This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Just saw WP:ANI#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page - this looks relevant to a couple of fringe articles on British Israelism and Young Earth Creationism]]. Dougweller ( talk) 11:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 4#Category:Paranormal places. This category is very old. I think it's a safe bet that the conclusion will result in retention of the category but there might be reason to argue for a les credulous name. Mangoe ( talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has just been brought to my attention -- can't work out if it's completely off-the-wall, or simply impenetrably written -- though discussion in the article body, about proposals made in the French Wikipedia, aren't exactly promising. Enjoy! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Strong gravitational constant appears to be a non-notable fringe theory in which the strong interaction should be treated like gravity. On the notable hand, there are one or two mainstream articles on this (mainly Salam & Sivaram 1993) which got a few citations before interest dried up. On the fringe hand, this vague strong/gravity connection is apparently a component of User:fedosin's previously-AfD'ed cosmology ideas (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter). I voted against my own AfD on this article ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant) because of the Salam connection, thinking there might be a worthwhile article about that; but Fedosin wants the article to continue being about his own theory. See the AfD page for details on Fedosin's sources. Bm gub ( talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Several IPs editing this today adding either copyvio videos showing what they think are earthquake lights (but not mentioned in the video) or blogs, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the section above on the article on race & crime, I had a look at the US version of the article, and it badly needs work. For example, this section consists entirely of some dubious statistics sourced to a publication of the New Century Foundation ("dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation"). The New Century Foundation publication is also repeatedly used as a source in other sections. The article also gives fringe views like this one WP:UNDUE weight. These are just a couple of glaringly obvious problems I noticed from glancing at the article; there are likely to be many other problems that need work. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a contentious area so sources should be of good quality, i.e. peer reviewed academic or similar. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Another major problem with the article, it seems to me, is its very narrow focus. There are a lot of other very important topics that one might expect to find covered in an article on Race and crime in the United States; a historical perspective on the topic is completely missing for example. (Some relevant topics missing from the article include: People v. Hall, slave codes, lynchings, segregation, the American mafia, and undoubtedly many others). Also, a number of the sections in the current article still present egregiously fringe theories. I'm also going to be mostly wikibreaking, so I hope that there will be some more eyes on this article... CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
POV article written as though he was genuine. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged it as lacking neutrality/balance, but frankly I have doubts that Chapman meets WP:N in any case. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre ( talk · contribs) is working very hard to make it look like the racist theories of J. Philippe Rushton as laid out in his self-published Race, Evolution and Behavior have scholarly currency outside of the small group of scholars who have received funding from the Pioneer Fund for which Rushton is president. Miradre is currently pushing a source written by a graduate student in criminology who describes evidence in favor of the theory as "mixed" when researchers with expertise in the area have in fact unanimously rejected it as a prime example of scientific racism and pseudo science. This needs immediate attention by editors willing to read abit about the backgrund of Rushton and the reception of his theories about human evolution by scholars who actually know about evolution. The articles affected are Race and crime, Race and crime in the US and Race, Evolution and Behavior. This is egregious pov pushing that needs to be kept in check. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Loughlin and Mackintosh wrote that there is insufficient evidence to make any claim about genetics. Their work is published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The second abridged edition of Rushton's book was self-published and 50 pages long. The survey you mention was originally just a short paper of less than 10 pages. On wikipedia editors are asked to be very careful about evaluating sources. That's why we have WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Mathsci ( talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead of this article appears to be some of the worst WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time, in a rather bald attempt to mitigate the widespread condemnation of the topic's claims. This does not appear to be WP:DUE and therefore is not WP:NPOV. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Lets look at the last names of the researchers who have written peer-reviewed papers agreeing with the theory:
Around 39 researchers, 11 lead authors. Hardly fringe. Miradre ( talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Dating Creation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has accumulated quite a bit of material based upon WP:FRINGE, WP:SELFPUB and/or very-outdated sources (some old, but quite a bit newly introduced). I've attempted to prune much of it out, but further scrutiny may be desirable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Anglo Pyramidologist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is back in action on this article, restoring citations to Helene Blavatsky, the Christian YEC journal Creation (for Arabic creation dates), a book published in 1830 (employed as a secondary source), the self-published webpage of Barry Setterfield, and a Wiki, among others. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
-All lies above, from a biased evolutionist who is deleting any material linked to creationism or christianity. For starters the YEC journal quoted, was itself quoting Robert Young Concordance, a source which has been ACCEPTED as valid and not-biased on the Young Earth Creationism page. Also note, it was virtually me who has spend hours of my own time researching and i put up the ancient greek and roman, egyptian, sumerian, septuagint, masoretic etc dates to the dating creation article. All was fine and it was left up untouched until Harafn (who is clearly biased against creation) started stalking me (leaving abuse on my page) and secondly reverting all my edits. Anglo Pyramidologist ( talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Issues raised at WP:RSN but needs attention (including all the honorifics probably). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently in an edit war over a number of JFK related articles with a user who wishes to extensively cite conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs, who writes on a wide number of conspiracy topics promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, psychic powers, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Atdheu110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP that's likely him [8] are single-mindedly pushing the familiar "Illyrians=Albanians" POV [9] on that and several articles [10] [11]. Discussion with user seems pointless [12] ("According to me..."). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This new article was being used as a vehicle for Egyptian measurements being used to build megalithic monuments, can others please keep an eye on it? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter ( talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Centre for Intelligent Design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Anupam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to wish to see all scientific criticism of this organisation's views, all mention of its fundamentalist ties, and all mention of the UK government's prohibition of teaching ID (all of which is sourced to mainstream newspaper articles specifically on the topic of the Centre) expunged. Further oversight may be fruitful. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I will explain the situation here and respond to User:Griswaldo's concern's above. With regards to the Harvard University study by Prof. Robert Putnam, the respected sources state that the dichotomy is between religious individuals and nonreligious individuals. I will demonstrate this through the titles and quotes of the sources:
Pew Research Center The title of this reference is "Religious people make better citizens, study says." The following quote is taken from the article:
“ | The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. | ” |
USA Today The title of this reference is "Religious citizens more involved -- and more scarce?" The following quote is taken from the article:
“ | The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones. | ” |
It is evident that these sources do discuss nonreligious individuals. Not only the Pew Research Center, but also USA Today states that "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones." I have not made any interpretation or synthesis of information but have rather, presented the information in both references, which openly present a dichotomy between religious and nonreligious individuals. I have only simply repeated this original quote, which is given in both the Pew Research Center and USA Today articles. User:Griswaldo has unfairly characterized me of pushing a position despite the fact that I have simply repeated the same quote given in both references. User:Griswaldo is confusing the premise with supporting examples. The article clearly states that:
“ | The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it's the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism. Putnam calls them "supercharged friends" and the more people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is: if someone from your "moral community" asks you to volunteer for a cause, it's really hard to say no. "Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league," Putnam said. The effect is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don't have any friends there look more like secularists than fellow believers when it comes to civic participation. "It's not faith that accounts for this," Putnam said. "It's faith communities." | ” |
The premise of the article discusses the behaviour of religious and nonreligious individuals, which is given in the first two quotes from the Pew Research Center and USA Today. As the references mention, church/mosque/temple attendance may be the reason for this behaviour, but it is not the finding of the study. The issue should not be with me here, but with USA Today and the Pew Research Center. As a result the information should be restored to the article. Thanks, Anupam Talk 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Both are recent creations by User:Rahulr7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who appears to be a WP:SPA on the topic. Both are cited purely to (generally related-party) unreliable sources (PR releases, Nature Preceding articles, blogs, etc), and I cannot find much in the way of substantive coverage in mainstream sources ( this 25yo New Scientist article was the best I could find). I thought I'd post them here for comment, prior to AfDing them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This was a redirect to Pseudoscientific metrology. The redirect has been removed and it now is asserting its existence as fact, worse than that as based on an Egyptian measurement based on what I don't believe to be a reliable source. It says "A Megalithic Yard is the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 2 by 1 Remens..... Objective studies by statisticians have now established it as a fully accepted unit of measurement." - one of the sources for this last sentence says, on the page cited, "Ihc some ideas can be applied to Thorn's concept o£ the prehistoric unit of length, the 'megalithic yard'; to accept it says Heggie (1981 , 39) one must find out how well a 'quantum hypothesis' (the idea that a certain unit of length exists) fits a random set of data and then see whether the same unit fits the set of diameters of stone circles better. If it docs the prehistoric 'yard' is acceptable. The alternative practical scientific test of this hypothesis is to look for measuring rods of the right length on archaeological sites, and for historical evidence of the use of the same or a similar unit elsewhere (MacKie 1977a, 53)." and then on p.263 "Professor Thorn's geometric designs and megalithic yard are, in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence available. ..." Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place. So, I had no clue what was special about Rothschild family when I first began reverting an IP editor who claimed the article to be one big racist conspiracy theory. Since then the article has drawn IP attention saying that it's a whitewashed piece of propaganda, and saying that there's a cabal protecting the article. Because the article seems to have a fair potential to attract extreme opinions, I'd like a few extra eyes to ensure it stays neutral. Zakhalesh ( talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken this to AfD (I should be asleep). It's one of 3 articles about very minor artefacts, all created to promote the Megalithic Yard (now at DYK which is being used to promote fringe ideas). Dougweller ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the section in our article go too far towards endorsing the tradition that Thomas evangelised India? The tradition seems not to be accepted by historians and now not by the Catholic Church either. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the following fringe?
