This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

I'm not sure this is the right venue and please feel free to move this to another venue if appropriate. A new editor named Islamrevealed ( talk · contribs) (which is a bad sign from the get go) has been edit warring for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory published by WND Books about the Council on American-Islamic Relations on that organization's entry. The text he put in the lead originally read:

• CAIR is also the central subject of a book titled "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America", which was released by WND Books on October 15, 2009. Written by P. David Gaubatz, a former federal agent and U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counterterrorism specialist, and Paul Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, the book is reportedly an undercover expose that catalogs the ways in which CAIR carries out a "well-funded conspiracy to destroy American society and promote radical Islam".

I have reverted this editor twice and don't want to continue edit warring. In the current version the editor simply removed the name of the publisher and the description of the book from the inserted text as if that changes the fact that it is a fringe conspiracy theory published by a group with a known anti-Islamic POV. Some attention to this by others would be helpful. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The flap is all over the news, so I think an accurate version could be sourced to real news organizations. Try this one from Reuters, for example. Mangoe ( talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That reuters source is not reuters, it's PRNewsWire. WND Books does not, in my opinion, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They should not be used for statements of fact. If the publication of the book, or the book itself were notable, article about those events would be discussed in other, obviously reliable, sources. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC website has a story about a possible link between virus and ME. This will be picked up by many people. There are some people who think ME/CFS can be effectively treated with graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. There are other people who say that CFS is different to ME, and that you can tell the difference because "real" (their words, not mine) ME doesn't respond to CBT or graded exercise. The latter camp seem to say that the illness has no psychological component (and also seem to say that a psychological component means it's not a "real" illness.) It's this group of people who'll seize the reports of a possible link with the virus and they may distort the findings. Here's a linky. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8298529.stm 87.115.68.252 ( talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more than a "possible" link, the story is based on this Science article, which is pretty compelling. This is a major development, and the story is going to be in flux for a while -- we'll just have to handle it as best we can. Looie496 ( talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no fringe theory. Viral or other physical causes of CFS have never been fringe theories. Psychiatric treatment being effective and an underlying cause being triggered by an infection, autoimmunity etc. are not incompatible, but the debate has been wrongly polarised into "All in the mind" vs "Proper illness". Fences& Windows 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

just mentioning that there have been additional extensive stories on this in major conventional medicine sources. The problem is going to be keeping it from being used as a vindication of all fringe theories whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the Cyrus cylinder as a supposed charter of human rights has come up yet again on the Human rights article (summary version: Iranian nationalists and political figures claim that the CC is the world's first "human rights charter"; historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic). This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder, where the usual suspects are demanding that it be included. Some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in full flow! Now also starring on ANI! Essentially this is an old piece of the Shah's propaganda that our modern-day Iranian patriots are attempting to revive at a completely offtopic article. Moreschi ( talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion, for the record, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. I have asked for intervention to block three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why people are always so eager to discuss this yet another time? All that can be said about it has been said several times over. It's 1970s propaganda, certainly notable in its own way, but anachronistic in any discussion of the Iron Age. -- dab (𒁳) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still going on and the three disruptive editors have been unblocked (regrettably, in my view). Some assistance would be appreciated; these people are nothing if not persistent. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe claims that staring at the sun is safe and can replace food and water continue to proliferate at sungazing. Outside input would again be welcome. Skinwalker ( talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were joking above. Having taken a look at the article, words fail me... -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, smells good. Who needs bacon for breakfast when you have hot, burning retinas? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The guru of sungazing, Hira Ratan Manek, has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of arc eye. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. Skinwalker ( talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess and there are some editors dedicated enough to inserting the fringe views I wasn't able to keep up on reverting the harmful misinformation. Thanks for the assist guys. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biggest POV-push is up for an RFC again. It only violates half-a-dozen core policies, though, so I'm sure no real changes will happen. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet merciful atheismo, how did this survive 3 AfDs?!?!? Simonm223 ( talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The POV-pushers show up en masse to the discussions and shut them down. For instance, the second one was non-admin closed within hours citing WP:SNOW. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There could conceivably be such an encyclopedical list - debatable though. But the above article is nothing like a real WP list. That reminds me to go back to List of basilicas in France, which is a real WP list. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can i ask out of interest what that particular POV is to you? (ie. what POV is the article supporting) For everyone i suggest reading through the AfD's (i just did again), and consider them, personally i think the first AfD should be enough, since it was the one with the most comprehensive argumentation. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I think is that the majority of Wikipedia articles Strongly lean toward the man-made global warming theory and tend to be dismissive toward the idea that there is any controversy on the subject. Even the Global Warming Controversy article has some of this and because it is a controversial subject and has a number of aggressive editors, even legitimate changes that weaken the argument for man-made global warming are left out of the article. The result is frustrated editors and the article in question. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggested at the last AfD that we should add information on the other unconventional views held by these scientists - for example, several denied that CFCs caused ozone thinning, and some believe in UFOs. They've got form on being contrarian. Information on their links to and payments from businesses would also be a useful addition. Fences& Windows 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the big hold ups for some editors is the quotes. Wikipedia does not endorse those quotes, and the article in question doesn't even use them as proof against the consensus... I fail to see POV in quotes when they are used specifically to show that those scientists hold the belief/opinion that global warming isn't real/man-made. What POV is being pushed besides that man-made global warming is fact (Which obviously the scientists in the list feel isn't the case)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that would be POV. The list as it stands does not in any way or form make a judgement as to whether the quotes in question are corresponding to a realistic scientific opposition or not. The quotes are not picked for ridicule (which your proposal would do), nor are they picked to laud a particular position. They are picked for one reason and one reason only: To document that the scientist in question does divert from the mainstream opinion on climate change. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The list is inherently a POV-push - it is the same as the "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" or "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" lists floating about the web. The aim is to give credibility to the fringe position. My suggestion was partly tongue-in-cheek, but isn't it interesting that Sallie Baliunas was also on the fringe over ozone depletion? Fences& Windows 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Even in an article on a minority or fringe viewpoint, shouldn't the majority viewpoint be adequately explained? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should - and my response to that would be the question: Isn't it? If the article hasn't changed much since i last looked: The title and the whole of the introduction (lede) is dedicated to this exact thing. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 02:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change is a tricky issue, especially here on Wikipedia since notability and public opinion have a more significant weight here than in a more traditional encyclopedia. The lead to the article explains what the article is and isn't and explains that the opinion of the scientists listed is outside that of mainstream science, I don't see a problem on that front. The bigger problem is that the article is mostly just a list of quotations.

Further, There are POV issues on pretty much all the Global Warming Articles, for instance Scientific opinion on climate change is carefully written to omit any real mention of dissenting opinions. Unidentified Flying Object actually gives more weight to pro-UFO theories than Global warming controversy gives to any controversies. If List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has survived 3 AFD attempts maybe it would be better to let it be. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual suspects are up to their tricks, trying to represent this rather dull out-growth of Christian theology as an evil occult conspiracy... Honestly I don't know why they bother. Anyway I have removed the offending WP:SYNTH but more eyes would be useful. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Worst creationist POV problems:

• describing a film by CMI as "unbiased movie about Darwin's voyage"
• Stating that it "has anti-Creationists ranting"

Other problems detailed at Talk:Creation Ministries International#Unsourced POV additions. The POV is so extreme that it even has one of the creationist editors there criticising it. I've reverted, but am now coming up against WP:3RR. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 05:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help. Awickert ( talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting a neutrality tag on the article as well as general issues (for unrelated matters) in hopes it can catch a little more attention and I'll post on the talk page there. The film section doesn't feel right to me either, and if you look at the article for it specifically it directly contradicts the information in this article. The vast majority or resources listed are self-publication or links to the organization's own website. That's all from the outside that can be done reasonably... I'll link this discussion here on the talk page, also, hoping for more opinions. Datheisen ( talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess I didn't do anything because things seemed to be under control every time I checked. But feel free to leave me a message if you (plural) do need a hand, Awickert ( talk) 08:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the list of signatories section. If nothing else, the academic backgrounds seems an argument from authority. Worse, in many cases, they're wrong: the list is well-known for misrepresenting the academic connections of the people on it, and it looks like at least some of it was copied from there. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, copied from where? Looie496 ( talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute's original listing. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was recently merged into A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism without any prior discussion. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 06:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's because I prodded it: It was an incomplete list, and the information was, at the very least, misleading. For instance, consider the qualification given for Berlinski. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 13:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I was never in favour of the list in the first place. This was originally a category, the category was CfDed twice, both times closed against consensus as 'Delete' by an activist Admin, the first time I had the deletion reversed on review -- lots of bitterness, wild accusations and a partisan block against me -- so I didn't bother the second time around. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 05:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

this is a classic case of attempting to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for ideological/religious propaganda. The entire thing belongs merged into Discovery Institute, as it is a propaganda stunt intended to be "controversially" covered in media beginning to end. It turns out that there is nothing "Scientific" about the document at all, and that it is never discussed, even by people pushing it, in terms of any "scientific" points that it makes, it is all about the list of signatories. Unsurprisingly so, seeing that the actual "petition" doesn't make any kind of point other than expressing skepticism towards "Darwinian theory", without specifying the nature of this skepticism, or any reasoning behind it. It's a propaganda stunt for the consumption of the popular media beginning to end. -- dab (𒁳) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this article's creator, it is " recreation of deleted article made necessary because of new incontrovertible, easily-checkable evidence on the ground in new book by Butler and Knight", presumably Megalithic geometry deleted at DRV. Whatever, it is certainly fringe and could use some attention to make it NPOV and well written. Dougweller ( talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just about anything written by Christopher Knight should be viewed with extreme skepticism. He is best known for writing "alternative history" (speculating that something might have occured in one chapter, and then building from that, acting as if the something is proven fact, in later chapters). Blueboar ( talk) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond me how you can use the internet to "check the facts" on prehistoric metrology. I was under the impression that the internet was developed in the 20th century, significantly after the megalithic age. It is also beyond me how people can waste their time writing books as obviously worthless as this. Well, it's probably more satisfying than just watching TV, but they could spend their time writing good fiction instead of bad science. -- dab (𒁳) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I cringe at anything that says "incontrovertible". That's like the ultimate red flag. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure where to begin with that article. It's full of wild speculation. The "incontrovertible evidence", as it turns out, is that anyone with the Google Earth software can confirm this ancient 366 geometry by looking at, of all places, modern Washington DC. [1] All of this is "incontrovertible evidence", by the way, "of the continuing existence and (secret) use of 366-degree geometry within modern Freemasonry". I'm not sure cleaning it up cuts it. Maybe remove most of the copy and merge it with the authors who have articles. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The six secret degrees of the circle are the hiding place of Cthulhu! Simonm223 ( talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin is with the merge discussion. Someone started it but only one vote so far. Of course people might be able to suggest other merge targets and other options. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the problem is that authors like Knight and Butler have very good publicists... so there stuff sells. Thus, we can not simply delete the article... it may be pseudoscientific rubbish but it is somewhat notable pseudoscientific rubbish. Merging works for me. Blueboar ( talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

why should we delete it? It's classic WP:FRINGE material. It's just, we already have an article on this, currently located at pseudoscientific metrology. Just redirect it. -- dab (𒁳) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Say it in the merge discussion, dab. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

seeing that I suggested the merge, I suppose that already counts as a vote. I don't think there is any argument against merging, the question is just, which parts should actually be merged, and which should just be dropped. -- dab (𒁳) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is solid support for merging... suggest that the discussion over what to merge take place at the target ( Pseudoscientific metrology) article. Blueboar ( talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Menzel, an early UFO skeptic, apparently had his theories rather readily refuted, at least if the criticism section in his biography is any indication. Mangoe ( talk) 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Started fixing criticism section. I can't believe that unreferenced hearsay evidence purportedly from Jacques Vallee's journal was included. This needs oversight. Rest of article still pending review. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the USAF report on mirages used to debunk Menzel may not actually exist; at least, searches in the Usual Places don't turn it up. Naturally there are hits at various UFOlogy sites. Looks like another case for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Mangoe ( talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call on that. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Peripheral to this James E. McDonald is weasel word central. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oy. That is just awful. Mangoe ( talk) 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} Tell me about it. And it's way too busy at work today for me to give it the attention it needs... short of just stubbing the page. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Having grazed across a swath of Ufologist bios, it looks as though there is an anti-skeptic cast to most of them. Sigh. Mangoe ( talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be a claim that the Emotional Freedom Technique has a scientific basis following a certain study on placebo analgesia. See edits [2], [3]. Would someone care to read the ref and confirm that it is WP:OR to mention it in these cases? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, DancingPhilosopher ( talk · contribs) is really excited by this new Science preprint. Unfortunately, there really isn't any need to hypothesize mystical energies in order to explain placebo effects in the spinal cord. I had already done a rewrite of the edits he made to placebo, and I've now reverted the changes to Emotional Freedom Technique, which were indeed pure OR. Looie496 ( talk) 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spam, advertising a 2008 book. We should also check out the merge target. Eknath Easwaran -- comes up with 74 google book hits, almost exclusively as author. Apparently next to no independent coverage, not even in bibliographies. Among the very rare instances of unrelated authors quoting Easwaran is Magic Power Language Symbol (2008), and The Aquarian conspiracy (1980). The only non-incidential coverage I can find is The making of a teacher: conversations with Eknath Easwaran (2006). However, this isn't independent, as it appeared with Nilgiri Press as the rest of Easwaran's books. Notability not established. -- dab (𒁳) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says that his translations are critically acclaimed and certainly they are selling well. 50 titles available on Amazon. So I would like to hang on until we can find out if there was indeed praise for the translations. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nilgiri Press is run by Easwaran's own "Blue Mountain Center of Meditation". This is essentially self-published literature. Without reviews from notable independent sources this stuff has no place on Wikipedia. here we have some "critical acclaim" (listed without any publication details). Perhaps some of it can be used. "Critics" listed include Henri Nouwen, author of The Inner Voice of Love – Huston Smith, author of The World’s Religions – Wilson Library Bulletin – Yoga Journal – NAPRA ReView – Library Journal – Wisconsin Bookwatch – Spiritual Life – “Book Bag,” Marilis Hornidge, The Courier-Gazette – The Hindu – Holistic Health & Medicine – Cosmos – The San Diego Union – The Book Reader – Book News Previews, Burton Frye.

I tagged the Eknath Easwaran article, but this does not mean that I think it should be deleted. This just means that the current revision lacks sources establishing notability. It should remain tagged (not deleted) until such sources are added. The Passage Meditation article, however, can just be merged into the Easwaran one. -- dab (𒁳) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I don't think we're looking for any particularly serious or scholarly reviews, just an independent indication that he is a major author/translator in the "spiritually uplifting" genre. After all, we have quite comprehensive coverage of romantic fiction, read in similar quantities and for similar purposes. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

of course. Any independent verification of the claim that 100k copies of the book were sold should be sufficient. -- dab (𒁳) 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns that some refs may be misrepresented by some editors at this article. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have this under control. There is some WP:COI, but the editor is being collaborative about it. -- dab (𒁳) 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag as I think recent editing is problematic and the article is still a mess. Please review, and offer opinions on the talk page. Verbal chat 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just run into a user adding links to a "cart ruts" site which is part of an Electric Universe site [4] - rings a bell and clearly fringe, but I'm off to bed now. See [5] for the articles with the links. Some serious stuff on these ruts is at [6] and [7] and there's an article in Antiquity Magazine but I don't have access. Dougweller ( talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to enlarge, the 'Electric Universe' concept is the brainchild of David Talbot taken up by Wallace Thornhill and is inspired by Velikovsky. [8]. Dougweller ( talk) 06:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid directing people keen on inserting fringe anywhere and everywhere to build a Frankenstein, the 'Electric Universe' is the two T Talbott. The one L lama is David Talbot, founder of Salon.com. Hatchetfish ( talk) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned above. Now in AfD. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much fringe as fan-cruft for a few hard sci-fi stories but still agree that it should probably go. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus thing isn't hard sci-fi. Maybe fantasy... --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL True enough. Regardless, with the exception of the Jesus one-liner this isn't a fringe matter but it is an appropriate AfD matter. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The deluxe model comes with a free tin-foil hat.    pablo _hablo. 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So far Icke has not been mentioned on this article. Let's hope it stays that way Pablomismo. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't tempt me!    pablo _hablo. 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE In a clear abuse of process this article has been recreated with the name Human disguise despite the recent AfD being a clear delete. The article is worse than it was before, and has been sent to AfD again - which doesn't link correctly to the previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just been accused of vandalism for requestion reliable sources for unsourced sections and paragraphs, and WP:BRD is just being ignored. Verbal chat 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I just posted a comment on the talk page. The entry is a mess of editorial synthesis and you are right to request sourcing. Of course I doubt there is any, which is why you are getting push back. Interestingly I've found several uses of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on Homer and Euripides. If an encycopedic entry can be built around such a concept it would have to be done from scratch. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently some abstracted version of the Hebrew Bible is OK to use as a source -- [9]. PelleSmith ( talk) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing. I don't think it is, as this section already existed so I added relevant information that it had been renamed and a new AfD had opened. Verbal chat 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion guidelines, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, state:

“

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant. Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

”

The closing administrator seems unaware of those rules. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is forum shopping, isn't it? Fences& Windows 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or canvassing, yes. A neutral announcement that a fringe-related article was at DRV would have been ok but an opinionated posting such as this one is inappropriate. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

