This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I came across this in the backlog drive. As far as I can tell this is not a cut-and-paste; however, GBooks produces exact one hit, for a book published in 2008. Regular googling is not much more promising. I'm inclined to go the AFD route but I'm looking for other opinions. Mangoe ( talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
We could use a few more watchful eyes at 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've been noticing a tendency of edits which add content explaining the fringe viewpoint without also adding content explaining the mainstream viewpoint. The end result is an article skewed in favor of a fringe theory and thus violating WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently, User:Arjun024 added a section on that article about India [1]. While a section on India would be highly welcome, I find the current addition unacceptable. Not a single reliable source is used (some are even wikipedia articles or dead links), some of the material is completely irrelevant to the topic (e.g. nagarvadhu), and an unmistakable Hindutva "in-ancient-India-everything-was-wonderful-until-the-Muslims-came-and-ruined-everything" POV is redolent throughout. I have explained my reasoning in detail on the talkpage [2]. Any input or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem I have mentioned in this section:
More eyes are needed there. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at these short sections which address problems with the article and its title:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Gives a lot of weight to the Libyan conspiracy theories about Westerners intentionally infecting children with AIDS; very problematic given the BLP issues here. (Crossposted to BLP noticeboard) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Although housed in userspace and explained as both an essay and a "thought exercise and philosophical venture", the fringe science + soapbox flavor makes me think it may fall under WP:UPNOT as "extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article...because it is pure original research." I'd be inclined to take it to MfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Could people please check out the history of this page and see whether I made a good call or not in reverted and posting to WP:RFPP for full protection? NW ( Talk) 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be in favor of unlocking pseudoskepticism to facilitate further discussions & improvements. It does seem a little over the top since there hasn't been much activity there prior to this episode (which possibly could have been handled with merely a reversion). In any case, there are now more eyes on the topic and the seeds of fruitful collaboration have been sown, so I'll point HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) to this thread and suggest that the protection isn't necessary. — Scien tizzle 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Just passing this on: Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo. Buckets full of crazy, including a lede which proclaims it to be a "theory of evolution". There's lots of craziness which you can find from various subcategories of philosophy in amongst all the articles in Category:Integral thought. Some of it is legitimate religious content, but some of it may need to be deleted or edited to meet WP policy. — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Both have just been returned to an earlier badly referenced, OR laden state. Dougweller ( talk) 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:September 11 attacks#Time to eliminate the Conspiracy Theories section. This particular dispute is only in part a fringe issue, as the editors involved largely agree that the theories meet the definition of WP:FRINGE. The disagreement is about the notability of the theories, and about how to treat notable fringe theories. Cs32en Talk to me 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
New editor making massive changes that seem to favour this odd viewpoint. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Some editors want to describe the controversy about EP on the main EP page. Others want to describe the controversy only on a separate "controversy" page. Those who want to describe the controversy refer to a textbook and an encyclopedia that both describe it. They also tend to be people who think that EP is bunk. Those who want not to describe the controversy question the others' sources and say that the controversy belongs on another page. Is the controversy a mainstream topic that deserves coverage, or a fringe topic that doesn't? Leadwind ( talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is an issue about undue weight.
An editor is arguing that my version of Wilbert Rideau here is giving too much weight to Billy Sinclair, Rideau's co-editor and now arch-enemy. Many of the early journalism awards that Wilbert Rideau picked up were joint awards with Billy Sinclair. The other editor rarely mentions Sinclair in his version, here. I argue that his version is putting too little weight in Sinclair's role in Rideau, particularly Sinclair's partnership with Rideau and his continuing legal conflicts and personal conflicts between Rideau and Sinclair.
WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Re the post above by WhisperToMe: Sinclair was co-editor of The Angolite from 1980 to 1986 -- six of the 25 years Rideau edited the magazine. I realize that WhisperToMe found a news article that incorrectly reported Sinclair was co-editor in 1978, but even Sinclair himself in his autobiography says he became co-editor in 1980. Rideau has had no contact with, and nothing to do with Sinclair in the quarter-century since Sinclair left The Angolite in 1986. He has moved on in his work and has produced, alone and with other collaborators, award-winning work in radio, television, and print, all of which another editor keeps minimizing or burying at the end of the article. [User: Eye Smith]
User:DIREKTOR constantly repeating on this talk page that term "Nedic regime" was used as a name of WW2 Serbia by the sources. We cannot come to that conclusion from these sources that he presented. All these sources mentioning term "Nedic regime" as a name of regime, not as a name of a country. Therefore, the way in which DIREKTOR insisting that article about WW2 country is named "Nedic regime" is clearly an example of unsourced fringe theory in which name of an regime is identified as a name of Serbia by this user. No single source is supporting his claim that "Nedic regime" was used as a name of a country (i.e. as a name of Serbia). I also opened this question in third opinion request, but it is rather an example of unsourced fringe theory. The problem is that user DIREKTOR also thinks that he owns that article and he not allowing to anybody to change this article name, which is based on his fringe theory. PANONIAN 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll preface this by admitting that in my opinion, the entry Norwegian diaspora is of dubious merit for a variety of reasons. But that's not the issue I'm bringing here. The specific problem is that an editor keeps on adding material to the entry about the Viking expansion, the settlement of Iceland and the conquest of Normandy. He is also tagging entries like Settlement of Iceland with the Category:Norwegian diaspora. Even the rare usages of the term "Norwegian diaspora" do not include these migrations/settlements to be part of the subject matter. The justification for usage is one mere source by a professor of ancient Norse poetry, who uses the term once in a book. Some additional comments on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Explanation of some of the additional squabbling around this topic in case anyone is wondering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Update - Now the same editor is also edit warring to keep the category on Norse colonization of the Americas. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the latest...
What should we say about the testability of EP hypotheses? We have a Psychology textbook that says it's not impossible to test them, specifically in response to critics who say it might be impossible. We have Encyclopedia Britannica that also says EP hypotheses have been tested with impressive findings. No comparable source says they can't be tested, though individual critics maintain that viewpoint (apparently a minority viewpoint).
Should we say "hypotheses can be tested" (what the textbook literally says, and Britannica emphatically implies). Or "According to the majority viewpoint, hypotheses can be tested" (using "majority viewpoint" wording from WP:WEIGHT) Or "According to evolutionary psychologists, hypotheses can be tested"?
The more general question is this: should we report on a majority viewpoint regarding EP, and if so how do we determine what the majority viewpoint is? This issue is tricky because every minority-viewpoint editor resists the idea of giving the majority viewpoint any favorable treatment.
It's an interesting talk page with outspoken editors. The topic attracts a lot of detractors. Leadwind ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you believe the article, this is some seriously antibiotic stuff. Mangoe ( talk) 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(And I'm using the word "Fascist" in a sense which does not involve Hitler or Neo-Nazis, FWIW.)
After a month's absense from monitoring the page Second Italo-Abyssinian War, when I returned to look at it yesterday I was surprised to find the section Atrocities primarily focussed on Ethiopian atrocities inflicted on the Italians who just happened to be the agressor in that conflict. After counting to ten, then examining the sources offered (e.g., one of the allegations made in that section was that Ethiopian soldiers indulged in their traditional practice of castrating wounded, dead or captured Italian soldiers during the conflict, something I was unaware & dubious that it did happen) I felt the material either misrepresented the sources cited, relied on sources that were not immediately accessible (e.g., a British writer was quoted as claiming Italian use of mustard gas was justified, but the source cited was written in Italian), or clearly biassed (e.g. Italian materials submitted to the League of Nations in defence of their use of mustard gas). Oh yeah, & I was very offended by the content. So I reverted it. Then I found that the person responsible had been banned for unrelated reasons, & felt my actions were justified.
So I was surprised to find this morning that my edit had been reverted by another editor with a note to look at Tito Minniti. That article presented the Italian defense for using mustard gas with a slightly more NPOV tone, but likewise misquoted its sources. So I went back to my preferred version, but added a note about the Italian justification giving it the weight I felt it had.