Proposed article content
|
---|
A number of highly respected central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier is a very unsatisfactory way of describing how credit is created in the real world [1], mainly because it ignores the influences of prices [2], and the way that modern central banking manages the money supply. From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. In essence central bankers gave up attempts to directly control the amount of money in the economy and instead moved to indirect methods by targeting interest rates [3]. Additionally, although when you look at a banks balance sheet, it appears new deposits are causing loans to be created, in reality banks create credit so that new loans create new deposits [4] in the banking system. (Howells P. Page 33) Therefore banks do not as a policy 'lend their customers money' but rather as a policy 'they lever [5], their balance sheet' by creating commercial bank money, while simultaneously managing the liquidity risk this creates for them. In practice, rather than lending available "excess reserves" as a customer lending policy, as described in the base money multiplier model, banks tend to lend their "excess reserves" to other financial institutions - often on an overnight basis, so that they have these deposits available earning interest, while still being available to meet customer withdrawal requests. (Howells P, Page 36) Seth B. Carpenter, a monetary policy and financial markets researcher at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Selva Demiralp concluded [6] the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States. Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists [7], including for example the former chief economist of the Bank of England and current Governor, Mervyn King, and the UK's foremost central banking economist Charles Goodhart. In 2007, Goodhart said [8], "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post-Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this." Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. [9] Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities. In 1994, Mervyn King said [10] 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake' Goodhart, formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' [11] Ten years later he said [12] ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’ Because of these [13] [14] modern banking systems, banks are not truelly lending existing central bank money, but are instead creating money while managing the liabilities this creates for them by having lines of credit, and access to a highly liquid money market - at rates near to those targeted by the central bank. It is true the banks are continually getting deposits of central bank money, and they are most certainly paying out central bank money as required, but deposits do not create loans but rather demand for loans creates deposits. After a loan is demanded, and existing sources of central bank money are sought, as required, whatever additional Central bank money necessary to achieve a banking system balance, at the prevailing central bank policy rate [15], is supplied on demand, at a price, by the central banks (King 1994).
|
Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Some helpful eyes would WP:ITN/C for the Obama rebuttal to the Birther conspiracies The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry discusses Levitation (paranormal), and other articles, our policy on sources, problems editing fringe articles, etc. advising skeptics not to edit Wikipedia. A pdf file can be found at [15]. Dougweller ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:WLRoss ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Apostle12 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This case has been brought up for RfC/U here where it's about to die for lack of a second certifier. However, there are several Wikipedians who have had similar problems with the same editor WLRoss ( talk · contribs) over a period of several years on 9/11 related articles. And they have endorsed the discussion of the behavior of WLRoss without being able to certify it.
The fact that RfC/U is about to die for lack of a second will be understood by WLRoss to be an official endorsement of his behavior by the Wikipedia community. This result must be avoided. The number of people who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and POV-pusher is significant. Perhaps the RfC/U is the wrong venue and I should have started here.
Essentially, in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations there are two opinions:
I think #1 is the majority opinion, and #2 is a minority/fringe opinion per WP:FRINGE. The only official government body that has not adopted or endorsed #1 is the "Franklin Committee" of five Ohio state legislators, who also refused to endorse #2. They just said that some more investigating should have been done. Opinion #2 is, however, embraced enthusiastically by known conspiracy theorists and political extremists such as Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.
The article's
Talk page and its Archive 2, and the aforementioned
RfC/U provide sufficient discussion although more discussion here may be chosen as appropriate. But my suggestion is that WLRoss should receive a topic ban from all articles where a conspiracy theory has been alleged, specifically including all 9/11 related articles and
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. The length of the topic ban should be determined by the community but I suggest one year.
Phoenix and Winslow (
talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As it may be confusing to uninvolved editors as to what Phoenix and Winslow considers WP:UNDUE that supports conspiracy theories, this diff shows the disputed text that Phoenix and Winslow deleted which initiated his filing of the earlier WP:RFC and this WP:FTB. Wayne ( talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I welcome the temporary locking of this page, as this may inspire some constructive dialogue. I now understand that editor Mongo's aggressively disruptive editing was likely inspired by his residence in Omaha, Nebraska where events connected with the Franklin case occurred. His statement, "I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not," makes it clear we are in for a tough time here, since dispassionate editing is already in short supply on this article.
I would suggest that we take this opportunity to look carefully at what constitute's "fringe" and what does not.
This is not a typical case, because we have two official bodies--the Franklin Committee, composed of five Nebraska state senators, and a Douglas county grand jury--who offered diametrically opposing views regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse and child prostitution as they affected average citizens, children, and prominent community leaders in Omaha, Nebraska. To accurately relate what happened in the Franklin case, the viewpoints of BOTH official bodies must find full expression in the article; neither viewpoint can be considered "fringe theory."
Because of Lawrence King's role as a prominent Republican, both in Omaha and in Washington D.C., some mention of his role as a high-rolling host of the Washington D.C. party scene, including connections to the Washington D.C. prostitution rings that came to light during the late 1980s, is probably legitimate. There were connections between what happened in Omaha and what happened in Washington D.C., and well-sourced description of these connections cannot be considered fringe theory.
That there ARE fringe theories associated with the Franklin case is undeniable. Mostly these have been associated with the larger implications of the case as it affected national events, especially in Washington D.C., extending into CIA involvement and international espionage. Allegations of child abduction for the purpose of recruitment into national and international child prostitution rings for the purpose of political extortion, espionage, and blackmail have dogged the Franklin case from the beginning. Some space in the article is already devoted to mention of several primary promoters of such fringe theory, specifically the Schiller Institute and authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, all of whom are associated with Lyndon LaRouche. I would propose that mention of these fringe-theory promoters be reduced or, preferably, eliminated altogether.
I have seen no indication that anyone editing this article wants to promote "fringe theory." Just presenting the facts of this very complex case will be challenge enough. Apostle12 ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The NTSB finding of the airplane crash being an accident must be accepted as the last word. There is no need to add conjecture about sabotage as the NTSB determined that was not the case. Binksternet ( talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ever since being exposed as a POV-pusher and fringe theorist in the 9/11 ArbCom, WLRoss has learned how to be more subtle and incremental. But POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and fringe theory is still fringe theory. The grand jury issued indictments against some defendants, but not against others. They called the case a "carefully crafted hoax." The accused child prostitution ringleaders, kidnappers and Satan worshippers were indicted on precisely none of those charges. However, the only two accusers who did not recant were indicted on multiple counts of perjury. One was found incompetent to stand trial, and the other was found guilty on all eight counts and sent to prison.
For those of us who believe in the rule of law, that says it all.
