This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An editor is proposing that Race and intelligence should include the idea that Chinese people evolved separately from Homo Erectus in Asia. This idea ought to be covered in Multiregional origin of modern humans, and it is, but badly. The article has been tagged since June 2009 as in need of expert attention. Could this quickly be sorted, and the current scientific standing of the hypothesis clearly indicated? (Minority scientific view, perhaps, but the expert needs to find the sources that tell us.) Biologists, are you around? Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
(blocked editor's comments removed)
Higher consciousness ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Did you know that people who are on a higher level of consciousness are more evolved than other people?
I didn't either.
Please help fix this. I'm not even sure where to begin.
jps ( talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to do about this. Tempting to take it straight to AfD. It's certainly fringe, Dougweller ( talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
this would be a nice article ... if the year was 1670. Redirect to Canaan#List_of_Canaanite_rulers. -- dab (𒁳) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected this. There is no reason to spend time with this "case" other than for the fun of it. -- dab (𒁳) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to draw to all of you're attention that administrators are required to start a discussion on the articles talk page, before doing any major deletions. I am shocked and hurt that not only has my page been deleted with first discussion, but no one even had the courtesy to send me a message on the subject. I had no intention of using nothing but ussher chronology, if you felt that there was any better sources you could provide, I would expect you to provide them, not delete the whole article for the sake of one reference. I felt that my list of Canaanite rulers was far better than the redirection, because 1) the redirection leaves out so many rulers, and 2) there are many rulers they cite that were not rulers. But also, the redirected list does not fit. It's not "Canaanite Chronology", it's a list of names associated with Canaan. My list, with synchronicity, contemporary rulers, approximate dates, all of not set in stone, but open for improvement and correction. "Correction" does not mean deletion, that is the opposite. LutherVinci ( talk) 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What do we think about the juxtaposition of Chinese and European festivals? To me it looks like an attempt to present an OS that there is an ancient link between the importance of mid points between the solstices and equinoxes. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
With an edit summary claiming "I have inserted a NPOV classic historical background to balance the polemical views inserted by critics.", a pov, uncited piece of original research has been added to this article. See also a couple of earlier edits. Dougweller ( talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the cited source, the Declaration of Arbroath makes no direct link between the Scots and the Ten Tribes. It states:
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. [4]
It merely uses The Exodus as a chronological point of reference. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
See [5] - I've reverted the nonsense about the Hyksos once, but it's been replaced with no edit summary. Dougweller ( talk) 21:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This material has been removed from the lead-in to the article:
This line is supported by four references:
The lead-in states:
Here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=400614077&oldid=400592539
I think omitting mention of the A&E for 9/11 Truth petition, but saying the engineering establishment supports the mainstream account, is not neutral and gives undue weight to the mainstream account, especially since this is the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. All content policies, particularly WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV need to be taken into account. Now, you've already tried to get WP:OR changed [6] and by my count, 15 editors disagreed with you. Please see WP:DEADHORSE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor was asking about chiropractic studies over at the NOR noticeboard. Could a couple people from these parts take a look and offer some feedback? Vassyana ( talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The temporariness of the injury or lack thereof is not part of that source. Explaining away the fact that nearly half of all students at this chiropractic institution sustained injury of any kind doesn't bear upon whether the source is accurate or properly contextualized. The claim is that this paper is not a good source for this safety issue with chiropractic education. If so, please recommend a better source. jps ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
A tenacious IP and a new user account seeking to obscure mainstream nonacceptance of Radin's views on retrocausation. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A new book by former Iranian diplomat and retired UN administrator Darioush Bayandor has been seriously questioned at 1953 Iranian coup d'état where at least one editor dismisses it as a fringe source. The book is called Iran and the CIA and it is published by Palgrave Macmillan, a respected academic and professional imprint.
Bayandor puts a greater emphasis on surprised and baffled CIA reports issued immediately after the August 1953 coup, and discounts CIA analysis from later periods. He shows that the CIA reinterpreted events over which it had no control so that the events would appear to be under CIA control, for the purpose of proving the CIA to be more effective than it was, to get more appropriations from the U.S. government. Bayandor's analysis of the 1953 coup puts forward a coalition of reclusive and activist Shi'ite clerics as the ones who instigated mass street demonstrations resulting in the arrest of Mosaddegh and the return of the Shah. This theory is in conflict with mainstream analysis which accepts the later CIA documents at face value.
At WP:FRINGE it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." for our articles. Bayandor's book has been peer reviewed by exactly the same scholars who are used as the mainstream view at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. In the book's acknowledgments, the following people are thanked for their reviews of the book prior to publishing: Shahram Chubin at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy; Charles W. Naas, deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s; Houshang Nahavandi, author of The Last Days and former head of the Tehran University; Mark Gasiorowski, a political scientist cited often at the Iran coup article; Ervand Abrahamian, another political scientist cited a lot in this article (regarding Bayandor's book, he "recommended its publication"); Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a top think tank analyst of Iran; and Ardeshir Zahedi, former Iran diplomat, the Shah's ambassador to London and Washington and the son of General Zahedi, Mosaddegh's replacement as prime minister. Bayandor thanks the contributions of many more people who read early drafts and provided criticism: Stephen Langlie of USAF MAAG who was eyewitness in Tehran August 1953, Anandi Rasanayagam of the United Nations, Jean Swoyer of the American Foreign Service, and former Bayandor colleagues Iraj Amini, Jamshid Anvar, Said Amirdivani, Bijan Dolatabadi, Dr. Ahmad Minai, Parviz Mahajer, Ali Seirafi and Dr. Ahmad Tehrani. The book's facts and theories were reviewed by a wide array of scholars and topic experts.
I hold that this author and his book show an expert opinion which is different from other mainstream ones, and that the opinion and conclusions drawn by Bayandor require a rewriting of the article to satisfy WP:NPOV which tells us we cannot state as absolute fact anything which is seriously challenged by another expert source. This is that expert source. Binksternet ( talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This appears to not be a fringe question, but rather a reliable source question. Without knowing anything about the dispute, it looks like the book in question is a reliable source for a minority viewpoint. Labeling minority viewpoints Fringe is ordinarily a way to try and supress them, please don't. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes on 1953 Iranian coup d'état page. I have since semi-retired from Wikipedia, but I may give in my two cents every now and again. There is an ongoing activist-type campaign by a couple of editors to downplay the US role in the coup, cast the elected primer Minster Mossadegh, who was ousted by the coup, in a bad light, and essentially legitimize the coup. This campaign sometimes goes beyond what is permissible in our polices, and there have been plenty of infringements by the involved parties in the past few months. This is one of the latest examples. Having studied this topic for many years, I would consider Darioush Bayandor to be a fringe source. Given the extreme nature of his views, he should not be cited in the main article about the 1953 coup. He could, however, be cited in an article about the historical viewpoint of the Pahlavi dynasty. Khoi khoi 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being the holder of a tiny minority viewpoint, as a Shah government official, as a "monarchist activist" (whatever that is) and as a denier of the coup. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as not being a historian nor a scholar, as being over-reliant on Ardeshir Zahedi, and as being a revisionist scholar. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being a regular speaker on Voice of America radio, an advocate for regime change in Iran. None of these attacks push the scholarly book Iran and the CIA to the fringe. It does not matter what Bayandor does with his political energies if this one book has been peer-reviewed and published by Palgrave. Bayandor can be any kind of activist and still have this scholarly book tell an accurate story. The question we are addressing is whether the book is fringe, not whether it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority viewpoint. The thing I want to take away from this noticeboard discussion is for the book to be accepted as a minority viewpoint from a scholar, and not pooh-poohed as fringe. After that, the discussion of due and undue emphasis will continue at the coup article (and perhaps elsewhere.)
So far, the only editors commenting here besides Kurdo777 and I are Rocksanddirt, and Khoikhoi. Rocksanddirt provides a fresh Fringe Noticeboard viewpoint but Khoikhoi was already involved in the article, responsible for the eventually proven incorrect six-month block of User:BoogaLouie for his work to lever the article out of its unsatisfactory condition. Khoikhoi's complaint here that there is an activist campaign is dead wrong: BoogaLouie and I are not trying to legitimize the coup; we are trying to tell the whole story per WP:NPOV where it says we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The article as it stands ignores too many significant views published by reliable sources. Rather than being told in the manner of "here's what absolutely happened" it should be told as "here are the versions of what happened, attributed to these sources." The former method is a violation of WP:NPOV, but it is what Kurdo777 and Khoikhoi continue to defend. Binksternet ( talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of people (or maybe one person with several IDs?) are repeatedly adding claims to History of human rights that the Cyrus Cylinder was the world's first charter of human rights - a claim that historians reject. I'm told that this issue has been discussed here before. Can anyone help? Prioryman ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a history of socking and meat puppetry at
Cyrus Cylinder IIRC
Dougweller (
talk) 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is old, the article is so infested with socks and trolls that it is pointless to try and discuss this coherently. Just roll back the patriotic editorializing. -- dab (𒁳) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That is so interesting, because dougweller and folantin have said the same thing about human rights and looking it up at encyclopedia iranica. on the same day. mixed up sockpuppetry. oh wait, ooops they also mentioned the aljazzera blog. could it be the same person or group expressing the same thought. you tell me.
prioryman for someone who has only been online for a short while is expert! but of course dougweller and dbach since they are respected admins only seem to care about a few sockpuppets or whatever they are called. you people need to reexamine your bias. prioryman seems to be on a campaign to discredit a long standing notion. that should be considered fringe theory people.
as a double major in history and politics at csun, i find your behaviors reprenhensible and will never use wikipedia for anything.