So am I locked into a revert war here? Or should I just walk away & allow someone (naively, I hope) insert an offensive apology for Italian atrocities in that war? (For the record, I admit I have a conflict of interest here. I spent my free time yesterday writing Yekatit 12, about another Italian atrocity in Ethiopia. And my grandfather was gassed in WWI, so I'm not entirely objective about the use of this weapon.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There is some discussion of this in books accessible via google books [4], which certainly suggests that the current version is one sided, to say the least. I've rewritten the Minniti article in line with that source and another from 1937. It certainly seems that the atrocity version is very dubious. Paul B ( talk) 12:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
An SPA, Ontologicos ( talk • contribs) , insists on removing material critical of Enneagram proponents. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Torsion field ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your archives indicate you may not have taken a look at this article since 2009. It is chock full of assertions which struggle to present it as more than a fringe theory, such as ""torsion field theory has been embraced as the scientific explanation of homeopathy, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena[citation needed]." Cheers, Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a promo for a non-notable device for which fringe claims are made. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I come here to an area of people that do not believe in anything paranormal and ask why this page is even being discussed here? I may want to go over to an atheist area and try to convince people there there is a God? Well I guess I will attempt at This device along with its subsequent generations, or versions of the same can be seen in use on Ghost Hunters, Ghost Hunters International, Paranormal State, Ghost Adventures and in many web based shows. It does have a dubious past and current history that is the chink in the armor of NPOV. It falls along the lines of Schrödinger's cat because of this; If I cannot prove ghosts exist then they must not exist. If cannot scientifically prove their existence then they do not exist because science cannot be done to verify a conclusion. Occam's razor because the simplest answer is they do not exist. However, within the realm of Paranormal phenomena does exist. And current String Theory theorists do allow for multiple dimensions that could actually be a membrane that touch our own dimension. Maybe that is where we go when we die and somehow the 2 are able to communicate through the gravitron (why is gravity so weak and EM is so much stronger?). Fringe is just that theories on the edge of what is "expected" of society and what is just too far out to believe. It seems that this group has a sole purpose to weed out theories that they may not believe in and therefore purge them from Wikipedia. I do not believe in God nor the Bible as it is written. I would not even conceive to dare to go to all of the bizarre Christian pages on Wikipedia and start deleting them. It is like fat people, they are the ones that are acceptable to still make fun of when being racist is no longer acceptable. The Ovilus is a product that has been shown on television multiple times, it is mentioned within the paranormal community, its page creation was part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal to do list. Yet, a person that deemed it "fringe" or way out there, can somehow recommend it to a group that wishes to purge it from WP due to their disbelief of the product. I don't believe that obscure 1940s radio equipment has any more place on Wikipedia than a hand built random word generator being used for "entertainment use only". There are countless other products on Wikipedia that have even less impact on the world that are left alone. Why is this product mentioned for deletion? Because it is part of a field that a group of people do not believe in. That is its lack of notability. Thank you for inviting me to this discussion I am sure it will be enlightening. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Ovilus has been on several times on Ghost Adventures but I cannot find any free to watch episodes to share here. Just remember one person's Fringe is another persons reality. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
From the Paranormal page US Citizens believing in the Parnormal:
belief | not sure | belief | not sure | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farha-Steward | Gallup | |||
psychic/ spiritual healing | 56 | 26 | 54 | 19 |
ESP | 28 | 39 | 50 | 20 |
haunted houses | 40 | 25 | 42 | 16 |
demonic possession | 40 | 28 | 41 | 16 |
ghosts/spirits of the dead | 39 | 27 | 38 | 17 |
telepathy | 24 | 34 | 36 | 26 |
extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past | 17 | 34 | 33 | 27 |
clairvoyance and prophecy | 24 | 33 | 32 | 23 |
communication with the dead | 16 | 29 | 28 | 26 |
astrology | 17 | 26 | 28 | 18 |
witches | 26 | 19 | 26 | 15 |
reincarnation | 15 | 28 | 25 | 20 |
channeling | 10 | 29 | 15 | 21 |
Those numbers even halved are hardly "fringe". I am not trying to show the lunar landings were fake, that there are aliens imbedded in chips implanted into our brains. I would consider those "fringe" items. Instead I am writing about a popular product that is in use within a large subset community of the US and even the world. When I see "fringe" being thrown about by people the first reaction is that the reason they are using it is they do not believe in something and therefore they deem it as "fringe". It is a fine line you walk when you start marginalizing things within your own mind. You see ghosts and ghost hunting as fringe because you do not do it personally. I do not ride dirtbikes and yet that has an article here on wikipedia with no threat of removal. Riding dirtbikes is a fringe to me, but I would not think of having it removed due to notability. Ghost hunting is a hobby for a portion of society and just because you consider it "small" does not make it so. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As the article stands this is true:
Those facts are there and can be disputed ad hoc, but as a whole do show a level of Notability that meets the standard set by Wikipedia. Belief or disbelief at this point has little to no bearing on this article in that it is listed as an entertainment product. The game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uno_(card_game) is an entertainment product and it has been shown on use on television, popular culture and within a subset community. It is allowed to stay on wikipedia because it meets those requirements. Ovilus meets those requirements too. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits are ok, but I've just removed something from a software designer who wrote a fringe book published by Inner Traditions. Needs more eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
New fringe article, possibly should be a redirect to Christian O'Brien. Dougweller ( talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There's some edit warring going on over at Polygenism talk over how much weight should be given to the work of Akhil Bakshi. If you read the talk page, you'll see that 86.10.119.131 (who has previously gotten stressed out about Kent Hovind etc.) claims to have reported 2/0 to a "Mod", by which he means User:Zachlipton (see User talk:Zachlipton). Polygenism manages to bring together two not-at-all-controversial topics: creationism and race. Have at it, fringe fans! — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The work of Akhil Bakshi is not "creationist", Akhil Bakshi is an evolutionist and supporter of the Multiregional Hypothesis his work is not "fringe" it is actually mainstream he concludes each race has evolved seperate on different continents, he is a member of a popular Anthropology research team he has spent over 6months touring the world backed by Indian's prime minister to support his work, he is a top grade scientist, i believe his work should be on wikipedia, but of course some may object to his work hence why they would want it censored. The user 2over0 deleted the Akhil Bakshi material a number of times, i believed he had a personal bias against this material, but as the user Zachlipton has pointed out, the articles which reference Akhil Bakshi are not enough. Akhil Bakshi has a scientific paper coming out and a book. We will wait til more information is reported, this issue is not controversial, and it has now been resolved. Polygenism is not all "creationist" as you can see from the article a number of evolutionists also support this position, it is not a "fringe belief". 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Akhil Bakshi in the newspaper This link here, if you read the two newspaper clippings, hes degrees are listed, hes also a well respected by the scientific community (he lead the Gondwanaland Expedition and was in charge of over 100 geologists, seismologists, zoologists, botanists, anthropologists and medical doctors, he is also a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuujinn most websites list Akhil Bakshi as a doctor. This is him here and part of a scientific team he has worked with. Scientists The follow three videos i suggest you watch to understand Akhil Bakshi's finds are based on science. Video 1 Video 2 (Caucasians and Asians have partial Neanderthal DNA (and part Cro-magnon), Africans don't have any. Neanderthal fossils have NEVER been found in Africa to date).
In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had, nothing more and nothing less. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. If mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring? Video 3
Im not sure what scientific valid sources you want Resident Anthropologist but there is alot of evidence which debunks the out of africa theory of human origins, i have over 10 peer reviewed journals with this information in published by well respected scientists, but that is not revelant here (you can look this up in your own time), concerning Akhil Bakshi there is no reviews yet but as you can see there are websites and newspaper reports about his work, he is writing a scientific paper on his finds and when it is published, im sure the mainstream scientific community will investigate his work and there will have many reviews to use as valid references. Concerning the weight of the information concerning Akhil Bakshi on wikipedia currently there is nothing about him on wikipedia, it has all been deleted. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just found some links which mention Akhil Bakshi please have a read through them.
Here is Akhil Bakshi's scientific paper:
"CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES" A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi
Another link mentioning his paper link 2
86.10.119.131 ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any problem with the first link.
Heres another link which supports polygenist evolution and the multiregional theory:
This website has alot of information on it which debunks the Out of Africa theory and has alot of information on it about the Multiregional Theory, the book was written by a respected anthropologist, his book has sold many copies Link 3 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
More evidence:
Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa? The discovery of 400,000 year old teeth debunk Out of Africa theory
Anthropologists Dispute Latest ‘Out of Africa’ Claims
110,000-year-old Chinese Fossil Poses Challenge to 'Out of Africa' Theory
Fossil challenge to Africa theory
Georgian skeletons challenge 'out of Africa' theory
86.10.119.131 ( talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Both the Multiregional and the Out of Africa theory articles are biased and censored, for example the 110,000 year old fossil is added right at the bottom of the page of the Recent African origin of modern humans article and one line is given to it?, where is the criticism section on the Recent African origin of modern humans article? There is none. Why is the 400,000 tooth which was found in Israel not mentioned on either of the articles???? Bias going on here, the tooth and these other finds should be added to both those articles, especially the tooth becuase it supports the multiregional. There is evidence against the Recent African origin of modern humans and it is not put on the wikipedia article. This is unacceptable. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Recent African origin of modern humans the oldest fossil evidence should be in Africa, but the oldest current find in the world is found in Israel, so already we have fossil evidence against the out of africa theory, this evidence clearly supports Polygenism and the Multiregional origin of modern humans and this evidence should put on wikipedia. 400,000 year old teeth found in Israel completly challenge the out of africa theory please look at link 1 and link 2. A section about this needs to be added to these articles, if thesesections are not added i will add them myself, let's have some honesty on wikipedia please, censoring material just becuase you don't like it needs to stop. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the scientific paper:
Published in the The American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel)
Regarding the DNA tests they are apparently being done at the moment. There will be a further report on this, so heads up. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist i respect your comments and your opinions, but you really are just being annoying now and following me all over wikipedia on purpose and leaving comments and watching every edit i make, can you please leave me alone. If you actually look at your history since you have been on wikipedia you have never actually added anything to wikipedia, if you just want to spend your time deleting peoples material and leaving 100s of comments that is up to you but the whole point in wikipedia is to add material. This conversation is now closed, if you wish to continue it that is up to you, but i will no longer comment here. I suggest an Admin can please delete all this polygenism section off this Fringe notice board becuase the material regarding Akhil Bakshi and other multiregional finds will never be put on wikipedia you have made it clear you do not want it, so what is the point in continuing this debate? None. I am out. Thanks. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone would see if I've gone too far in reverting what I see as someone's attempt to remove criticism from the article - see their comments on the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The Shugborough inscription is a carving on a monument in Staffordshire, England, consisting of the 10 alphabetic characters "D_OUOSVAVV_M". Many theories have been proposed as to its meaning, but none has received widespread acceptance. Suggestions since 1982 of a link with Priory of Sion have increased the number of people aware of the carving and who have tried to decrypt it.
Edits to the article have recently been made by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady. These give predominant weight to a proposal made in 2011 by fringe historian A. J. Morton (whose website is here). The editors' desire has been to devote to Morton's theory an entire paragraph in the introductory section and an entire later subsection, neither of which 'honour' is given to any specific rival theory. I would contend that this would be to give his theory an unfair and unencyclopedic prominence.
Initially the main reference was to coverage of Morton's theory in the Irvine Times, a newspaper published in Irvine, a town in Ayrshire, Scotland. This was somewhat grandiosely referred to as "the Times". Morton himself has written at least one article in the said newspaper, on the history of the potato. (He also claims to have discovered a "medieval power centre" called Evonium, and asserts that the Holy Grail may have been brought to Kilwinning, also in Ayrshire). There have been further articles on his Shugborough theory in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.
Morton contends that the letters refer to the "Viscount Anson" who inherited the Shugborough Estate in 1806, and his mother Mary under her maiden name of "Vernon Venables". He also believes there is an acronymic reference to the parish which relates to the viscountcy, "Orgreave", described as "United" with "Overley".
Both Andrew Baker and Richard Belfield have pointed out that the "mystic ciphers", almost certainly of the carving, were referred to in a poem of 1767, and therefore the inscription could not refer to circumstances which lay 39 years in the future.