After nearly 30 monthss of people expressing serious doubt about the validity of the article but not doing anything about it, I have reverted the article back to the February 2007 version.— Kww( talk) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing major, but another rather amusing floating IP pushing the bizarre theory that various Indian languages are connected to Finno-Ugric: this proves, apparently, that the PIE urheimat is to be located in Scandinavia, and that "the Nazis were right after all". See contributions. Moreschi ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocates to Finland. I can't recall ever having seen a Scandinavian nationaist take on this issue before. Something of a first, eh? Moreschi ( talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally a nationalist crank who is not from the Balkans, the Near East or India! My faith in humanity is restored :op -- dab (𒁳) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've forgotten the Netherlands... Moreschi ( talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean British Isles vs. " the Celtic archipelago that shall not be named". But that's not crankery, that's just whimpitude of the "how dare you hurt our extremely tender sentiments you imperialist" kind. Actually, I meant this debate. Wrong again, you Swiss person, you. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ah, now I would just love getting my hands on a Swiss nationalist crank, that would pay for all the Indian and Persian soap opera. They exist, but thankfully for all RL purposes they are very rare. -- dab (𒁳) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands have produced at least one Wikipedian with a nationalism of the decidedly cranky kind, but that's a case resolved two years ago, with no sock armies come back to haunt us.

however, I sadly have the impression that our "Finnish" crank is in fact a Haryana expat. No Finn out to prove a "Finno-Ugric-Aryan" relation would pick Haryanvi in particular for the 'astonished fact' that 'the Nazis were right all along'. -- dab (𒁳) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Finland is nordic. Finland is not Scandinavian. Ditto for Iceland. - Hordaland ( talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. In the English speaking world the two are virtually indistinguishable in every area from travel/tourism books to the academy. If this were, for instance, the Swedish language Wiki then you would still be correct to distinguish between the two, but when we're talking about a part of the world in which Scandinavian studies includes the study of Finland and Iceland this distinction is pointless. PelleSmith ( talk) 04:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. It's not simple for outsiders. Linguistically the Nordic countries originally shared a common language, which has gradually drifted apart into the closely related languages spoken in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. They are essentially "cousins". Finland has a totally different language and its peoples aren't related in any manner to the others. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty well known internationally that Finland is different. But people who don't speak a language from the Scandinavian family usually have no need to refer to the area defined by this common language. The Germans for example tend to use Scandinavia as a fuzzy term for the Scandinavian peninsula, often but not always without including Denmark, and sometimes excluding Finland. I think we also use "Scandinavian" as a kind of euphemism for Nordic occasionally, since the Nazis' enthusiasm for Nordic culture makes many modern Germans reluctant to refer to it. (This may sound ridiculous to you, but see Lebensborn and no:Krigsbarn.) Hans Adler 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Linguistically the Nordic languages are closely related to both German and English. If one goes back far enough, they probably weren't all that different. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The cultural and political history of the Nordic countries also ties them all together in a way that other nations outside of Scandinavia are not -- and that includes Finland (even if for historical reasons that Finns aren't particularly excited about) and certainly Iceland (which was settled by Norwegians). Consider also separately when distinguishing between Norwegian/Danish/Swedish and Finnish based upon ethno-linguistic considerations that the Sámi did and still do inhabit areas that overlap the current geo-political borders of Sweden, Norway and Finland -- see Sápmi (area). So ethno-linguistically there are in fact native peoples of all three of those nation-states who are very closely related. Of course it is also true that ethnic and cultural exchange has occured throughout Nordic history between all of the region's inhabitants, to come full circle here. If you ask me it is only a matter of time that the term Scandinavia becomes synonymous with the Nordic countries completely, even among Scandinavians. I think our entry on Scandinavia, is in fact overly cautious in this matter, and this is the English language Wikipedia after all. As I stated before both in the academy and in mass culture, English speakers understand the region to include all of the Nordic countries. PelleSmith ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stumbled across the article on Dowsing. I don't have time to go in depth here, but a cursory overview shows that sources are being interpreted in their most positive light possible (or outright misinterpreted) in favor of the scientific accuracy of dowsing. For instance, here the article stated "dowsing may be ineffective at finding unmarked human burials," when in fact the author of the source stated that dowsing was at best ineffective and at worst harmful to proper cemetery mapping. Attention would be appreciated. // Chris ^{(complaints)• (contribs)} 15:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... definitely tilted towards the "Dowsing is legitimate" view point. The red flag is that there is a no section on "criticisms". Blueboar ( talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It does certainly need an... overhaul? Kudos on the quality. Ironically, despite nearly half the argument being left out, it's still far from flattering with general fallacies in a number of places. I'll admit the lead is sneaky; gives a worthy source and states how science has explained it, but doesn't close the idea that it could still be inexplicable in some people. The things that aren't sourced look to be rather deliberately left that way, with how clever all the other wording is. I'm also not particularly sure how well we should take the list of "Dowsers" in the article. It would arguably be considered defamation to some, and only half of those other articles make any mention of Dowsing whatsoever. Even when mentioned it's never really demonstrated. No primary or secondary resources to back up a statement made in a wikilink trying to weakly canvass a fringe POV article? Man. This editor is good. Unfortunately, even if what can be figured out is all cleaned up, we're running into the increasingly-annoying subscription wall that means it'll be practically impossible to see the actual context. Could be fun to pick apart... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised considering the number of well-known pushers of fringe POV in the edit history. Some of them are extremely devious and very experienced at wikilawyering. -- Brangifer ( talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has any knowledge of this person could they help with the article, which except for a few things is basically based on his website(s). Dougweller ( talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

background: I recently blocked Skipsievert ( talk · contribs) indefinitely for continued disruptive POV-pushing. The essential background to Skip's edits appear to have been a technocratic POV. This covers a wide range of articles, some of which look to be covered by WP:FRINGE: see Technocracy Incorporated, Technate, energy accounting, thermoeconomics, Economics and energy, and probably quite a lot more if you have the energy to dig through his contributions. There appear to have been many others now redirected into the Technocracy Incorporated article. This could use some work from someone with more interest and knowledge than I have, in collaboration with WP:ECON, whose members are highly relieved that Skip has left the building. Moreschi ( talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

wow. I wasn't aware that there is an entire crackpot movement surrounding the notion of "technocracy". -- dab (𒁳) 09:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Softvision ( talk · contribs) seems to be trying to argue for certain aspects of General Relativity to be incorrect. Could someone take a look as his recent contributions and figure out the best way to explain to him what the problem is with the way he's trying to work with the encyclopedia? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect to accomplish by bringing this here? Multiple editors at the talk pages in question have already said that the behavior is disruptive. Will it be helpful for participants in this noticeboard to say the same thing? If the disruption continues, just take the appropriate action, please. Looie496 ( talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This article, which I just discovered because its main author tried to add related material to one of the articles I watch, is nothing but nonsense. It appears to be based on the ideas of somebody named G.A. Kouzaev, with all the important sources taken from obscure publications. For all the sense this article makes, it could just as well be a hoax, though I doubt that it is. I am inclined to remove all of the incomprehensible sentences, but it doesn't seem like there would be anything left -- I wonder what others think? Looie496 ( talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article looks very dubious to me. The lead is content free. It's conceivable that some theoretical considerations have used topological concepts in relation to quantum computers (which themselves are only dreams atm), so I'm not going to declare "hoax", but it's a good possibility. I wonder if a question at WT:WikiProject Physics would help. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a solid IEEE Spectrum hit on it (see here) so it is probably legit in some sense, but it obviously needs review from an expert. Mangoe ( talk) 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The theory doesn't seem blatantly illegitimate (just a bit suspicious about "brain"), but the grammar and citation formatting are wretched, and poor English skills can't excuse the bad citing. Give it a while to let the editor do hir own cleanup, then push. A quantum-savvy and Russian-capable mentor might be handy here. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

the topic is potentially valid. However, it has nothing to do with quantum computing. I understand that it is a hypothetical method of employing certain features of Classical Electrodymamics for computation that never really went anywhere. The--just as hypothetical--extension to quantum computing is discussed at Topological quantum computer. -- dab (𒁳) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Topological quantum computer is at least capably written and formatted. I've added "See also" sections to both articles, pointing them at each other, in the (probably futile) hope they'll cooperate and both articles will improve, rather than the links merely disappearing. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that these are actually different topics. Mangoe ( talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

They do heavily overlap, but are not strictly identical. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much overlap at all. I confess myself ignorant of braid theory, but if the topological features of anyons map in any significant ways to the topology of the Maxwell equations, the fact isn't exactly established by either article.

Whoever wrote Topological computing clearly didn't have the first clue what they were on about. Also, "spatio-time" isn't a word. Space-time is, and spatio-temporal its pertaining adjective, but the author back-formed a "spatio-time" from that. -- dab (𒁳) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ESL at work there, I think. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Those following their supposed migrations (to Greece, Sri Lanka, Cambodia...), might like to participate in the merge discussion I have started on whether Kamboja-Pala Dynasty of Bengal should be merged with Pala Empire. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor is edit-warring to insert the unrebutted YEC 'belief' "that radioactive decay rates are not constant and thus [YECs] challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods" into Young Earth creationism. I have suggested that this requires mainstream scientific context for inclusion, per WP:FRINGE. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some more editors add this article to their watchlist, and if interested, help source and de-fringe it ? I have been reverting the more egregious edits from probable sock accounts, but the article can use more help to make it encyclopdic and even establish notability. Abecedare ( talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The only person who says that the Iron Pillar of Delhi couldn't have been made is that racist, lying hack of a fiction-disguised-as-fact author Erich von Däniken. I have changed accordingly. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there a sentence in the article that is not "fiction-disguised-as-fact" ? :-) Abecedare ( talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Von Daniken holds a special loathing in my heart because of the underlying racism of his premise that any ancient non-europeans must have had alien help to do anything lasting. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Tenth Doctor (and Martha Jones) episode " Daleks in Manhattan", aliens helped design the Empire State Building, so.... oh, hey, wait a minute, that's "non-Europeans" too, isn't it? Why don't we see aliens working on the Houses of Parliament, or the Eiffel Tower? Well, okay, it's been suggested that Stonehenge was an alien landing circle! ( Keith Laumer, 1962, A Trace of Memory.) — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

excellent find! this links to a wealth of WP:FRINGE articles that had so far escaped my radar, Talbot Mundy, Louis Pauwels, Jacques Bergier, Le Matin des magiciens, Fantastic realism (literature), Planète (review), etc. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Dab and Simonm223. I must say that I had some affection for the pre-encyclopedic version, which was so over-the-top, it was hilarious. Guess, we are better off with the sober version though. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 15:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Other (less direct) connections: Andrija Puharich, Uri Geller, Stuart Holroyd etc. Perhaps it is all connected. Abecedare ( talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brilliant! This reads like someone decided to create the ultimate conspiracy theory, the compendium of all the conspiracy theories ever, and put it on Wikipedia. Extraordinary, and superbly entertaining. On a more serious note, it looks like the extensive cruft built up around Pauwels and Bergier could use some serious cutting and merging. Moreschi ( talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no blasphemy strong enough to describe such a perfectly bad Wikipedia article. It's not only the ultimate conspiracy it's also the ultimate in how not to write a wikipedia article. Weasel words, un-sourced statements, directories of loosely connected people, fancruft, pov stuff, it's got it all! If there is a hall of fame for bad article versions this should be on it. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You ain't seen nothing yet. Start there and keep scrolling down. Moreschi ( talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Eeek! Simonm223 ( talk) 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the sad duty to announce the tragic demise of The Nine Unknown Men: they have gone from this to this; and from links with Ashoka, Jesus, Louis Pasteur, Buddha, Nazis, Theosophists, Popes, Extra-terrestrials etc to 1920's fantasy fiction and 1960's counter-culture. What a sorry letdown. Abecedare ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

that's why the pseudoscience people hate the rationalists so much. Their own world is just so much more exciting. So many scenarios too beautiful not to be true have been destroyed and thrown into the mud by mere puny "facts". I ask you, would you be pleased if you sat in a cinema to enjoy the full splendour of a 3D movie with 22.2 surround sound to have some pathetic little man rip off your goggles and jump up and down in front of the screen shouting "it's all a lie, an illusion I tell you!" Of course you wouldn't, you would complain to the management and ask them to throw him out. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an active fantasy life. I write it down and call it "fiction books". Simonm223 ( talk) 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I laughed uproariously at this. Of course, it's so true. And indeed escapist fantasy is perfectly harmless, but to spend your whole life "plugged in" (a la the Matrix) is to miss out on something rather wonderful and fulfilling. It is outstanding how many intelligent minds are trapped in the sub-Marxist sludge of a previous era that really is terribly dated by now (and of course, useful as such fantasy may be to some, it has no place in an encyclopedia). The main theme seems to be the obsession with conflict: the so-called "repression" of AltMed by those damned scientists, or the repression of the Afrocentric truth by those Eurocentric academics - the inability to see that debates, disputes and humanity in general is not all one big zero-sum game. Moreschi ( talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, The old versios is CLASSIC! Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I love the claim that Jews are really Hindus, but don't know it. That makes everything so clear! Abecedare ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should institute an ' Emperor Norton Museum of Gloriously Eccentric Article Versions' ( WP:NORTON for short), linking to the most baroquely fantastical versions of articles. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

an excellent idea, sir! This would be a worthy sequel to WP:BJAODN and at the same time a showcase of the work done by this noticeboard. -- dab (𒁳) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Social Credit is a syncretic political/economic theory-of-everything developed by a British engineer in the 1920s, and historically very important in Canada, where it somehow managed to influence both the right- and left-wing parties that are still around today. It's some kind of combination of monetary crankiness, extremist populism, bankers poisoning our water and what have you. Anyway, the Wikipedia article about it is full of glowing exposition of the absurd doctrines, and not much else. EvanHarper ( talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article describes Douglas's social credit theories and philosophy at length, but that is reasonable, as it is obviously a notable subject - I don't see undue weight here. The article is extensively sourced, and seems factual and balanced, with a critique of Douglas's economics and a section on his possible anti-Semitism. I do not see why this article should be flagged on this noticeboard. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article's not very strong on the criticism, and since the balance of opinion about this movement is pretty heavily weighted to the disfavourable side, some work is called for. Perhaps tag for an expert in economics? And seek out reliable sources that criticise the ideas: economics textbooks, histories of social thought in the first half of the 20th century. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone watching this page? Among other things, it looks like it may be becoming a coatrack and an advert for various perpetual motion enthusiasts. Of particular concern are sentences like this:

A new and rather simple device is shown here.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Magnet_Motor_by_FM_Concepts

