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

At Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island) an editor is arguing that NEARA (the New England Antiquities Research Association) is not fringe. Since it supports most of the fringe ideas about pre-Columbian contact with the Americas, I think it's clearly fringe. An edit war seems to be developing over this. Dougweller ( talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the NEARA webpage... I have to agree. The group seems dedicated to promoting fringe ideas about pre-Columbian contact (or at least accepting them without criticism). That said, the theory that Newport Tower was built by Vikings (or the Knights Templar... or some other group of pre-Columbian era Europeans) is a notable fringe theory... and NEARA may be notable enough to warrant being mentioned as being adherents of that fringe theory. I think they can be mentioned, but the mention must be worded carefully to prevent giving undue weight to their views. Blueboar ( talk) 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We could use some extra input and some calming influence at Talk:Acupuncture#Who Wrote That? (or, Proper Attribution of WHO Review) probably. I'm getting fed up with a promoter. ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note this is relevant to this page. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone is inserting questionable content into Thermite, and is misrepresenting sources to do so. Aiken ♫ 19:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's lead starts out with an unsupported claim about the origin of a particular geometric diagram being from "early Kabbalist scriptures", and which I suspect is incorrect. It continues with some more statements that seem to make little sense, throws into the mix alchemy and flower of life, adding problems with apparent WP:Synthesis. Then there follows a section about Platonic solids, without explaining what the connection is with the subject of the article. Of the sources used, the only one that has anything to do with the subject is a dead link.

I have no idea what can be done to improve the article. 173.52.182.160 ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted some recent large edits, though I'm willing to be persuaded that they might improve the article. The editor who made the edits isn't as yet doing much persuading. If others agree, or disagree, with the rearranging, deletion and addition, can they please way in to try and move beyond the current meta-discussion we appear to be mired in on the talk page. The article is currently locked due to this little contretemps. Thanks! Verbal chat 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if PBS would just explain the edits as requested instead of repeating that he did so at the time. I don't see a lot wrong with his edits except for the deletions. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this is getting tiresome, but editor Smatprt is trying to insert the Shakespeare authorship question into the historical revisionism article as an example. The article itself contradicts this interpretation. The discussion can be read here.

Historical revisionism is an accepted scholarly process, not a denial of the academic consensus. The Shakespeare authorship question is already listed as an example in the Pseudohistory article (which Smatprt resisted) and the Fringe theory article (which he fought to include), both of which are valid classifications. There is also a subcategory of historical revisionism, Historical revisionism (negationism), which denies historical reality, not reinterprets it, and in which the Shakespeare authorship question qualifies to be included. I have not added it there because there is a further sub-category, negationism, which the article concentrates on and the examples given are so repugnant that I fear its very presence would violate NPOV. (Anti-Stratfordism is a relatively benign fantasy compared to the examples on that page, even though its methodology is identical.)

I have stated that if he produced a reliable source stating that the SAQ was an example of historical revisionism that I would cease to oppose its inclusion. Since according to the definition given in the article, historical revisionism is a part of the academic field of history, a source from the academic field of history that specifically states that the SAQ is an example of revisionism is what is called for. So far all he has come up with is an attempt to extend a comment by James Shapiro to encompass the entire topic of anti-Stratfordism, a newspaper comment about "revisionist scholars," (whatever they are), and a cite that contradicts his assertion that the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism.

Needless to say, I would like for this dispute to be settled so that I might spend my time more productively. The issue was discussed to death at ScienceApologist's talk page (a discussion which started out as a complaint from Smatprt that he was being harrassed), and I thought it was settled when ScienceApologist opined that "It seems reasonable to me to keep SAQ off of the negationism page, but it seems reasonable to put it on the pseudohistory page. I don't think it really belongs on the Historical Revisionism page because it isn't usually considered to be that way.", but Smatprt came back today with the above-mentioned refs.

I would also add that these incessant attempts to promote the Shakespeare authorship question by inserting a mention of the topic in every possible article grows wearisome beyond belief, and if anybody has some advice on how this problem could be solved I would very much appreciate it. Of course, I do realise that withdrawal from editing Wikipedia is always an option, but I would like to continue to contribute if I can avoid these long and tedious content disputes. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I too am growing tired of this endless game. Users Tom Reedy and Nishidani have drawn out and exaggerated this issue to no end. To read this summary one would think that I and a cabal of renegade editors have been inserting the Shakespeare Authorship Question into an endless and growing mass of wikipedia articles. The truth is another matter. Out of the thousands of Shakespeare related articles, I am aware of a handful of articles that (prior to Tom's recent deletion spree) actually had a line or two that included a reference to the authorship question. Given the amount of attention the issue has received in print, and the number and variety of notable adherents, that the issue is mentioned in a small group of related articles is hardly surprising, and certainly not evidence of some sinister far-reaching plan.

In regards to THIS latest salvo, much of which was already discussed here [1], here are several references that support the view that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is an example of Historical Revisionism, which is defined at the Fringe theory article as "novel re-interpretations of history".

• Shapiro (Contested Will, Simon and Shuster), makes the connection that searching for topical allusions within the plays has turned into revisionist history - "What began with a disguised author's hidden life blossomed into far-reaching and revisionist history: 'the inner story in the plays,' Donnelly writes, makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent... In the end, finding a disguised signature or an embedded autobiography or even rewriting world history wasn't enough...'.
• Albany Times, clearly labeled SAQ researchers as "revisionist scholars" - "In the 1950s, revisionist scholars favored playwright Christopher Marlowe as the true Bard of Avon."
• Warren Hope and Kim Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy (MacFarland and Company): "This history of the subject is quite different. It is written from the point of view that there is an authorship question, that it is important, and that the right answer has already been found and broadcast among us"; "In short, this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view"

• Newsweek Magazine: "Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays."

• New York Times article on Moliere authorship debate: "Statisticians like Labbé think they have found the ultimate tool to determine authorship, and they use it to aggrandize their position in the field." In [Forestier's] eyes, a strictly scientific approach to authorship is dangerously revisionist, because it omits the textual analysis."

According to the article, "historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change."

Now can we please inject a dose of common sense? The definition above applies to the Shakespeare Authorship Question to a "t".

• The "event" (obviously) is the writing of the plays and poems. Did Shakespeare of Stratford write them? Did he write them alone or as part of a group? Was he just a front man for a group or some other writer?

• This "event", in the eyes of authorship revisionists, has been interpreted incorrectly by the majority of scholars. These authorship doubters reinterpret orthodox views and question the motivations and decision-making processes of orthodox scholars.

The article also states: "Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo."

• The sections in bold accurately describe current authorship studies going on at Brunel University and Concordia University, where the university-sanctioned Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre recently opened.

Lastly, attempts to equate the authorship debate with Holocaust Denial are simply repugnant. Smatprt ( talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt has epitomised the anti-Stratfordian methodology in his defence: pick out a few characteristics that support his thesis while ignoring the broader context. For example, he ignores the opinion of historians Deborah Lipstadt, Michael Shermer, and Alex Grobman in the article, who make a distinction between revisionism and denial. Revisionism is an accepted scholarly process; denial of the historical record--which anti-Stratfordism requires--is not revisionism, it is denialism, which has a shallow resemblance to revisionism, which Smatprt demonstrates above.

From the article on denialism:

• "It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists can engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence" This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "To do this they employ "distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents' positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as 'the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.'" This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible." SAQ proponents do.

No one is claiming that Holocaust denial and the SAQ are morally equivalent, and trotting out that as a defence is yet another tactic anti-Stratfordians typically use to rationalise their demand for "equal time" with the scholarly consensus.

It is amazing to me that this debate is even necessary on Wikipedia, a place where the search and dissemination of knowledge is supposed to be the highest goal. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inject a note of commonsense? Professors at Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge dismiss this fringe fantasy as extraterritorial to Shakespearean scholarship, and generally classify it as a form of lunacy, cultivated by amateurs without any background in scholarship. You google round, and find, of the 20,000 teachers and professors in the USA that a couple of minor figures teach the subject. Ergo, it is not fringe, but a minority viewpoint. Ergo, though there are no academic sources qualifying in terms of WP:RS for the point of view, you ask us to bend the rules on that, to allow minority press material, or vanity press imprints, into wikipedia, .

Your most recent strategy is to try and use the historical revisionism page to create a precedent you can then use to wedge this crap into all pages on Shakespeare. If the wikipedia community, which is yawning or indifferent, lets this pass, then the SAQ fantasy, which has no serious academic recognition, passes as a minority view within academia (see the lead), which it is not.

Googling for connections ('revisionism'+SAQ) and coming up with stuff by journalists from the Albany Times to tweak the arguments you keep recycling all over the place, does not constitute a valid method. Hope and Holsten? Hope writes popular bios of Hollywood actors: Holsten teaches in high school, when last heard of. The lead of historical revisionism says the subject must be treated by historians as a challenge by academics to an academic controversy. This is not the case here, since the SAQ is not regarded by the relevant academic communities (Elizabethan history/Shakespearean scholarship as anything more than a bizarre fixation by rank outsiders.

I see that no one actually renders an outside opinion on this, except Reedy and myself. You are a one-man show, with some concealed sympathisers from the de Verean fold ready to hop in, apparently on request, to revert in your favour. But none of them will stand up and argue the points on talk pages. We have said and repeated the objections, and you still persist in tweaking. The wikipedian community shows no interest either way. But there is something hugely odd in the fact that only you are pushing this eccentricity here, and on every page concerned directly or marginally with Shakespeare. If you have some serious support in academic literature show it. If the tagteamers who keep popping up to bolster your position by revert really believe what you say, they should get off their lazy buts and join you in arguing the case, instead of mechanically reverting in your favour with little more than a dull edit summary to justify their partisan ideological support. Nishidani ( talk) 09:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an outside opinion. It's in a list of short paragraphs of examples. It doesn't really add much to the list, so it could go. On the other hand it doesn't do too much harm either if and only if it is rewritten to remove detail and presented as an idea that had its heyday in the past. One of the Just William stories lampooned it well. Nishidani - I think of you as a literary scholar - spelling - "get off their lazy butts", not "buts" - I'm shocked. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, eerh.'Even Nomer hods', well no, that gambit implies I've a Tamburlanesque image of my self-inflated ego. Then, well, uh . .litratcha scholars ah . .these days haven't that much of a good press as paragons of orthographical rectitude. So, rather than being a, what them Latin fellers called a lapsus calamity I think that writen 'buts' for 'butts' just shows what a poor bunch of amnesiacal slopheads some of us, some of me, are. But of course, my dear, from a psycho-anal-itical perspective, I could put that all arse-about, and play the Jane-Austinesque prudery gambit about using a slangy Americanism for the posterior, asserting the confusion deftly disguised my fastidious anglophone distaste by a delicate strategy of allusive misprision. Yes, that sounds better..'Butt, the truth of the matter is that it was just a hidden pun, alluding to the holocaust denialism+SAQ analogy as in my edit today on this, where, you will duly note that I was thinking of Arthur Butz! Nishidani ( talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But me no buts. You still get a mark deducted from your GCSE paper. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Be grateful that his assiduous researching of Lard Oxford did not cause him to type "buttox". Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that this belongs in the Historical revisionism article. I was unaware of this dispute until now, and have only just read the article. All the other examples given are of legitimate historical disputes. Many, many more could be given. They are instances of established scholarship being challenged by new thinking by legitimate scholars which might (or might not) overturn conventional readings of events. In some cases the 'revisions' are really rather minor (were the English greatly outnumbered at Agincourt or only slightly outnumbered?). Some are more important. There are any number of similar areas of historical dispute that might be included (look at the recent fracas about the revisionist model of Celtic origins over at Celts). But SAQ is not historical revisionism of this type at all. It is purely a fringe conspiracy theory. So I wholly disagree with Judith's claim that "it doesn't do much harm". It does a great deal of harm. To include it would be to set a precedent that would admit any fringe theory to the article. The article should provide useful examples to the reader, ones that help him/her to understand how legitimate historical revisionism occurs and what it is. It's not a dumping ground for potted summaries of quirky theories. There is a wider question here of Smatprt's evangelistic editing, which is almost wholly dedicated to sticking Oxfordianist propaganda anywhere and everywhere regardless of its relevance. Paul B ( talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In Shakespeare studies, a legitimate example of historical revisionism would be the current near-consensus that Shakespeare collaborated instead of being a lone genius, which was the scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. Shapiro talks about how uncomfortable he was with the idea, but that stylometric studies of the type chronicled by Brian Vickers and other evidence has convinced many scholars that Shakespeare's compositional methods must be rethought. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt. It should be in the article. I studied the SAQ in both school and in college, and I didn't even know it wasn't well known until this whole thing started, as I'll explain in a moment, I used it as an example of a well known piece of Historical Revisionism in an essay. In school, we did Lear for the Leaving Cert (I'm Irish), and our teacher (who, to be fair, was a sub doing a BA in UCD) spent 2 days on the SAQ. Then in college, in first year, we were doing Midsummer Night and Winter's Tale and our lecturer, Pat Burke, an extremely knowledgable Shakesperean did a lecture on it, as he did in second year in relation to Hamlet and, I think, Antony and Cleopatra. Then, during my MA I did an essay on Historical Revisionism as it related to nineteenth century Irish fiction. Now, granted, this is a million mles from Shakespeare, but I did mention the SAQ in the first or second paragraph as a well known example of historical revisionism. The essay was corrected by Margaret Kelleher if you want to look her up, and she had nothing but good things to say. So, the moral of the tale is this. To call it a fringe conspiracy theory is just wrong - it's being taught in schools and universities. At least the ones I went to anyway. Although said schools and universities may not be reliable sources of course!! That is all. Bertaut ( talk) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not "taught" as a legitimate historical theory in universities. I do know lecturers who refer to it to spice up their teaching and get students interested. Conspiracy theories tend to do that. To my shame I used to include discussion of the Jack the Ripper conspiracy theory to get students interested in Walter Sickert. So does one of my colleagues. That does not mean that the theory that Sickert was Jack the Ripper is legitimate revisionist art history "taught in universities". And in any case, at foundation or first year level you will not necessarily be being taught by an expert. If you mentioned it in an undergraduate essay on the general topic of attribution, that would be fine. At that level it is a valid example. Within Shakespeare studies it is indeed a fringe conspiracy theory. Paul B ( talk) 10:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You have good grounds, in short, in personal experience and educational background for thinking that the SAQ issue forms part of a curriculum. The problem is, your experience does not reflect the state of academic studies generally. Rather than explain this, let me snip a comment made by an RS precisely on this issue:

'Who wrote Shakespeare? And does it matter? The initial commission for this article was a result of viewing the ‘search’ statistics for readers of Literature Compass. The combination ‘Shakespeare’ + ‘authorship’ was the most common one bringing readers to the site. Like most institutional academic Shakespeare forums – university courses, textbooks, journals, etc. – Literature Compass did not acknowledge the force of this popular interest by providing any explicit information on the topic. In fact, as I go on to discuss, it is the so-called Shakespeare authorship question – did Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon actually write the plays published under his name in 1623? – which most separates academic from nonacademic Shakespeareans: the academic publishers, conferences, departments and individuals which have commandeered most Shakespearean study during the twentieth century are almost entirely distinct from the presses, symposia,mock-trials, press articles, Internet sites and other forms in which the question of who wrote Shakespeare has been most energetically debated.'Emma Smith, 'The Shakespeare Authorship Debate Revisited,' Literature Compass 5/3 (2008): 618–632, p.618.

In other words, the public, and certain schools and colleges show a curiosity about the subject, because there is a lot of promo work out there, and books written by non-Shakespearean scholars, which gives the impression to the broader public that there is a problem. The academic world has not been attentive to this public fascination, because it dismisses the subject. This is why it cannot be included within historical revisionism, since it is not considered a serious challenge to the framework of inframural Shakespearean scholarship. Your lecturers did well perhaps to inform students about this publicitarian perspective. But they fell well short of academic standards if they failed to clarify that methodologically, this challenge to 'orthodoxy' is treated with contempt because of the intellectual incompetence of those who push the alternative authorship question. Nishidani ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I believe you are misinterpreting Paul's point, which is that the SAQ might be mentioned informally in classes, but that such casual mention does not make it an accepted field of study nor an example of historical revisionism. (Of course I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, what Paul is saying, or both.) Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My error (of placement). I didn't want to jump the line, and give the impression of being uppity, and so posted to Bertaut after Paul Barlow. My remarks were directed to User:Bertaut. I'm happy to underwrite everything Paul wrote. Nishidani ( talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is well-known then why has Smatprt found no reliable sources describing it as such? Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There's revisionism and then there's revisionism

In a sense, this is an argument of semantics. In particular, what does the word revisionism mean? In the sense of our article and most scholarly definitions of historical revisionism, it is referring to a particular historiography applied to historical narratives that are of dubious truth-value. To this end, SAQ does not fit the bill. However, one could also have defined "historical revisionism" to mean any attempt to recast history differently. In this way, SAQ, British Israelism, and the Washington stories told by Parson Weems would all qualify. Of course, Wikipedia chooses the more scholarly former approach as opposed to the latter approach. In other words, historical revisionism != List of historical interpretations rejected by the mainstream. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"it is referring to a particular historiography applied to historical narratives that are of dubious truth-value." That would be Historical revisionism (negationism). This particular article deals with a valid and accepted scholarly process whereby the received historical past is reinterpreted from different perspectives. Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which looks at history through the eyes of the common man instead of the ruling class, is a good example. Feminist, Marxist, and Queer theory reinterpretations of history are also examples of revisionist history. I'm no expert, but I majored in English literature (Renaissance) and minored in History and Art, and these distinctions are covered in the early courses about historical methodology. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement, Tom. Perhaps the wording of my post was ambiguous. I meant that the historical narratives are of dubious truth-value and that's when historical revisionism kicks in, ala Zinn's People's History. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It did cross my mind that there might be a parallel with British Israelism. Perhaps both these were important moments in the evolution of historical revisionism, I don't know. Not good examples now though. Please leave out unless you're sure there's enough good material to make a diachronic account. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, exactly my point. SAQ is under the same category as British Israelism or Washington's cherry tree chopping. And that is not what is typically meant in scholarly circles by "historical revisionism". ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So since (quoting the top of this page) "Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus", are we done here? Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we get done, can someone please address the second part of my complaint? He's doing the same thing at Mary Sidney. Having to file each fringe theory insertion incident separately is time-consuming and, I suspect, part of an over-all strategy. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, given that on the page Tom and I are writing, there are 65 candidates, we can expect another 61 pages of wikipedia to receive a visit from the extraterrestial world of SAQ mavericks. Since the Mary Sidney example is pure unadulterated nonsense, published by a vanity press it isn't worth exposition. At the most a note that weird things are said of Mary Sidney. I'll edit out the exposition, which no one except the author takes seriously. Nishidani ( talk) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well grated minds think alike. Tom beat me to the gun. This is getting absurd, that one has to keep an eye all over the place, and be invited to edit-war. The general question will have to go to some arbitration board, which must decide whether the preposterous fringe can be plastered everywhere, or whether it may be allowed one page SAQ, and a further elaboration Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, at the most. To what degree are off-the-planet theories for which there is no evidence, as all admit, to be linked up to in hundreds of wiki pages? Nishidani ( talk) 14:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean, technically, if he keeps this up, he can go to, say, the Milton article, the Federalist Papers, and the Bermudas articles, to name one of several hundred that can be dragged into this obsession, and put in a section of the following type:

