C. H. (1938) in History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17 under the heading Christ Myth theory states: "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him."
Schweitzer stated "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (Out of My Life and Thought, 1931 page 125) and yet Weaver lists James Frazer along with Herbert Spencer as supporters of "then-prevailing idea that behind myths of origin are actual historical personages" (The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950 pg 59)
In his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard, Doherty states "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." While strictly speaking this is true Wells is NOT saying that there wasn't a 1st century Jewish preacher named Jesus who inspired the Gospel Jesus.
Finally, you have Remsburg who as I have repeatedly demonstrated defines Christ Myth (supposedly synonymous with JMH): "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
As I have repeatedly stated when what the JMT even is and who supports it varies depending on what reliable source you site then something is way wrong. It becomes a game of pick that reference and goes totally against the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia. SOmething really needs to be done with the article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I should mention that "Christ Myth" is even more a mess than "Jesus myth" is and has had definitions that definitely include Historicity of Jesus as Remsburg does and other that are strong maybes as Dodd's does. The obvious conclusion is that the definition has changed over the time and the article needs to reflect that fact rather than try to strong arm it into a defintion that does not fit all the reliable source material.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)Considering that the relevent sections of Bennett's book are online at Google books, anyone can answer these questions so I don't see what relevance the questions have. But then again, Akhilleus, you were the one who made the utterly insane statement "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." As I said in my reply at the time just 1 minute in Google books produced dozens of references to Remsburg and some were even to his book The Christ and when a statement can be that easily disproved via basic research (even with the wrong spelling) something is seriously wrong.
Regarding the situation with Fortress edition, I have no idea what is going on. But the issue as I pointed out regarding the issue was "It does raise a question of how much we can trust the summations authors give us". It does strike me as strange as the 1910 version doesn't have even one comment about Frazer (I looked for the name though the entire online version and found nothing) and yet this 2001 translation does despite Bennett showing this conflicts with Schweitzer's comments in a later book. It could be that Schweitzer changed his mind and thought he had put Frazer in the same category as John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in his earlier work. Nevermind that the Out of my Life and Thought with limited preview at Google books is the edition put out by Johns Hopkins University Press. Again if I had to choose I would reliable source I have to with the two books that have at least some academic publishing backing rather than the one that presents itself as "We are the ministry of publishing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." along with the blub above I provided that they use to id themselves via Google search. To be fair, German can be hard to translate into English. My late mother who was fluent in high Deutschland German would often use the example of 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket of water' of how easy it one could mess up translations if you didn't pay attention. Also Akhilleus, if correct, has presented us with a little logic problem. How could Schweitzer in 1913 have said Frazer believed in a historical Jesus if the point wasn't made clear by Frazer until 1922?! Something there really doesn't make sense.
Finally, doing a search regarding one of the other sources I stumbled on "The Jesus Myth" Barbara G. Walker from Freethought Today (August 2007) Vol. 24 No. 6. The article never comes out and say just what the Jesus Myth is and in fact can be confusing to someone only vaguely familiar with the material as to WHAT it is arguing. If anything resembling a definition can be pulled from the article it is that Jesus Myth here is being used as Remsburg used "Christ myth" which only serves to prove what I have been saying--the definition of the term Jesus Myth varies and there is little if any consensus on what the term means.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)It should be mentioned Akhilleus tends to misrepresent the positions of other editors either by reading things that are not even there or leaving important things out. My issue with Oxford University Press is NOT just that they publish bibles but they along with Cambridge University publish the Authorized King James Version of the Bible a version that as far as the UK is concerned is held in perpetual copyright by the Crown. The problem with that is when Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and set up the Church of England he also made himself and his successors the Supreme Head of it (ie the equivalent of the Pope) which became the title Supreme Governor in 1559. Before that in 1544 Parliament restored the title of Defender of the Faith to Henry VIII and his successors. And it is not only about money but the prestege that comes with being given the right to published the official Bible of the Church of England by the official leader of that Church (ie the Crown). The question of a possible conflict of interest should come up just as it should concerning a publication regarding the Jewish people by any major University in Germany between 1935 and 1945 or an US University paper regarding Communism from 1949 to 1954 (and perhaps even a little later).
In fact, how anyone who even thinks about this for one minute can't see the apparent conflict of interest here is beyond me but then again we are talking about an editor who stated "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." when a 1 minute search produced dozens even wither the wrong spelling (the name is spell RemsbUrg not RemsbErg and yes I have made the mistake myself). Yet Akhilleus response to my statement of "I found Remsburg's The Christ referenced or quoted ALL OVER THE PLACE by BOTH SIDES. Even the wrong spelling got me some of the same hits with things like The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury (2007) and Obstruction of Justice by Religion: A Treatise on Religious Barbarities of the Common Law, and a Review of Judicial Oppressions of the Non-religious in the United States by Frank Swancara (1971) thrown in for good measure. Even searching through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89 as well as the two S Acharya books above. I even found Remsburg on Kenneth Humphreys' Jesus Never Existed webpage. Tell us just how in the name of heaven did you miss all these people to make the statement "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg"??? I found several not only mentioning Remsburg but either reference or citing his book The Christ as well including "The Historicity Of Jesus' Resurrection" by Jeffery Jay Lowder (1995) and "Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? by "Historicus" of the United Secularists of America, Inc." was "Looks like the usual mass of self-published and non-expert sources that don't pass the reliable soruces policy." despite one of the authors being Gordon Stein (to be fair a little later Akhilleus did acknowledge Buddhist-Christian Studies was NOT a "self-published and non-expert source") but the point is Akhilleus said he could not find ANY ie NOT A SINGE REFERENCE to Remsburg despite me having pointing out Baal of Hay article in reply to Akhilleus using Holding as a reference in HIS 21:23, 4 December 2008 comment. Yes, Akhilleus tried to use Holding of all people to bolster one of his arguments.
Never mind Akhilleus early efforts to defend a "quote" (and I use the term very loosely) by Grant that had been argued by other editors like Phyesalis, E4mmacro, Sophia, and ^^James^^ to be thrown out with Phyesalis saying 22:45, 12 December 2007 "Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies." (I at least tried to prove this with my research rather than just simply claiming it.) set my current perception of his research skills. Oh for the record the entire relevant stuff of Grant is at [ Attitudes to the Evidence] so Akhilleus can no longer make the claim that I have "never read the full passage from Grant"-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The latest incarnation of the " Indigenous Aryans" topos appears to be Jmanjmanjman ( talk · contribs), presently insisting on giving a full account of these exciting theories here, with rather nice edits elsewhere (the truth about the Aryans was hushed up by a Nazi conspiracy, you see). -- dab (𒁳) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On this article the lead currently states:
The sources are as follows:
There is disagreement on wording. I feel that attributing this directly to specific authors: "according to an article in a journal called The Skeptical Enquirer and an article from Fox News, there is no scientific evidence" falsely implies that this is an unexpected, minority or fringe view of scientific opinion on ghosts. Another editor points to other statements in the article, such as one about a poll result, that are specifically attributed.
I'm pretty sure that the two cases are completely different, and I think the onus should be on someone who claims that there is scientific evidence to produce a reference to peer-reviewed research. A statement by a reliable source (and I don't think there is any suggestion that Fox News misquoted the Associated Press report or that the AP misquoted Professor Efthimiou, a physicist at UCF) that there is no such evidence seems authoritative enough unless there are credible claims to the contrary.