The more of a concerted campaign we see to push a historically dubious claim, the more care we should take to let it not affect one iota of article content. There is a great temptation to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, but mostly among those who are not familiar with the workings of the project.
Many people think "anyone can edit? that won't work". The propaganda campaigns turn this around to "anyone can edit? Alright, we're home free". Both are mistaken for the same reason, but most people apparently don't have the intelligence to extrapolate this, they need to try it out themselves.
For our purposes it is enough to note that there is a renewed Iranian patriotic attack on our artiles in the "Cyrus Cylinder" matter and that we will need to click rollback a few times over then next couple of weeks. -- dab (𒁳) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Good, if the fringe theory is that the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights, then evidence needs to be presented that is, indeed, a fringe theory. Here are the facts as I see it:
Those are the facts. My opinion is that, thus far, no evidence has been presented to indicate the claim that Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights is a fringe theory. This is my opinion of this section and I believe a reflection of how emotions and aggression have run high. Suggesting blanket rollbacks seems too "cowboy editor" to me, as does the blanket removal of already existing sourced material. Calling a theory ludicrous, anachronistic, patriotic, or saying that people aren't intelligent doesn't indicate why the theory is fringe. If you don't think that you can engage in the conversation, as someone said, coherently, then let others try to deal with it. Perhaps another neutral editor. No disrespect is intended by my stating this.
So, I'd like to suggest an evidence based discussion on why this theory is fringe. Namely addressing its heretofore existence on both pages and the sourced claims that support the proposition. Thanks, GoetheFromm ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Best, GoetheFromm ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
United nations DOES recognize the cyrus cylinder as a work or charter of human rights. I do not know who might want to be a "sock puppet" but I am certainly all for the inclusion of the cylinder as the charter of human rights. The evidence in support of Cyrus the Great being a benign and just ruler is beyond the point of contention. The only issue is the issue created by a few live, recent German "scholars" if you can call them that, that have said that "Cyrus the Great could not possibly UNDERSTAND human rights in the same sense as us" and even that is debatable, as there are equal number of scholars on the opposing side saying that he DID indeed understand it and proclaim it in the most feasible ancient way possible. I also see a lot of names here from people with a history of activity against the notion of Cyrus Cylinder as a piece of human rights. There are even admins on this article who have an unhealthy obsession with articles regarding Cyrus the Great. In short, it is a piece of human rights and even if you like to include quotations from your favorite bearded curator at the british museum or the German teacher in some far university, then by all means do so but also include the fact that UNITED NATIONS has recognized the piece as a "CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS" since 1970s. Cheers! Dr. Persi ( talk) 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, a few individuals can not out weight an international organization that in certain matters is the equivalent of the "world" we live in. No matter by the very notion inclusion in United Nations, this point has to be brought up to the article. To avoid to do so would be censorhips. Dr. Persi ( talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry is this the tone appropriate for a serious discussion? Why is this so "amusing" to you. There is an international organization that claims this. Regardless of the weight that you give to the experts, you still as a wikipedian have a right to express it. There is no one certain source about human rights. There is tremendous pressure to make human rights a western issue, but why should the notion that it, or a version of it also started in the east so unbelievable or funy? I hope in future when you make a point, that you do not mock me at least. I recognized the sarcasm in the last post and I see the "lol" in this post. I just hope that we can discuss things in a more professional environment. No matter, in spirit of fair play and good intention, I am gonna take the best out of your argument and yes I am very real. Why should this notion be disallowed? Cheers! Dr. Persi ( talk) 22:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Whew, I was really getting confused. Can I just add that all of this (except the UAF stuff) should really be on the talk page of the article so that anyone editing there is aware? Dougweller ( talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, the way you've delineated the issues. I too have been saying that people conflate one issue with another. using your categorizations:
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is the first written declaration of human rights." - this is an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is not the first written declaration of human rights." - this is also an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder." - this is a non-claim that never requires sourcing, and is the default we should generally use when we have insufficient sourcing for actual claims. Criteria reached. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? GoetheFromm ( talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This has gone beyond nationalist posturing and into outright falsification of sources. I was suspicious of one particular part of what had been added to History of human rights, namely this claim: "The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery, so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work."
I took the trouble to check the sources cited for those claims. The sources say nothing about such a declaration. The cylinder itself makes no such declaration, as can be seen from its translation by the British Museum here. I found that the claims about freedom of religion and the abolition of slavery come from a fake translation which can be read here. I removed this claim and explained why on the article talk page. Despite this, GoetheFromm simply restored it [15] without bothering to address either the falsified translation or the misrepresented sources. Is there nothing that can be done about such blatant falsifications? How is anyone expected to treat Wikipedia seriously with this going on? It's very disheartening. Prioryman ( talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
In the interests of resolving the immediate problem of false claims and misrepresentation of sources, I have posted a modest proposal ( Talk:History of human rights#A modest proposal). This basically involves asking contributors to agree not to add anything that isn't explicitly supported by sources and removing anything that isn't sourced. I had thought that this was supposed to be a basic rule of Wikipedia but apparently I was wrong. If anyone would like to help with this please comment there. Prioryman ( talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
the question never has been "references", it has always been WP:DUE. If Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 40 years ago voiced an opinion about human rights or an archaeological artefact it doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a prominent position at history of human rights. If this idea is notable in Iranian nationalism, duly discuss it at Iranian nationalism where it will at least be on topic. This has nothing to do with citing sources and everything with deciding to what topic a given source has any kind of encyclopedic relevance. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought this might be the best place to raise this. The film in question was something of an internet sensation a few years ago, positing conspiracy theories about Christianity, 9/11 and the New World Order. Most of it is a rehash of Acharya S, the usual 9/11 stuff and illuminati-ish ramblings. There is a newly registered editor who is trying to (a) remove criticism (which in RS was pretty universal, what RS coverage there was) and (b), as has been attempted a few times recently by IP addresses, pretend that a new updated version effectively renders the 2007 version (the one that got all the attention) null and void. The article had a punctuation based name change recently, and I suspect there are not as many users watching it as there were. I've reverted the changes twice, and they've been put back in. Could someone else have a watch over it? You can look at the article talkpage to get an idea of the nature of the editor in question and the pre-move article talkpage to see previous discussions of such changes (ie that they were clearly POV and censorship). Many thanks, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 13:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've left a message on the users talk page, and I'll help keep an eye on the article. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a small walled garden here. I wouldn't say this is completely unnotable, but there are Zeitgeist: The Movie, The Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph. These are all about the same thing. -- dab (𒁳) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
sigh, there is even Category:Zeitgeist. Clearly another case of people abusing Wikipedia to inflate the visibility of some project of theirs. -- dab (𒁳) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lot of talk lately about whether to add the possibility of adding sections about these characters, Scooby-Doo (character) ( talk), Shaggy Rogers( talk), Daphne Blake ( talk), Velma Dinkley ( talk), Pinky and the Brain ( talk), and Yogi Bear ( talk), being homosexual based on the writings of JP Dennis found here [17]. First I feel that it should definetly not be included any of the Scooby-Doo characters pages because Dennis himself does not appear to really think they are gay. On Pinky and The brain and Yogi, he does clearly feel they're gay but I think it might be against WP:UNDUE because he seems to be the only one who feels that way. JDDJS ( talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I could not find any mention of Daria Morgendorffer in the Dennis article. JDDJS ( talk) 01:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) A lone semiotician is a fringe theorist until he can manage to convince people outside his field. Maybe there's some call for an article discussing the notion (and it would contain a lot of people saying that it's all balderdash) but there's no reason to give these academic fantasies any space in these articles. Mangoe ( talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've weighed in on this topic before, and I'm glad to see that most parties here seem to agree with precisely the positions I staked out a year or so ago. If it were up to me, I would not go out of my way to try to find a place to include this content. If the topic of particular character's sexuality or their opinions toward homosexuality are discussed by others, then maybe. However, the notion that a cartoon character might be gay should not suddenly un-fringe the theory that any cartoon character is gay. Croctotheface ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
the topic here is, as the section title indicates, " cartoon sexuality". If we decide that such an article passes the notability threshold, it can exist and dicuss gay cartoon characters all it wants. Until there is such an article, would people please refrain from spamming other articles with such stuff. The people who want to discuss this should stick their neck out and create the article. The people who think it isn't notable can then AFD that article. -- dab (𒁳) 08:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, so far, it seems like only you and TheRealFennShysa are for keeping these sections. As you said, your argument regarding this sexuality is "that's all we have for this particular character, and it's better to have some kind of scholarship on this character than none at all". I disagree, I think it's better to have nothing, and it seems that most agree. Judgeking ( talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, it's not a "fringe theory", it's just WP:UNDUE, ok? Please stop adding random homosexual tangents to articles that have nothing to do with sexuality.