It is emphasised that no theory has yet been widely accepted, and all existing theories are highly speculative or even tendentious. No theory, so far, has been published which rest on a solid cryptographic footing. As well as Morton's theory, other suggestions mentioned in the article include:
(acrostic)
(anagrammatic)
(pronunciation)
I would argue that Morton's theory ("Viscount Anson Vernon Venables - Orgreave, United with Overley - Shugborough") sits appropriately in the above list. It should not be given undue weight apropos the other theories.
Edits such as those by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady which give Morton's theory such undue weight should therefore not be allowed to stand.
Elephantwood has put a lot of work into removing the only sensible solution we've ever heard (is just me or does it sound very believable?), but his underhanded and dishonest representation of the facts surely can't be allowed to continue in an Encyclopedia environment. 85.179.79.107 ( talk) 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Elephantwood has now been warned for abuse (namecalling) by wiki defender. 85.179.75.25 ( talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there has been a great deal of edit-warring concerning Martin Gardner's book, especially concerning the reaction to it. Denizens of the noticeboard may with to take a look. Mangoe ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A user is insisting that Napoleon and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor are undisputably Italian, and has provided sources to back this up, although some are a bit dubious, as it isn't clear whether some of them refer to personality or nationality. Making them Italian also seems to contradict the consensus reached on these people's respective articles. I'm therefore not sure if it's a fringe theory, POV editing, or entirely appropriate to give someone dual nationality when their article does not say so. I'm sure that adding the equivalent of "Napoleon was Italian!!" to his article wouldn't stick for long. Egg carton ( talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
See Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills. Dougweller ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As a spill over from some long standing debate at Ten Commandments a couple of editors are insisting on pushing a very odd minority POV at Ritual decalogue regarding it's status as term used to describe a certain list of commandments in the Hebrew bible. Some knowledgeable eyes would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Editor in question, Gwillhickers, has posted fringe claims to the article main space: edit #1 [7] & #2 [8]. He had no evidence; this directly contradicts majority historical opinion, [9]. Editor claimed in edit #1 there were 20-25 other possibilities as the the Hemings father as opposed to Jefferson, but the DNA study doesn't say anything about 20-25 others; in fact, the "absence of historical evidence" made or other "possibilities...unlikely". He then accused in edit #2 the scholars who do not agree with his version as being biased. He added these conspiracy theories to the main page of the article. 4 different editors who tried to reason with him saying he was misquoting information, ignoring certain facts, and ignoring wikipedia policies: 1) [10], 2) [11] & 3) [12], including myself in detail here 4) [13] & here [14]. I reported him to the WP:OR noticeboard [15], and he scoffed at it [16].
Now he's adding more info:
He's now resorting to inventing history by directly implying a 14 yr old trapped her slave owner into a relationship, something so ridiculous that some of us take exception to it. An editor warned him [19], and so did I [20]. Perhaps I'm mistaken but his response looks like a threat to me "Please watch it." [21]. It appears Gwillhickers will say anything to get his version of history, and he's argued for months, and he's making the article impossible to work on.
At least 2 editors other than myself classify his work as "extreme...pov pushing" & as "protecting TJ's legacy concerning Hemings" [22] [23], and one is an historian who said today "The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship" etc.
Historical opinion has changed since 1998, and that is reflected in a number of sources "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings" [24], and there's more on that if needed, including numerous awards & the Pulitzer Prize & Fellowship Gordon-Reed won last year, which caused even long-time supporters to change their pov. Now we've got someone attempting to control the article and demanding the lead & main body conform to his ideas as opposed to historical mainstream thought. We can no longer assume good faith after months of this. Ebanony ( talk) 08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My main concerns are still the O'Brien stuff above as that is affecting some of our more serious articles, but I ran into someone editing various fringe articles which led me to this one which has needed a cleanup since 2008 at least. Dougweller ( talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed a "Health" section from Coconut oil after it was recently added, because it contains copyrighted information and what appear to be fringe theories on the health benefits. From what I can make of the edits, most came from an old version of the article that is yet to be identified. The edit summaries don't shed light on any of it, but this NYTimes article that was added as a reference may have been the impetus for the changes.
Anyone have time to look at the this? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
From Zanclean flood, we learn that it is a hypothetical Mediterranean flood, theorized by Maria Bianca Zita, whilst on a 1972 cruise, to have taken place roughly 5.33 million years ago.
Now that part might not be "fringe", and normally I wouldn't care. But I do care when I see User:Michael C Price keeps introducing a lengthy quote from Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), in support of this hypothetical flood.
I have removed it several times, explaining things like "Original synthesis", and how we can't just assume Pliny had anything to say about a flood 5.33 million years ago - unless *perhaps* some published secondary source has ever connected Pliny's remarks with Ms. Zita's hypothesis... Regrettably, he has not responded to my appeal for talkpage dialogue, except to carry on a low-level edit war of simply reinstating the Pliny quote without comment, as he has just done yet again. This is all the more perplexing, as he seems like he may be a seasoned editor, one who ought to know the ropes.
I am not personally as familiar with the "Zanclean flood", as I am with Pliny, so I don't know how widely received Ms. Zita's theory may or not be - but I do know something smells fishy about quoting Pliny as an authority on it. It is therefore with reluctance that I am bringing the "Zanclean-Pliny" connection - which would seem to be novel, unpublished research - to the attention of this fringe board, in order to get additional input or advice, and perhaps break this deadlock. Thanks for your time, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
ExpertResearcher seems to be the only member on Wikipedia of an army fighting to link Aluminium (e.g. in anti-persiprants) to increased risk of Alzheimer's. -- Elvey ( talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
New editor asserting that this is actually a sovereign nation, calling US courts 'quasi-courts', etc. I'm at 2RR now. Dougweller ( talk) 19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Readers of this board may be interested in recent activity at Redemption movement and the related discussion at WP:NPOVN#Redemption movement. (The article describes its subject as "claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money. The movement asserts that common citizens can gain access to these funds using obscure procedures and regulations.") Some experienced, uninvolved eyes may be helpful.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a pov stub pushing fringe ideas. It failed DYK because it is just a stub, but enlarging it might just end up with more fringe pushing. Dougweller ( talk) 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a WP:POVFORK, but I think the organization and associated content of the article probably violates WP:FRINGE:
-- Ronz ( talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, the Uffe Ravnskov article looks like it could use WP:FTN attention? Eastsidehastings ( talk) 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The batshit idea of lunar perigee causing the earthquake off Japan is currently flooding the internet about as fast as the tsunami itself. Even the UK's second-most-widely-read (and notoriously obscurantist) newspaper has done a terrible piece in its 'science and technology' section. Articles to watch are supermoon, Orbit of the Moon where something has been added, and no doubt 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, although the word supermoon does not appear in the current revision of that article. A lot of confused people will be turning to Wikipedia in the next few hours and days, particularly to look up the word "supermoon". 82.46.43.33 ( talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise these are rather large, well-developed articles, and I don't want to criticise the people who worked on them... but does anyone else think the existence of Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments represents massively excessive coverage for what are, ultimately, fringe theories? No serious lawyer thinks that American citizens don't have a duty to pay income tax, but we have three lengthy articles discussing exactly that question. This looks like undue weight to me. Robofish ( talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On the question about the massive amount of space devoted to tax protester arguments, the number of articles, etc.: I absolutely agree that the amount of space is large. The history behind this is that tax protesters, over the years, have persistently invaded Wikipedia and posted nonsense in "regular" tax articles. When I began editing Wikipedia in late 2005, and for several years thereafter, this was a significant problem. Experienced editors constantly had to move this stuff to a separate article on tax protesters. Eventually, the material in the one "tax protester" article became so large and ungainly that it was split up into the numerous articles you see now. Things have been relatively quiet in recent times, but we never know when another "attack" comes.
My personal preference would be to keep the articles as they are. Of course, I and other editors have invested a huge amount of work in getting them to this point.
Now, a word about the use of primary sources. One of the problems with articles on tax protester topics is that often primary sources are the only sources available. For example, tax protesters will come in and post some nonsense, citing some court case or another. The only way to deal with it is to delete it or to refer to that primary source, showing what the actual ruling of the court was.
Each and every one of the issues discussed in the articles is there because a tax protester came to Wikipedia and put it there, or because it is an issue that tax protesters have raised in court, etc. Indeed, the very citations to the court cases are proof that these are "tax protester arguments".
I would argue that these are not examples of "original synthesis". Almost every protester argument presented is countered with a citation to an actual court case where the argument was raised by someone and rejected by the court. There is a certain level of "disfavor" in Wikipedia regarding the use of primary sources, because of the rule on No Original Research. However, I contend that the use of primary sources is OK as long as the POLICY behind the "No Original Research" rule is upheld.
I would argue that a main goal of the rule is to prevent editors from using Wikipedia to put primary source A with rule A together with primary source B with rule B to formulate a new "rule C" -- a rule that is NOT found in source A or B. That is a classic example of prohibited Original Research, of a synthesis (and a faulty one at that).
In other words, I would argue that the mere use of primary sources does not necessarily constitute "synthesis." And the mere use of primary sources -- even extensive use of primary sources -- does not in and of itself constitute "Original Research" as that term is used in Wikipedia.
I would argue that the tax protester articles do not contain the flaw of "synthesis."
These articles have been reviewed, I would guess, by hundreds or perhaps thousands of legal scholars who read Wikipedia. If you look at the edit histories, you will see that for several years now the articles have been very stable -- in the sense that there are virtually no critiques from experienced editors (and relatively few attacks from tax protesters). The accuracy of these articles in describing the state of the law has not been a subject of serious debate. Indeeed, the articles have become so stable that there has been virtually no debate at all about them in recent years.
I obviously have personally put a tremendous amount of work into these articles, so my defense of their current condition can be considered with that in mind. My argument on this would be: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Famspear ( talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Famspear ( talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In my view, the use of primary sources is not, in and of itself, "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Again, I would argue that compressing these articles is going to be defeating our own purpose. If there is prohibited "original research" in one of the articles, then let's identify it and deal with it.