(Main page:Shakespeare Authorship Question)

'According to one theory, Francis Bacon did not die, but withdrew into a concealed afterlife, shipped off to the Caribbean and survives there to this day, and wrote all of the literature of the 17th century, and also the foundational federalist papers.'source Wadsworth 1958

The only function of seeding in this tripe all over the place is to draw attention to Edward de Vere, (via a section heading linking back to the SAQ mother page), whose major distinctions in life were (a) he farted before Queen Bess (b)he wrote a few poems in a rhythm called fourteeners that went out of fashion while Shakespeare was a boy, and his poetry is judged by experts as mediocre (middling at best) (c) sodomized a servant boy or two (d) stabbed a fellow and got off the rap by using influence to obtain the verdict that the unfortunate ran onto his sword (e) went bankrupt (f) wrote excruciatingly boring letters to the Queen to try and get tin mining concessions in Cornwall (hey, Smatprt, what about adding that to the Cornwall articles?) and (g)when he finally kicked the bucket was mourned by no one, in court or in his own family. (h) until an English provincial schoolmaster, knowing nothing of what we now know about de Vere, thought Shakespeare's plays were a justification of medieval aristocracy, the natural model to save us from the ills of the modern world, and advanced the oddball theory that this relatively unknown de Vere was the mastermind behind them all, that Shakespeare's plays were an ideal antidote of a fascist 'reformist' type (he was an antisemite to boot) to re-engineer values back into the world, all of which fascinated an American journalist called Ogburn and his wife who likewise knew little of de Vere, who then contaminated their son with the same lurid obsession (lurid because in one version de Vere is Queen Elizabeth's son, who grows up, screws her, and then, when their incestuous child Henry Wriothesley is born, sodomizes him as well, and then writes him Shakespeare's sonnets to persuade him to marry, since he was apparently reluctant after that business with daddy in the back room). An outstanding professor emeritus at Stanford, Alan Nelson finally wrote a serious biography of de Vere in 2003, and the whole sorry story of this American romanticization of a man Gabriel Harvey in 1579 called a vainglorious twit, smashed itself on the hard rocks of the Elizabethan documentary record as it is now known. Those who subscribe to it are either studiously ignorant, or have neurotic fixations with this shabby nondescript desperado from the minor pages of Tudor history. Nishidani ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think another problem we are dealing with is the difference between scholarly revisionism (challenging the accepted account of history based on re-examining the evidence and then reaching a non-mainstream conclusion), pseudo-scholarly revisionism (challenging the accepted account based on having a non-mainstream conclusion pre-determined and then selecting and twisting the evidence to support that pre-determined conclusion) and non-scholarly pop-history sensationalism (typically stating a supposition in one chapter, then building on that supposition as if it were fact in the next, and so on until they reach their non-mainstream "shocking" conclusion). All can fit the definition of "fringe". Blueboar ( talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well at least Blueboar has something constructive to say here. Thanks for that. So perhaps this article should address all of the things he just mentioned? In fact, who is to say it shouldn't? Unfortunately, this conversation is not much more than endless ad hominem attacks by Nishidani and Tom, and opinions by involved editors Paul and ScienceApologist. In other words - this issue has not received a proper airing by uninvolved editors and the deletion of this material is one more example of the constant bullying and edit warring that these editors engage in. These tactics will never stop. I agree - the sooner this entire subject gets to ArbComm the better. At least then, we'd all know where we stand. So, Tom, to answer your question above - no, we are not done here, and no, this is not settled, nor will it be until we get some real dialogue instead of the endless accusations and attacks. Smatprt ( talk) 02:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

this issue has not received a proper airing by uninvolved editors

This and related issues have received not only a proper hearing, but one meticulously conducted in the courts of history. Editors, ideally, edit to what best sources say. Several arguments, which you never reply to, have been thoroughly explained by at least 5 editors. There is a certain leeway for those here who stubbornly refuse to budge an inch from their preconceived opinions. But persistance against history, academia, received opinion, commonsense and finally, the general consensus of editors who happen to notice what is going on, means you are out on an idiosyncratic limb, and the more you weigh in, the more probable it is that the limb will break. Your only response to repeated demonstrations that you are wrong consists in accusing editors who reflect the scholarly consensus of being biased, or bullies. I think technically this is called the passive-aggressive tactic. This argument ended some days ago, and closed, once more, in favour of a verdict based on evidence, rational debate and commonsense. You appear not to have noticed. Infinity is a mathematical quality, and does not extend to human patience in the face of dour obtusity. Nishidani ( talk) 09:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor re-eruption of Armenian teenage mutant nationalism at the usual places, Mitanni, Urartu, etc. It will pass I am sure, but you might help making it go away more quickly by taking an interest. Thanks. -- dab (𒁳) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

eek. This has even spread to to Akhenaten [2]. I've no doubt the Armeno-Aryans will crop up elsewhere. Paul B ( talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

and lo, and edit war instantly ensues [3]. Paul B ( talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Armeno-Aryan is not a Nationalist Union etc etc.. Its a linguistic term, see the Indo-European related searches on the family tree, to see where it says Armeno-Aryan [4]. the Akhenaten page info was since since September 2009, and it was obviously approved by Dougweller <-- who works in Egypt related pages, and Armeno-Aryan with RS's was there. 75.51.173.254 ( talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on Akhenaten is not a place for 1,444 characters of utterly irrelevant blather about "Armeno-Aryans". In any case the Mitanni were not "Armeno-Aryan". You might reasonably call them Hurrian or Indo-Aryan, but it's best to just call them "Mitanni", since the classification of their language or etrhnicity is of no relevance to this particular article. Paul B ( talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not even Indo-Aryan, it was always put Indo-Iranian, which is before Indo-Aryan, and before that is the ancestors to both Armenians and Indo-Iranians, in that linguistic term (Armeno-Aryan) [5] that Dbachmann keeps thinking is about a Nationalist Union called Armenian Aryans. Look at the sources provided in about Mitanni and do google search in Mitanni you see Armenians coming up in the search results. There are none-Armenian RS's besides Petrie, Henry Hall, Michael Cohen, Colin Renfrew etc etc, which mention of the Mitanni names are not Indo-Aryan, but the subgroup Armeno-Aryan, ancestors of both Indo-Iranian and Armenian. Arta- <---prefix which both Armenian and Iranian kings used and even Armenian "Artashesian" dynasty with the same "prefix" not loanword, that is com,ing from the subgroup before those days of the later kings of Persia and Armenia. Do your further researches to find out, Hbuchmann from the 19th century German linguists saw the links with Indo-Iranians, because of Mitanni names, and also Henry Hall Egyptolostis, and George Rawlinson 75.51.173.254 ( talk)

What was "always put Indo-Iranian"? Whether or not some "Armeno-Aryan" grouping can be postulated before "Indo-Iranian" has no relevance. By that logic we should call them the "Indo-European Mitanni" and refer to Akhenaten as the leader of the "Afro-Asiatic Egyptians". However that would be both misleading (since Hurrian gets written out) and completely silly, since their relation to Akhenaten was not determined by their liguistic history. In any case, you must be Araratrev. No-one else writes like this. So you should be reverted instantly. However, I have to go to bed. Paul B ( talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a source for you do another search on Hurrian in google [6] you get this [7] <-- Indo-European elements in Hurrian, which we see example in Mitanni. This is where Armenians originated with the Indo-Iranians in the Armenian Highlands. Herodotus is the only source they base on, which he doesnt even say what they think he is saying. George Rawlinson in 19th century mentions about Herodotus comments [8], and says Indo-Europeans went westward from Armenia to Phrygia, Phrygia to Europe, not the other way around. Also, in the Hittites page new search has been made, and there were no major Indo-European (Aryan) invasions in the 1200's BC Iron Age in the Anatolia/Armenian Highlands. So we are native and originated along with the Indo-Iranians. The Eusibius quote was provided by a User:CodexSinatex <-- dont know spelling its in Mitanni edit history in 2005 he put the quote of "Armenians invaded the Syrians" at the time of Abraham, referring to descendants of Aram, (the name Armenia is derived from Aram) originated in that region, Aram-Naharin's region, (that is Mitanni) in the Armenian Highland also known in Greek as Anatolia. Those last parts of the quote put by CodexSinatrex in 2005 which mentioned that the Armenians originated in the region of Mitanni (Aram-Naharin), was removed by Dbachmann or some other IP users/vandals, who whenever they see a quote related to Armenian during this time, is automatically nationalism. CodexSinatrex is not even an Armenian user, and did not even think of any Armenian nationalistic info to put there, but found yet another RS, by Eusibius. 75.51.173.254 ( talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I happened to catch this appeal to an edit I made in 2005... There were looser restrictions on synth at the time, in fact because those was Pre- Siegenthaler incident days... I wouldn't have added such a thing to Mitanni now, because it doesn't mention Mitanni at all - and even at the time I noted how tangential it was ('for what it's worth')... I kind of regret it now, 5 years later, seeing as my little OR in 2005 seems to have opened up a slight can of worms today! ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 00:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now reverted this twice from the Akhenaten article. It certainly doesn't belong there. Dougweller ( talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this Ararat arev again, or someone else? --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed it was Ararat arev, and Paul thought so also. Dougweller ( talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have blocked 75.51.173.254 for 24h, assuming the IP is dynamic. I blocked User:Forsts23 for 24h, since I wasn't sure whether it was Ararat arev. I guess we can extend it to indef, or just wait to see if he uses the account again... --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If "Armeno-Aryan" is a term, it is indeed linguistic, and should be discussed under Greco-Aryan. I know "Greco-Armenian" is a term, and "Greco-Aryan" is a term, but I have never heard of "Armeno-Aryan" (i.e., a grouping of Armenian and Indo-Iranian to the exclusion of Greek). That's the bona fide side of it. Of course our "Armeno-Aryans" here have nothing to do with linguistics and should just be clamped down upon. I don't know if it is Ararat Arev. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but you know what, WP:DUCK, we really don't need to know. -- dab (𒁳) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be deriving the term from this chart in the book Handbook of Formal Languages (1997), in which Armeno-Aryan appears as a grouping between Greco-Aryan (called "Aryano-Greco-Armenic") and Indo-Iranian [9] . Paul B ( talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

what you mean is that this reference uses "Armeno-Aryan" for what we call Graeco-Aryan. If Armeno-Aryan is going to be a redirect to anywhere, it should point to Graeco-Aryan. -- dab (𒁳) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

actually, no, you are right, this reference uses "Armeno-Aryan" for an actual grouping "Armenian + Indo-Aryan + Iranian" (to the exclusion of Greek), even tough this is not graphically represented in the diagram. Sorry, I misinterpreted your "between", but I see not you meant "intermediate", which is perfectly correct. -- dab (𒁳) 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's represented in the diagram by the letters AA appearing on the line extending from "Aryano-Greco-Armenic" to Indo-Iranian. Paul B ( talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warrior hailed from California, not Texas, so perhaps it was User:Nareklm. Not that it matters, the two sockospheres are fapp-identical. -- dab (𒁳) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Urartu

The article is still the playground of patriotic kids with no interest in the article topic. On top of this, we have now an intervention by a lazy admin. Of course it is so much easier to decide "protected. please sort it out on talk." than to sift through the history and figure out who was edit-warring and who wasn't, and who may have violated 3rr. Unfortunately, it is also shoddy admining.

What we need are admin with enough balls to make unequivocal decisions on who is being disruptive and who isn't. In this case, who is discussing the article topic, and who is indulging in puerile patriotic sentiment. Cheap administrating along the arbcom lines of "please be nice everyone and discuss some more, ok?" is not going to cut it in asymmetric controversies between encyclopedists and Randy in Boise (or Narek in Richmond TX). -- dab (𒁳) 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm one of the "patriotic kids with no interest in the article topic" (which is twice not true: I'm not Armenian, and I contributed to Urartian articles on WP:fr). So just for the record: the text I inserted in the article before the protection has been proposed on the talk page by another user several days ago, and nobody (i.e. including dab) objected to it on the talk page. Moreover, this text does not contain the insulting and unsourced sentence ("Armenian chauvinists...") of dab's version.

Needless to say, I don't care about the template issue. Sardur ( talk) 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone like to take a look at the introduction to the Bigfoot article? It was recently changed - difference is here - following a talk page discussion in which an editor explained that neither the terms "scientific consensus" or "scientific community" have any actual meaning. The prior intro, while better than the current one, had its flaws, so I'm hoping someone might be able to put together a better one. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most scientists who have evaluated the evidence say . . ." Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You might attribute the opinion of the scientific community about Bigfoot to this anthropologist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a point of stylistics, but I too find it jarring that the phrase "scientific consensus" is used unthinkingly on Wikipedia for random topics on which there isn't any "scientific" discourse in the first place. Sorry, but "Bigfoot" is not a topic of serious scientific discourse, and consequently there cannot be a "scientific consensus" on the existence of Bigfoot any more than there is one on the existence of Pikachu. I find statements like

The scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, rather than a real creature

to be at or near the bottom of what Wikipedia has to offer in non-vandalised content. Bigfoot may be considered a topic of scholarly study, but that study would be anthropology, not "science", and wouldn't try to examine "existence" to begin with but work on the premise that the subject matter is one of folklore. In this sense, the reference cited is almost certainly being misrepresented here. -- dab (𒁳) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Attribute the claim to the source. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, both versions are flawed, which is why I was hoping fresh eyes (I've been editing that article, off and on, for a while now) might be helpful. ClovisPt ( talk) 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that most scientists feel this way? Everything I read shows that most scientists are baffled from all the possible evidence and fascinated by the large number of witnesses. It seems that most scientists keep an open mind when there's eyewitnesses until they can prove otherwise. It's the same with aliens, for the most part people don't believe they're real but what scientist wants to stake their reputation and come forward to say "they don't exist" then have one land in front of us? The entire comment is a misstated conformation that was not from an accurate source. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia.-- Timpicerilo ( talk) 10:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says most scientists are open minded to the existance of Big Foot and are baffled at the evidence and fascinated by the large number of eye witnesses?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If a source does not say scientific consensus, but says something like scientific community generally, or most scientists, use the phrase scientific community or most scientists or most academic researchers etc. A consensus is a general agreement which is usually an outcome of an official meeting and thus can be a bit misleading to use that term if it was not used in the source. Perhaps I am misreading the problem here. Just stick more closely to what the sources say is my suggestion.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For those who rankle at the notion of "a scientific community" as a body who refuse to welcome UFO theories, Bigfoot, etc. with open minds, I've provided an alternate lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This could use some eyes on it. There's an attempt to call him an Egyptologist in the lead, although the article doesn't (and we'd need reliable sources to call him one), and to remove any mention of his being an Afrocentrist from the lead, although this is in the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are sources for calling him an Egyptologist, but one editor continues to editwar (6 reverts in 2 days, 3 editors have reverted him). He's at 3RR right now but I don't want to revert again. He's also changing cited text. Dougweller ( talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Afrocentrism is one of our most notorious trolling hotspots, besides what I think I will call "Greater Assyrian" ethnic trolling (Turks-Syriacs-Armenians-Kurds-Iranians) and "Greater Indian" (Indo-Pak) ethno-religious trolling. Afrocentrism hits Wikipedia really badly because most US American editors think it taboo to revert anyone they assume is black (because that would be racist, wouldn't it). -- dab (𒁳) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also another example of inability to place writings in their context. Whether or not Diop's ideas are backed up by the findings of Cavalli-Sforza is really not relevant to his biography. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for related articles, I came across the never-referenced African nationalism. My first thought was to see if I could quietly redirect it to Pan-Africanism, but I held back. For one thing, that would mean burying some remarkable prose.

Between World War I and World War II, a strident howl for self-determination resonated deafeningly from the gorges of numerous mutinous groups in a growing number of African countries.