Please read your own statement, "Dennis said in his essay that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay. If the mainstream viewpoint is that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay, then Dennis's conclusion is not a fringe theory." Do you see the problem? If not, I probably cannot help you, but see WP:ENC. -- dab (𒁳) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If, as stated, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" then it would be interesting to know what the prevailing or mainstream view is on this topic. Presumably there are multiple reliable sources documenting it? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kurtan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Essentially, everything this user does is an advert for C. Johan Masreliez. I suggest removing all of his edits, but would appreciate some help with others in monitoring this situation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem. jps ( talk) 03:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The accused: Waffle!? smokescreen? promotional? Pure biassed guesses! It is so simple that instead of finding all the citings that I suspected needed for the cosmology article, I came across his mainstream theorem, which opted for a notable BLP as can be seen here! The distinguished user jps should be aware of my also being a science apologist, save for a sceptic attitude to mainstream cosmology. He seems to be in need for help in his mainstream fix, yes. Kurtan ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The accused: Yes, a dozen I have checked. The distinguished user jps keeps reverting edits that I had recently restored, destroying connections in the articles. A complete viable new cosmos model makes predictions and connects in several ways to other phenomena . There is nothing promoting about it. I am firmly convinced that they are speculative, but appropriate in the context and far from fringe. The red-linkings to the Masreliez BLP, are due blue, when I get some time off from this kind of time-consuming pastime. I could of course for the time being stop restoring them again, until the BLP has passed its initiation rite. J C Masreliez has nothing to do with my unabashed inclusions. I have an education in contemporary astrophysics on top of old Alfvén influence and find Masreliez' ideas worthy of attention. His cosmology model may be speculative and heretic, nevertheless a full non-standard cosmology, a page where it should be worth mentioning, like I tried here. And "boloney" ? Does that include Crum375, who initiated the New cosmology section, suggesting a solution to the anomaly? / Kurtan ( talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(←) So just to get things straight then. "Expanding cosmos theory" is the fringe theory and " Masreliez’s theorem" is mainstream if possibly not notable? Which are we supposed to be discussing here, and why? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought of looking at this, but now I have, I'm wondering of some the the descriptions need cleaning up to make them less pov. Dougweller ( talk) 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if we need to sit down and consider our use of the term " documentary". There is a sliding scale between trashy and entertainment-oriented documentaries involving "dramatizations" and the like, and pure works of speculative fiction. People tend to point to imdb. Well, according to imdb.com, The Eternal Jew is a documentary. If that is so, I am sure we can also call every piece of propaganda, mockumentary, and fantasy a "documentary" as long it has clipart with voiceovers, even if nobody, not even the producers, for a minute would believe the things asserted. Including but not limited to Ancient Aliens, The Burning Times, What the Bleep Do We Know!?, The Blair Witch Project, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or Zeitgeist: The Movie. Or we could decide to use the term "documentary" more narrowly, and more meaningfully, restricting it to works that actually try to document something in good faith. -- dab (𒁳) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here as a major editor to Ancient Aliens article which now IMO reads more biased than ever, now in a way that it appears the writers think everything in there is complete BS and it reflects in the wording. You guys say it was too POV toward the notion that this stuff could be true, I think now it's too POV against it. It IS a documentary as it records a "real" set of theories backed up by the work or investigators - weather those people are real scientists using real science and not complete nut jobs is a matter of opinion. They get bashed because their ideas conflict with what mainstream science accepts because they can't prove any of it, but just goes to show you how closed-minded society is.
I have to laugh at the fact that anytime anyone brings up an alternate theory or belief that conflicts what is written in the bible, torah or koran, or even "The Complete History of the World", about the origin of mankind people get all pissed off and say "PSEUDOHISTORY! PSEUDOSCIENCE! COMPLETE F'ING BS!" FYI, a lot of these Ancient Astronaut theories were spawned from these same religious texts as well but of course because the old Sunday preacher says this is how the world was made, it must all be rock solid true and no one can tell you otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a incense burning, crystal skull worshiping weirdo, I look at all this with equal skepticism too, so I'm not here to defend ancient astronaut theories, or say any of it is true, but I ask that people approach the concepts and others like it with an open mind and consider the possibility instead of blowing it off completely. Sorry, I know that's too much to ask for but I that's my wish. Regardless, the article should also reflect this, and as it stands since the great cleansing it's not. Truth is, no one knows where we came from, or how and why ancient civilizations did what they did, we can only speculate, and this stuff is just another set of speculations that's out there to take as you will.
I also understand perfectly well that any reason for a TV show like this is made is to make money - right now with 2012 coming around, and the notions that the world might end or, ETs are coming to save the Earth, is all fueling the interest in this area right now, so the TV show was made to cash in on that trend - it may be "War of the Worlds - outdated" to some people like Dougweller, but crawl out from your hole you'll see interest is back on such things. It may be stupid to you but some take it seriously. I just ask before you trounce on this article (well it's kind of too late for this one) but others you at least try to respect the integrity of it before you go rewording things. Cyberia23 ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The OED defines "documentary" in this context as "Factual, realistic; applied esp. to a film or literary work, etc., based on real events or circumstances, and intended primarily for instruction or record purposes." Where a program is based upon speculation or WP:FRINGE claims rather than solid facts, I think we would be on solid ground in either (i) leaving out the word "documentary" altogether, or (ii) describing it along the lines of a "speculative documentary-format program" or similar. If the content differs from the solidly factual, then our description should reflect this. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also question Ancient Aliens passing off Erich von Däniken's claims as "research" -- the man is a proven fraud. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many problems with this article, which seems to be a disjointed and free-wheeling essay involving WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, The term originates in sociology, where it has a precise meaning; however, the creator of the page, Terra Novus ( talk · contribs), has applied it elsewhere in the physical and biological sciences without the term itself being used in this way in any WP:RS. Mathsci ( talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
the article is not "fringe", it is just extremely bad. It should be either fixed, merged or deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 11:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The entire thing is a extension of Terra Novus ( talk · contribs) creationist POV pushing Let me add wikilinks to the statement from the FAQ on th talk page to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." Ironically several people (including himself) thought he had topic ban on the subject but he was not there was support at the last ANI thread but was never formally implimented. He apparently thought he was not able to comment on the topic and thus created this article to attack conventional science. The term itself is sometimes used to refer to Qualitative research. This isnt a "fringe theory" its actual term he has totally redefined to suit his purposes. Its really a shame. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this recently: [19]. A WP:SPA has rewritten the lead, and has stated on the talk page that the article "cannot be written by the public, nor should it.". Dougweller ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Just ran across this,
Please help check it out, plus Wudang chuan, and generally everything by TommyKirchhoff ( talk · contribs). -- dab (𒁳) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is once again being butchered by a patriot. Experience says it's probably Ararat arev again, but who knows. -- dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
plus associated articles, Don Piper and Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven.-- Dougweller ( talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The article suffers from a large amount of POV issues, over half of the article are sourced directly from Japanese denialists of the Nanking Massacre such Shūdō Higashinakano (who was found to have defamed a witness of the massacre). In particular, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a gallery of photos [21] that is used to air Higashinakano's views. My concern is where the article adheres to WP:FRINGE, or provide undue weight to Higashinakano et al.-- PCPP ( talk) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
My comment on this article would be that I disagree with the fact that Roosevelt knew nothing about the Pearl Harbor attacks. I believe that he instigated them so that the U.S. would have to get into the war. People may get outraged at this, but I have sources to back it up. Here are some of them: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett; World War II: The rest of the story and how it affects you today by Richard Maybury; whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/.../pearl.html - www.nypress.com/article-4183-fdr-knew-pearl-harbor-was-coming.html - www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm Comments are welcome, but the facts are there. 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say there is a good bit of evidence pointing to the fact that he knew in that article! Furthermore, I have listed other sources that back it up. Another is The Pearl Harbor Myth:Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor. There is a good bit of evidence for both sides, and most people, presumably you included, believe what has been taught for years, that there was no prior knowledge. I have studied both sides, however, and find that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the fact that he knew about the attacks beforehand. You can't argue with government documents or statements by Navy officers from the time that were involved. Personalskeptic ( talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoa dude, aren't you the nice guy. Just trying to state some evidence, that's all. Never could've guessed you were being sarcastic. Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming wrong. I also apologize for my rash comment a moment ago. I have been getting some flack from others, so it just got the best of me. I do respect others opinions, and I just want to make mine known, that's all. Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha. BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\
Haha, well, I try lol. I'm still researching to find new things, but he seems to know quite a bit about it. I'm trying to find not so well known material, but we'll see. He seems like he would pone me at the moment, lol. Personalskeptic ( talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is funny. I've removed it once, it's been restored - and if you look at the phrase "critics such as 7 have argued " you'll see a link which doesn't work but is " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller%7CDougweller". How nice to be used as a source. I'll leave this for a little while for amusement's sake. Dougweller ( talk) 07:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Fringe journal, probably notable enough for its article, maybe needs a note saying published by an unaccredited institution. And can the article claim it's peer reviewed? Dougweller ( talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, someone is arguing in this day and age that the Illyrian language may not be extinct [22]. In addition to making false claims of consensus, this person is spamming the talkpage with cherry-picked and misinterpreted sources. My view is that even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, which is possible, the two would in any case be considered separate languages, which would mean Illyrian is quite extinct. The analogy is similar to Latin and Italian. Even though Italian descends from Latin, Latin is still considered a dead language. Actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin even today, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing. Athenean ( talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S.Let me notice that the analogy with Latin is a bit forced since Illyrian was not a written language and we have no clue how they spoke. Another best adapted analogy would be that of Celtic languages which today are still spoken in Ireland and Britain. Sure the existing form is very different from that of Roman times,pretty much the same difference would be between Illyrian and Albanian, if Albanian is the modern form of Illyrian. What is a consensus between academics is that we don't have sufficient data on Illyrian languages. It is a matter of personal perception, some called it extinct (while admitting they have no sufficient data) and some (also admitting there are no sufficient data) declaring it is not extinct since it exist in the modern form. There are more than respectable scholars who maintain both views and like I said, this is a matter of POV rather than fringe theories. Aigest ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)We should deal with the majority vs. minority views issues that exist. Dacian as an ancestor of Albanian is marginalized and a minor academic view more or less comparable with Basque, as part of the Vasconic substratum, unlike Illyrian and Aquitanian, which are the predominant views.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)It's not an estimation since most scholars who have studied with the Albanian language make the connection with the Illyrian language and not the Dacian one( summary of theories or the Encyclopedia of IE culture). Academically although the Illyrian theory is the predominant one, other theories exist but they are so marginalized that sources like Britannica don't even mention them They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce.. Btw Moreschi's edit [23] is a very good solution.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)I suggested that edit of Moreschi's, so why did you make that wp:horse edit?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A side remark. A few days ago, for completely unrelated reasons, I happened to rewrite [24] part of the BLP of Victor Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, who is an expert on Balkan linguistics. He has published in Albanian and wrote a book on the language in 2004. On his website various articles are accessible, including this one from 1988. [25] There he writes
The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (A.D. 550-630).