Somebody should go through and remove the stuff that is only referenced to promotional websites, for example. Also a lot of the criticism is unsourced probably because no one has bothered to comment on the ideas. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE need to be applied heavily to the article.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that perpetual motion is a self-referential topic. It just never stops, does it? *sigh* — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL Simonm223 ( talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this has been a constant problem on the article. The problem is that some examples might be desirable, but maybe we should just say "enough is enough" and take them all out. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frak, it seems like just last week I was cleaning out all the peswiki links. Does anybody have an opinion on adding it to the blacklist? More importantly, does anybody have a better suggestion than maintaining a personal suspicious links file (some domains are occasionally WP:EL and/or not spammed often enough to be blacklisted, but are still always worth checking) and pasting into Special:Linksearch periodically? - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You could suggest the addition of suspect links at User:XLinkBot. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Anno Domini 2009 there are people who seriously advertise perpetual motion devices. You found Noah's Ark? Atlantis? The Holy Grail? The Abominable Snowman? Evidence of Neolithic nuclear techonology? Ancient Vedic UFOs? No problem, welcome to Wikipedia, pray write an article about it. But people who come here to tell us they disproved the 2nd Law of TD? That must really be as low as it gets. -- dab (𒁳) 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, dab, no, dab, this is actually a very hopeful sign: as noted above, the one unfailing example of perpetual motion is in fact the field of perpetual motion design, or at least its designers, so if only we could harness their (the designers' own) energy, we might be able to solve this generation's energy problems! .... I had in mind something like chaining them to treadmills or bicycle generators, but I'm open to other ideas.... — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why we are listing all of Mills' publications in Fringe Journals (e.g. Physics Essays)? This would seem to contravene WP:SOAP, WP:COAT, and WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just take it out and say "he has also published in non-academic sources such as ...". Is this company notable? I'm not seeing anything in the lede that indicates notability. If it is notable, the article could do with some severe editing down. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The company is definitely notable as one of those things that comes up when in cold fusion and free (not as in Gibbs) energy discussions. Based on a couple conversations over the years, I would say about a third of my physics department has heard of hydrinos. It also got a decent write up in Bob Park's Voodoo Science. I suspect that the full paper list is left over from when the article was about Mills rather than his company; if I recall correctly, BLP, Inc. has their own copy of that list, so we could just link to that and forget about trying to maintain a mirror here. Really, this whole article needs to be shortened to focus on the bits that have received outside notice, per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent sources; and no, press releases are not independent sources. Like many fringe topics, there is a lot of material that has not received outside notice, which is at least a warning sign that WP:WEIGHT is being violated. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about AfD and wanted a second opinion first. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article certainly needs renaming, cleanup and trimming, but what would be your precise reasons for nominating it at AfD ? Gandalf61 ( talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell she's a one-line mention in the article on the protocols WRT their American publication. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason for AfDing: apparent complete lack of reliable sources (other than the LoC bibliotrivia -- all the rest look highly suspect). If anybody nominates it, I'd be more than happy to support. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support deletion but would support stubbing down to what is in the Jeansonne book, which is RS and does portray the article subject as having had a non-negligible role in right-wing politics. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree... cleaning up the article is the best route to go. It can always be nominated later if it turns out that there is nothing to support notability. Blueboar ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My justification was lack of RSes. I mean there is a website that has a major article claiming that Barak and Michelle Obama are reptoid alien hybrids being referenced in that article. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you see, if we could just get Human disguise undeleted, we could add pix of Barak and Michelle to it.... — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See my latest comments there. I stand by that Wikipedia is not a place for lists of fancruft but a new article based on the Campbell book would pass muster for me. (Of course that would have little to do with Men in Black (movie) Simonm223 ( talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The weird stuff is all from 72.76.154.163. Ludvikus' version is free of it all. A reversion to the pre 72.76.154.163 text but retaining some of the uncontroversial biographical detail could be a way to go. Paul B ( talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic User:Ludvikus production. Ludvikus, now indefinitely banned, was obsessed with the Protocols of Zion and wanted to create separate articles on every individual who ever edited it and every separate edition of it. Many of these have been deleted or merged. This one seems to have been taken over by a fan of Fry. Paul B ( talk) 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In a way, this is heartbreaking. The human capacity for obsession with obscure details has led to, well, so much wasted time and so many wasted lives or deaths in dusty garrets, but also to so many glorious discoveries in research. Here an old beader, there a Venerable Bede; here a pea-pod-counter, there a Gregor Mendel. You never know. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The human capacity for obsession with obscure details has led to ... Wikipedia! Frankly, Ludvikus or no Ludvikus, I find this stuff interesting. Paul's cleaned up version is reasonable. If it can be merged somewhere, merge it, otherwise clean it up and let it stick around. -- dab (𒁳) 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab, in none of our policies or guidelines do we mention being "interesting" as a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. Let's face it, one person's "interesting topic" is often another person's "unencyclopedic crap". That said, I have not looked at the article to see if it passes the all of the criteria we do have (Notable, verifiable and supported by reliable sources, neutrally written, no OR, etc.) ... so I make no further comment. Blueboar ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ustadbarman ( talk · contribs) at P.N. Oak. And yes, I know we've been here before, but people need to keep their eyes peeled. Cheers, Moreschi ( talk) 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-Hindutva at best, in this case. It is always good for comic relief to see these self-styled defenders of Hinduism fail utterly in Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hinduism. [10] -- dab (𒁳) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have kept the deathbed conversion story in check, but now the John Gano conversion story is making another attempt on George Washington and religion. It's not clear exactly where this story comes from, but it was given prominence by a Time story in the 1930s. The version in John Gano admits that it is unlikely to be true; the GW version doesn't. This in particular needs some other sources beyond Franklin Steiner and a rebuttal article which is unreachable at the moment. Mangoe ( talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly the current John Gano article presents GW's baptist conversion as fact. Paul B ( talk) 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't... given that the story is not repeated by any modern historians, I take it as an extraordinary claim... which would require extraordinary sources... and I would not call an article from Time Magazine (dating to the 1930s) reporting third hand claims by Gano's descendants an extraordinary source. The entire thing has been cut. Blueboar ( talk) 03:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to refer to the story, since it was clearly a legend linked to Gano's name. And if it's not mentioned, then it will only be re-added. The external links include some useful material, especially as the original Time story is rebutted in letters from experts a few days later. Paul B ( talk) 12:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've fixed the links to the original Time article and to the rebuttals. Paul B ( talk) 12:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could mention the story in the Gano article, as long as it is made clear that it is a legend ... but if we do mention it, we should also mention that no serious historian gives it any creadence... That Rupert Hughes, in his three volume biography of Washington, explicitly debunks the story (by showing that Gano was not even at Valley Forge at the time). I would also point out that James Tallmadge Benedict, Gano's great-grandson, researched the story and categorically denied that it happened... see: here.

I definitely do not think it is "reasonable" to mention it in the George Washington and religion article. Blueboar ( talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, the material is probably relevant for the Gano article, and could be included there with the qualification that it is largely discredited. A link to the Gano article in the "See also" section of the GWAR article, but that would be as far as I would go. John Carter ( talk) 17:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just ran into this whilst looking at an edit at our Nommo article (someone changed 'failed to confirm' to 'failed to conclusively refute'. Can anyone take a look at the criticism section? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It reads as if it were cut and pasted from some sort of orgainizational document (OTO?)... and seems to be a premptive statement (essintially saying: "any criticism is irrelevant, as we are dealing with belief and not scientific fact here".) It certainly isn't what I would expect in a criticisms section (I would expect an attributed summary of what various critics say)... although it might be included as a "rebuttal statement", included after a discussion of various criticisms). Blueboar ( talk) 14:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The section on 'Arnold Krumm-Heller' also bears scrutiny:

After the Zimmerman Telegram and former British MI-6 agent Crowley's role in the sinking of the Lusitania, who was carrying L. Ron Hubbard's uncle, the United States went to war and Krumm Heller's book Für Freiheit und Recht was published in Germany with the kaiser's blessings[9] but it would not be until 1946, that the novel Rose-Cross containing the secret of Sex Magic would be published in Argentina. Krumm-Heller confessed he would have to use the official language of the Roman Catholic priesthood for the public at large, he knew, were not ready for the new dispensation and so he wrote: "...Inmissio membri virilis in vaginam sine ejaculatio seminis."[10]

I can find no evidence in the cited source of MI6, Crowley, the Lusitania or Hubbard (let alone his uncle). This is also one of the more incoherent conspiracy theories I've come across. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk^{( P)} 17:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. Elbert Hubbard did die on the Lusitania, but I'm not sure that there is any evidence to support a linkage of Crowley and the loss of that ship. John Carter ( talk) 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Krumm-Heller material, along with the section on Eliphaz Levy, were both added on August 20 by JDPhD ( talk · contribs), and both appear to misrepresent their sources, so I have removed the added stuff. Looie496 ( talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another world-shaking conspiracy successfully covered up. Well done, Agent Looie496! Kp-K4. Fnord. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Race and Intelligence constitutes a fringe topic. It is certainly controversial, and some of the science in this area is bad, but is there a consensus for the whole area being fringe? 213.48.162.17 ( talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely call it Fringe. However, it was an issue that seriously debated in history (and continues to get some play amoung racists groups today) and so it is also a fairly notable concept ... and as such it is a topic worthy of an article (if only to debunk the various theories). 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not fringe. It's currently discussed in leading scientific journals by respected scholars (for example, see this series from early 2009 in the journal Nature: doi: 10.1038/457786a, doi: 10.1038/457788a, [11]). --06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The original poster here seems to be A.K.Nole/Quotient group/213.48.162.2/213.48.162.4/213.48.162.12, a sockpuppeteer and wikistalker. Only a small group of academics work in this area and their work has been criticized by mainstream experimental psychologists (e.g. Nicholas Mackintosh), anthropologists and geneticists. So, yes, it is a fringe area. A short orchestrated debate in Nature does not show that the subject is studied by a sizeable number of academics. Mathsci ( talk) 08:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fringe isn't exactly the same as pseudoscience. I would say it's something on the fringe of science, between science and pseudoscience, although the term is sometimes also used to include unquestionable pseudoscience. I would say for internal Wikipedia purposes a topic falls under WP:FRINGE if the public discourse primarily has the characteristics of a pseudoscience discourse, i.e. it is strongly polarised between believers and non-believers in a certain theory or idea, most publications are by cranks and pseudoscientists rather than proper scientists, etc. (Perhaps this is a better definition than the one we have in WP:FRINGE, which uses the words "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study".) Under these criteria race and intelligence may be a borderline case, but I think WP:FRINGE applies more likely than not. Keep in mind that the purpose of WP:FRINGE is to deal with a certain kind of discourse on- and off-wiki, so it should apply to those pages where this kind of discourse plays an important role. Hans Adler 08:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, do you consider the American Psychological Association to be "fringe"? They've published a few reports on this topic, the best-known being this one.

The APA is one of the largest psychological organizations in the United States. I think it's pretty clear that this agency does not fit the definition of WP:FRINGE. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 08:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Captain, the article is called "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and is about what we do and don't know about intelligence. You'll notice that they even use "ethnic groups" and "ethnic differences" and even say we avoid the term "race". So, it is careful not to frame the article as a piece on "race and intelligence". This is consistent with a view of the topic of "race and intelligence" being at least borderline.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, then it's about ethnicity and intelligence, which our article states that it covers also. The ethnic groups discussed in that paper--Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans--are the same as those discussed by people who view this topic in terms of "race", and they're also defined in the same way. (By self-identification.) To claim that the APA's reports about this are irrelevant to the topic of race and intelligence is to confuse a difference in terminology (and nothing else, really) with a difference in topic.

Addressing Hans' comment about one characteristic of fringe topics being that most of the publications are from cranks, the central debate over genetic vs. environmental influence has been between James Flynn and Arthur Jensen, both of whom are considered eminent psychologists, and two of the world's leading experts on intelligence. Some of the discoveries that were made as a direct result of their research on race and intelligence (such as the Flynn Effect) are now discussed in textbooks used by most college courses on quantitative psychology, even those that don't discuss the topic of race. This is certainly a very strange definition of WP:FRINGE you're using here, Ramdrake. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 09:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the title per se is what's under examination but rather the content. The Nature editors use the terms "race-linked" and "intelligence" (as do many and various other academic publications), so that seems to rise above the fringe threshold. Also, nothing in the Neisser et al work hints at a fringe classification for discussion of difference in test score performance between groups they call "white", "African American", and so on. Consider this quote from a recent book: "Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups (Nisbett, 2009, p. 94)." Professor Richard E. Nisbett is a respected psychologist. (A review of that book from which I copied that quote is here doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.015). From this I don't see how the classification of fringe could fit the overall topic or the major subtopics. -- DJ ( talk) 09:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being discussed here. "Race and intelligence" is both notable and a subject of legitimate scientific disagreement. "Race and intelligence" is not a theory per se, and therefore does not represent an inherent departure "from the prevailing or mainstream view". That a relative minority of scientists engage in this particular field of study is not a cause for concern, as the same could be said of many other areas of research. So, why are we here, exactly? -- Aryaman (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, it does not matter whether "Race and Intelligence" is considered a Fringe topic or not... the topic is notable enough that we should have an article on it. I think some people think that this guideline says that we should not have articles on Fringe topics... but it doesn't. It discusses which Fringe topics should have articles, and gives advice on how to write them. This topic clearly falls into the "should have an article" category. Blueboar ( talk) 15:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The original poster hasn't backed up his argument. Up until now there has been no hint of any discussion about the existence of the article from any editor at all. Suggesting otherwise is probably a misuse of this noticeboard. If A.K.Nole/Quotient group and their Bristol IPs continue with this kind of silly misleading and time-wasting post, someone might eventually file an SPI report and their editing on WP curtailed.

Race and intelligence is a topic where a small coterie of psychologists or retired psychologists, such as Jensen, Rushton and Lynn, - some linked with the Pioneer Fund and American Renaissance (magazine) - have attempted to use data from intelligence tests to make assertions about race and genetics, thus straying into the areas of anthropology, sociology and biology. Public policy makers in the US have listened to some of them (eg Linda Gottfredson), echoing the use of intelligence tests in the US on army conscripts in the first half of the 20th century. However, the conclusions of this group have been placed in doubt by mainstream academics and experts in psychometrics, who have criticized their manipulation and selective use of data and their flawed scientific methodology. I don't really see the purpose of discussing these matters here, fringe or not. Clearly a controversial topic, in the public eye in the US (because of the policy of affirmative action), studied very little in academia. Mathsci ( talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article itself may or may not have other issues and other policy violations (I have not looked at it in that light), but it is clear that as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned, we don't need to discuss it further. Blueboar ( talk) 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That answers the original question then. The claim had been made on a user talk page that Race and Intelligence was a "fringe topic" and a controversial article "that can never be encyclopedic", and argument was getting sidetracked, so we moved here as a more appropriate venue for discussion and clarification. The consensus appears to be that those claims were both incorrect, which helps us all to get back to improving the article. Thanks to those who participated. 213.48.162.5 ( talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A.K.Nole/Quotient group/213.48.162.* continues to troll on this noticeboard with silly remarks and is best ignored. His wikistalking career will not last a lot longer I think. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quotient group. Mathsci ( talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic hit the news 15 years back with a fringe-theory work titled The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles A. Murray, promptly exposed as funded by the racist right wing, and debunked by other books, e.g. The Bell Curve Debate and The Bell Curve Wars. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic once again hit the news 15 years back with a work titled The Bell Curve which the media promptly labeled "fringe". That the media has a notoriously bad track record in reporting on this subject was already documented in the 1987 study by Snyderman & Rothman Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing. The poor-quality reporting on the actual findings of intelligence research and academic consensus in the media prompted an article to be authored titled Mainstream Science on Intelligence which was cosigned by 52 university professors specializing in related fields. As this was not sufficient in improving the situation, the APA commissioned an 11-person task force with the job of composing a progress report on the state of intelligence research at that time. The product was Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. None of this, however, has halted the media in portraying anything other than the 100% environmental thesis as "racist fringe cruft". Quel surprise. But is Wikipedia just another media outlet? I'd like to believe it's not. -- Aryaman (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the topic per se is fringe. It is surrounded by a lot of ideologized fringe claims, to be sure, but that's just a matter of sticking to RS. Also, it needs to be made clear that this is an US topic. "Race" here is shorthand for Race in the US. Same as with Race and crime in the United States, the topic might profit from a move to an unambiguous title. -- dab (𒁳) 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

«fringe» — (1) "Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race"; (2) "The Return of Determinism? The Pseudoscience of the Bell Curve". The Mankind Quarterly crew certainly wants to spread their ideas across Western Civilization, and was previously based in Scotland. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with dab on this one: the topic isn't really fringe, but one of the positions really seems to be going contrary to mainstream thought and be in the fringe department, as some of the following refs demonstrate: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. This last one is more specific to Pioneer Fund-related research: [20].-- Ramdrake ( talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably is fringe within the wide definition used in this board. In the helpful classification the ArbComm laid down, it could count as "questionable science" (with psychoanalysis being a parallel). I questioned whether it is possible at all to make a neutral article on this title and would be interested in any proposals to rename. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote "The Return of Determinism? The Pseudoscience of the Bell Curve": "A large number of magazines and papers have covered the authors' claims, and have perhaps unintentionally legitimized the topic in rational discussion." If Wikipedia "neutrally" does the same, well. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a re-name might well be helpful... perhaps: Examinations into Race and Intelligence, which might shift the focus of the article to a more historically oriented outlook (ie the topic would be more the history of how the understanding and attitudes regarding the topic have changed through the years, and less the validity of those understandings and attitudes). Blueboar ( talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a re-name at all. "Race" is the hot button. "Ethnicity" was mentioned above as an alternative. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm "Ethnicity and Intelligence" seems just as contentious to me. I can just see the ethnic nationalists piling on the article. Ugh! -- Ramdrake ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, that would be where the "Polish joke" came from". — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those ideas sound good. However, something might be gained by moving this discussion back to the article's talk page.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, Race and intelligence in the United States. You cannot call it "ethnicity and intelligence" when the debate is explicitly in terms of "race (US notions of) and intelligence". I have yet to see a study where "race" is not used as "the rough demographic division of US population". You have to distinguish the rather well-defined notion of "race" within the US with the much more fuzzy notion of "race" if you attempt to apply it worldwide.