On the other hand we have the Franklin Committee, which did not take a "diametrically opposing view" as claimed. Instead, they merely questioned some of the grand jury's findings. They felt that indicting King on child prostitution charges would lead to more investigation and find "The Truth" of the matter. They realized that the accusers were lying, but simply couldn't be sure of the extent of their lies. The governor of the state of Nebraska did not pardon the convicted perjuror, Alisha Owen, or commute her sentence. The appellate court upheld her conviction. Neither the Nebraska Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court intervened in any way. The Nebraska state legislature did not pass a resolution condemning or denouncing the grand jury findings, or the trial verdict against Owen.
Actions, and inactions, speak much louder than words. By their inactions, all of these official government bodies support the grand jury and its results. So believing the Franklin Committee was opening the door to "The Truth" is a fringe theory.
WLRoss couldn't envision his favorite unreliable source being declared an unreliable source and yet that's exactly what happened. Each and every editor at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard who was previously uninvolved with the article agreed that the Bryant book was an unreliable source.
WLRoss and Apostle12 are engaged in pushing a fringe theory. I've described their methods many times. Any material which tends to advance the fringe theory is added and expanded, regardless of weak sourcing or BLP concerns. No detail is too small. But any fact which undercuts the fringe theory gets deleted, sometimes "inadvertently." Reliable sourcing for any such detail is then demanded. These two editors are using the long, convoluted, multi-venue nature of all the related discussions as camouflage.
I think that the many discussions at the article's Talk page, the NPOV Noticeboard, the Content Noticeboard, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, RfC/U and here have gone on long enough. These discussions would fill a book. I ask the previously uninvolved editors to consider how these two editors were refuted at WP:RSN, and deny them this alternative avenue for promotion of their conspiracy theory. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory discussed here is a fringe theory. It seems to be a notable fringe theory and therefore should be covered. WLRoss and similar folks really need to stick to that. There are plenty of folks who want all fringe theories out of the encyclopedia altogether, please don't give them more fuel for their fires. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When does Phoenix and Winslow intend to stop his POV pushing manipulation and bad faith editing? I apologise for the length of the following but Phoenix and Winslow can not be allowed to lie unchallenged.
The above accusations have failed before two separate notice boards now. Phoenix and Winslow's continuous long winded personal attacks without supplying any proof for his claims are tendentious. For someone who repeatedly claims ad nauseam to follow the letter of WP policies to justify his deletions, this behaviour only displays his contempt for those policies. Time for Phoenix and Winslow to now work with the community to improve the article and accept that his claims may have been an over reaction or incorrect. Wayne ( talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of arguing endlessly about terminology (e.g. “Did the Franklin Committee ‘partially accept,’ ‘partially reject,’ ‘reject,’ or ‘denounce’ the grand jury report?"), we might best concentrate on what the committee actually said in their final written report, which was signed by all the committee members. With full access to this written report (especially since the Douglas County grand jury report has been sealed, and the records of Alisha Owen’s perjury trial have been “lost”), this remains our best hope of arriving at consensus. Here’s what I get from the Franklin Committee report:
1./ The grand jury was charged with investigation of the Franklin Community Credit Union, alleged illegal activities by Lawrence E. King and others associated with the credit union, and activities involving drug use, drug trafficking, child pornography, illicit sexual activity and sexual child abuse.
2./ A primary reason for the empowerment of the Franklin Committee were the longstanding (since 1985) allegations that matters involving child sexual abuse were not being adequately investigated by the authorities normally charged with such investigations. The Franklin Committee was concurrently charged with investigating matters associated with the credit union’s collapse.
3./ The Franklin Committee and its chief investigator, Gary Caradori, did everything in their power to keep the investigation confidential. Mr. Caradori did share the results of his investigation with law enforcement.
4./ After the Douglas County grand jury made its report public, the Franklin Committee commented that this was “unprecedented” and no longer saw merit in keeping matters associated with the investigation confidential.
5./ The Franklin Committee investigated matters under their purview for 540 days; the grand jury investigation lasted 82 days. Given this fact, the Franklin Committee considered itself qualified to comment on matters included in the grand jury report.
6./ The Franklin Committee agreed with the report as follows:
7./ The Franklin Committee expressed “profound disappointment” with the grand jury conclusions with respect to the following:
8./ The Franklin Committee was particularly appalled that the grand jury criticized them for “straying” in pursuing allegations of child sexual abuse, and it pointed out that the committee had specifically been charged by the Nebraska Legislature with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse; they stated that the committee would have been derelict in its duties had it not done so.
9./ The Franklin Committee expressed consternation that the grand jury criticized them for lack of due diligence, with the grand jury going so far as to claim that had the committee done its work it would not have been necessary to convene the grand jury.
10./ The Franklin Committee went to great lengths to clarify that grand jury criticism was groundless, especially with respect to the committee not following proper protocol in conducting its meetings.
11./ The Franklin Committee reserved its strongest condemnation for the grand jury’s stated opinion that the Nebraska State Legislature, and its appointed committee, should not be involved in the investigation of alleged crimes, citing as national precedents the Watergate investigation, RICO investigations into organized crime, investigations that centered on the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional investigation of the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy. They rejected completely the grand jury’s assertion that "The Legislature is not in the business of investigating alleged crimes.”
12./ Most relevant to our discussion here were the Franklin Committee statements regarding the grand jury’s conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” With regard to this conclusion the Franklin Committee, in its typically understated (and sometimes droll) way, said the following:
Please note that taking certain sections out of context from the above-quoted text (b./) of the Franklin committee report cannot support an argument stipulating that the Franklin Committee agreed that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.”
The Franklin Committee went on to say “We assume from their choice of words—“a carefully crafted hoax”—that the grand jury was persuaded that the testimony of the witnesses corroborated each other, and included facts and circumstances that were readily verifiable and attested to by other witnesses. Otherwise it could not logically be deemed “carefully crafted.” If it was “carefully crafted,” who crafted it and when?”
The Franklin Committee continued its commentary before issuing a final rejection/condemnation/denunciation of the grand jury’s most central finding—that the Franklin case was “a carefully crafted hoax.” Lest there be any doubt as to where the committee stood, it stated unequivocally “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”
The Franklin Committee closed by showing a certain faith in the judicial process, with Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen standing by their videotaped testimony (even as Boner and King had recanted) and Owen facing her perjury trial. The committee roundly criticized the grand jury's choice to award Boner and King for having recanted. And their faith in the judicial process turned out to be unwarranted; Paul Bonacci, prior to his death (which occurred under suspicious circumstances), stated that the FBI pressured him with threats to recant his testimony just before the perjury trial (he swore in an affadavit that his videotaped statement, and Owen's, were absolutely true), leaving Owen alone and defenseless before prosecutors who had much to lose if she were found innocent. Apostle12 ( talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
How many words was that? Is there any doubt remaining in anyone's mind that these two are as obsessed with this conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Obsessed? Poorly sourced? What in the world are Phoenix and Windslow/Mongo talking about?!! I put this summary together using the actual text of the Franklin Committee report so we could properly edit that section of the article and stop arguing about terminology--e.g. whether the Franklin Committee ‘partially accepted,’ ‘partially rejected,’ ‘rejected,’ or ‘denounced’ the grand jury report. Apparently you feel free to comment on the Franklin Committee report without ever having read it; no wonder your misrepresentations are so egregious.
Full text of the Franklin Committee response to the Grand Jury report. Scanned pages from Omaha World Herald Pgs 12-13 July 30, 1990
WLRoss and I want to discuss the article. We have proposed doing it section by section, arguing the points so that we can arrive at consensus with the other editors. We began by discussing the lede and the sections called "Franklin Committee Report." Rather than discuss the points within these sections, as proposed, we have been met with a barrage of accusations that have become endless. NOT A SINGLE CONTESTED POINT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN GOOD FAITH!!!