Another point: There actually is relatively little in the way of scholarly, previously published articles about tax protesters (and the articles we have found are cited). That's partly because -- by definition -- it's a fringe topic. You aren't going to find volumes and volumes of scholarly articles previously published on the subject. What you ARE going to find is a massive amount of information published by tax protesters on the internet -- and a massive number of actual court decisions, absolutely none of which have ever upheld any tax protester argument (without a single exception, as of this writing).
But because of the nature of the way tax protesters tend to operate on the internet, the only effective ways to counter their tendentious postings in Wikipedia with "balance" is either to delete the postings, perhaps swithout regard to the three revert rule (under some sort of exemption similar to that for vandalism or defamatory material on living persons), or to allow the "escape valve" of the existence of these (in my humble opinion) well-written, well sourced Wikipedia articles devoted specifically to this topic.
I would reiterate my view: Use of a primary source is not in and of itself prohibited "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Any reading of any source, whether primary or secondary, involves some judgment and interpretation by a Wikipedia editor. The use of each source, primary or secondary, should be evaluated on its own merits, and not on the sole basis of whether that source is primary or not. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
One of our Hindutva pals has been adding assertions about "Marxist" historians to several pages, notably the claim that Panikkar comes from "the Marxist tradition of historiography" [43]. This may well be correct. One would expect there to be such a tradition in India during the post-war period. However, as far as I can see none of the four "sources" cited in Panikkar article assert that he is a Marxist. Most simply suggest that he holds leftist views, and one refers to something called "cultural Marxism". Ironically, much of the rest of the article is a panegyric. The article Marxist historiography was originally solely about India. Now there is one, barely comprehensible and wholly uncited, section on India. I'm sure there was/is a real school of Marxist history in India, but this whole area is confused because the Indian right's tendency to slap the term "Marxist" onto anyone with a vaguely liberal-secular viewpoint. Paul B ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.
I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.
I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP edit warring at the article, adding long lists of honorifics about a fringe author and treating conspiracy theories as fact - all sourced to self pub sources, Youtube and Rense.com. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, rense.com is used 641 times in WP. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
A "royal race", but is this revert justified, i.e. is a classification from British colonial days usable without other source, or is this a primary source? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.
LaRouche, under the pen name
Lyn Marcus, authored a book,
Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (
entry at archive.org), published by
D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed
[48]
[49] in the
American Economic Review, published by the
American Economic Association. The review states,
That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in
Google Scholar and in
Google Books.
According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had
meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --
JN
466 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Editor trying to call this a scientific theory. Dougweller ( talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems like a fringe-theory just based on a single primary source. also related articles like Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe. His Final Anthropic Principle is based on his idea for the Resurrection of the dead. His views are fringed shown by the lack of any mainstream acceptance. As well as Final_anthropic_principle his views have also been slipped into Cornucopian, Anthropic_principle, Plenitude_principle, Zeno_machine, Fine-structure_constant, Fermi_paradox, Social_constructionism, Self-replicating_spacecraft, Paul_J._McAuley possibly also Quantum_suicide_and_immortality. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Some active editing here again and needs more eyes as I can't keep reverting. Dougweller ( talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this belongs here, at least first, as it involves fringe issues, RS, and NPOV. Brown Willy Cairns is not a fringe article, or rather it shouldn't be, although I believe it was created with the purpose of further publicising Christian O'Brien's ideas. The last paragraph first introduces a suggestion of astronomical alignments via a book by Rodney Castleden, a reliable source although the book is talking about Brown Willy Hill, not the cairns, and I can't find the date claimed. It then goes on to say " It has also been suggested that around this date (c. 2700 BC), midsummer sunrise would have aligned over Brown Willy South Cairn if an observer were standing in the supposed centre of King Arthur's Hall and, when viewing from the centre of Craddock Moor Stone Circle, the midsummer sun would have set precisely over Brown Willy North Cairn. This has suggested some astronomical purpose in cairn placement and construction. It has been speculated that the remains of over 100 ridge-top cairns are still on Bodmin Moor." all sourced to "C. A. E. O'Brien; Barbara Joy O'Brien (1997). The Shining Ones: An Account of the Development of Early civilizations through the Direct Assistance of Powers Incarnated on Earth... : A Philosophical Discussion Based on Ancient Mystical and Secular Documents, Dianthus Publications" - I think his books are basically self-published by Christian Brann's Dianthus Publishing, whose only other output seems to be a cricketing book - even the website devoted to his ideas described them as 'printed', not published.
So, should O'Brien be used here at all?
Just searching while writing, I see that the reason I can't find mention of the cairns in Castleden is that no one seems to call these the 'Brown Willy Cairns' except O'Brien, and even 'Brown Willy Summit Cairn' seems to be a made up name. I can find references to "Two large summit cairns crown Brown Willy" etc, so the cairns are real, the name isn't. Damn. I'd been assuming there was a reason that we should have this article not related to O'Brien, but these cairns seem to be pretty trivial, reinforcing my belief that the only purpose of the article is to push O'Brien's ideas, which is an admitted goal of the editor. Maybe AfD is the way to go, but the issue I've raised about where we should be using O'Brien needs addressing. Dougweller ( talk) 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
First, I have to invite anyone questioning the existence of two cairns to expand the image of the view from Brown Willy Summit. Brown Willy South Cairn is clearly visible. Also, two are shown in the map sources (use Ordinance Survey and not Satellite imagery) and uulian Cope's The Modern Antiquarian calls them Brown Willy Cairns, with a broken link to Wikipedia's previously non-extant coverage of them (that's no longer broken). Here's some other points regarding article cleanup:
Is it correct to have Free Energy machine creators tagged as inventors when no device exists or no working device was created? (obviously they are inventors if, besides claimed free energy machines, they invented actual devices) IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently, a section was added to the article on magnetic reconnection. As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe plasma cosmology theory which has been strongly refuted by cosmologists and astrophysicists. The user has also displayed alarming incivility on the talk page, which has essentially become a flame war. I attempted to take the offending section of this article down, but the author undid this attempt multiple times. As a plasma physics researcher, I attest that this section strongly misrepresents the state of knowledge in the field and does not belong in an article on this topic, and therefore should be deleted. I am afraid that if this user is not blocked from editing this page, that this could go on indefinitely. Spacehippy ( talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This issue has also been posted on the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. Spacehippy ( talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An administrator has imposed a one month block on the user in question. Barring sockpuppets or anonymous updates, this is probably resolved. Spacehippy ( talk) 03:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The fringe POV push at Talk:Astrology has been intensifying, and turning increasingly disruptive. How does one officially make them aware of the pseudoscience arbitration, such that they are sanctionable if they escalate the disruption? Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Was alerted about this article from a posting on WP:RSN, but several editors are pushing questionable medical information about the curative powers of cow urine from questionable sources like patents and www.love4cow.com. More eyes would be probably be a good idea. Yobol ( talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we have more eyes on this one? Another editor has requested that I look into it, but it gives me a headache. Maybe someone else can sort through it better to see what might need to be changed. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Romit bharadwaj ( talk · contribs) pushing Out of India theory around the block. An old trope on this board and elsewhere from the Hindutva wars of the past, but worth keeping an eye out for even now. Moreschi ( talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Heads-up re Homeopathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The so-called "world homeopathy awareness week" is 10-17 April. Homeopathy advocates are making extensive use of social media, they seriously hate the Wikipedia article because it is accurate and unbiased. Expect an onslaught. Guy ( Help!) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how this survived AfD. There are lots of claims written as fact and no sources that could be considered reliable. I especially love the "creature" infobox featuring 'grouping', 'habitat', etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus agrees this is the wrong forum
The Resident Anthropologist (
Talk /
contribs) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue. The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death. The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo, you're claiming to be uninvoved, but that's very clearly not true. You're being extremely aggressive, archiving my posts in multiple places, and reverting when I restore them. I have asked here for fresh eyes, and it's not up to you to decide whether I may do that. If people don't want to respond, they'll ignore the requests. It's appropriate here because LaRouche is a fringe thinker, and I want to make sure editors used to dealing with that—and perhaps used to dealing with cults—are aware of these RfCs.
SlimVirgin
TALK|
CONTRIBS 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Ancient Wisdom New Dawn Society is an unsourced article. I'm not sure if this is a school of Yoga in the sense of a type of Yoga or an organisation that teaches a recognised type, or if it is just a fringe group. I'm still only around sporadically until Friday or Saturday. Dougweller ( talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a question in the case of torsion field (pseudoscience) what the primary notion of torsion field is. In the peer-reviewed physics literature, the torsion field is another way of referring to the torsion tensor. However, there is also a pseudoscientific theory that is only loosely related to this (if at all). My interpretation of WP:FRINGE is that the primary idea should be the one used by the relevant scholarly community. However, an editor at Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)#Requested move is arguing that scholarly physics sources are "biased", and that the primary notion is the pseudoscientific one (which he acknowledges as "crackpot garbage"). He bases this assessment (apparently) on the larger number of raw Google hits referring to the pseudoscientific notion. But this seems to me to violate the spirit of WP:FRINGE, which attests: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Is my interpretation of the guideline applicable here? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone have time to review this article? At a glance, it looks like it needs a rewrite from a WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Request that editors keep a precautionary eye on this one. Petecarney ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Page editors constantly take down POV notice when dispute as not been resolved. No negative information about city of any kind is allowed to remain.
