This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Wiseman hypothesis appears to be a WP:FRINGE view, described purely from the fringe POV, sourced only to fringe sources (e.g. trueorigins.org/ Bible and Spade, Answers in Genesis). Could probably do with some closer scrutiny. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Continued IP whitewashing. Please watchlist (I'm sure most of you have it already). This page has been semi protected several times recently, is it going to have to be indef? Verbal chat 18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I just came across Religious naturalism, and noticing that the lead is sourced to this site [1], and with what seems to me a somewhat promotional tone to the article, I worry that this may be pushing a rather fringe POV presented as a rational approach to religion and philosophy. It could be, however, that it is not actually fringe, and the problem is just that the article reads like the group's promotional brochure, and lacks balance. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In some cases it might be worth recommending that people holding unconventional beliefs try editing at Citizendium instead of Wikipedia. CZ and WP have different policies on neutrality, undue weight, and the like. In particular, Larry Sanger (the founder and Editor-In-Chief of CZ) has specifically stated of CZ "We are not a project of The Mainstream" and that fringe or pseudoscientific views will be given a fair and sympathetic hearing at CZ.
This most definitely does NOT mean that we send vandals, trolls, and their ilk over to CZ. That would be unethical and just is not on. And I'm not saying whether CZ's or WP's approach is better; I can see merits in both. But a consequence is that people who feel unwelcome at WP might find CZ a better environment (and vice versa). The most obvious example I can think of is User:Danaullman, who was banned by Arbcom but whom Larry Sanger personally invited to contribute to their article on Homeopathy. He then brought their Homeopathy article up to "Approved" status (roughly comparable to WP:GA). So it seems like a win-win situation: people who don't fit in at WP can find a better home, and CZ, which needs more contributors, can get some active and motivated authors. Let me re-emphasize that we should NOT send trolls and the like to CZ. But there are people like Dana Ullman who might work out well there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Citizendium is well suited to deal with trolls. But after they are kicked out over there, they'll just reappear here. We need to be able to deal with trolls in spite of their insistence they want to edit Wikipedia. Trolls whom we can convinve their efforts are better spent elsewhere aren't really trolls. -- dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
God, I hadn't realised Citizendium was that bad: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Both of these articles need attention from more editors to improve their quality and references, and to remove possible bias and original research/synthesis. One method I've just suggested of doing this is to merge the two articles to the (a lot more) common, less ambiguous, and better defined term Scientism. Comments/help/eyes appreciated. Verbal chat 08:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid about the use of the term Denialism in articles such as AIDS denialism, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, etc. I think this may be of interest to editors here. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
this noticeboard's evil twin, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, seems to be at it again. -- dab (𒁳) 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article related to the Cold fusion debate. As such I think it will be of interest to editors here. I'm not convinced that this is notable, and will have to ensure that this article isn't overly promotional - as always. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be a magnet for fringy rubbish. I just removed a couple sections sourced to some psychic and a neo-evangelical American "paraphrase" of the Bible. Worth watchlisting and perhaps a little cleanup. Moreschi ( talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm running into stiff resistance in my attempt to add a brief mention of the scientific consensus on evolution to the article considering the creationist beliefs of the Farm proprietors are spelled out.
It's not going so well. I've quoted from WP:FRINGE on the talk page, but that's not good enough. There are ownership issues as well as POV issues in play here. Am I wrong? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made a WP:RFC on an issue related to this article & WP:FRINGE. Discussion can be found at Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm#RFC: Quoting Bush's claims. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The 'megawatershed' is purely a promotional term used by a single company EarthWater Global. Allowing the article in Wikipedia will give the term an unwarrented legitimacy. Although the authors do reference some articles, none are truly peer reviewed. The closest might be the first (Excerpt from Robert A. Bisson, Megawatersheds in the "Water Encyclopedia: Groundwater", edited by Jay H. Lehr and Jack Keeley (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, 2005)). However, this reference is to a book that was edited by one of the principals in the firm EarthWater Global. And that relation (Jay H. Lehr) is not disclosed in the page.
Moreover, the discussions of the mega watershed (or 'megawatershed')subject are plagiaristic and contain nothing novel regarding what is generally understood about hydrology. The authors simply describe well-understood concepts of basin hydrogeology (without citing any prior art other than their own), apply their 'mega' label, and purport to have invented a new concept. To claim authorship for ideas and/or conceptualizations that have already developed by others is plagiarism, among other things, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that original ground water basin researchers such as Toth (deceased), M. King Hubbert (deceased), R. Allen Freeze, P.A. Witherspoon (deceased?), or Craig Bethke, to name a few, would not be amused by Bisson's claims.
As one example, the 'mega' discussions claim that groundwater hydrologists somehow never understood that ground water basins can overlap with multiple surface water basins (watersheds). That's patently false, and numerous publications by Hubbert, Toth, Freeze, Witherspoon, Bethke, and Marshak, and many others demonstrate that ground water basin and inter-basin flow have been well understood (and applied) for a very long time.
The closest thing to an example cited in support of megawatersheds is for a Caribbean island which is smaller than most typical watersheds by far. The discussion that the author's company found ground water on that island after a previous consultant failed, is nothing unique in the hydrogeology field, and not remotely sufficient evidence for the existence of a megawatershed. In any case, there is nothing 'mega' about the size of that watershed, or the quantity of water that was produced. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a surprise to find that the aquifer that was tapped, is not particularly deep either. Fresh water is lighter than sea water, and therefore tends to float on top of the sea water, within a typical island hydro system aquifer. I have followed up with a question on the depth of these wells to EarthWater Global on their YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC6_bdpypHc&feature=email
But they have not responded. Indeed, following my comment, they briefly deleted all comments on that page, including mine and barred further comments. That has apparently just been changed, so any reader of this can confirm at that site.
Other information from the company literature and the above video, asserts that recharge at high elevations is much higher than the recharge estimates made by hydrologists and weather scientists around the world. This is apparently the basis for EarthWater Global's claim of being able to produce vast quantities of water that as of yet have not been discovered. However no quantitative or factual information or citations are provided to support that mega-recharge-at-altitude claim. The company simply makes an argument that snow can blow away from snow gauges before monitoring is activated, failing to mention, for example, that if snow is blowing off a gage, other snow can also blow onto the same gage.
On this topic, in their promotional video, they suggest that monitoring precipitation is highly uncertain. Apparently, their own uncertainty regarding extremely high precipitation recharge rates vanishes when they promote megawatersheds, even though they can't document a single study to support it.
As is well known within this community, Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have not seen even ordinary proof to support the extraordinary megawatershed claim.
By promising the capability to somehow find and produce more groundwater based on a concept that has never been accepted by peer-reviewed journals, and by using this entry to help build business for a single company (at the expense of other companies that don't make this claim), this entry fails to meet the acceptance criteria, I believe and should be labeled accordingly within Wikipedia.
references: Toth J, 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins. Journal of Geophysical Research 68, 4785-4812. Hubbert, M.K, 1940. The Theory of Groundwater Motion. Journal of Geology, vol. 48 Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1966. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 1. Analytical and Numerical Solutions to the Mathematical Model. Water Resources Research. vol 2. pp 641-656. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1967. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 2. Effet of water-table configuration and subsurface permeability variation. Water Resources Research. vol 3. pp 623-634. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1968. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 3. Quantitative Interpretations. Water Resources Research. vol 4. pp 581 - 590. Bethke, C.M., and Marshak, S. 1990. Brine Migrations across North America - The Plate Tectonics of Groundwater. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences vol 18, pp.287-315
Michael Wallace Michael Wallace hydro ( talk)
Could some people take a look at this page please. CyclePat ( talk · contribs) is attempting to add information sourced from letters to the FDA and patents, and claims that Ultrasound scans are a form of Electromagnetic therapy. I don't think this is right. This article is about the alternative medicine practice called "electromagnetic therapy". Please see the article history and the talk page. Yours, Verbal chat 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a new editor convinced that Ron Wyatt was a scholar and that Imhotep was Joseph. A casual eye on this would be useful, I don't want him to think it's just me and my "atheistic bias" (quoting from an email he sent me). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
We should take the opportunity to scrutinize the Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, Bob Cornuke and John Baumgardner articles wrt WP:BIO. We do cover these people, at Searches for Noah's Ark, Durupinar site, Flood geology and related article, but it is beyond me how they can be argued to deserve biography articles within our guidelines. Also note the WP:UNDUE crap I removed from Jabal al-Lawz [4], an otherwise innocent article on a topographic feature. -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone with an interest please look at the last couple of edits, in particular all the attention given to the fringe writer Emmett Sweeney, which I had removed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that Antireductionism be merged with Holism, at is seemed to me to be a POV fork. Discussion is ongoing about that merge.
I've discovered another article, Holism in science, which is also in bad shape. It is full of POV, improper synthesis and original research, and is poorly sourced. An example of the synthesis is calling what the Santa Fe Institute does "holistic", with no reference given. I've tagged the problem parts. Some work on improving the article would be good. Fences and windows ( talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
patriotism galore at Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries!
It is a mystery what purpose an article like German inventions and discoveries or Welsh inventions and discoveries or Dutch inventions and discoveries or English inventions and discoveries is supposed to serve. Completely achronic in scope, mind you. I wouldn't mind "of the German Renaissance" or similar, which would actually reflect a topic that can be discussed meaningfully. The gem of the collection is, as always, List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia, so much bona fide effort falling so far short of anything resembling encyclopedicity.
List of Chinese discoveries seems at least restricted to ancient China implicitly, which may make sense, but the giant List of Chinese inventions (ordered alphabetically! by the English name of the invention! you will conveniently find "Toilet paper" listed under "T"!) quickly dispels this favourable impression.
Why "fringe"? Misplaced patriotism viciously kicking encyclopedicity in the shins as always. Contorted reasoning like "in some cases, their Englishness is determined by the fact that they were born in England, of non-English people working in the country". Presentment of Englishry for the purposes of compiling a Wikipedia list article is sort of an all-time apex of WP:SYN in my book. -- dab (𒁳) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The very idea of attributing inventions to a people/country/region/anything other than the inventors themselves is grotesque, and, yes, the reasoning on which this is done is nationalism at its worst (therefore fringe). Edison's objection is another serious argument against these articles: they seem to have been designed for presenting and endorsing partisan claims in ignorance of what other sources have to say. I would fully support any action that would remove such articles and related categories. Dahn ( talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This could also use some attention if anyone is interested. Dougweller ( talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to contain several "versions". I have no idea why. It could probably do with a huge clean-up and copy edit. Anyone interested in this guy? Verbal chat 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time something is done about this, a notable injection of crank propoganda into Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I may need some help on this. And if anyone is really interested, I have 2 van Beek articles and the article by Griaule's daughter. Recent edits I think make it looks as though Griaule et al's findings are fact, although there have been serious challenges made about some of their claims. Dougweller ( talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible sock puppetry at Louis XVII of France and Karl Wilhelm Naundorff. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has made strong and persistent claims in the Electric motor article that Hungarian researcher Ányos Jedlik invented electric motors and electric vehicles in 1828. Apparently sources in Hungarian discuss his work, but I have not seen evidence that anything was published until many decades later, little evidence that the models pictured date from that year, and no evidence that any 1820's work by Jedlik had an influence an development of the technology in the next several decades. I would appreciate other eyes on this, especially if anyone can read the primary sources or subsequent reviews of them as discussed in the Ányos Jedlik article. I feel that it gives undue weight to give complete credit for "inventing" the modern DC motor with commutator and, since histories of electric motor development written in the 1880s do not mention him. Edison ( talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just came across Chaim Tejman, and well... let's just say that I'm not surprised that almost all the edits are by User:Chaimt. I don't dispute that he's written the books the article says he's written, but I believe that if his Grand Unified Theory was taken seriously by the establishment, it would have a lot more Google Scholar citations. I was thinking about taking it to AFD, but I figured I'd bring it up here first. Thoughts? Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been bold. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
More activity on this article. A prod was removed (Ok) and my COI tag (not ok and replaced), the new editor is I think Yair Davidiy, the article's creator under a different account name and Brit-Am's founder, with a new account. I don't know if it is notable enough to survive an AfD, but it is certainly a mess. Dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a claim that did not make sense, and a google search results make me suspect this guy's research is probably a fringe topic. There are no third party sources in the article.-- BirgitteSB 17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page, someone has pointed out that a search for Uriel's Machine ends up here, an article which although based on the book is titled after a fictional device described in the book. Looking at the article with fresh eyes and more knowledge than I had when I first edited it, it doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:Fringe or WP:NPOV. Before I move it to the title of the book, and have to rewrite the lead, it would be useful to have some other input. Thanks.
There are some proposals/event over on the WP:NPOV policy page that will probably effect fringe theories and be of interest to people here. The proposals are to strip the WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ of its policy status, and move some things across to WP:NPOV. The debate, such as it is, is spread across both talk pages (so please look at both), and referenced to archives as well. The conversation has degenerated somewhat so can we please from now keep it on topic and level headed - probably new sections need starting, although there is debate as to the best location for the conversation. At the moment it is parallel on FAQ talk and Policy talk.