It occurs to me that this is a question that has been asked before in several similar contexts. What verification is required for the statement of the null hypothesis? At what point is it reasonable to state as a fact that no scientific evidence exists for a fringe phenomenon that is no longer taken seriously by scientists? -- TS 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
ghosts are, of course, real, in the same way dreams and visions are real. People see them, have always seen them, and will keep seeing them, because ghosts are one category of perception open to humans. In the same way as "sunrise" is one possible category of perception. The question is of course, what triggers this perception, and the nature of events triggering perception of "sunrise" are very different from those of the events triggering perception of "ghost", but nevertheless both are real encyclopedic topics that may be discussed based on academic sources. In this sense, ghost isn't inherently a "fringe" topic, it is simply open to pseudo-scientific interpretations, just like "sunrise" is open to interpretations of "Helios driving his chariot over the horizon". -- dab (𒁳) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
My entire point was that ghosts do of course "really exist", in the same way your memories or dreams really "do exist". The "paranormal" question of "belief in ghosts" is really a false dichotomy, and it is WP:UNDUE to discuss the topic of ghosts in terms paranormal/parapsychological literature rather than in terms of folklore, mythology, literature, anthropology and depth psychology. -- dab (𒁳) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
John Lamb Lash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amateur mythologist etc. tagged for 3rd party sources for a year and a half. Lots of reviews, interviews on new-agey/conspiracy sites but not much (any) mainstream coverage ( [12] [13]). Closest he gets to respectability seems to be once published by Thames & Hudson. Please, someone tell me I'm missing something. Misarxist 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot tell from the lead of here article, much of which I moved to the talk page for discussion I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if people could comment on the Anti-Christian sentiment talk page. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Urine therapy says this:
The article uses as reference an article from the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is *not* peer-reviewed, and as such, it's full of fringe science (for example, AIDS denialism).
Should we even use information from such journals, especially on medical issues? I would think that the lack of any formal peer-review makes it unreliable by default and against the standards for WP:Reliable sources.
So, should I remove that paragraph out of the article? bogdan ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Eww. Just Eww. 75.158.88.7 ( talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)illisium
If I read enough times in The Lancet etc. or heard via government health recommendations that Wee therapy prevents illness for life, I would happily drink it. So I suppose it depends where you read it, or how desperate you are. Maybe that's just me though.:) Sticky Parkin 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a fecal therapy fringe thing out there (rely on Mast Cell to tell us all about it), so if you want "ewwwww", that far exceeds urine therapy. And also, if you're dying of thirst in the Sahara, drinking one's urine might be useful. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an edit war (in which I'm not involved, thankfully) going at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni concerning the inclusion of a claim that this individual was a secret homosexual who obtained his position as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem due to a rumoured gay love affair with a senior British government official. The claim is sourced to a 2008 book, Icon of Evil, which received very bad reviews and strong criticism by historians of its factual accuracy. The claim in question is specifically mentioned and criticised by one reviewer, and it seems very much like a fringe theory. The issues at hand are whether a source that does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:V#Reliable sources, should be used in a Wikipedia article to support statements about third parties, and whether a fringe claim should be included in the article in the first place (considering the requirements of WP:UNDUE relating to tiny-minority POVs). Input would be welcomed at WP:RSN#Icon of Evil. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be incipient edit war on this article. Attention would be appreciated. -- TS 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Some attention to recent edits on this article would be appreciated. An editor asserts that claims of fraud cannot be asserted. As far as I can tell they are substantiated. The editor in question also seems to be making edits so as to make this device appear to be a cure for cancer. -- TS 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A new editor, 76.105.171.107, has shown up at this article and made extensive changes which do not appear to be in line with our Neutral point of view policy. Attention would be merited, I think. -- TS 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything that has been done to horses' hooves since antiquity is completely wrong. Citations for this? We don't need no steenkin' citations. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Might also have been called "WikiProject Fringe Theories". There is nothing wrong with an effort to properly cover fringe theories and minority views, just as long as the "project" isn't inofficially turned into a WP:DUE-evasion effort. It would seem that either this noticeboard is within the scope of this project, or else the project is within the scope of this noticeboard. -- dab (𒁳) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether this concept, invented/promoted by neoshamanistic author Alberto Villoldo, is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article? AFAIK Villoldo is the sole source and originator of this syncretic system (notwithstanding it allegedly being passed on to him by shamanic figures in Peru), and any other website or new age org mentioning it necessarily repeats or draws from Villoldo's writings and promotional paid appearances and spiritual tours. Independent sources seem to be quite thin on the ground.
My first instinct would be to nominate for AfD, or at the very least redirect to Villoldo's article for a brief mention there; but possibly its recognition has spread far and notably enough beyond Villoldo's inner circle to give it some chance to withstand a notability challenge. Certainly, it's hard to see how it could be turned into a balanced NPOV article, and it (as well as Villoldo's article itself) needs much more attention to RS, FRINGE, V, and UNDUE. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone added to the article on the year 1313 a statement that it was regarded by Rosicrucians as their foundation date. That then spurred a new editor to add a long note about why historians don't regard that date as historically significant to Rosicrucianism. Someone else then wanted the note wikified and I thus found the article in the backlog of articles for wikification. I've removed all mention of Rosicrucianism from the 1313 article and transferred the material to the Rosicrucianism talk page. I hope that sorts it out, but thought I would also put a note here in case someone would like to keep the articles on watch. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on Fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.
In light of this I would like to have a number of indepedent editors help us out with an ongoing discussion on Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko was murdered two years ago in London, and the British authorities, after investigating the cause, said they were 100% sure that the killer was an ex-russian official and also stated that they are convinced the murder was commited with state backing. Russia however never extradited the main suspect, so nobody has ever been punished. As usual with a case which gains widespread attention, alternative theories become available. Since many opinionated Russian nationalists wanted to promote these theories (attack is the best weapon for defence) eventually a new article was created called Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories in order to keep those theories away from the other two main pages Alexander Litvinenko and Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. The theories are pretty wild, some fitting James Bond style plots, others even more ridiculous, such as that the killing wasn't actually an assassination but self-poisoning.
Two of these Russian nationalist users (addition: according to them I'm also opinionated) want to adjust the lead section of the Alexander Litvinenko page significantly, including the following addition:
"The events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death."
I think undue weight is giving to fringe theories here and we're indeed dealing with POV-Pushing. While the fringe theories are possibly notable, they certainly do not belong to the lead section. I also think that its unfair to state that the the events leading up to the murder are "a matter of controversy" because according to the UK's investigation they're clear as sky. Their arguments are that the alternative theories aren't fringe theories, and that the UK's investigation result is also "a theory itself".
So that leaves me with two questions for indepdendent users here:
1) Are these (notable) fringe theories or not? 2) Should the line above become an addition to the lead section?
Thanks. Grey Fox ( talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
David Talbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The person who runs Talbott's personal website is currently trying to "keep NPOV" this article. He has already removed all criticism from the article and has been resisting attempts by myself to point out the obvious physical impossibilities with Talbott's beliefs. More eyes needed, essentially.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mulled it over:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (2nd nomination).
ScienceApologist (
talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you believe someone mentioned this article in a class I was leading today? Lord in heaven, you guys need to watch this thing. What is a guy with a BS in Urban Studies doing pontificating about celestial mechanics? It was enough to draw me out of a Wikibreak.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A spin-off from Afrocentrism and the Egyptian Race Controversy articles, apparently designed to reintroduce all the old favourites: Cleopatra was black etc etc. Paul B ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
nothing new under the sun. It appears we'll have to babysit the Afrocentrism articles for the next couple of months until Deeceevoice & friends are shown the door, or walk away in a huff, once again. I wish there was a short-cut for this, because the outcome is set, and it's just a question of going through the motions, yet another time. Accounts like Wdford ( talk · contribs), going around creating articles such as Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? have no ratio essendi within the project. -- dab (𒁳) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
well, fine, I'll be happy to collaborate with Zara1709 in the expansion of this article. But for the love of ḏiḥautī, could somebody just bite the bullet and ban the Afrocentrist crackpots? There is literally nothing to be gained from letting the prance around any longer. -- dab (𒁳) 10:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
← Right, you two are way off-topic here. Please take the argument over POV/behavior to personal discussion or an RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This is blatantly written from a sympathetic fringe point of view. A number of related articles are also written in whole or part with a credulous tone or undue weight:
Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Your actions were indeed excessively bold. Those articles are all on notable topics (all have received treatment by both pro-ufo, explicitly skeptical, and mainstream scientists), split off from the parent article due to its size in accordance with policy. I'll agree that they need more thorough treatment of mainstream scientific studies and skeptical critiques of pro-UFO theories are needed, but I lack the resources to add them myself. Regardless, it is certainly inapropriate to damage Wikipedia's coverage of one side to make up for deficiencies in the coverage of another when it's so easy to add that coverage yourself.