Can someone take a look at the Race and crime article? It seems to me to be attempting to present what is at best fringe science as mainstream. The currant major contributor is asking for others to offer mainstream alternatives to the theory, but personally I think that this would be giving it more credibility than it deserves. It uses the term 'race' in a widely-varying (but never defined) manner, assumes that 'IQ' is a real measure of an objective 'intelligence', and generally lacks any objectivity in its presentation of data. In short, it is pushing a minority POV based on dubious racist biologically-determinist theories, wile taking no account of the overwhelming scientific consensus that such theories are unsupportable, and not based on valid science. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 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. |
I came across this in the backlog drive. As far as I can tell this is not a cut-and-paste; however, GBooks produces exact one hit, for a book published in 2008. Regular googling is not much more promising. I'm inclined to go the AFD route but I'm looking for other opinions. Mangoe ( talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
We could use a few more watchful eyes at 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've been noticing a tendency of edits which add content explaining the fringe viewpoint without also adding content explaining the mainstream viewpoint. The end result is an article skewed in favor of a fringe theory and thus violating WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently, User:Arjun024 added a section on that article about India [1]. While a section on India would be highly welcome, I find the current addition unacceptable. Not a single reliable source is used (some are even wikipedia articles or dead links), some of the material is completely irrelevant to the topic (e.g. nagarvadhu), and an unmistakable Hindutva "in-ancient-India-everything-was-wonderful-until-the-Muslims-came-and-ruined-everything" POV is redolent throughout. I have explained my reasoning in detail on the talkpage [2]. Any input or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem I have mentioned in this section:
More eyes are needed there. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at these short sections which address problems with the article and its title:
Brangifer ( talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Gives a lot of weight to the Libyan conspiracy theories about Westerners intentionally infecting children with AIDS; very problematic given the BLP issues here. (Crossposted to BLP noticeboard) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Although housed in userspace and explained as both an essay and a "thought exercise and philosophical venture", the fringe science + soapbox flavor makes me think it may fall under WP:UPNOT as "extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article...because it is pure original research." I'd be inclined to take it to MfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Could people please check out the history of this page and see whether I made a good call or not in reverted and posting to WP:RFPP for full protection? NW ( Talk) 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be in favor of unlocking pseudoskepticism to facilitate further discussions & improvements. It does seem a little over the top since there hasn't been much activity there prior to this episode (which possibly could have been handled with merely a reversion). In any case, there are now more eyes on the topic and the seeds of fruitful collaboration have been sown, so I'll point HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) to this thread and suggest that the protection isn't necessary. — Scien tizzle 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Just passing this on: Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo. Buckets full of crazy, including a lede which proclaims it to be a "theory of evolution". There's lots of craziness which you can find from various subcategories of philosophy in amongst all the articles in Category:Integral thought. Some of it is legitimate religious content, but some of it may need to be deleted or edited to meet WP policy. — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Both have just been returned to an earlier badly referenced, OR laden state. Dougweller ( talk) 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:September 11 attacks#Time to eliminate the Conspiracy Theories section. This particular dispute is only in part a fringe issue, as the editors involved largely agree that the theories meet the definition of WP:FRINGE. The disagreement is about the notability of the theories, and about how to treat notable fringe theories. Cs32en Talk to me 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
New editor making massive changes that seem to favour this odd viewpoint. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Some editors want to describe the controversy about EP on the main EP page. Others want to describe the controversy only on a separate "controversy" page. Those who want to describe the controversy refer to a textbook and an encyclopedia that both describe it. They also tend to be people who think that EP is bunk. Those who want not to describe the controversy question the others' sources and say that the controversy belongs on another page. Is the controversy a mainstream topic that deserves coverage, or a fringe topic that doesn't? Leadwind ( talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is an issue about undue weight.
An editor is arguing that my version of Wilbert Rideau here is giving too much weight to Billy Sinclair, Rideau's co-editor and now arch-enemy. Many of the early journalism awards that Wilbert Rideau picked up were joint awards with Billy Sinclair. The other editor rarely mentions Sinclair in his version, here. I argue that his version is putting too little weight in Sinclair's role in Rideau, particularly Sinclair's partnership with Rideau and his continuing legal conflicts and personal conflicts between Rideau and Sinclair.
WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Re the post above by WhisperToMe: Sinclair was co-editor of The Angolite from 1980 to 1986 -- six of the 25 years Rideau edited the magazine. I realize that WhisperToMe found a news article that incorrectly reported Sinclair was co-editor in 1978, but even Sinclair himself in his autobiography says he became co-editor in 1980. Rideau has had no contact with, and nothing to do with Sinclair in the quarter-century since Sinclair left The Angolite in 1986. He has moved on in his work and has produced, alone and with other collaborators, award-winning work in radio, television, and print, all of which another editor keeps minimizing or burying at the end of the article. [User: Eye Smith]
User:DIREKTOR constantly repeating on this talk page that term "Nedic regime" was used as a name of WW2 Serbia by the sources. We cannot come to that conclusion from these sources that he presented. All these sources mentioning term "Nedic regime" as a name of regime, not as a name of a country. Therefore, the way in which DIREKTOR insisting that article about WW2 country is named "Nedic regime" is clearly an example of unsourced fringe theory in which name of an regime is identified as a name of Serbia by this user. No single source is supporting his claim that "Nedic regime" was used as a name of a country (i.e. as a name of Serbia). I also opened this question in third opinion request, but it is rather an example of unsourced fringe theory. The problem is that user DIREKTOR also thinks that he owns that article and he not allowing to anybody to change this article name, which is based on his fringe theory. PANONIAN 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll preface this by admitting that in my opinion, the entry Norwegian diaspora is of dubious merit for a variety of reasons. But that's not the issue I'm bringing here. The specific problem is that an editor keeps on adding material to the entry about the Viking expansion, the settlement of Iceland and the conquest of Normandy. He is also tagging entries like Settlement of Iceland with the Category:Norwegian diaspora. Even the rare usages of the term "Norwegian diaspora" do not include these migrations/settlements to be part of the subject matter. The justification for usage is one mere source by a professor of ancient Norse poetry, who uses the term once in a book. Some additional comments on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Explanation of some of the additional squabbling around this topic in case anyone is wondering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Update - Now the same editor is also edit warring to keep the category on Norse colonization of the Americas. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the latest...
What should we say about the testability of EP hypotheses? We have a Psychology textbook that says it's not impossible to test them, specifically in response to critics who say it might be impossible. We have Encyclopedia Britannica that also says EP hypotheses have been tested with impressive findings. No comparable source says they can't be tested, though individual critics maintain that viewpoint (apparently a minority viewpoint).
Should we say "hypotheses can be tested" (what the textbook literally says, and Britannica emphatically implies). Or "According to the majority viewpoint, hypotheses can be tested" (using "majority viewpoint" wording from WP:WEIGHT) Or "According to evolutionary psychologists, hypotheses can be tested"?
The more general question is this: should we report on a majority viewpoint regarding EP, and if so how do we determine what the majority viewpoint is? This issue is tricky because every minority-viewpoint editor resists the idea of giving the majority viewpoint any favorable treatment.
It's an interesting talk page with outspoken editors. The topic attracts a lot of detractors. Leadwind ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you believe the article, this is some seriously antibiotic stuff. Mangoe ( talk) 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(And I'm using the word "Fascist" in a sense which does not involve Hitler or Neo-Nazis, FWIW.)
After a month's absense from monitoring the page Second Italo-Abyssinian War, when I returned to look at it yesterday I was surprised to find the section Atrocities primarily focussed on Ethiopian atrocities inflicted on the Italians who just happened to be the agressor in that conflict. After counting to ten, then examining the sources offered (e.g., one of the allegations made in that section was that Ethiopian soldiers indulged in their traditional practice of castrating wounded, dead or captured Italian soldiers during the conflict, something I was unaware & dubious that it did happen) I felt the material either misrepresented the sources cited, relied on sources that were not immediately accessible (e.g., a British writer was quoted as claiming Italian use of mustard gas was justified, but the source cited was written in Italian), or clearly biassed (e.g. Italian materials submitted to the League of Nations in defence of their use of mustard gas). Oh yeah, & I was very offended by the content. So I reverted it. Then I found that the person responsible had been banned for unrelated reasons, & felt my actions were justified.
So I was surprised to find this morning that my edit had been reverted by another editor with a note to look at Tito Minniti. That article presented the Italian defense for using mustard gas with a slightly more NPOV tone, but likewise misquoted its sources. So I went back to my preferred version, but added a note about the Italian justification giving it the weight I felt it had.