Many opinions from anyone are welcome! Verbal chat 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Most English sources tend to put Romania in Southeast Europe:
However, an editor is pushing a fringe POV trying to add Romania in Central Europe in any possible way which resulted in this gallery (first six maps are based on reliable English sources, the seventh is already from the 1960s, the rest looks like a joke). Also a map of Central and Eastern Europe made it there, not because it would help clarify what Central Europe actually is, it is rather misleading. He inserts a number of non-English sources from 1902, 1927, the 1950s, 1960s + pocket encyclopedias etc. without a minimum regard to WP:FRINGE:
Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects.
This mediation attempt closed after some disruption by User:Panel_2008, apparently a one-purpose account is also worth reading (similar pattern). What to do? Squash Racket ( talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, a new candidate for lamest dispute ever. Looie496 ( talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The Slovenian concern was that they were a Central European country, not part of SEE, but once Hungary joined, they quickly followed suit.
I tried to propose it for deletion, but Twinkle refused to co-operate. I'm not sure whether there is some substance behind this stuff. Self-regulation is a term used in psychology, and there seems to be some genuine health science usage, but the article seems to be mostly based on fluff. Please have a look at it. Vesal ( talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Some serious attention is required here. The " Editor's Note" is insufficient as it stands. Uncle G ( talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this one? There are a lot of good sources for the topic (I've put some related to the Titanic - some making general points on premonitions - on the talk page), but it's not much more than a list of premonitions right now instead of a serious discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
IP keeps adding badly sourced Tamil nationalist nonsense about Lemuria, renamed in the 1930s to Kamari Kandam. A good source not yet used (other sources are used by this author) is [8]. Also see [9] I have History at Land's End: Lemuria in Tamil Spatial Fables as a pdf or Word file if anyone wants it, which is used as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this film is clearly Fringe a fringe topic, but it's a notable Fringe topic (and we have several articles on it already: see: New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy theory))... my question is whether the film is Fringe. At the moment the article does not properly establish the film's notability (per the notability guideline), and I am wondering whether to AfD it or spend time looking for sources that might establish notability. Please take a look. Blueboar ( talk) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a dispute here about "No Evidence that Joshua Ever Existed?" that touches on fringe issues I believe. One is how to handle statements about non-existence of evidence (a statement which perhaps should be revised to make it more detailed). The other is how to handle historical claims based on non-historical books. The editor involved is telling me I should AGF the Dead Sea Scrolls, which lost me entirely. Dougweller ( talk) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think OT historicity pretty much falls into the two categories of pre- kingdom and post-kingdom. Anything later than Solomon can be assumed to be essentially historical, anything before David as essentially legendary. David and Solomon themselves are sort of the watershed, and genuine debate is possible there. Joshua is of course pre-kingdom, and it as futile to try and discuss the "historicity of Joshua" as discussing the historicity of, say, the Tuatha Dé Danann. Sure, both are invasion myths which may ultimately go back to a historical nucleus, but they survive as pure myth. -- dab (𒁳) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
patrolling the wider field of "OT historicity", Doug and I have just found King's Calendar. I've prodded it but may be someone wants to afd it properly. -- dab (𒁳) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Gruesome Harvest is an orphan article about a 1947 book somewhat akin to Other Losses, except perhaps not quite as fringey. I have been unable to find any mainstream reference to it, though it is apparently popular with the Evil Government Conspiracy set. For whatever reason an online copy is available here.
The article we have is rather truncated; it's unclear to me whether it wants expansion, exposition as a known fringey theory, or a one-way ticket to the land of AFD. Mangoe ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Now up at AfD.-- Folantin ( talk) 11:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the book is a notable primary source documenting the Morgenthau Plan and the earliest phase of the Allied occupation of Germany. As such, the article can be merged there. Thankfully, Morgenthau Plan already has a contemporary relevance section perfect for discussing the book's role in far-right lunatic fringe historical revisionism today. -- dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I definitely found evidence that it enjoys some currency among some of, how shall I put it, the wingnut set. As I said, I didn't find any evidence that anyone mainstream cared. Is being not entirely unknown in fringe discussion enough notability, seeing as how even the fringe-watchers don't see fit to comment on this? Mangoe ( talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This recently created article, approvingly written about a South African New Age author whose (effectively self-published) books are essentially a reprise of Carlos Castaneda's Toltec warrior mysticism, is in need of substantial revision and balancing. I have noted the key concerns on its talkpg, and the article's creator is in some (so far) reasonable dialogue about amending it; but there's a long ways to go. While a complete rewrite is necessary, I also have my doubts that this author or his works meet standards of notability for inclusion, particularly as there appears to be little or no verifiable independent information or WP:RS commentary around, on the man or his books. IF anyone else is able to assess and offer an opinion, or perhaps even any additional information, would be glad to hear it. My thinking has been to nominate for deletion, but could be swayed against if something notable crops up and if at least the article can be more appropriately balanced. Thoughts anyone?-- cjllw ʘ TALK 08:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. kwami ( talk) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
we have a time-honoured relaxed attitude in dealing with userpage antics. Userpages do show up on google, but they are ranked way lower than mainspace articles. People who really abuse Wikipedia as a host for their personal stuff do get warned, but as long as they don't go completely over the top, it is usually enough to slap a {{ userpage}} template on the page in question. -- dab (𒁳) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Prehistoric art in the context of the Venus of Schelklingen discovery. It appears that calling claims of Lower Paleolithic (before 200 kya!) works of art " controversial" is being rather kind. Articles affected include Venus of Berekhat Ram and Venus of Tan-Tan. Mask of la Roche-Cotard is also extremely dubious. -- dab (𒁳) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate many more eyes and opinions on this article's talk page, it's got a bit heated and off topic with unfounded accusations being made. Please spend a few minutes reading through and giving your opinion. It mostly seems to be a mistaken interpretation of NPOV and CFORK. There is intrinsically linked to a debate about renaming, please join in (on either side, you may convince me to change my mind!). Thanks, Verbal chat 09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just one of many articles that's full of bad sources, undue weight, undue woowoo, etc. that could use a lot of fixing. 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to ask, is homeokinetics a genuine field? The article was recently cut right down due to plagiarism. I can't find many sources to rebuild from, but I'm far from an expert on these things. the wub "?!" 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent changes giving equal weight to fringe view and mainstream view in the article lead. See Talk page. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is having problems with editors who want to add material about biomagnetic fields without acknowledging that all the evidence indicates these fields are many orders of magnitude too weak for human senses to detect. We're seeing the classic signs of a fringe theory on the talk page: "Mainstream academics & publications have become the high priests of wiki-religion" -- Mbilitatu ( talk · contribs); "How long will the world be flat and truth be held back?" -- stevenwagner ( talk · contribs); etc. Looie496 ( talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
New article making some rather bold, unreferenced claims. For starters, I'm not even sure "Berber world" is a specific scholarly term requiring its own article, although I'm sure you can find it in textbooks, just as I'm sure you can find references to "Chinese world", "Eskimo world" and so on. In other words, this seems little more than a content fork of the (admittedly inadequate) Berbers article. "Berber World" goes on to make some mindblowing unsubstantiated claims, including "Unlike in some other cultures, the Berber identity is not based on race or language" , and - mostly notably - "This makes everyone who lives in the Berber World a Berber, even if he or she does not speak Berber or is form a different race or religion." In other words, everybody who lives in North-West Africa is really a Berber, whether they're aware of it or not. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A new article has been created for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a web site notorious for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that undue weight is being given to these fringe theories in order to promote in order to push a POV. Anything negative about this group is being removed and only positive things are being mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A Reuters report (not a press release) and a TV news item from Telecinco, a major Spanish television company, that report exclusively about the organization have been deleted from the article, stating "English sources please!" or something similar. Also, per WP:N, there do not even need to be any detailed or exclusive articles about a subject, if it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources, as it clearly is. Page views do not decide whether a site is notable, but if a site, like this one, has more than 100 views per day, it's an indication that a decision on a merge or deletion should be well thought through. Cs32en 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's easy to make the assertion that something would be not notable, if you remove pertinent reliable sources from the article. 14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")Ist World Trade Center 7 wirklich die "Smoking Gun" des 11. September, der Beweis, das etwas "faul" ist, wie es der prominente Architekt Richard Gage [...] formulierte?(Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones.
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")La teoria di Gage è che il video del crollo è «la pistola fumante dell'11 settembre» ovvero la prova incontrovertibile che qualcosa è stato nascosto al pubblico.(Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.") Cs32en 09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently some disagreement on the
talkpage regarding how bogus and superseded theories should be treated. Editors with well-developed thoughts concerning
WP:PROMINENCE as applies to science articles would be appreciated. This was apparently discussed several times prior to my tenure at that article. The major points of view appear to be: it does no harm to devote a few words to mentioning alternatives; interested readers should be exposed to more than the hegemonic homodoxy; and the article is about the observation of redshift and its three causes.
For those of you paying far too much attention to the drama boards, this particular flare-up begins with
this revert. -
2/0 (
cont.) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On Robert Young (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's an extremely enthusiastic new account. I believe they mean well, but I think there are serious, serious issues with basic policy like WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. I've tried to address these on the talk page, but am entering a phase of both limited patience and limited on-wiki time. So if anyone else would like to take a look, more eyes would probably be useful. MastCell Talk 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in bringing this article into the 21st century? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
gah! speedily merge into The Races of Europe, I'd suggest. -- dab (𒁳) 12:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
also found Corded-Nordics. An associated account is Cyrus111 ( talk · contribs). The off-wiki website relevant to this is (once again) Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. The background of this "Nordish race" thing is Richard McCulloch and white nationalism in the US, see here for some history. -- dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that both the Cyrus111 account and the anon have also edited Racism in Sweden, it seems likely they are operated by the same user. I also note that the Aryan article has severely deteriorated recently (I just did a deep revert). We need to stay on the lookout for such racial nonsense, this will keep coming up indefinitely. -- dab (𒁳) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This has the makings of an amusing FTN case. I think we are looking at a Middle Easterner living in Sweden who feels alienated by Swedish xenophobia and is out to prove that he is more "Nordic" than those "Upper Paleolithic" cavemen peopling Scandinavia :) -- dab (𒁳) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP is adding unreferenced info to this article, removing referenced material, and introducing POV, and editwarring their changes. Could we please have more eyes on this article. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am curious about the new article hydrazine sulfate. It seems to be well written and has seemingly reliable references, but when I look at the external links at the bottom and search on Google, I see that hydrazine sulfate seems to fit a particular brand of conspiracy theory: that there is an inexpensive, readily available cure for cancer but the evil drug companies and the FDA are conspiring to prevent the public from learning the truth about it. So I'm concerned that a story may have been crafted that doesn't quite fit the evidence. Can others please take a look? (cross posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) ChemNerd ( talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As usual, more eyes are needed at Cold fusion, yet again, as fringe books and patents that slipped through the oh-so-reliable USPTO are sources for all kinds of crazy claims (4 body fusion at room temperature!) Hipocrite ( talk) 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this group of articles including but not limited to Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, PROUT in any way fringe? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
a classic Walled Garden, all surrounding some guru of limited notability. Ths should all be redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. -- dab (𒁳) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a concerted effort in this article (and to a far lesser extent at related articles such as Mountains of Ararat & Noah's Ark) to grossly overstate (without any WP:Verifiability) the historical Armenian relationship to this mountain. It may surprise some of you that "Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark". I didn't know that Noah and his immediate family were Armenians. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The IPs have now backed off their wild claims ( [20] [21]). Some continued watchlisting of this article may still be useful however, in case they resurface. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I spoke to soon -- they're now claiming that Mt Ararat is in Armenia (complete with redlinks to ARMENIA and the purported province therein -- [22]). Shades of the mountain coming to Mohamed. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Update: Forget the discussion. Who's been adding this according to WHOIS? An IP from Richardson, Texas. It's none other than our old permabanned friend and sock puppet general Mr Ararat Arev himself. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask again for some outside eyes on Robert Young (author). There is a rather enthusiastic single-purpose account there who I believe means well but... Anyhow, the issue as I see it is simple: the article is used to promote Young's views on live blood analysis, pleomorphism (the kind where human blood cells turn into bacteria and viruses), and an alkaline diet, among other things. Sources are Young's books and alt-med websites. Any material which is a) independently sourced, b) reliably sourced, or c) reflects the mainstream view on these topics is removed because it doesn't mention Young by name. I think this is totally inappropriate, but maybe I'm wrong. Outside eyes would help move things forward. MastCell Talk 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Poor, uncited fringe article. Anyone know anything about the subject? Dougweller ( talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with {{ refimprove}} and some inline tags. If editors there reinsert the unsourced material or remove the tags, we should consider AfD, so that the involved editors (hopefully) come up with material properly supported by independent reliable sources. Cs32en 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Did the Muslims destroy the Library? This article was recently edited to make it seem so. The edit is based on this source. The classic study of this issue is Butler's Arab Conquest. Kauffner ( talk) 12:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This new article is very problematic -- it isn't really about telepathy, it is a highly paranoid and pov-pushing view of the purported dangers of certain lines of neuroscience research. Looie496 ( talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am the author of the article. I can see that it has generated some small controversy within days of entry. New advances in science and technology that push the limits of human perception often do. The article is well documented with references to reports that have been recently published by reliable sources. The US army has itself been providing reliable publications with information about this research into computer assisted 'telepathy' that it says it has been funding since at least the year 2000. Articles in Science and Technology magazine Wired, and in a number of other trusted publications as referenced in the article, show beyond doubt that the US military has indeed been funding research into 'telepathic' applications for brain-computer interfacing. This article might once have existed on the fringes - as reports that electricity could be captured to light private houses might once have seemed unbelievable when most people still used candles.