Tim Shuba ( talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It gets better - most of the article is commented out! This version is the last before the commenting. Ravensfire ( talk) 02:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the more dramatic prose is probably the result of machine translation from French. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A true gem! This Afrocentrism business is high up on my list of surreal ethnic weirdness alongside the Armenian kids and the angry Hindutvavadis. -- dab (𒁳) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate about the television test section of this article and use of sources. An editor is using http://www.kevinhogan.com/aura.htm as a source, which I feel fails WP:RS. I feel this section could be improved with more RS of scientific / televised tests. Verbal chat 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the source used is suitable. I will search for more reliable ones tomorrow as I have business IRL to attend to. The televised tests are clearly invalid regardless of the source given, and I have stated this on the article talk. I am also of the firm belief that it is included because the results were negative, I do not believe that it would be included if the results were positive. The size of the test means that it is irrelevant anyway, it is a genuinely bad example Valyard ( talk) 11:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

These articles were all created by the same user in May: Balkans-Caucasian race, Northcaucasian race, Pontid race, Caspian race. This has no relationship to real science, right? Prezbo ( talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like old Soviet notions. No use to us at all. Suggest prodding them. ( WP:PROD). Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done so... but it may take an AfD. Blueboar ( talk) 22:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's like this. These are all items of scientific racism. Scientific racism is essentially historical scholarship, not "pseudo-scholarship", and it was pursued over the period of about 1880 to 1930. Even in the west, there are (maverick) scholarly publications into the 1960s, and in the Soviet Union at least into the 1980s. So while this may all be historical, it is by no means as far in the past as phlogiston but at best a couple of decades, and it may be arguable that the categories remain alive in anthropological literature. So no, I don't think we can dismiss this as "old Soviet notions" and delete it. What we should do is merge these items and discuss them in context. They are all sub-types of the greater Caucasian race, and it would probably be sufficient to keep a section on various subtypes according to various authors. If that turns out too long, there can still be a subtypes of the Caucasian race article to collect all these without the need to keep them scattered in two dozen short articles. -- dab (𒁳) 12:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would hesitate to say that they are all sub-types of the greater Caucasian race... but rather they are examples of outdated (and thus Fringe) theorized sub-types... if we are to discuss them anywhere, the place to discuss them is Scientific racism. They certainly don't rate their own articles (lack of reliable sources that are independent of the topic... the only sources that discuss these theories are proponents). Blueboar ( talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a way forward would be to add a brief section to Scientific racism (although it is a little long), then replace each of the above four "race" articles with a redirect. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, outdated does not equal fringe. The distinction is important, but it is also delicate and depends on context. The "Caucasian race" itself is "outdated and/or fringe", so I hoped it would go without saying that the same holds for all its proposed subtypes. The Caucasian race article itself is a topic of scientific racism, and the various minor subtypes according to Soviet authors clearly should be listed there. -- dab (𒁳) 08:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Merge as you say. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This was first created as Silent Talk which I turned into a redirect to DARPA. Then this article was created, and I did the same thing. The most reliable source I can find is an Aviation Weekly Article, and this seems to be more of a proposal than anything actually active or notable. I've taken it to AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 12:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Something similar came up here a few months ago called Synthetic telepathy. That was eventually changed into a redirect to Brain-computer interface. Silent Talk is a specific project that falls under that category, and is mentioned in a source [10] used in the BCI article. Might be a better redirect to BCI, and add a specific mention of Silent Talk in the article. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A doubt has been raised over whether or not Anti-Americanism#The_degeneracy_thesis is a fringe theory. The main point being is that this is supported by only two historians [ [11]] or that other historians are just repeating the claims of the two historians [ [12]], and as such do not support notability, (if I understand the objection correctly). Now it seems to me that whilst this is a bit of a silly theory (that Europeans hated the USA before it even existed in essance) it also seems to have recived some attention that takes it beyond the fringe (whilst still being a minority view). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sufficiently notable that it is disussed in numerous modern books on anti-Americanism. [13] TFD ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor measure of whether something is a fringe theory. The page you linked to has seven hits. Using the same method with the phrase "holocaust denial" produces 843 hits. Therefore, according to this method, Holocaust denial isn't a fringe theory. What I actually said in the discussion is that an interpretation of anti-Americanism promulgated by two historians doesn't deserve an entire section in Anti-Americanism. I don't think that, literally, it's a matter of being a fringe theory since it's an interpretation, rather than a question of fact. But, the fact that you can only find 7 mentions of the theory in all of google/books, and one of them is "In 1777, Buffon publicly retracted his "degeneracy" thesis..." ought to tell you something about how much weight this thing deserves. We are devoting an entire section to a theory that was retracted by its author more than two-hundred years ago. Noloop ( talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:Fringe theories is applicable to this discussion because no one is suggesting the degeneracy thesis as a current theory, nor as a valid historical theory. The only question is whether the sources are reliable and whether the material is suitable for that article. I think only a good historian could give an opinion on that, although others might validly claim that the section is not really helpful for what anyone reading that article would want. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a fringe theory since no one believes in it any more. The obvious point-of-view of the historians in question is that a sort of "European-exceptionalism" is evident in this particular defunct theory which has parallels to anti-Americanism. Whether that point-of-view is properly handled is a question not for this board but for WP:NPOVN, methinks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. 18th century scholarship entertained many hypotheses that can now be dismissed out of hand. This doesn't make them "fringe" or "pseudo", as at the time they may have been perfectly reasonable avenues of research. This is not about fringe scholarship, it is about historical scholarship. An important difference (also in the "Christ myth" disussion. The "Christ myth" was respectable scholarship in the 19th century, it is just fringecruft today). I wish people would take care to make this distinction. -- dab (𒁳) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have rasied it here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Anti-Americanism. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am here in response to the notice on the NPOV board. I am not sure what the question is or what Slatersteven proposes as redress for a problem.

I could ask for more information in a lot of ways, but to start, let me ask what the problem is. Someone wants something dismissed for lack of notability by Wikipedia:Fringe, correct? What is fringe - the scientific validity of the theory itself, or the historical interpretation that the proposal of the theory was meaningful at any point in the past?

Buffon is a giant in history, and my initial thought is that if no one disputes that at some point in his life he published opinions on this theory, regardless of later retraction, then it transcends WP:fringe for scientific and historical notability. What is the issue here? Blue Rasberry 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that whilst this is a silly (and minority) theory it is not fringe. It has recived coverage in a number of books. As such the four paragraphs it takes up is undue as its not a fringe theory, a dead one perhaps (althoulgh the point of the section is in part that in fact this represents a kind of proto-anti-Americansim). It may perhaps need triming, but not out right removal, as has been susgested. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose removal. This section may be overly represented just within the context of the Anti-Americanism article, but the degeneracy theory was something that began to be applied in the colonial age to all non-European cultures and there are bodies of work on this. Here is one example of Buffon applying it to Africa within a discussion of others applying it to India. Fringe is out. If this section were to be brought up to date, Edward Said was a social researcher who wrote extensively about this kind of thought; this is not my field, but I suspect this is a big issue that could be connected to many others. Blue Rasberry 17:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding my two cents: I know that these theories did exist, as I have read about them in at least two books. I am quite sure that one of them was American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph Ellis. Jefferson went to great efforts to discredit them. As I recall, the claim was that animals in the Americas were smaller and inferior. I believe Jefferson had numerous animal carcasses (and maybe some live ones, I cannot remember for sure) shipped to him in Paris in order to show that it was not true. — JPMcGrath ( talk) 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Belated clarification: we've conflated two theories. One was the Degeneracy Thesis, which of course nobody believes today. The other is the theory (or interpretation), advanced by two historians, that the Degeneracy Thesis is an important part of the history of anti-Americanism. It's the latter that I question. It is essentially an idea that has been advanced by a very small number of commentators, as we can see by the fact that a google-books search for "degeneracy+thesis anti-americanism" only produces 7 hits. Given that it seems like a personal interpretation of a very small number of commentators--in a field rife with politics and cultural bias--I don't believe it deserves an entire section in the "anti-Americanism" article. It doesn't have such weight in the academic community. Noloop ( talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems to me to be very well explained. It isn't a fringe theory but is a very old theory of interest only to those of us who snoop around in the byways of 18th century thought. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Much more important for the article is to expand the section on the 20th century. I'm sure that in standard histories of the C20 you can find discussions of the attitudes to GIs in Britain during WW2, of opposition to the Vietnam War turning to generic anti-"Yank" sentiment, of the bemoaning of the Americanisation of culture. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with Noloop, since it seems to me that this has little or nothing to do with Anti-Americanism as such. The term refers to the policies and culture of the United States. The belief that the climate of the Americas stunts growth in some way is wholly unrelated to this, and in any case it would encompass the continent(s) as a whole (perhaps it should be added to the dismal Anti-Canadianism article). I think it deserves to be mentioned, but in a few sentences. Paul B ( talk) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But as noloop points out that there has been an attmept by some (more then two) commentators (and some repsonses and discusion of this) to link the Degeneracy Thesis to modern anti-Americanism (silly but none the less its there). Now has there been a similar attmept to link it to anti-Canadianism? if not then that would be synthasis. Sources for the section

http://books.google.com/books?id=KF0pySH-ozsC&pg=PA9&dq=%22degeneracy+thesis%22+anti-americanism&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Brendon O'Connor

http://books.google.com/books?id=1N0HjMi0oPoC&pg=PA66&dq=%22degeneracy+thesis%22+anti-americanism&cd=3#v=onepage&q=%22degeneracy%20thesis%22%20anti-americanism&f=false Dick Martin

http://books.google.com/books?id=rBoODHyzTZQC&pg=PA290&dq=%22degeneracy+thesis%22+anti-americanism&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22degeneracy%20thesis%22%20anti-americanism&f=false Ian Yeoman

http://books.google.com/books?id=52o86uUBRRsC&pg=PA102&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=U-IMTOvuEdH9_Aa8xLDZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false George Ritzer

http://books.google.com/books?id=R8Z200sQYnoC&pg=PA1&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=m-IMTIWVGpOa_QbapKzTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false Philippe Roger, Sharon Bowman

http://books.google.com/books?id=asBxI08LVzcC&pg=PA16&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=N-MMTOTUGpuK_Abqq_DTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false Stephen Hess

This is rather more then two, also this is only the sources that can be viewed on line (and it seems the idea originates with JW Ceaser). Also this may not be all the online source (I got bored at this point). Now its true this is only 6 works (excluding those already used in the article), but how many offline source mention (or discus) this? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You make a good case that it crops up in several sources, but how much of a role does it play? It seems to be briefly mentioned in most. I certainly don't think it should go altogether, but it's a question of how much importance should be attached to it. As for Anti-Canadianism, I wasn't seriously suggesting that it should be added there. It was a rhetorical flourish. That whole article is synthesis. I suspect it should be cut or deleted rather than expanded. Paul B ( talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing for expansion, indead I don't thnk anyone has disagreed that its too long a section and needs trimming.But if trimmed we would need a new articel that covers the Degeneracy theory for indepth background to the concept. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not a list of more than two people who have interpreted the Degeneracy Thesis as anti-Americanism. It is a list of exactly two--Caesar and Roger--who are the exact same (and only) two sources for that section of the article. It is a section devoted to an interpretation of two individuals--in a subject fraught with cultural bias. It is not a consensus theory, or one advanced by a significant minority. It has been advanced by two people. All the other links Slatersteven gives are just references to what these two people said--which I already pointed out to him in the Talk page of the article, when he previously pasted a list of links there (without inspecting the content closely). I agree with this: "That whole article is synthesis. I suspect it should be cut or deleted rather than expanded." Noloop ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Coverage means that people cover it, not that they interperate it. I mentioned Ceaser I did not source him, and although the theory is attributed in the articel to Rogers its not sourced to him its sourced to this articel [ [14]]by Bill Grantham which I did not source. So none of these new sources are used in the articel. Also there is more then two soures for this in the articel, the two sources you refer to only are used for the term 'a kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism', not for the wider idea. It might well be a section that discuses the ideas of two persons, but those two persons ides have been discused by others (that is what coverage in third party sources means). It might well be fraught with cultural bias, but can you provide any evidance for this? Also can you provide a link ppleae to the Wiki policy that says that we can only have material on concensus theorys? as I have been unable to find it. How do you know its not advance by a significant minority of scholers, can you provide a full list of books that do not mention this? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said coverage was limited to two people. The interpretation is advanced by two (maybe three): Caesar and Roger (maybe O'connor). Using the last search terms presented, google books produces a grand total of seven hits--coverage, original discussion, references, etc. A total of seven that make reference, no matter how scant, to the interpretation of the Degeneracy Thesis as a significant part of anti-Americanism. You can find more support for most fringe theories, such as the theory that the Holocaust never happened. This has been pointed out repeatedly here and in the Talk page of the article. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Noloop ( talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more sources

For Cornelius de Pauw (linking to the history of Anti-Americansim)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2XZaIoPu5TgC&pg=PA225&dq=anti-americanism+%2B+17thC&hl=en&ei=A6kOTNnpNtTcsAbx0bXkCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#

Now for Buffon we have this

http://gopgermany.com/Anti-Americanism.pdf

And this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KT-VyO0ZGX0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=%22anti-americanism%22+%2B+degeneracy+theory&ots=AJSU_MZZ0w&sig=LVhSg1TRTT5axFiTZaiwvkd5xP0#v=onepage&q=%22anti-americanism%22%20%2B%20degeneracy%20theory&f=false

One more for now

http://aei.pitt.edu/9130/01/Markovits.pdf

Note these are found on Google Scholars, not google books. A clear indication that lack of coverage on Google books cannot be used to define a general lack of coverage. Now can you proved any sources that indicate that this is a fringe theory widely rejected by the wider scholatic community? Slatersteven ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apropos "silly theories", Hitler had "silly theories" about the Jews, but the consequences were profound and tragic (6 million dead). Just because a theory is silly doesn't mean that it is not important and should never be mentioned on the wikipedia. Also it is important to note that describing a silly theory is not the same as endorsing it. Witch beliefs also were "silly" - but once again the consequences of these beliefs - hundreds of thousands of people getting killed - were not silly. Aztec religious beliefs were probably "silly", according to our modern views, but classing them as a "fringe theory" is a category mistake. Just cos Aztec stuff is absurd does not mean that all mention of it should be mass deleted from the wikipedia. Colin4C ( talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you. It's not the silliness of the theory that's at issue. Indeed, it may not have been silly when proposed, given the evidence available at the time. As for its consequences, there probably weren't any to speak of. The issue is its relevance to what is normally understood to be "Anti-Americanism", which is not the view that the peoples of the American continents are stunted. It's analagous to discussing Francophobia by referring to Julius Caesar's opinons about the Gauls, or criticisms of the medieval Franks. Paul B ( talk) 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So if say an (absurd) theory results in two world wars and six million dead it should never ever be mentioned on the wikipedia?: "We discovered that the reason these six million died was due to an absurd theory therefore every reference to it is wrong. Let's just stick our heads in the sand and live in a fantasy world of our own imagining where everybody acts according to the absolutetely irrefutable - impossible to be contadicted - scientific laws of 2010 - which will never ever be contradicted - because we know 100% of what is to be known now and know that we know it. There is no doubt about anything - we know everything there is to know - for all eternity. But just...er... my personal opinion I learned from my grandmother without giving any refs at all..." Colin4C ( talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't lnow what "absurd theory" resulted in two world wars, but it sure wasn't the one being discussed here. You are not making any sense, nor do seem to have understood what I was saying. I repeat: It's not the silliness of the theory that's at issue, but its relevance. By repeating youself and wandering off into irrelevancies, you just show that you are not getting the point. Paul B ( talk) 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Colin4C, incivility isn't just swearing at people. Communicating with a tone that suggests everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot is also uncivil. You are doing that on the [ Talk page] and you are doing it here. Please be polite. Noloop ( talk) 23:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on at Universe over the inclusion of a recent proposal that the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron. The proposal is not a fringe theory - there are apparently a few papers on it - the issue is "undue weight" in the Universe article. If someone could take a look and express an opinion on the talk page, perhaps this could be resolved. -- Chetvorno ^TALK 19:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! The universe is a teapotahedron sitting on the back of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Fences& Windows 16:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate as to NPOV, scope, and comon names of the two categories we currently have for homeopathic "preparations/medicines/products/remedies/tinctures" (aka "water"). Please see the discussion here: CfD: Homeopathic remedies. The two categories are Category:Homeopathic remedies and Category:Homeopathic preparations. See also List of homeopathic preparations which established a wikipedia consensus on the name. Verbal chat 13:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Funkily-sourced tale of aliens in blue tights scampering about on islands near Indonesia evading police bullets and being guided by confused but unharmed children. A candidate ripe for AfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has been a mess since 2007 and has hardly changed despite tagging and a prod back in 2007. Any prospect of rescue, or should it go to AfD? Please do the honours! Merci, Verbal chat 08:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodded. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there was an AfD back in 2007 too, which I missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth radiation. Nothing seems to have changed since then, so a new AfD seems the next step. Verbal chat 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And so there is: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth radiation (2nd nomination). Mangoe ( talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A new editor is editing against the established consensus at Aspartame and Aspartame controversy, and editwarred to their preferred version at Aspartame controversy. Although some of their edits may be good (including the addition of new possible MEDRS), they have removed sourced information about the hoax letter and given undue weight to certain POVs. Hence I have tagged the article. Please investigate and give your well thought out opinions. Verbal chat 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Verbal has edit warred the articles (about 5RR today, depending on how you count it) with a very OWN-ish tone. He insists on consensus, but deletes my addition of aspartame's clear link to headache and migraine (numerous Medline/Pubmed studies support), preferring an industry funded study that claims there is no link. I think there may be a possible COI at work here. The "hoax letter" material does not belong in a science/medicine related article. It is poorly sourced to a SPS called "snopes.com" and concerns the ravings of some poor crank, a private citizen with no scientific or other qualifications. I cannot believe it was ever allowed onto the page. Its only purpose seems to be to help paint all opposition to aspartame as the work of fringe nuts. Removed! TickleMeister ( talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You've made several reversions yourself with absolutely minimal (at best!) discussion. BRD means when you make Bold changes and get Reverted, you Discuss things. Edit-warring takes TWO people - if any is happening you are both at fault. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. I posted on the talk page, and one of the things I pointed out was that this is not the article that carries the basic science. Quality news media are appropriate sources for describing how a controversy has unfolded. (Unless an academic, an expert on science policy perhaps, has devoted a book or article to the controversy.) Someone said on the talk page that Snopes has been discussed there before and found to be reliable. That wouldn't surprise me, so it would be a good idea to go and look up the old discussion on it. Verbal actually said that TickleMeister had added good sources, so why don't you go back and re-add just those, and after that revisit the hoax story question. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what consensus decided snopes.com, a wp:SPS, is a RS, it is wrong. It is not a RS, especially when it names private, living individuals, who also happen to be complete unknowns in the scientific and medical worlds, as perpetrators of a hoax. TickleMeister ( talk) 15:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong again. If concensus decides something is a reliable source for a specific topic, then it is. You need to change the concensus, not make grand pronouncements. The specifics for this one will need to be on the article's talk page though. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not averse to including something about a hoax, but WP policy dictates that it must have a good source, not a self-published website. Self published websites, which do no fact checking in most instances, are specifically excluded from allowable sources. TickleMeister ( talk)

And what source are you claiming does no fact checking? -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ticklemeister, please look up the previous discussion, then make your mind up. If you decide then that there may be a BLP violation in citing Snopes, that is a point we will all listen to. Others, please give him/her a chance to consider it. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, as long as the edit warring stops. Long standing consensus material shouldn't be deleted without thorough discussion. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shifting standards