I noticed that when Hand turned "Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery" into a redirect (a move I agree with), none of its content was transferred to any other article. Ditto with every other article deleted today. If these changes had gone uncontested hours and hours of work by several contributors would be lost. It looks like very little respect has been given to your fellow workers' labor. Hand didn't even leave a notice for these articles' prime contributor (me) or raise any complaints on the articles' talk pages, which is what standard procedure would suggest. I'm sorry I called you a vandal, but when I saw 5 or so pages immediately blanked without discussion that was the first thought that popped into my mind.
Also, despite removing all of their content (that is, functionally deleting them) none of them actually qualify as appropriate for deletion (all are notable, not spam, and salvageable as articles). No good faith effort has been put forth to identify flaws or attempt improvements. I'm willing to cooperate in attempting to improve these articles and address any concerns that may be had, and agree that there are reasons for concern worth discussing, but unilateral deletion as was done earlier is inappropriate, rude, and damaging to Wikipedia's coverage of an intersting, if ontologically dubious subject. Shall we get to work? Abyssal ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Two IPs (socks?) have been trying to create a POV fork at Free energy movement. It was a redirect to Free energy suppression (which uses the term "conspiracy theory" explicitly in the lead). Seems pretty under control for now, but please put the redirect on your watchlists for more eyes. NJGW ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories - tendatious pro-conspiracy POV pushing editor, insisting that the title of the article is POV and overly abiguous. Please drop by and opine. Blueboar ( talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. -- TS 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is sort of at the edge of fringiness, but I'm getting to my wit's end with panentheism. The concept itself isn't too hard to explain, and the article does a half-decent job, at least, of doing so. The problem comes with the section where it is being identified in various religious and philosophical traditions. First, a lot of people can't tell the difference between panentheism and pantheism, and so they keep sticking in examples of the latter. Second, the perpetual controversialism between Eastern and Western Christianity has washed up in the article. It is perhaps true that panentheism is not as universally held in the West as in the East, but one can readily find western theologians who explicitly hold to it. Which brings us to the third issue: most of these identifications are analysis rather than the original sources using the term themselves. For example, we have a cited claim that the Cherokee were monotheistic and panentheistic, but the cited work supports the former and doesn't mention the latter at all. Another bit on neoplatonism has a citation, but the quote doesn't use the term and actually supports an interpretation of pantheism instead.
I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself. I'm familiar enough with the field to where I think I can distinguish the forms correctly, but it seems to me that if I rely upon that I'm going to have endless battles with the people who can't distinguish them. In any case, I'd like some other eyes on this as well as opinions as to the approach I intend to take. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a minor edit war with one user insisting on phrasing that presumes that the vew that *all* psychics, mediums, and so on are real should be given greater weight than that they use cold reading. C.f. first sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate for an AfD? LeContexte ( talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I redirected the author to the diet, since he's not really known for anything else, and the diet gets some paper space in printed encyclopedia, while he does not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
At Rheinwiesenlager, another editor is seeking to add to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. I have reverted the change citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for which the editor in question has labelled me a Communist. I would be grateful for some external input. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask for some additional eyes to review contributions by Uruk2008 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has some sort of background with explosives, but has added a lot of misinformation, fringe theory, and explosives-related pseudoscience over the last few months too. I've started reverting some stuff and mentioned it on his talk page, but I think more eyes to look at all his contributions may be helpful so that it's not just me. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up this grossly biased article. There is considerable opposition from some people who think the extraterrestrial hypothesis should have a section outlining support for that hypothesis. There is in fact little if any support for the hypothesis within the scientific community. - This article is very popular and I think some attention to its terrible biases would improve Wikipedia's reputation for taking science seriously. - TS 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet again people are trying to demote the NPOV/FAQ from policy status, this time by simply edit warring to make it so. Less than 24 hours of discussion since they necromancied an old thread, and already they've demoted it four times.
God help me, what's with these people? Simply saying that an RfC should be run before you demote a long-standing policy is being met with claims that it never was meant to be a policy to beggin with (how stupid of us not to have realised in the 7 years it's been part of Wikipedia policy, originally as part of WP:NPOV, and that there never was consensus for it to be policy. What's going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should be asking this at the FAQ talk page, but I don't understand what's at stake here. Why does it matter whether this is policy or not? --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict:
I live in Africa. Folks around here wish there were edible animals left to hunt. They would happily swap lives with your Appalachian relatives.
Wdford (
talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an odd article, currently wholly unreferenced, which defines linguistic monogenesis as "the idea that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language spoken many thousands of years ago in the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age". Fair enough. It then goes on to assert that "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th century. It is scarcely more popular today. It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." It seems odd that the article is in effect claiming that this is a fringe theory. I think the author is conflating the central assertion (that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language) with the fringe claims of those linguists who have sought to model it. The author's attempt to introduce evolutionary theory also seems confused. The article claims that "if all recent human populations on Earth (including, for example, Australians, appearing 40,000 - 50,000 years before the present) stem from a single out-of-Africa migration, linguistic monogenesis becomes a conceivable hypothesis." Since this is the dominant view, it seems odd to portray it in this way. In any case, even multiregionalism is not logically inconsistent with linguistic monogenesis. However, editors with knowledge of this topic seem to be needed. Paul B ( talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Problems at homeopathy. I don't want to revert any more. User is refusing to enter into discussion, and I suspect it is a banned editor. Please can an admin or AE admin, or someone take a look and help out if required. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
A user would like to have perpetual motion figure prominently at the Free energy dab page. I believe this is giving undue weight to the term and violates DAB standards. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, NJGW ( talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a couple articles that could probably use some experienced editors. These aren't in a terrible state or anything, but they may be giving undue weight towards certain views. Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The first two articles are propaganda by a few hard-core sectarian SPAs. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some POV issues here, if any editors who feel like dealing with them: Charles Fort and International Fortean Organization. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Outside input is requested here. Sceptre ( talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article today. It contains a list of references, but no in-text citations. Some sections (Etymology, Origins, 1000 BC) may contain fringe ideas or inaccuracies. There seem to be examples of confusing modern Venetian people with the ancient Adriatic Veneti, giving the impression that the latter are somehow ancestral to the former or as if the two are one and the same people. I removed some OR (a lay comparison of ancient Venetic with modern Venetian language) and tagged some of the most contentious sections as unreferenced: [14]. The article needs a cleanup as some bits are written in poor English. -- Jalen ( talk) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I could use a hand here -- HonestGeorgeWashington ( talk · contribs) added some very dubious material about the CIA and MKULTRA to the article, I removed it with an explanatory edit summary, and George re-added it with no explanation. Since I prefer to avoid multi-reverting, it would be nice if others could take a look at this. I will notify HGW of this thread. Looie496 ( talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with the article Energy Accounting. It is presented as a concept in the school of thought belonging to the movement Technocracy Incorporated. But the term is a general concept. The article now has a heavy bias towards TechInc's POV. I've tried to explain this on the talkpage but the main editor of the page doesn't understand this. (S)he is also repeatedly removing the dispute tag of the article, although the dispute is not over and WP:NPOVD should be applied. Could someone have a look on this? Mårten Berglund ( talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this belong here but this article is fear mongering using a fringe point of view and is held in place by a number of editors. I have therefore started a rewrite over at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones until issue can be resolved. Help in this matter would be appreciated.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm requesting a move:
This could really use a clean and polish, and a drop of themainstream organisations say / cranks say discussion style. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is someone's personal theory for blending western and eastern zodiacs. This was previously deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/420-year cycle, and the editor has also added his theory to Origins of the Chinese Zodiac (see this difference [15]) Edward321 ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel that heavily disputed things should not be stated as fact. Psychic, Medium, Mediumship and so on should call them "proposed" abilities, or "claimed" abilities. Am I in the right here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing involves a fairly new (but previously blocked) editor who seems to believe it is his/her duty to prevent mediums and such like from getting their feelings hurt. (Take a look at their talk page. They are going around to a number of paranormal articles and whitewashing them so that it is implied that paranormal abilities are reality, contrary to WP:FRINGE. They are using Wikipedia to "right great wrongs" and as a "battleground", even using the word!