There's probably more recent stuff (the 2004 book is not easily accessible). It was just an accident that I happened to make those edits, but that is wikipedia for you. Mathsci ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it is the wrong forum - i am new to this, but there are some strange statements in the "St Ives" article:
In section "Churches":
The only centre of True worship in St Ives is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in Green Howe. There you will find a non-judgemental welcome and no plate passing! The Congregation numbers around 100 members of all ages. No one is turned away from their public meetings. You will often see their members knocking on doors around the St Ives area. They carry a simple message designed to stimulate interest in the bible. If you want to hear the truth about God's word and not have your 'ears tickled' then this is the place to go.
In section "Protection":
The town of Saint Ives in Cambridge is protected by the hidden force of Careless Army and has a hidden alliance with Germany and Russia. The Careless army is older than Saint Ives and is obsessed with power and money. No one would want to fight the powerful army, which is more than 100 times bigger than the British Army.
br Flo
I see that we have articles on a number of books by the writer Koenraad Elst. He advocates a non-mainstream line on Indian history, chiming with certain themes in Indian nationalism, on the verge at least of extremism. I would not have thought that these books are notable in their own right. They received little or no scholarly attention. I'm thinking of merging them all back into the biography of Elst. Any views? Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
We have an IP editing this who is inserting details about someone's qualifications which are not only unsourced but irrelevant to the article (the IP seems a bit gung-ho on adding 'biologist' to articles) and although I'd appreciate a watch on this, I've noticed the section the IP edited is sourced only to the Institute of Creation Research, and I'm dubious about that being a good enough source. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pseudohistorical book being used as a reference in a few articles [26] - I came across this when looking at the edits of an IP some of us will have noticed: [27] is an attempt to add Supery's ideas to an article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the page for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Secret_des_Vikings_(2nd_nomination). Griswaldo ( talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor adding promotional edit about some unpublished minor fringe idea. Ignores messages on talk page, edit summaries. See also his userpage at User:Arkquest
Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Created by a now blocked puppet master, claims it " has an unbroken tradition from its roots as a fighting system of the warriors of ancient Israel.". Much of the same material is in Yehoshua Sofer (who does seem notable as a Jamaican Jewish musician). Dougweller ( talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
sigh, can you say Stav? -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, I just noted this and this. So now we keep articles about crappy martial arts hoaxes, but we delete the prime site notable for exposing them? Way to go Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the general category of General Relativity relevant to this fringe topic? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I'd be grateful is some editors could have a look at this. I've got into a dispute with an editor who insists on replacing the longstanding assertion that Hagar is the (supposed) Biblical ancestor of Arabs. He claims that "Muslims" insist that he is the ancestor of Muslims. Of course this is true if you identify Muslims and Arabs, but as expresed it creates the absurd claim that all Muslims are descended from her. The claim that Arabs descend from her dates back at least to Josephus, so it is not a specifically Muslim claim. I provided a citation for this, which the editor argues against with reasoning that just perplexes me. Many other citations for this uncontroversial statement can be found. I previously had a weird debate about divorce on the Talk page, which was not resolved. I can't seem to communicate with this particular editor, so other input would be welcome. Paul B ( talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have recently restored a template to the above article indicating that I believe it needs to be rewritten given the entirely undue weight the article gives to the theories of Robert Eisenman and James Tabor. Eisenman has been discussed on this page before, several of the surprisingly negative reviews of Tabor's work can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. The article is currently awaiting mediation from the mediation committee. Two editors are contesting the reduction. In neither case do I see any particular indication from what they have presented that the theories do not qualify clearly as "Fringe" as per [{WP:FT]]. I would welcome any review of the article talk page and the above linked to page of sources by anyone who frequents this board, and a statement from them on the talk page of the article about whether they believe, under the circumstances, the placement of the template is valid. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Argues that Hebrew Bible place names actually refer to places in Arabia. Heavy use of his blog. Dougweller ( talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is fringe or not. Anyone know anything about 'tanash'? Dougweller ( talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dacian script ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fringe topic (no indication to date that even a acholarly argument over its existence exists), currently at AfD. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Classic Balkans nationalism, two accounts are trying to blow this out of proportion. One even templated me on my talkpage. -- dab (𒁳) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be dealt with here or at a religious board, or both but I don't want to forum shop. This is a bit of a mess. We have:
Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)
Book of Jasher (biblical references) which is virtually the same as:
Book of Jasher (biblical references)
Sefer haYashar which is sort of a list article.
However, this is a lost book and what is being used as sources for articles such as Shem where it's a major sources are considered to be forgeries. [34] You can search this book at Amazon.com but some people still claim there is a genuine copy, see this LDS book [35]. This website discusses the issues. It can be found at Wikisource [36]. You get books claiming other versions are a forgery, eg [37]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know where to post this so that's why it's here. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place.
I think that the article about Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscon AZ shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, along with 6 fatalities, should not be included in Wikipedia.
Though I agree that the shooting is a significant event, this individual is getting more than enough airtime from this shooting, which may be partially what he was looking for, and I don't believe he has done anything of value to have his own Wiki entry.
I'm not even sure we should have this article - no hits in GBooks or Scholar, some web hits but some of those are about other subjects. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy ( talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Revert away, already under WP:BRD. "blanking of refs" isn't an issue when somebody goes and rewrites a long-standing well-developed article. -- dab (𒁳) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
See here. It is claimed that a 2006 review of the field is outdated because of a 2008 paper and a 2009 letter to a journal. Please comment. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this fringe? Drmies ( talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
New article, what struck me was "In her twenties, Kali Ray a "spontaneous kundalini experience” which lasted over twelve hours. In 1980, while teaching meditation to several students, Kali Ray experienced what is known in ancient yogic texts as kriyavatisiddhi: spontaneous movement manifested in a yogi who has awakened kundalini. " I guess there may be BLP issues as well. Dougweller ( talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone review this article? I have doubt if its passes WP:RS and WP:N. -- Neptune 123 ( talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The significant mainstream idea is not being fairly represented in accordance with WP:FRINGE.
Proposal for Prognosis.
I think this proposal is appropriately weighted to include at the end of Vertebral artery dissection#Prognosis. The relevant but stale discussion is at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more.
The 2010 reference meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and is a systematic review, published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature. It is more relevant Chiropractic than VAD, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is the leading researcher on chiropractic related topics, and it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications.
The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM), while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't think it adds nothing when it is apparently relevant to the topic. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's results are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! Policy actually mandates the inclusion of the mainstream view per WP:WEIGHT. MEDRS simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views such as the proponents fringe view.
There is relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:WEIGHT guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it.
PMID 20642715 is a reference of extremely high quality, and it doesn't matter how often we opine on it. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. It's not just WP:RS, but MEDRS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of IJCP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to us to suggest another inclusion criteria.
There is excessive weight for the fringe view while the conclusion of mainstream view is not being represented.
The following represents Ernst's 2007 conclusions: "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation." [39]
Current fringe view at Traumatic.
Personally, I believe the part "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" under Vertebral artery dissection#Traumatic gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints.
Proposal for Traumatic.
IMHO I think the proposal for Prognosis and the proposal for Traumatic both satisfy WEIGHT and FRINGE. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I will start new sections to focus on the remaining problems with the article. The above discussion did help improve the article and did clarify a few points. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the fringe view from Traumatic.
See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.
The other point from the source is "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49" [48] The source is being taken out of context and this is not an important point to cause for the vertebral artery dissection page. The minor fringe view is getting a lot of attention in the article which is a violation of WEIGHT and FRINGE. The tiny minority view should get zero WEIGHT. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This proposal is to rewrite a vague sentence in Traumatic.
Current vague sentence.
Proposal to improve vague sentence.