Having looked over the contested matter (which seems to be mostly contained in this removal [15] I see two things going on. First, the issue here isn't about medical testing at all, but urban legend and conspiracy history, pure and simple. Second, there's a notability issue which come out pretty clearly in the positive. It showed up in Time, for crying out loud. Therefore, WP:MEDRS isn't even remotely applicable, whereas in the documentation of urban legends, Snopes and the other sites used in the excised passages are generally considered by people in that field to be about as reliable as secondary sources come. It's bizarre to appeal to medical journals as evidence for testimony to the transmission of hoaxes. Mangoe ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comment. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added it back in without undue weight, this time using Time. Interested readers who want all the gory details of the hoax can go to the source, Time, and have a read. TickleMeister ( talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

diff TickleMeister ( talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The same editor who replaced an OR table of Exodus 'parallels' in the Ipuwer article mentioned above has also added a large section to this article which is both OR and about world government (which is not the subject of the article) and Biblical allusions to world government. Dougweller ( talk) 06:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a neologism of Samuel Huntington to discuss how the West developed on different paths to the rest of the world from the Industrial Revolution onwards. My hunch is it hasn't caught on enough to merit an article and should be merged with our biography of Huntington. But our article on it seems to have developed a steam of its own. It appears, from the talk page, to have been created as a collective project of a group of students. They recount the whole recent history of the world, using reliable sources, true, but it is just an essay. They have got as far as a GA review on it - and that was favourable. Some more eyes please, because others may see the situation quite differently from me. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern isn't really that it's fringe. Although Huntington has many detractors, his views probably count as either part of the mainstream or as minority scholarly opinion. I'm posting here because I'm looking for people who understand policy on synthesis. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as synthesis goes, two of the sources that they cite a lot ("The Great Divergence" by Pomeranz and "Technology in the Great Divergence" by Clark) are explicitly about this topic. The other main sources are general histories that aren't available on google books (and obviously I'm not going to go to a library), so maybe synthesis is a concern there. Prezbo ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed merging the article with Western world. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was created in 2006, well before this class project began improving it. In the past year, several other articles were merged into this article, so there has been support for this article being the place to have this content. There already has been discussion about whether to rename the article on the talk page with most every agreeing to keep it as is. Additionally, when the students began working on the article, I did several internet searches for sources and found numerous references using the term with this meaning, including some in academic journals. Do a google scholar search and see for yourself? As you say, the article is undergoing GA review, so loads of people are looking at it. So no need for concern :-) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No-no, merge to Eastern world ... see? Global (OK, not global but "old hemisphere") matters don't fit into arbitrarily cut geographical chunks. Flonight makes a good point: loads of people (yours truly included) read the article and saw nothing incriminating. East of Borschov ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The questions of article scope and article title should be kept separate. "Great Divergence" is just one possible title for this, another being " European miracle", and there are possibly yet other, better titles, such as " Rise of the western colonial empires". While the term "Great Divergence" may be idiosyncratic to Huntington, the concept discussed in the article certainly is not.

If this article can be merged anywhere, the target article would be Modern history. The article is basically the "modern" section of the History_of_Western_civilization article, and is duly linked from there via {{ main}} {{ see}} ( here).

The scope of the "Great Divergence" article is addressing how the Modern period gave the Western world an incredible and unprecedented edge over all other super-regional cultures. This concerns the period 1500 to 1900. After 1914, the West more or less self-destructed (so there is no danger of singing triumphalist praises of the west being the best, this is about a historical period that came and went).

There has been a lot of confusion regarding this article, and the recent school project has served to add to this confusion. A serious attempt at fixing this will need to look at the "Great Divergence" article in conjunction with History_of_Western_civilization and Western world. This is what the GA/FA-badge hunters mostly overlook, very often it is impossible to meaningfully develop an article without working on related articles at the same time, aligning scopes and content judiciously.

This is not really about a "fringe theory", but it is certainly a spot where experienced editors are needed if there is to be any progress. -- dab (𒁳) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you dab, and I don't mind where it is merged. I think that retelling the same history in numerous articles is sloppy and also a magnet for POV. I was looking recently at some "economic history of..." articles. They are rarely distinguished in a useful way from the general "history of...". What's next: "social history of" and "political history of" on every country? On the other hand, "history of education in England" and similar do seem to me to make sense, simply because there's little scope for overlap with the general histories (which contain very little about education). Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"I think that retelling the same history in numerous articles is sloppy and also a magnet for POV." -- can we put this in large letters and with a blink tag at the top of some basic policy page? The older the project grows, the more severe this kind of problem turns out to be at the topics with a lot of traffic (Jesus! Jesus myth! Historical Jesus! Historicity of Jesus! The quest for the historical Jesus! Jesus in history! Jesus and history! History and Jesus. Jesus H. Christ in History!).

The "European miracle" topic is at least still interesting because it hasn't been well treated anywhere so far, so the current article is as good as any place to make a start. Digging on google books I uncover a large scholarly debate on this over the past 30 years. The current article barely scratches the surface. So I think we need to get decent coverage first and worry about scope overlap later. -- dab (𒁳) 09:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What should be a scholarly article harps too much on alleged links with the Exodus, and my attempts to cut down on this (and on 'argument by authority'} have been reverted. It also needs expanding to give due balance to main stream commentary. Dougweller ( talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit heated. The IP seems to think I'm an agent of the evil empire or something. :-) I would like to know if I'm off base here, although I obviously don't think I am. Dougweller ( talk) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is whitewashing of this article. The article as restored [16] accurately reflects the RS which we have, and the recent edits are whitewashing. The article had been deleted, but I restored it because these sources became available. The article as I wrote it is actually less negative toward the church than the articles. Please help restore this article to its proper balance. Should I have posted at the NPOV noticeboard instead? Becritical ( talk) 19:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also posted at WP:NPOV/N. I am sorry that Becritical has chosen to see this as "whitewashing" rather than editing consistent with Wikipedia policies. In any event, discussion is solicited at Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. At the center is the degree of acceptance of Arthur Jensen's theories. Mangoe ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

lol, the arbcom really isn't learning. Once again trying to judge on content. When will they pause to check what they were actually elected to do, namely to judge on user conduct, and user conduct only. Of course this is going to take half a year of bureaucracy at least, and the outcome will be "editors are sternly admonished to follow policy". This is so Kafkaesque, I am actually beginning to enjoy it. -- dab (𒁳) 09:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't it an arbcom decision that resulted in the fringe theories policy, with its useful distinction between the 4 categories of obvious pseudoscience, questionable science etc? If we could extend that to the social sciences, pseudohistory in particular, then it would be a useful reference point. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the 4 categories distinction has helped much. It's so imprecisely worded that it's easy to wiggle around. Maybe I should propose some new wording and submit it in the case. --Akhilleus ( talk) 13:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this came about because of editors' behavior, not just a content dispute.

I have found the categories useful, mainly because ideas can come under the fringe policy while still having some kind of standing in the academy, albeit marginal. It would be great to have more precise wording that includes pseudohistory and the like. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A look at this board shows that half or better of the questions are about non-scientific fringe theories. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well... I think ArbCom (and wikipedia generally) needs to seriously reconsider its editing and administration policies. As it stands, the system encourages childishness, by allowing childish disputes to continue until they get so loud that they can't be ignored, and then imposing weak resolutions. it's exactly the way that parents end up with spoiled brats for children, and one glance at any contentious page on wikipedia will reveal more than a smattering of spoiled brats dominating the page. Since I'm an involved party (through weird happenstance), I'll see what I can do to straighten them out, but I don't have a lot of hopes for the effort.

@ Judith: I agree, partly. The categories were useful, originally, and if they had continued to be treated honestly they'd still be useful. but, alas, there have been too many people on too many sides trying too hard to wikilawyer them into pov-pushing tools. I'm not sure they still have the merit they once did. -- Ludwigs2 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's up to those of us who care about correct representation of fringe ideas to help develop the policy. I know I haven't done anything on the policy page, only commented here. But I will have a look at the policy talk page and perhaps chip in if there are aspects that haven't been sufficiently discussed. Christ myth theory is a really tough one that's exercising me at the moment, but they do say that hard cases make bad law. Race and intelligence is another minefield - respect to you for volunteering to mediate - where the only angle I have on it is that what is definable as "mainstream" is evolving decade by decade. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ah, the Christ Myth Theory... I had a a gander at that a while back, but couldn't find a purchase point for reasoned discussion. Too many people spinning for both the Christian and Atheistic perspectives, and too little definitive sourcing to clear things up. if you need any help, though, I'm happy to pitch in to support any decently reasonable approach to the topic. just let me know, and I'll swing by to help you argue for sense.

I've tried working on the Fringe theory policy before, but it's a bit like running a gauntlet, and I got bitten for the effort - I now have numbers of people who think I'm a fringe advocate (which is laughable), and get knee-jerk responses whenever I try to work on certain articles. I may go back to it after this R&I debacle is resolved, though. I've been feeling the (semi-suicidal) urge to try to reassert common sense on wikipedia lately, and that might be a good place to start. we'll see - one mess at a time, one mess at a time... -- Ludwigs2 21:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that happens on this noticeboard and in relation to WP:FRINGE is directly based on Wikipedia core policy, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:V and not on some obscure arbcom decision. The arbcom is exclusively there to penalize user misconduct, especially in case of admin wheel wars getting otu of control (which happen extremely rarely, less than once a year). Anything else the community can resolve oderers of magnitude more expertly and efficiently than the arbcom. "Race and Intelligence" can also be addressed strictly under WP:NPOV, WP:DUE etc. -- the fact that this is proving so difficult in practice is, alongside "Christ myth" and "Shakespeare authorship" due to people misbehaving and failing to objectively "write for the enemy". Such misbehaviour needs to be penalized by the community, the admin community, or failing that by the arbcom, fair enough. But experience shows that the arbcom cannot do anything to resolve these issues, because they are complicated and they are so swamped with flamewars they never get to the point, and a few smart admins with balls can resolve a problem in a matter of days which would take the arbcom half a year to come up with a null-result. -- dab (𒁳) 12:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this ArbCom case is quite comparable to the cold fusion and fringe science cases. Cold fusion is a fringe theory regarded as unproven by mainstream academia. The same is true of the hereditarian view in race and intelligence. Standard recent textbooks by experts in psychometrics ( Nicholas Mackintosh, John C. Loehlin and James R. Flynn) do not take the hereditarian view as proven, the main point being that not enough is known to come to any kind of conclusion like that. Ludwigs2, in his infinite wisdom, has suggested on the ArbCom evidence page that emphasizing this mainstream view is "ethnic-cleansing" (his own unfortunate choice of words). I would say that it is simply the normal wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. However I certainly have never said that the hereditarian point of view should not be explained in detail: that is what psychometrics textbooks do if they have long sections on "ethnic groups" (IQ and Human Intelligence by N.J. Mackintosh) or "group differences in intelligence" (the entry in the Handbook of Intelligence written by Loehlin). Going back to the similarities with cold fusion, the selective use of papers to argue the R&I case (primary sources) is quite similar to the problematic editing of cold fusion by editors like Pcarbonn, JedRothwell and Abd. One major difference is that the history of the debate on "race and intelligence" is considerably longer and extremely well documented in secondary sources. Dieter mentions "editing for the enemy". That was a suggestion I made in November here: that a summary of the hereditarian point of view be written by someone who didn't agree with it and that a summary of the criticisms be written by a Jensenite. That is the standard wiki way to do things. That is not what happened unfortunately. In the end I think James Flynn has made the best point: even if the hereditarian view is flawed or unproven, the ideas involved have generated other important ideas, such as his Flynn effect. I was the wikipedian who inserted that statement in Race and intelligence. Another undisputed fact is that there is a genetic cause for differences in visiospatial abilities in population groups in the Far East. That is not mentioned anywhere in the article, but can be found in standard textbooks. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci ( talk) 00:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No Mathsci, I suggested that you're (and your friends') unfortunate fondness for political drama was geared towards cleansing the page of editors you disapprove of. Your talent for misrepresentation continues unabated; you merit whatever sardonic comments I throw your way...

One of these days (after all this petty bullshit is done) you and I are going to have a talk about the content of the R&I article, and I think on that day you will be deeply embarrassed by your present attitude and actions towards me. Or at least I hope you have a sufficient conscience to feel that kind of embarrassment. Until then, why don't you tuck it in and zip it up? -- Ludwigs2 00:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of remarks on a noticeboard are not advisable, particularly during an ArbCom case, and can result in blocks, as you might remember. [17] Normally editors are extremely civil on this noticeboard, which I have frequented for a number of years. Mathsci ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

represent me properly, and I won't need to correct you. problem solved. -- Ludwigs2 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bring the fall-out of your falling-out here. I don't even understand why you two fell out in the first place. IMHO you should have a chat off-wiki now rather than later. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad suggestion, Judith. That kind of idea did actually occur to me while preparing the ArbCom evidence, just to defuse things, because otherwise so much time is wasted. I'm certainly willing to give it a try if Ludwigs2 wants to contact me on my wikipedia email (mathsci@free.fr). Funny things do happen on wikipedia -accidental misunderstandings, getting off onto the wrong foot - and often they are just background noise to be ignored. It's often just a problem of miscommunication on the web. Real life is different. For example, Elonka and her father did come to visit me down here in the South of France on May 6 for an Aix-St Louis mini wiki meetup: we had a very pleasant evening together, chatting about the real world and the wiki world. I was surprised how tall she was! Last time I was in Cambridge for exam marking, I did try to pop in to the Cambridge Psychometrics Centre down Free School Lane just out of curiosity. Of course like the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (Cambridge), it's like Fort Knox if you're not from SPS. Quite right too: keep out the riff-raff. I don't have a political agenda on wikipedia, since mostly I do content editing. Like many others here, I do watch a few fringey things, since I'm some sort of "science establishment". I don't know whether it's genetically programmed or not, but I think I have developed an allergy to ArbCom cases. (My first was defending Dbachmann, although, looking back, I don't think I helped much.) Mathsci ( talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you happen to be cracking open a barrel of the rosé provençal, we'll all come and join you, and I doubt if there'll be many points of disagreement after that. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

personally, I don't see a need to take it off-wiki; why can't we resolve it right here, in talk? I'm not inclined to hold grudges, and I tend to forget unpleasantness quickly, so if we can figure out a way to get past it we'll be past it.

I'll tell you, from my perspective: I'm mostly wanting to be rid of the escalating, tag-team drama-fests. for example, once this arbitration is over (sooner or later), I'm going to be back at Alternative medicine trying to edit in some scientific perspective, and you know that when I do that brangifer is going to go through the roof (accusing me of being a fringe POV-pusher, and etc.), and you know that when brangifer goes through the roof an assortment of others will show up (probably Verbal first, on that page) and paint an ANI target on my back (again, I should say), and then people like Hans Alder will get into it, and the whole situation will degrade into ugliness (again), and possibly I'll be headed for the RFC/U on brangifer I threatened before, or maybe even back to arbitration. So tell me: how do I get myself off the wiki-skeptics "shoot on sight" list? because you and I both know that I'm on that list. The only approaches I know of are to be patient and reasonable (which seems to have no effect whatsoever), or to play intellectual smack-down (which I'm good at, but don't really enjoy). -- Ludwigs2 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I know the answer! Instead of cherry picking individual phrases from studies from fifth rate journals, or popular websites that support your point of view, instead use well sourced review articles from only the most prestigious journals. Instead of picking sentances out of those review artices to use out of context, instead use key sentences from the introduction and the conclusion. In otherwords, you'll have to not support fringe science to avoid being tarred as a fringe science supporter. Hope that helps! Hipocrite ( talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - hypocrite, half the time I don't have the faintest idea what the hell you're going on about, and when I do understand you you invariable seem to be saying something inane. Are you just talking out of your hat, here, or are you pointing to some actual place where you think I've done this? -- Ludwigs2 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrite is right on target. If you want that target removed, quit placing it there yourself. I found this quite by chance while trying to find where I had commented on another thread. Instead I find you still doing what you had just said you didn't do: "I'm not inclined to hold grudges, and I tend to forget unpleasantness quickly,..." Then in the next breath you're mentioning me!! Face it, you are considered a pusher and defender of fringe POV by many here; you have brought it on yourself; and you not only don't forget, you nurture your grudges. This comment of mine is just one of dozens where I haven't been involved for a long time in an issue, or not even involved at all, like with the subject of this thread, but where you bring up my name ("slander my name all over the place" - Queen) and I then respond. It's an interesting pattern which you then later make into an accusation that "I" am canvassing a subject, when actually you have done it and I've only responded. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Puh-lease! Is this relevant to FTN? Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Why does Ludwigs2 have to continually make such personal attacks? Ask him. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks? My belief (based on numerous posts that you have made in various areas of wikipedia) is that you lack the competence to properly edit in fringe/pseudoscience related areas. You simply do not understand the scientific aspects of the problem, and rely instead on a semi-mystical conception of "science as truth" which leads you to all sorts of ideological and behavioral excesses in editing, as you try to defend an almost religious apperception of what should be a simple, pragmatic, conservative quest for understanding. That is not a personal attack; that is a clear and defensible examination of your behavior.

I mean seriously - do you disagree with my analysis of what's going to happen when I return to editing AM? because that's exactly what's already happened two or three times now. heck, I'll make it easy on you. you go ahead and you find one (one) diff of an edit I've made to an article that justifies hypocrite's statement - some place where I've "cherry picked a quote" or "sited a popular website" - and when you can't find one, you apologize to me effusively, on bended knee, for all the harassment you've given me. trust, me, you know I can find examples of you cherry picking quotes to support your position - we've had that discussion before with respect to the NSF.

Put bluntly, I am not attacking you so much as trying to minimize the damage that your lack of competence causes. it's an uphill battle, but someone has to do it. -- Ludwigs2 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it could only be done off-wiki, so please try it. I like Hans Adler, our mutual wikifriend, who sometimes overreacts with me on-wiki–the last time in fact was about you. But it's easier to discuss that kind of misunderstanding off-wiki, as I did with Hans. Anyway the ball is in your court now. Mathsci ( talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had my own run-in with the radical skeptics. It's something you don't expect until it happens to you. I leapt well away from the whole area and it did all calm down. There's one editor who still probably thinks I'm a rabid creationist. I'm also not sure that I didn't allow the cold fusionists far too much rein, due to my notion that the worst problems can be resolved by agreeing what scholarly texts relate to the topic. In any one debate there's only ever a handful of us who have any sort of feel for what is and what isn't within academic discourse. We ought at least to hear each other out. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@ judith: I wish I had that kind of common sense, but unfortunately... I am as stubborn (and as bad-tempered) as a mule when I think I'm in the right, and generally speaking nothing short of showing me that I'm wrong will get me to back down (though in fairness to myself, I am usually pretty good-natured about being wrong, in the rare cases where I actually am wrong). It's a flaw, but it's who I am.