I do not accept this topic as "pseudoscience" just because of a source embraced by Sizzle_Flambé says "pseudoscience". There is pseudoscience (as in, Civilization One) and there is the PC reflex to stifle any debate on race from the outset by calling pseudoscience. It isn't pseudoscience to do studies on IQ tests and US demographics. It is pseudoscience to try and sell the results you get out of that for anything else than they are. Calling an area of study pseudoscience because you feel uncomfortable about it or about what results it might turn out isn't intellectually honest. It is apparently taboo or unthinkable to find a significant difference, however slender, in the distribution of IQ between racial groups. I do not know if there is such a difference, but I object emphatically to attempts attack such studies on anything other than scholarly grounds. Some people do not like to see images of The Prophet. Others do not like to see debate on differences between racial groups. To both I say WP:NOTCENSORED. If it's notable, Wikipedia will carry it for what it is worth. -- dab (𒁳) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors on R&I deny the existence of "a significant difference, however slender (sic), in the distribution of IQ between racial groups". I believe the disagreement is on how to weight the different hypotheses to explain this incontrovertible fact.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a great moral relief to the rest of the world to blame this thinly masked racism all on the United States, and perhaps would also satisfy the masochists of the United States, but look again at one of the major puppetmasters here, Mankind Quarterly: originally published in Scotland, its founders include German eugenicist Ottmar von Verschuer, Italian author of The Scientific Basis of Fascism Corrado Gini, Canadian anthropologist Reginald Ruggles Gates, and Scottish anthropologist Robert Gayre. As for J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund, he's at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, so how is this race-baiting exclusively a USA affair? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

because the US is the only country where you can do such studies. Of course you can talk about the studies anywhere, but you will always be talking about studies done on racial groups in the US, not on "races" in general. There is no other country with a racial composition like the US, where some 92% of people can be unambiguously be classed as either black, white or Asian, but all of them native to the US. Mankind Quarterly may have been published in Scotland, but I doubt that it contained any studies on R&I performed in Scotland, for the simple reason that Scotland doesn't have enough racial variety for this. -- dab (𒁳) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you haven't looked at all at the statistical bases used, have you? Race and intelligence#Worldwide — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already admitted that there is a lot of crappy scholarship flying around here. Good luck taking your IQ test to the Kalahari and coming back with an estimate of "Bushman IQ" that is anything other than statistical noise. I do not dispute that this is so much horseshit. What I am objecting to is your conclusion that this entire topic is "race baiting" or "thinly veiled racism". -- dab (𒁳) 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is merely that this "horseshit" comes from an international herd, not just US Mustangs. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is bizarre, and just an example of how one needs to be particularly wary of people like Mathsci who throw around the fringe epithet without supporting documentation. 52 notable psychologists who have been involved in this research signed a letter supporting The Bell Curve. The research there is controversial, but the people who promote it are not fringe in the field of psychology - anything but. I happen to be reading Richard Nisbett's book Intelligence and How To Get It. Nisbett argues that the environment accounts for the widely-recognized differences in IQ test results among ethnic groups. Nisbett recognizes that many, and perhaps most of the people studying this area disagree with him, and also recognizes that there's substantial room for disagreement. He starts Chapter 2 by saying "not so long ago, scientists who study IQ more or less agreed that intelligence is mostly heritable...". Calling an entire block of researchers fringe is highly disrespectful POV-pushing. II | ( t - c) 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Except that the book The Bell Curve was fringe, POV-pushing, from the people who brought you Mankind Quarterly — the Pioneer Fund. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• You're asking me to buy into a conspiracy theory that all of these 52 psychologists (and many less notable scientists; those are all highly notable) who've done this research are just secret racists trying to keep the black man down. I don't buy it. I don't think Paul E. Meehl (or Nisbett) is twisting facts and falsifying data to make people think racism is OK. These people are actually taking a big risk to stick to the facts as they've found them. Personally, I've always been more of a fan of the Carol Dweck model of flexible intelligence, but the fact remains that there is data supporting a hereditarian view that one can pull up. I don't like the fact that intelligence tests have found that blacks score about a standard deviation below whites any more than you do ( The_bell_curve#American_Psychological_Association_task_force_report - see page 93 of the APA report). I think there are ethical issues with spreading this information and saying it is genetic (I largely wrote the stereotype threat section of stereotype), but I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest, as you are, and start trying to malign the names of eminent psychologists with emotional fallacies. If you bring anything concrete to the table, I'm happy to see it, but I highly doubt you can bring more than Richard Nisbett has already brought to bear. UPDATE: Having finished Nisbett's book last night, I feel like I should revise my remarks - he doesn't think the hereditarian position is tenable. However, I still think it's far from a fringe view. II | ( t - c) 06:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• When you're done beating up that poor old straw man, try reading " The Bell Curve#Criticisms", then " The Bell Curve Debate", and try to find a copy of The Bell Curve Wars. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism, a human, all-fruit diet. Currently growing by leaps and bounds. Lots of undue weight and questionable sources are joining the mix. - SummerPhD ( talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Related article needs attention Johnny Lovewisdom. Apparently Dr of something or other. No indication of formal education that I saw. Simonm223 ( talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. It looks like the only reasonable solution is to return to a version from a couple of months ago. Looie496 ( talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. The contribution history [21] of Zanze123 needs heavy scrutiny, especially at Arnold Ehret, Viktoras Kulvinskas, Ann_Wigmore, (it keeps going) Morris Krok, Norman W. Walker, Walter_Siegmeister, (wait, there's more!) Carlos Brandt, Hilton_Hotema, and Kenneth Hsu. This is one of the worst (if not the worst) walled gardens of fringe I've ever seen here. Wow. Just wow. These articles are almost exclusively cited to self-published books and websites, and largely consist of glowing praise for the subjects of the article. I'd nominate many of these for AFD if the climate there wasn't so... unreasonable. I'm going to start tagging the articles for cleanup and notability. Skinwalker ( talk) 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Ehret is probably the best one for entertainment purposes. A section header is titled "Timeless influence", and we get such claims as his murder by the American food industry, the superb phrase "fictional autobiography", and some wonderful claims surrounding white blood cells as mucus. No seriously, these guys wanted to shut down your immune system. Wow. See also Johnny Lovewisdom, linked to from most of them. Extensive cleanup and merging need, I think. Moreschi ( talk) 08:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Reddi - why does it take some people forty edits to fix one comma? WP:TWWPK. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'd nominate many of these for AFD if the climate there wasn't so... unreasonable." Meaning? If the subjects aren't notable, you you make reasonable efforts to check before nominating, and you give a reasoned nomination based on policy, there shouldn't be a problem. Fences& Windows 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have created Talk:Fruitarianism#Request for Comment: Revert to version of September 30?. Looie496 ( talk) 18:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To address these issues, so 'fringe' (less represented) topics are not to be covered at Wikipedia. Authors who advocated fruitarianism are linked, just like any group of other authors, or scientists, or composers etc. Sources have been provided wherever possible. Regarding reverting the fruitarian article, quotations from authors who wrote about this subject is highly noteable as are the other contribituons. If you feel otherwise, revert the article, and leave the article one-sided. OK, Ehret has not had timeless influence even though his books have been in print for over 90 years and even though other authors have referred to him in their books throughout the decades. The autobiography is by an Anita Bauer, if she existed, however the book does not confirm if she really did exist. Regarding the claims surrounding white blood cells as mucus, these claims are made by Ehret and Thomas Powell in their books, and corroborated by Corwn Samuel West and others. Just because conventional science may not support this is not a reason to avoid chronicling what others have thought in history. There were no '40 edits to fix one comma'. Content takes time to add. All changes, cleanup, notability and citation issues can be discussed at the talk pages. Improvement of content, sources and quotes is important. Perhaps some of you could make contribution, in addition to your deletions. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "These articles are almost exclusively cited to self-published books and websites, and largely consist of glowing praise for the subjects of the article." (Skinwalker) in fact the articles are cited to secondary sources as required. If you wish to critique sources cited, or the subjects of the articles, use the talk pages, or make contributions to the articles citing secondary sources accordingly, rather than just deleting entire sections without giving any reasons, or discussing on the talk pages, as you did. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim about Arnold Ehret's 'assassination' was already in the article. I later quoted from the published article What ever happened to Arnold Ehret by Sylvia Saltman in Vegetarian World Magazine (1977), which refuted the claim, in order to show both sides. Regarding 'self-published' books, books lacking publishers may have been commercially published, the name of the publishers, to be confirmed, just like any other verification. If Wiki regards a topic as 'fringe', labelling it 'fringe' would benefit the reader. If academic sources are the most important criteria when providing references, make some relevant contributions to the Fruitarian article. Zanze123 ( talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the relative lack of academic sources that is the problem. We cannot add sources that do not exist. - SummerPhD ( talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 main academic sources in the article which favour fruitarianism - 1 about Alan Walker, 1 from a South African journal (whilst there is a whole section Nutritional Concerns with many more than 2 academic sources critical of fruitarianism). Yet according to everyone above, the article should be reverted to exclude the ones in favour whilst keeping those critical of fruitarianism. How then is the article balanced (a concern voiced above) if only academic sources which critique the diet are permitted at the article. I fully support SummerPhD's point that an article of this nature warrants more academic sources than non-academic sources, but presenting both sides. There is a lack of sources available, but how many of you against this article have ever contributed anything besides deletions? When academic sources provided, they are immediately dismissed unless the discredit fruitarianism. Further, not all aspects of this article warrrant academic sources - such as the different possible fruitarian diets. That is an aspect central to the subject matter, but is not an academic matter but a cultural one. Yet you are all above in favour of deleting that too. With regard to the point above about quote farm, the quotes should all be removed, and used if and where appropriate for citation purposes. In its place should be a section called Advocates, and another section called Critics, briefly mentioning those such as in the quotes to be removed. To revert this article to the September version is to erode all other changes, without giving specific reasons in each case for doing so. Rather than just deleting content, provide reasons for deleting or amending individual points on the talk page, - which only SummerPhD has done. If you feel that this article does not deserve to exist (because as it sounds to me, you disagree with it, or object to it, or because you perceive it to be fringe and therefore automatically unscientific - Galileo was also considered fringe), then it should be merged with another article as a subsection of veganism or rawfoodism etc. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Slow down a sec. Fruitarianism is notable almost by definition: the main article is not the problem here. It just needs some cleanup. The notability problem stems from a large quantity of articles, mostly biographical, detailing in rather hagiographic terms the lives of popular advocates of fruitarianism and raw-foodism in general. Popular among fruitarians, that is. Their general notability does seem to be a legit source of dispute. Moreschi ( talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is thus: there are very few reliable sources about fruitarianism providing any real depth. The few mainstream and academic sources referring to it mention it briefly as an obscure diet of significant nutritional concern or as a ultimate or proximate cause of illness and/or death in a case history. The sources with any real depth come from self-published sources (vanity press, some guy's website, etc.) or "esoteric" publishers. We can cite hundreds of examples of non-scientists making pseudo-scientific claims surrounding the diet (protein is toxic, most illness is caused by "mucous", vitamin B12 is not a necessary nutrient, etc.) and reliable sources simply dismissing the diet as wildly unhealthy (without covering most of the bunk dished out about mucous/protein/B12/etc.). Following the guidelines, the article would be a brief definition from an independent source, science discussing/debunking the sustainability and nutritional aspects of the diet and a brief list of well-sourced, notable fruitarians with brief mention of their histories with the diet. The nonsense about this, that or the other quote possibly referring to fruitarianism or a "diet similar to fruitarianism" is garbage, best disposed of properly. - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the sources don't have to be academic. It's unlikely there are going to be academic sources discussing it in any depth, as it's so obviously silly, it would be a bit like trying to hit a pig's arse at a distance of 1 yard with an Ak47. But there's got to be media sources, popular press, mainstream media. Sure, they may not be amazing quality, but to establish notability they don't have to be. Anything, as you say, is better than relying on the self-published works of cranks. Moreschi ( talk) 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your point about the need for notability. What is Wiki's requirement? You suggest popular advocates of fruitarianism and rawfoodism are not relevant, because they are popular among fruitarians (and rawfoodists), rather than other groups. They are popular and thus noteable in the dietary movements they relate to. They are thus noteable in general in relation to the dietary topics they relate to. If you feel they are not, then please delete all advocates of all diets (vegan, vegetarian, rawfood etc), at the relevant listings on the same basis, i.e. that they are only generally noteable within the dietary group they relate to, but not to society in general. If you can show that they are not noteable in general, then delete the entire articles including all such existing articles on similar advocates of specific diets, on the same basis. Citing advocates of fruitarianism and verifying their dietary beliefs with quotes from their commercially published books, and secondary source articles about those advocates, is not hagiographical. However, if you feel there is hagiographical content, highlight it for at the talk pages for discussion, amendment and or removal. Since there is a lack of academic published research, chronicling what authors thought in history, is not irrelevant to the subject of the fruitarian article. Zanze123 ( talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So the history of Western fruitarian thought, has no basis in the article. If so, then the history of vegan thought, vegetarian thought, rawfoodist thought etc, and all such advocates, should be removed from the respective articles. Regarding notable fruitarians and reliable sources, the problem there is that this enables no fruitarians to be listed as notable and virtually no reliable sources in favor of fruitarianism to be included, not because there are not reliable sources, or notable fruitarians, but because perceptions of what is notable and reliable will vary, as will knowledge of notable fruitarians and reliable sources. You can say there are no reliable sources even if there are, or dismiss those which exist e.g. Alan Walker, South African journal etc. Dismissing the B12, protein, defficiency and mucus topics by presenting only reliable academic sources without contrasting that with the counter-belief and accompanying sources, does not make for a balanced article. Vanity press and 'some guy's website' are not relevant to articles. As for 'esoteric publishers', the publishers of the Bible could be classified as 'esoteric' depending on your belief, so this point makes no sense. To suggest that only self-published sources have 'real-depth' makes no sense. The New York Times article on Alan Walker was not self-published. The South Africa journal was not self-published. There are other examples of non-self published research on the topics of fruitarianism, B12, protein, mucus, vitamins, defficiencies, both for and in favour, by academia, science and M.D.s. For example: Gabriel Cousens is an M.D. not an N.D. hence the quote which was included, yet this has been classified as 'pseudo-scientific' and was deleted without discussion. In reality, anything which is in favor of fruitarianism shall be deemed unscientific, unreliable and unnotable so that the article can be slanted according to conventional beliefs rather than be balanced in presentation. Zanze123 ( talk) 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The history of fruitarianism is relevant, but must be cited to independent reliable sources. On the second point (notability), we have guidelines to follow, so it's not simply at editor's whim. Yes, there is some leeway, especially when the notability is borderline; but it's not as mercurial as you seem to be portraying. Next, we don't strive to "balance" articles, but to provide a neutral point of view. That means mainstream science is the primary focus, with things outside the mainstream (aka fringe) being pointed out as such. Finally, please remember to assume good faith. We're not out to destroy the fruitarianism articles, but to make sure they reflect neutral, encyclopedic articles. Wikipedia doesn't allow promotional material, and strongly discourages first-party publications as they've not been fact-checked. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism : Continued

I agree with your point about media sources. For example at Ann Wigmore and Viktoras Kulvinskas, I added media sources, and the same can be done for Fruitarianism. That is no reason not to chronicle what authors and scientists mentioned fruitarianism (and its related topics e.g. protein metabolism) in the last 150 years. Thomas Powell, Corwyn Samuel West, Ragnar Berg, Louis Pasteur and other doctors, chemists and scientists have written about these subjects. You may not know about their work, or may not agree with it, but that is not a reason to automatically dismiss them and their findings. As for diets which sound similar to fruitarianism but are not, this depends how fruitarianism is defined, which is precisely why the different definitions are relevant to the subject of this article. Zanze123 ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If we don't have a solid definition, where does it end? Any article that mentions fruit in your diet? That's why these things need to be narrowly defined. Also, we don't simply name-drop anyone who has a relation to the subject. They need to have works primarily about fruitarianism to be relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article rawfoodism features many many different definitions. Therefore, there is no reason why the fruitarianism article should be any different. It ends when all main definitions, such as now, are included in order to be comprehensive. Or, have a biased, one-sided definition, that readers will simply laugh at, and scorn Wikipedia for being so narrow-minded. Since fruitarianism is a sub-set of veganism, there are few books only on the subject. Therefore it is not unreasonable nor irrelevant to cite books in which fruitarianism is significantly mentioned but where the book is not wholly about fruitarianism. A book about nutrition which discusses fruitarianism cannot be said to be irrelevant, for example. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not need to be solely about fruitarianism... but they do need to discuss the subject in some depth (ie a passing comment in a diet book is not enough... but a section in a diet book on it would be.)... and we need to maintain a proper context when we use sources. Blueboar ( talk) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If the history of fruitarianism is relevant, the quoting prominent advocates of fruitarianism in history is relevant. Should an article about Thomas Edison never quote from any of Edison's published writings because although reliable, such quotes would not be independent. If so, all quotations from all figures mentioned on Wikipedia, should be deleted as being not independent. The guidelines for notability are not an editor's whim, but a group of editors who can club together in the name of 'consensus'. Balance is a synonym of neutral point of view, of course. If you believe a neutral point of view means having a greater emphasis on science, then that's not neutral, because science is only one system of thought. Even so, listing various kinds of sub-diet is not a scientific phenomenon but a cultural one. If fringe articles are not allowed, delete all fringe articles on Wiki- there seem to be several hundred thousand depending on the definition of fringe. If you refer to fringe points, or quotes, discuss them on the talk page for discussion, amendment and or removal, rather than deleting entire sections without discussion, in the name of 'neutrality' as has been happening. "We're not out to destroy the fruitarianism article" - those campaigning for the reversal of the article to September, clearly are - as then, all points in the article in support of fruitarianism e.g. Alan Walker, South African Journal, quotes by prominent fruitarians, quotes by doctors like Gabriel Cousens M.D., can be destroyed. So, if you are not out to destroy the article, don't revert it but improve it, through discussion. Enough people have commented already on the article being lacking in neutrality. First party publications can be fact checked just like any other source. Wiki is not the place for promotion. Quoting a first party or indeed third party publication does not automatically equate with promotion. But it can and often is. It depends how promotion is defined. Wikipedia is full of promotion. An article on General Electric or General Motors, is in itself a form of promotional material. Where is the 'good faith' when editors of this article have deleted entire sections without any reason or discussion, and where contributions in favor of fruitarianism are deleted is not good faith. Those who delete or campaign for deletion, don't appear to ever contribute besides deletions. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When a noteable person who has written a book about fruitarianism e.g. I Live On Fruit by Essie Honiball is quoted, then it can be said that the person is fringe, and therefore the person is not notable, or the person wasn't a scientist, or it wasn't a 3rd party source. So Wiki's guidelines and the approach of editors, can be circular so that nothing aside from science (1 system), is ever included. That is not neutrality. That is mass bias to 1 system of thought based on the artificialistic fallacy. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

sigh First, I suggest you drop the "all quotations from all figures mentioned on Wikipedia, should be deleted as being not independent" stuff. You're mixing up quotations and sourcing facts. Also, you may want to condense your comments. Such long spiels aren't likely to engender folks.

As to, "First party publications can be fact checked just like any other source," Wikipedia is not the place to do the fact-checking itself. That's why we prefer secondary sources, as they can draw the conclusions we are not allwowed to.