I welcome advice from experienced Wikipedian writers in the fields of science and technology. If any scientists involved in Wikipedia feel there are ways the article might be improved I would really appreciate their feedback. I am aware that it is a relatively new field that could have developed out of or been accompanied by earlier experiments into the power of the mind and cybernetics. Would this article be better appended to an existing article? Or should it be considered a separate research topic, deserving of a page of its own rather than being tacked on to another related topic. Personally I consider the research to be composed of a number of branches of science and research including software, wireless hardware systems, neuroscience and psychology. Because of the number of sciences and ideas the topic encompasses I feel the topic is best addressed on a separate page - otherwise one could spend time endlessly appending and updating other related pages with references to the subject.
Would the article stand better in the minds of its critics if it was renamed - and if so, what might be some suggested new names for a new branch of science that the military is funding and does itself consider to be a form of computer assisted 'telepathy' (that it has stated it plans to use on the battlefield)? I found the existing title to be simple and eye catching, summing up the topic and its current application as imagined by Pentagon funders. But, if a title such as 'Computer-assisted Telepathy' is found more acceptable then so be it. The research does exist, and Wikipedia should cover it if Wikipedia wants to be considered a contemporary encyclopedia encompassing newly reported advances in science and technology. Frei Hans ( talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Was Abu Rayhan Biruni Khwarezmian or Persian? Didn't he speak Khwarezmian language, but wrote books in Arabic and Persian languages instead of own language? Is there contradiction? Massa Getae (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Khwarezm is just the name of a city. The Khwarezmian language was the dialect of that city. We're not going to postulate the existence of a Bostonian people based on the [[[Boston accent]]. Just like Sogdians redirects to Sogdiana, so Khwarezmians should redirect to Khwarezm. Ethnically, these people all form part of the larger Saka group.
The bickering over the "ethnicity" of medieval Islamic scholars is very popular among Wikipedia's assorted Middle Eastern nationalist editors. You can spot past battlefields by the ridiculous amount of footnotes ("Alberuni was a Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] scholar") These disputes reflect modern nationalisms and are an anachronism in the articles' contexts in most cases. This is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and if I was calling the shots, the proper approach would just be to ban nationalist pov-warriors after one warning. This would save us countless man-hours lost babysitting the ever-recurring predictable nationalist bickerning. -- dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس
Apparently an essay about colonialism. Not a single source cited appears to address the topic of "civilizing mission" up front. -- dab (𒁳) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the topic is valid in principle. The problem is that the article is an essay rather than an encyclopedic discussion poperly referenced and integrated into our larger coverage of Colonialism. -- dab (𒁳) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
edit war over the perennial 'Kemet' issue in which the "truth" that Kemet means 'land of the blacks' is being insisted upon by edit warring without discussion on page. Dispute also seems to be affecting Hannibal, since one of the same editors is insisting on removing an image of a too-European looking bust of great man. See also Black (hieroglyphic 'km'). Paul B ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable I guess I’m the "other editor" being talked about. 1st I haven’t partaking in any edit war concerning the article Ham. In the past 2 days I have only made 2 edits so I do not know why this editor is saying I am involved in HIS edit war, I am also not sure why the editor is bringing up the dispute with Hannibal and claiming that it is over a “an image of a too-European looking bust of great man” When there was never once a question about the European-ness of the image or a queston about race for that matter. As you will see for yourselves the whole dispute was over the SOURCES attached to the image. The original dispute was with me and other editor and this one came in making claims of race.. The claims made about me and the topics really puzzle me. He also called me an Afro-centric. Which I still do not understand why. This editor seems to have a fixation with race topics. As you see for yourself race was not an issue in either articles. not by anyone other than this editor himself TruHeir ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, mention of Black (hieroglyphic 'km') brings to mind Mmcannis ( talk · contribs), a well-meaning editor from Arizona enthusiastic about the Ancient Near East, but the numerous articles and categories they created are simply bad beyond description. This will need to be tackled at some point.
The "land of the blacks" meme defended by Caliborn ( talk · contribs) is of course a non-starter. The only place where this can be duly discussed is Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt. -- dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If the bible is not a reliable source then this Article shouldn't been here altogether, if you want to talk about Egyptology then take it up on an article about Egyptology. Since this is an Article about a person from the Bible, the bible is the only thing to stand by.
The article does not make claims of skin pigmentation. I am curious to know have any of you actually read it. And did the person who start this claim read the article at all? You all sound repetitive and are arguing about nothing because the article already states the meaning of the word. Try reading it first before you comment or edit Thecityone ( talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That explains a lot, well about the page the repetitions have been removed by me because the explanations were already present and didn’t need to be added again. So the article is good to go Thecityone ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Article editorializes in favor of a perceived government conspiracy to abuse human rights in NZ and omits any balancing coverage. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This fringe theory still has its defenders. Some eyes on avoiding giving undue weight to the MRH would be good, and cleaning the article up generally. Ta. Fences and windows ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
the "undue weight" is between presenting this as a historical, obsolete hypothesis, and a current minority opinion. Similarly, phlogiston should predominantly be presented as obsolete, and discussing current-day defenders of phlogiston at any length would indeed violate WP:DUE even if it is the article dedicated to phlogiston. -- dab (𒁳) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is inflate fallacy to call research model "fringe theory" when scientists publish in it framework in the most prestigious journals. I have slight idea who is relay behind yours nicks/thesis and you may think vice versa. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Some IPs and SPAs keep adding non-(MED)RS speculation to this article. Can people please have a look at the recent history. The article could do with a general review too. Verbal chat 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is more IP/sockpuppet POV pushing shenanigans going on in this article. More eyes please. SPI filed here. Verbal chat 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has slight sourcing that celery needs more calories for the body to digest it than the body receives from nutrients, but then there are unreferenced calorie rich foods listed such as apples, berries, tomatoes and watermelon. I'm not even that sure about celery. I said on the talk page of the article that in a week I would remove foods lacking references. The article has been around a while. Edison ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I having a slow-moving not unpleasant discussion at Boise homosexuality scandal with an editor who tagged the article with an NPOV template. So far, consensus is to remove the tag, but the editor in question soldiers on. His point ( seen here) seems to be that the primary source used, an academic named John Gerassi see special collections page at NYU library here has offered his opinion that the motivation behind the mass arrest and jailing of gay men in Boise in 1955 was politically motivated by a corrupt city councilman and an assistant prosecuting attorney.
He is recognized as an authority as the main researcher by two other sources, Jonathan Katz, who edited Gay American History in 1974 and Eric Marcus, who edited Making Gay History in 2002. The article is about a week old, and it's about a time in U.S. history when gays were included in the national paranoia to ferret out the unsavory element in the middle of the Lavender Scare and Second red scare. No other major works have been written about this event, so Gerassi seems to be the only guy writing this. Per WP:Fringe, however, since he researched it and formed an opinion, does it not belong in the article? I appreciate your clarification. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Has some very strange ideas she is trying to add to articles from Ochre to Adam and Eve. It may be that with guidance she can be useful. Apologies if this is the wrong board. Dougweller ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the arbitration enforcement does not give a damn about fringe POV pushing, I will try it here. Baku87 has created this template which was obviously drafted based on this one. It has two major flaws: one is that the title is awkward, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region, and on top of that he adds the Azerbaijan republic map pushing the fringe theories described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his section about Azerbaijani myths and symbols (Azerbaijani mythology uses 'Azerbaijani' and 'Albania' interchangeably in discussing this kingdom.) There is no point in submitting this to deletion, there will be vote stalking, there will be no point in changing anything since it will initiate revert warrings. Since the arbitration enforcement ignores everything and does not see anything disruptive in deliberate nationalist POV pushing (this was already reported there, apparently there was nothing disruptive), this noticeboard remains the only relevant thing to turn to. Note also the purpose... he added them on those articles with the template of historic regions of Armenia. - Fedayee ( talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
These [30], and probably Trilateral Commission articles, tend to be a honeypot for conspiracy theorists. Look at for instance Knights of Saint Columbanus which mentions Bilderberg 13 times. The Bilderberg Group article probably has sufficient attention, it's the minor ones like Indra Nooyi where she is described as attending the 'highly secretive' Bilderberg group, etc. that could use some light attention if anyone has the time or interest. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
At it again [31]. No edit summary and no discussion, per usual. NJGW ( talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Brand new article, full of OR. Dougweller ( talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I may actually need help here (or have someone tell me I'm wrong) [32] which I reverted again. Dougweller ( talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is tripping my bullshit detectors, but I am hindered by my ignorance of German. The primary source listed is from the central European chapter of MUFON, for example, but other citations come from legitimate (if speculative) magazine publications. Thoughts? Skinwalker ( talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting stupid. Jackiestud ( talk · contribs) is now deleting well sourced additions of mine (I actually used books instead of websites, silly me( and replacing it with unsourced pov stuff , and that which is sourced is sourced in part from two Wikipedia mirrors and other non-RS websites. I tried to explain this to her on her talk page but she's just ignored me. I'm at 2RR now and don't want to hit 3, but in any case this is just part of an edit war between her and several other editors on various articles. She's deleted my comments on problems with recognising ochre, my addition of a new report on Blombos cave, any suggestion that Blombos may not be unequivocal evidence etc... Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a move for a community ban of Jackiestud. This user is clearly too confused to be expected to ever contribute anything useful. -- dab (𒁳) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Systemizer ( talk · contribs), creator and recreator of articles such as 420-year cycle and Septennial cycle, seems to have taken over this article and is fighting off any attempts to, for instance, remove a citation to another Wikipedia article, or call Alfred North Whitehead a philosopher, let alone any real content changes. Dougweller ( talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a strange minor but protracted dispute with User:Soundofmusicals who insists we shouldn't put the common English alternative title The Arabian Nights in the first line of this page. Now, since this was the title of the first English translation and the two most recent ones, as well as being the title of the entry in The Encyclopaedia of Islam and several other studies of the book (see the notes and references section in the Wikipedia article), I'm at a loss to understand why we shouldn't mention this alternative as early as possible per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not even asking for a page move. Judging by the talk page, this is simply the result of yet more standard-issue ethnic bitching. I think Soundofmusicals has been trying to achieve a "compromise" with some users who just don't like Arabs very much, but this is the sort of compromise which leads to our articles saying 2+2=4.5. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to waste time with ultra-nationalist bigotry here. The case is plain as plain. Yes, the tales have Persian origin. They are still preserved in Arabic, not Persian, and for this reason they are known as "Arabian Nights" in English. End of story. The proper term for this kind of constellation is "Perso-Arabic". Arabic influence in medieval Persia isn't the exception but the rule. Persian patriots interested in pre-Islamic Persia are welcome to edit articles about pre-Islamic Persia, but this most certainly is not a topic of Persian antiquity but a prime example of the classical Islamic Perso-Arabic culture of the Middle Ages. -- dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at the moment at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder concerning the disputed claim that the Cyrus cylinder is a charter of human rights. As this is an issue that has come up before on this noticeboard, editors may wish to be aware of this discussion. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
IP claiming it was the inspiration for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, using various non-RS sites including a mirror and one at least that doesn't even back the claim. I'm at 2RR. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
At Multiracial American we have some excited fellow insisting the article is "racist" and biased [39] because, I suppose (they aren't being very coherent), it doesn't treat "mixing" of the various European "subraces" as "multiracial". Needless to say, "mixing of white with white" has never been an issue in the history of racial legislation in the US, nor in the US census, nor, to the best of my knowledge, in any sort of discourse on race in the United States (subcategories of the five major races recognized in the census being catgorised in terms of ethnicity, not race). The editor unsurprisingly cannot present a single source that would at least illuminate where they are coming from, but they make up for that minor flaw by producing all the more noise and wikidrama.