It is speculation that chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been 'linked' to VAD. The text does not pass V. This specific proposal is to replace the vague sentence with newer 'sourced' evidence. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An editor is proposing that Race and intelligence should include the idea that Chinese people evolved separately from Homo Erectus in Asia. This idea ought to be covered in Multiregional origin of modern humans, and it is, but badly. The article has been tagged since June 2009 as in need of expert attention. Could this quickly be sorted, and the current scientific standing of the hypothesis clearly indicated? (Minority scientific view, perhaps, but the expert needs to find the sources that tell us.) Biologists, are you around? Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
(blocked editor's comments removed)
Higher consciousness ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Did you know that people who are on a higher level of consciousness are more evolved than other people?
I didn't either.
Please help fix this. I'm not even sure where to begin.
jps ( talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to do about this. Tempting to take it straight to AfD. It's certainly fringe, Dougweller ( talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
this would be a nice article ... if the year was 1670. Redirect to Canaan#List_of_Canaanite_rulers. -- dab (𒁳) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected this. There is no reason to spend time with this "case" other than for the fun of it. -- dab (𒁳) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to draw to all of you're attention that administrators are required to start a discussion on the articles talk page, before doing any major deletions. I am shocked and hurt that not only has my page been deleted with first discussion, but no one even had the courtesy to send me a message on the subject. I had no intention of using nothing but ussher chronology, if you felt that there was any better sources you could provide, I would expect you to provide them, not delete the whole article for the sake of one reference. I felt that my list of Canaanite rulers was far better than the redirection, because 1) the redirection leaves out so many rulers, and 2) there are many rulers they cite that were not rulers. But also, the redirected list does not fit. It's not "Canaanite Chronology", it's a list of names associated with Canaan. My list, with synchronicity, contemporary rulers, approximate dates, all of not set in stone, but open for improvement and correction. "Correction" does not mean deletion, that is the opposite. LutherVinci ( talk) 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What do we think about the juxtaposition of Chinese and European festivals? To me it looks like an attempt to present an OS that there is an ancient link between the importance of mid points between the solstices and equinoxes. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
With an edit summary claiming "I have inserted a NPOV classic historical background to balance the polemical views inserted by critics.", a pov, uncited piece of original research has been added to this article. See also a couple of earlier edits. Dougweller ( talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the cited source, the Declaration of Arbroath makes no direct link between the Scots and the Ten Tribes. It states:
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. [4]
It merely uses The Exodus as a chronological point of reference. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 12:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
See [5] - I've reverted the nonsense about the Hyksos once, but it's been replaced with no edit summary. Dougweller ( talk) 21:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This material has been removed from the lead-in to the article:
This line is supported by four references:
The lead-in states:
Here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=400614077&oldid=400592539
I think omitting mention of the A&E for 9/11 Truth petition, but saying the engineering establishment supports the mainstream account, is not neutral and gives undue weight to the mainstream account, especially since this is the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. All content policies, particularly WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV need to be taken into account. Now, you've already tried to get WP:OR changed [6] and by my count, 15 editors disagreed with you. Please see WP:DEADHORSE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor was asking about chiropractic studies over at the NOR noticeboard. Could a couple people from these parts take a look and offer some feedback? Vassyana ( talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The temporariness of the injury or lack thereof is not part of that source. Explaining away the fact that nearly half of all students at this chiropractic institution sustained injury of any kind doesn't bear upon whether the source is accurate or properly contextualized. The claim is that this paper is not a good source for this safety issue with chiropractic education. If so, please recommend a better source. jps ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
A tenacious IP and a new user account seeking to obscure mainstream nonacceptance of Radin's views on retrocausation. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A new book by former Iranian diplomat and retired UN administrator Darioush Bayandor has been seriously questioned at 1953 Iranian coup d'état where at least one editor dismisses it as a fringe source. The book is called Iran and the CIA and it is published by Palgrave Macmillan, a respected academic and professional imprint.
Bayandor puts a greater emphasis on surprised and baffled CIA reports issued immediately after the August 1953 coup, and discounts CIA analysis from later periods. He shows that the CIA reinterpreted events over which it had no control so that the events would appear to be under CIA control, for the purpose of proving the CIA to be more effective than it was, to get more appropriations from the U.S. government. Bayandor's analysis of the 1953 coup puts forward a coalition of reclusive and activist Shi'ite clerics as the ones who instigated mass street demonstrations resulting in the arrest of Mosaddegh and the return of the Shah. This theory is in conflict with mainstream analysis which accepts the later CIA documents at face value.
At WP:FRINGE it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." for our articles. Bayandor's book has been peer reviewed by exactly the same scholars who are used as the mainstream view at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. In the book's acknowledgments, the following people are thanked for their reviews of the book prior to publishing: Shahram Chubin at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy; Charles W. Naas, deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s; Houshang Nahavandi, author of The Last Days and former head of the Tehran University; Mark Gasiorowski, a political scientist cited often at the Iran coup article; Ervand Abrahamian, another political scientist cited a lot in this article (regarding Bayandor's book, he "recommended its publication"); Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a top think tank analyst of Iran; and Ardeshir Zahedi, former Iran diplomat, the Shah's ambassador to London and Washington and the son of General Zahedi, Mosaddegh's replacement as prime minister. Bayandor thanks the contributions of many more people who read early drafts and provided criticism: Stephen Langlie of USAF MAAG who was eyewitness in Tehran August 1953, Anandi Rasanayagam of the United Nations, Jean Swoyer of the American Foreign Service, and former Bayandor colleagues Iraj Amini, Jamshid Anvar, Said Amirdivani, Bijan Dolatabadi, Dr. Ahmad Minai, Parviz Mahajer, Ali Seirafi and Dr. Ahmad Tehrani. The book's facts and theories were reviewed by a wide array of scholars and topic experts.
I hold that this author and his book show an expert opinion which is different from other mainstream ones, and that the opinion and conclusions drawn by Bayandor require a rewriting of the article to satisfy WP:NPOV which tells us we cannot state as absolute fact anything which is seriously challenged by another expert source. This is that expert source. Binksternet ( talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This appears to not be a fringe question, but rather a reliable source question. Without knowing anything about the dispute, it looks like the book in question is a reliable source for a minority viewpoint. Labeling minority viewpoints Fringe is ordinarily a way to try and supress them, please don't. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes on 1953 Iranian coup d'état page. I have since semi-retired from Wikipedia, but I may give in my two cents every now and again. There is an ongoing activist-type campaign by a couple of editors to downplay the US role in the coup, cast the elected primer Minster Mossadegh, who was ousted by the coup, in a bad light, and essentially legitimize the coup. This campaign sometimes goes beyond what is permissible in our polices, and there have been plenty of infringements by the involved parties in the past few months. This is one of the latest examples. Having studied this topic for many years, I would consider Darioush Bayandor to be a fringe source. Given the extreme nature of his views, he should not be cited in the main article about the 1953 coup. He could, however, be cited in an article about the historical viewpoint of the Pahlavi dynasty. Khoi khoi 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being the holder of a tiny minority viewpoint, as a Shah government official, as a "monarchist activist" (whatever that is) and as a denier of the coup. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as not being a historian nor a scholar, as being over-reliant on Ardeshir Zahedi, and as being a revisionist scholar. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being a regular speaker on Voice of America radio, an advocate for regime change in Iran. None of these attacks push the scholarly book Iran and the CIA to the fringe. It does not matter what Bayandor does with his political energies if this one book has been peer-reviewed and published by Palgrave. Bayandor can be any kind of activist and still have this scholarly book tell an accurate story. The question we are addressing is whether the book is fringe, not whether it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority viewpoint. The thing I want to take away from this noticeboard discussion is for the book to be accepted as a minority viewpoint from a scholar, and not pooh-poohed as fringe. After that, the discussion of due and undue emphasis will continue at the coup article (and perhaps elsewhere.)
So far, the only editors commenting here besides Kurdo777 and I are Rocksanddirt, and Khoikhoi. Rocksanddirt provides a fresh Fringe Noticeboard viewpoint but Khoikhoi was already involved in the article, responsible for the eventually proven incorrect six-month block of User:BoogaLouie for his work to lever the article out of its unsatisfactory condition. Khoikhoi's complaint here that there is an activist campaign is dead wrong: BoogaLouie and I are not trying to legitimize the coup; we are trying to tell the whole story per WP:NPOV where it says we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The article as it stands ignores too many significant views published by reliable sources. Rather than being told in the manner of "here's what absolutely happened" it should be told as "here are the versions of what happened, attributed to these sources." The former method is a violation of WP:NPOV, but it is what Kurdo777 and Khoikhoi continue to defend. Binksternet ( talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of people (or maybe one person with several IDs?) are repeatedly adding claims to History of human rights that the Cyrus Cylinder was the world's first charter of human rights - a claim that historians reject. I'm told that this issue has been discussed here before. Can anyone help? Prioryman ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a history of socking and meat puppetry at
Cyrus Cylinder IIRC
Dougweller (
talk) 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is old, the article is so infested with socks and trolls that it is pointless to try and discuss this coherently. Just roll back the patriotic editorializing. -- dab (𒁳) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That is so interesting, because dougweller and folantin have said the same thing about human rights and looking it up at encyclopedia iranica. on the same day. mixed up sockpuppetry. oh wait, ooops they also mentioned the aljazzera blog. could it be the same person or group expressing the same thought. you tell me.
prioryman for someone who has only been online for a short while is expert! but of course dougweller and dbach since they are respected admins only seem to care about a few sockpuppets or whatever they are called. you people need to reexamine your bias. prioryman seems to be on a campaign to discredit a long standing notion. that should be considered fringe theory people.
as a double major in history and politics at csun, i find your behaviors reprenhensible and will never use wikipedia for anything.