Finally, if you're so determined that bias rules Wikipedia, I have to ask what you hope to accomplish here? — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No spiels, just answers. Facts must be supported from reliable secondary sources (academic, media etc). Quotations from notable figures should be sourced from primary or secondary sources, depending on context. Secondary sources can drawn conclusions. First party sources can also. Bias may not rule, but can exist, where articles are not neutral. 'Fruitarian' article needs more focus on history and culture, like at Rawfoodism, as well as science. 'Fringe' articles should be considered for notability on a case basis, not just 'consensus' basis. Neutrality is paramount. Zanze123 ( talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of articles set off some redflags for me: Multiplicative calculus and Non-Newtonian calculus. Actually, it's mostly multiplicative calculus that I am presently concerned with. User:Smithpith (also moonlighting as an IP), is (admittedly) Michael Grossman, the author of a book on so-called "non-Newtonian calculus" (essentially an obvious and fairly common idea repackaged as though it were a fancy new "non-Newtonian" idea). The articles, and their proponents, seem to have all of the hallmarks of a fringe theory. In particular, there is the question of how these articles should be categorized. (Should they be in Category:Calculus? Does that violate WP:ONEWAY?) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get Non-Newtonian Calculus deleted a while back. It's not wrong; but it's a change of variables that any first year calculus student could do, presented as if it were a major piece of new research. See the embarrassing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus. Other articles associated with this garbage are Multiplicative calculus, Product integral, and List of derivatives and integrals in alternative calculi. I've just gone through and de-linked them from, well, just about everything. I have to do that periodically, because he (Michael Grossman) keeps coming back. Ozob ( talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that the discussion was embarrassing. I was involved in that discussion, and I don't find your conclusion self-evident, and you don't say what is embarrassing about it. I reviewed the discussion. You claimed that the article was POV and the topic was non-notable. I agree that it was POV, but that is not a reason for deletion. It seemed to me then that the topic was at least marginally notable, under the Wikipedia notability standard: the topic had received significant coverage in reliable sources that were independent of the subject. I am quite open to the possibility that the case was wrongly decided, but I don't think you have presented any cogent argument that it was. I wish you would try, and I wish you would realize that your personal embarrassment at the outcome is not sufficient to discredit the result.

All this is separate from the ongoing problems with these articles, which are that Michael Grossman has been inflating the importance of the topic, creating a walled garden, linkspamming, and so on. That is a separate issue and should be addressed separately. — Dominus ( talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You and I still disagree, then. I agree that I didn't make a very good argument to start with—I assumed that the non-notability was obvious. I still believe that my study of MathSciNet, Zentralblatt, and Google Scholar show that this topic is not notable. And I still believe that keeping non-Newtonian calculus around is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

My disagreement is really very mild. It would not take much to sway me, but you have not provided much. For example, you pointed out that the topic does not appear, or appears very thinly, under the name "Non-Newtonian Calculus" in Zentralblatt. This is a good argument if you are proposing a rename, but not if you are proposing a delete, since all it shows is that the name is wrong. You keep mentioning your embarrassment, which does not weigh on the issue at all. — Dominus ( talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it appear in any non-trivial fashion on MathSciNet or Google Scholar. I just now tried it in CiteSeer, and I found nothing at all. If the work were notable it would have non-self citations. It doesn't. I think I have amply demonstrated that their work has received no reception at all from the professional mathematical community. Nor has it received recognition from the recreational mathematical community, nor even from the crackpot community. It is entirely insignificant, and by having an article on it at all I believe we are granting it a notability which it has not earned. As regards the name, I am using the name that Grossman and Katz gave to their own work. I looked for citations to their work and for other work using the same name. What else should I search for?

As regards the issue of embarrassment, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not personally embarrassed by the presence of the article, because I have consistently fought it. No, I believe that the rest of Wikipedia—and in particular those who have argued to keep the article—should be embarrassed. The article is mathematical snake oil, and every page view shames those who would keep it. The only honorable path is to delete it. Ozob ( talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, User:Charles Matthews has pointed out that product integral is classical mathematics. The other three articles are not. Ozob ( talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Charles Matthews' suggestion to merge the relevant material into product integral is a good one. — Dominus ( talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really fringe, just unimportant. It's basically a pretty simplistic application of the idea of functional transforms. Looie496 ( talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a fringe theory, but using the encyclopedia to promote a non-notable idea could be an issue relevant to this board. A solution needs to be found that accurately reflects the consensus view of mathematicians. The "no consensus" verdict of the AfD left open the possibility of merger(s). Any mileage in it? Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Multiplicative calculus. Gandalf61 ( talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A consensus needs to happen somehow. This silly nonsense has a way of creeping across the rest of our articles on basic undergraduate mathematics, and suddenly Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat starts to look relevant. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough they've stuck their book into wikipedia, I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but it annoys me that every so often he starts up again sticking linkspam into a whole pile of articles like average and exponential growth which are just not relevant enough. Does this really have to crop up again and again and again? Dmcq ( talk) 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The right solution to a problem editor, I think, is to see if we can encourage productive edits instead of destructive ones. Unfortunately, User talk:Smithpith suggests that he's a single-issue editor who doesn't communicate well. It's possible that the IP editor is a different person who will be more communicative, so someone should try talking to him. (I don't think I would do a good job.) If he doesn't respond, then the next step is to sanction him somehow. I don't know what would be appropriate in this case. I read about what to do with vandals last time non-Newtonian calculus came up, but it didn't quite seem to fit. The edits aren't the usual kind of disruption. Ozob ( talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a lengthy discussion (and edit war) at Sexual orientation change efforts over the inclusion of position statements by Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality. Gabbe ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another siddha who supposed lived for several hundred years before his death in 1989. Personally, I'm dubious. Article is up for WP:DYK review at this time. Mangoe ( talk) 07:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* What's to be dubious about? I myself have also lived for several hundred years before my death in 1989... and quite some years afterward as well, you may have noticed. Gads, people can say anything and expect it to be taken seriously, there's no linkage to "truth" or "fact" in their minds, nor apparently in their believers'. Flavr-ade with an almond-y bite to it, anyone? There's a comet to catch! — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this is footnoted to the "Journal of Environmental Peace" which claims an awesome list of Nobel laureates among its editorial board [22]. It's rather difficult to take this at face value. Paul B ( talk) 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A new editor is editing the article to reflect a more controversial, fringe position than has previously been maintained and agreed. Could other editors please review and respond. Verbal chat 10:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A fairly new editor Jrgilb ( talk · contribs · logs) seems intent on reverting any indication that blood-type diets are pseudoscience and unsupported by empirical data. Your input and participation are requested at blood type and its talk page, and at blood type diet. - Nunh-huh 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This new article, about the Belgian man thought to be comatose for years but now supposedly communicating, could use all the eyes it can get. Looie496 ( talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some people please have a look at this article. Floydian ( talk · contribs) apparently WP:OWNs this page, and is editwarring to his preferred version and engaging in personal attacks on other editors on the talk page. The dispute revolves around the alt med use of colloidal silver, and using in vitro studies of silver (not colloidal necessarily, or of the alt med treatments) to support the alt med section. A summary of the alt med evidence base is also being removed from the lead. More eyes and opinions required, I find it hard to engage with the level of vitriol directed at othhr editor though. Verbal chat 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone from this noticeboard is inherently NOT neutral. Keep it over at the NPOV noticeboard. I'm not claiming to own the page, but I am claiming that Verbal is misrepresenting others to get their own way. There is clearly not a consensus for Verbals selective cherry picking of sources in order to present only the negative studies in the lead. A clear violation of neutral point of view to remove several sources in order to swing the weight to the negative source in order to put only it in the lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian should read WP:AGF. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, remember that any editor can respond to issues raised on this noticeboard. It's true that most regular contributors are keen to see a mainstream scientific view predominate over anything that could be seen as pseudoscience, but there is also commitment to collegiate editing, to good sourcing and to policy generally. If you're also committed to those things then you can contribute here too. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a contributor. I don't often contribute since I do not know most pseudoscience, but I do contribute to those I do know about ( Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Homeopathy and this article). You are right that the great majority of regular contributors will have the mainstream view dominate the minority view. This means that they can quickly buddy buddy themselves together and overwhelm the minority or constructive editors who take to the opposing view. The summary that I removed was not the summary, it was a horribly worded piece of information from a source that I dispute the accuracy of that is intended to downplay the efficacy of a substance whose efficacy has not been tested. The summary need not include a contended piece of information when it can summarize everything else quite neutrally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what do you think an EM field is? Simonm223 ( talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An area that is being influenced/manipulated by wavelength energy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All energy has a wavelength. That's because all energy is composed of quanta of energy commonly called "photons". That's right - Microwaves, RF, Visible Spectrum light, UV, and Ionizing Radiation all are made up of the same stuff. The difference is to do with things like the length of the wave and, consequently the level of energy present. The more energy, the more harmful. Next question: Is RF more or less energetic than yellow light? Simonm223 ( talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, try arguing the points through, referring to policy and to good sources. You will find that most experienced editors are fair-minded and that you can learn a lot from them. But accept that you will win some points and lose some. When consensus is against you give in - I know that's not always easy. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL I've been shot down, despite being certain I was right on more than one occasion. You roll with the punches, shrug and go well that's the consensus model for you. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not new to the wiki process. I have created and built consensus many times before, often agreeing to disagree (Afterall, consensus is through compromise). These editors are not doing that, however. Its their way or the admin noticeboard for 3RR (Which is easy for them, again, as I'm far outnumbered). I'm sure I could go gather 50 people with my POV and brute force my views, but then I'd be a politician and not an editor. I still hold to the point that this is not consensus building, its brute forcing a point of view by grabbing everyone that agrees with you and creating a "consensus". WP:NOTAVOTE applies to consensus building, and I've made plenty of points to which the other editors mostly offer moot points or completely dodge the subject ( WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Rather than actually answer my points, they just accuse me of things (See File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg, most editors are on the yellow section). Simonm223 is perhaps the only editor with the opposite view of me that has actually sat and communicated properly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am another editor that has been a regular editor on the colloidal silver article. Recently, a bunch of editors, including Verbal, have descended on the article, reverting sourced information with no discussion about the reverts. I guess Verbal felt that putting NPOV on the comment was good enough and how dare Floydian question that. I am not surprised that Floydian has reverted much of the "fly by edits", and am surprised that he has kept his cool as well as he has. stmrlbs| talk 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the cool that has led to the protection of the article, the accusing other editors of being "scum" that should "fucking" do what he thinks. Pretending that we haven't justified our actions doesn't mean that we haven't. He is editwarring and being abusive, and should now be blocked. Verbal chat 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to the sentence "Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website." Care to point out where I am personally attacking an editor? I make an accusation of POV pushing (Which is hardly a personal attack on a site with a core policy of WP:NPOV), which I am emotional with (Hence it being the "biggest fucking example"). After searching the colloidal silver talk, neutral POV noticeboard, and this noticeboard, the only use of "scum" I found is in your post, Verbal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I came in I saw Floydian trying to remove a referenced statement about the lack of efficacy of swallowing quantities of metal as opposed to (or suppelementary to) traditional health care. Considering what I know about the history of swallowing metal as medicine I'd say a referenced statement that doing so doesn't have a known health benefit is appropriate. I'd also suggest that people who want to edit articles on biology and chemistry should have a basic familliarity with the disciplines in question. This is something that certain editors have not adequately demonstrated. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to remove a reference in the lead, which is duplicated in a later section. This fully conforms with WP:LEDE#Citations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You tried to remove a referenced statement from the lede. That is rather different. The reference is being left in as without the reference you are trying to argue against the statement. Also please answer my question with regard to relative levels of energy in a photon of RF and a photon of yellow light. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article that uses physics to disprove EMHS... But that should be discussed on the appropriate page since this is for the colloidal silver discussion. I did remove it from the lead at one point because its very POVish to delete the sentence that says "it has an anti-microbial effect in-vitro" yet leave the one that says "This reference says no study has proven its efficacy, but we can't reword that to say no studies have been done in the first place to prove or disprove its efficacy even though theres no proof of a study that has indicated its lack of efficacy". I am not trying to argue the validity of the statement, with or without source, I am trying to argue the validity of the "reliable" source, NCCAM. The sentence still appeared in full, with citation, in the As an Alternative Medicine section. This is how the article is biased.

Besides, it was one edit, and like every other edit, was quickly reverted by an editor that never has and probably never will look at that article again now that their version has been quickly ratified. How many more off topic discussions and accusations will take place before someone actually sits down and discusses the changes made? I've cited at least half a dozen policies/guidelines that go against these edits, and the only responses I've gotten are "Stop attacking editors", "don't 3RR", and "maybe you need to be blocked" [so that I can avoid actually responding to you]. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It ain't over yet

After a preceding long discussion at the ANI here, we were actually able to have a constructive discussion at the article and made some progress, however, then an user called Wdford joined the discussion. Now, you might be wondering, what this editor is doing there, and I am wondering that, too. But that question aside, if we concentrate on only this article: Wdford is not able to approach the discussion with the required diligence. In the first of his series of edits, here, Wdford added a statement based on a fringe source, quote:

"The non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation is interested in clinical research about silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs."

I've repeatedly tried to explain to him, which this is highly problematic, my last long posting on this is here. Even Dhawker, who was banned from the article, advised Wdford on this on his talk page using his sock-puppet account, quote: "Trust me. You will never get the Immunogenics reference or anything remotely like it included in the article. This is a medical article so any references will undergo extreme scrutiny from many editors who haven't even commented yet." here. That, in turn, made it really easy to identify "Beaupoint" as a sockpuppet of DHawker, but if appears that Wdford does not want to accept that advise. He wrote today, that I would " even now disputes the fact that the IRF [Immunogenics research foundation] people are scientists, although their staff is packed with highly qualified specialists – whose only failing is that they don’t agree with Zara. I have nonetheless offered to remove this sentence in the spirit of compromise, ..." here. Certainly, the guideline * wp:fringe* is not about "compromise". Wdford has to acknowledge that people like those from the "Immunogenic Research Foundation" are not scientists, and that the addition of such material as 'science' to Wikipedia is not allowed, regardless of whether a editor demands it to be removed in a specific case or not. I don't actually think that Wdford will acknowledge that - ever. So, if we want to save the article from being used as a playground by fringe advocates (or people who are simply unable to distinguish between the fringe and the scientific view), each of Wdfords edits must come under close scrutiny. Considering what he has written, is is rather likely that he will continue with problematic edits as soon as the full protection expires, which is in 3 hours. I would take an immediate look then myself, but I've already spent the last night writing the request for checkuser concerning DHawker, and I might actually want to get some sleep tonight. Zara1709 ( talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the people from IRF are not scientists. They are just scientists going against the mainstream viewpoint, but so long as they follow the proper scientific method, they are still scientists. I do believe that while the wording is problematic (Suggesting there already are medical benefits), there is nothing wrong with mentioning that IRF are currently looking in to possible medical applications for silver. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same people here? I mean those behind www.imref.org, you know, the web site, where they say under "About Us":

"The milieu or terrain of all living processes is an omnipresent colloidal state. The colloidal state originates from colloidal minerals. Colloidal minerals are minerals suspended in water, not dissolved, and they have three principle properties without which life as we know it could not exist. Colloidal minerals (i) form organized states between themselves, (ii) they structure and organize water itself, and (iii) they ignite oxidation and reduction reactions which are both the precursors to as well as the ongoing centerpiece to metabolism in general. In higher life forms and especially human tissues, the colloidal state is the causal determinant of either: (a) optimal cellular health, immunity and healing capacity or (b) disease. The war between health and disease is being perpetually waged through the highly organizing and energizing dynamics of colloidal minerals which give vitality and full capacity to the colloidal state. All infectious and degenerative processes become inoperative in highly organized and energized colloidal milieus catalyzing highly evolved redox reactions. All higher life forms evolved by harnessing this heightened state of oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), while lower life forms continually prove they are unable to do so. Once understood, the balance of power in this war may be reproducibly shifted to induce a disease-free, optimal health state." ( imref.org)