Really an issue of cough up some source or go away, but I figure I have already made the mistake of "assuming good faith" here so I cannot suddenly switch to rollback-the-troll mode. PS, also note user's block log. They were "given another chance" for being apologetic after an indef ban for trolling less than a month ago. It would appear that the apologetic mood has worn off rather quickly. -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just been looking at AIV and gave a 31 hour block to a new editor edit warring on this article with possible COI problems as well. See [40]. The two other editors there are probably at their limit and I'm sure the article could use a an eye or two more on it. Dougweller ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The Afrocentrists are back in force, and since February have slaughtered the cleaned-up article. As with the Persian nationalists above, this isn't going anywhere, we are just looking at a bunch of ideologists who creep back every couple of months and start over. Discussion has long been circular and futile. We really need an approach that allows us to short-cut such nonsense cropping up for the dozenth time. It's worth discussing it thoroughly once, even twice, but after six or seven times around, reiterating the "discussion" becomes a simple waste of time. -- dab (𒁳) 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
for quick reference, the last good revision before this year's round of attack is here. -- dab (𒁳) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
yeah, I am posting this here in the hope that some editors with a clue will put it on their watchlists so we can intercept the trolling as it comes in as opposed to in half-yearly intervals. Thanks. -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially about a bunch of tenacious Afrocentrist editors and their (sock) armies trying to create the impression that Afrocentrist claims on the "race of the Ancient Egyptians" has scholarly validity, which it does not have (yes, we have good sources on that point, check Moreschi's article). This has been going on since about 2005, so we can look back on some four years of circular "debate". Moreschi went to great pains to clean this up and present the case as it is.
The attempts to lend credibility to these racialist fringe claims involve the attempts to conflate Afrocentrist literature with bona fide studies on the prehistoric population history of Egypt. Needless to say, these topics need to be cleanly separated. Last August, we did this by introducing the detailed "Origins" section at Egyptians. The additional material that has accreted on the Afrocentrism article since then I have now split off to the new standalone population history of Egypt article, which does sport a brief "racial aspects" section out of charity towards the "Afrocentrist view".
In reply to Hiberniantears, I obviously do not insist on any specific revision. This is a question of good editorial judgement, once the air has been cleared of trolling. Just clearing the air of trolling will be a huge step forward here. "Article probation" in theory should do this for us, but of course this will need admins willing to clamp down on the trolls, just slapping a warning template on the talkpage isn't going to impress anyone. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I object to the use of unconstructive language such as "disgraceful" and "cranks". Clearly CABlankenship has a contrary POV, but that does not excuse incivility or failure to Assume Good Faith. Please could an admin issue CABlankenship with a warning, and perhaps check if CABlankenship is a sockpuppet of Dbachmann. Wdford ( talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. The skin-color of the Ancient Egyptians is a minor and trivial issue which does not deserve an entire article. If this "controversy" were over any other feature (for instance, the size of Ancient Egyptian feet), nobody would seriously consider it worthy of an entire article. Furthermore, the word "race" in the title is controversial and inappropriate. CABlankenship ( talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good recommendation, Mathsci. I'm on the waiting list at my library, but if you have read it and can make relevant contributions based on that work, please do so. Wdford ( talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
a fresh account apparently here to make use of user and talk namespaces as a personal webhost. Without a single main namespace edit, account is dumping reams of text apparently rambling on about confused occult and/or pseudoscienific ideas.
this isn't urgent, just another case study in how far we are willing to tolerate out-of-main-namespace fringe material. -- dab (𒁳) 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user user:168.7.241.58 (Thanks BalkanFever - I forgot to paste) is busy adding Fringe (nationalist) theories to early cyrillic, glagolitic alphabet and other pages to do with the origins of Slavic languages. These are all sourced to one site with text written by the Bulgarian economist Peter Dobrev. I have tried reverting, and explaining on their talk page, but I'm being ignored. Could someone please stop them? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
we have an article on this class of crackpot theories, at Pre-Christian Slavic writing. Bulgar alphabet can be merged there. -- dab (𒁳) 05:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've issued a rangeblock. This may also be a good opportunity to review Ancient Bulgarian calendar. Bulgars#Iranian_theory and Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. -- dab (𒁳) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This alternative medicine organisation was quoted as a major source of opinion on GM food, I've never heard of it and it doesn't even have a Wiki article. This seemed a violation of undue weight to me, so I've removed this section. This is being discussed here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A new editor is adding a section to this article which I believe is undue and not reliably sourced. More eyes please. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe some undue weight is being given here to the theories of Graham Hancock. Other opinions? Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Found this post on RSN, thought it might be of interest to people here "Just putting this out there, and hoping some more experienced heads can give it a look... This is the article for a controversial eligious movement based in the US but with communities around the world; article contains liberal citations from official website, and most edits with dissenting information are reverted by users who are also members of the community. I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and I'm hoping someone with an idea of what they're doing can intervene. Thanks - jaybird 71.169.155.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, 'thealogy' is ok, but 'Monotheasm'? Anyone know anything about thealogy? Dougweller ( talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
these are neologisms from New Agers with no clue about Greek. No problem as long as it remains clear that this is New Age / 2nd wave feminism terminology with no currency outside of these subcultures. -- dab (𒁳) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, an editor (Arnaiz1) claiming to be M. Arnaiz-Villena is repeatedly deleting large amounts of sourced material, claiming he never said these things and that we're part of a conspiracy against him. Since they are stated either in his books or in the website of a foundation advertising his books, a foundation of which A-V is president, Arnaiz1 is obviously misrepresenting something. A-V's claims are pseudoscience, though because few people have bothered to review him and we don't have any sources using that word, the wording in the article has been downgraded to "fringe". A-V is the author of the Usko-Mediterranean BS that was deleted last month. For those of you who haven't heard of him, A-V is the greatest epigrapher in the history of humankind. It was him, not Champollion, who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, which turn out to record Basque, not an Afrasiatic language. (The entire field of Egyptology is a scientific fraud.) Also, the use of Hittite in the reconstruction of Indo-European is a fraud, as Hittite is also Basque. And the Hammurabi code is not a legal code, but records Basque religious texts—Sumeriology and Assyriology are great scientific frauds. And Phoenician was not a Semitic language, but Basque, as were Minoan, Etruscan, and Elamite. His website advertises that Basque is also the key to deciphering the Indus, rongorongo, and the Mesoamerican scripts, as a neolithic Basque civilization spanned the globe. kwami ( talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is in desperate need of help. The positions of advocates are presented in flattering terms, while critics (or "skeptics") are dismissed ("unpeer reviewed") as laymen or nonexperts (because they aren't reincarnation researchers) and the substance of their criticisms isn't presented. A very problematic article with glaring WP:NPOV problems, caused by heavy reliance on non-RS fringe sources. Ownership is also apparent. Verbal chat 08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that at least some of the content in the article is plagiarized from Stevenson's obits in The Telegraph and the Washington Post. Compare:
In one case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic who was thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to several witnesses, the boy provided the driver's name, the location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with. These all matched the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.
with
In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.
— [41]
and compare
Another case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles (260 km) from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that, some eight years before Gopal's birth, one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother. The deceased man was called Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child identified various people and places known to Shaktipal.
with
A typical case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about his previous life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother some eight years before Gopal's birth. The deceased man was named Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child recognised various people and places known to Shaktipal.
— [42]
The
Ian Stevenson also has some similar problems.
Secondly, the
NYT obit has some useful quotes from Professor Leonard Angel of Stevenson's research, and mentions a Skeptical Inquirer article Angel wrote. Also see the references at the end of this
Skepdic Dictionary.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Strangely nothing in Wikipedia addresses this issue, equally strange there exists debate about a known fact. I believe that this is the best venue regarding an editors ability to recognize conflicting references and without subjective interpertation dismiss demonstrably false references. It's a simple exercise with this example at the extreme obvious side of the spectrum.
A reference exists [43] and makes the specific claim that the term " grief porn" was coined on April 7, 2005. Prior use evidence of the term, in context, exists in both published fiction and non-fiction works and in the printed press dating many years back. [44] [45] [46] [47]
Must Wikipedia be a slave to referenced errors, is there no level of editorial responsibility allowed? Is an error in a Blog, journal or paper notable in and of itself? Or must anything sourced be allowed inclusion as the standard is verifiability and not truth?
Is there truly not any level of demonstrably false information that can be removed? 99.144.192.208 ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, anon, but I am not the person saying that he coined it; the cited article says that. You may disagree with that, but - unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint.
Remember, you are not citable and cannot, on your own merits, be cited as counterpoint to any cited statement.
If there are citations that refute that, it doesn't mean that we purge or whittle away to nothingness the cited statements already present. We instead add the citations that counter the claim of invention. there is a limit to how far we can go to connect these contrary statements without running the risk of synthesis.
Also, I will again state that your opinion as to the "truth" of the citation isn't usable by us. Verifiability is the litmus test for inclusion, not truth. You don't get to prove or disprove the claims of a cited source. Do you not understand that?
We don't remove or water down the statements of a perfectly reliable source in favor of creating heat.
Okay, I am trying to help you understand Wikipedia here, anon99. First of all, the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That isn't me saying that, that's policy. So, maybe stop arguing that we cannot include it because its "false", as that is immaterial to inclusion. Ask an admin. Hell, ask two. Secondly, just because the section of Guardian online is called the ObserverBlog doesn't actually mean it is a blog.
Lastly, the hardest part of Wikipedia for new editors is learning that their opinion is utterly worthless when it differs from that of a published source.
You cannot contradict a published source, as you (nor your opinion) are citably sufficient to do so.
I will again point out that this isn't a matter of "knowingly (using) false information"; it is a matter of verification; indeed, it is the very first line of that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
as I noted before, just because the section is called the Observer Blog doesn't actually mean its a blog. You need to understand the difference between a blog and a news article. I simply do not have the time to educate you on this.
OK, after reading the talk page where you guys have been discussing this: This is not about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong as if it was true, it's about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong while indicating as clearly as is possible without transgressing the "original research" restriction that it is actually wrong.
The demonstrably wrong claim appeared in the Observer Blog. Our standard rule seems to be that main entries in such a newspaper blog, which are signed by people who otherwise also write in the newspaper, count as reliable sources. [56] Thus it's misleading to refer to this as just a blog entry.
This leaves us with a situation in which the error can be reported with proper framing as such, or simply dropped. In other words, as so often the rules don't tell us what to do and it's a matter of WP:Editorial discretion. The following two criteria are potentially worth considering:
Hans Adler 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The date, mention of the press conference, and even mention of the topic itself, are not known to exist anywhere else on Earth. Additionally as you are putting forth a suggestion for a possible framework for resolving False Statements of Fact would you be so kind as to visit the RFC at the grief porn [57] article and demonstrate a practical application of your framework to this real life example?
Wait a second, are we sure this is a reliable source? Sorry, I don't have time to research this myself, so hopefully I'm not leading you on a wild goose chase but somewhere there's some verbage about the blog being subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Can we confirm that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Another thing you might want to look into is this is apparently an Observer blog about the Observer. Is this a primary or a third-party source? Finally, have you considered e-mailing the author? He might issue a correction. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Do we have any evidence that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment above was under the assumption that Arcayne actually supported this edit. Now it looks as if this wasn't meant seriously and Arcayne actually supports a position that I cannot agree with. In any case I think this edit is seriously worth considering under the framework that I described above. But reporting without comment a claim that we know to be wrong, just because it appeared in a reliable source, would not be OK. Hans Adler 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has had longstanding major problems. The article was essentially taken over a couple years back and turned into a very calculated hack and slash job on the organization and its beliefs. It basically pushes the WP:FRINGE view that false memories of child abuse do not exist or are extremely exaggerated (exact opposite of all current expert knowledge on the topic) and strongly insinuates that the people who came up with the term (as well as anyone who believes it exists) are just child molesters covering up their crimes. Considering the direct accusations of pedophilia against specific named persons this article also has major BLP violations. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This article on a virtual organization devoted to pseudoscience and connected with self-publicist Ruggero Santilli has been recently created. My own view is that it should be changed into a redirect to the Santilli article. It is one of the worst pseudoscience articles I have seen and I think seems to have been posted by one of those involved in this virtual organization. One of the other people mentioned is Myron Evans whose BLP has been deleted at his request. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the creator Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also created a speedily deleted article about another non-existent organisation The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, improperly removed the prod template and the template requesting reliable secondary sources. Franceso Fucilla has certainly edited the article and the talk page as 86.155.96.66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because his characteristic rants can be seen there. Mathsci ( talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear!! MaDski !! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a posting on this page about the AfD for the now deleted Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science. I posted a link to a video above which shows that Jeremy Dunning-Davies is an active supporter and advocate for the work of Ruggero Santilli. He is also directly involved in this institute. A.K.Nole ( talk · contribs) is now claiming that it is inappropriate, even contentious, to draw reference to the fact that Dunning-Davies is a public web advocate for Santilli and fringe science. I'm not quite sure what is irking this recently arrived user, but in this case fringe science advocacy seems completely clear cut. This video of JDD singing the praises of Santilli's new science apparently cuts no ice with A.K.Nole. I am posting here to get other opinions on whether JDD is directly involved in fringe science, in particular the pseudoscience organisations connected with Santilli, Myron Evans and Franceso Fucilla which are quite apparent in this video. Mathsci ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli. | ” |
TELESIO GALILEI AIAS REPLY to WIKIWAKOS!!! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Wiseman hypothesis appears to be a WP:FRINGE view, described purely from the fringe POV, sourced only to fringe sources (e.g. trueorigins.org/ Bible and Spade, Answers in Genesis). Could probably do with some closer scrutiny. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Continued IP whitewashing. Please watchlist (I'm sure most of you have it already). This page has been semi protected several times recently, is it going to have to be indef? Verbal chat 18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I just came across Religious naturalism, and noticing that the lead is sourced to this site [1], and with what seems to me a somewhat promotional tone to the article, I worry that this may be pushing a rather fringe POV presented as a rational approach to religion and philosophy. It could be, however, that it is not actually fringe, and the problem is just that the article reads like the group's promotional brochure, and lacks balance. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In some cases it might be worth recommending that people holding unconventional beliefs try editing at Citizendium instead of Wikipedia. CZ and WP have different policies on neutrality, undue weight, and the like. In particular, Larry Sanger (the founder and Editor-In-Chief of CZ) has specifically stated of CZ "We are not a project of The Mainstream" and that fringe or pseudoscientific views will be given a fair and sympathetic hearing at CZ.