The more of a concerted campaign we see to push a historically dubious claim, the more care we should take to let it not affect one iota of article content. There is a great temptation to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, but mostly among those who are not familiar with the workings of the project.
Many people think "anyone can edit? that won't work". The propaganda campaigns turn this around to "anyone can edit? Alright, we're home free". Both are mistaken for the same reason, but most people apparently don't have the intelligence to extrapolate this, they need to try it out themselves.
For our purposes it is enough to note that there is a renewed Iranian patriotic attack on our artiles in the "Cyrus Cylinder" matter and that we will need to click rollback a few times over then next couple of weeks. -- dab (𒁳) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Good, if the fringe theory is that the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights, then evidence needs to be presented that is, indeed, a fringe theory. Here are the facts as I see it:
Those are the facts. My opinion is that, thus far, no evidence has been presented to indicate the claim that Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights is a fringe theory. This is my opinion of this section and I believe a reflection of how emotions and aggression have run high. Suggesting blanket rollbacks seems too "cowboy editor" to me, as does the blanket removal of already existing sourced material. Calling a theory ludicrous, anachronistic, patriotic, or saying that people aren't intelligent doesn't indicate why the theory is fringe. If you don't think that you can engage in the conversation, as someone said, coherently, then let others try to deal with it. Perhaps another neutral editor. No disrespect is intended by my stating this.
So, I'd like to suggest an evidence based discussion on why this theory is fringe. Namely addressing its heretofore existence on both pages and the sourced claims that support the proposition. Thanks, GoetheFromm ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Best, GoetheFromm ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
United nations DOES recognize the cyrus cylinder as a work or charter of human rights. I do not know who might want to be a "sock puppet" but I am certainly all for the inclusion of the cylinder as the charter of human rights. The evidence in support of Cyrus the Great being a benign and just ruler is beyond the point of contention. The only issue is the issue created by a few live, recent German "scholars" if you can call them that, that have said that "Cyrus the Great could not possibly UNDERSTAND human rights in the same sense as us" and even that is debatable, as there are equal number of scholars on the opposing side saying that he DID indeed understand it and proclaim it in the most feasible ancient way possible. I also see a lot of names here from people with a history of activity against the notion of Cyrus Cylinder as a piece of human rights. There are even admins on this article who have an unhealthy obsession with articles regarding Cyrus the Great. In short, it is a piece of human rights and even if you like to include quotations from your favorite bearded curator at the british museum or the German teacher in some far university, then by all means do so but also include the fact that UNITED NATIONS has recognized the piece as a "CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS" since 1970s. Cheers! Dr. Persi ( talk) 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, a few individuals can not out weight an international organization that in certain matters is the equivalent of the "world" we live in. No matter by the very notion inclusion in United Nations, this point has to be brought up to the article. To avoid to do so would be censorhips. Dr. Persi ( talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry is this the tone appropriate for a serious discussion? Why is this so "amusing" to you. There is an international organization that claims this. Regardless of the weight that you give to the experts, you still as a wikipedian have a right to express it. There is no one certain source about human rights. There is tremendous pressure to make human rights a western issue, but why should the notion that it, or a version of it also started in the east so unbelievable or funy? I hope in future when you make a point, that you do not mock me at least. I recognized the sarcasm in the last post and I see the "lol" in this post. I just hope that we can discuss things in a more professional environment. No matter, in spirit of fair play and good intention, I am gonna take the best out of your argument and yes I am very real. Why should this notion be disallowed? Cheers! Dr. Persi ( talk) 22:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Whew, I was really getting confused. Can I just add that all of this (except the UAF stuff) should really be on the talk page of the article so that anyone editing there is aware? Dougweller ( talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, the way you've delineated the issues. I too have been saying that people conflate one issue with another. using your categorizations:
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is the first written declaration of human rights." - this is an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is not the first written declaration of human rights." - this is also an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors
"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder." - this is a non-claim that never requires sourcing, and is the default we should generally use when we have insufficient sourcing for actual claims. Criteria reached. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? GoetheFromm ( talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This has gone beyond nationalist posturing and into outright falsification of sources. I was suspicious of one particular part of what had been added to History of human rights, namely this claim: "The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery, so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work."
I took the trouble to check the sources cited for those claims. The sources say nothing about such a declaration. The cylinder itself makes no such declaration, as can be seen from its translation by the British Museum here. I found that the claims about freedom of religion and the abolition of slavery come from a fake translation which can be read here. I removed this claim and explained why on the article talk page. Despite this, GoetheFromm simply restored it [15] without bothering to address either the falsified translation or the misrepresented sources. Is there nothing that can be done about such blatant falsifications? How is anyone expected to treat Wikipedia seriously with this going on? It's very disheartening. Prioryman ( talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
In the interests of resolving the immediate problem of false claims and misrepresentation of sources, I have posted a modest proposal ( Talk:History of human rights#A modest proposal). This basically involves asking contributors to agree not to add anything that isn't explicitly supported by sources and removing anything that isn't sourced. I had thought that this was supposed to be a basic rule of Wikipedia but apparently I was wrong. If anyone would like to help with this please comment there. Prioryman ( talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
the question never has been "references", it has always been WP:DUE. If Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 40 years ago voiced an opinion about human rights or an archaeological artefact it doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a prominent position at history of human rights. If this idea is notable in Iranian nationalism, duly discuss it at Iranian nationalism where it will at least be on topic. This has nothing to do with citing sources and everything with deciding to what topic a given source has any kind of encyclopedic relevance. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought this might be the best place to raise this. The film in question was something of an internet sensation a few years ago, positing conspiracy theories about Christianity, 9/11 and the New World Order. Most of it is a rehash of Acharya S, the usual 9/11 stuff and illuminati-ish ramblings. There is a newly registered editor who is trying to (a) remove criticism (which in RS was pretty universal, what RS coverage there was) and (b), as has been attempted a few times recently by IP addresses, pretend that a new updated version effectively renders the 2007 version (the one that got all the attention) null and void. The article had a punctuation based name change recently, and I suspect there are not as many users watching it as there were. I've reverted the changes twice, and they've been put back in. Could someone else have a watch over it? You can look at the article talkpage to get an idea of the nature of the editor in question and the pre-move article talkpage to see previous discussions of such changes (ie that they were clearly POV and censorship). Many thanks, VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 13:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've left a message on the users talk page, and I'll help keep an eye on the article. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a small walled garden here. I wouldn't say this is completely unnotable, but there are Zeitgeist: The Movie, The Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph. These are all about the same thing. -- dab (𒁳) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
sigh, there is even Category:Zeitgeist. Clearly another case of people abusing Wikipedia to inflate the visibility of some project of theirs. -- dab (𒁳) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lot of talk lately about whether to add the possibility of adding sections about these characters, Scooby-Doo (character) ( talk), Shaggy Rogers( talk), Daphne Blake ( talk), Velma Dinkley ( talk), Pinky and the Brain ( talk), and Yogi Bear ( talk), being homosexual based on the writings of JP Dennis found here [17]. First I feel that it should definetly not be included any of the Scooby-Doo characters pages because Dennis himself does not appear to really think they are gay. On Pinky and The brain and Yogi, he does clearly feel they're gay but I think it might be against WP:UNDUE because he seems to be the only one who feels that way. JDDJS ( talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I could not find any mention of Daria Morgendorffer in the Dennis article. JDDJS ( talk) 01:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) A lone semiotician is a fringe theorist until he can manage to convince people outside his field. Maybe there's some call for an article discussing the notion (and it would contain a lot of people saying that it's all balderdash) but there's no reason to give these academic fantasies any space in these articles. Mangoe ( talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've weighed in on this topic before, and I'm glad to see that most parties here seem to agree with precisely the positions I staked out a year or so ago. If it were up to me, I would not go out of my way to try to find a place to include this content. If the topic of particular character's sexuality or their opinions toward homosexuality are discussed by others, then maybe. However, the notion that a cartoon character might be gay should not suddenly un-fringe the theory that any cartoon character is gay. Croctotheface ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
the topic here is, as the section title indicates, " cartoon sexuality". If we decide that such an article passes the notability threshold, it can exist and dicuss gay cartoon characters all it wants. Until there is such an article, would people please refrain from spamming other articles with such stuff. The people who want to discuss this should stick their neck out and create the article. The people who think it isn't notable can then AFD that article. -- dab (𒁳) 08:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, so far, it seems like only you and TheRealFennShysa are for keeping these sections. As you said, your argument regarding this sexuality is "that's all we have for this particular character, and it's better to have some kind of scholarship on this character than none at all". I disagree, I think it's better to have nothing, and it seems that most agree. Judgeking ( talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, it's not a "fringe theory", it's just WP:UNDUE, ok? Please stop adding random homosexual tangents to articles that have nothing to do with sexuality.