Now they are canvassing for support:
It is not our job to introduce editorial bias to prevent offense or to make unreality appear real. Unless the scientific evidence proves a phenomenon is real, it is treated as a fringe belief, and articles should not leave the impression that they are real. They should cover all significant sides of the question, but without leaving a false impression. -- Fyslee ( talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've worked on this a bit, but it's going to be a kook magnet so if anyone wants to put it on their watch list... Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article, created by a new editor, Julie.summey ( talk · contribs), whose intentions seem to be good, but it isn't a good article, and I'm not sure how to handle it without being bitey. Basically the problem is that the sources are very poor, and I know just enough about this topic to know that a lot of the statements here are overblown, but not enough to fix them. I've attempted to contact the article creator but haven't received any response yet. My inclination is to delete the article and replace it with a redirect to Lateralization of brain function (which is itself not terrific, but at least is better), but I shrink from treating a new editor with good intentions in such a hostile way if there is any other approach that doesn't leave a bad article on a topic with substantial public interest in place. So I'm coming here for suggestions before doing anything. (PS, yes, of course it's a MOSCAP violation, but that's a trivial issue.) Looie496 ( talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is on the main page today as a "Did You Know"?
The references are all unreliable, and while the tone isn't too bad, it could use a bit of skeptical attention. Or maybe an AfD. Phil153 ( talk) 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Some problems developing on parapsychology. Could interested people please have a look and give their (well supported :)) views please. The problems are to do with pseudoscience, the description of parapsychology, it's recognition, and worldwide acceptance and practice. The more the merrier! Please discuss it over on the article talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the users was warned two weeks ago and continues in disruption: [20]]. I suggest referring him to WP:AE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm very disturbed by disruptions to this article. It's a constant effort for coherent NPOV editors (like the estimable Ryan Paddy) who work hard to keep things in some sort of order. I don't know that there's a solution to the 2 sides having an ongoing slugfest. I, for example, have some limited information on the topic, but not enough to distinguish between a legitimate assertion and a pile of POV bullshit. It's a shame to see this FA become littered with strident POV from both sides of the issue. I watched a controversial article where I do have some expertise decline, deteriorate and turn into a festering sore see Aurangzeb. Sorry this is more of a rant than a help. I'll be watching to see if some intelligent strategy begins to emerge. -- nemonoman ( talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be far too much going on with the article at once for an outsider to get a handle on quickly. But one thing I do understand is that there seems to be some contention about how the existence of university parapsychology research departments is handled. At the moment, this point is discussed twice in the article, with repetition, and that is unacceptable for FA. The info needs to go into one place, probably early on, because the article needs to be very clear about who researches what, where and how. Next thing, what source is needed. Is it being claimed that the Journal of Parapsychology (or similar) is RS for this? I would have thought it was not. Then if there is no RS that gives an overview of these departments, then should we refer to university websites, or are they to be regarded as PS? Ideally, we would have a source for the overview claim backed with a source for each uni. Then there is the question of how the geographical distribution of these uni depts is handled. If it is correct that the majority/largest no. are in the UK, then UK should be mentioned first. I'm very curious to look up these UK uni depts, because on further investigation they may turn out to be something other than a classic parapsychology lab. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Basic thoughts on your bullet points:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'd like to direct a bit of attention to this article, which I've just AfD'ed. Looie496 ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On the physics portal page there is a headline for an article that has little significance and certainly isn't the consensus in physics world or even being discussed. I have reason to believe that one of the authors of the article in quesiton has added this 'news'. Every time I take the line of news off it is reverted by the same person and I'm not the only one that has taken it off. how can this be resolved? - Captainspirou ( talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:In any case... The first step is to raise the issue on the portal's talk page, explaining why you think the item does not belong in the news section, and inviting the editor who keeps adding it to explain why he/she thinks it does belong. Only after this has been attempted should you move to other forms of dispute resolution.
Blueboar (
talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am apparently once again bullying and suppressing information on the claims of Royal Rife. Any outside input or eyes at Royal Rife and Talk:Royal Rife might be helpful. MastCell Talk 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In related news: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In our ongoing drama to make a good list of subjects that have been deprecated as pseudosciences by reliable sources, we have come to something of a crossroads. For a number of months, a proposal has been on the table to reorganize the list thematically rather than by sources. I think we are finally coming to a stable state of an article that has this feature.
The next challenge is two-fold:
I encourage people here to look over that page and see if they see any problems. The more eyes we get looking at that page the better.
And thanks to all the editors who went over there at any time in the last few years to help fix what was once a much worse list than it is shaping up to be.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We need some wider input on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Migraine_Headaches. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. A basic google search for "migraine triggers" will bring up many pages listing of possible triggers, and MSG is on most of them. That's not science, and it has not been conclusively proven or disproven that MSG is a migraine trigger, but there is wide agreement among people who suffer from migraines that MSG might be a trigger and many migraineurs are careful to avoid it. Whether or not MSG has been proven by science to be a trigger, that it is widely considered to be a trigger is notable and verifiable and appropriate to mention in the article. As one example that reliable sources support this, here is a fact sheet from the University Health Services at University of California, Berkeley. I'll post this on the article talk page also. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
These have just showed up. Its a bit surprising that neither article has more links, but right now the only links are to a couple of fringe authors whose notability I question. Maybe the answer is just to add more appropriate links? dougweller ( talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if Chris is notable enough for an article (and I'm not sure he is, just because I'm very familiar with his stuff doesn't mean its notable!), this article is a bit of a mess. Someone needs to nicely explain to Arthur Warrington Thomas ( talk · contribs) something about our policies and guidelines. It also looks as though he plans to create a number of other articles for fringe writers, some of which may have been deleted in the past through AfD as not notable. dougweller ( talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this claim for a Nazi super weapon that could take a look at the article? Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 10:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame anyone who says "good riddance" to trying to improve this Article, having just had a thoroughly disagreeable experience myself at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Criticism.2C_not_review. Yes, someone has nominated Seth Material for Good Article, and the misleading way that the GA review was set up prevented me from delivering a review in keeping with GA criteria!
If you know the intricacies of the Good Article process and for some masochistic reason are interested in reviewing…
This experience has been one of disillusionment for me. During the discussions in December when turning the Article into a redirect was at issue, I consistently pleaded for patience so as to enable the article to get better. In my opinion, it is no better now than it was then. But its supporters have figured out how to tick all the right Wikipedia boxes and that makes it okay.
Next time when someone is being bold, don't count on me to hold back the bloodhounds.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this notable in the field of dowsing, or should it be AFDed ? Abecedare ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This may be slightly off topic for this board, but I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It is now clear to me that one of two things needs to be done to clarify how WP:Undue weight applies to articles about Fringe theories. I have illustrated the two choices. #1 makes explicit what would seem to be an implication of a literal reading of an earlier statement. #2 removes the implication by qualifying said statement. As I have mentioned on WT:NPOV, the context leads me to believe that that meaning is not intended, which is why I currently favor #2. But I know some editors favor an interpretation in line with #1, and if that truly is the community consensus then it should be made more clear. I thought this would be a good place to mention it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For those unaware, a related ArbCom case is discussing the editing of fringe topics: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. Check it out and add any input. — Scien tizzle 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
sigh, I hope to be proven wrong, but I firmly expect the arbcom to make a splendid mess of this. -- dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems dubious/POV/synthesis. It's a list of things with a Muslim hand in it, although it seems very dubious to list American Muslims (like Muhammad Ali) as "Islamic World" and also other people who have moved from Muslim majority countries to the US when they were young. Seems also to be random intersection/synthesis or religion taking credit for science etc. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world. Nommed YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A periodic conspiracy theory has been cropping up in the Sarah Palin article that her youngest son Trig, who was born this past April, is not really hers, but instead her daughter Bristol's, and that Sarah Palin faked the pregnancy to cover for her daughter. The theory was originally promulgated at Daily Kos a day or two after her VP selection by McCain (the diary making the allegations was later removed by that site). Its most prominent current proponents are Andrew Sullivan, Jack Bogdanski, and an anonymous website/blog named "Palin's Deceptions". The most prominent piece of "evidence" that makes the theory impossible is that Bristol Palin gave birth to her own son, Tripp Johnston, in December, so the math makes it impossible for her to have given birth to both children. People hanging on to the theory are now alleging that Tripp Johnston has not, in fact, been born. Here is an example of a message left at Talk:Sarah Palin discussing this. Kelly hi! 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
wait, so Tripp is Bristol's child, while Trig is Sarah's, and the conspiracy theory is that that it's the other way round, or vice versa? With these crazy monosyllabic baby names this is a bit like trying to keep track of the Pokemon family tree of Tolkien's dwarves :oP --
dab
(𒁳) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to give undue weight to a series of (somewhat contradictory) claims that he was assassinated, out of proportion to the generally accepted view that he was not. LeContexte ( talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Article is up for wikifying, which I can do, but I would appreciate another eye or two. From the description it doesn't sound very fringey, more like a version of cognitive behavioural therapy. In which case, what does it do that CBT doesn't; is it notable? On the other hand perhaps it is classified as CAM. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put the Jane Roberts article up for AfD and have given my reasoning on the AfD page - anyone who wants to, feel free to share your opinions either way in the AfD discussion. Sticky Parkin 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just put two new categories, Category:Scientifically proven paranormal phenomena and Category:Clinically proven homeopathic remedies, up for deletion. If anybody has a better solution, I am open to ideas. - Eldereft ( cont.) 06:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs to be properly disambiguated, I guess, but as an astronomer I've never heard of this particular variant of origin of life proposals. Is it as idiosyncratic as I think? Also, is the nursing usage more prominent? The cursory research I did on the subject left me more confused than when I started.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
These very extensive related articles may contain POV and give undue weight to a minority view on the subject. Just thought I'd list them in case anyone wants a challenge and is willing to try and WP:NPOV them if need be.