@ Mathsci: maybe the best thing, then, is to set a time and use the IRC. I'm a bit uncomfortable with email (you've asked to have me blocked/banned a few too many times for me to trust you with any more personal information than I need to). perhaps this weekend? let me know what your schedule looks like, and keep in mind that you are probably a good 8 hours ahead of me, assuming you normally haunt western Europe (I'm a Californian - and yes, we really should be a country of our own, if only to make the people in Alabama feel more comfortable). -- Ludwigs2 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have written Ludwigs2 an email, because I have never used IRC and don't particularly want to. (I have communicated with Elonka by email and even by telephone.) Mathsci ( talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I received it, I just haven't had a chance to respond to it yet. perhaps this evening. -- Ludwigs2 01:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci: tried responding, but the email I sent got bounced as spam. I don't know if that was a server bounce (which would not get as far as your inbox), or an account bounce (which might leave a copy of the email in your spam filter mailbox). could you check?

Inbreeding depression

As many people as possible, please, to cast an eye on the discussion of the talk page of Race and intelligence about the inclusion of the findings of a paper by Rushton. I am trying to get a general principle accepted that the article should be written up from sources on the history of science etc. There is at least one good source of that kind. My strong impression is that the Rishton paper is fringe in the sense of being well outside the findings of recent scholarship. It also seems evident to me that it should be treated as a primary source. If you have a stats background you might care to look at the coherence of the paper itself, but it isn't directly relevant. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I protected this article a week or so ago, and I've watchlisted it since protection ended. There appear to be several issues with the article which, I'm hoping, would benefit from more eyes. This is detailed on the talk page, but in summary:

• There's a general dispute over whether the article belongs in Category:Pseudoscience;
• There are more specific issues over whether the tags {{ Unbalanced}} and/or {{ POV}} apply;
• Sourcing looks OK (in that there's a lot of it...) but I'm not a scientist and I'm struggling with it all. I'll note that an editor has suggested that some of the sources may come from another editor's website.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could talk a look and help move this along.

Cheers, TFOWR 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below).

So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory:

• Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi: 10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.

Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Mirror link. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN  0812693256, LCCN  97-114.

Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, Bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.

Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", Bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN  0521452678, Bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. Mirror link.

Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119 ( mirror link); an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi: 10.2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.

Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv: astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN  0735400261, LCCN  2001-94694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi: 10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi: 10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. Mirror links here and here; also available here. Also at arXiv: 0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv: 0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv: gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, Bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device,[1] and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality. For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.

Below is what the Royal Society of London says about Prof. Deutsch in its announcement of his becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2008:

Professor David Elieser Deutsch FRS

Visiting Professor, Department of Atomic and Laser Physics, Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford

David Deutsch laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation, and has subsequently made or participated in many of the most important advances in the field, including the discovery of the first quantum algorithms, the theory of quantum logic gates and quantum computational networks, the first quantum error-correction scheme, and several fundamental quantum universality results. He has set the agenda for worldwide research efforts in this new, interdisciplinary field, made progress in understanding its philosophical implications (via a variant of the many-universes interpretation) and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book The Fabric of Reality.

From "New Fellows 08 Craik - Kaiser", The Royal Society.

The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.

Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory. For that, see:

Chauncy Glover, "Man says equation proves God exists", Action News (WTEV CBS-47 and WAWS Fox-30, Jacksonville, Florida), May 17, 2010. Direct FLV video link (Prof. Simony's segment is from 3:10 to 3:40 min:sec).

(Note that the text of the above article misattributes the statement "Everything in here is correct and his interpretation of the equation is correct. ..." to Tipler, when in fact as the video of the report makes clear, it was Prof. Paul Richard Simony who made this statement.)

Lastly, none of the sources come from the Theophysics website. Copies of some sources may be hosted on that website, but they didn't come from it.

Note:

1. D. Deutsch, "Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 400, No. 1818 (July 1985), pp. 97-117.

-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase another editor, an over-referenced article that's clearly disproportionate to anything found in reliable secondary sources about the subject immediately raises lots of questions. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"[O]ver-referenced"? So now the criticism is that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published too many times in science journals, including in a number of the world's leading physics journals.

But I just listed a number of reliable secondary sources, such as The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997) by Prof. David Deutsch, the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer; and The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist Prof. John D. Barrow along with Tipler, and with a "Foreword" by Prof. John A. Wheeler, the father of most relativity research in the U.S. Then of course there are Tipler's 1994 and 2007 books, which are reliable secondary sources, as Tipler after all is the world's leading expert on the Omega Point Theory.

And according to WP:No Original Research (including the articles " Primary source" and " Secondary source", which are referenced in that Wikipedia policy), all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers would also have to qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Wikipedia policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 14:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to recall where I'd heard of Frank Tipler before, and I just remembered: it was an article called weak dematerialization where adherents were promoting the resurrection of Jesus as scientific fact, and using Tipler's theories as proof. I also recall many of the sources given for this "proof" were papers by mainstream physicists that did not mention Tipler or his theories at all. Deja vu, anyone?- LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Tipler's last name is only mentioned once in passing on that board link, and no position, argument or work by Prof. Frank J. Tipler is mentioned there. I haven't read all of that section, but if someone was attempting to argue that Jesus's resurrection is a scientific fact then that is not currently correct. If someone indeed tried to argue that there, they at any rate didn't cite anything by Tipler in support of their contention. Tipler's position is that the known laws of physics allow for baryon annihilation, and its inverse, via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number is conserved). Thus, if Jesus's purported miracles and resurrection were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point, and if the Omega Point is a physical necessity, then the probability of those events occuring is certain, i.e., events that would otherwise be statistically highly improbable to occur by chance would thereby be forced by physical necessity. But then that's merely a tautology which doesn't tell us whether in fact Jesus's purported miracles did occur by this process. So Tipler doesn't claim that Jesus's purported miracles are proven to have taken place by physics, but rather that the known laws of physics allow them to have occured. Tipler proposes tests to be performed on various relics associated with Jesus which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether the purported miracles occured via the proposed mechanisms.-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, his connection to "weak dematerialization" is only the tip of the iceberg. It appears Tipler's "theories" are derided by the mainstream as arguments for Christianity based on fundamental physics. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to post since it will probably only reduce the readability of the section further but WRT your link, Discover Magazine is not alone in that regard. The lack of replication/support should be of concern, one would expect a controversial but supported theory to have far more published both in opposition and support of it. Where are the docteral candidates extending this work? Where are the analyses showing support for its weak areas? The most significant publication in support of Tipler appears to be a local TV news feature. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 23:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The referenced criticisms by George Ellis and Lawrence Krauss are non-refereed book reviews. There has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, but in the paper the authors unwittingly gave an argument that unless the Omega Point comes about then the known laws of physics are violated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of his argument that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

In that blog post by Sean M. Carroll (who was denied tenure), he makes a number of factually incorrect statements, e.g., his statement regarding "no actual argument" is false. Two paragraphs before the excerpt Carroll gave, Tipler stated "Now let me outline the proof of my three claims above. I can give here only a bare outline. For complete details, the reader is referred to my book [1], and to papers ([3], [4], [5]) on the lanl database (available over the Internet at xxx.lanl.gov)."

So Carroll doesn't actually know much of anything about Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory because he's never bothered to actually research it, and he apparently has no intention to do so.-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Article may fail WP:N

As there is consensus to make improvements to this article to improve readability and bring it into line with policy, I have begun trimming OR and removing synthesis, over quoting of Tipler, etc. However, as I get deeper, I note the article is mostly built on primary sources (Tipler), and actual independent WP:RS are few. Also, there is a problem with deliberate conflation of sources - e.g. a source having mentioned the omega point as a general term in physics is made to seem as if that source supports Tipler's theist interpretation in particular. As Tipler's Omega Point theory has not received the kind of notice we generally require to devote a separate article to, it may be that after sufficient improvements are made, the best course is WP:AFD and redirect Omega Point (Tipler) to Frank J. Tipler. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

why afd? It is best to preserve the edit history. Just redirect it without going through afd first. -- dab (𒁳) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. AfD is only an option to cut through the Talk Page wikidrama and get consensus to redirect it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)- LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it dubious practice to take articles to afd that you do not actually think should be deleted. I am all for merging the article. Since you have already cleaned it up, it will now be possible to merge it without losing any relevant content. -- dab (𒁳) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that it should be merged into Frank J. Tipler. The Frank J. Tipler article is a biography of Frank J. Tipler, thus any mention of the omega point theory should be no more than a few sentences, a paragraph at the most. If the article is to be merged, it might be worth merging into the existing omega point article. Otherwise the article should be kept in my view.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@dab - Point taken. Maybe an RfC is a better option to bring in wider opinions, should the merge discussion on the Talk page become enmired in bickering among presently entrenched parties. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, a lone editor has undertaken to edit war the article back to its former state. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article forecast: tonight and tomorrow, cloudy with a 90% chance of sockpuppetry. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that IP is anything to do with Jamie, I think it's independent, POV-based vandalism. It's IP comes from a different state to Jamie's socks and looking at its contributions, it seems to have a different pattern of vandalism that is much smaller in scope (see its talk page). I put a warning on its page and tried to report it (but I fucked up the form and was accidentally edited over by a bot), I'll redo it if it remains a problem but I don't see a pattern of persistence here. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across the article on Teruo Higa while checking out our oldest unsourced BLPs and that led me to Effective microorganism. There are plenty of sources available about both the professor and his pet topic (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but they have to me, a layman, a whiff of pseudoscience. Could someone with some knowledge of microbiology and/or horticulture check out these articles and ensure that anything fringe is presented as such? Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article: Abiogenic petroleum origin, it seems to warrant inclusion in the category of Fringe theories according to the guidelines set forward in WP:Fringe. I have neither the time nor inclination to delve into this deeply (no pun intended); I just happened upon the article and thought it should be mentioned here. Calicocat ( talk) 23:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is not in too bad a shape, since most of the time it presents the theory as it is: a view that has been speculated about from time to time in the past and currently is regarded as non-mainstream. We try to cover these minority scientific views fairly. A reader, even a casual reader, should never be given the impression that they are reading about established scientific knowledge. I tagged the article as being in need of expert attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly obscure minority opinion, but it's neither pseudo-scientific or a fringe theory - per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Identifying_fringe_theories, it should be identified as an alternative theoretical formulation. As the article explains to some extent, the abiogenic theory is a possible alternative hypothesis, which has been judged to be very unlikely due to the current evidence. I'm therefore going to remove the "fringe science" category, because it doesn't really belong with all the pseudo-science there. Claritas § 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is really the very last I'll say about this. Your reference to Wikipedia:FRINGE#Identifying_fringe_theories only serves to amplify that this article is, in fact, a Fringe theory and pseudoscience. In the interests of maintaining my own sanity, I'm removing the article and this notice board from my watch list, so, have a nice day. Calicocat ( talk) 04:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably about the last thing anyone here is going to be surprised by, but the article needs some review. First, I notice there's no discussion of skeptical criticism of the Ouija board, only credulous variations on occultists claiming they're dangerous to spiritual or mental health, or sinful (I can't help but be reminded of the classic B-movie posters warning the weak of constitution away...) There's some really great stuff.

Gems include:

"In March 1920, a United Press dispatch from Martinez, California stated that detention in the insane ward was filled with seven persons "who, the police say, were driven insane by constant use of ouija boards."[15]"

I guess at least they varied it from the usual old boring "driven insane by constant..." prognosis. Then there's poor Rob Doe:

"In a famous case, in January 1949, a fourteen-year-old Lutheran boy, Rob Doe, living in Cottage City, Maryland became involved in satanic possession after trying to contact his deceased aunt (with whom he had been very close) via an ouija board.[three citations here] ... Rev. William Bowdern, assisted by Rev. Walter Halloran and Rev. William Van Roo, conducted subsequent exorcisms and succeeded in driving out the demon from the child when the child finally uttered "Christus, Domini."[two more citations]"

The main reason I actually bring it up here is that I don't actually know where things sit wrt demons, posession, and fringe, and while I haven't discussed this on the article talk page, it's because I don't want to put a wrong foot (or I suppose approach, or argument) forward there and derail any chance of improvement in the article by accidentally sparking flames.

So, could someone with more experience, both in handling fringe and in not starting brushfires, check this out? Hatchetfish ( talk) 09:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Material reflecting views by more reliable sources should be in the lead, e.g. [18], and [19]. I'll give it some attention next week. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, ouija paranoia comes almost entirely from religious groups. The companies which produce them all essentially say that there is no factual basis to them and they are solely entertainment. This is similar to Magic 8-Balls, but for some reason the criticism of those objects by fundamentalists is harder to find. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The shock-horror response is very interesting historically, so I hope it will still be mentioned. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It sure is. Here is a source which shows it beautifully. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I took out a bunch of stuff that shouldn't have been there, as it was just stuff someone was interested in and not really notable in the subject area, or it did not seem notable. ^BE_Critical__ Talk 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some fixups to the lead and added sources. Since many religious activists feel Ouija = Devil, I would keep an eye on the article to prevent it from being WP:UNDUE weighted to that view. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Big pile of edits by Thebigpowerthing1664 ( talk · contribs).Quote

"The Motionless electromagnetic generator has been independently varified. First by the patent office, who insisted wording had to fit with conventional physics, hence no mention of overunity. Then two labs tested it:'such systems as now have been rigorously developed and demonstrated by Klimov et al. and validated by both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Recoverable Energy Laboratory. The work of Klimov et al. is rigorously published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals, and it is now accepted in both fields -- and independently verified by those two great national labs.' ^[1] Also from the same source. "

See diff Seems very fringe, POV. etc. --220.101 ( talk) ^\Contribs 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted the changes, but serious questions remain about that article. I tagged it for notability, and was also alarmed to see it referenced mainly to the article subject, including "correspondence". Even if there has been sporadic interest from skeptics and debunkers, that's probably not enough to merit a biography here. While it remains here it's going to be a magnet for pseudoscience proponents. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Itsmejudith. I thought it was (think AGF) a load of crap. Just needed another opinion! My first Fringe post too! ps. If we delete the article then we will be "suppressing knowledge" ! -- 220.101 ( talk) ^\Contribs 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. Do you want to take it to AfD? If, not then I can or others here will. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You may do with it as you see fit, Itsmejudith. (started something of a kerfuffle havent't I ! ) --220.101 ( talk) ^\Contribs04:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

this is by all appearances an article on an unnotable crank. As long as no evidence of notability is presented, I would support deletion. -- dab (𒁳) 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this guy shows up in a number of perpetual motion-related articles. Mangoe ( talk) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I only see one source cited that is not Bearden talking about Bearden, and even that is an obscure newspaper article. Ah, there's one other listed: Bearden's ideas are mentioned in the journal Random Operators and Stochastic Equations as erroneous. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that it be merged to Motionless electromagnetic generator, as I think that his device is notable but he himself is not independently notable. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also room at Free_energy_suppression#Tom_Bearden. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing happened to Myron Evans (a collaborator of Bearden at one stage). His BLP was deleted: all that remains is ECE theory, which mentions the MEG and Bearden. Mathsci ( talk) 23:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess. It is a personal OR essay written by an editor with an apparent COI (I've removed the stuff about him) as a puffy promotion piece totally lacking in RS. Please add to watchlists and attempt to help clean up if possible, or next stop is AfD. Verbal chat 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the article subject is notable and I feel that it should be deleted.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any reliable sources that cover this topic in a serious way from which to build an article from, but I do see one non-notable book. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"astrology and computers"? We need more "X and computers" articles. Badly needed are kangaroos and computers, anger management and computers and Dow Jones and computers. -- dab (𒁳) 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Actually, computers were made for astrology. Now we can collate the post-horoscope experiences of millions, and calculate precise coefficients of how much effect Mars, Venus and the gang have on our lives. Not only that, but we can enter the details of horoscopes in all the popular papers and magazines and verify that romance is consistently in the air for all Pisces this week while Capricorns, in complete contrast, should think carefully before taking difficult decisions. Anger management and computers is a shoe-in, as all Windows users know. I think the Dow Jones is probably compiled on computers. Kangaroos - only if the anger management fails to kick in. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're Googling, "astrology software" turns up more hits in reliable sources than "Horoscope software", but I don't know how in-depth these articles are. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, in all seriousness, this is a valid topic, and the topic is one of Category:Application software. This is essentially about horoscopy software, but if the usual term is "astrology software" by all means move the article there. -- dab (𒁳) 08:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if it is notable it is as a kind of application. I expect that horoscope apps are very popular on I-phones, for example. I will post a note on an appropriate WikiProject. Otherwise, it could become a short section in horoscope. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Computing. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it appears that a more coherent (but largely unsourced) version of this article once existed but was degraded over time. It also appears that reliable sources may exist to support that version. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the article will be fine. It just needs a meaningful title and a {{ refimprove}} tag for the time being. -- dab (𒁳) 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

it turns out that instead of a straightforward cleanup effort, encouraging the clearly knowledgeable editors to provide better references, this has turned into an "anti-astrology" trolling match, where people are tagged for COI just because they are interested in or have knowlerge of the topic. Sheesh. I feel this is a sore misrepresentation of the usually mature performance of our treatment of WP:FRINGE.