This most definitely does NOT mean that we send vandals, trolls, and their ilk over to CZ. That would be unethical and just is not on. And I'm not saying whether CZ's or WP's approach is better; I can see merits in both. But a consequence is that people who feel unwelcome at WP might find CZ a better environment (and vice versa). The most obvious example I can think of is User:Danaullman, who was banned by Arbcom but whom Larry Sanger personally invited to contribute to their article on Homeopathy. He then brought their Homeopathy article up to "Approved" status (roughly comparable to WP:GA). So it seems like a win-win situation: people who don't fit in at WP can find a better home, and CZ, which needs more contributors, can get some active and motivated authors. Let me re-emphasize that we should NOT send trolls and the like to CZ. But there are people like Dana Ullman who might work out well there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Citizendium is well suited to deal with trolls. But after they are kicked out over there, they'll just reappear here. We need to be able to deal with trolls in spite of their insistence they want to edit Wikipedia. Trolls whom we can convinve their efforts are better spent elsewhere aren't really trolls. -- dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
God, I hadn't realised Citizendium was that bad: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy
Both of these articles need attention from more editors to improve their quality and references, and to remove possible bias and original research/synthesis. One method I've just suggested of doing this is to merge the two articles to the (a lot more) common, less ambiguous, and better defined term Scientism. Comments/help/eyes appreciated. Verbal chat 08:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid about the use of the term Denialism in articles such as AIDS denialism, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, etc. I think this may be of interest to editors here. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
this noticeboard's evil twin, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, seems to be at it again. -- dab (𒁳) 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article related to the Cold fusion debate. As such I think it will be of interest to editors here. I'm not convinced that this is notable, and will have to ensure that this article isn't overly promotional - as always. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be a magnet for fringy rubbish. I just removed a couple sections sourced to some psychic and a neo-evangelical American "paraphrase" of the Bible. Worth watchlisting and perhaps a little cleanup. Moreschi ( talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm running into stiff resistance in my attempt to add a brief mention of the scientific consensus on evolution to the article considering the creationist beliefs of the Farm proprietors are spelled out.
It's not going so well. I've quoted from WP:FRINGE on the talk page, but that's not good enough. There are ownership issues as well as POV issues in play here. Am I wrong? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made a WP:RFC on an issue related to this article & WP:FRINGE. Discussion can be found at Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm#RFC: Quoting Bush's claims. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The 'megawatershed' is purely a promotional term used by a single company EarthWater Global. Allowing the article in Wikipedia will give the term an unwarrented legitimacy. Although the authors do reference some articles, none are truly peer reviewed. The closest might be the first (Excerpt from Robert A. Bisson, Megawatersheds in the "Water Encyclopedia: Groundwater", edited by Jay H. Lehr and Jack Keeley (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, 2005)). However, this reference is to a book that was edited by one of the principals in the firm EarthWater Global. And that relation (Jay H. Lehr) is not disclosed in the page.
Moreover, the discussions of the mega watershed (or 'megawatershed')subject are plagiaristic and contain nothing novel regarding what is generally understood about hydrology. The authors simply describe well-understood concepts of basin hydrogeology (without citing any prior art other than their own), apply their 'mega' label, and purport to have invented a new concept. To claim authorship for ideas and/or conceptualizations that have already developed by others is plagiarism, among other things, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that original ground water basin researchers such as Toth (deceased), M. King Hubbert (deceased), R. Allen Freeze, P.A. Witherspoon (deceased?), or Craig Bethke, to name a few, would not be amused by Bisson's claims.
As one example, the 'mega' discussions claim that groundwater hydrologists somehow never understood that ground water basins can overlap with multiple surface water basins (watersheds). That's patently false, and numerous publications by Hubbert, Toth, Freeze, Witherspoon, Bethke, and Marshak, and many others demonstrate that ground water basin and inter-basin flow have been well understood (and applied) for a very long time.
The closest thing to an example cited in support of megawatersheds is for a Caribbean island which is smaller than most typical watersheds by far. The discussion that the author's company found ground water on that island after a previous consultant failed, is nothing unique in the hydrogeology field, and not remotely sufficient evidence for the existence of a megawatershed. In any case, there is nothing 'mega' about the size of that watershed, or the quantity of water that was produced. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a surprise to find that the aquifer that was tapped, is not particularly deep either. Fresh water is lighter than sea water, and therefore tends to float on top of the sea water, within a typical island hydro system aquifer. I have followed up with a question on the depth of these wells to EarthWater Global on their YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC6_bdpypHc&feature=email
But they have not responded. Indeed, following my comment, they briefly deleted all comments on that page, including mine and barred further comments. That has apparently just been changed, so any reader of this can confirm at that site.
Other information from the company literature and the above video, asserts that recharge at high elevations is much higher than the recharge estimates made by hydrologists and weather scientists around the world. This is apparently the basis for EarthWater Global's claim of being able to produce vast quantities of water that as of yet have not been discovered. However no quantitative or factual information or citations are provided to support that mega-recharge-at-altitude claim. The company simply makes an argument that snow can blow away from snow gauges before monitoring is activated, failing to mention, for example, that if snow is blowing off a gage, other snow can also blow onto the same gage.
On this topic, in their promotional video, they suggest that monitoring precipitation is highly uncertain. Apparently, their own uncertainty regarding extremely high precipitation recharge rates vanishes when they promote megawatersheds, even though they can't document a single study to support it.
As is well known within this community, Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have not seen even ordinary proof to support the extraordinary megawatershed claim.
By promising the capability to somehow find and produce more groundwater based on a concept that has never been accepted by peer-reviewed journals, and by using this entry to help build business for a single company (at the expense of other companies that don't make this claim), this entry fails to meet the acceptance criteria, I believe and should be labeled accordingly within Wikipedia.
references: Toth J, 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins. Journal of Geophysical Research 68, 4785-4812. Hubbert, M.K, 1940. The Theory of Groundwater Motion. Journal of Geology, vol. 48 Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1966. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 1. Analytical and Numerical Solutions to the Mathematical Model. Water Resources Research. vol 2. pp 641-656. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1967. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 2. Effet of water-table configuration and subsurface permeability variation. Water Resources Research. vol 3. pp 623-634. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1968. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 3. Quantitative Interpretations. Water Resources Research. vol 4. pp 581 - 590. Bethke, C.M., and Marshak, S. 1990. Brine Migrations across North America - The Plate Tectonics of Groundwater. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences vol 18, pp.287-315
Michael Wallace Michael Wallace hydro ( talk)
Could some people take a look at this page please. CyclePat ( talk · contribs) is attempting to add information sourced from letters to the FDA and patents, and claims that Ultrasound scans are a form of Electromagnetic therapy. I don't think this is right. This article is about the alternative medicine practice called "electromagnetic therapy". Please see the article history and the talk page. Yours, Verbal chat 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a new editor convinced that Ron Wyatt was a scholar and that Imhotep was Joseph. A casual eye on this would be useful, I don't want him to think it's just me and my "atheistic bias" (quoting from an email he sent me). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
We should take the opportunity to scrutinize the Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, Bob Cornuke and John Baumgardner articles wrt WP:BIO. We do cover these people, at Searches for Noah's Ark, Durupinar site, Flood geology and related article, but it is beyond me how they can be argued to deserve biography articles within our guidelines. Also note the WP:UNDUE crap I removed from Jabal al-Lawz [4], an otherwise innocent article on a topographic feature. -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone with an interest please look at the last couple of edits, in particular all the attention given to the fringe writer Emmett Sweeney, which I had removed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed that Antireductionism be merged with Holism, at is seemed to me to be a POV fork. Discussion is ongoing about that merge.
I've discovered another article, Holism in science, which is also in bad shape. It is full of POV, improper synthesis and original research, and is poorly sourced. An example of the synthesis is calling what the Santa Fe Institute does "holistic", with no reference given. I've tagged the problem parts. Some work on improving the article would be good. Fences and windows ( talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
patriotism galore at Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries!
It is a mystery what purpose an article like German inventions and discoveries or Welsh inventions and discoveries or Dutch inventions and discoveries or English inventions and discoveries is supposed to serve. Completely achronic in scope, mind you. I wouldn't mind "of the German Renaissance" or similar, which would actually reflect a topic that can be discussed meaningfully. The gem of the collection is, as always, List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia, so much bona fide effort falling so far short of anything resembling encyclopedicity.
List of Chinese discoveries seems at least restricted to ancient China implicitly, which may make sense, but the giant List of Chinese inventions (ordered alphabetically! by the English name of the invention! you will conveniently find "Toilet paper" listed under "T"!) quickly dispels this favourable impression.
Why "fringe"? Misplaced patriotism viciously kicking encyclopedicity in the shins as always. Contorted reasoning like "in some cases, their Englishness is determined by the fact that they were born in England, of non-English people working in the country". Presentment of Englishry for the purposes of compiling a Wikipedia list article is sort of an all-time apex of WP:SYN in my book. -- dab (𒁳) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The very idea of attributing inventions to a people/country/region/anything other than the inventors themselves is grotesque, and, yes, the reasoning on which this is done is nationalism at its worst (therefore fringe). Edison's objection is another serious argument against these articles: they seem to have been designed for presenting and endorsing partisan claims in ignorance of what other sources have to say. I would fully support any action that would remove such articles and related categories. Dahn ( talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This could also use some attention if anyone is interested. Dougweller ( talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to contain several "versions". I have no idea why. It could probably do with a huge clean-up and copy edit. Anyone interested in this guy? Verbal chat 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time something is done about this, a notable injection of crank propoganda into Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I may need some help on this. And if anyone is really interested, I have 2 van Beek articles and the article by Griaule's daughter. Recent edits I think make it looks as though Griaule et al's findings are fact, although there have been serious challenges made about some of their claims. Dougweller ( talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible sock puppetry at Louis XVII of France and Karl Wilhelm Naundorff. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has made strong and persistent claims in the Electric motor article that Hungarian researcher Ányos Jedlik invented electric motors and electric vehicles in 1828. Apparently sources in Hungarian discuss his work, but I have not seen evidence that anything was published until many decades later, little evidence that the models pictured date from that year, and no evidence that any 1820's work by Jedlik had an influence an development of the technology in the next several decades. I would appreciate other eyes on this, especially if anyone can read the primary sources or subsequent reviews of them as discussed in the Ányos Jedlik article. I feel that it gives undue weight to give complete credit for "inventing" the modern DC motor with commutator and, since histories of electric motor development written in the 1880s do not mention him. Edison ( talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just came across Chaim Tejman, and well... let's just say that I'm not surprised that almost all the edits are by User:Chaimt. I don't dispute that he's written the books the article says he's written, but I believe that if his Grand Unified Theory was taken seriously by the establishment, it would have a lot more Google Scholar citations. I was thinking about taking it to AFD, but I figured I'd bring it up here first. Thoughts? Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been bold. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
More activity on this article. A prod was removed (Ok) and my COI tag (not ok and replaced), the new editor is I think Yair Davidiy, the article's creator under a different account name and Brit-Am's founder, with a new account. I don't know if it is notable enough to survive an AfD, but it is certainly a mess. Dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a claim that did not make sense, and a google search results make me suspect this guy's research is probably a fringe topic. There are no third party sources in the article.-- BirgitteSB 17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
On the talk page, someone has pointed out that a search for Uriel's Machine ends up here, an article which although based on the book is titled after a fictional device described in the book. Looking at the article with fresh eyes and more knowledge than I had when I first edited it, it doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:Fringe or WP:NPOV. Before I move it to the title of the book, and have to rewrite the lead, it would be useful to have some other input. Thanks.
There are some proposals/event over on the WP:NPOV policy page that will probably effect fringe theories and be of interest to people here. The proposals are to strip the WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ of its policy status, and move some things across to WP:NPOV. The debate, such as it is, is spread across both talk pages (so please look at both), and referenced to archives as well. The conversation has degenerated somewhat so can we please from now keep it on topic and level headed - probably new sections need starting, although there is debate as to the best location for the conversation. At the moment it is parallel on FAQ talk and Policy talk.