So am I locked into a revert war here? Or should I just walk away & allow someone (naively, I hope) insert an offensive apology for Italian atrocities in that war? (For the record, I admit I have a conflict of interest here. I spent my free time yesterday writing Yekatit 12, about another Italian atrocity in Ethiopia. And my grandfather was gassed in WWI, so I'm not entirely objective about the use of this weapon.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There is some discussion of this in books accessible via google books [4], which certainly suggests that the current version is one sided, to say the least. I've rewritten the Minniti article in line with that source and another from 1937. It certainly seems that the atrocity version is very dubious. Paul B ( talk) 12:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
An SPA, Ontologicos ( talk • contribs) , insists on removing material critical of Enneagram proponents. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Torsion field ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your archives indicate you may not have taken a look at this article since 2009. It is chock full of assertions which struggle to present it as more than a fringe theory, such as ""torsion field theory has been embraced as the scientific explanation of homeopathy, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena[citation needed]." Cheers, Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a promo for a non-notable device for which fringe claims are made. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I come here to an area of people that do not believe in anything paranormal and ask why this page is even being discussed here? I may want to go over to an atheist area and try to convince people there there is a God? Well I guess I will attempt at This device along with its subsequent generations, or versions of the same can be seen in use on Ghost Hunters, Ghost Hunters International, Paranormal State, Ghost Adventures and in many web based shows. It does have a dubious past and current history that is the chink in the armor of NPOV. It falls along the lines of Schrödinger's cat because of this; If I cannot prove ghosts exist then they must not exist. If cannot scientifically prove their existence then they do not exist because science cannot be done to verify a conclusion. Occam's razor because the simplest answer is they do not exist. However, within the realm of Paranormal phenomena does exist. And current String Theory theorists do allow for multiple dimensions that could actually be a membrane that touch our own dimension. Maybe that is where we go when we die and somehow the 2 are able to communicate through the gravitron (why is gravity so weak and EM is so much stronger?). Fringe is just that theories on the edge of what is "expected" of society and what is just too far out to believe. It seems that this group has a sole purpose to weed out theories that they may not believe in and therefore purge them from Wikipedia. I do not believe in God nor the Bible as it is written. I would not even conceive to dare to go to all of the bizarre Christian pages on Wikipedia and start deleting them. It is like fat people, they are the ones that are acceptable to still make fun of when being racist is no longer acceptable. The Ovilus is a product that has been shown on television multiple times, it is mentioned within the paranormal community, its page creation was part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal to do list. Yet, a person that deemed it "fringe" or way out there, can somehow recommend it to a group that wishes to purge it from WP due to their disbelief of the product. I don't believe that obscure 1940s radio equipment has any more place on Wikipedia than a hand built random word generator being used for "entertainment use only". There are countless other products on Wikipedia that have even less impact on the world that are left alone. Why is this product mentioned for deletion? Because it is part of a field that a group of people do not believe in. That is its lack of notability. Thank you for inviting me to this discussion I am sure it will be enlightening. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Ovilus has been on several times on Ghost Adventures but I cannot find any free to watch episodes to share here. Just remember one person's Fringe is another persons reality. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
From the Paranormal page US Citizens believing in the Parnormal:
belief | not sure | belief | not sure | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farha-Steward | Gallup | |||
psychic/ spiritual healing | 56 | 26 | 54 | 19 |
ESP | 28 | 39 | 50 | 20 |
haunted houses | 40 | 25 | 42 | 16 |
demonic possession | 40 | 28 | 41 | 16 |
ghosts/spirits of the dead | 39 | 27 | 38 | 17 |
telepathy | 24 | 34 | 36 | 26 |
extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past | 17 | 34 | 33 | 27 |
clairvoyance and prophecy | 24 | 33 | 32 | 23 |
communication with the dead | 16 | 29 | 28 | 26 |
astrology | 17 | 26 | 28 | 18 |
witches | 26 | 19 | 26 | 15 |
reincarnation | 15 | 28 | 25 | 20 |
channeling | 10 | 29 | 15 | 21 |
Those numbers even halved are hardly "fringe". I am not trying to show the lunar landings were fake, that there are aliens imbedded in chips implanted into our brains. I would consider those "fringe" items. Instead I am writing about a popular product that is in use within a large subset community of the US and even the world. When I see "fringe" being thrown about by people the first reaction is that the reason they are using it is they do not believe in something and therefore they deem it as "fringe". It is a fine line you walk when you start marginalizing things within your own mind. You see ghosts and ghost hunting as fringe because you do not do it personally. I do not ride dirtbikes and yet that has an article here on wikipedia with no threat of removal. Riding dirtbikes is a fringe to me, but I would not think of having it removed due to notability. Ghost hunting is a hobby for a portion of society and just because you consider it "small" does not make it so. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As the article stands this is true:
Those facts are there and can be disputed ad hoc, but as a whole do show a level of Notability that meets the standard set by Wikipedia. Belief or disbelief at this point has little to no bearing on this article in that it is listed as an entertainment product. The game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uno_(card_game) is an entertainment product and it has been shown on use on television, popular culture and within a subset community. It is allowed to stay on wikipedia because it meets those requirements. Ovilus meets those requirements too. «Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits are ok, but I've just removed something from a software designer who wrote a fringe book published by Inner Traditions. Needs more eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
New fringe article, possibly should be a redirect to Christian O'Brien. Dougweller ( talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There's some edit warring going on over at Polygenism talk over how much weight should be given to the work of Akhil Bakshi. If you read the talk page, you'll see that 86.10.119.131 (who has previously gotten stressed out about Kent Hovind etc.) claims to have reported 2/0 to a "Mod", by which he means User:Zachlipton (see User talk:Zachlipton). Polygenism manages to bring together two not-at-all-controversial topics: creationism and race. Have at it, fringe fans! — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The work of Akhil Bakshi is not "creationist", Akhil Bakshi is an evolutionist and supporter of the Multiregional Hypothesis his work is not "fringe" it is actually mainstream he concludes each race has evolved seperate on different continents, he is a member of a popular Anthropology research team he has spent over 6months touring the world backed by Indian's prime minister to support his work, he is a top grade scientist, i believe his work should be on wikipedia, but of course some may object to his work hence why they would want it censored. The user 2over0 deleted the Akhil Bakshi material a number of times, i believed he had a personal bias against this material, but as the user Zachlipton has pointed out, the articles which reference Akhil Bakshi are not enough. Akhil Bakshi has a scientific paper coming out and a book. We will wait til more information is reported, this issue is not controversial, and it has now been resolved. Polygenism is not all "creationist" as you can see from the article a number of evolutionists also support this position, it is not a "fringe belief". 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Akhil Bakshi in the newspaper This link here, if you read the two newspaper clippings, hes degrees are listed, hes also a well respected by the scientific community (he lead the Gondwanaland Expedition and was in charge of over 100 geologists, seismologists, zoologists, botanists, anthropologists and medical doctors, he is also a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuujinn most websites list Akhil Bakshi as a doctor. This is him here and part of a scientific team he has worked with. Scientists The follow three videos i suggest you watch to understand Akhil Bakshi's finds are based on science. Video 1 Video 2 (Caucasians and Asians have partial Neanderthal DNA (and part Cro-magnon), Africans don't have any. Neanderthal fossils have NEVER been found in Africa to date).
In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had, nothing more and nothing less. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. If mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring? Video 3
Im not sure what scientific valid sources you want Resident Anthropologist but there is alot of evidence which debunks the out of africa theory of human origins, i have over 10 peer reviewed journals with this information in published by well respected scientists, but that is not revelant here (you can look this up in your own time), concerning Akhil Bakshi there is no reviews yet but as you can see there are websites and newspaper reports about his work, he is writing a scientific paper on his finds and when it is published, im sure the mainstream scientific community will investigate his work and there will have many reviews to use as valid references. Concerning the weight of the information concerning Akhil Bakshi on wikipedia currently there is nothing about him on wikipedia, it has all been deleted. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just found some links which mention Akhil Bakshi please have a read through them.
Here is Akhil Bakshi's scientific paper:
"CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES" A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi
Another link mentioning his paper link 2
86.10.119.131 ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any problem with the first link.
Heres another link which supports polygenist evolution and the multiregional theory:
This website has alot of information on it which debunks the Out of Africa theory and has alot of information on it about the Multiregional Theory, the book was written by a respected anthropologist, his book has sold many copies Link 3 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
More evidence:
Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa? The discovery of 400,000 year old teeth debunk Out of Africa theory
Anthropologists Dispute Latest ‘Out of Africa’ Claims
110,000-year-old Chinese Fossil Poses Challenge to 'Out of Africa' Theory
Fossil challenge to Africa theory
Georgian skeletons challenge 'out of Africa' theory
86.10.119.131 ( talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Both the Multiregional and the Out of Africa theory articles are biased and censored, for example the 110,000 year old fossil is added right at the bottom of the page of the Recent African origin of modern humans article and one line is given to it?, where is the criticism section on the Recent African origin of modern humans article? There is none. Why is the 400,000 tooth which was found in Israel not mentioned on either of the articles???? Bias going on here, the tooth and these other finds should be added to both those articles, especially the tooth becuase it supports the multiregional. There is evidence against the Recent African origin of modern humans and it is not put on the wikipedia article. This is unacceptable. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Recent African origin of modern humans the oldest fossil evidence should be in Africa, but the oldest current find in the world is found in Israel, so already we have fossil evidence against the out of africa theory, this evidence clearly supports Polygenism and the Multiregional origin of modern humans and this evidence should put on wikipedia. 400,000 year old teeth found in Israel completly challenge the out of africa theory please look at link 1 and link 2. A section about this needs to be added to these articles, if thesesections are not added i will add them myself, let's have some honesty on wikipedia please, censoring material just becuase you don't like it needs to stop. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the scientific paper:
Published in the The American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel)
Regarding the DNA tests they are apparently being done at the moment. There will be a further report on this, so heads up. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist i respect your comments and your opinions, but you really are just being annoying now and following me all over wikipedia on purpose and leaving comments and watching every edit i make, can you please leave me alone. If you actually look at your history since you have been on wikipedia you have never actually added anything to wikipedia, if you just want to spend your time deleting peoples material and leaving 100s of comments that is up to you but the whole point in wikipedia is to add material. This conversation is now closed, if you wish to continue it that is up to you, but i will no longer comment here. I suggest an Admin can please delete all this polygenism section off this Fringe notice board becuase the material regarding Akhil Bakshi and other multiregional finds will never be put on wikipedia you have made it clear you do not want it, so what is the point in continuing this debate? None. I am out. Thanks. 86.10.119.131 ( talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone would see if I've gone too far in reverting what I see as someone's attempt to remove criticism from the article - see their comments on the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The Shugborough inscription is a carving on a monument in Staffordshire, England, consisting of the 10 alphabetic characters "D_OUOSVAVV_M". Many theories have been proposed as to its meaning, but none has received widespread acceptance. Suggestions since 1982 of a link with Priory of Sion have increased the number of people aware of the carving and who have tried to decrypt it.
Edits to the article have recently been made by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady. These give predominant weight to a proposal made in 2011 by fringe historian A. J. Morton (whose website is here). The editors' desire has been to devote to Morton's theory an entire paragraph in the introductory section and an entire later subsection, neither of which 'honour' is given to any specific rival theory. I would contend that this would be to give his theory an unfair and unencyclopedic prominence.
Initially the main reference was to coverage of Morton's theory in the Irvine Times, a newspaper published in Irvine, a town in Ayrshire, Scotland. This was somewhat grandiosely referred to as "the Times". Morton himself has written at least one article in the said newspaper, on the history of the potato. (He also claims to have discovered a "medieval power centre" called Evonium, and asserts that the Holy Grail may have been brought to Kilwinning, also in Ayrshire). There have been further articles on his Shugborough theory in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.
Morton contends that the letters refer to the "Viscount Anson" who inherited the Shugborough Estate in 1806, and his mother Mary under her maiden name of "Vernon Venables". He also believes there is an acronymic reference to the parish which relates to the viscountcy, "Orgreave", described as "United" with "Overley".