My questions are these: "Do you intend EVER to discuss the article in good faith? Or do you intend to distract us from our purpose forever, making editing of the article impossible?" Apostle12 ( talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It is fairly clear that uninvolved editors have long ago given up the thought of engaging with this debate, which impossible to follow without immersing oneself in endless detail, so I suggest that you now take it away from this board and return it to the talk page where it belongs. Paul B ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article on Race and intelligence a group of SPA editors dedicated to pushing a pro-hereditarian viewpoint are arguing that the statement of C. Loring Brace, a respected authority on evolutionary biology who is arguing that there is no plausible evolutionary scenario that could have lead to blacks becoming less intelligent than whites (a POV also publically held by the professional organizations of anthropologists and physical anthropologists in america as well as by UNESCO) should either be removed or "balanced" by statements to the contrary effect, by researchers publishing in the racialist journal Mankind Quarterly. I have tried to argue civilly but am loosing patience as they are barraging me with WP:IDIDDNTHEARTHAT, strawmen and personal aspersions. It should be noted that the section from which they want to remove the only non-hereditarian viewpoint is already heavily biased towards the hereditarian side citing several fringe studies such as J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Thisthat2011 is insisting on using Arrian, an ancient historian, to make the claim that there was no slavery in ancient India [22], and edit-warring over it [23]. Yet, this claim is flatly contradicted by modern, secondary sources [24] [25]. This editor tried the same exact thing once before using another ancient author, Menander, and was similarly rebuffed [26]. Any help in dealing with this would be appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This time it is the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptizes in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps it has become the case that every outing of a historical figure by a queer theorist is notable, but the article spends almost half its length on this extra-textual speculation and doesn't even mention that this is traditionally claimed as the origin of Ethiopian Christianity. So assistance on this would be appreciated. Mangoe ( talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jack Bartlett Rogers is a Presbyterian minister, seminary professor emeritus, and author. He taught at Westminster College,Pennsylvania, at Fuller Theological Seminary, and at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He also served as moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).[1][2]
Publications
Worldcat lists 48 published works by Rogers.[3] Among them are:
The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, (with Donald McKim) [4] Biblical Authority Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical Introduction to Philosophy: A Case Method Approach (with Forrest Baird) Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church [5] Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions Presbyterian Creeds: Suplement on the Brief Statement of Faith Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way
John J. McNeill was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1959 and now is a psychotherapist and an academic theologian, with a particular reputation within the field of Queer Theology. He obtained a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1964 and has taught at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, NY and Fordham University in NYC. In 1972, he joined the combined Woodstock Jesuit Seminary and Union Theological Seminary faculty as professor of Christian Ethics, specializing in Sexual Ethics.
Published works The Church and the Homosexual Taking a Chance on God Freedom, Glorious Freedom Both Feet Firmly Planted in Midair Honours Grand Marshal of the New York City Gay Rights Parade in 1987; The National Human Rights Award in 1984 for his contributions to lesbian and gay rights; The 1989 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Blanton-Peale Institutes of Religion and Health; The Humanitarian Award in 1990 from the Association of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists; The 1993 Distinguished Contribution Award of the Eastern Region American Association of *Pastoral Counselors for outstanding contribution to pastoral counseling; The United Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches Special Award for his "dedicated work in spreading the Gospel to the lesbian/gay community"; The 1997 Dignity/USA Prophetic Service Award "In Recognition of over 25 years of extraordinary work on behalf of the Catholic Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenered Community"; The 1999 Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco "Living Saint" Award. 63.17.61.86 ( talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Queer Theology, eh? I am not a homophobe, but it is no secret that Wikipedia has a bad case of systemic bias towards "queer theorists" and gay rights activism. I have no problem with gay activism being covered for what it is and for what it is worth, just as another notable point of view. But the fact is that gay rights activism has deeply subverted our entire coverage of homosexuality topics, down to the categroy structure. Nobody dares to clean this up because of the flak anyone daring to touch it is going to get from our resident activists, and because nobody wants to be bashed as anti-gay. So it simply stays in place. This is probably one of the worst cases of systemic bias on Wikipedia, because any other bias, such as pro-Israeli vs. pro-Palestinian, or pro-Muslim vs. anti-Muslim, is going to be challenged by the opposite faction. This mechanism so far has almost completely failed to work in the "LGBT" area, I assume mostly because nobody except gay activists is going to bother even reading through the countless "LGBT" articles on Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
or remove it based on
WP:DUE, don't blanket blame everyone The lead of Marriage also reflects what Dab is describing. I'm 100% in support of gay marriage becoming legal everywhere, but historically and cross-culturally the institution of gay marriage has been virtually insignificant, yet as far as I understand it is impossible to change the lead of that entry to reflect the fact that heterosexual monogamy has been the most prevalent form of marriage in recorded history. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) A central issue is the near complete lack of any citations in the lede. There are only two, the first of which is not germane. The second citation is to this law journal article, and it presents two theories about marriage. The first is more clearly reproduced in our article, because it is more obviously same-sex-friendly; the second, however, seems to better reflect the institutional history:
Marriage is everywhere the word we use to describe a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union between a man and woman which creates rights and obligations between the couple and any children the union may produce. Marriage as a public tie obligates not only fathers, but fathers’ kin to recognize the children of this union. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged. Marriage is the way in which every society attempts to channel the erotic energies of men and women into a relatively narrow but highly fruitful channel—to give every child the father his or her heart desires. Above all—normal marriage is normative. Marriage is not primarily a way of expressing approval for infinite variety of human affectional or sexual ties; it consists, by definition, of isolating and preferring certain types of unions over others. By socially defining and supporting a particular kind of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.
The "problem" with this definition is that it plainly puts same-sex marriage in the same position as other non-fruitful arrangements as something of an analogue to or extension of the central model, and therefore it is likely to be fought. But we really need something that at least is cited. WHat we have not is, in a sense, OR. Mangoe ( talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Found this page doing wp:NPP. I think it might be a fringe theory coatrack, there are few sources, most are offline, some I can't find evidence of actually existing but that just might be my google-fu failing me. Has anyone else had any experience with the topic? I'll admit I'm sort of out of my depth on this one but I don't think it'd be very responsible to just leave it unreviewed for some other sap to sort out, it's already been unreviewed for months. HominidMachinae ( talk) 07:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone has once again applied a neutrality template to this article and another editor has simultaneously chimed in on the talk page complaining that we're unfairly rejecting "exoscientific explanations for something beyond [our] comprehension". Since there are two editors involved here right from the get go, I decided to seek more eyes here first before proceeding. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The usual genetics train wreck. Salvageable in principle, but we don't have enough editors with genetics expertise to keep up with the patriotic kids adding this "genetics of $MY_ETHNICITY" trash. -- dab (𒁳) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. — [d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on (well, actually getting stale now) at WP:ANI regarding what appears to be a fringe scientist by the name of Luis González-Mestres and a theoretical subatomic particle he has proposed called a Superbradyon. No one but González-Mestres seems ever to have taken notice of this particle's existence. The article on the particle (hey, I rhymed) has been nominated for deletion. The one on González-Mestres - well, it seems very long with a lot of references (a great deal of them to his own work) for a bio of someone of what seems to be marginal notability, although I haven't reviewed it in detail. Both of them have been heavily edited by someone who refers to himself as "our collective." I'm cross-posting here because I think both articles (and the deletion discussion) could benefit from the attention of editors who are familiar with fringe science. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A section has been added to this article "Secret Service Trap" by User Hubertgrove which claims that false orders were broadcast to the German Squadron by British Intelligence. This claim is supported in a book Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926. The issue here is that while the citation might be valid, this German officer is relaying something that was told to him by a friend. Search as I might, I can not find a single other source for this claim. In point of fact, at least two of the Historians Massie and Halpern give views quite to the contrary of this assertion. I have searched the online British Archives without finding a single supporting piece of evidence. User USER Simon Harley's research list here:
As always, finding something contrary to a single assertion presents its typical difficulty but at some point common sense has to play a part here as well. An Intelligence service broadcasting false orders in a broken naval code would be announcing the fact that their codes had indeed been broken, inviting the enemy to change codes immediately. The base problem is that unsupported claims like this do much to undermine the project's credibility and user trust. Tirronan ( talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't make head nor tail of whether this article is about a fringe cult, a satire, or a monopoly capitalist conspiracy. I think it needs looking at though... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems full of original research, especially the latest edits. Dougweller ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Additional eyes may be needed for a while at Starchild skull and perhaps at the related Lloyd Pye. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy seems to present some new medical insights (not reported in scholarly sources at first glance) as reality. It seems to be more like "alternative medecine", but I have no idea how fringey it actually is. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear are two fringe creationists for the CSM ( Creation Science Movement). I collected references for them both, but a user has claimed they are not third party sources (i partly agree on some but not all). See here: WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden
It comes down to three options:
I tried the third option, but a user has deleted it all. - When we had third party sources from the BBC etc. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Current references for Malcolm Bowden:
Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
References for David Rosevear:
Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from above, many third party references for Both Rosevear and Bowden - Including in total three BBC articles, two Thirdway magazine, profiles at bcse, a review of Bowden at talk.origins etc etc, nobody even bothered to look or help out. - If Rosevear and Bowden were two mainstream evolutionists they would of been given a warm welcome at wikipedia even without references, but being two "crackpot" creationists who own a creationist museum (one retired engineer) and one (PHd biochemist) - they are not suitable for wikipedia. Articles deleted, case closed Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing Liveintheforests' creation of articles on WP:FRINGE figures of questionable notability:
Olan Hyndman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An obscure Iowan neurosurgeon whose book propounding his idiosyncratic theory of evolution/philosophy of science received a pair of reviews (in The Philosophical Forum and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, not in any journal that specialises in evolutionary biology, or philosophy of science). Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack removed by KillerChihuahua. Liveintheforests; you are welcome to comment on the subject at hand. You are not welcome to make personal attacks. If you have concerns about the editing or behavior of another editor, you are welcome to open an Rfc, where you are welcome to describe in civil and concise terms how you feel his or her editing violates Wikipedia policy. Puppy has spoken; do not continue down this path. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you serious??? It doesn't matter what the sources say? Please go start a blog and stop wasting our time. On Wikipedia, it matters what the sources say. Please see WP:V, WP:RS. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Hfran, I suggest you list the article on Afd. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
lol there are HUNDREDS of wikipedia pages like this: John Foster (philosopher) with no references at all on - they stay on wikipedia for years, untouched, hey are you gonna tag this one? Why do you only tag evolutionist pages?. I can list you another 40 articles of living people - no references all left on wiki. - These pages won't be touched becuase they do not mention "evolution" they have no third party references on them. As soon as someone proposes a new mechanism for evolution it is looked down upon and those peoples wikipedia pages are put into the "fringe watch" even when they are well sourced, "one law for them another for us". Liveintheforests ( talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone with a decent pair of eyes could of seen that there were many references for Olan Hyndman, - also searching Dr. Hyndman MD or Olan Hyndman Iowa University brings up many other references in a search engine. Case closed, article deleted, if Olan hadn't of written his own evolutionary theory, his article would be left up on wiki without anyone at all caring who or what he was. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some BLP violations which I suspect will reappear. There's still a problem with original research. It's a pretty poor article in any case. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont care anymore, just delete the articles I created: Delete the following:
Soren Lovtrup Malcolm Bowden David Rosevear Olan Hyndman
It isnt worth the bother - All articles have both a mixture of primary and third party references but they will not be aloud on wikipedia becuase apparently they challenge the mainsteam view of evolution and according to members here they are all "cranks". Hrafn will not give up until they are tagged and deleted so no matter which references i put up they will not be good enough. So may aswell delete them all anyway, users are not even reading the references. Cheers. Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
All 4 articles have been deleted. Party anyone? Get your Darwin banners out!! You win. Any scientist who questions natural selection is a "crackpot" and not is not reliable to be on wikipedia even if they are well sourced!!. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The Energy Catalyzer ('cold fusion') article needs more eyes on it. It is attracting SPAs who seem to have some odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream science. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Soren Lovtrup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This embryologist appears to have written a lot of rather WP:FRINGE-sounding material about evolution, including in the notorious pseudoscience-peddling journal Rivista di Biologia. Most of the article is cited to primary sources. I'm probably looking at AfDing it, but thought I'd post it for comment here first. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, Macromutation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is wholly unsourced, and probably deserving of closer attention. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Liveintheforests for this:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(Actually, we might be able to achieve 1&2 by a WP:USURPTITLE procedure. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Many reliabled third party sources here:
Why does Hrafn deny all of this? And keep putting notability tags on the page? Liveintheforests ( talk) 11:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— WP:GNG
Significant third-party coverage is REQUIRED for notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua has removed a third party reference claiming:
"Remove reference which is not about subject at all, but about work on finches by Grant"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf
Click on the link above, scroll down to page 3 of 5.
Soren lovtrups book and work is reviewed in great detail with much description about Lovtrups theory of macromutation by W.Dohle in the Journal of evoltionary biology on page 3. What does this show? It shows that Killer is not even reading the references (he hasn't gone further than the first line which is actually a seperate review of another book), hes just eager to get these sources deleted. It also appears that this edit can not be undone now either and has done be done manually, i am not happy about what is going on here, no respect at all, users here are not even reading the references, they are making big mistakes, the source was third party. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been deleted now and you can close this case, but as you can see there was actually other third party sources out there, nobody bothered to look though except me:
http://ep.physoc.org/content/59/3/261.full.pdf+html - Review of Lovtrup's work from C. H. Waddington a developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology - not at all a "crank", though Hrafn would probably call him a "crank" as outside of science he was influenced by the process philosophy of Whitehead. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 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. |
Just saw WP:ANI#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page - this looks relevant to a couple of fringe articles on British Israelism and Young Earth Creationism]]. Dougweller ( talk) 11:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 4#Category:Paranormal places. This category is very old. I think it's a safe bet that the conclusion will result in retention of the category but there might be reason to argue for a les credulous name. Mangoe ( talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has just been brought to my attention -- can't work out if it's completely off-the-wall, or simply impenetrably written -- though discussion in the article body, about proposals made in the French Wikipedia, aren't exactly promising. Enjoy! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Strong gravitational constant appears to be a non-notable fringe theory in which the strong interaction should be treated like gravity. On the notable hand, there are one or two mainstream articles on this (mainly Salam & Sivaram 1993) which got a few citations before interest dried up. On the fringe hand, this vague strong/gravity connection is apparently a component of User:fedosin's previously-AfD'ed cosmology ideas (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter). I voted against my own AfD on this article ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant) because of the Salam connection, thinking there might be a worthwhile article about that; but Fedosin wants the article to continue being about his own theory. See the AfD page for details on Fedosin's sources. Bm gub ( talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Several IPs editing this today adding either copyvio videos showing what they think are earthquake lights (but not mentioned in the video) or blogs, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the section above on the article on race & crime, I had a look at the US version of the article, and it badly needs work. For example, this section consists entirely of some dubious statistics sourced to a publication of the New Century Foundation ("dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation"). The New Century Foundation publication is also repeatedly used as a source in other sections. The article also gives fringe views like this one WP:UNDUE weight. These are just a couple of glaringly obvious problems I noticed from glancing at the article; there are likely to be many other problems that need work. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a contentious area so sources should be of good quality, i.e. peer reviewed academic or similar. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Another major problem with the article, it seems to me, is its very narrow focus. There are a lot of other very important topics that one might expect to find covered in an article on Race and crime in the United States; a historical perspective on the topic is completely missing for example. (Some relevant topics missing from the article include: People v. Hall, slave codes, lynchings, segregation, the American mafia, and undoubtedly many others). Also, a number of the sections in the current article still present egregiously fringe theories. I'm also going to be mostly wikibreaking, so I hope that there will be some more eyes on this article... CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
POV article written as though he was genuine. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged it as lacking neutrality/balance, but frankly I have doubts that Chapman meets WP:N in any case. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre ( talk · contribs) is working very hard to make it look like the racist theories of J. Philippe Rushton as laid out in his self-published Race, Evolution and Behavior have scholarly currency outside of the small group of scholars who have received funding from the Pioneer Fund for which Rushton is president. Miradre is currently pushing a source written by a graduate student in criminology who describes evidence in favor of the theory as "mixed" when researchers with expertise in the area have in fact unanimously rejected it as a prime example of scientific racism and pseudo science. This needs immediate attention by editors willing to read abit about the backgrund of Rushton and the reception of his theories about human evolution by scholars who actually know about evolution. The articles affected are Race and crime, Race and crime in the US and Race, Evolution and Behavior. This is egregious pov pushing that needs to be kept in check. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Loughlin and Mackintosh wrote that there is insufficient evidence to make any claim about genetics. Their work is published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The second abridged edition of Rushton's book was self-published and 50 pages long. The survey you mention was originally just a short paper of less than 10 pages. On wikipedia editors are asked to be very careful about evaluating sources. That's why we have WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Mathsci ( talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead of this article appears to be some of the worst WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time, in a rather bald attempt to mitigate the widespread condemnation of the topic's claims. This does not appear to be WP:DUE and therefore is not WP:NPOV. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Lets look at the last names of the researchers who have written peer-reviewed papers agreeing with the theory:
Around 39 researchers, 11 lead authors. Hardly fringe. Miradre ( talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Dating Creation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has accumulated quite a bit of material based upon WP:FRINGE, WP:SELFPUB and/or very-outdated sources (some old, but quite a bit newly introduced). I've attempted to prune much of it out, but further scrutiny may be desirable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Anglo Pyramidologist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is back in action on this article, restoring citations to Helene Blavatsky, the Christian YEC journal Creation (for Arabic creation dates), a book published in 1830 (employed as a secondary source), the self-published webpage of Barry Setterfield, and a Wiki, among others. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
-All lies above, from a biased evolutionist who is deleting any material linked to creationism or christianity. For starters the YEC journal quoted, was itself quoting Robert Young Concordance, a source which has been ACCEPTED as valid and not-biased on the Young Earth Creationism page. Also note, it was virtually me who has spend hours of my own time researching and i put up the ancient greek and roman, egyptian, sumerian, septuagint, masoretic etc dates to the dating creation article. All was fine and it was left up untouched until Harafn (who is clearly biased against creation) started stalking me (leaving abuse on my page) and secondly reverting all my edits. Anglo Pyramidologist ( talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Issues raised at WP:RSN but needs attention (including all the honorifics probably). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently in an edit war over a number of JFK related articles with a user who wishes to extensively cite conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs, who writes on a wide number of conspiracy topics promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, psychic powers, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Atdheu110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP that's likely him [8] are single-mindedly pushing the familiar "Illyrians=Albanians" POV [9] on that and several articles [10] [11]. Discussion with user seems pointless [12] ("According to me..."). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This new article was being used as a vehicle for Egyptian measurements being used to build megalithic monuments, can others please keep an eye on it? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter ( talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Centre for Intelligent Design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Anupam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to wish to see all scientific criticism of this organisation's views, all mention of its fundamentalist ties, and all mention of the UK government's prohibition of teaching ID (all of which is sourced to mainstream newspaper articles specifically on the topic of the Centre) expunged. Further oversight may be fruitful. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I will explain the situation here and respond to User:Griswaldo's concern's above. With regards to the Harvard University study by Prof. Robert Putnam, the respected sources state that the dichotomy is between religious individuals and nonreligious individuals. I will demonstrate this through the titles and quotes of the sources:
Pew Research Center The title of this reference is "Religious people make better citizens, study says." The following quote is taken from the article:
“ | The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. | ” |
USA Today The title of this reference is "Religious citizens more involved -- and more scarce?" The following quote is taken from the article:
“ | The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones. | ” |
It is evident that these sources do discuss nonreligious individuals. Not only the Pew Research Center, but also USA Today states that "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones." I have not made any interpretation or synthesis of information but have rather, presented the information in both references, which openly present a dichotomy between religious and nonreligious individuals. I have only simply repeated this original quote, which is given in both the Pew Research Center and USA Today articles. User:Griswaldo has unfairly characterized me of pushing a position despite the fact that I have simply repeated the same quote given in both references. User:Griswaldo is confusing the premise with supporting examples. The article clearly states that:
“ | The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it's the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism. Putnam calls them "supercharged friends" and the more people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is: if someone from your "moral community" asks you to volunteer for a cause, it's really hard to say no. "Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league," Putnam said. The effect is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don't have any friends there look more like secularists than fellow believers when it comes to civic participation. "It's not faith that accounts for this," Putnam said. "It's faith communities." | ” |
The premise of the article discusses the behaviour of religious and nonreligious individuals, which is given in the first two quotes from the Pew Research Center and USA Today. As the references mention, church/mosque/temple attendance may be the reason for this behaviour, but it is not the finding of the study. The issue should not be with me here, but with USA Today and the Pew Research Center. As a result the information should be restored to the article. Thanks, Anupam Talk 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Both are recent creations by User:Rahulr7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who appears to be a WP:SPA on the topic. Both are cited purely to (generally related-party) unreliable sources (PR releases, Nature Preceding articles, blogs, etc), and I cannot find much in the way of substantive coverage in mainstream sources ( this 25yo New Scientist article was the best I could find). I thought I'd post them here for comment, prior to AfDing them. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This was a redirect to Pseudoscientific metrology. The redirect has been removed and it now is asserting its existence as fact, worse than that as based on an Egyptian measurement based on what I don't believe to be a reliable source. It says "A Megalithic Yard is the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 2 by 1 Remens..... Objective studies by statisticians have now established it as a fully accepted unit of measurement." - one of the sources for this last sentence says, on the page cited, "Ihc some ideas can be applied to Thorn's concept o£ the prehistoric unit of length, the 'megalithic yard'; to accept it says Heggie (1981 , 39) one must find out how well a 'quantum hypothesis' (the idea that a certain unit of length exists) fits a random set of data and then see whether the same unit fits the set of diameters of stone circles better. If it docs the prehistoric 'yard' is acceptable. The alternative practical scientific test of this hypothesis is to look for measuring rods of the right length on archaeological sites, and for historical evidence of the use of the same or a similar unit elsewhere (MacKie 1977a, 53)." and then on p.263 "Professor Thorn's geometric designs and megalithic yard are, in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence available. ..." Dougweller ( talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place. So, I had no clue what was special about Rothschild family when I first began reverting an IP editor who claimed the article to be one big racist conspiracy theory. Since then the article has drawn IP attention saying that it's a whitewashed piece of propaganda, and saying that there's a cabal protecting the article. Because the article seems to have a fair potential to attract extreme opinions, I'd like a few extra eyes to ensure it stays neutral. Zakhalesh ( talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken this to AfD (I should be asleep). It's one of 3 articles about very minor artefacts, all created to promote the Megalithic Yard (now at DYK which is being used to promote fringe ideas). Dougweller ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the section in our article go too far towards endorsing the tradition that Thomas evangelised India? The tradition seems not to be accepted by historians and now not by the Catholic Church either. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the following fringe?
Proposed article content
|
---|
A number of highly respected central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier is a very unsatisfactory way of describing how credit is created in the real world [1], mainly because it ignores the influences of prices [2], and the way that modern central banking manages the money supply. From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. In essence central bankers gave up attempts to directly control the amount of money in the economy and instead moved to indirect methods by targeting interest rates [3]. Additionally, although when you look at a banks balance sheet, it appears new deposits are causing loans to be created, in reality banks create credit so that new loans create new deposits [4] in the banking system. (Howells P. Page 33) Therefore banks do not as a policy 'lend their customers money' but rather as a policy 'they lever [5], their balance sheet' by creating commercial bank money, while simultaneously managing the liquidity risk this creates for them. In practice, rather than lending available "excess reserves" as a customer lending policy, as described in the base money multiplier model, banks tend to lend their "excess reserves" to other financial institutions - often on an overnight basis, so that they have these deposits available earning interest, while still being available to meet customer withdrawal requests. (Howells P, Page 36) Seth B. Carpenter, a monetary policy and financial markets researcher at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Selva Demiralp concluded [6] the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States. Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists [7], including for example the former chief economist of the Bank of England and current Governor, Mervyn King, and the UK's foremost central banking economist Charles Goodhart. In 2007, Goodhart said [8], "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post-Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this." Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. [9] Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities. In 1994, Mervyn King said [10] 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake' Goodhart, formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' [11] Ten years later he said [12] ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’ Because of these [13] [14] modern banking systems, banks are not truelly lending existing central bank money, but are instead creating money while managing the liabilities this creates for them by having lines of credit, and access to a highly liquid money market - at rates near to those targeted by the central bank. It is true the banks are continually getting deposits of central bank money, and they are most certainly paying out central bank money as required, but deposits do not create loans but rather demand for loans creates deposits. After a loan is demanded, and existing sources of central bank money are sought, as required, whatever additional Central bank money necessary to achieve a banking system balance, at the prevailing central bank policy rate [15], is supplied on demand, at a price, by the central banks (King 1994).
|
Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Some helpful eyes would WP:ITN/C for the Obama rebuttal to the Birther conspiracies The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry discusses Levitation (paranormal), and other articles, our policy on sources, problems editing fringe articles, etc. advising skeptics not to edit Wikipedia. A pdf file can be found at [15]. Dougweller ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:WLRoss ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Apostle12 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This case has been brought up for RfC/U here where it's about to die for lack of a second certifier. However, there are several Wikipedians who have had similar problems with the same editor WLRoss ( talk · contribs) over a period of several years on 9/11 related articles. And they have endorsed the discussion of the behavior of WLRoss without being able to certify it.