Many opinions from anyone are welcome! Verbal chat 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Most English sources tend to put Romania in Southeast Europe:
However, an editor is pushing a fringe POV trying to add Romania in Central Europe in any possible way which resulted in this gallery (first six maps are based on reliable English sources, the seventh is already from the 1960s, the rest looks like a joke). Also a map of Central and Eastern Europe made it there, not because it would help clarify what Central Europe actually is, it is rather misleading. He inserts a number of non-English sources from 1902, 1927, the 1950s, 1960s + pocket encyclopedias etc. without a minimum regard to WP:FRINGE:
Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects.
This mediation attempt closed after some disruption by User:Panel_2008, apparently a one-purpose account is also worth reading (similar pattern). What to do? Squash Racket ( talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, a new candidate for lamest dispute ever. Looie496 ( talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The Slovenian concern was that they were a Central European country, not part of SEE, but once Hungary joined, they quickly followed suit.
I tried to propose it for deletion, but Twinkle refused to co-operate. I'm not sure whether there is some substance behind this stuff. Self-regulation is a term used in psychology, and there seems to be some genuine health science usage, but the article seems to be mostly based on fluff. Please have a look at it. Vesal ( talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Some serious attention is required here. The " Editor's Note" is insufficient as it stands. Uncle G ( talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this one? There are a lot of good sources for the topic (I've put some related to the Titanic - some making general points on premonitions - on the talk page), but it's not much more than a list of premonitions right now instead of a serious discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
IP keeps adding badly sourced Tamil nationalist nonsense about Lemuria, renamed in the 1930s to Kamari Kandam. A good source not yet used (other sources are used by this author) is [8]. Also see [9] I have History at Land's End: Lemuria in Tamil Spatial Fables as a pdf or Word file if anyone wants it, which is used as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this film is clearly Fringe a fringe topic, but it's a notable Fringe topic (and we have several articles on it already: see: New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy theory))... my question is whether the film is Fringe. At the moment the article does not properly establish the film's notability (per the notability guideline), and I am wondering whether to AfD it or spend time looking for sources that might establish notability. Please take a look. Blueboar ( talk) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a dispute here about "No Evidence that Joshua Ever Existed?" that touches on fringe issues I believe. One is how to handle statements about non-existence of evidence (a statement which perhaps should be revised to make it more detailed). The other is how to handle historical claims based on non-historical books. The editor involved is telling me I should AGF the Dead Sea Scrolls, which lost me entirely. Dougweller ( talk) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think OT historicity pretty much falls into the two categories of pre- kingdom and post-kingdom. Anything later than Solomon can be assumed to be essentially historical, anything before David as essentially legendary. David and Solomon themselves are sort of the watershed, and genuine debate is possible there. Joshua is of course pre-kingdom, and it as futile to try and discuss the "historicity of Joshua" as discussing the historicity of, say, the Tuatha Dé Danann. Sure, both are invasion myths which may ultimately go back to a historical nucleus, but they survive as pure myth. -- dab (𒁳) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
patrolling the wider field of "OT historicity", Doug and I have just found King's Calendar. I've prodded it but may be someone wants to afd it properly. -- dab (𒁳) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Gruesome Harvest is an orphan article about a 1947 book somewhat akin to Other Losses, except perhaps not quite as fringey. I have been unable to find any mainstream reference to it, though it is apparently popular with the Evil Government Conspiracy set. For whatever reason an online copy is available here.
The article we have is rather truncated; it's unclear to me whether it wants expansion, exposition as a known fringey theory, or a one-way ticket to the land of AFD. Mangoe ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Now up at AfD.-- Folantin ( talk) 11:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the book is a notable primary source documenting the Morgenthau Plan and the earliest phase of the Allied occupation of Germany. As such, the article can be merged there. Thankfully, Morgenthau Plan already has a contemporary relevance section perfect for discussing the book's role in far-right lunatic fringe historical revisionism today. -- dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I definitely found evidence that it enjoys some currency among some of, how shall I put it, the wingnut set. As I said, I didn't find any evidence that anyone mainstream cared. Is being not entirely unknown in fringe discussion enough notability, seeing as how even the fringe-watchers don't see fit to comment on this? Mangoe ( talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This recently created article, approvingly written about a South African New Age author whose (effectively self-published) books are essentially a reprise of Carlos Castaneda's Toltec warrior mysticism, is in need of substantial revision and balancing. I have noted the key concerns on its talkpg, and the article's creator is in some (so far) reasonable dialogue about amending it; but there's a long ways to go. While a complete rewrite is necessary, I also have my doubts that this author or his works meet standards of notability for inclusion, particularly as there appears to be little or no verifiable independent information or WP:RS commentary around, on the man or his books. IF anyone else is able to assess and offer an opinion, or perhaps even any additional information, would be glad to hear it. My thinking has been to nominate for deletion, but could be swayed against if something notable crops up and if at least the article can be more appropriately balanced. Thoughts anyone?-- cjllw ʘ TALK 08:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. kwami ( talk) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
we have a time-honoured relaxed attitude in dealing with userpage antics. Userpages do show up on google, but they are ranked way lower than mainspace articles. People who really abuse Wikipedia as a host for their personal stuff do get warned, but as long as they don't go completely over the top, it is usually enough to slap a {{ userpage}} template on the page in question. -- dab (𒁳) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Prehistoric art in the context of the Venus of Schelklingen discovery. It appears that calling claims of Lower Paleolithic (before 200 kya!) works of art " controversial" is being rather kind. Articles affected include Venus of Berekhat Ram and Venus of Tan-Tan. Mask of la Roche-Cotard is also extremely dubious. -- dab (𒁳) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate many more eyes and opinions on this article's talk page, it's got a bit heated and off topic with unfounded accusations being made. Please spend a few minutes reading through and giving your opinion. It mostly seems to be a mistaken interpretation of NPOV and CFORK. There is intrinsically linked to a debate about renaming, please join in (on either side, you may convince me to change my mind!). Thanks, Verbal chat 09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just one of many articles that's full of bad sources, undue weight, undue woowoo, etc. that could use a lot of fixing. 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to ask, is homeokinetics a genuine field? The article was recently cut right down due to plagiarism. I can't find many sources to rebuild from, but I'm far from an expert on these things. the wub "?!" 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent changes giving equal weight to fringe view and mainstream view in the article lead. See Talk page. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is having problems with editors who want to add material about biomagnetic fields without acknowledging that all the evidence indicates these fields are many orders of magnitude too weak for human senses to detect. We're seeing the classic signs of a fringe theory on the talk page: "Mainstream academics & publications have become the high priests of wiki-religion" -- Mbilitatu ( talk · contribs); "How long will the world be flat and truth be held back?" -- stevenwagner ( talk · contribs); etc. Looie496 ( talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
New article making some rather bold, unreferenced claims. For starters, I'm not even sure "Berber world" is a specific scholarly term requiring its own article, although I'm sure you can find it in textbooks, just as I'm sure you can find references to "Chinese world", "Eskimo world" and so on. In other words, this seems little more than a content fork of the (admittedly inadequate) Berbers article. "Berber World" goes on to make some mindblowing unsubstantiated claims, including "Unlike in some other cultures, the Berber identity is not based on race or language" , and - mostly notably - "This makes everyone who lives in the Berber World a Berber, even if he or she does not speak Berber or is form a different race or religion." In other words, everybody who lives in North-West Africa is really a Berber, whether they're aware of it or not. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A new article has been created for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a web site notorious for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that undue weight is being given to these fringe theories in order to promote in order to push a POV. Anything negative about this group is being removed and only positive things are being mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A Reuters report (not a press release) and a TV news item from Telecinco, a major Spanish television company, that report exclusively about the organization have been deleted from the article, stating "English sources please!" or something similar. Also, per WP:N, there do not even need to be any detailed or exclusive articles about a subject, if it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources, as it clearly is. Page views do not decide whether a site is notable, but if a site, like this one, has more than 100 views per day, it's an indication that a decision on a merge or deletion should be well thought through. Cs32en 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's easy to make the assertion that something would be not notable, if you remove pertinent reliable sources from the article. 14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")Ist World Trade Center 7 wirklich die "Smoking Gun" des 11. September, der Beweis, das etwas "faul" ist, wie es der prominente Architekt Richard Gage [...] formulierte?(Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones.
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help) (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")La teoria di Gage è che il video del crollo è «la pistola fumante dell'11 settembre» ovvero la prova incontrovertibile che qualcosa è stato nascosto al pubblico.(Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.") Cs32en 09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently some disagreement on the
talkpage regarding how bogus and superseded theories should be treated. Editors with well-developed thoughts concerning
WP:PROMINENCE as applies to science articles would be appreciated. This was apparently discussed several times prior to my tenure at that article. The major points of view appear to be: it does no harm to devote a few words to mentioning alternatives; interested readers should be exposed to more than the hegemonic homodoxy; and the article is about the observation of redshift and its three causes.
For those of you paying far too much attention to the drama boards, this particular flare-up begins with
this revert. -
2/0 (
cont.) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On Robert Young (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's an extremely enthusiastic new account. I believe they mean well, but I think there are serious, serious issues with basic policy like WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. I've tried to address these on the talk page, but am entering a phase of both limited patience and limited on-wiki time. So if anyone else would like to take a look, more eyes would probably be useful. MastCell Talk 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in bringing this article into the 21st century? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
gah! speedily merge into The Races of Europe, I'd suggest. -- dab (𒁳) 12:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
also found Corded-Nordics. An associated account is Cyrus111 ( talk · contribs). The off-wiki website relevant to this is (once again) Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. The background of this "Nordish race" thing is Richard McCulloch and white nationalism in the US, see here for some history. -- dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that both the Cyrus111 account and the anon have also edited Racism in Sweden, it seems likely they are operated by the same user. I also note that the Aryan article has severely deteriorated recently (I just did a deep revert). We need to stay on the lookout for such racial nonsense, this will keep coming up indefinitely. -- dab (𒁳) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This has the makings of an amusing FTN case. I think we are looking at a Middle Easterner living in Sweden who feels alienated by Swedish xenophobia and is out to prove that he is more "Nordic" than those "Upper Paleolithic" cavemen peopling Scandinavia :) -- dab (𒁳) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP is adding unreferenced info to this article, removing referenced material, and introducing POV, and editwarring their changes. Could we please have more eyes on this article. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am curious about the new article hydrazine sulfate. It seems to be well written and has seemingly reliable references, but when I look at the external links at the bottom and search on Google, I see that hydrazine sulfate seems to fit a particular brand of conspiracy theory: that there is an inexpensive, readily available cure for cancer but the evil drug companies and the FDA are conspiring to prevent the public from learning the truth about it. So I'm concerned that a story may have been crafted that doesn't quite fit the evidence. Can others please take a look? (cross posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) ChemNerd ( talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As usual, more eyes are needed at Cold fusion, yet again, as fringe books and patents that slipped through the oh-so-reliable USPTO are sources for all kinds of crazy claims (4 body fusion at room temperature!) Hipocrite ( talk) 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this group of articles including but not limited to Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, PROUT in any way fringe? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
a classic Walled Garden, all surrounding some guru of limited notability. Ths should all be redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. -- dab (𒁳) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a concerted effort in this article (and to a far lesser extent at related articles such as Mountains of Ararat & Noah's Ark) to grossly overstate (without any WP:Verifiability) the historical Armenian relationship to this mountain. It may surprise some of you that "Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark". I didn't know that Noah and his immediate family were Armenians. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The IPs have now backed off their wild claims ( [20] [21]). Some continued watchlisting of this article may still be useful however, in case they resurface. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I spoke to soon -- they're now claiming that Mt Ararat is in Armenia (complete with redlinks to ARMENIA and the purported province therein -- [22]). Shades of the mountain coming to Mohamed. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Update: Forget the discussion. Who's been adding this according to WHOIS? An IP from Richardson, Texas. It's none other than our old permabanned friend and sock puppet general Mr Ararat Arev himself. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask again for some outside eyes on Robert Young (author). There is a rather enthusiastic single-purpose account there who I believe means well but... Anyhow, the issue as I see it is simple: the article is used to promote Young's views on live blood analysis, pleomorphism (the kind where human blood cells turn into bacteria and viruses), and an alkaline diet, among other things. Sources are Young's books and alt-med websites. Any material which is a) independently sourced, b) reliably sourced, or c) reflects the mainstream view on these topics is removed because it doesn't mention Young by name. I think this is totally inappropriate, but maybe I'm wrong. Outside eyes would help move things forward. MastCell Talk 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Poor, uncited fringe article. Anyone know anything about the subject? Dougweller ( talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with {{ refimprove}} and some inline tags. If editors there reinsert the unsourced material or remove the tags, we should consider AfD, so that the involved editors (hopefully) come up with material properly supported by independent reliable sources. Cs32en 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Did the Muslims destroy the Library? This article was recently edited to make it seem so. The edit is based on this source. The classic study of this issue is Butler's Arab Conquest. Kauffner ( talk) 12:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This new article is very problematic -- it isn't really about telepathy, it is a highly paranoid and pov-pushing view of the purported dangers of certain lines of neuroscience research. Looie496 ( talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am the author of the article. I can see that it has generated some small controversy within days of entry. New advances in science and technology that push the limits of human perception often do. The article is well documented with references to reports that have been recently published by reliable sources. The US army has itself been providing reliable publications with information about this research into computer assisted 'telepathy' that it says it has been funding since at least the year 2000. Articles in Science and Technology magazine Wired, and in a number of other trusted publications as referenced in the article, show beyond doubt that the US military has indeed been funding research into 'telepathic' applications for brain-computer interfacing. This article might once have existed on the fringes - as reports that electricity could be captured to light private houses might once have seemed unbelievable when most people still used candles.