Well, sorry, to be a scientist you at least have to be able to present your research within the frame of a coherent theory. What they write is just gibberish. Zara1709 ( talk) 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They must be real scientists. They can't tell the difference between 'principal' and 'principle'. Paul B ( talk) 10:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, what does it matter? Whether or not they are scientists seems totally irrelevant. They may be pig farmers, and the criteria for inclusion of their work or thoughts is the same, so shouldn't it first be determined if they are a source or if they are notable? So far as I've seen, these guys look like obvious cranks and I doubt they've got anything relevant to say. Anywho, just my opinion. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to fight "all infectious and degenerative processes" by using collodial silver to make these naughty processes "inoperative in highly organized and energized colloidal milieus catalyzing highly evolved redox reactions." Can't argue with that.-- Δζ ( talk) 06:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Super chimney appears to be a crackpot variation of solar updraft tower, the latter being a legitimate solar power scheme which at least has been tested in a pilot plant. It has been suggested to merge the former into the latter, but perhaps an AFD is in order. Mangoe ( talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, would be good to get this one deleted... Johnfos ( talk) 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Not totally insane, just "inadequately informed" shall we say. Elementary principles of fluid dynamics show that it can't work (hint: the Darcy-Weisbach equation is applicable only for incompressible fluids). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Mangoe ( talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Honest to goodness, I swear I read this premise, with illos, as a story in an old SF magazine (1940s-50s Astounding or similar), where the chimneys end up at least getting the smog out of city streets. I mean, it's that far from even being new. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Magnet therapy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in need of a little TLC from WP:MEDRS and WP:VALID. Please do not simply revert back to the last version by me, as some of the new editor's material is good. On the other foot, magnets do not have different mood-altering effects depending on which pole is facing your susceptibility chakra, MRI and TCMS are off-topic, and there is plenty of placebo effect in animal studies. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. Reverting to your last version might be necessary; we can then re-add the new (poor) cites in their proper context. To see how much this article has degraded, compare 2/0's version with the current one; the changes are supported by a handful of terrible cites, such as this one with 10 patients, cf Cochrane reviews. Phil153 ( talk) 04:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of non notable texts and unsourced statements. Please add to your watch list and contribute to discussion on the talk page. Verbal chat 11:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god. Not Jane Roberts again. Does this list even need to exist? I'm very tempted to AFD: there seem to be no clear grounds for inclusion, no verified material, etc. Moreschi ( talk) 13:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... at best this should be retitled: List of texts claimed to be channelled... but that does not resolve the issue of what the criteria for inclusion is. There might well be some notable texts in the list... but if so, that notability needs to be established. Blueboar ( talk) 14:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Koran is most certainly a channelled text, as indeed is the Bible in various places, but in no way do they then belong on the same list as this New Age stuff. Moreschi ( talk) 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, on account of being old and well known. I wouldn't say there's that much difference otherwise. That's neither here nor there though. The fringe has responded though: it's been de-prodded and defended as useful information which should never be deleted. Apparently even when it's utterly unencyclopedic and questionably useful. Hatchetfish ( talk) 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Not a library catalogue. Yuk. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• prodded, this would seem to be sufficiently clear to make AFD unnecessary. Moreschi ( talk) 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And here I was expecting to see: Archives of TV Guide; How to Irrigate Your Farm; Early Maps of Mars; Digging Across Panama!; A Little Swim to Calais; The Suez Project; By Train from London to Paris?; Faces of Age; A Dentist's Manual to the Treatment of Caries; my diary; yours too. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 07:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprodded now and likely to stay, so it needs to be cleaned up. I don't see why there is a section Entities and mediums in what is supposed to be a list of texts. Red links to take out. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONEWAY. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that section was a mess. I've removed the whole thing as WP:SYN based on some rather fantastic claims. A story of Alexander the Great that was only published in modern times? Yeah, right. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This dates to Dayananda's famous claims about Vedic steam-ships and flying machines. I don't think deleting that section was necessarily the right way to go since a lot of it was useful: material on the sources of these claims and debunkings of them. Paul B ( talk) 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT isn't really appropriate here, because the Dayanandian nonsense is really the entire reason for the topic's notability. -- dab (𒁳) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I didn't think the deleted section was too terrible either. This Vedic UFO is very much notable material: quite apart from anything else, this noticeboard's existence is fairly good proof of that. If it's distorting the balance of the main article a separate child article under WP:SS might be a good idea? Moreschi ( talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Full of original research including original synthesis between mythology and this UFOlogical fantasy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PRODed, removed some pretty blatant synthesis. We'll see how that goes. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Prod now removed and article in very poor shape. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• See Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 1#Suggested merge. Moreschi ( talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Long list of phenomena ("Unseen forces lift and hurl a brick across a room" etc.) "captured" on a reality TV show, all of it being taken at face value. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodded and warned creator. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the same author, Electromagnetic fluctuation appears to be a POV fork of EMF meter? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Update: Solution was a redirect to Electromagnetic field. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be fixed. I have left a message on the talk page. An IP has done some whitewashing and uses primary sources to promote this pseudoscience. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for notability. See what you think about whether it's notable and if not, then I suggest AfD. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clearly non-notable to me years ago. I WP:PRODded it and it was deleted, but the original author restored it (which is his right). He got mad at me for having it deleted, I felt guilty, and I guess I never took it to AfD. Anyhow, probably worth revisiting. MastCell  ^Talk 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A search seems to indicate it is notable in the alternative medicine world. As a fringe practice we'll have a hard time finding MEDRS quality sources, so we'll just have to document the practice, describe it, and if there's anything that violates scientific laws, the MEDRS guideline applies and we can comment on that. Here it is claimed that over 4,000 individuals have been trained. Scott Walker's website is quite informative, and reveals that several forms of quackery and pseudoscience are used in this method: chiropractic, AK, homeopathy, vertebral subluxations, meridians, the 5 elements law, etc.. It clearly qualifies for inclusion in the Pseudoscience and Chiropractic treatment techniques categories. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the previously much larger version, I am hesitant to open that can of worms. I think I'll let believers try their hand at it and we can then try to tame it to wiki standards and policies. It mustn't become a sales brochure again. I'll just keep it on my watchlist. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A tip, dunno if it will work, but try searching google books for criticism of NET. Sometimes it can take years before critical reviews appear in the medical literature. It wouldn't surprise me if the studies into NET have methodological problems or even COI issues.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

COI problems are there. Some of the researchers are on the board of O.N.E. Research Foundation. In describing NET, we can highlight the fact that it builds on many pseudoscientific ideas. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As there is a lack of secondary sources and critical primary sources, citing quackwatch might be an idea. [23] and [24]. I wonder if it is worth citing the source that you have found, saying in studies conducted by members of the chiropractic profession,,,,.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this book, (page 132-133) written by a medical doctor and a phd author from a Christian perspective as well as scientific perspective saying that there is no scientific evidence to back up kinesiology used in NET and that it is new age ideology which likely works through the placebo effect. I can't find any other books on google books that can be cited.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I came across Whole body vibration just now. Seems pretty fringey. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps... but the fact that it was taken seriously by the Russian space program means that it is at least notable fringe. A case for review and clean up, not dismissal. Blueboar ( talk) 15:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But the key thing here is "review and cleanup". Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree it needs cleanup and regular review and watching, because I think this topic title may well have an unhealthy appeal to certain females and/or generally sex-obsessed individuals in particular. Added it to my enormous watchlist to help fight the vandalism I hope doesn't appear too often. ;) John Carter ( talk) 15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this proper linguistics or just something made up? dab, you would know. It needs to be merged with Dacian language, but what to keep? Anything? Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wow. Reading Centum-Satem isogloss, this mess would appear to be proposing a thesis (that Dacian comes under the Satem concept) that is possible but very difficult to verify. That's a wild guess, though, but I venture to predict we won't be keeping much of it. Moreschi ( talk) 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be proposing that Romanian was descended directly from PIE rather than from Latin. Page has been tagged for merge for a long time, so that can just be done, but obviously not so as to dump rubbish onto the Dacian language page. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Or the separateness of Thracian and Dacian. Which is supposed to show...oh, I give up. Linguists - ahoy! Moreschi ( talk) 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would retain the edit history, it contains useful raw material, but the title should be redirected to Dacian language. -- 130.60.142.37 ( talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a section on "data" here that does not include any reference to actual scientific data? ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to play devil's advocate... the word data does not necessarily mean scientific data. Blueboar ( talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to raise the question on the talk page. There are two issues: (1) whether the word "data" is appropriate, and (2) whether there is any sensible way to include information about scientific data in an infobox. Looie496 ( talk) 17:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call it "anecdotal data" or "rank speculation"? ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go for "Characteristics", but then I think the taxonomy offered under "grouping/subgrouping" is a lot more problematic. Mangoe ( talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Frank Kotsonis) — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 03:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the paranormal creature infobox template isn't half as onerous as Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms. I haven't checked lately, but in the past it's been used to do an end run around NPOV. LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't subscribe to "burn all infoboxes", this particular one should definitely be burned with extreme prejudice. -- dab (𒁳) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am amused that it lists "Habitat" ... that one should be easy to fill in: "Habitat: The fertile imagination" Blueboar ( talk) 15:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This trance medium's article is in an unbelievably poor. Needs much attention and trimming to bring it to any kind of reasonable status. Could people please lend a hand. Problems include poor sourcing, very poor and non-neutral writing, length, essay like writing, and overuse of quotes. Possible solution is stubbing and starting over, as it is a huge mess. Verbal chat 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub may be the answer. Lots of adulatory attention is lavished on her by fringe sources, but there doesn't seem to be any mainstream neutral 3rd party coverage of any depth to "start over" from. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted to engage on the Talk page with an editor who appears very much attached to the subject. A couple more eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Went to see 2012 last night, and witnessed cities collapsing into bottomless black empty gulfs while nearby supervolcanoes vomit endless magma and rock and ash into the skies to start a new Ice Age, and the superheated Earth's crust melts as floods cover the Himalayas, and 27 days later the survivors see sunny blue skies with pretty white clouds and a bright future ahead for them... WTF? And then I come back and look at the incredible stuff here that credulous people manage to cram down their credulators, and I think about giving up on reason. But I forget how the creed of unreason is supposed to run: is it " Everything is True, Nothing is Forbidden!" — or is it " Nothing is True, Everything is Forbidden!" — or should I just stick with the old traditional "Ia! Ia! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" for the ease of memorization? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So, to which actual article does this ejaculation of emotion refer? Paul B ( talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nibiru collision and friends, I suppose. -- dab (𒁳) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm ditchin' and hitchin' a ride
I got my Sitchin guide
He's my Nibiru guru...
Planet X Marks the Spot!
          — Doctor Steel           — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 10:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think the Lovecraft line is easier to memorize, though, go right ahead. In my, ahem, congregation, we just shorten it to "Cthulhu fhtagn". John Carter ( talk) 23:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone tell the survivors that it will be sometime before they get a good wifi connection, and Wikipedia won't be available to fill their days? It is amazing how people comfortably use technology and fly over oceans, yet revert to voodoo for their personal beliefs. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression they brought along a copy of Wikipedia, and maybe Jimbo too. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was that survivors in the film, or survivors of the film? GrahamTM ( talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Many, perhaps even most, survivors of the film leave the theatre in the evening; no "sunny blue skies" for them. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An IP has done a whitewashing job at Plasma cosmology.

[25]

I recommend reverting to the previous version that has more information.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller has fixed it, there is a talkpage thread if they come back. - 2/0 ( cont.) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't make sense of the demands from newly-returned user:Bharatveer on Talk:Max_Müller. Well, I can guess -- I suspect some Hindutva website(s) are circulating fringe assertions. Paul B ( talk) 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Bharatveer banned? If he wasn't, we're just looking at more wasted time, this is a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool ideologist with no interest in mere facts. -- dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bharatveer ( talk · contribs) was banned for one year by Arbcom on 24 November 2008, so the ban expired a couple of weeks ago. Looie496 ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer - first edit-restricted, then banned for a year. I think it's been conclusively proven we don't have to actually waste any more effort over this particularly member of the Hindutva brigade. Just ignore, and if he starts causing any serious trouble then I'll just ban him. Moreschi ( talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Bharatveer's recent edits on Talk:Romila Thapar, which seem to share the same ideological space with his edits at Talk:Max_Müller. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He has brought this up in June 2008,

Wikipedia article is not calling thapar a "marxist" ; it is merely reporting that in the book "A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" , her works are discussed under the chapter "the MArxist phase". This shows the scholarly perception of her works.

which was answered adequately by Akhilleus ( talk · contribs),

Are you contending that a textbook written by a transit engineer is representative of the mainstream scholarly evaluation of Thapar's work? That's probably not the case.

There is nothing to see here. We aren't calling people Marxists who state that they aren't Marxists and that they are insulted by the epithet. Actual Marxists embrace the label "Marxist". "Marxist" is just a label the hardcore nationalists like to tag on any Indian author who is not staunchly to the political right of Attila the Hun. -- dab (𒁳) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with what you want to call her or not. See these references:1) George Thompson writing on Thomas McEvilley, says that the latter supports the view that Thapar's works were Marxist https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11407-005-0003-9

2) Daud Ali's review of A History of India: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=333711 interprets many of Thapar's views/ works as Marxist.

3) Economic and Political Weekly Jan (2000) Gopal Guru and V.Geetha refers to Thapar as a " Marxist Historian" in a discussion of Dalit culture.

4) Thapar is quoted as one of the marxist historians in the entry "Hinduism" of a "A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought"(Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard Univeristy Press, p.204)

5)Ronald Inden in his "Imagining India[1990:pp. 154-156, 197] refers to Thapar as a marxist scholar.

6)Shankar Goyal discuss thapar's interpretations of ancient india in the sections on Marxist Historiography in his book "Recent Historiography of Ancient India, Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur (1997)

7) Ravi Shanker Kapoor refers to thapar as a "Leftist Historian" in his book " More Equal than Others - A study of the Indian Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000)

- Bharatveer ( talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• My patience just gave in. I've asked for a community ban at AN. Moreschi ( talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am starting work on improving Wikipedia's coverage of telepathy, parapsychology etc. There doesn't appear to be much about selection bias or 'file drawer' effect or on statistics generally in the articles I have seen. Statistics is very important in reporting this stuff as, in the total absence of any known mechanism to explain these reported phenomena, deviation from chance is the only real evidence. Is there any material I haven't seen yet? I have looked at the main articles, which aren't very good. I.e. they talk about 'scepticism', when what they should be talking about is whether there exists any sort of evidence at all. Also about fraud and so on. Speaking of which, why doesn't the article about Joseph Banks Rhine mention the fraud of Walter Levy http://www.answers.com/topic/jr-walter-j-levy? Is this because of a biographical concern? Is Wikipedia allowed to report fraud where the subject may be living? Thanks Rupert of the New Age ( talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed on the Colorpuncture article. Edit warring, addition of unsourced content, socking, etc.. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident could probably use some watchful eyes. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of watchful eyes. The article is being targeted by numerous ranting IPs, socks and general-purpose nutcases. -- ChrisO ( talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if the article had been slashdotted. But I checked, and Slashdot seems to be innocent. Hans Adler 09:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked this case specifically, but Google News frequently links to news-related Wikipedia articles nowadays. Looie496 ( talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Watching the article. One thing I noticed was that the George Monbiot piece in The Guardian is accurately quoted, as far as that goes, but the balance of his text was not reflected. From our article you would miss the fact that only one third of Monbiot's piece was about the incident itself and the remaining two thirds a scathing attack on climate change deniers. How do people think this ought to be corrected? I would say that Monbiot's view is notable, but we may be up against the news/op-ed distinction. This could also have BLP implications because the email authors are named; ought there to be a post on BLPN? Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We need more watchful eyes on this article. Unfortunately, fringe theorists tend to be more dedicated in promoting their agenda than those who don't care about fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is already on the BLPN, though the response has been disappointing. In response to Hans, the reason why the article looks like it's being slashdotted is because right-wing bloggers are linking to it and denouncing it as an example of "liberal" perfidy. They want the article to be called "Climategate" or "Climate Research Unit scandal" (to which the article was moved before being move-protected), they want to call the scientists criminals and they want to hail the hacker as a heroic whistleblower, in contradiction of what all the reliable sources report; some don't even accept that there was a hack in the first place. It's a festival of OR, blatant POV-pushing and batshit craziness. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, still more eyes on this article. And more discussion on the talk page - and that includes all those who are battling to keep the article neutral. Article is racing out of control and suffering from rampant recentism. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Socks of various banned users are swarming all over this one, so if it's new and unnaturally familiar with wikimarkup, policy etc, let us know or block on sight if you can. I've done a couple yesterday and some more today. Moreschi ( talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

84.72.61.221 around a week and arguing like a regular. To check out? Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More eyes again, please, so that those who have been involved since the original post .... don't fall out between themselves. A very frustrating article to work on. I may need to withdraw from it. Itsmejudith ( talk) 00:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you. The amount of soapboxing, ranting, tendentiousness and general nuttiness on that talk page is quite unbelievable. It's as if a mob of birthers or 9/11 truthers had set up camp there. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically the same folks, right? --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely - the birthers and truthers are a fairly fringe bunch, but the anti-climate science brigade are much more widespread. You only have to look at any article on climate science on any newspaper website that allows reader comments to see that you literally can't write anything on the subject without being inundated with people ranting about socialism, conspiracies and Al Gore. Much the same is happening here. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely what has happened. But the reason I posted again is I am concerned that the effort to hold the ranters at bay could be overshadowed by misunderstandings between some of the editors who have been putting in the hours to keep the article neutral (not you, Chris). Simply, as many eyes as possible please. An RfC or two would not be out of place while the article is still locked down. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This whole thing gets creepier with every iteration. At least a few of the more persistent editors and admins who have an entrenched view on this should recuse themselves at this point. Please allow the public to properly comment, rather than constantly reversing and undermining every single entry that conflicts with your preconception of Climategate. The notion that this is called 'Climategate' or that it is a genuine controversy is not an attack on science, a set of personal attacks or whatever. Mercifully for me I had an account set up prior to this ridiculous mess. Otherwise, I would be one (perhaps will still) of the people accused of being 'sock puppets'. If you just look at Wikipedia itself, you can see that the majority of entries call this 'Climategate'. It seems that only the pages unduly influenced by the small group dominating this subject on the English pages continue to pervert discourse. If you have a shred of decency you will look to truly NPOV editors in other areas of science on Wikipedia and ask them to monitor the pages for vandalism while you remove yourself from the debate. Disagreeing with your little gang is not an act of vandalism. What has been done by the DontCallItClimategate cabal here, OTH, certainly is vandalism. In my opinion, it is vandalism of an extreme nature that reflects very badly on the entire Wikipedia enterprise. The fact that the Internet is trying furiously to route itself around your censorship should be a clue that you have gone off the rails.