Both Andrew Baker and Richard Belfield have pointed out that the "mystic ciphers", almost certainly of the carving, were referred to in a poem of 1767, and therefore the inscription could not refer to circumstances which lay 39 years in the future.
It is emphasised that no theory has yet been widely accepted, and all existing theories are highly speculative or even tendentious. No theory, so far, has been published which rest on a solid cryptographic footing. As well as Morton's theory, other suggestions mentioned in the article include:
(acrostic)
(anagrammatic)
(pronunciation)
I would argue that Morton's theory ("Viscount Anson Vernon Venables - Orgreave, United with Overley - Shugborough") sits appropriately in the above list. It should not be given undue weight apropos the other theories.
Edits such as those by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady which give Morton's theory such undue weight should therefore not be allowed to stand.
Elephantwood has put a lot of work into removing the only sensible solution we've ever heard (is just me or does it sound very believable?), but his underhanded and dishonest representation of the facts surely can't be allowed to continue in an Encyclopedia environment. 85.179.79.107 ( talk) 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Elephantwood has now been warned for abuse (namecalling) by wiki defender. 85.179.75.25 ( talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there has been a great deal of edit-warring concerning Martin Gardner's book, especially concerning the reaction to it. Denizens of the noticeboard may with to take a look. Mangoe ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A user is insisting that Napoleon and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor are undisputably Italian, and has provided sources to back this up, although some are a bit dubious, as it isn't clear whether some of them refer to personality or nationality. Making them Italian also seems to contradict the consensus reached on these people's respective articles. I'm therefore not sure if it's a fringe theory, POV editing, or entirely appropriate to give someone dual nationality when their article does not say so. I'm sure that adding the equivalent of "Napoleon was Italian!!" to his article wouldn't stick for long. Egg carton ( talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
See Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills. Dougweller ( talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As a spill over from some long standing debate at Ten Commandments a couple of editors are insisting on pushing a very odd minority POV at Ritual decalogue regarding it's status as term used to describe a certain list of commandments in the Hebrew bible. Some knowledgeable eyes would be helpful. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Editor in question, Gwillhickers, has posted fringe claims to the article main space: edit #1 [7] & #2 [8]. He had no evidence; this directly contradicts majority historical opinion, [9]. Editor claimed in edit #1 there were 20-25 other possibilities as the the Hemings father as opposed to Jefferson, but the DNA study doesn't say anything about 20-25 others; in fact, the "absence of historical evidence" made or other "possibilities...unlikely". He then accused in edit #2 the scholars who do not agree with his version as being biased. He added these conspiracy theories to the main page of the article. 4 different editors who tried to reason with him saying he was misquoting information, ignoring certain facts, and ignoring wikipedia policies: 1) [10], 2) [11] & 3) [12], including myself in detail here 4) [13] & here [14]. I reported him to the WP:OR noticeboard [15], and he scoffed at it [16].
Now he's adding more info:
He's now resorting to inventing history by directly implying a 14 yr old trapped her slave owner into a relationship, something so ridiculous that some of us take exception to it. An editor warned him [19], and so did I [20]. Perhaps I'm mistaken but his response looks like a threat to me "Please watch it." [21]. It appears Gwillhickers will say anything to get his version of history, and he's argued for months, and he's making the article impossible to work on.
At least 2 editors other than myself classify his work as "extreme...pov pushing" & as "protecting TJ's legacy concerning Hemings" [22] [23], and one is an historian who said today "The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship" etc.
Historical opinion has changed since 1998, and that is reflected in a number of sources "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings" [24], and there's more on that if needed, including numerous awards & the Pulitzer Prize & Fellowship Gordon-Reed won last year, which caused even long-time supporters to change their pov. Now we've got someone attempting to control the article and demanding the lead & main body conform to his ideas as opposed to historical mainstream thought. We can no longer assume good faith after months of this. Ebanony ( talk) 08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My main concerns are still the O'Brien stuff above as that is affecting some of our more serious articles, but I ran into someone editing various fringe articles which led me to this one which has needed a cleanup since 2008 at least. Dougweller ( talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed a "Health" section from Coconut oil after it was recently added, because it contains copyrighted information and what appear to be fringe theories on the health benefits. From what I can make of the edits, most came from an old version of the article that is yet to be identified. The edit summaries don't shed light on any of it, but this NYTimes article that was added as a reference may have been the impetus for the changes.
Anyone have time to look at the this? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
From Zanclean flood, we learn that it is a hypothetical Mediterranean flood, theorized by Maria Bianca Zita, whilst on a 1972 cruise, to have taken place roughly 5.33 million years ago.
Now that part might not be "fringe", and normally I wouldn't care. But I do care when I see User:Michael C Price keeps introducing a lengthy quote from Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), in support of this hypothetical flood.
I have removed it several times, explaining things like "Original synthesis", and how we can't just assume Pliny had anything to say about a flood 5.33 million years ago - unless *perhaps* some published secondary source has ever connected Pliny's remarks with Ms. Zita's hypothesis... Regrettably, he has not responded to my appeal for talkpage dialogue, except to carry on a low-level edit war of simply reinstating the Pliny quote without comment, as he has just done yet again. This is all the more perplexing, as he seems like he may be a seasoned editor, one who ought to know the ropes.
I am not personally as familiar with the "Zanclean flood", as I am with Pliny, so I don't know how widely received Ms. Zita's theory may or not be - but I do know something smells fishy about quoting Pliny as an authority on it. It is therefore with reluctance that I am bringing the "Zanclean-Pliny" connection - which would seem to be novel, unpublished research - to the attention of this fringe board, in order to get additional input or advice, and perhaps break this deadlock. Thanks for your time, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
ExpertResearcher seems to be the only member on Wikipedia of an army fighting to link Aluminium (e.g. in anti-persiprants) to increased risk of Alzheimer's. -- Elvey ( talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
New editor asserting that this is actually a sovereign nation, calling US courts 'quasi-courts', etc. I'm at 2RR now. Dougweller ( talk) 19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Readers of this board may be interested in recent activity at Redemption movement and the related discussion at WP:NPOVN#Redemption movement. (The article describes its subject as "claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money. The movement asserts that common citizens can gain access to these funds using obscure procedures and regulations.") Some experienced, uninvolved eyes may be helpful.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a pov stub pushing fringe ideas. It failed DYK because it is just a stub, but enlarging it might just end up with more fringe pushing. Dougweller ( talk) 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a WP:POVFORK, but I think the organization and associated content of the article probably violates WP:FRINGE:
-- Ronz ( talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, the Uffe Ravnskov article looks like it could use WP:FTN attention? Eastsidehastings ( talk) 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The batshit idea of lunar perigee causing the earthquake off Japan is currently flooding the internet about as fast as the tsunami itself. Even the UK's second-most-widely-read (and notoriously obscurantist) newspaper has done a terrible piece in its 'science and technology' section. Articles to watch are supermoon, Orbit of the Moon where something has been added, and no doubt 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, although the word supermoon does not appear in the current revision of that article. A lot of confused people will be turning to Wikipedia in the next few hours and days, particularly to look up the word "supermoon". 82.46.43.33 ( talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise these are rather large, well-developed articles, and I don't want to criticise the people who worked on them... but does anyone else think the existence of Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments represents massively excessive coverage for what are, ultimately, fringe theories? No serious lawyer thinks that American citizens don't have a duty to pay income tax, but we have three lengthy articles discussing exactly that question. This looks like undue weight to me. Robofish ( talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On the question about the massive amount of space devoted to tax protester arguments, the number of articles, etc.: I absolutely agree that the amount of space is large. The history behind this is that tax protesters, over the years, have persistently invaded Wikipedia and posted nonsense in "regular" tax articles. When I began editing Wikipedia in late 2005, and for several years thereafter, this was a significant problem. Experienced editors constantly had to move this stuff to a separate article on tax protesters. Eventually, the material in the one "tax protester" article became so large and ungainly that it was split up into the numerous articles you see now. Things have been relatively quiet in recent times, but we never know when another "attack" comes.
My personal preference would be to keep the articles as they are. Of course, I and other editors have invested a huge amount of work in getting them to this point.
Now, a word about the use of primary sources. One of the problems with articles on tax protester topics is that often primary sources are the only sources available. For example, tax protesters will come in and post some nonsense, citing some court case or another. The only way to deal with it is to delete it or to refer to that primary source, showing what the actual ruling of the court was.
Each and every one of the issues discussed in the articles is there because a tax protester came to Wikipedia and put it there, or because it is an issue that tax protesters have raised in court, etc. Indeed, the very citations to the court cases are proof that these are "tax protester arguments".
I would argue that these are not examples of "original synthesis". Almost every protester argument presented is countered with a citation to an actual court case where the argument was raised by someone and rejected by the court. There is a certain level of "disfavor" in Wikipedia regarding the use of primary sources, because of the rule on No Original Research. However, I contend that the use of primary sources is OK as long as the POLICY behind the "No Original Research" rule is upheld.
I would argue that a main goal of the rule is to prevent editors from using Wikipedia to put primary source A with rule A together with primary source B with rule B to formulate a new "rule C" -- a rule that is NOT found in source A or B. That is a classic example of prohibited Original Research, of a synthesis (and a faulty one at that).
In other words, I would argue that the mere use of primary sources does not necessarily constitute "synthesis." And the mere use of primary sources -- even extensive use of primary sources -- does not in and of itself constitute "Original Research" as that term is used in Wikipedia.
I would argue that the tax protester articles do not contain the flaw of "synthesis."
These articles have been reviewed, I would guess, by hundreds or perhaps thousands of legal scholars who read Wikipedia. If you look at the edit histories, you will see that for several years now the articles have been very stable -- in the sense that there are virtually no critiques from experienced editors (and relatively few attacks from tax protesters). The accuracy of these articles in describing the state of the law has not been a subject of serious debate. Indeeed, the articles have become so stable that there has been virtually no debate at all about them in recent years.
I obviously have personally put a tremendous amount of work into these articles, so my defense of their current condition can be considered with that in mind. My argument on this would be: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Famspear ( talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Famspear ( talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In my view, the use of primary sources is not, in and of itself, "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Again, I would argue that compressing these articles is going to be defeating our own purpose. If there is prohibited "original research" in one of the articles, then let's identify it and deal with it.