Please read your own statement, "Dennis said in his essay that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay. If the mainstream viewpoint is that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay, then Dennis's conclusion is not a fringe theory." Do you see the problem? If not, I probably cannot help you, but see WP:ENC. -- dab (𒁳) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If, as stated, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" then it would be interesting to know what the prevailing or mainstream view is on this topic. Presumably there are multiple reliable sources documenting it? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Kurtan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Essentially, everything this user does is an advert for C. Johan Masreliez. I suggest removing all of his edits, but would appreciate some help with others in monitoring this situation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem. jps ( talk) 03:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The accused: Waffle!? smokescreen? promotional? Pure biassed guesses! It is so simple that instead of finding all the citings that I suspected needed for the cosmology article, I came across his mainstream theorem, which opted for a notable BLP as can be seen here! The distinguished user jps should be aware of my also being a science apologist, save for a sceptic attitude to mainstream cosmology. He seems to be in need for help in his mainstream fix, yes. Kurtan ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The accused: Yes, a dozen I have checked. The distinguished user jps keeps reverting edits that I had recently restored, destroying connections in the articles. A complete viable new cosmos model makes predictions and connects in several ways to other phenomena . There is nothing promoting about it. I am firmly convinced that they are speculative, but appropriate in the context and far from fringe. The red-linkings to the Masreliez BLP, are due blue, when I get some time off from this kind of time-consuming pastime. I could of course for the time being stop restoring them again, until the BLP has passed its initiation rite. J C Masreliez has nothing to do with my unabashed inclusions. I have an education in contemporary astrophysics on top of old Alfvén influence and find Masreliez' ideas worthy of attention. His cosmology model may be speculative and heretic, nevertheless a full non-standard cosmology, a page where it should be worth mentioning, like I tried here. And "boloney" ? Does that include Crum375, who initiated the New cosmology section, suggesting a solution to the anomaly? / Kurtan ( talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(←) So just to get things straight then. "Expanding cosmos theory" is the fringe theory and " Masreliez’s theorem" is mainstream if possibly not notable? Which are we supposed to be discussing here, and why? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought of looking at this, but now I have, I'm wondering of some the the descriptions need cleaning up to make them less pov. Dougweller ( talk) 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if we need to sit down and consider our use of the term " documentary". There is a sliding scale between trashy and entertainment-oriented documentaries involving "dramatizations" and the like, and pure works of speculative fiction. People tend to point to imdb. Well, according to imdb.com, The Eternal Jew is a documentary. If that is so, I am sure we can also call every piece of propaganda, mockumentary, and fantasy a "documentary" as long it has clipart with voiceovers, even if nobody, not even the producers, for a minute would believe the things asserted. Including but not limited to Ancient Aliens, The Burning Times, What the Bleep Do We Know!?, The Blair Witch Project, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or Zeitgeist: The Movie. Or we could decide to use the term "documentary" more narrowly, and more meaningfully, restricting it to works that actually try to document something in good faith. -- dab (𒁳) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here as a major editor to Ancient Aliens article which now IMO reads more biased than ever, now in a way that it appears the writers think everything in there is complete BS and it reflects in the wording. You guys say it was too POV toward the notion that this stuff could be true, I think now it's too POV against it. It IS a documentary as it records a "real" set of theories backed up by the work or investigators - weather those people are real scientists using real science and not complete nut jobs is a matter of opinion. They get bashed because their ideas conflict with what mainstream science accepts because they can't prove any of it, but just goes to show you how closed-minded society is.
I have to laugh at the fact that anytime anyone brings up an alternate theory or belief that conflicts what is written in the bible, torah or koran, or even "The Complete History of the World", about the origin of mankind people get all pissed off and say "PSEUDOHISTORY! PSEUDOSCIENCE! COMPLETE F'ING BS!" FYI, a lot of these Ancient Astronaut theories were spawned from these same religious texts as well but of course because the old Sunday preacher says this is how the world was made, it must all be rock solid true and no one can tell you otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a incense burning, crystal skull worshiping weirdo, I look at all this with equal skepticism too, so I'm not here to defend ancient astronaut theories, or say any of it is true, but I ask that people approach the concepts and others like it with an open mind and consider the possibility instead of blowing it off completely. Sorry, I know that's too much to ask for but I that's my wish. Regardless, the article should also reflect this, and as it stands since the great cleansing it's not. Truth is, no one knows where we came from, or how and why ancient civilizations did what they did, we can only speculate, and this stuff is just another set of speculations that's out there to take as you will.
I also understand perfectly well that any reason for a TV show like this is made is to make money - right now with 2012 coming around, and the notions that the world might end or, ETs are coming to save the Earth, is all fueling the interest in this area right now, so the TV show was made to cash in on that trend - it may be "War of the Worlds - outdated" to some people like Dougweller, but crawl out from your hole you'll see interest is back on such things. It may be stupid to you but some take it seriously. I just ask before you trounce on this article (well it's kind of too late for this one) but others you at least try to respect the integrity of it before you go rewording things. Cyberia23 ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The OED defines "documentary" in this context as "Factual, realistic; applied esp. to a film or literary work, etc., based on real events or circumstances, and intended primarily for instruction or record purposes." Where a program is based upon speculation or WP:FRINGE claims rather than solid facts, I think we would be on solid ground in either (i) leaving out the word "documentary" altogether, or (ii) describing it along the lines of a "speculative documentary-format program" or similar. If the content differs from the solidly factual, then our description should reflect this. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also question Ancient Aliens passing off Erich von Däniken's claims as "research" -- the man is a proven fraud. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many problems with this article, which seems to be a disjointed and free-wheeling essay involving WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, The term originates in sociology, where it has a precise meaning; however, the creator of the page, Terra Novus ( talk · contribs), has applied it elsewhere in the physical and biological sciences without the term itself being used in this way in any WP:RS. Mathsci ( talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
the article is not "fringe", it is just extremely bad. It should be either fixed, merged or deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 11:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The entire thing is a extension of Terra Novus ( talk · contribs) creationist POV pushing Let me add wikilinks to the statement from the FAQ on th talk page to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." Ironically several people (including himself) thought he had topic ban on the subject but he was not there was support at the last ANI thread but was never formally implimented. He apparently thought he was not able to comment on the topic and thus created this article to attack conventional science. The term itself is sometimes used to refer to Qualitative research. This isnt a "fringe theory" its actual term he has totally redefined to suit his purposes. Its really a shame. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this recently: [19]. A WP:SPA has rewritten the lead, and has stated on the talk page that the article "cannot be written by the public, nor should it.". Dougweller ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Just ran across this,
Please help check it out, plus Wudang chuan, and generally everything by TommyKirchhoff ( talk · contribs). -- dab (𒁳) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is once again being butchered by a patriot. Experience says it's probably Ararat arev again, but who knows. -- dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
plus associated articles, Don Piper and Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven.-- Dougweller ( talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The article suffers from a large amount of POV issues, over half of the article are sourced directly from Japanese denialists of the Nanking Massacre such Shūdō Higashinakano (who was found to have defamed a witness of the massacre). In particular, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a gallery of photos [21] that is used to air Higashinakano's views. My concern is where the article adheres to WP:FRINGE, or provide undue weight to Higashinakano et al.-- PCPP ( talk) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
My comment on this article would be that I disagree with the fact that Roosevelt knew nothing about the Pearl Harbor attacks. I believe that he instigated them so that the U.S. would have to get into the war. People may get outraged at this, but I have sources to back it up. Here are some of them: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett; World War II: The rest of the story and how it affects you today by Richard Maybury; whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/.../pearl.html - www.nypress.com/article-4183-fdr-knew-pearl-harbor-was-coming.html - www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm Comments are welcome, but the facts are there. 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say there is a good bit of evidence pointing to the fact that he knew in that article! Furthermore, I have listed other sources that back it up. Another is The Pearl Harbor Myth:Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor. There is a good bit of evidence for both sides, and most people, presumably you included, believe what has been taught for years, that there was no prior knowledge. I have studied both sides, however, and find that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the fact that he knew about the attacks beforehand. You can't argue with government documents or statements by Navy officers from the time that were involved. Personalskeptic ( talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoa dude, aren't you the nice guy. Just trying to state some evidence, that's all. Never could've guessed you were being sarcastic. Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming wrong. I also apologize for my rash comment a moment ago. I have been getting some flack from others, so it just got the best of me. I do respect others opinions, and I just want to make mine known, that's all. Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha. BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\
Haha, well, I try lol. I'm still researching to find new things, but he seems to know quite a bit about it. I'm trying to find not so well known material, but we'll see. He seems like he would pone me at the moment, lol. Personalskeptic ( talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is funny. I've removed it once, it's been restored - and if you look at the phrase "critics such as 7 have argued " you'll see a link which doesn't work but is " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller%7CDougweller". How nice to be used as a source. I'll leave this for a little while for amusement's sake. Dougweller ( talk) 07:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Fringe journal, probably notable enough for its article, maybe needs a note saying published by an unaccredited institution. And can the article claim it's peer reviewed? Dougweller ( talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, someone is arguing in this day and age that the Illyrian language may not be extinct [22]. In addition to making false claims of consensus, this person is spamming the talkpage with cherry-picked and misinterpreted sources. My view is that even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, which is possible, the two would in any case be considered separate languages, which would mean Illyrian is quite extinct. The analogy is similar to Latin and Italian. Even though Italian descends from Latin, Latin is still considered a dead language. Actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin even today, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing. Athenean ( talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S.Let me notice that the analogy with Latin is a bit forced since Illyrian was not a written language and we have no clue how they spoke. Another best adapted analogy would be that of Celtic languages which today are still spoken in Ireland and Britain. Sure the existing form is very different from that of Roman times,pretty much the same difference would be between Illyrian and Albanian, if Albanian is the modern form of Illyrian. What is a consensus between academics is that we don't have sufficient data on Illyrian languages. It is a matter of personal perception, some called it extinct (while admitting they have no sufficient data) and some (also admitting there are no sufficient data) declaring it is not extinct since it exist in the modern form. There are more than respectable scholars who maintain both views and like I said, this is a matter of POV rather than fringe theories. Aigest ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)We should deal with the majority vs. minority views issues that exist. Dacian as an ancestor of Albanian is marginalized and a minor academic view more or less comparable with Basque, as part of the Vasconic substratum, unlike Illyrian and Aquitanian, which are the predominant views.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)It's not an estimation since most scholars who have studied with the Albanian language make the connection with the Illyrian language and not the Dacian one( summary of theories or the Encyclopedia of IE culture). Academically although the Illyrian theory is the predominant one, other theories exist but they are so marginalized that sources like Britannica don't even mention them They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce.. Btw Moreschi's edit [23] is a very good solution.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)I suggested that edit of Moreschi's, so why did you make that wp:horse edit?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A side remark. A few days ago, for completely unrelated reasons, I happened to rewrite [24] part of the BLP of Victor Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, who is an expert on Balkan linguistics. He has published in Albanian and wrote a book on the language in 2004. On his website various articles are accessible, including this one from 1988. [25] There he writes
The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (A.D. 550-630).