I am sure the article is going to benefit from all this in the end though. I am just unhappy about all the unnecessary vitriol. -- dab (𒁳) 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is no such thing. You and John have attacked me repeadedly, trying to ban me from the page and making blatantly untrue accusations. I gave John teh benefit of the doubt, but dab you really should know better. Removing the notability tag repeadedly, while notability has not yet been established, is not appropriate. Your talk page comments have been based more on attacking me for things I haven't said, and praising John for his good behaviour (calling me a vandal, telling me to leave the page, that I was ignorant, etc). Please try to engage in civil discussion aimed at improving the page. For what it's worth I think the move to Astrology software is a good one, but the atmosphere is being made unnecessarily confrontational and this is being encouraged by dab. Please cool it, and explain on the talk page why notability has been establish and which references you feel meet RS and why. Verbal chat 07:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done at all well on this, nor have you Verbal, and nor has dab. Even though all of us had the best of intentions. We go away separately and learn our lessons. We draw a line under the conflict right now this minute. We watch the article and check that it gets the expert attention it needs. We mark the thread resolved? Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith I think you have acted properly in regards this article and have nothing to feel bad about. I've tried to reach out to dab to resolve this on his talk page. Verbal chat 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can only be judged in a kangaroo court. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never trusted kangaroos. Verbal chat 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So this mostly needs deescalation between Verbal and myself now, both of usn FTN regulars. If I am to be going to honour any of Verbal's allegations above, I would very much appreciate diffs for all the things I am supposed to have done to him. What I have in fact done is take middle ground between an editor knowledgeable of astrology software (the article topic) but not of Wikipedia best practice on one hand (John) and an editor knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but with his judgement clouded by a general dislike of astrology (Verbal). I think the exchange of niceties is more or less done now and we can return to a more serene appreciation of the remaining issues with the article. Note how while all this turmoil was going on at assorted talkpages, the article has been steadily improving, so the project wins even if everybody walks away annoyed. Which is as it should be. -- dab (𒁳) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which parts would you like diffs for? Verbal chat 16:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page with Verbal the kinds of sources that can be found and are useful. More eyes very welcome. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Astrology is considered Fringe. In the article discussed in this section, the Fringe attribution is being used as a reason to tag sources as unreliable. Fringe content does not make a publication or publisher or writer unreliable. A judgment that content is fringe does not support a further judgment that a publication about such content is an unreliable source on that subject, nor can it be inferred that a publisher or writer of such content therefore fails to be a reliable source. Such an assertion is a logical fallacy. (It is a kind of category error, in that one is meta to the other.) There are good criteria for the WP:RS label. Identifying the subject matter as Fringe says nothing about how reliable a source about that subject matter might be. Bn ( talk) 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Occitan nationalist anger at Paris' ill-treatment of their language over the centuries, presented as incontrovertible fact and defended by very cross IPs. Could all be true, but... Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a fringe theory, just a question of political WP:POV. On a related note, our coverage of the umbrella topic of linguistic discrimination is in a sad state. We get occasional and erratic contributions of the kind of Vergonha and Welsh Not, mostly by editors with a political agenda, but nobody has so far bothered to sit down and cover the topic from an academic perspective. -- dab (𒁳) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, wrong noticeboard. Copying it to ethnic and religious conflict noticeboard. I'll have a look at related articles, as you say. We need to cover language policy in Europe properly. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IP removing pseuo-scientific categories, etc, see their newest set of edits [20]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Made a few edits. The subject's views aren't well documented in this BLP, nor is the criticism. There are broken links and links to You-Tube. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that the pseudo-science links should have been removed? I'm glad you restored the link to the article by Bernard Ortiz De Montellano. Dougweller ( talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the priority is to set out a sourced description of what the subject has said and when. Certainly the claims about melanin are pseudoscientific, but she may have distanced herself from them recently. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User Gazpr ( talk · contribs) has contributed a large amount of material related to Gazprom and the Russian energy sector. While he provides sources for his edits, concern has been raised that his edits present a fringe point-of-view and possibly promote conspiracy theories. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, this looks like a user-name violation - perhaps that should be reported? Dougweller ( talk) 06:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be extreme fringe point-of-view pushing going on with this article, specifically that the 2010 Kingston conflict is a war. I have asked for sources that it is a war, none have been provided. More eyes would be welcome. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor is removing obvious examples, [21] - Fomenko, Illig, - maybe this is a spillover from the argument at Fringe theory? Or the old Shakespeare one? Dougweller ( talk) 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the exact cause of this flurry, but the arguments remind me of the endless debates over applying the term pseudo-science. Those debates were only ended (or at least reduced) after multiple arbcom decisions. I am beginning to think that we will need to get a similar ruling specifically for the term pseudohistory. Blueboar ( talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

An "obvious" example should be easily cited to academic researchers who are discussing the actual topic of pseudohistory - not passing comments made by advocates or private "debunkers". The Shakespeare addition, for example, was added by POV editors who take every opportunity to add pejorative labels - a form of revenge editing. The SAQ references, for example, are either passing comments that barely mention the topic of pseudohistory, or they fail to support the "commonly cited" requirement. The first ref does not even use the term pseudohistory; The second reference makes the comment "in the context of literary history and pseudo-history" - completely unclear and hardly living up to the "commonly cited" requirement of the article; The third is equally unclear; and the last is referenced to a personal blog run by a non-academic debunker who discusses Shakespeare scholars without naming any, and can hardly be described as RS. Smatprt ( talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One hardly knows where to begin to point out the distortions in the message directly above, so I won't even try.

In response to Blueboar, I think one problem (which really has nothing to do with this particular complaint) with the topic is that there are several types of pseudohistory. The first type is folklore or prehistory myth, especially Medieval, passed off as history, such as Atlantis, which often serve as some type of national or racial myth and may even be used by governments as justification for their actions or to increase national pride—Ireland and the myth of St Patrick banishing the snakes from Ireland, England and the King Arthur myth, and Nazi Germany and the Aryan race myth—all which can be classified as pseudohistory.

The second type is that which the article covers—obvious deviations from the historical record—and which have increased in popularity and scope since the phenomenon of mass media caused by the spread of cheap printing and especially the Internet, fringe theories, in effect.

With an incremental creation of an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, advocates of these theories can publicise their theories and fight to have them included in some articles and withheld from others, which is why this board is so busy. Until some method of systematic quality control other than that of the wiki community is instituted, these go round and round ceaselessly, like this particular complaint, which has been endlessly discussed on noticeboards and talk pages. I don't know what to do about it, and apparently neither does anyone else. All I know is that it wastes a lot of time all out of proportion to the issues involved, and I've come to the conclusion that in itself is a tactic of fringe POV pushers. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think part of the problem is that pseudohistory is more defined by the author's methodology and approach to history than the specific topic he/she writes about. There are good historical works on Atlantis, King Arthur, St. Patrick, and even the Aryan race (both the real one and the invented one claimed by the Nazis)... and for those who recognize proper historical method it is easy to tell them apart from the pseudohistorical rubbish... but that distinction is not so easy for the average Joe who may have stopped studying history after high school. In this, it is similar to the problems that our fellow editors in the sciences had. The difference is that most people recognize that they don't have the expertize to know whether something in the hard sciences is rubbish or not, and will listen to those who do, the same is not true when it comes to history... the average Joe thinks they can tell rubbish from good research when they can not. Blueboar ( talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are good historical works about Atlantis, but the historical reality is that it is pseudohistory; same with King Arthur (although the historical reality of St Patrick is not questioned, just the miracle). Most of the references I've seen to the term "pseudohistory" have been in Medieval political studies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are referring to Geoffrey of Monmouth's version of the life of Arthur, then it's reasonable to call that pseudohistory. If we are referring to Chrétien de Troyes, then that's essentially imaginative literature. If we are referring to the Annales Cambriae, I think we can call that history, even though it's a perhaps untrustworthy source. It all depends on the context. I don't think we can usefully make generalisations about figures on the border of myth, history and literature like Arthur. Needless to say, Smatprt's deletions are mostly smokescreen for his one true obsession. Paul B ( talk) 09:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YTnere are plenty of serious histories that examine (and even attempt to identify) Arthur as a historical figure. Whilst its true that some (Morris I'm looking at you) have been largley discreditied by modern research they are not psedohistory. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to throw a half-baked idea in here (because it occurred to me just now over coffee, and I didn't want to forget about it). Maybe it's time to consider taking this whole rat's nest of related ideas - fringe theories, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, etc. - and warp them into a new guideline on scholarly revisionism. The consistent problem here, it seems to me, is that scholars have an inherent right to challenge and try to revise the intellectual 'status quo', and wikipedia has an obligation to report on that scholarship when it's notable enough, but the act of reporting on such things gets tangled up between an assortment of misguided editors:

• Editors who think the revisionism is 'true' and want to cast it in unduly favorable light
• Editors who think the revisionism is 'false' and want to debunk it at all costs
• Editors who are offended/indignant at the very idea, regardless of its notability, and want to excise it from wikipedia
• Editors who have their own personal/political agendas, and are soapboxing

A guideline that disentangles scholarly revisionism from this kind of editorial revisionism might be useful. -- Ludwigs2 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct in saying that "wikipedia has an obligation to report on that scholarship when it's notable enough"... but that last phrase is the key... we report on it "when it's notable enough". I don't think we have an obligation to report on every bit of revisionism out there, no matter how scholarly... and we have to make sure that what we do report on is given due weight. Thus, even scholarly historical revisionism has to have been discussed by other scholars (either favorably or unfavorably) before we discuss it. Blueboar ( talk) 15:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Ludwigs2 and Blueboar. There appears to be conflation of pseudoscholarship and fringe theories in the minds of some editors. That distinction should be made clearer in policy. I have encountered "very few experts hold that view, so it must be poor history/science/scholarship" often here. I've just looked at the Fringe theory discussion pointed to by Dougweller above. So I'll shut up now until I've read that. (Blueboar addresses my point at the top of that page.) Anthony ( talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar: you missed my point above. Notability is not the issue I'm concerned with (that can be handled on its own grounds). I'm more concerned with the distinction between scholars advocating for odd revisions of scholarship and editors so advocating. To give an example (using something that annoys me, but is innocuous enough that others can take a detached view of it) I've had an ongoing debate with an editor over yin-yang diagrams ( taijitus). There is an academic source or three who have noticed that the Chinese taijitu is very similar in form to other much earlier symbols (a handful of Roman shield markings that were used a few hundred years before the taijitu became the Chinese symbol for the philosophy of yin yang, not to mention some Etruscan and Celtic symbols in the same vein). At least one of these source has made some vague rumblings about a possible transference of the iconography from Rome to China. Now, notability is one thing - I'd love to be able to convince people that the Roman and etc. designs are entirely non-notable as far as the symbol goes, and eventually that may be the way this issue is resolved - but even assuming that the theory (that the Chinese somehow imported the iconography from Rome) is notable, it's not prominent and there's not a whole lot (or in fact, any) evidence supporting it. I have no problem with a scholar raising the possibility in an academic context (even though from a historical perspective the idea is deeply problematic, and implies a broad revision of our understanding of early Chinese culture), and if that idea is sufficiently prominent I would say that we are obligated to cover it on wikipedia. The problem arises because an editor is assuming the theory as fact and editing the article from that perspective. In subtle ways, of course: for instance, s/he consistently tries to call the Roman shield markings taijitu, though obviously that's not what the Romans would have called them - it's a Chinese word that wasn't being used when the shields were made - and scholars only call them that by reference, since the Roman shield markings don't have a known name.

So the question is how do we thread that needle - covering the notable off-the-wall theories that scholars can (and do and will) make while keeping editors from getting carried away with them? the taijitu example is silly, of course, but you know the trouble that gets stirred up on more contentious revisionisms (e.g. AIDS or holocaust denialism). That's why I'm thinking a new, refocused guideline might be appropriate - it will get away from the particularism of combatting pseudo-this-or-that and get us back to making the distinction between scholarly and editorial advocacy (where the former is permissible, granting notability, and the latter is never permissible). -- Ludwigs2 17:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what kind of fringe this might be, I can't say, because it's all over the map and seems to be completely original research. I redirected to simulation but was reverted. I then removed reams of material, but the article is still in shambles and I suppose the unregistered editor may reinsert what I took out. I have no idea how "simulated reality" is supposed to differ from "simulation", nor is any version of the article helpful in explaining that to me. Tim Shuba ( talk) 03:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen too many edits like this one [22] - which is by a self-declared creationist. Is this argument lost and is the phrase no longer one we can use? Dougweller ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative is poorly named, but clearly described as a creation myth in the lead. Jimmy Wales didn't like the term, and that probably skewed the debate for renaming, but abandoning the term entirely seems ridiculous to me. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with "myth" per Claude Levi-Strauss, but "creation narrative" is also academically sound because there is a lot of literature on how the narratives (pl.) were constructed. There was a lot of opposition to "longevity myths" and that article is still a mess. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a constant background level of creationist trolling, but we also have a lot of people overreacting to that, so I think we are fine. "creation narrative" in the case of Genesis in particular is fine, for reasons peculiar to Genesis: it isn't just an Iron Age myth, it has undergone centuries of redaction from the point of view of monotheist theology, it is a very special case. Our creationists only ever care about the creation according to Genesis, the countless other creation myths from other traditions are comparatively safe from them.

Calling the Genesis account a "creation narrative" is not a fringe theory, and I would actually support the phrasing. It is, of course, a creation myth, but it is also other things, and harping on it being a creation myth is needlessly simplistic. -- dab (𒁳) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is outright cultural prejudice--rampant on Wikipedia--to delete "myth" from Biblical topics while retaining articles like Hindu mythology. Noloop ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If one person’s religion is a myth then so is everyone else’s. Where we are dealing with say a dead mythos cycle (such as the ancient Greek) then there is no real issue. But where it is still a living religion (such as Hinduism) to describe their religious texts as myth, whilst saying that Christian text are not does indeed smack of cultural bias. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me get started ranting about how Diné Bahaneʼ is treated here... it's ironic that haneʼ is message/story/narrative. If any article qualifies for "narrative" it'd be that one. Alas... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ <-- ! :)} 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven and Noloop, it is certainly cultural bias to apply "mythology" to the Hindu Vedas, or to sacred texts of any living world religion with millions of sdherents, because when all is said and done "your religion's texts are mythology" is still a propaganda POV, and the oldest one in the book. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, did you read anything I said? Please don't try to revive the braindead "define myth" debate, at least not here. Slatersteven, please use a dictionary. A religion is not a myth. A myth is a sacred narrative within some religion. If you are going to be pedantic, at least get it right. -- dab (𒁳) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But the religion is not creation, its christianity. The Narrative is creation, and therefore its a myth. The story of cereation is just as much a myth as the Vedas. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about this debate (which I have mild opinions on, but never mind that) is the utter arrogance of the editors arguing. The only reason the word 'myth' becomes an issue here is that some editors are irrationally offended by the implication that their faith is a myth, and other editors are pedantically obsessed with trying to offend the first group of editors. It would be simplicity itself to resolve this issue on purely scholarly grounds (there are a few places where the word 'myth' is used uncontentiously, yes, otherwise scholars are generally sensitive to public opinion and avoid offending people, by rewording or adding clarifications that separate out the 'myth' from any particular 'belief' where needed). The people whose goal it is debunk all faith are the twin siblings of the people whose goal it is to promote faith as truth. You all can figure out who the good twin and who the evil twin is on you own, just do it somewhere other than wikipedia, ok? -- Ludwigs2 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with calling it Myth, Story or Arrddvark, but I have an isseu with christian stories being treated by a differeing standed then everyone else arrddvarks. If faith based naratives are Myth then all are, but if one isnt then none are. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. that's a historical problem more than anything else (scholarly sources from 40 or more years ago had an unconscious Euro-centric bias that looks odd from modern scholarship). To my mind, I've never seen an instance of the word 'myth' that couldn't be replaced by the common-language word 'belief' or the esoteric 'mythos' (neither of which carries the pejorative sense of the word 'myth'). I've actually recommended that in various places, and had it shot down by editors intent on retaining the pejorative word. sad... -- Ludwigs2 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What is pejorative about the word "myth"? The accepted phrase in academic study for what some people want to call "creation narrative" or "creation belief" or other made-up names is "creation myth". It doesn't imply anything about the truth or falsity of such stories. One of the objectives of an encyclopedia is to educate, and in this instance we can educate readers by explaining to readers the meaning of the word "myth", in the same way that we can tell people who say that the theory of evolution is "only a theory" that "theory" does not mean the same as "hypthesis". Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

your argument here is that the word 'myth' - a word which carries the definitions "widely held but false belief or idea" and "misrepresentation of the truth" according to my computer's dictionary - is not pejorative because it has a particular use in academic jargon? and I suppose it's alright to call a woman a bitch, too, so long as she's a veterinarian or a dog breeder (and let's not even get into the N-word being okay because technically it refers to someone originally from the region of Niger...). That's just a silly argument. No one is going to be 'educated' by the presence or absence of a single, particular word, not unless (obviously) the 'education' you have in mind is to teach people that faith is a false idea and misrepresentation of the truth. Which is, I think, the real issue here. -- Ludwigs2 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, when we say "myth" we obviously mean "sacred narrative" not "falsehood". The former is hardly "jargon", it is the only meaningful application of the word in the context. Please be reasonable. Are you suggesting "creation myth" translates to "creation lie"? A creation myth is a sacred narrative regarding the concept of creation. "Jargon" has nothing to do with this, it's perfectly unambiguous. The same way it is straighforward to call a female dog a bitch in a cynological context. -- dab (𒁳) 21:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab - who is this "we" that this is so obvious to? I'm an academic - I know what 'creation myth' means in the discipline, and I don't take offense at it, but I also know that that is specialized disciplinary language. There is just no getting around the fact that the word myth has pejorative connotations in common language, and since wikipedia is written for the common reader (not for scholars), we cannot ignore the fact that large numbers of people are going to read bad things into the phrase. there is no particular advantage to using phrases like that, and there are clear disadvantages in human terms, so why do it? I mean, I'm not suggesting that we should correct a source that talks about 'creation myths', but sources are entitled to push those buttons. wikipedia editors are not entitled to do so. this is just simple, obvious common courtesy (e.g. don't go poking people in the nose unless you absolutely have to). what is so hard about that? -- Ludwigs2 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with using the word "myth" because I understand that when it is used in an academic context, it doesn't mean "false". However, that is certainly not the way the word "myth" is used in everyday life. I think the analogy to the word "bitch" (by Ludwigs2) is a good one. Another such word, which started (I believe) as a non-pejorative word is "bastard".