Pondicherry interpretation - what is this? Is it genuine? is the man with the red link really qualified? I Googled and he does have a Physics degree. Rupert of the New Age ( talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The text is copied directly from some of his articles (the ones I found were not peer-reviewed but just published on websites) with some OR added. Needs to be turned into a stub at the very best. It hasn't changed much from the initial edit creating the article. Dougweller ( talk) 11:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

just what the world needed -- a Sri Aurobindo interpretation of quantum mechanics. -- dab (𒁳) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ujm ( talk · contribs) is the author, writing about his own work, referring to himself in the 3rd person. Reminds me of David Rohl. I doubt we can keep this article. dab (𒁳) 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He's published in a couple of reputable journals/books (I think, could be wrong) but I can only find 2 very trivial mentions of his work. If it doesn't go to AfD it should only be a brief summary of his work, not an essay by him. Dougweller ( talk) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I also find he is a bona fide physicist, but by all appearances he is also, if you excuse my Klatchian, full of himself, or else he wouldn't give a bunch of articles written by himself the grandiose title of "Pondicherry interpretation" (implying that we have "Pondicherry" answering "Copenhagen"). He also feels called to publishing snippets of personal emails as "endorsements" [26], and of course he feels called to write extensive articles about his own work on Wikipedia.

This is still about a series of bona fide physics papers. I haven't plodded through them enough to grasp the issue, but it's mostly about Mohrhoff publishing a flurry of papers "explaining" the measurment problem (although, in spite of all the "to be is to be measured" I have yet to catch him explaining what he thinks a 'measurment' is, the Gretchenfrage of qm interpretations) and two papers by other authors which grant that Mohrhoff's ideas are interesting but which at the same time point to formal flaws. The question is, does this meet our inclusion criteria? -- dab (𒁳) 12:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I came across this article during New Page patrol and it appears to simply be an unsourced conspiracy theory. I'm tempted to send it to AfD, but I have virtually no history in dealing with fringe theories on Wikipedia. Could someone more knowledgeable take a look and advise the best way to proceed? -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I prodded it. If it reappears, then AfD would be the next step. Obviously, it's complete nonsense. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be viral marketing for an upcoming film or something. [27] -- dab (𒁳) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the extra eyes. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a 'film' being made for something called Betrayalfest 2010 whose producer says it's genuine [28]. See also [29]. Dougweller ( talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

clearly falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Speedied. -- dab (𒁳) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a head's up about the edits of Ntsukunyane Mphanya ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is adding material about the theories of one Dr. Bernard Leeman. (This appears to be all Ntsukunyane Mphanya is adding to Wikipedia.) Yes, Leeman has a Ph.D., & last I checked he is a member of the faculty of some accredited university (IIRC, in Brunei). However, the man's field of study is political science -- he was an armed activist in South Africa -- & he has published an book of dubious value which incorporates a number of other fringe theories in an Afrocentric framework. These edits have been popping up in articles relating to Biblical studies, Ethiopian culture, & other tangentially-related articles. (I've left the material in Kebra Negast only because I have encountered a lot of difficulty in finding works which actually discuss this important work, rather than mention it in passing, or in summarizing Ethiopian history/culture, & Dr. Leeman's work has led me to the only monograph I've found written solely on the Kebra Negast.) So far, I have been reverting these additions based on POV-pushing & undue weight. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I've also been reverting them for a few days. I can't remember if I contacted the editor. If you haven't, could you do so since you know about Leeman's background? Dougweller ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks to Llywrch and Doug, I enjoyed that immensely. As a side-note, I wonder if the ideas of Yosef Ben-Jochannan, a (supposed) Ethiopian Jew and radical Afrocentrist, might have been an influence? Moreschi ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, yes you have: a (IMHO) diplomatic request for pages to the source N.M. was citing for his edits. (I'm wondering whether a more stern message is needed.)

Moreschi, that's quite interesting that Ben-Jochannan claimed to have been born in Gondar in 1918. At the time Gondar was, if I may say, very isolated from the rest of the world, & hardly the place the average Puerto Rican of any faith would find his/her way to -- it was difficult enough for credentialed representatives (i.e., legates, ambassadors, etc.) of a major power to get there. -- llywrch ( talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Gondar was very difficult to get to at that time... it was in the middle of a war with the Wainriders. Blueboar ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait... I was thinking of Gondor... never mind. Blueboar ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit, though unsourced, indicates that the user can also contribute (very) non-fringe material. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

However, "this revert" (see edit summary of reverter) indicates that it's not just the Afrocentrism/Leeman stuff that needs attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot of citations to Leeman, mostly to his book "Biblical Scholarship and the Queen of Sheba". Google turns up no other books published by Queensland Academic Press. If it's not self-published, then I'm the... Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely self-published. And free on the web. It's a bit hard to tease out his background. I find him teaching Business Administration [30] "I also set up a scheme in two UK ESL colleges so students could get a very cheap BA in Business Administration. They took between 14 and 18 exams of the Association of Business Executives (available on 2 to three disks for about 65 pounds). Exams, registration etc came to less than 800 pounds. This gave them two years exemption at several British universities. The final year could be done by distance from the University of Sunderland for about 1500 pounds." [31] "I am involved in MBA, MA and BBA online courses at an Australian university.". [32] "Khanyi and Kellie. I originate in Songea Tanzania but my home since 1968 has been in Kilimanjaro. I became involved in Lesotho in 1970 and served in LLA and APLA. I am nomadic. I am in Australia at the moment but will go back to Indochina soon. My PhD is on BCP/PAC, my mathers in Applied Linguistics, my BA in African History, my present PhD in Cultural Tourism. (Jul 24, 2007}" and his Amazon profile [33] "was raised in Tanzania and South Africa. I took a BA degree from London in African History and returned to Taznania. From 1970 until 1986 I was involved in political and military work for the BCP of Lesotho and the PAC of Azania (South Africa). Since then I have been an academic in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Australia and Morocco and also a language consultant for the Australian Army's UN Rwanda Force. My interests and publications concern the Chagga language of Kilimanjaro, the Queen of Sheba and Old Testament history, The Latos of Eritrea, Southern African history, the East African Campaign 1914-18, the Berber language and establishing an Afghan Women's University." Dougweller ( talk) 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[34] "I have recently published a book “Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship” (Queensland Academic Press) free as an email download, which sought to provide a solution to the bitter struggle within Biblical archaeology as to whether the pre-586 BCE account is fantasy or a true story. My work, which took me 19 years, utilizes Arabian and Ethiopian evdience to conclude that the Old Testament is a true historical account or events that occurred in western Arabia not Palestine. In short, Modern Israel is in the wrong place." Dougweller ( talk) 12:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Good digging. That would appear to be an almost impossible number of academic jobs spanning far too many countries. The inevitable suspicion has to be that most of these employments are simply passing associations with degree mills. The BA in African history might well be true, I suppose, and if he did that at London University, that surely means SOAS. Perfectly checkable if anyone feels the urge. I notice we're not told where the masters and PhDs come from, but none of them seem to relate to political science, which is what Doug tells us he actually teaches. This is highly entertaining, although not quite yet on the level of Dr Boubouleix-style lunacy, and it's interesting as well in that here we actually have something of a bona fide African Afrocentrist, which is really quite rare, Diop and the little school surrounding him apart. I wonder where this guy got his ideas from.

At any rate, it's pretty clear this stuff about Western Arabia is totally unsuitable for the 'pedia, so that we can just revert on sight, and block if attempts are made to edit-war it back in. As for the rest? Deal with it as it comes. Moreschi ( talk) 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Side-note: quickly checking Howe, it would appear that ben-Jochannan has also proposed a version of the "black Jews" meme, and, like Leeman, linked this to Ethiopia. Perhaps that's where this is coming from, although the idea has, I think, a longer history within Afrocentrism, and at any rate I would assume Leeman's work is mercifully free of the poisonous anti-Semitism found in the works of the Puerto Rican ben-Jochannan (and others, see Tony Martin, Leonard Jeffries, etc). Moreschi ( talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Leeman clearly has some connection with SOAS since he was using a SOAS email address as recently as 2006 [35]. Paul B ( talk) 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He also has a history of involvement in unaccredited institutions, though these debates suggest that he is keen to assert his legitimacy. [36] Paul B ( talk) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been googling him too - hours of innocent fun - and have pulled up far more biographical information than needs to go on this page (BLP policy). He was brought up in England, not Africa. First degree from SOAS, probably also a doctorate from there on South African resistance movements, although he boasts elsewhere of having obtained a doctorate in Germany with a thesis written in English. He taught at SOAS, probably as a language assistant or on courses in English for international students. He has also had lvement with at least one university in Australia. User: Ntsukunyane Mphanya is closely associated if not identical. All may be irrelevant unless we want to take up COI. The QoS book is definitely SPS and shouldn't be sourcing anything here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He claims to have two doctorates, the second being the one on Cultural Tourism. It was not clear to me that the pro-Palestinian Australian Bernard Leeman was the same person. Paul B ( talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ooohh, please do email all the gory details, I love this kind of stuff. Makes me go all weak at the knees. Interesting to find out the SOAS association is genuine. I can't wait to see where this goes, could be hours of entertainment. Moreschi ( talk) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait for it Moreschi... It's me! Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cc me too on this, Judith? Your research on Leeman only confirms my suspicions about Ntsukunyane Mphanya's off-wiki identity. (He was the one who pointed me to David Allen Hubbard's thesis -- available thru ILL -- so I am willing to give him something of a break here. :-) -- llywrch ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to sign off wiki now and won't be around much next week either. I'm going to be too busy to email the results. Just try googling with "+Sussex" in the search and again with "+Songea". One, two, many Bernard Leemans. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is a real Ntsukunyane Mphanya, who is a former leader of the Basutoland Congress Party and who appears to have an ideological/historical alliance with Bernard Leeman regarding the history of Lesotho. [37] Paul B ( talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That probably explains a lot. Dougweller ( talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor still active, complaining about censorship at [ [38]]. Dougweller ( talk) 12:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And he left an unsigned comment at Talk:Dʿmt claiming that Dr Nadia Durrani is quoted as stating one thing in her publication, yet in email to him claims she believes the opposite. Not that her book is being misquoted, or that she changed her conclusions in a later publication. He also claimed that "the matter has now been taken to the arbitrators with copies of Dr Nadia Durrani’s emails". (I'm scratching my head over his complaint: why doesn't he just provide the evidence requested?) -- llywrch ( talk) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this text (and more) from Aksumite Empire: "However when a plan was suggested to use rubble covering Yodit's alleged grave below Adi Kaweh to repair a road local resistance was so intense that it was not only abandoned but led to archaeological excavations by a joint German-Ethiopian team that has so far unearthed a Sabaean temple with an altar inscriptions mentioning Yeha; and a skeleton, said to be male (Tesfa-Alem Tekle, Jimma Times 30 November 2007), although this is open to question given Yodit's career as a childless cavalry commander (Leeman 2009)" after finding the Jimma Times article here - lovely use of a source, eh? He was editing as an IP, but as edits, articles, and use of Harvard referencing in conflict with the referencing used in the article shows it to be the same person, presumably not logged in. Dougweller ( talk) 09:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also removed a lot of unsourced stuff, BLP and OR, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sharpeville_massacre&action=historysubmit&diff=331590156&oldid=331442742 at Sharpeville massacre. Dougweller ( talk) 09:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've stayed away from his non-Ethiopian edits; I honestly don't know enough about African-American history for my intuitive sense of what is plausible to be correct. On the other hand, it is frustrating that he finds some useful sources, & is correct that Wikipedia needs to pay more attention to the Jewish/Hebrew influence in Ethiopian history (as well as the archeology of that part of Africa), he insists on adding these fringe theories, & persists in this unconstructive manner, which only serve to bring disbelief to those who aren't "true believers". -- llywrch ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Current complaints at Talk:Ark of the Covenant, and latest spam for Leeman at [39]. This is getting a tad tedious. Can someone please thoroughly explain WP:NOT to this fellow? My suspicion is that we dealing with an ideologue who needs extensive reprogramming, but he deserves a chance at least. Moreschi ( talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I left him this attempt to engage him concerning his peculiar approach to one of his points of contention. So far no response. :-( llywrch ( talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He thinks Wikipedia is a blog, see Talk:Sharpeville_massacre#Neutrality. Dougweller ( talk) 06:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And Leeman is an editor here Bntleeman ( talk · contribs). Evidently when he edited he added a lot of his personal knowledge, ie OR. Dougweller ( talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone has recently revised the Great Year article to emphasize that the "Great Year" and the "Platonic Year" are two different things. Would this constitute a fringe theory? As far as I can tell, the scholarly consensus is that the "Great Year" and the "Platonic Year" refer to the same thing. - 38.112.107.3 ( talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With the caveat that I'm not familiar with any of this stuff, the article says that a Platonic year is different because it requires that the planets, and not just the constellations, return to their original positions. The article does at least have some POV issues, however, with phrases like "it is truly unfortunate that...". Looie496 ( talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that our Axial precession (astronomy) article has "called a Great or Platonic year in astrology" in the intro. - Pollinosisss ( talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

the article needs cleanup, both before and after the anon's edit, so there is little point in reverting. Somebody needs to sit down and do it properly. -- dab (𒁳) 09:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For a long time, the first was a placeholder redirect to the second. I've now removed the redirect and started an article. Hopefully from now on no one wil be misled by following links to Vedic astrology. Meanwhile, unfortunately, gremlins and entropy have already brought their usual horrors to Jyotiṣa, the erstwhile redirect/link target. Back in July someone went to town with the article and, besides eliminating all but one source of references, also thoughtfully deleted all of the historical and contemporary information that Dab and I had collected (as part of a cleanup effort a while back) and which had a secondary aim of hopefully warning off the "vedic" enthusiasts. The article is now shorn of all references except to the works of someone who is practically unknown to Google scholar (basically, a David Frawley clone.) And, sure enough, with nothing to warn against it, in the fullness of time the "vedic" bogey has been written into the lede. It's possible that any attempt to restore sanity to the article may be resisted, considering statements such as this and this. rudra ( talk) 03:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you didn't just revert to the last good version. This was quite obviously an attack on the article's integrity, and we have enough policies to smack people with who make such attempts. It is, however, disturbing that nobody noticed the attack for almost half a year. It appears that other than Rudrasharman and myself, nobody is watching this article, and when the two of us aren't looking, the gremlins are free to just tear it down yet again. -- dab (𒁳) 12:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, an integrity attack wasn't that obvious to me. In fact, it looked more like an instance of Clark's Law (and he did add some flags that made his expertise level clear). So my first thought was that merging/editing might be a better response than reverting. ( WP:BOLD, that massive green light for the adventurously clueless, struck again, it seems.) rudra ( talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On further examination, I do have to agree that the net effect of this fellow's efforts have been quite destructive. All over the place, he has deleted the older scrutable albeit unreferenced text, and his replacements are "referenced" gibberish/woo ("In Jyotisha, the zodiac is called kalpurusha, the eternal time that has no beginning or end. In the Vedas, the ecliptic is referred to as the Sudarshan Chakra, the wheel in the hand of Lord Vishnu, the creator of the universe. [...] The progression through the zodiac signs represents the cosmic evolution of the soul."). I think we need to rethink the cleanup process with a view towards preventing future recurrences of a disaster like this one. E.g., convert this article to summary style. rudra ( talk) 12:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether this was malice or cluelessness, as our reaction is going to be the same either way. I like your expression of "gremlins and entropy" . -- it's irrelevant whether it was a gremlin (India must be brimfull of these) or just entropy. The Jyotisha article is a troll magnet because it combines the "astrology" troublespot with the "Hindu patriotism" one. -- dab (𒁳) 13:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw it on DYK. Cites two sources, some synth issues with one of the references. I get a bit nervous about any article purporting to be scientific that has both a very limited range of sources 'and' WP:SYNTH issues of any sort so I thought I'd mention it.

Perhaps a cosmology specialist can take a look and, if legitimate, expand. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject is legitimate speculation and there are often whimsical proposals written on the subject, though I've never heard it called "neocatastrophism". ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does appear in at least a few RS's (like the University of Regina website) here, Google scholar here, as well as the (God help us) Velikovsky Encyclopedia, so the term and subject seem to be notable, although the content could probably use work. John Carter ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Catastrophism is a term from geology, while the neocatastrophism in question is more about cosmology (or astronomy?) than geology. However, it seems that the hits you've found are related to geology and hence are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Phiwum ( talk) 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

the subject is certainly notabe enough, the question is, do we need a separate article under this heading? What this is, effectively, is one angle on Fermi's paradox, and I see no reason to split it off its main article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is a merger proposal, I think that would be a reasonable idea. John Carter ( talk) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, neo-catastrophism as I have heard about it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, or very little to do with it. John Carter's found the sorts of sources I expected the article to use when I saw the subject heading. It's a variant of catastrophism relevant to the Earth, eg [40] [41] [42] - it's worth looking at the Velikovsky Encylopedia's first 2 definitions [43]. Perhaps we need to to have a redirect called Neocastrophism (astrobiology) and another to maybe Catastrophism, then there is paleontology to deal with perhaps? See Talk:Catastrophism#NeoCatastrophism. Dougweller ( talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have started a new talk page section about why he's notable. This article is in desperate need of coverage of his fringe POV. The article reads more like a hagiography. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87

The following amended sentence was posted on the Mileva Maric page on 19 December 2009:

A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

The full context is as follows:

The question whether (and if so, to what extent) Marić contributed to Einstein's early work, and to the Annus Mirabilis Papers in particular, is controversial. However, the overwelming consensus among professional historians of physics is that she did not.[32]. A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

Reference 33 cites Margarete Maurer, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and Evan Harris Walker. However, none of these are historians of physics, historians of science, or indeed historians at all.