Zoophilia Zoosexuality Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism
Sticky Parkin 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh here's another one- Zoophilia and health (!) Sticky Parkin 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Created by a new editor with very strong opinions on the causes of myopia, the article is an attempt to discuss the theories from the book Myopia Myth without an understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. The situation is more difficult in that Myopia needs a great deal of NPOV work itself (clear and prominent statements on current medical consensus, clear differentiation between key areas of ongoing research vs fringe theories, etc). -- Ronz ( talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be complete balderdash, but what do I know? Mangoe ( talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The articles on Harold Puthoff and Gordon Novel seem one-sided attempts to push the fringe POVs of these individuals (who are, incidentally, of dubious notability) LeContexte ( talk) 17:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs help. Also check other areas of this walled garden of woo. I made a first pass at this article, but imagine that someone a bit more delicate than I could help in rewording some of the more clunky statements.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties at Jesus myth hypothesis (which really ought to be called Christ-myth theory) with an editor who insists on defining the article's topic through original research rather than through reliable sources. Some additional voices might be helpful. --Akhilleus ( talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
One question... is an article, or articles, which discuss the academic hypothesis that either Jesus, a Christ, or both never existed actually a fringe theory? It strikes me that the majority of humanity probably believes this. This is true certainly in the case of the existence of a "christ". Objectively speaking, the existence of a Christ figure is taken on faith, rather than proof, so it is far from a fringe theory to discuss the possibility that no such figure existed at all. That said, if we are looking at this from the perspective of a myth hypothesis within Christian theology, then it would obviously be fringe, but if we are speaking generally, then an NPOV treatment of the topic would begin with the fact that most people on the planet do not believe in Christ to begin with. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The difficulties of the Gospels evaporate, however, with the aid of Spong's key—actually two keys. The evangelists did not conceive of their writings as history, he declares. Rather, they were stories, never intended to be taken literally, which served to illustrate the meaning of Jesus (that is, the presumed historical Jesus) according to a longstanding Jewish practice. This practice was known as "midrash". In this particular expression of midrash (there are many ways this word and concept can be applied), the writer retold an existing biblical story in a new story and new terms, basing many of its details on specific scriptural passages. Thus Jesus was portrayed as a new Moses, in settings and with features which paralleled the stories of Moses; he was represented as performing actions such as "cleansing the Temple" which embodied ideas expressed in prophets such as Zechariah. In this way, all the significances and associations of the older context would automatically be soaked up by the new one. To the knowledgeable reader or listener, a story or anecdote modelled on an identifiable prototype in scripture would convey a meaning and inspiration far deeper and more detailed than that contained in the simple words themselves. This was the power of midrash.
never mind, I had forgotten this was the " Eurabia" guy. It's not worth investing time in this. -- dab (𒁳) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
that would seem to be the scope of our
historicity of Jesus article... --
dab
(𒁳) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)The Jesus Myth hypothesis does NOT question whether the deity of a given faith is historically accurate but if the portrayal of its founder which is said to be history is accurate. Muhammad is regarded as a prophet and is not Allah; so questioning if Muhammad really existed doesn't question if Allah existed. Similarly Buddhism doesn't have one holy text and none of them purport to be historical accurate eyewitness accounts as the Gospels supposedly do. There are some Rabbi who question if Moses existed and the Exodus even happened-that doesn't mean Yahweh didn't exist. The existence of L. Ron Hubbard can easily be proven by the staggering amount of contemporary evidence regarding him. This does show there is some confusion about what the Jesus Myth hypothesis is. That you have definitions all over the place certainly doesn't help.
Even in the 1st century not all Christians believed that Jesus was God. Paul himself didn't seem to regard Jesus as God as he talks about them as if they were separate entities.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent) "The JMT is one very narrow, radical stance on the historicity of Jesus: Jesus never existed, at all, and all of the NT narrative is just a confused rendition of assorted Near Eastern myths. Period." Sorry, Dbachmann, but that definition is not supported by all reliable sources. For example, Dodd, C. H. (1938) in History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17 under the heading Christ Myth theory states: "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him."
Schweitzer stated "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (Out of My Life and Thought, 1931 page 125) and yet Weaver lists James Frazer along with Herbert Spencer as supporters of "then-prevailing idea that behind myths of origin are actual historical personages" (The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950 pg 59)
In his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard, Doherty states "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." While strictly speaking this is true Wells is NOT saying that there wasn't a 1st century Jewish preacher named Jesus who inspired the Gospel Jesus.
Finally, you have Remsburg who as I have repeatedly demonstrated defines Christ Myth (supposedly synonymous with JMH): "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
As I have repeatedly stated when what the JMT even is and who supports it varies depending on what reliable source you site then something is way wrong. It becomes a game of pick that reference and goes totally against the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia. SOmething really needs to be done with the article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I should mention that "Christ Myth" is even more a mess than "Jesus myth" is and has had definitions that definitely include Historicity of Jesus as Remsburg does and other that are strong maybes as Dodd's does. The obvious conclusion is that the definition has changed over the time and the article needs to reflect that fact rather than try to strong arm it into a defintion that does not fit all the reliable source material.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)Considering that the relevent sections of Bennett's book are online at Google books, anyone can answer these questions so I don't see what relevance the questions have. But then again, Akhilleus, you were the one who made the utterly insane statement "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." As I said in my reply at the time just 1 minute in Google books produced dozens of references to Remsburg and some were even to his book The Christ and when a statement can be that easily disproved via basic research (even with the wrong spelling) something is seriously wrong.
Regarding the situation with Fortress edition, I have no idea what is going on. But the issue as I pointed out regarding the issue was "It does raise a question of how much we can trust the summations authors give us". It does strike me as strange as the 1910 version doesn't have even one comment about Frazer (I looked for the name though the entire online version and found nothing) and yet this 2001 translation does despite Bennett showing this conflicts with Schweitzer's comments in a later book. It could be that Schweitzer changed his mind and thought he had put Frazer in the same category as John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in his earlier work. Nevermind that the Out of my Life and Thought with limited preview at Google books is the edition put out by Johns Hopkins University Press. Again if I had to choose I would reliable source I have to with the two books that have at least some academic publishing backing rather than the one that presents itself as "We are the ministry of publishing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." along with the blub above I provided that they use to id themselves via Google search. To be fair, German can be hard to translate into English. My late mother who was fluent in high Deutschland German would often use the example of 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket of water' of how easy it one could mess up translations if you didn't pay attention. Also Akhilleus, if correct, has presented us with a little logic problem. How could Schweitzer in 1913 have said Frazer believed in a historical Jesus if the point wasn't made clear by Frazer until 1922?! Something there really doesn't make sense.