The fact that RfC/U is about to die for lack of a second will be understood by WLRoss to be an official endorsement of his behavior by the Wikipedia community. This result must be avoided. The number of people who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and POV-pusher is significant. Perhaps the RfC/U is the wrong venue and I should have started here.
Essentially, in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations there are two opinions:
I think #1 is the majority opinion, and #2 is a minority/fringe opinion per WP:FRINGE. The only official government body that has not adopted or endorsed #1 is the "Franklin Committee" of five Ohio state legislators, who also refused to endorse #2. They just said that some more investigating should have been done. Opinion #2 is, however, embraced enthusiastically by known conspiracy theorists and political extremists such as Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.
The article's
Talk page and its Archive 2, and the aforementioned
RfC/U provide sufficient discussion although more discussion here may be chosen as appropriate. But my suggestion is that WLRoss should receive a topic ban from all articles where a conspiracy theory has been alleged, specifically including all 9/11 related articles and
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. The length of the topic ban should be determined by the community but I suggest one year.
Phoenix and Winslow (
talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As it may be confusing to uninvolved editors as to what Phoenix and Winslow considers WP:UNDUE that supports conspiracy theories, this diff shows the disputed text that Phoenix and Winslow deleted which initiated his filing of the earlier WP:RFC and this WP:FTB. Wayne ( talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I welcome the temporary locking of this page, as this may inspire some constructive dialogue. I now understand that editor Mongo's aggressively disruptive editing was likely inspired by his residence in Omaha, Nebraska where events connected with the Franklin case occurred. His statement, "I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not," makes it clear we are in for a tough time here, since dispassionate editing is already in short supply on this article.
I would suggest that we take this opportunity to look carefully at what constitute's "fringe" and what does not.
This is not a typical case, because we have two official bodies--the Franklin Committee, composed of five Nebraska state senators, and a Douglas county grand jury--who offered diametrically opposing views regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse and child prostitution as they affected average citizens, children, and prominent community leaders in Omaha, Nebraska. To accurately relate what happened in the Franklin case, the viewpoints of BOTH official bodies must find full expression in the article; neither viewpoint can be considered "fringe theory."
Because of Lawrence King's role as a prominent Republican, both in Omaha and in Washington D.C., some mention of his role as a high-rolling host of the Washington D.C. party scene, including connections to the Washington D.C. prostitution rings that came to light during the late 1980s, is probably legitimate. There were connections between what happened in Omaha and what happened in Washington D.C., and well-sourced description of these connections cannot be considered fringe theory.
That there ARE fringe theories associated with the Franklin case is undeniable. Mostly these have been associated with the larger implications of the case as it affected national events, especially in Washington D.C., extending into CIA involvement and international espionage. Allegations of child abduction for the purpose of recruitment into national and international child prostitution rings for the purpose of political extortion, espionage, and blackmail have dogged the Franklin case from the beginning. Some space in the article is already devoted to mention of several primary promoters of such fringe theory, specifically the Schiller Institute and authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, all of whom are associated with Lyndon LaRouche. I would propose that mention of these fringe-theory promoters be reduced or, preferably, eliminated altogether.
I have seen no indication that anyone editing this article wants to promote "fringe theory." Just presenting the facts of this very complex case will be challenge enough. Apostle12 ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The NTSB finding of the airplane crash being an accident must be accepted as the last word. There is no need to add conjecture about sabotage as the NTSB determined that was not the case. Binksternet ( talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ever since being exposed as a POV-pusher and fringe theorist in the 9/11 ArbCom, WLRoss has learned how to be more subtle and incremental. But POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and fringe theory is still fringe theory. The grand jury issued indictments against some defendants, but not against others. They called the case a "carefully crafted hoax." The accused child prostitution ringleaders, kidnappers and Satan worshippers were indicted on precisely none of those charges. However, the only two accusers who did not recant were indicted on multiple counts of perjury. One was found incompetent to stand trial, and the other was found guilty on all eight counts and sent to prison.
For those of us who believe in the rule of law, that says it all.
On the other hand we have the Franklin Committee, which did not take a "diametrically opposing view" as claimed. Instead, they merely questioned some of the grand jury's findings. They felt that indicting King on child prostitution charges would lead to more investigation and find "The Truth" of the matter. They realized that the accusers were lying, but simply couldn't be sure of the extent of their lies. The governor of the state of Nebraska did not pardon the convicted perjuror, Alisha Owen, or commute her sentence. The appellate court upheld her conviction. Neither the Nebraska Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court intervened in any way. The Nebraska state legislature did not pass a resolution condemning or denouncing the grand jury findings, or the trial verdict against Owen.
Actions, and inactions, speak much louder than words. By their inactions, all of these official government bodies support the grand jury and its results. So believing the Franklin Committee was opening the door to "The Truth" is a fringe theory.
WLRoss couldn't envision his favorite unreliable source being declared an unreliable source and yet that's exactly what happened. Each and every editor at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard who was previously uninvolved with the article agreed that the Bryant book was an unreliable source.
WLRoss and Apostle12 are engaged in pushing a fringe theory. I've described their methods many times. Any material which tends to advance the fringe theory is added and expanded, regardless of weak sourcing or BLP concerns. No detail is too small. But any fact which undercuts the fringe theory gets deleted, sometimes "inadvertently." Reliable sourcing for any such detail is then demanded. These two editors are using the long, convoluted, multi-venue nature of all the related discussions as camouflage.
I think that the many discussions at the article's Talk page, the NPOV Noticeboard, the Content Noticeboard, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, RfC/U and here have gone on long enough. These discussions would fill a book. I ask the previously uninvolved editors to consider how these two editors were refuted at WP:RSN, and deny them this alternative avenue for promotion of their conspiracy theory. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory discussed here is a fringe theory. It seems to be a notable fringe theory and therefore should be covered. WLRoss and similar folks really need to stick to that. There are plenty of folks who want all fringe theories out of the encyclopedia altogether, please don't give them more fuel for their fires. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When does Phoenix and Winslow intend to stop his POV pushing manipulation and bad faith editing? I apologise for the length of the following but Phoenix and Winslow can not be allowed to lie unchallenged.
The above accusations have failed before two separate notice boards now. Phoenix and Winslow's continuous long winded personal attacks without supplying any proof for his claims are tendentious. For someone who repeatedly claims ad nauseam to follow the letter of WP policies to justify his deletions, this behaviour only displays his contempt for those policies. Time for Phoenix and Winslow to now work with the community to improve the article and accept that his claims may have been an over reaction or incorrect. Wayne ( talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of arguing endlessly about terminology (e.g. “Did the Franklin Committee ‘partially accept,’ ‘partially reject,’ ‘reject,’ or ‘denounce’ the grand jury report?"), we might best concentrate on what the committee actually said in their final written report, which was signed by all the committee members. With full access to this written report (especially since the Douglas County grand jury report has been sealed, and the records of Alisha Owen’s perjury trial have been “lost”), this remains our best hope of arriving at consensus. Here’s what I get from the Franklin Committee report:
1./ The grand jury was charged with investigation of the Franklin Community Credit Union, alleged illegal activities by Lawrence E. King and others associated with the credit union, and activities involving drug use, drug trafficking, child pornography, illicit sexual activity and sexual child abuse.