There's probably more recent stuff (the 2004 book is not easily accessible). It was just an accident that I happened to make those edits, but that is wikipedia for you. Mathsci ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it is the wrong forum - i am new to this, but there are some strange statements in the "St Ives" article:
In section "Churches":
The only centre of True worship in St Ives is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in Green Howe. There you will find a non-judgemental welcome and no plate passing! The Congregation numbers around 100 members of all ages. No one is turned away from their public meetings. You will often see their members knocking on doors around the St Ives area. They carry a simple message designed to stimulate interest in the bible. If you want to hear the truth about God's word and not have your 'ears tickled' then this is the place to go.
In section "Protection":
The town of Saint Ives in Cambridge is protected by the hidden force of Careless Army and has a hidden alliance with Germany and Russia. The Careless army is older than Saint Ives and is obsessed with power and money. No one would want to fight the powerful army, which is more than 100 times bigger than the British Army.
br Flo
I see that we have articles on a number of books by the writer Koenraad Elst. He advocates a non-mainstream line on Indian history, chiming with certain themes in Indian nationalism, on the verge at least of extremism. I would not have thought that these books are notable in their own right. They received little or no scholarly attention. I'm thinking of merging them all back into the biography of Elst. Any views? Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
We have an IP editing this who is inserting details about someone's qualifications which are not only unsourced but irrelevant to the article (the IP seems a bit gung-ho on adding 'biologist' to articles) and although I'd appreciate a watch on this, I've noticed the section the IP edited is sourced only to the Institute of Creation Research, and I'm dubious about that being a good enough source. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pseudohistorical book being used as a reference in a few articles [26] - I came across this when looking at the edits of an IP some of us will have noticed: [27] is an attempt to add Supery's ideas to an article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the page for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Secret_des_Vikings_(2nd_nomination). Griswaldo ( talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor adding promotional edit about some unpublished minor fringe idea. Ignores messages on talk page, edit summaries. See also his userpage at User:Arkquest
Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Created by a now blocked puppet master, claims it " has an unbroken tradition from its roots as a fighting system of the warriors of ancient Israel.". Much of the same material is in Yehoshua Sofer (who does seem notable as a Jamaican Jewish musician). Dougweller ( talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
sigh, can you say Stav? -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, I just noted this and this. So now we keep articles about crappy martial arts hoaxes, but we delete the prime site notable for exposing them? Way to go Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the general category of General Relativity relevant to this fringe topic? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I'd be grateful is some editors could have a look at this. I've got into a dispute with an editor who insists on replacing the longstanding assertion that Hagar is the (supposed) Biblical ancestor of Arabs. He claims that "Muslims" insist that he is the ancestor of Muslims. Of course this is true if you identify Muslims and Arabs, but as expresed it creates the absurd claim that all Muslims are descended from her. The claim that Arabs descend from her dates back at least to Josephus, so it is not a specifically Muslim claim. I provided a citation for this, which the editor argues against with reasoning that just perplexes me. Many other citations for this uncontroversial statement can be found. I previously had a weird debate about divorce on the Talk page, which was not resolved. I can't seem to communicate with this particular editor, so other input would be welcome. Paul B ( talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have recently restored a template to the above article indicating that I believe it needs to be rewritten given the entirely undue weight the article gives to the theories of Robert Eisenman and James Tabor. Eisenman has been discussed on this page before, several of the surprisingly negative reviews of Tabor's work can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. The article is currently awaiting mediation from the mediation committee. Two editors are contesting the reduction. In neither case do I see any particular indication from what they have presented that the theories do not qualify clearly as "Fringe" as per [{WP:FT]]. I would welcome any review of the article talk page and the above linked to page of sources by anyone who frequents this board, and a statement from them on the talk page of the article about whether they believe, under the circumstances, the placement of the template is valid. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Argues that Hebrew Bible place names actually refer to places in Arabia. Heavy use of his blog. Dougweller ( talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is fringe or not. Anyone know anything about 'tanash'? Dougweller ( talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dacian script ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fringe topic (no indication to date that even a acholarly argument over its existence exists), currently at AfD. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Classic Balkans nationalism, two accounts are trying to blow this out of proportion. One even templated me on my talkpage. -- dab (𒁳) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be dealt with here or at a religious board, or both but I don't want to forum shop. This is a bit of a mess. We have:
Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)
Book of Jasher (biblical references) which is virtually the same as:
Book of Jasher (biblical references)
Sefer haYashar which is sort of a list article.
However, this is a lost book and what is being used as sources for articles such as Shem where it's a major sources are considered to be forgeries. [34] You can search this book at Amazon.com but some people still claim there is a genuine copy, see this LDS book [35]. This website discusses the issues. It can be found at Wikisource [36]. You get books claiming other versions are a forgery, eg [37]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know where to post this so that's why it's here. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place.
I think that the article about Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscon AZ shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, along with 6 fatalities, should not be included in Wikipedia.
Though I agree that the shooting is a significant event, this individual is getting more than enough airtime from this shooting, which may be partially what he was looking for, and I don't believe he has done anything of value to have his own Wiki entry.
I'm not even sure we should have this article - no hits in GBooks or Scholar, some web hits but some of those are about other subjects. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy ( talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Revert away, already under WP:BRD. "blanking of refs" isn't an issue when somebody goes and rewrites a long-standing well-developed article. -- dab (𒁳) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
See here. It is claimed that a 2006 review of the field is outdated because of a 2008 paper and a 2009 letter to a journal. Please comment. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this fringe? Drmies ( talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
New article, what struck me was "In her twenties, Kali Ray a "spontaneous kundalini experience” which lasted over twelve hours. In 1980, while teaching meditation to several students, Kali Ray experienced what is known in ancient yogic texts as kriyavatisiddhi: spontaneous movement manifested in a yogi who has awakened kundalini. " I guess there may be BLP issues as well. Dougweller ( talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone review this article? I have doubt if its passes WP:RS and WP:N. -- Neptune 123 ( talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The significant mainstream idea is not being fairly represented in accordance with WP:FRINGE.
Proposal for Prognosis.
I think this proposal is appropriately weighted to include at the end of Vertebral artery dissection#Prognosis. The relevant but stale discussion is at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more.
The 2010 reference meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and is a systematic review, published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature. It is more relevant Chiropractic than VAD, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is the leading researcher on chiropractic related topics, and it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications.
The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM), while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't think it adds nothing when it is apparently relevant to the topic. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's results are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! Policy actually mandates the inclusion of the mainstream view per WP:WEIGHT. MEDRS simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views such as the proponents fringe view.
There is relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:WEIGHT guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it.
PMID 20642715 is a reference of extremely high quality, and it doesn't matter how often we opine on it. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. It's not just WP:RS, but MEDRS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of IJCP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to us to suggest another inclusion criteria.
There is excessive weight for the fringe view while the conclusion of mainstream view is not being represented.
The following represents Ernst's 2007 conclusions: "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation." [39]
Current fringe view at Traumatic.
Personally, I believe the part "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" under Vertebral artery dissection#Traumatic gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints.
Proposal for Traumatic.
IMHO I think the proposal for Prognosis and the proposal for Traumatic both satisfy WEIGHT and FRINGE. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I will start new sections to focus on the remaining problems with the article. The above discussion did help improve the article and did clarify a few points. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the fringe view from Traumatic.
See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.
The other point from the source is "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49" [48] The source is being taken out of context and this is not an important point to cause for the vertebral artery dissection page. The minor fringe view is getting a lot of attention in the article which is a violation of WEIGHT and FRINGE. The tiny minority view should get zero WEIGHT. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This proposal is to rewrite a vague sentence in Traumatic.
Current vague sentence.
Proposal to improve vague sentence.
It is speculation that chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been 'linked' to VAD. The text does not pass V. This specific proposal is to replace the vague sentence with newer 'sourced' evidence. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)