Finally, doing a search regarding one of the other sources I stumbled on "The Jesus Myth" Barbara G. Walker from Freethought Today (August 2007) Vol. 24 No. 6. The article never comes out and say just what the Jesus Myth is and in fact can be confusing to someone only vaguely familiar with the material as to WHAT it is arguing. If anything resembling a definition can be pulled from the article it is that Jesus Myth here is being used as Remsburg used "Christ myth" which only serves to prove what I have been saying--the definition of the term Jesus Myth varies and there is little if any consensus on what the term means.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(remove indent)It should be mentioned Akhilleus tends to misrepresent the positions of other editors either by reading things that are not even there or leaving important things out. My issue with Oxford University Press is NOT just that they publish bibles but they along with Cambridge University publish the Authorized King James Version of the Bible a version that as far as the UK is concerned is held in perpetual copyright by the Crown. The problem with that is when Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and set up the Church of England he also made himself and his successors the Supreme Head of it (ie the equivalent of the Pope) which became the title Supreme Governor in 1559. Before that in 1544 Parliament restored the title of Defender of the Faith to Henry VIII and his successors. And it is not only about money but the prestege that comes with being given the right to published the official Bible of the Church of England by the official leader of that Church (ie the Crown). The question of a possible conflict of interest should come up just as it should concerning a publication regarding the Jewish people by any major University in Germany between 1935 and 1945 or an US University paper regarding Communism from 1949 to 1954 (and perhaps even a little later).
In fact, how anyone who even thinks about this for one minute can't see the apparent conflict of interest here is beyond me but then again we are talking about an editor who stated "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." when a 1 minute search produced dozens even wither the wrong spelling (the name is spell RemsbUrg not RemsbErg and yes I have made the mistake myself). Yet Akhilleus response to my statement of "I found Remsburg's The Christ referenced or quoted ALL OVER THE PLACE by BOTH SIDES. Even the wrong spelling got me some of the same hits with things like The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury (2007) and Obstruction of Justice by Religion: A Treatise on Religious Barbarities of the Common Law, and a Review of Judicial Oppressions of the Non-religious in the United States by Frank Swancara (1971) thrown in for good measure. Even searching through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89 as well as the two S Acharya books above. I even found Remsburg on Kenneth Humphreys' Jesus Never Existed webpage. Tell us just how in the name of heaven did you miss all these people to make the statement "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg"??? I found several not only mentioning Remsburg but either reference or citing his book The Christ as well including "The Historicity Of Jesus' Resurrection" by Jeffery Jay Lowder (1995) and "Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? by "Historicus" of the United Secularists of America, Inc." was "Looks like the usual mass of self-published and non-expert sources that don't pass the reliable soruces policy." despite one of the authors being Gordon Stein (to be fair a little later Akhilleus did acknowledge Buddhist-Christian Studies was NOT a "self-published and non-expert source") but the point is Akhilleus said he could not find ANY ie NOT A SINGE REFERENCE to Remsburg despite me having pointing out Baal of Hay article in reply to Akhilleus using Holding as a reference in HIS 21:23, 4 December 2008 comment. Yes, Akhilleus tried to use Holding of all people to bolster one of his arguments.
Never mind Akhilleus early efforts to defend a "quote" (and I use the term very loosely) by Grant that had been argued by other editors like Phyesalis, E4mmacro, Sophia, and ^^James^^ to be thrown out with Phyesalis saying 22:45, 12 December 2007 "Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies." (I at least tried to prove this with my research rather than just simply claiming it.) set my current perception of his research skills. Oh for the record the entire relevant stuff of Grant is at [ Attitudes to the Evidence] so Akhilleus can no longer make the claim that I have "never read the full passage from Grant"-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 09:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The latest incarnation of the " Indigenous Aryans" topos appears to be Jmanjmanjman ( talk · contribs), presently insisting on giving a full account of these exciting theories here, with rather nice edits elsewhere (the truth about the Aryans was hushed up by a Nazi conspiracy, you see). -- dab (𒁳) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On this article the lead currently states:
The sources are as follows:
There is disagreement on wording. I feel that attributing this directly to specific authors: "according to an article in a journal called The Skeptical Enquirer and an article from Fox News, there is no scientific evidence" falsely implies that this is an unexpected, minority or fringe view of scientific opinion on ghosts. Another editor points to other statements in the article, such as one about a poll result, that are specifically attributed.
I'm pretty sure that the two cases are completely different, and I think the onus should be on someone who claims that there is scientific evidence to produce a reference to peer-reviewed research. A statement by a reliable source (and I don't think there is any suggestion that Fox News misquoted the Associated Press report or that the AP misquoted Professor Efthimiou, a physicist at UCF) that there is no such evidence seems authoritative enough unless there are credible claims to the contrary.
It occurs to me that this is a question that has been asked before in several similar contexts. What verification is required for the statement of the null hypothesis? At what point is it reasonable to state as a fact that no scientific evidence exists for a fringe phenomenon that is no longer taken seriously by scientists? -- TS 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
ghosts are, of course, real, in the same way dreams and visions are real. People see them, have always seen them, and will keep seeing them, because ghosts are one category of perception open to humans. In the same way as "sunrise" is one possible category of perception. The question is of course, what triggers this perception, and the nature of events triggering perception of "sunrise" are very different from those of the events triggering perception of "ghost", but nevertheless both are real encyclopedic topics that may be discussed based on academic sources. In this sense, ghost isn't inherently a "fringe" topic, it is simply open to pseudo-scientific interpretations, just like "sunrise" is open to interpretations of "Helios driving his chariot over the horizon". -- dab (𒁳) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
My entire point was that ghosts do of course "really exist", in the same way your memories or dreams really "do exist". The "paranormal" question of "belief in ghosts" is really a false dichotomy, and it is WP:UNDUE to discuss the topic of ghosts in terms paranormal/parapsychological literature rather than in terms of folklore, mythology, literature, anthropology and depth psychology. -- dab (𒁳) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
John Lamb Lash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amateur mythologist etc. tagged for 3rd party sources for a year and a half. Lots of reviews, interviews on new-agey/conspiracy sites but not much (any) mainstream coverage ( [12] [13]). Closest he gets to respectability seems to be once published by Thames & Hudson. Please, someone tell me I'm missing something. Misarxist 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot tell from the lead of here article, much of which I moved to the talk page for discussion I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if people could comment on the Anti-Christian sentiment talk page. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Urine therapy says this:
The article uses as reference an article from the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is *not* peer-reviewed, and as such, it's full of fringe science (for example, AIDS denialism).
Should we even use information from such journals, especially on medical issues? I would think that the lack of any formal peer-review makes it unreliable by default and against the standards for WP:Reliable sources.
So, should I remove that paragraph out of the article? bogdan ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Eww. Just Eww. 75.158.88.7 ( talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)illisium
If I read enough times in The Lancet etc. or heard via government health recommendations that Wee therapy prevents illness for life, I would happily drink it. So I suppose it depends where you read it, or how desperate you are. Maybe that's just me though.:) Sticky Parkin 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a fecal therapy fringe thing out there (rely on Mast Cell to tell us all about it), so if you want "ewwwww", that far exceeds urine therapy. And also, if you're dying of thirst in the Sahara, drinking one's urine might be useful. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an edit war (in which I'm not involved, thankfully) going at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni concerning the inclusion of a claim that this individual was a secret homosexual who obtained his position as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem due to a rumoured gay love affair with a senior British government official. The claim is sourced to a 2008 book, Icon of Evil, which received very bad reviews and strong criticism by historians of its factual accuracy. The claim in question is specifically mentioned and criticised by one reviewer, and it seems very much like a fringe theory. The issues at hand are whether a source that does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:V#Reliable sources, should be used in a Wikipedia article to support statements about third parties, and whether a fringe claim should be included in the article in the first place (considering the requirements of WP:UNDUE relating to tiny-minority POVs). Input would be welcomed at WP:RSN#Icon of Evil. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be incipient edit war on this article. Attention would be appreciated. -- TS 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Some attention to recent edits on this article would be appreciated. An editor asserts that claims of fraud cannot be asserted. As far as I can tell they are substantiated. The editor in question also seems to be making edits so as to make this device appear to be a cure for cancer. -- TS 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A new editor, 76.105.171.107, has shown up at this article and made extensive changes which do not appear to be in line with our Neutral point of view policy. Attention would be merited, I think. -- TS 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything that has been done to horses' hooves since antiquity is completely wrong. Citations for this? We don't need no steenkin' citations. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Might also have been called "WikiProject Fringe Theories". There is nothing wrong with an effort to properly cover fringe theories and minority views, just as long as the "project" isn't inofficially turned into a WP:DUE-evasion effort. It would seem that either this noticeboard is within the scope of this project, or else the project is within the scope of this noticeboard. -- dab (𒁳) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether this concept, invented/promoted by neoshamanistic author Alberto Villoldo, is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article? AFAIK Villoldo is the sole source and originator of this syncretic system (notwithstanding it allegedly being passed on to him by shamanic figures in Peru), and any other website or new age org mentioning it necessarily repeats or draws from Villoldo's writings and promotional paid appearances and spiritual tours. Independent sources seem to be quite thin on the ground.