I welcome advice from experienced Wikipedian writers in the fields of science and technology. If any scientists involved in Wikipedia feel there are ways the article might be improved I would really appreciate their feedback. I am aware that it is a relatively new field that could have developed out of or been accompanied by earlier experiments into the power of the mind and cybernetics. Would this article be better appended to an existing article? Or should it be considered a separate research topic, deserving of a page of its own rather than being tacked on to another related topic. Personally I consider the research to be composed of a number of branches of science and research including software, wireless hardware systems, neuroscience and psychology. Because of the number of sciences and ideas the topic encompasses I feel the topic is best addressed on a separate page - otherwise one could spend time endlessly appending and updating other related pages with references to the subject.
Would the article stand better in the minds of its critics if it was renamed - and if so, what might be some suggested new names for a new branch of science that the military is funding and does itself consider to be a form of computer assisted 'telepathy' (that it has stated it plans to use on the battlefield)? I found the existing title to be simple and eye catching, summing up the topic and its current application as imagined by Pentagon funders. But, if a title such as 'Computer-assisted Telepathy' is found more acceptable then so be it. The research does exist, and Wikipedia should cover it if Wikipedia wants to be considered a contemporary encyclopedia encompassing newly reported advances in science and technology. Frei Hans ( talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Was Abu Rayhan Biruni Khwarezmian or Persian? Didn't he speak Khwarezmian language, but wrote books in Arabic and Persian languages instead of own language? Is there contradiction? Massa Getae (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Khwarezm is just the name of a city. The Khwarezmian language was the dialect of that city. We're not going to postulate the existence of a Bostonian people based on the [[[Boston accent]]. Just like Sogdians redirects to Sogdiana, so Khwarezmians should redirect to Khwarezm. Ethnically, these people all form part of the larger Saka group.
The bickering over the "ethnicity" of medieval Islamic scholars is very popular among Wikipedia's assorted Middle Eastern nationalist editors. You can spot past battlefields by the ridiculous amount of footnotes ("Alberuni was a Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] scholar") These disputes reflect modern nationalisms and are an anachronism in the articles' contexts in most cases. This is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and if I was calling the shots, the proper approach would just be to ban nationalist pov-warriors after one warning. This would save us countless man-hours lost babysitting the ever-recurring predictable nationalist bickerning. -- dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس
Apparently an essay about colonialism. Not a single source cited appears to address the topic of "civilizing mission" up front. -- dab (𒁳) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the topic is valid in principle. The problem is that the article is an essay rather than an encyclopedic discussion poperly referenced and integrated into our larger coverage of Colonialism. -- dab (𒁳) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
edit war over the perennial 'Kemet' issue in which the "truth" that Kemet means 'land of the blacks' is being insisted upon by edit warring without discussion on page. Dispute also seems to be affecting Hannibal, since one of the same editors is insisting on removing an image of a too-European looking bust of great man. See also Black (hieroglyphic 'km'). Paul B ( talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable I guess I’m the "other editor" being talked about. 1st I haven’t partaking in any edit war concerning the article Ham. In the past 2 days I have only made 2 edits so I do not know why this editor is saying I am involved in HIS edit war, I am also not sure why the editor is bringing up the dispute with Hannibal and claiming that it is over a “an image of a too-European looking bust of great man” When there was never once a question about the European-ness of the image or a queston about race for that matter. As you will see for yourselves the whole dispute was over the SOURCES attached to the image. The original dispute was with me and other editor and this one came in making claims of race.. The claims made about me and the topics really puzzle me. He also called me an Afro-centric. Which I still do not understand why. This editor seems to have a fixation with race topics. As you see for yourself race was not an issue in either articles. not by anyone other than this editor himself TruHeir ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, mention of Black (hieroglyphic 'km') brings to mind Mmcannis ( talk · contribs), a well-meaning editor from Arizona enthusiastic about the Ancient Near East, but the numerous articles and categories they created are simply bad beyond description. This will need to be tackled at some point.
The "land of the blacks" meme defended by Caliborn ( talk · contribs) is of course a non-starter. The only place where this can be duly discussed is Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt. -- dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If the bible is not a reliable source then this Article shouldn't been here altogether, if you want to talk about Egyptology then take it up on an article about Egyptology. Since this is an Article about a person from the Bible, the bible is the only thing to stand by.
The article does not make claims of skin pigmentation. I am curious to know have any of you actually read it. And did the person who start this claim read the article at all? You all sound repetitive and are arguing about nothing because the article already states the meaning of the word. Try reading it first before you comment or edit Thecityone ( talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That explains a lot, well about the page the repetitions have been removed by me because the explanations were already present and didn’t need to be added again. So the article is good to go Thecityone ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Article editorializes in favor of a perceived government conspiracy to abuse human rights in NZ and omits any balancing coverage. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This fringe theory still has its defenders. Some eyes on avoiding giving undue weight to the MRH would be good, and cleaning the article up generally. Ta. Fences and windows ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
the "undue weight" is between presenting this as a historical, obsolete hypothesis, and a current minority opinion. Similarly, phlogiston should predominantly be presented as obsolete, and discussing current-day defenders of phlogiston at any length would indeed violate WP:DUE even if it is the article dedicated to phlogiston. -- dab (𒁳) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is inflate fallacy to call research model "fringe theory" when scientists publish in it framework in the most prestigious journals. I have slight idea who is relay behind yours nicks/thesis and you may think vice versa. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Some IPs and SPAs keep adding non-(MED)RS speculation to this article. Can people please have a look at the recent history. The article could do with a general review too. Verbal chat 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is more IP/sockpuppet POV pushing shenanigans going on in this article. More eyes please. SPI filed here. Verbal chat 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has slight sourcing that celery needs more calories for the body to digest it than the body receives from nutrients, but then there are unreferenced calorie rich foods listed such as apples, berries, tomatoes and watermelon. I'm not even that sure about celery. I said on the talk page of the article that in a week I would remove foods lacking references. The article has been around a while. Edison ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I having a slow-moving not unpleasant discussion at Boise homosexuality scandal with an editor who tagged the article with an NPOV template. So far, consensus is to remove the tag, but the editor in question soldiers on. His point ( seen here) seems to be that the primary source used, an academic named John Gerassi see special collections page at NYU library here has offered his opinion that the motivation behind the mass arrest and jailing of gay men in Boise in 1955 was politically motivated by a corrupt city councilman and an assistant prosecuting attorney.
He is recognized as an authority as the main researcher by two other sources, Jonathan Katz, who edited Gay American History in 1974 and Eric Marcus, who edited Making Gay History in 2002. The article is about a week old, and it's about a time in U.S. history when gays were included in the national paranoia to ferret out the unsavory element in the middle of the Lavender Scare and Second red scare. No other major works have been written about this event, so Gerassi seems to be the only guy writing this. Per WP:Fringe, however, since he researched it and formed an opinion, does it not belong in the article? I appreciate your clarification. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Has some very strange ideas she is trying to add to articles from Ochre to Adam and Eve. It may be that with guidance she can be useful. Apologies if this is the wrong board. Dougweller ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the arbitration enforcement does not give a damn about fringe POV pushing, I will try it here. Baku87 has created this template which was obviously drafted based on this one. It has two major flaws: one is that the title is awkward, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region, and on top of that he adds the Azerbaijan republic map pushing the fringe theories described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his section about Azerbaijani myths and symbols (Azerbaijani mythology uses 'Azerbaijani' and 'Albania' interchangeably in discussing this kingdom.) There is no point in submitting this to deletion, there will be vote stalking, there will be no point in changing anything since it will initiate revert warrings. Since the arbitration enforcement ignores everything and does not see anything disruptive in deliberate nationalist POV pushing (this was already reported there, apparently there was nothing disruptive), this noticeboard remains the only relevant thing to turn to. Note also the purpose... he added them on those articles with the template of historic regions of Armenia. - Fedayee ( talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
These [30], and probably Trilateral Commission articles, tend to be a honeypot for conspiracy theorists. Look at for instance Knights of Saint Columbanus which mentions Bilderberg 13 times. The Bilderberg Group article probably has sufficient attention, it's the minor ones like Indra Nooyi where she is described as attending the 'highly secretive' Bilderberg group, etc. that could use some light attention if anyone has the time or interest. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
At it again [31]. No edit summary and no discussion, per usual. NJGW ( talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Brand new article, full of OR. Dougweller ( talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I may actually need help here (or have someone tell me I'm wrong) [32] which I reverted again. Dougweller ( talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is tripping my bullshit detectors, but I am hindered by my ignorance of German. The primary source listed is from the central European chapter of MUFON, for example, but other citations come from legitimate (if speculative) magazine publications. Thoughts? Skinwalker ( talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting stupid. Jackiestud ( talk · contribs) is now deleting well sourced additions of mine (I actually used books instead of websites, silly me( and replacing it with unsourced pov stuff , and that which is sourced is sourced in part from two Wikipedia mirrors and other non-RS websites. I tried to explain this to her on her talk page but she's just ignored me. I'm at 2RR now and don't want to hit 3, but in any case this is just part of an edit war between her and several other editors on various articles. She's deleted my comments on problems with recognising ochre, my addition of a new report on Blombos cave, any suggestion that Blombos may not be unequivocal evidence etc... Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a move for a community ban of Jackiestud. This user is clearly too confused to be expected to ever contribute anything useful. -- dab (𒁳) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Systemizer ( talk · contribs), creator and recreator of articles such as 420-year cycle and Septennial cycle, seems to have taken over this article and is fighting off any attempts to, for instance, remove a citation to another Wikipedia article, or call Alfred North Whitehead a philosopher, let alone any real content changes. Dougweller ( talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a strange minor but protracted dispute with User:Soundofmusicals who insists we shouldn't put the common English alternative title The Arabian Nights in the first line of this page. Now, since this was the title of the first English translation and the two most recent ones, as well as being the title of the entry in The Encyclopaedia of Islam and several other studies of the book (see the notes and references section in the Wikipedia article), I'm at a loss to understand why we shouldn't mention this alternative as early as possible per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not even asking for a page move. Judging by the talk page, this is simply the result of yet more standard-issue ethnic bitching. I think Soundofmusicals has been trying to achieve a "compromise" with some users who just don't like Arabs very much, but this is the sort of compromise which leads to our articles saying 2+2=4.5. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to waste time with ultra-nationalist bigotry here. The case is plain as plain. Yes, the tales have Persian origin. They are still preserved in Arabic, not Persian, and for this reason they are known as "Arabian Nights" in English. End of story. The proper term for this kind of constellation is "Perso-Arabic". Arabic influence in medieval Persia isn't the exception but the rule. Persian patriots interested in pre-Islamic Persia are welcome to edit articles about pre-Islamic Persia, but this most certainly is not a topic of Persian antiquity but a prime example of the classical Islamic Perso-Arabic culture of the Middle Ages. -- dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at the moment at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder concerning the disputed claim that the Cyrus cylinder is a charter of human rights. As this is an issue that has come up before on this noticeboard, editors may wish to be aware of this discussion. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
IP claiming it was the inspiration for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, using various non-RS sites including a mirror and one at least that doesn't even back the claim. I'm at 2RR. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
At Multiracial American we have some excited fellow insisting the article is "racist" and biased [39] because, I suppose (they aren't being very coherent), it doesn't treat "mixing" of the various European "subraces" as "multiracial". Needless to say, "mixing of white with white" has never been an issue in the history of racial legislation in the US, nor in the US census, nor, to the best of my knowledge, in any sort of discourse on race in the United States (subcategories of the five major races recognized in the census being catgorised in terms of ethnicity, not race). The editor unsurprisingly cannot present a single source that would at least illuminate where they are coming from, but they make up for that minor flaw by producing all the more noise and wikidrama.