Margarete Maurer is a lecturer for theoretical aspects in the Life Sciences at the universities of Innsbruck and Vienna, especially "nature", "gender" and philosophy/sociology of science. http://www.epws.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=4652

Senta Troemel-Ploetz is a linguist and writer on feminist themes. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senta_Tr%C3%B6mel-Pl%C3%B6tz

Evan Harris Walker was a physicist, but at the time when he wrote about Maric and Einstein he was the Director of the Walker Cancer Research Institute which he founded. He also published books on the nature of consciousness. http://www.pdonovan.com/blog_face_reviews/evan_walker.php

I therefore propose that the sentence in question be amended to:

However other academics argue that she may have played some role.

[Open to suggestions]

Esterson ( talk) 09:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

classic fringe material. This theory has been discussed and found lacking merit. There are just a few die-hard feminists who keep assuming there must be a conspiracy. It's a question of WP:DUE. -- dab (𒁳) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a big Arbcom case on this. I've looked it over again and still see big issues with information metabolism; if anything, it's worse than ever. I've asked arbcom for comment about my editing in the matter, since I am technically an interested party, but I would invite others to take another look. Mangoe ( talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Relating to an unresponded to discussion an IP editor has added the Republic of China to the Government in exile article. Past consensus has been that the Republic of China is not in exile, as the IP editor has claimed; therefore, without new consensus or references provided, the content was removed from the article. Relevant articles relating to this topic are Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Treaty of Taipei. This is a highly contentious topic, and as such WP:NEU clearly applies, and discussion should attempt to remain civil.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely Taiwan began with the Kuomintang as a government in exile? Whether it is now or not is another matter, but it definitely was considered to be a government-in-exile in the 50s. [44] Fences& Windows 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there a period of time during which the Kuomintang did not control any part of the previous territory that it had governed? If so, it would have been a government-in-exile during such a period. If not, then it would not have been a government-in-exile, even if some sources would describe it as such.   Cs32en  19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the KMT would probably question the "government in exile" label if you asked them today. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that the articles associated with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Keirsey Temperament Sorter identify historical figures and living humans as belonging to various archetypes and personality types as intuited by "experts" (who might be classified as "true believers")? Since these are simply the opinions of pseudoscientists and not facts, I recommend either a hefty couching of these lists or an outright removal. They are extremely misleading to the casual reader and also possibly BLP violations.

Did you know that Kristi Yamaguchi is an ISFJ or that Sandra Day O'Connor is a Supervisor (Role Variant)? No? I bet they didn't either.

Please help clean up this walled garden.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This personality type material quite apparently has the tendency to attract cruft. Remember the circus surrounding Socionics we had a whileback. We just need to insist stuff is referenced closely, and prevent articles from sprawling out into sub-articles. It's not a problem to have a lengthy article on each type, even with this kind of dubious sorting of historical individuals, just as long as things remain closely sourced. -- dab (𒁳) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with notable and sourced speculation. But every random psychological typing website isn't a notable source. Mangoe ( talk) 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with psychological typing until they do two things: 1) suggest the set of patterns and categorizations applied to people are indicative of underlying structures within the mind that are universal and not just ideas used by those who subscribe to them.

2) Start applying the type to people who have not participated in a typing scheme. So, basically, my question would be this: is there a RS stating that Kristi Yamaguchi self-identifies as an ISFJ?

The funny thing about the MBTI in particular is that the authors of the program are aware that the results are not valid without conscious self-selection. So typing strangers is basically the worst sort of bad behaviour from an insider perspective. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could some outside editors have a look at the discussion at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center#Conspiracy theory section heading, which concerns whether a fringe viewpoint should be represented in the article. Hut 8.5 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Weighed in. Other comments welcome. Moreschi ( talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Creator of this masterpiece User:0XQ has also made a number of other, er, quirky edits. Paul B ( talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to print off and pin up on their walls this work of genius, before it gets deleted in a couple of days. Truly brilliant crackpottery, and seemingly all the better because it would look to be fairly agenda-free - or there's not an obvious agenda, at any rate.

Some cleanup work may be needed of the author's other edits. Moreschi ( talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Spirit spouse, Exomissiology, Exotheology, and Vanaspati (god), interesting pages with various degrees of sanity. Moreschi ( talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. rudra ( talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another channelled text, article needs a lot of cleaning up. Dougweller ( talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it up for prod. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

See also this AFD, where a SPA is valiantly defending a related article against a tide of consensus for delete. — æk ^Talk 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now up for AfD. [45] Simonm223 ( talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

More eyes please. There is presently an RFC about whether it was removing vandalism to delete inappropriately referenced claims that human-caused global warming is discredited. Argh! Simonm223 ( talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Because those that see the apparition have to worry about keeping a security clearance, sightings are not always well publicized to coworkers, the outside world, or at all." Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia ; - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Humm, this reads like a joke article. The "Demon Cat", which foretells the future of Washington DC, is repeatedly abbreviated to "D.C." and lives in the "catafalque". Paul B ( talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, googling "Washington Demon Cat" does actually get some results. I'd be surprised if this was genuinely notable but the story doesn't seem to have been a joke thought up in school one day. Moreschi ( talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[46]. Seems like not hoax. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Capitol Demon Cat" gets even more results, including the "Monstropedia" entry here using the book above as a reference. John Carter ( talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's in the book alright. It's discussed among several other wonders of the age such as "James Garfield's Psychic powers". The question is whether this is a joke made up by the author of the book. Can we really have an article soley cited to a book with chapters on the following?:

---THE WORKERS WHO NEVER LEAVE, JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ETERNAL SPEECH, THE NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY IN STATUARY HALL, A DOUGHBOY'S SALUTE, THE RETURN OF GARFIELD AND HIS ASSASSIN, UNCLE JOE CANNON AND CHAMP CLARK, FISHBAIT MILLER'S CHICKEN GHOSTS, GENERAL LOGAN'S CONSTANT CONCERN, THE INVISIBLE GUARD, THE SLAIN LAWYER, BISHOP SIMM'S SONGS, BOISE PENROSE CATCHES UP, HENRY WILSON'S PERPETUAL TUBBING, BLOOD ON THE HOUSE GALLERY STAIRS, PIERRE L'ENFANT'S SORROWFUL VIGIL, THE LIBRARIAN'S LOST CACHE, A CONTINENTAL SOLDIER PAYS HIS RESPECTS, DEMON CAT, THE CURSE ON THE CAPITOL. Paul B ( talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Washington capitol ghost cat" produces several google books entries, at least some of which directly mention this alleged phenomenon, here. I acknowledge that cannot prove, one way or another, that someone did not make up the story sometime, but it does seem to meet notability criteria. Exploring the evolution of the idea is another matter entirely. John Carter ( talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is folklore, I don't think we need to worry about whether this "demon cat" actually exists ... What we need is evidence that a legend about a "demon cat" actually exists and is notable. Compare this to say the legend of the Headless Horseman... While that is purely a fictitious tale created by Washington Irving, what makes it notable is the fact that it has been discussed by other sources, and has been made into movies, etc. Blueboar ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the real thing but the book in the article is the only book published by the Washingtonian Book Trading Company. However, [47] Here's an old (1892) news story from the Chicago Tribune, or rather a snippet [48], a recent free story (most aren't free) [49] and another book "demon+cat"+catafalque&ots=fl-6oz5SON&sig=LsXNBAVL8XTr9Skt0uqkF8Zwc3o#v=onepage&q=demon&f=false. I can find some other 19th century articles you have to pay for. I'd work on the article but I really want to fix Queen of Sheba so it isn't quite so certain there was a historical Queen and king(queen?)dom. Dougweller ( talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I admit the reality of the Demon Cat. The truth can be supppressed no longer whatever it may do to my security clearance. All who tamper with Queen of Sheba will draw down the wrath of the Ethiopian true believers in the Queen. Dare you tackle Race of Jesus? Paul B ( talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Answering "yes" would probably count as a suicide threat, wouldn't it? John Carter ( talk) 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that "Race of Jesus" isn't just a redirect to Jewish. That would be funny. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be reverted due to virgin birth of Jesus & immaculate conception, meaning one could argue that, at best, he was one-quarter Hebrew. (And then there is the subject of Christology, which arose due to Greek scientific thinking that carnal & divine were absolute qualities & could not exist in the same matter -- or living person.) -- llywrch ( talk) 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a half decent ref from CNN.com for the folklore angle and trimmed to reflect the absence of other WP:RS sources, though its likely there are some out there. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Race of Jesus must resist urge to stubb down to "If he existed he was human." Simonm223 ( talk) 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by a named account, only to be reverted myself by an IP. [50] The lead now begins "The Angel Moroni (pronounced /m?'ro?na?/) is an angel". Dougweller ( talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I always got a chuckle out of the idea that the angel who purportedly gave the tablets to Joe Smith was a moron(i). Simonm223 ( talk) 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who watch South Park... "dum dum dum dum dum". Blueboar ( talk) 21:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Moses just got plain ol' stone tablets, not gold ones like Smith, in addition to getting mooned by God. Poor guy. Auntie E. 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why Moses got to keep them, and Smith had to return his for the deposit. - Nunh-huh 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Angel Zamboni who sculpted his tablets in ice. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What to do about this "new concept in human health and identity"? It is supposed to mean "distress in the face of environmental destruction". I am sure that the reaction to environmental degradation has been studied and is a notable topic. But Glenn Albrecht ( talk · contribs) pretends that by slapping a made-up portmanteau on the topic it becomes a "new concept". The man appears to be university professor at Murdoch University, Perth, which is pretty much the only reason I haven't speedied this.

The only third-party reference quoted based is critical [51] dab (𒁳) 12:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida does not usually accept articles on neologisms... have any third party sources used the term? If not, the article should either be deleted or merged to some other article that covers the concept. Blueboar ( talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

google it. It does verify in assorted online blogs, magazines and glossaries. There are third party sources, as I state above the article even cites a critical one. The question is, does this suffice? The other question is, what would be "some other article that covers the concept"? If I had found one, I would just have silently merged. But our environmental degradation article is disgracefully stubby. -- dab (𒁳) 14:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that Google hits and blogs are not WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, I am the one reporting this here. How about some sort of constructive suggestion on how to deal with this? -- dab (𒁳) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not meaningful, but Google Scholar hits usually are, and this term gets over 30 of them, many independent of the creator. In my opinion there is enough literature to support an article. Looie496 ( talk) 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

for chrissakes, I know that "google hits are not meaningful", ok? Please keep telling me that. It is surrealy to tell me that and then go on to argue that the article should be kept because the word got 30 hits on google scholar. Google hits are a useful indicator. If you get, say, 8,000 hits on google scholar, or 1,200,000 hits on google, chances are that the topic is notable one way or another. 30 hits on google scholar (how many of them due to Albrecht himself?) tell you nothing. -- dab (𒁳) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually directing the comment about Google Hits towards HandThatFeeds; sorry for the confusion. I agree that Google Scholar hits are not automatically meaningful, but it generally gives a much better filter than Google Web, and in this case my impression was that the specific things that showed up were sufficient. Looie496 ( talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Maybe I was a bit blunt, but the point is that the number of results doesn't even mean this term is notable enough to get meaningful references. Has anyone delved into the Google Scholar results to see if there's more than a passing mention to the term in those 30 hits? — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This AP article covers many subjects relevant to articles about alternative medicine:

• Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

Brangifer ( talk) 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was certainly...ahem...entertaining? Perhaps we should have newsflash bulletins posted to this noticeboard on a regular basis whenever some celebrity comes up with similarly cretinous pronouncements, so we know to pay extra special attention to various bits of our watchlists. Moreschi ( talk) 22:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the irresponsible views of some celebrities fortunately get a nice spanking in that article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, and to think some people think certain editors use the Fringe Noticeboard as a canvassing board. stmrlbs| talk 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stricken comment was certainly appropriate and really needn't have been stricken. Defending me against a personal attack was perfectly appropriate. No canvassing involved. The purpose of these boards is to bring to the attention of interested individuals some topics they might find useful. This noticeboard is for "fringe" topics, and that article certainly deals with it. Immediately after posting here it dawned on me that another board might also find this subject interesting, so I posted there as well. It's both a fringe and a medical subject. Now if pushers of fringe POV like the complainant above would like to comment there, be my guest. These noticeboards, just like projects, are a level deeper in Wikipedia than the article talk pages and all kinds of interesting things occur here ;-) If you want to get even deeper, where things like the NPA policy aren't even enforced, go to any ArbCom proceeding. There mayhem rules the day, with all kinds of policy violations. They often resemble mob rule and a kangaroo court, unless a really good clerk is doing their job. No, this is pretty standard and innocent posting of information. We try to keep it civil and not attack people who use the boards appropriately. If my posting had been off-topic it might have been a different matter, with the posting getting ignored. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this board: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Is there an Wikipedia article on this? Is there undue weight being given somewhere about this Somer's opinion in a wikipedia article? You didn't mention the wikipedia article that you were referring to. stmrlbs| talk 05:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers discusses this and should use the above article as a source. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Place4us ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A quick glance at some of the user's edits seem a bit odd, and far beyond a typical new account. This edit [52] and this one [53] just feel odd to me. Ravensfire ( talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A few seem okay, but others seem rather odd. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban evader, indeffed by User:John Vandenberg. Well spotted. Dougweller ( talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could a few regulars familiar with the complementary and alternative medicine topic area look over Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Regulated professional trade publication's reliability and provide some feedback? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 07:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One editor was good enough to speak up, but the voices of a few more editors clued in about the area would help make sure the matter is resolved firmly. Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 10:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This needs some attention. Currently it gives significant coverage to the theory milk with predominantly A1 β-casein is harmful without making it clear most independent reviews have found the evidence is too weak to support the conclusion e.g. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-law/projects/a1-a2-milk/ Nil Einne ( talk) 08:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the obvious thing to do would simply be to revert this edit, hence cutting the more fringey material at a stroke. Moreschi ( talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A classic WP:FRINGE article, notability is arguable because there have been TV shows about it and what not, but at the same time the thing has zero credibility in academia. But in this case we have User:David Rohl, the author himself, keeping a tight watch on the topic to ensure it is presented as favourably as at all possible. Same problem at the David Rohl bio article. Rohl is touted as an "Egyptologist" because he once got a university degree in that field. He neither has any academic affiliatin, nor does he have a PhD, so I think the label (and the category) aren't appropriate without qualification. -- dab (𒁳) 10:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is straightforward WP:COI, surely? At least he is doing so honestly. If he wants to watch over the biography article, fair enough ( BLP and all that), but really, the New Chronology stuff should be left to outside editors. Doubtless Rohl's help is appreciated in establishing what his thoughts are but he shouldn't be touching any evaluative content. Moreschi ( talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I told him as much, and he was being rather cooperative about it, agreeing not to edit the article. He is more or less restricting his activities to the talkpage, but he is dominating the talkpage. The text he contributed to the wiki article on his theory would probably fill another book by now. -- dab (𒁳) 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that he can rant all he wants on the talk page... as long as he isn't editing the actual article it does not really make a difference. Or am I missing something? Blueboar ( talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

yes. Your first reaction is "COI!" Your second reaction is, bah, let him fill the talkpage. And then after a year you note how the article never makes any progress because Rohl is putting so much effort into his "suggestions" on talk where they are picked up by the credulous and the fringily inclined that Rohl is in effect editing by proxy. We do have a bunch of editors who are very much into Rohl's chronology. This isn't evil or anyting, but it's below-par scholarship with the potential of significantly eroding the quality on little-watched articles about ancient history. It's not a big deal, but I am putting it here in the hope that the article will get more attention from editors experienced in dealing with fringe theories. -- dab (𒁳) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} Not to mention how defensive Rohl is... it makes for an uncomfortable editing environment. He doesn't want to admit he has a CoI! Simonm223 ( talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now suggesting that it's "loony" to disbelieve his chronlogy... which he refers to in the third person. On the plus side he seems to become so antagonistic to me that he's forgotten entirely how angry he was at dab. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and disbelieving the veracity of the bible is now, apparently, ignorant dogma. ROTFL. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's sad. I really enjoyed A Test of Time at one time. In a way his books are a good example of how a somewhat legitimate exploratory historical revisionist goes complete loony over time.-- LexCorp ( talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. The early works of Tony Martin were reputable, scholarly pieces (if a little one-sided) on the life and times of Marcus Garvey. More recently, however... Moreschi ( talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that I'm much less interested in egyptology per say than I am in historical revisionism; it has been a very potent political tool in the past. I wasn't aware of Tony Martin previously; thanks for pointing me in his direction. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw a plea at WikiProject Rational Skepticism for eyes on both of these articles. The AAH one has been protected for 2 weeks, the other is unprotected. My experience of this debate elsewhere has not been pleasant. Dougweller ( talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this could use some attention. The first thing that hit my eye was that both participants could potentially use a break from their rollback buttons. Moreschi ( talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found that the person on the AAH page who included the references from the website has been very amenable to reasonable suggestions. This could be resolved positively yet. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the participants be able to agree on a to-do list for the AAH article? My impression was that it was informative and presented info neutrally but that it was a bit sprawly and potentially needed restructuring. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)