My first instinct would be to nominate for AfD, or at the very least redirect to Villoldo's article for a brief mention there; but possibly its recognition has spread far and notably enough beyond Villoldo's inner circle to give it some chance to withstand a notability challenge. Certainly, it's hard to see how it could be turned into a balanced NPOV article, and it (as well as Villoldo's article itself) needs much more attention to RS, FRINGE, V, and UNDUE. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone added to the article on the year 1313 a statement that it was regarded by Rosicrucians as their foundation date. That then spurred a new editor to add a long note about why historians don't regard that date as historically significant to Rosicrucianism. Someone else then wanted the note wikified and I thus found the article in the backlog of articles for wikification. I've removed all mention of Rosicrucianism from the 1313 article and transferred the material to the Rosicrucianism talk page. I hope that sorts it out, but thought I would also put a note here in case someone would like to keep the articles on watch. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on Fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.
In light of this I would like to have a number of indepedent editors help us out with an ongoing discussion on Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko was murdered two years ago in London, and the British authorities, after investigating the cause, said they were 100% sure that the killer was an ex-russian official and also stated that they are convinced the murder was commited with state backing. Russia however never extradited the main suspect, so nobody has ever been punished. As usual with a case which gains widespread attention, alternative theories become available. Since many opinionated Russian nationalists wanted to promote these theories (attack is the best weapon for defence) eventually a new article was created called Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories in order to keep those theories away from the other two main pages Alexander Litvinenko and Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. The theories are pretty wild, some fitting James Bond style plots, others even more ridiculous, such as that the killing wasn't actually an assassination but self-poisoning.
Two of these Russian nationalist users (addition: according to them I'm also opinionated) want to adjust the lead section of the Alexander Litvinenko page significantly, including the following addition:
"The events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death."
I think undue weight is giving to fringe theories here and we're indeed dealing with POV-Pushing. While the fringe theories are possibly notable, they certainly do not belong to the lead section. I also think that its unfair to state that the the events leading up to the murder are "a matter of controversy" because according to the UK's investigation they're clear as sky. Their arguments are that the alternative theories aren't fringe theories, and that the UK's investigation result is also "a theory itself".
So that leaves me with two questions for indepdendent users here:
1) Are these (notable) fringe theories or not? 2) Should the line above become an addition to the lead section?
Thanks. Grey Fox ( talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
David Talbott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The person who runs Talbott's personal website is currently trying to "keep NPOV" this article. He has already removed all criticism from the article and has been resisting attempts by myself to point out the obvious physical impossibilities with Talbott's beliefs. More eyes needed, essentially.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mulled it over:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (2nd nomination).
ScienceApologist (
talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you believe someone mentioned this article in a class I was leading today? Lord in heaven, you guys need to watch this thing. What is a guy with a BS in Urban Studies doing pontificating about celestial mechanics? It was enough to draw me out of a Wikibreak.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A spin-off from Afrocentrism and the Egyptian Race Controversy articles, apparently designed to reintroduce all the old favourites: Cleopatra was black etc etc. Paul B ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
nothing new under the sun. It appears we'll have to babysit the Afrocentrism articles for the next couple of months until Deeceevoice & friends are shown the door, or walk away in a huff, once again. I wish there was a short-cut for this, because the outcome is set, and it's just a question of going through the motions, yet another time. Accounts like Wdford ( talk · contribs), going around creating articles such as Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? have no ratio essendi within the project. -- dab (𒁳) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
well, fine, I'll be happy to collaborate with Zara1709 in the expansion of this article. But for the love of ḏiḥautī, could somebody just bite the bullet and ban the Afrocentrist crackpots? There is literally nothing to be gained from letting the prance around any longer. -- dab (𒁳) 10:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
← Right, you two are way off-topic here. Please take the argument over POV/behavior to personal discussion or an RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This is blatantly written from a sympathetic fringe point of view. A number of related articles are also written in whole or part with a credulous tone or undue weight:
Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Your actions were indeed excessively bold. Those articles are all on notable topics (all have received treatment by both pro-ufo, explicitly skeptical, and mainstream scientists), split off from the parent article due to its size in accordance with policy. I'll agree that they need more thorough treatment of mainstream scientific studies and skeptical critiques of pro-UFO theories are needed, but I lack the resources to add them myself. Regardless, it is certainly inapropriate to damage Wikipedia's coverage of one side to make up for deficiencies in the coverage of another when it's so easy to add that coverage yourself.
I noticed that when Hand turned "Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery" into a redirect (a move I agree with), none of its content was transferred to any other article. Ditto with every other article deleted today. If these changes had gone uncontested hours and hours of work by several contributors would be lost. It looks like very little respect has been given to your fellow workers' labor. Hand didn't even leave a notice for these articles' prime contributor (me) or raise any complaints on the articles' talk pages, which is what standard procedure would suggest. I'm sorry I called you a vandal, but when I saw 5 or so pages immediately blanked without discussion that was the first thought that popped into my mind.
Also, despite removing all of their content (that is, functionally deleting them) none of them actually qualify as appropriate for deletion (all are notable, not spam, and salvageable as articles). No good faith effort has been put forth to identify flaws or attempt improvements. I'm willing to cooperate in attempting to improve these articles and address any concerns that may be had, and agree that there are reasons for concern worth discussing, but unilateral deletion as was done earlier is inappropriate, rude, and damaging to Wikipedia's coverage of an intersting, if ontologically dubious subject. Shall we get to work? Abyssal ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Two IPs (socks?) have been trying to create a POV fork at Free energy movement. It was a redirect to Free energy suppression (which uses the term "conspiracy theory" explicitly in the lead). Seems pretty under control for now, but please put the redirect on your watchlists for more eyes. NJGW ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories - tendatious pro-conspiracy POV pushing editor, insisting that the title of the article is POV and overly abiguous. Please drop by and opine. Blueboar ( talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. -- TS 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is sort of at the edge of fringiness, but I'm getting to my wit's end with panentheism. The concept itself isn't too hard to explain, and the article does a half-decent job, at least, of doing so. The problem comes with the section where it is being identified in various religious and philosophical traditions. First, a lot of people can't tell the difference between panentheism and pantheism, and so they keep sticking in examples of the latter. Second, the perpetual controversialism between Eastern and Western Christianity has washed up in the article. It is perhaps true that panentheism is not as universally held in the West as in the East, but one can readily find western theologians who explicitly hold to it. Which brings us to the third issue: most of these identifications are analysis rather than the original sources using the term themselves. For example, we have a cited claim that the Cherokee were monotheistic and panentheistic, but the cited work supports the former and doesn't mention the latter at all. Another bit on neoplatonism has a citation, but the quote doesn't use the term and actually supports an interpretation of pantheism instead.
I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself. I'm familiar enough with the field to where I think I can distinguish the forms correctly, but it seems to me that if I rely upon that I'm going to have endless battles with the people who can't distinguish them. In any case, I'd like some other eyes on this as well as opinions as to the approach I intend to take. Mangoe ( talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a minor edit war with one user insisting on phrasing that presumes that the vew that *all* psychics, mediums, and so on are real should be given greater weight than that they use cold reading. C.f. first sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate for an AfD? LeContexte ( talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I redirected the author to the diet, since he's not really known for anything else, and the diet gets some paper space in printed encyclopedia, while he does not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
At Rheinwiesenlager, another editor is seeking to add to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. I have reverted the change citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for which the editor in question has labelled me a Communist. I would be grateful for some external input. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask for some additional eyes to review contributions by Uruk2008 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has some sort of background with explosives, but has added a lot of misinformation, fringe theory, and explosives-related pseudoscience over the last few months too. I've started reverting some stuff and mentioned it on his talk page, but I think more eyes to look at all his contributions may be helpful so that it's not just me. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up this grossly biased article. There is considerable opposition from some people who think the extraterrestrial hypothesis should have a section outlining support for that hypothesis. There is in fact little if any support for the hypothesis within the scientific community. - This article is very popular and I think some attention to its terrible biases would improve Wikipedia's reputation for taking science seriously. - TS 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet again people are trying to demote the NPOV/FAQ from policy status, this time by simply edit warring to make it so. Less than 24 hours of discussion since they necromancied an old thread, and already they've demoted it four times.