So, the question is this: in a wiki BLP personal section, is it appropriate to label someone a "bastard" if the person was conceived/born out of wedlock? If the typical person reading Wikipedia would understand it as a pejorative word, then it should not be used. Thus, "myth" should not be used either. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec's) I've watched this same dispute go round-and-round for quite some time. Articles about myths do not necessarily have "myth" in the title, (see Enûma Eliš, Demeter, Osiris, etc)-- WP:UCN should apply and "Genesis creation narrative" is not the most common name, but neither is "Genesis creation myth". However, the issue's been wrested over in one RFC and/or poll after another. "Narrative" prevailed the last round. Those that study and write about myth don't concern themselves with the question of whether or not a story is "faith based"--that's not relevant really. Narrative simply means "story" here - and while a myth does not, strictly speaking, have to be religious, nor "faith based", they do have to be a story. Unfortunately too much of the discussion in the article naming has been dominated by agenda driven editors -from both sides. "Myth" has been been pushed and opposed a few too many editors who either don't know what scholars mean by "creation myth" or merely pay lip service to the definition to conceal ulterior motives. I wish half as much time and effort were being channeled to good content and good writing for the article about the story as has been spent discussing what to call the article about the story. But the article's a battlefield-it's almost impossible to edit there anymore. Professor marginalia ( talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Creation myth" is the normal wording for such things other than the account in the OT. IMO, what's good enough for every other religion in the world is good enough for the OT. If we end up using "creation narrative" in order to avoid offending those who believe in it, then we should use that phrase for all other religions as well. Simple fairness.

Those who object that "myth" means "falsehood" have a legitimate point. For example, the OED defines "myth" as

A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. (Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitious elements.)

The academic use of the term does not appear, perhaps because that entry was written in the late 19th century and hasn't been adequately updated. (The latest citation for 'myth' in this basic sense is from 1899; there is another from 1905 for the Platonic myth, and later ones only for colloquial usage.) The phrase "creation myth" only appears once in the OED,

2003 Jrnl. Royal Anthropol. Inst. 9 192: The famous nyau ritual of the Chewa-speaking peoples is a symbolic re-enactment of the Chewa creation myth.

It would seem the OED has not been updated per its own citations.

Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate has a better 1st definition:

a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people, or to explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

That usage IMO works equally well with the OT, Navaho, and Chewa. — kwami ( talk) 23:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a difference between "narrative" and "myth"--that's why those who believe in the Christian myths/narratives/stories care. The term "myth" carries a stronger connotation of a quaint tale no educated person really believes nowadays. Myths are believed in by aborigines and followers of dead religions. The term "narrative" doesn't carry that connotation, or does so to a lesser degree. It is not just an amazing coincidence that cultures dominated by Biblical religions only refer to non-Biblical religious stories as "myths." For Wikipedia to perpetuate that pattern is systemic bias. Noloop ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They're all myths. But if that has pejorative connotations and must be avoided in order not to risk offending people, then, please, not "narratives". When not in a context of PoMo gibberish ( humdrum example), the noun "narrative" seems to mean little or nothing more than does the simple word "story". -- Hoary ( talk) 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

All the arguments have been recirculated many, many times. Wikipedia is a tertiary source--so many of the arguments should be dismissed. The encyclopedia should follow the lead set by the best sources. When I explored this a few months back I found that most sources did not call the story the "Genesis creation myth" but they described "the Genesis creation" or "creation in Genesis" a "creation myth". There is a subtle difference in one significant respect, I think, between "what is it most often called" and "how is it categorized". It's a bit like Romeo and Juliet v. Romeo and Juliet tragedy or Epic of Gilgamesh - a poem first but with epic, mythic, and legendary features. Yet we don't have an article Gilgamesh poem while we do have Gilgamesh flood myth (a name one episode in it is commonly known by). Another interesting example is Atra-Hasis, which is an epic and poem, with both a creation myth and a flood myth. Only Atrahasis epic has a redirect. Or take the Iliad, a poem, an epic, interweaving myth, legend and history throughout. No Iliad epic etc.

The sources more firmly support describing Genesis creation as a creation myth than they support it being the "most common name for it". But "narrative" won out the last round despite it's a less common usage than "myth". I want to slap myself for wasting any more of my time trying to explain-the arguing is bound to go on and on regardless. It's one of those topics that attracts more personal opinion than library lit. research. Professor marginalia ( talk) 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What Professor marginalia said. This is just a waste of time. The number of times I tried to explain the term "myth" vs. "epic" vs. "text" to somebody on Wikipedia! Strangely, in the humanities, everyone feels competent to contribute. Fuck the experts, education is optional. Go and try to pull this off in our articles on abstract algebra and our mathematicians will quickly show you your place.

If you do not have expert knowledge on a topic, you need to be aware of the fact and base your reasoning closely on expert literature. Anything else makes you look a fool and wastes the time of everyone else. You want to convince people that an article title should be changed? Then don't whine about it on six different noticeboards but compile references to scholarly literature to satisfy WP:NAME.

Yes, Noloop. en-wiki has systemic bias towards English language academic literature. Any bias, conscious or not, within academic literature is to be reflected on Wikipedia. That's the way it is designed. Our job is to maintain this systemic bias against all attempts to make things that aren't equal appear equal in the name of {{ globalize}} and political correctness.

At the core of Genesis is an Iron Age creation myth of the Levant. After that, two millennia of theological speculation. The end result is not equal to the original myth, it is a myth plus a theological tradition.

the people who are unhappy with the current title are to compile a clean literature search establishing what is the most commonly used term in English .language scholarship, strictly and dispassionately following WP:NAME. Any reference to red herrings about "derogatory" or "offensive" connotations of the term "myth" will just mean another week lost in flamewars. Once you have such a clean compilation, let people review it and decide which title should be chosen. This is the proper way of addressing titling disputes, and it is the only one that works. -- dab (𒁳) 09:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impresion that Wiki was trying to move away from a systematic Anglo-centric bias. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For titles? I haven't tun into that suggestion. But my original comment was more about people changing 'creation myth' to something else in the body of various articles. By the way, I've never understood why 'story' is sometimes seen as better than 'myth', as stories so often are thought of as fictional (even though they needn't be fictional). it's a shame there's no way of seeing how many instances of 'creation myth' have been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 19:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No the general principle, But surley it would apply to articel titles too, after all other principles do. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Now this is funny. One editor who removed 'creation myth' from an article tried to add the creation myths category to Big Bang. Dougweller ( talk) 19:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, if we are going to be sensitive to the feelings of believers, and avoid using the word "Myth" when describing the Biblical account of creation ... then we should be sensitive to the feelings of all believers and not just those of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I therefor demand that we rename the the account of creation that appears in " The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" in a similar way. After all, Pastafarians have feelings too. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a Myth! Blueboar ( talk) 20:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If there were a substantial number of verifiable Pastafarian sources taking issue with their account being called "myth", perhaps... But the metaphor keeps breaking down because you repeatedly compare something that people take seriously, with somethig that nobody takes seriously, then ask what is the difference. The difference, of course, is that people take this seriously, and not that, QED. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are people who take the Flying Spaghetti Monster very seriously... perhaps not in the same way that believers in traditional religions take their creation stories, but seriously never the less. Just because something is understood to be parody, don't be fooled into thinking that people don't see the underlying truth behind it. Blueboar ( talk) 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

KoshVorlon ( talk · contribs) is continuing to redact comments here, there are two sections on his (archived) talk page that I think are relevant to his actions here [23]. Dougweller ( talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

About article naming and systemic bias: The relevant policy clause covering article naming would be WP:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles. If it's the common name, as in Creation science, that's what the article's name should be. If it's a descriptive name, as in Allegorical interpretations of Genesis then we can't choose titles that "seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject". And there lies the dilemma--it's not an un-common name, but it's not the most common name. And if it's a descriptive name, it shouldn't be chosen because it may "implicitly" pass judgment, which is what Jimmy Wales was concerned about.

BTW, why is this being brought here? How does it pertain to WP:Fringe? - Professor marginalia ( talk) 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The concern with systemic bias isn't restricted to naming. I can't imagine where Dab got the idea that systemic bias is supposed to be maintained on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be avoided: The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. [24] The term "myth" is more dismissive than the term "narrative." If non-Biblical religious accounts are called "myth" and Biblical ones are called "narrative," there is bias. We should "seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." Noloop ( talk) 00:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

wrong, and wrong. Our bias for anglophone pop culture is unwanted. Our bias for reliable sources is wanted. Many people fail to understand that encyclopedicity is itself a "cultural bias" even if we don't usually call it that, and it is the bias we want, it is what the project is designed for. If you do not want to write an encyclopedia so much as an opera, or pulp fiction, perhaps you need to look elsewhere. It is also wrong that The term "myth" is more dismissive than the term "narrative." . But as Noloop has already admitted they aren't interested in what the terms mean, I won't waste my breath.

It is very simple. If you want to change the title to "Genesis creation myth", show that this is the WP:NAME-preferred title, using academic literature. I have done such a literature search half a year ago, not that Noloop would be aware of this, or even care, and the outcome did not seem to favour the title.

Can you please stop waving your hands around and finally sit down and do some work? Article titles aren't decided by who has most stamina in whining about cultural biases, they are determined by people who make an effort to present a clean overview of the situation in expert literature.

Professor marginalia, I think the reason this is being discussed here is skepticist bigotry. In the US culture wars, it seems rational skepticism vs. bible-thumping creationism has become just a gang war, and the defenders of skepticism often aren't any less naive than the bible-thumpers. They tend to equate anything related to human spirituality with the "paranormal" and hence with "pseudoscience" and "fringe theories". In most cases, the two sides, naive creationists and naive atheists, end up battling over topics where the real issue, in this case centuries of philological and theological discourse, go so far over their heads that they cannot even see it is there. -- dab (𒁳) 08:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab this analysis is spot-on and the reason why I distinguish Scientific Point of View (not policy) from Scholarly Point of View (compatible with policy). I have my own vision of how Scholarly Point of View (SchoPOV) can build the encyclopedia we want, but it is up for discussion - here is a brief outline. By "scholarship" we don't just mean academic scholarship. Each article has a field to which it belongs. It should be mainly written from sources in that field. A music album from reviews in the music press, a news event from the news wires and upmarket newspapers, history from books by historians, science ideally from reviews of the scientific literature. Scholarship is becoming global with lightning rapidity, and that is the key to managing the somewhat tricky balance between reliable sourcing and the need to avoid systemic bias. Dab is too dogmatic and pessimistic on this point. Anyways, back to the main issue here. "Myth" in its non-judgmental sense is a technical term. If we use it we should probably explain it each time, depending on the level of prior knowledge we think we can assume among our readers. "Narrative" is generic and useful; it is used widely in the social sciences and not just in PoMo gobbleygook. "Story" means roughly the same and is a useful alernative to "narrative". Nothing else to say that won't continue to take this argument round in a vicious spiral. Please AGF. If one person's tone is too bitey then don't make it worse by tackling them head on. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab, it would help if you didn't begin with the assumption that you are right and everybody else is wrong and an idiot. Little of the commentary you directed at me is relevant to what I said. I didn't restrict my concern to article naming, yet you keep focussing on that. I didn't restrict my concern to pop culture, yet that's what you addressed. When people talk about systemic bias on Wikipedia, they are not talking about a "bias" for reliable sources, yet that strawman was your main subject. You appear to have understood little of what I said while spending several paragraphs rejecting it. Please make an effort to understand what you think you reject. Noloop ( talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Well, let's lower the heat a bit here. The myth/narrative choice is not a fringe topic issue. If it's used as a poke in the eye to creationists then it's no surprise to find so many misinterpreting it to mean "lie" or "false idea" by its non-NPOV, pejorative definition rather than as a particular "tradition's sacred story of how the world came to be and what humanity’s place and role is in it." And it can be over-used in some contexts, and under-used in others. For example, I found it more often used in works about comparative myth and more rarely used in books about creationism. Neither of the two sources used for the statement in the Young earth creationism article linked above used the terminology, with one exception--in The Creationists (arguably the single most significant reference on 20th century young earth creationism) the term appears only once and was attributed to very polemical statements made by Richard Dawkins. Most of the sources cited there are from creationists who don't use the term themselves. And I couldn't find it flipping through the few non-creationist sources there like Pennock's Tower of Babel and the Washington Post article. Prothero and Buell kinda/sorta use it. They identify it as an "origins myth", but that usage is surpassed by the number of instances in the book where "myth" is used to mean "false claims", as in "myths about evolution from creationists", etc. (Would sure help us here if authors on creation v. science topics were to exercise the kind of care with the term "myth" as has come to be expected with "theory" and "hypothesis".) So obviously "creation myth" is not a necessary usage in this particular context.

But the fringe guideline obviously does apply where "myth" is being inserted in the article about Big Bang, etc. Professor marginalia ( talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is so much noise due to creationists and atheists trying to poke each other in the eye that reasonable and encyclopedic argument is all but drowned. The article is pulled down the drain by "The Faithful vs. Richard Dawkins". This is not the article topic. As Prof. M. points out above, and as I have pointed out in the past, the choice of "narrative" as WP:NAME-preferable is arguable on grounds completely unrelated to this side show. If this happens to come down in the court of the creationists for once, that's purely a coincidence.

The only way to pacify this article is clamping down on every editor who abuses it as a BATTLEGROUND for the creationism controversy in US culture, regardless of which side they are on. -- dab (𒁳) 13:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• The topic here is not the article name. The initial complaint, and diff, didn't concern an attempt to rename the article. The title of this section is not about article names. There is indeed a lot of noise in this discussion, coming primarily from those accusing everyone else of noise-making while misapprehending the topic themselves.
• "Myth" connotes something obsolete; that's why people object to describing their own beliefs as myths. We don't need to debate this: we have the fact of the theists objections. "Narrative" carries a much-reduced connotation of falsehood. The development of modern physics can be a narrative. That's why it is cultural bias to call traditional Hindu beliefs a mythology, while calling analogous Christian beliefs a narrative. Noloop ( talk) 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I fail to understand why anyone is debating what "myth" means and how fair or unfair it is to use the label for one set of stories and not another, or in one title and not another. This entire discussion is entirely outside the realm of policy when it comes to article titles WP:NAME and article content WP:V. We follow the terminology used by scholars. Period. I see time and again the clear directives of policy brushed to the side when editors simply don't like the results of following it. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not merely "follow" the language of "scholars" when there is cultural bias. [25] [26] Noloop ( talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are pointless diversions and don't relate to what you're doing. Your recent activity surround subjects that relate to Christianity appears to be extremely POV and appears also to be disrupting the encyclopedia by engaging people in pointless discussions and practicing WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I would highly advise you to practice some self-reflection about this because it cannot lead anywhere good. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, thanks for clarifying your real agenda here. Noloop ( talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You got me Noloop ... I am pushing the evil, "lets stop with the tendentious POV pushing" agenda. I think its best you start an ANI thred on my behavior immediately. I really do hope you take my advice. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These edits [27] may be fine, or they may be fringe, does anyone know enough about this subject to help? I got to this article via Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for Clarification of 'Grand Unified Theory' Page Content Policy Dougweller ( talk) 10:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

looks perfectly ok to me. -- dab (𒁳) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks as though the editor is interested in keeping any fringe stuff out. Dougweller ( talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"When the bottom part of the white part of the eye known as the sclera is visible it is referred to as 'Yin Sanpaku' by the Chinese. Attributed to physical imbalance in the body, it can be present in alcoholics, drug addicts and people who over consume sugar or grain. Conversely when the upper sclera is visible this is called 'Yang Sanapaku'. This is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers and anyone rageful. Stress and fatigue may also be a cause." - the article.

Wow. So, if some of the white of your eyes is visible, you're an alcoholic or drug addict? This needs so many qualifiers it's not even funny. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Christ myth theory isn't a fringe theory after all but "interesting, scientific material" and the like. I guess I was wrong to think that it was disruptive to keep adding it into the 4th sentence of the lead of Historical Jesus. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

*sob* If Jesus had known that this would eventually come of his mission, I think he would have wept and stayed in his carpentry shop. I mean, salvation is all very well, but has it been worth this? -- dab (𒁳) 09:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article defines OOPART as "Fringe terminology". It lists artifacts "argued by various fringe authors to have been OOPArts", then says they are "categorised according to their current status in the eyes of the mainstream scientific community."...listing some as "fully validated" and some "with some scientific validation". Mainstream science not recognizing OOPART as a term...but validating some OOPARTs? Seems to be a contradiction. Maybe someone here can find a way to fix this article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always been a really difficult one, with several editors trying to make sense of it. OOPArts is a fringe-coined term but used by some mainstream writers. The tricky bit is when something fringe writers call an OOPArt is given a normal scientific explanation (with or without it being called an OOPArt). Then what? Dougweller ( talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sites like this are what mostly comes up in searches. If there's a mainstream source that says the Antikythera Mechanism is validated by science as an "OOPART" I'd like to see it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (7th nomination). Please comment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged by another editor for OR - Dab, you've looked at this in the past. Dougweller ( talk) 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, it's a problem. This is in effect our "pseudolinguistics" article, but it isn't based on anything solid. Perhaps we should reduce it to a section at Pseudo-scholarship until somebody does it properly. Alternatively, it could be merged into Mass lexical comparison, which was itself "povved" last year [28] and needs attention. We need this article, but right now it's just broken. -- dab (𒁳) 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Campbell, Trask, and Hock all cover flawed methodology in linguistic reconstruction; I'll start adding sources and cites. Ergative rlt ( talk) 00:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I posted at the "neutral point of view boards before" but after i looked around i saw that maybe my issue is more correct here? i will copy paste it. Would be nice if somebody could tell me which place is better, i will delete it at the other boards then. Copied Text:

I think its a common point of view that this battle was a tactical victory. The english articles ( i think its the only wiki article doing this ) called it tactical inconclusive, without any citiations. I attempted to changes this but was reverted. To illustrate that its common view that this battle was tactical german victory i posted some books at the talk page. Other editors, which present their point of view, while they discuss why they consider this battle as inconclusive, failed to bring only one quote which supports "tactical inconclusive". For every neutral editor checking this bear in mind that tactical is a special condition of a victory which needs special citiations. There are multiple scales of warfare, they are losly connect. A tactical victory is something different then strategic victory. Thus we need exact claims for this. Please take a look here :[ [29]], i list sources there. You also can take a look at any non english article about this battle, you could also do a quick google search with "tacitcal victory" and jutland. Thanks for your time Blablaaa ( talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

in addition: facing the overwhelming amount of books which directly say " german tactical victory", i did no further reaserch regarding the credentials of the historians. So its high likly that some of the quoted books are not suitable for wikipedia. The section above my link is also worth a read. It should be noted that numerous people attepmted to change the outcome to german tactical victory, but all were reverted. Blablaaa ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Glancing through some more books i saw i could easly add 50 more which say exactly "tactical german victory" , i also could add 10+ in spanish or in itlian or what ever language you prefere. To behonest i guess there is a near infinte amount of books saying that... Blablaaa ( talk) 22:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One user now showed that there are also some ( far far less ) books saying tactical inconclusive. That there are some sources out which claims this is not disputed. All of this books are english. To reduce a possible bias factor i checked for german books which call it "taktisches unentschieden". No single book claimed this directly, only overall "unentschieden". So summarize it: there are dozen of english books/webpages/museumwebsite/historywebsites which call it german tactical victory. Some english books call it tactical inconclusive, i also found 2 which call it british tactical victory which is out of question, which is even agreed by jutland talk. My research shows that nearly every germna book calls it tactical german victory. So the only books which call it tactical inconclusive are english books ( one of them the biogrphy of the british admiral ). Overall i would guess +90% of the books which give a tactical outcome, say german tactical victory. Blablaaa ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While describing notable historic pseudoscholarship - and thus certainly a viable subject for Wikipedia - this article has real issues with tone. It seems to accept the pseudoscholarship as fact at several points, and talks about how other bits of pseudoscholarship "confirm" it.