Really an issue of cough up some source or go away, but I figure I have already made the mistake of "assuming good faith" here so I cannot suddenly switch to rollback-the-troll mode. PS, also note user's block log. They were "given another chance" for being apologetic after an indef ban for trolling less than a month ago. It would appear that the apologetic mood has worn off rather quickly. -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just been looking at AIV and gave a 31 hour block to a new editor edit warring on this article with possible COI problems as well. See [40]. The two other editors there are probably at their limit and I'm sure the article could use a an eye or two more on it. Dougweller ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The Afrocentrists are back in force, and since February have slaughtered the cleaned-up article. As with the Persian nationalists above, this isn't going anywhere, we are just looking at a bunch of ideologists who creep back every couple of months and start over. Discussion has long been circular and futile. We really need an approach that allows us to short-cut such nonsense cropping up for the dozenth time. It's worth discussing it thoroughly once, even twice, but after six or seven times around, reiterating the "discussion" becomes a simple waste of time. -- dab (𒁳) 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
for quick reference, the last good revision before this year's round of attack is here. -- dab (𒁳) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
yeah, I am posting this here in the hope that some editors with a clue will put it on their watchlists so we can intercept the trolling as it comes in as opposed to in half-yearly intervals. Thanks. -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially about a bunch of tenacious Afrocentrist editors and their (sock) armies trying to create the impression that Afrocentrist claims on the "race of the Ancient Egyptians" has scholarly validity, which it does not have (yes, we have good sources on that point, check Moreschi's article). This has been going on since about 2005, so we can look back on some four years of circular "debate". Moreschi went to great pains to clean this up and present the case as it is.
The attempts to lend credibility to these racialist fringe claims involve the attempts to conflate Afrocentrist literature with bona fide studies on the prehistoric population history of Egypt. Needless to say, these topics need to be cleanly separated. Last August, we did this by introducing the detailed "Origins" section at Egyptians. The additional material that has accreted on the Afrocentrism article since then I have now split off to the new standalone population history of Egypt article, which does sport a brief "racial aspects" section out of charity towards the "Afrocentrist view".
In reply to Hiberniantears, I obviously do not insist on any specific revision. This is a question of good editorial judgement, once the air has been cleared of trolling. Just clearing the air of trolling will be a huge step forward here. "Article probation" in theory should do this for us, but of course this will need admins willing to clamp down on the trolls, just slapping a warning template on the talkpage isn't going to impress anyone. -- dab (𒁳) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I object to the use of unconstructive language such as "disgraceful" and "cranks". Clearly CABlankenship has a contrary POV, but that does not excuse incivility or failure to Assume Good Faith. Please could an admin issue CABlankenship with a warning, and perhaps check if CABlankenship is a sockpuppet of Dbachmann. Wdford ( talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. The skin-color of the Ancient Egyptians is a minor and trivial issue which does not deserve an entire article. If this "controversy" were over any other feature (for instance, the size of Ancient Egyptian feet), nobody would seriously consider it worthy of an entire article. Furthermore, the word "race" in the title is controversial and inappropriate. CABlankenship ( talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good recommendation, Mathsci. I'm on the waiting list at my library, but if you have read it and can make relevant contributions based on that work, please do so. Wdford ( talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
a fresh account apparently here to make use of user and talk namespaces as a personal webhost. Without a single main namespace edit, account is dumping reams of text apparently rambling on about confused occult and/or pseudoscienific ideas.
this isn't urgent, just another case study in how far we are willing to tolerate out-of-main-namespace fringe material. -- dab (𒁳) 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous user user:168.7.241.58 (Thanks BalkanFever - I forgot to paste) is busy adding Fringe (nationalist) theories to early cyrillic, glagolitic alphabet and other pages to do with the origins of Slavic languages. These are all sourced to one site with text written by the Bulgarian economist Peter Dobrev. I have tried reverting, and explaining on their talk page, but I'm being ignored. Could someone please stop them? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
we have an article on this class of crackpot theories, at Pre-Christian Slavic writing. Bulgar alphabet can be merged there. -- dab (𒁳) 05:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've issued a rangeblock. This may also be a good opportunity to review Ancient Bulgarian calendar. Bulgars#Iranian_theory and Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. -- dab (𒁳) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This alternative medicine organisation was quoted as a major source of opinion on GM food, I've never heard of it and it doesn't even have a Wiki article. This seemed a violation of undue weight to me, so I've removed this section. This is being discussed here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A new editor is adding a section to this article which I believe is undue and not reliably sourced. More eyes please. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe some undue weight is being given here to the theories of Graham Hancock. Other opinions? Kafka Liz ( talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Found this post on RSN, thought it might be of interest to people here "Just putting this out there, and hoping some more experienced heads can give it a look... This is the article for a controversial eligious movement based in the US but with communities around the world; article contains liberal citations from official website, and most edits with dissenting information are reverted by users who are also members of the community. I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and I'm hoping someone with an idea of what they're doing can intervene. Thanks - jaybird 71.169.155.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, 'thealogy' is ok, but 'Monotheasm'? Anyone know anything about thealogy? Dougweller ( talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
these are neologisms from New Agers with no clue about Greek. No problem as long as it remains clear that this is New Age / 2nd wave feminism terminology with no currency outside of these subcultures. -- dab (𒁳) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, an editor (Arnaiz1) claiming to be M. Arnaiz-Villena is repeatedly deleting large amounts of sourced material, claiming he never said these things and that we're part of a conspiracy against him. Since they are stated either in his books or in the website of a foundation advertising his books, a foundation of which A-V is president, Arnaiz1 is obviously misrepresenting something. A-V's claims are pseudoscience, though because few people have bothered to review him and we don't have any sources using that word, the wording in the article has been downgraded to "fringe". A-V is the author of the Usko-Mediterranean BS that was deleted last month. For those of you who haven't heard of him, A-V is the greatest epigrapher in the history of humankind. It was him, not Champollion, who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, which turn out to record Basque, not an Afrasiatic language. (The entire field of Egyptology is a scientific fraud.) Also, the use of Hittite in the reconstruction of Indo-European is a fraud, as Hittite is also Basque. And the Hammurabi code is not a legal code, but records Basque religious texts—Sumeriology and Assyriology are great scientific frauds. And Phoenician was not a Semitic language, but Basque, as were Minoan, Etruscan, and Elamite. His website advertises that Basque is also the key to deciphering the Indus, rongorongo, and the Mesoamerican scripts, as a neolithic Basque civilization spanned the globe. kwami ( talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is in desperate need of help. The positions of advocates are presented in flattering terms, while critics (or "skeptics") are dismissed ("unpeer reviewed") as laymen or nonexperts (because they aren't reincarnation researchers) and the substance of their criticisms isn't presented. A very problematic article with glaring WP:NPOV problems, caused by heavy reliance on non-RS fringe sources. Ownership is also apparent. Verbal chat 08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that at least some of the content in the article is plagiarized from Stevenson's obits in The Telegraph and the Washington Post. Compare:
In one case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic who was thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to several witnesses, the boy provided the driver's name, the location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with. These all matched the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.
with
In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.
— [41]
and compare
Another case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles (260 km) from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that, some eight years before Gopal's birth, one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother. The deceased man was called Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child identified various people and places known to Shaktipal.
with
A typical case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about his previous life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother some eight years before Gopal's birth. The deceased man was named Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child recognised various people and places known to Shaktipal.
— [42]
The
Ian Stevenson also has some similar problems.
Secondly, the
NYT obit has some useful quotes from Professor Leonard Angel of Stevenson's research, and mentions a Skeptical Inquirer article Angel wrote. Also see the references at the end of this
Skepdic Dictionary.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Strangely nothing in Wikipedia addresses this issue, equally strange there exists debate about a known fact. I believe that this is the best venue regarding an editors ability to recognize conflicting references and without subjective interpertation dismiss demonstrably false references. It's a simple exercise with this example at the extreme obvious side of the spectrum.
A reference exists [43] and makes the specific claim that the term " grief porn" was coined on April 7, 2005. Prior use evidence of the term, in context, exists in both published fiction and non-fiction works and in the printed press dating many years back. [44] [45] [46] [47]
Must Wikipedia be a slave to referenced errors, is there no level of editorial responsibility allowed? Is an error in a Blog, journal or paper notable in and of itself? Or must anything sourced be allowed inclusion as the standard is verifiability and not truth?
Is there truly not any level of demonstrably false information that can be removed? 99.144.192.208 ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, anon, but I am not the person saying that he coined it; the cited article says that. You may disagree with that, but - unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint.
Remember, you are not citable and cannot, on your own merits, be cited as counterpoint to any cited statement.
If there are citations that refute that, it doesn't mean that we purge or whittle away to nothingness the cited statements already present. We instead add the citations that counter the claim of invention. there is a limit to how far we can go to connect these contrary statements without running the risk of synthesis.
Also, I will again state that your opinion as to the "truth" of the citation isn't usable by us. Verifiability is the litmus test for inclusion, not truth. You don't get to prove or disprove the claims of a cited source. Do you not understand that?
We don't remove or water down the statements of a perfectly reliable source in favor of creating heat.
Okay, I am trying to help you understand Wikipedia here, anon99. First of all, the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That isn't me saying that, that's policy. So, maybe stop arguing that we cannot include it because its "false", as that is immaterial to inclusion. Ask an admin. Hell, ask two. Secondly, just because the section of Guardian online is called the ObserverBlog doesn't actually mean it is a blog.
Lastly, the hardest part of Wikipedia for new editors is learning that their opinion is utterly worthless when it differs from that of a published source.
You cannot contradict a published source, as you (nor your opinion) are citably sufficient to do so.
I will again point out that this isn't a matter of "knowingly (using) false information"; it is a matter of verification; indeed, it is the very first line of that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
as I noted before, just because the section is called the Observer Blog doesn't actually mean its a blog. You need to understand the difference between a blog and a news article. I simply do not have the time to educate you on this.
OK, after reading the talk page where you guys have been discussing this: This is not about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong as if it was true, it's about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong while indicating as clearly as is possible without transgressing the "original research" restriction that it is actually wrong.
The demonstrably wrong claim appeared in the Observer Blog. Our standard rule seems to be that main entries in such a newspaper blog, which are signed by people who otherwise also write in the newspaper, count as reliable sources. [56] Thus it's misleading to refer to this as just a blog entry.
This leaves us with a situation in which the error can be reported with proper framing as such, or simply dropped. In other words, as so often the rules don't tell us what to do and it's a matter of WP:Editorial discretion. The following two criteria are potentially worth considering:
Hans Adler 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The date, mention of the press conference, and even mention of the topic itself, are not known to exist anywhere else on Earth. Additionally as you are putting forth a suggestion for a possible framework for resolving False Statements of Fact would you be so kind as to visit the RFC at the grief porn [57] article and demonstrate a practical application of your framework to this real life example?
Wait a second, are we sure this is a reliable source? Sorry, I don't have time to research this myself, so hopefully I'm not leading you on a wild goose chase but somewhere there's some verbage about the blog being subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Can we confirm that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Another thing you might want to look into is this is apparently an Observer blog about the Observer. Is this a primary or a third-party source? Finally, have you considered e-mailing the author? He might issue a correction. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Do we have any evidence that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment above was under the assumption that Arcayne actually supported this edit. Now it looks as if this wasn't meant seriously and Arcayne actually supports a position that I cannot agree with. In any case I think this edit is seriously worth considering under the framework that I described above. But reporting without comment a claim that we know to be wrong, just because it appeared in a reliable source, would not be OK. Hans Adler 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has had longstanding major problems. The article was essentially taken over a couple years back and turned into a very calculated hack and slash job on the organization and its beliefs. It basically pushes the WP:FRINGE view that false memories of child abuse do not exist or are extremely exaggerated (exact opposite of all current expert knowledge on the topic) and strongly insinuates that the people who came up with the term (as well as anyone who believes it exists) are just child molesters covering up their crimes. Considering the direct accusations of pedophilia against specific named persons this article also has major BLP violations. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This article on a virtual organization devoted to pseudoscience and connected with self-publicist Ruggero Santilli has been recently created. My own view is that it should be changed into a redirect to the Santilli article. It is one of the worst pseudoscience articles I have seen and I think seems to have been posted by one of those involved in this virtual organization. One of the other people mentioned is Myron Evans whose BLP has been deleted at his request. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the creator Webmaster6 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also created a speedily deleted article about another non-existent organisation The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, improperly removed the prod template and the template requesting reliable secondary sources. Franceso Fucilla has certainly edited the article and the talk page as 86.155.96.66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because his characteristic rants can be seen there. Mathsci ( talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear!! MaDski !! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a posting on this page about the AfD for the now deleted Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science. I posted a link to a video above which shows that Jeremy Dunning-Davies is an active supporter and advocate for the work of Ruggero Santilli. He is also directly involved in this institute. A.K.Nole ( talk · contribs) is now claiming that it is inappropriate, even contentious, to draw reference to the fact that Dunning-Davies is a public web advocate for Santilli and fringe science. I'm not quite sure what is irking this recently arrived user, but in this case fringe science advocacy seems completely clear cut. This video of JDD singing the praises of Santilli's new science apparently cuts no ice with A.K.Nole. I am posting here to get other opinions on whether JDD is directly involved in fringe science, in particular the pseudoscience organisations connected with Santilli, Myron Evans and Franceso Fucilla which are quite apparent in this video. Mathsci ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli. | ” |
TELESIO GALILEI AIAS REPLY to WIKIWAKOS!!! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html