Another point: There actually is relatively little in the way of scholarly, previously published articles about tax protesters (and the articles we have found are cited). That's partly because -- by definition -- it's a fringe topic. You aren't going to find volumes and volumes of scholarly articles previously published on the subject. What you ARE going to find is a massive amount of information published by tax protesters on the internet -- and a massive number of actual court decisions, absolutely none of which have ever upheld any tax protester argument (without a single exception, as of this writing).
But because of the nature of the way tax protesters tend to operate on the internet, the only effective ways to counter their tendentious postings in Wikipedia with "balance" is either to delete the postings, perhaps swithout regard to the three revert rule (under some sort of exemption similar to that for vandalism or defamatory material on living persons), or to allow the "escape valve" of the existence of these (in my humble opinion) well-written, well sourced Wikipedia articles devoted specifically to this topic.
I would reiterate my view: Use of a primary source is not in and of itself prohibited "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Any reading of any source, whether primary or secondary, involves some judgment and interpretation by a Wikipedia editor. The use of each source, primary or secondary, should be evaluated on its own merits, and not on the sole basis of whether that source is primary or not. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
One of our Hindutva pals has been adding assertions about "Marxist" historians to several pages, notably the claim that Panikkar comes from "the Marxist tradition of historiography" [43]. This may well be correct. One would expect there to be such a tradition in India during the post-war period. However, as far as I can see none of the four "sources" cited in Panikkar article assert that he is a Marxist. Most simply suggest that he holds leftist views, and one refers to something called "cultural Marxism". Ironically, much of the rest of the article is a panegyric. The article Marxist historiography was originally solely about India. Now there is one, barely comprehensible and wholly uncited, section on India. I'm sure there was/is a real school of Marxist history in India, but this whole area is confused because the Indian right's tendency to slap the term "Marxist" onto anyone with a vaguely liberal-secular viewpoint. Paul B ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.
I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.
I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP edit warring at the article, adding long lists of honorifics about a fringe author and treating conspiracy theories as fact - all sourced to self pub sources, Youtube and Rense.com. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, rense.com is used 641 times in WP. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
A "royal race", but is this revert justified, i.e. is a classification from British colonial days usable without other source, or is this a primary source? Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.
LaRouche, under the pen name
Lyn Marcus, authored a book,
Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (
entry at archive.org), published by
D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed
[48]
[49] in the
American Economic Review, published by the
American Economic Association. The review states,
That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in
Google Scholar and in
Google Books.
According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had
meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --
JN
466 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Editor trying to call this a scientific theory. Dougweller ( talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems like a fringe-theory just based on a single primary source. also related articles like Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe. His Final Anthropic Principle is based on his idea for the Resurrection of the dead. His views are fringed shown by the lack of any mainstream acceptance. As well as Final_anthropic_principle his views have also been slipped into Cornucopian, Anthropic_principle, Plenitude_principle, Zeno_machine, Fine-structure_constant, Fermi_paradox, Social_constructionism, Self-replicating_spacecraft, Paul_J._McAuley possibly also Quantum_suicide_and_immortality. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Some active editing here again and needs more eyes as I can't keep reverting. Dougweller ( talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this belongs here, at least first, as it involves fringe issues, RS, and NPOV. Brown Willy Cairns is not a fringe article, or rather it shouldn't be, although I believe it was created with the purpose of further publicising Christian O'Brien's ideas. The last paragraph first introduces a suggestion of astronomical alignments via a book by Rodney Castleden, a reliable source although the book is talking about Brown Willy Hill, not the cairns, and I can't find the date claimed. It then goes on to say " It has also been suggested that around this date (c. 2700 BC), midsummer sunrise would have aligned over Brown Willy South Cairn if an observer were standing in the supposed centre of King Arthur's Hall and, when viewing from the centre of Craddock Moor Stone Circle, the midsummer sun would have set precisely over Brown Willy North Cairn. This has suggested some astronomical purpose in cairn placement and construction. It has been speculated that the remains of over 100 ridge-top cairns are still on Bodmin Moor." all sourced to "C. A. E. O'Brien; Barbara Joy O'Brien (1997). The Shining Ones: An Account of the Development of Early civilizations through the Direct Assistance of Powers Incarnated on Earth... : A Philosophical Discussion Based on Ancient Mystical and Secular Documents, Dianthus Publications" - I think his books are basically self-published by Christian Brann's Dianthus Publishing, whose only other output seems to be a cricketing book - even the website devoted to his ideas described them as 'printed', not published.
So, should O'Brien be used here at all?
Just searching while writing, I see that the reason I can't find mention of the cairns in Castleden is that no one seems to call these the 'Brown Willy Cairns' except O'Brien, and even 'Brown Willy Summit Cairn' seems to be a made up name. I can find references to "Two large summit cairns crown Brown Willy" etc, so the cairns are real, the name isn't. Damn. I'd been assuming there was a reason that we should have this article not related to O'Brien, but these cairns seem to be pretty trivial, reinforcing my belief that the only purpose of the article is to push O'Brien's ideas, which is an admitted goal of the editor. Maybe AfD is the way to go, but the issue I've raised about where we should be using O'Brien needs addressing. Dougweller ( talk) 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
First, I have to invite anyone questioning the existence of two cairns to expand the image of the view from Brown Willy Summit. Brown Willy South Cairn is clearly visible. Also, two are shown in the map sources (use Ordinance Survey and not Satellite imagery) and uulian Cope's The Modern Antiquarian calls them Brown Willy Cairns, with a broken link to Wikipedia's previously non-extant coverage of them (that's no longer broken). Here's some other points regarding article cleanup:
Is it correct to have Free Energy machine creators tagged as inventors when no device exists or no working device was created? (obviously they are inventors if, besides claimed free energy machines, they invented actual devices) IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently, a section was added to the article on magnetic reconnection. As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe plasma cosmology theory which has been strongly refuted by cosmologists and astrophysicists. The user has also displayed alarming incivility on the talk page, which has essentially become a flame war. I attempted to take the offending section of this article down, but the author undid this attempt multiple times. As a plasma physics researcher, I attest that this section strongly misrepresents the state of knowledge in the field and does not belong in an article on this topic, and therefore should be deleted. I am afraid that if this user is not blocked from editing this page, that this could go on indefinitely. Spacehippy ( talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This issue has also been posted on the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. Spacehippy ( talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An administrator has imposed a one month block on the user in question. Barring sockpuppets or anonymous updates, this is probably resolved. Spacehippy ( talk) 03:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The fringe POV push at Talk:Astrology has been intensifying, and turning increasingly disruptive. How does one officially make them aware of the pseudoscience arbitration, such that they are sanctionable if they escalate the disruption? Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Was alerted about this article from a posting on WP:RSN, but several editors are pushing questionable medical information about the curative powers of cow urine from questionable sources like patents and www.love4cow.com. More eyes would be probably be a good idea. Yobol ( talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we have more eyes on this one? Another editor has requested that I look into it, but it gives me a headache. Maybe someone else can sort through it better to see what might need to be changed. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Romit bharadwaj ( talk · contribs) pushing Out of India theory around the block. An old trope on this board and elsewhere from the Hindutva wars of the past, but worth keeping an eye out for even now. Moreschi ( talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Heads-up re Homeopathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The so-called "world homeopathy awareness week" is 10-17 April. Homeopathy advocates are making extensive use of social media, they seriously hate the Wikipedia article because it is accurate and unbiased. Expect an onslaught. Guy ( Help!) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how this survived AfD. There are lots of claims written as fact and no sources that could be considered reliable. I especially love the "creature" infobox featuring 'grouping', 'habitat', etc. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus agrees this is the wrong forum
The Resident Anthropologist (
Talk /
contribs) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue. The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death. The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo, you're claiming to be uninvoved, but that's very clearly not true. You're being extremely aggressive, archiving my posts in multiple places, and reverting when I restore them. I have asked here for fresh eyes, and it's not up to you to decide whether I may do that. If people don't want to respond, they'll ignore the requests. It's appropriate here because LaRouche is a fringe thinker, and I want to make sure editors used to dealing with that—and perhaps used to dealing with cults—are aware of these RfCs.
SlimVirgin
TALK|
CONTRIBS 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Ancient Wisdom New Dawn Society is an unsourced article. I'm not sure if this is a school of Yoga in the sense of a type of Yoga or an organisation that teaches a recognised type, or if it is just a fringe group. I'm still only around sporadically until Friday or Saturday. Dougweller ( talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a question in the case of torsion field (pseudoscience) what the primary notion of torsion field is. In the peer-reviewed physics literature, the torsion field is another way of referring to the torsion tensor. However, there is also a pseudoscientific theory that is only loosely related to this (if at all). My interpretation of WP:FRINGE is that the primary idea should be the one used by the relevant scholarly community. However, an editor at Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)#Requested move is arguing that scholarly physics sources are "biased", and that the primary notion is the pseudoscientific one (which he acknowledges as "crackpot garbage"). He bases this assessment (apparently) on the larger number of raw Google hits referring to the pseudoscientific notion. But this seems to me to violate the spirit of WP:FRINGE, which attests: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Is my interpretation of the guideline applicable here? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone have time to review this article? At a glance, it looks like it needs a rewrite from a WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Request that editors keep a precautionary eye on this one. Petecarney ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Page editors constantly take down POV notice when dispute as not been resolved. No negative information about city of any kind is allowed to remain.
Can someone take a look at the Race and crime article? It seems to me to be attempting to present what is at best fringe science as mainstream. The currant major contributor is asking for others to offer mainstream alternatives to the theory, but personally I think that this would be giving it more credibility than it deserves. It uses the term 'race' in a widely-varying (but never defined) manner, assumes that 'IQ' is a real measure of an objective 'intelligence', and generally lacks any objectivity in its presentation of data. In short, it is pushing a minority POV based on dubious racist biologically-determinist theories, wile taking no account of the overwhelming scientific consensus that such theories are unsupportable, and not based on valid science. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)