God help me, what's with these people? Simply saying that an RfC should be run before you demote a long-standing policy is being met with claims that it never was meant to be a policy to beggin with (how stupid of us not to have realised in the 7 years it's been part of Wikipedia policy, originally as part of WP:NPOV, and that there never was consensus for it to be policy. What's going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should be asking this at the FAQ talk page, but I don't understand what's at stake here. Why does it matter whether this is policy or not? --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict:
I live in Africa. Folks around here wish there were edible animals left to hunt. They would happily swap lives with your Appalachian relatives.
Wdford (
talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an odd article, currently wholly unreferenced, which defines linguistic monogenesis as "the idea that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language spoken many thousands of years ago in the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age". Fair enough. It then goes on to assert that "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th century. It is scarcely more popular today. It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." It seems odd that the article is in effect claiming that this is a fringe theory. I think the author is conflating the central assertion (that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language) with the fringe claims of those linguists who have sought to model it. The author's attempt to introduce evolutionary theory also seems confused. The article claims that "if all recent human populations on Earth (including, for example, Australians, appearing 40,000 - 50,000 years before the present) stem from a single out-of-Africa migration, linguistic monogenesis becomes a conceivable hypothesis." Since this is the dominant view, it seems odd to portray it in this way. In any case, even multiregionalism is not logically inconsistent with linguistic monogenesis. However, editors with knowledge of this topic seem to be needed. Paul B ( talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Problems at homeopathy. I don't want to revert any more. User is refusing to enter into discussion, and I suspect it is a banned editor. Please can an admin or AE admin, or someone take a look and help out if required. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
A user would like to have perpetual motion figure prominently at the Free energy dab page. I believe this is giving undue weight to the term and violates DAB standards. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, NJGW ( talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a couple articles that could probably use some experienced editors. These aren't in a terrible state or anything, but they may be giving undue weight towards certain views. Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The first two articles are propaganda by a few hard-core sectarian SPAs. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some POV issues here, if any editors who feel like dealing with them: Charles Fort and International Fortean Organization. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Outside input is requested here. Sceptre ( talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article today. It contains a list of references, but no in-text citations. Some sections (Etymology, Origins, 1000 BC) may contain fringe ideas or inaccuracies. There seem to be examples of confusing modern Venetian people with the ancient Adriatic Veneti, giving the impression that the latter are somehow ancestral to the former or as if the two are one and the same people. I removed some OR (a lay comparison of ancient Venetic with modern Venetian language) and tagged some of the most contentious sections as unreferenced: [14]. The article needs a cleanup as some bits are written in poor English. -- Jalen ( talk) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I could use a hand here -- HonestGeorgeWashington ( talk · contribs) added some very dubious material about the CIA and MKULTRA to the article, I removed it with an explanatory edit summary, and George re-added it with no explanation. Since I prefer to avoid multi-reverting, it would be nice if others could take a look at this. I will notify HGW of this thread. Looie496 ( talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with the article Energy Accounting. It is presented as a concept in the school of thought belonging to the movement Technocracy Incorporated. But the term is a general concept. The article now has a heavy bias towards TechInc's POV. I've tried to explain this on the talkpage but the main editor of the page doesn't understand this. (S)he is also repeatedly removing the dispute tag of the article, although the dispute is not over and WP:NPOVD should be applied. Could someone have a look on this? Mårten Berglund ( talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this belong here but this article is fear mongering using a fringe point of view and is held in place by a number of editors. I have therefore started a rewrite over at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones until issue can be resolved. Help in this matter would be appreciated.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm requesting a move:
This could really use a clean and polish, and a drop of themainstream organisations say / cranks say discussion style. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is someone's personal theory for blending western and eastern zodiacs. This was previously deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/420-year cycle, and the editor has also added his theory to Origins of the Chinese Zodiac (see this difference [15]) Edward321 ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel that heavily disputed things should not be stated as fact. Psychic, Medium, Mediumship and so on should call them "proposed" abilities, or "claimed" abilities. Am I in the right here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing involves a fairly new (but previously blocked) editor who seems to believe it is his/her duty to prevent mediums and such like from getting their feelings hurt. (Take a look at their talk page. They are going around to a number of paranormal articles and whitewashing them so that it is implied that paranormal abilities are reality, contrary to WP:FRINGE. They are using Wikipedia to "right great wrongs" and as a "battleground", even using the word!
Now they are canvassing for support:
It is not our job to introduce editorial bias to prevent offense or to make unreality appear real. Unless the scientific evidence proves a phenomenon is real, it is treated as a fringe belief, and articles should not leave the impression that they are real. They should cover all significant sides of the question, but without leaving a false impression. -- Fyslee ( talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've worked on this a bit, but it's going to be a kook magnet so if anyone wants to put it on their watch list... Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article, created by a new editor, Julie.summey ( talk · contribs), whose intentions seem to be good, but it isn't a good article, and I'm not sure how to handle it without being bitey. Basically the problem is that the sources are very poor, and I know just enough about this topic to know that a lot of the statements here are overblown, but not enough to fix them. I've attempted to contact the article creator but haven't received any response yet. My inclination is to delete the article and replace it with a redirect to Lateralization of brain function (which is itself not terrific, but at least is better), but I shrink from treating a new editor with good intentions in such a hostile way if there is any other approach that doesn't leave a bad article on a topic with substantial public interest in place. So I'm coming here for suggestions before doing anything. (PS, yes, of course it's a MOSCAP violation, but that's a trivial issue.) Looie496 ( talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is on the main page today as a "Did You Know"?
The references are all unreliable, and while the tone isn't too bad, it could use a bit of skeptical attention. Or maybe an AfD. Phil153 ( talk) 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Some problems developing on parapsychology. Could interested people please have a look and give their (well supported :)) views please. The problems are to do with pseudoscience, the description of parapsychology, it's recognition, and worldwide acceptance and practice. The more the merrier! Please discuss it over on the article talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the users was warned two weeks ago and continues in disruption: [20]]. I suggest referring him to WP:AE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm very disturbed by disruptions to this article. It's a constant effort for coherent NPOV editors (like the estimable Ryan Paddy) who work hard to keep things in some sort of order. I don't know that there's a solution to the 2 sides having an ongoing slugfest. I, for example, have some limited information on the topic, but not enough to distinguish between a legitimate assertion and a pile of POV bullshit. It's a shame to see this FA become littered with strident POV from both sides of the issue. I watched a controversial article where I do have some expertise decline, deteriorate and turn into a festering sore see Aurangzeb. Sorry this is more of a rant than a help. I'll be watching to see if some intelligent strategy begins to emerge. -- nemonoman ( talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be far too much going on with the article at once for an outsider to get a handle on quickly. But one thing I do understand is that there seems to be some contention about how the existence of university parapsychology research departments is handled. At the moment, this point is discussed twice in the article, with repetition, and that is unacceptable for FA. The info needs to go into one place, probably early on, because the article needs to be very clear about who researches what, where and how. Next thing, what source is needed. Is it being claimed that the Journal of Parapsychology (or similar) is RS for this? I would have thought it was not. Then if there is no RS that gives an overview of these departments, then should we refer to university websites, or are they to be regarded as PS? Ideally, we would have a source for the overview claim backed with a source for each uni. Then there is the question of how the geographical distribution of these uni depts is handled. If it is correct that the majority/largest no. are in the UK, then UK should be mentioned first. I'm very curious to look up these UK uni depts, because on further investigation they may turn out to be something other than a classic parapsychology lab. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Basic thoughts on your bullet points:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)