Needs work. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 02:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I must insist that this is not "historic pseudoscholarship", it is historic scholarship. Or just religious mysticism in some cases. The John Dee section needed a fix though. -- dab (𒁳) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. It's a little odd, though, because almost all of this happened when this was still respectable research fields, because none of the modern techniques of language analysis had been developed. At the same time, I think a couple sections had been turned into advocacy for the views by modern mystics, and trying to make a case for it nowadays is pseudoscholarship. Still, you've fixed up the article nicely, and it's now again a respectable treatment of historic beliefs, so I cannot complain. =) Actually, that's a very good article now that it's fixed up. I wonder if it'd pass GA? Mind, it's a little short... Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 08:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Such material as is present is presented fairly, but the problem is completeness (lack of). Picking out Dee, Emmerich and LDS in particular is pretty random, a good overview of the topic would have more sweeping strokes and less random detail. -- dab (𒁳) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should also have a look at Magick. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There are ongoing discussions, involving such well known editors as Ludwigs2, about changing Wikipedia:Fringe theories. As this is directly relevant to this noticeboard, please have a look at Wikipedia Talk:Fringe theories. Verbal chat 14:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

With a major change just made minutes ago here [30] by another editor, losing the bit " Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it. " although on checking again before posting, Verbal's reverted that. Dougweller ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

for anyone who cares to participate, there's been an ongoing discussion about this in talk, with plenty of opportunities to participate and/or object. I'm not sure why this got reduced to a revert when Verbal has ostensibly been part of the discussion from the beginning.

but it's nice to know that I'm well-known. -- Ludwigs2 15:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit war there, now you've reverted Verbal, now a 4th editor has reverted you. This is always a bad time of year to be changing policy (or maybe a good time depending on your perspective. I've been distracted by RL, but I'll try to take part. Dougweller ( talk) 15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it'll all work out. It would be better if editors would engage in discussion before things get to the 'edit/revert' stage - save us all some headaches, and make for better progress - but I suppose that's too much to ask. -- Ludwigs2 17:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone means well, but it adds up to guideline pages full of bloat. Please assume the reader is (a) sentient and literate, and (b) aware of basic policy. It is true that "one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability" but this holds for every article on the project just as well. Please, if you are reviewing the page, make it your main aim to end up with a more concise version. -- dab (𒁳) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus (as I explained in talk) that phrase is easily misinterpreted so that one might think one does not need to approach fringe theories in a neutral manner, which is not what we mean to imply at all. -- Ludwigs2 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

this does not strike me as a possible interpretation of the sentence, but anyway, WP:FRINGE is not supposed to rehash policy that applies to every article. Just say "policy applies" and then go on to explain best practice of dealing with fringe issues, assuming that it is understood that policy needs to be adhered to in any case. -- dab (𒁳) 09:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An example in all four versions of some proposed text (14-18 July): "Reliable sources are required so that Wikipedia does not become a primary or validating source about such ideas." Wikipedia should not be a primary source about any topic. (The phrase "or validating" reflects the tendentiousness associated with fringe discussions anywhere.) More generally: the entire section on reliable sources could be reduced to a reference. Bn ( talk) 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a merge proposal for Science of morality and Ethical naturalism. I think some more attention might help elucidate the intersection of philosophy and science viz popular media and speculation.— Machine Elf 1735 ( talk) 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a real extreme case, someone's doing a copy and paste to get rid of the word myth from book titles, etc [31]. After an undiscussed move (now being discussed by others at the retitled Talk:Flood legends. Dougweller ( talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved this back to Deluge myth. "Flood legend" is a legitimate alternate name but I see no proof that is is more common nor a discussion about the move at all. My inclination is to say that "Flood myth" is the most common wording here. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the section on the word myth was removed from our MOSWordstoWatch page (by someone now effectively banned for pov editing on this subject). I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#What.27s happened to this.3F Dougweller ( talk) 08:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the change when it was made? Griswaldo ( talk) 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested page protection at Deluge myth since Arlen insists on move warring. See [32]. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The myth haters are really beginning to go to pathological lengths here. Only on Wikipedia... -- dab (𒁳) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The change at MOS(words to watch) is here [33]. Someone wants to add 'myth' to the contentious labels section. Dougweller ( talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Gnevin's username is awfully close to User:Gniniv ... which confused me at first since the former made this change to MOS and the latter was recently edit warring in support of User:Til Eulenspiegel, and a similarly anti-mythological POV at Genesis creation myth. Strange coincidence I'm sure. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I was confused also. Dougweller ( talk) 14:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The "label myth" is not "contentious". This should be considered trolling. I haven't yet seen a single "contention" forwarded by an editor who had as much as basic grasp of the issues involved. This is simply white noise in my book. Just keep pointing people to WP:NAME. If they can show their preferred title is in fact the most commonly used, hey presto, they've got their move, without needing to go through misguided "controversies". What I would hope could come of this is at leats a wider recognition that Til Eulenspiegel is a habitually disruptive, long-term problem editor, in spite of the basically fair maintenance work he is also doing. -- dab (𒁳) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Myth", as a technical term in the social sciences is useful and uncontroversial. The problem is that it is also in vernacular use with the meaning "load of old rubbish". I don't have much sympathy with the remove at all costs tribe but I also think we should consider the fact that some articles are used mainly by people with limited previous understanding of the topic, including schoolchildren. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this. This is like saying we cannot use " bitch" in cynological articles because the word also has a vernacular application. We are an encyclopedia. If schoolchildren read it, so much the better for them, it means they are being educated. -- dab (𒁳) 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As this has come up before, I am coming to the conclusion that articles that use the term "Myth" should take take a moment to explain which usage of the term (technical/academic usage or vernacular usage) is being referred to. This could probably be done in an explanatory foot note, with a simple citation attached... no? Blueboar ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be surprised, but even this has come up before. For a while, we displayed an infobox explaining the term at the top of mythology articles. After a year or two it was removed again because it was unencyclopedic.

This isn't the only area of Wikipedia where the clueless chip away at developed articles. The only proper way to deal with this is rollback, and semiprotection if necessary. If there is really a new angle or suggestion coming up, people can bloody well use the article talkpage.

That said, we need to use the term sparingly, and accurately. A major part of this "Genesis creation myth" affair isn't due to clueless religionists, but to an editor demographic I tend to think of as the "teenage atheist" crowd. It will not do to slap the term "myth" on all religious topic just to annoy the religionists. This leads to flamewars and time lost over pointless disputes. The Bible has very few parts that are strictly mythological. The Genesis creation is such a part, it is a "creation myth", not just a "myth"; and unlike "myth", the compound " creation myth" isn't open to misinterpretation.

-- dab (𒁳) 09:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS, {{ Myth box}}

I just found the deletion discussion for the "Myth disclaimer box" I mention above. It's at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_21#Template:Myth_box. The thing was in use from June 2007 to March 2009 and looked like this:

Note on the term mythology:
In an academic context, the word " myth" refers to any sacred and traditional narrative. Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used in this sense, with no implication as to the historicity or factuality of the content of any such sacred narratives.

I think I recommended its deletion, although I do not seem to have contributed to the deletion discussion itself. -- dab (𒁳) 14:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Security Council article makes a WP:Fringe claim [34] "Out of all UN-member states, Israel is the only nation that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council."

The Jewish Virtual Library does have a page which claims that Israel is the only country ineligible for membership on the Security Council. [35] Members are actually elected based upon the criteria contained in Article 23 of the UN Charter. [36]

Israel had never filed an application to be a candidate before 2005. The Jewish Virtual Library has another article which says that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced in September 2005 that the country will, for the first time, seek a temporary seat on the Security Council. [37] That article links to a 2005 UN news story in which Israel announced its candidacy for a seat on the Security Council [38] Israel's Ynet News explained at the time that Israel had never applied to be a candidate before, and that if it were accepted it, would have to wait 13 years for the next available opening. [39]

Do we have to repeat old stories about a case of hypothetical ineligibility? Obviously, you can find sources that say Israel is ineligible. However, Israel has been a candidate in the elections for several years now and it was never truly "ineligible". harlan ( talk) 14:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends whether there is a source of good quality. For such a statement I would expect a reference to a mainstream expert on international relations or international law, preferably more than one. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan fails to mention that Israel could not be elected to the UNSC for 60 years because it belonged to the Arab bloc, which installed a campaign to deny Israel a seat as part of their league boycott. Only recently, according to a ynet article, has an Israeli leader petitioned for a seat as Israel is now part of a different regional bloc. There is nothing fringe about the truth. Historically, Israel's status in major UN bodies has always been less than other member states. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided links to the JVL above which makes those claims. The Southwest Asia regional block is geographical, not Arab. For 60 years Israel has transferred or displaced the Arab inhabitants, defied UN resolutions to permit them to return to their country of origin or pay them compensation, and occupied and colonized the territories of the neighboring states. The claim that Israel could not get elected by those same neighboring states is hardly the same thing as making the false claim that Israel is the only UN country that is "ineligible" for a seat on the Security Council. harlan ( talk) 08:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent discussions on WP:RSN ( June, March)found JVL to be a source of imperfect reliability, such claims should be sought to be supported from elsewhere. Unomi ( talk) 08:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

JVL states that its source is AJC but the only mention I could find regarding the claim is a pr bio of David A. Harris which credits him with And he spearheaded AJC’s successful campaign to correct Israel’s anomalous status at the UN, where it had been the only nation ineligible to sit on the Security Council - this is probably a better basis for the discussion than jvl. Unomi ( talk) 08:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The countries of Western Asia are working just as hard to correct the anomalous status of the State of Palestine. Most of them have recognized Palestine for decades. See for example "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State" 12 May 1989 [40] and pages 4 and 5 of the June 2010 Report of the Secretary-General on Regional cooperation in the economic, social and related fields [41] In the meantime, the Security Council has called on all of the member states not to recognize or assist Israel in a number of illegal situations that it has created in the occupied territory of Palestine.

The UN has created dozens of specialized organs to partition Palestine, build state institutions, deal with its refugees, monitor the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and etc. All of those subsidiary organs were created in order to fulfill the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. Israel is eligible for a seat on the Security Council like all of the other members. It just hasn't won an election because it doesn't get along with its neighbors or wish to comply with UN resolutions that were adopted for the maintenance of international peace and security. The claim that it is the only state "ineligible" to serve on the Security Council is a fringe theory. harlan ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think under the circumstances that an acceptable secondary source would have to cite UN rules which made Israel at some time or another ineligible; a flat statement on the basis of personal authority will not do. There's too much rancor and political contamination concerning the legitimacy of Israel to accept a flat statement from anyone. Mangoe ( talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a fringe theory. Participation in various UN organs, including the security council, requires membership in a regional group, and until 2000, Israel was not a member of any such group. There are dozens of sources that say this, which can be eaisly found. Here for example is The Independent explaining that "Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group". Although the group has been allowed to have a vice-president of the General Assembly for the first time - its UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman - membership of the group was conditional on it not having a seat on the Security Council." Or Human Rights Watch, saying it in its World Report 2001: The Events of 2000, p.398. Or the book "Israel among the nations", published by the academic publisher Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, which says the same on p. 74, footnote 15, which even quotes UN Sec. General Annan confirming this to be the case. HupHollandHup ( talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources you cited says that Israel is the only country that is ineligible for a seat on the Security Council on a de jure basis. At any given moment there are 177 countries that are ineligible on a de facto basis. The last source that you cited explains that it is because Israel can't get elected (due to its relations with its neighbors). The fact that there are five countries that are permanent members of the Security Council can't be reconciled with the doctrine of "sovereign equality", but Article 23 of Charter (which governs membership on the Security Council) gives those countries a special status and mentions elections, not sovereign equality among the criteria. In any event, Israel has been an applicant since 2005. So, it certainly isn't ineligible. Do you have any sources which contradict the 2005 Ynet News report which says that Israel is (in fact) eligible? harlan ( talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't play cutesy semantic games here. One of the sources I've cited (published by academic press) cites the UN Sec. General himself saying the Israeli situation is an "anomaly". The situation may have changed in 2005, I don't know, but it is well cited that from 1963 to at least 2000, Israel was the only UN member state not eligible for a temporary seat in the UNSC, because it was not allowed to become a member of any regional group. This is not a fringe theory. You can sort out the exact wording - de jure ineligible vs. de facto ineligible - on the article's talk page. HupHollandHup ( talk) 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not playing cutesy. The source you are citing says that the five unofficial United Nations Regional Groups had no role in the selection process prior to the adoption of UNGA resolution 1991, 17 December 1963. The Ynet article says that Israel was never a candidate for a seat on the Security Council before 2005. So, according to the sources that you've cited, Israel was NOT "ineligible" from 1949-1963 or from 2005-2010. During the intervening years Israel was occupying the territories of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. The Security Council, General Assembly, ICJ, and (even) Secretary-General Kofi Annan called upon the other member states not to recognize or support Israel under the terms of one or more binding UNSC resolutions. e.g. John Dugard, 'Recognition and the United Nations', page 113 says that the UN Security Council based its call for non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem on UN Security Council resolutions like 242 and 478. That sort of thing is also an anomalous situation that conflicts with the General Assembly's selection criteria for Security Council members in article 23 of the Charter. harlan ( talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above: it is well cited that from 1963 to at least 2000, Israel was the only UN member state not eligible for a temporary seat in the UNSC, because it was not allowed to become a member of any regional group. This is not a fringe theory, and your rants about Israel occupying territories or UNSC non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You can and should work out the exact wording regrading Israel's non-eligibility for a seat on the UNSC - whether the ineligibility ended in 2005, the situation prior to 1963, etc... - but it is simply not a fringe theory that for most of its existence, Israel was the only UN member state ineligibility for a seat. Stop wasting everyone's time on this fringe theory notice board. HupHollandHup ( talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not ranting. I was citing Dr John Dugard in connection with the enforcement of a UNSC sanctioned de jure regime of non-recognition by the Asia regional group. Dr. Tom Grant cites Dugard and explains: "At the level of a regional organization, the rule of non-recognition was enforced by the threat of expulsion — a threat that went beyond recognition of the incorporation of the occupied territories into Israel and indeed extended to recognition of Israel itself." See East Timor, the U.N. System, and Enforcing Non-Recognition in International Law, by Thomas D. Grant [42] The regional group was threatening Israel with expulsion from the UN for flagrant violations of international law and the UN Charter. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States also requires the US to enforce UN Security Council regimes of non-recognition. During the period in question, the General Assembly regularly refused to even accept the credentials of the representatives of other states that were under regimes of non-recognition. e.g. South Africa

The original post here dealt with a continuing claim that Israel is (at present) the only UN member state that is ineligible for a seat on the Security Council. That certainly is a myth.

• Israel was eligible, but did not apply between 1949-1963.
• Other states have been subjected to legal regimes of non-recognition, e.g. South Africa.
• In 2006, after Israel became a member of WEOG, there were three states that were not members of any regional group. [43] harlan ( talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should be here or the NOR board, if someone would look at the last section where an editor is claiming we should use criteria developed by the 'scientific community', ie mainly those attending some sort of Atlantis conference, to determine what should be in the article. In other words, notability wouldn't matter if some unknown guy's ideas passed those criteria. Dougweller ( talk) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In this biography of a law professor-turned-founder of the intelligent design movement, User:Freakshownerd has been insistent on replacing consensus text that has stood largely unchanged for over two years ( see here) with text that skirts the fringe nature of Johnson's beliefs. The user apparently feels that mentioning Johnson's AIDS denial or the fact that his positions are rejected by the scientific community is a BLP violation. I would appreciate if others could take a look at this individual's edits and weigh their merits. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Text was included that misrepresented what was in the source (ie. it wasn't in the source) and citations were added to articles that don't mention the article subject (ie. coatracking). We aren't here to disparage subjects. Criticisms are certainly included in the article and can be noted in the lead, but synthesis and BLP violations aren't acceptable. Freakshownerd ( talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing, using verifiable and reliable sources, that an individual is a creationist, a born-again Christian or an AIDS denialist is not pejorative in the setting of an encyclopaedia. Rather, it is a statement of the current knowledge about that individual. It's also not disparaging to note that an individual's fringe beliefs on scientific topics are rejected by current consensus. That, too, is verifiable in this case. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There was some whitewashing going on, to be sure. I tried to address it. Sticking close to primary sources to document Johnson's beliefs is not necessarily a bad idea. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

also, go easy on the beliefs and stick to third party verification of his activities, is my suggestion. Actions are louder than words, etc. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnson's promotion of AIDS denialism is supported by two primary sources and at least three secondary sources currently cited in the article. Both AIDS denialism and creationism have been labeled as pseudoscience by Johnson's critics, and both are rejected by scientific consensus. Again, all backed up by sources. There's no conceivable BLP violation here, yet Freakshownerd, with six reverts in 24h, has just been given a BLP-based 3RR exemption by an admin who claims that the 5-year-old lead existing prior to Freakshownerd's editing was "editorialising". Sometimes I wonder whether we shouldn't just let the fringe advocates do what they want with "their" articles. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)