2./ A primary reason for the empowerment of the Franklin Committee were the longstanding (since 1985) allegations that matters involving child sexual abuse were not being adequately investigated by the authorities normally charged with such investigations. The Franklin Committee was concurrently charged with investigating matters associated with the credit union’s collapse.
3./ The Franklin Committee and its chief investigator, Gary Caradori, did everything in their power to keep the investigation confidential. Mr. Caradori did share the results of his investigation with law enforcement.
4./ After the Douglas County grand jury made its report public, the Franklin Committee commented that this was “unprecedented” and no longer saw merit in keeping matters associated with the investigation confidential.
5./ The Franklin Committee investigated matters under their purview for 540 days; the grand jury investigation lasted 82 days. Given this fact, the Franklin Committee considered itself qualified to comment on matters included in the grand jury report.
6./ The Franklin Committee agreed with the report as follows:
7./ The Franklin Committee expressed “profound disappointment” with the grand jury conclusions with respect to the following:
8./ The Franklin Committee was particularly appalled that the grand jury criticized them for “straying” in pursuing allegations of child sexual abuse, and it pointed out that the committee had specifically been charged by the Nebraska Legislature with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse; they stated that the committee would have been derelict in its duties had it not done so.
9./ The Franklin Committee expressed consternation that the grand jury criticized them for lack of due diligence, with the grand jury going so far as to claim that had the committee done its work it would not have been necessary to convene the grand jury.
10./ The Franklin Committee went to great lengths to clarify that grand jury criticism was groundless, especially with respect to the committee not following proper protocol in conducting its meetings.
11./ The Franklin Committee reserved its strongest condemnation for the grand jury’s stated opinion that the Nebraska State Legislature, and its appointed committee, should not be involved in the investigation of alleged crimes, citing as national precedents the Watergate investigation, RICO investigations into organized crime, investigations that centered on the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional investigation of the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy. They rejected completely the grand jury’s assertion that "The Legislature is not in the business of investigating alleged crimes.”
12./ Most relevant to our discussion here were the Franklin Committee statements regarding the grand jury’s conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” With regard to this conclusion the Franklin Committee, in its typically understated (and sometimes droll) way, said the following:
Please note that taking certain sections out of context from the above-quoted text (b./) of the Franklin committee report cannot support an argument stipulating that the Franklin Committee agreed that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.”
The Franklin Committee went on to say “We assume from their choice of words—“a carefully crafted hoax”—that the grand jury was persuaded that the testimony of the witnesses corroborated each other, and included facts and circumstances that were readily verifiable and attested to by other witnesses. Otherwise it could not logically be deemed “carefully crafted.” If it was “carefully crafted,” who crafted it and when?”
The Franklin Committee continued its commentary before issuing a final rejection/condemnation/denunciation of the grand jury’s most central finding—that the Franklin case was “a carefully crafted hoax.” Lest there be any doubt as to where the committee stood, it stated unequivocally “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”
The Franklin Committee closed by showing a certain faith in the judicial process, with Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen standing by their videotaped testimony (even as Boner and King had recanted) and Owen facing her perjury trial. The committee roundly criticized the grand jury's choice to award Boner and King for having recanted. And their faith in the judicial process turned out to be unwarranted; Paul Bonacci, prior to his death (which occurred under suspicious circumstances), stated that the FBI pressured him with threats to recant his testimony just before the perjury trial (he swore in an affadavit that his videotaped statement, and Owen's, were absolutely true), leaving Owen alone and defenseless before prosecutors who had much to lose if she were found innocent. Apostle12 ( talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
How many words was that? Is there any doubt remaining in anyone's mind that these two are as obsessed with this conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Obsessed? Poorly sourced? What in the world are Phoenix and Windslow/Mongo talking about?!! I put this summary together using the actual text of the Franklin Committee report so we could properly edit that section of the article and stop arguing about terminology--e.g. whether the Franklin Committee ‘partially accepted,’ ‘partially rejected,’ ‘rejected,’ or ‘denounced’ the grand jury report. Apparently you feel free to comment on the Franklin Committee report without ever having read it; no wonder your misrepresentations are so egregious.
Full text of the Franklin Committee response to the Grand Jury report. Scanned pages from Omaha World Herald Pgs 12-13 July 30, 1990
WLRoss and I want to discuss the article. We have proposed doing it section by section, arguing the points so that we can arrive at consensus with the other editors. We began by discussing the lede and the sections called "Franklin Committee Report." Rather than discuss the points within these sections, as proposed, we have been met with a barrage of accusations that have become endless. NOT A SINGLE CONTESTED POINT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN GOOD FAITH!!!
My questions are these: "Do you intend EVER to discuss the article in good faith? Or do you intend to distract us from our purpose forever, making editing of the article impossible?" Apostle12 ( talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It is fairly clear that uninvolved editors have long ago given up the thought of engaging with this debate, which impossible to follow without immersing oneself in endless detail, so I suggest that you now take it away from this board and return it to the talk page where it belongs. Paul B ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article on Race and intelligence a group of SPA editors dedicated to pushing a pro-hereditarian viewpoint are arguing that the statement of C. Loring Brace, a respected authority on evolutionary biology who is arguing that there is no plausible evolutionary scenario that could have lead to blacks becoming less intelligent than whites (a POV also publically held by the professional organizations of anthropologists and physical anthropologists in america as well as by UNESCO) should either be removed or "balanced" by statements to the contrary effect, by researchers publishing in the racialist journal Mankind Quarterly. I have tried to argue civilly but am loosing patience as they are barraging me with WP:IDIDDNTHEARTHAT, strawmen and personal aspersions. It should be noted that the section from which they want to remove the only non-hereditarian viewpoint is already heavily biased towards the hereditarian side citing several fringe studies such as J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Thisthat2011 is insisting on using Arrian, an ancient historian, to make the claim that there was no slavery in ancient India [22], and edit-warring over it [23]. Yet, this claim is flatly contradicted by modern, secondary sources [24] [25]. This editor tried the same exact thing once before using another ancient author, Menander, and was similarly rebuffed [26]. Any help in dealing with this would be appreciated. Athenean ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This time it is the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptizes in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps it has become the case that every outing of a historical figure by a queer theorist is notable, but the article spends almost half its length on this extra-textual speculation and doesn't even mention that this is traditionally claimed as the origin of Ethiopian Christianity. So assistance on this would be appreciated. Mangoe ( talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jack Bartlett Rogers is a Presbyterian minister, seminary professor emeritus, and author. He taught at Westminster College,Pennsylvania, at Fuller Theological Seminary, and at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He also served as moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).[1][2]
Publications
Worldcat lists 48 published works by Rogers.[3] Among them are:
The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, (with Donald McKim) [4] Biblical Authority Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical Introduction to Philosophy: A Case Method Approach (with Forrest Baird) Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church [5] Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions Presbyterian Creeds: Suplement on the Brief Statement of Faith Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way
John J. McNeill was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1959 and now is a psychotherapist and an academic theologian, with a particular reputation within the field of Queer Theology. He obtained a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1964 and has taught at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, NY and Fordham University in NYC. In 1972, he joined the combined Woodstock Jesuit Seminary and Union Theological Seminary faculty as professor of Christian Ethics, specializing in Sexual Ethics.
Published works The Church and the Homosexual Taking a Chance on God Freedom, Glorious Freedom Both Feet Firmly Planted in Midair Honours Grand Marshal of the New York City Gay Rights Parade in 1987; The National Human Rights Award in 1984 for his contributions to lesbian and gay rights; The 1989 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Blanton-Peale Institutes of Religion and Health; The Humanitarian Award in 1990 from the Association of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists; The 1993 Distinguished Contribution Award of the Eastern Region American Association of *Pastoral Counselors for outstanding contribution to pastoral counseling; The United Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches Special Award for his "dedicated work in spreading the Gospel to the lesbian/gay community"; The 1997 Dignity/USA Prophetic Service Award "In Recognition of over 25 years of extraordinary work on behalf of the Catholic Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenered Community"; The 1999 Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco "Living Saint" Award. 63.17.61.86 ( talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Queer Theology, eh? I am not a homophobe, but it is no secret that Wikipedia has a bad case of systemic bias towards "queer theorists" and gay rights activism. I have no problem with gay activism being covered for what it is and for what it is worth, just as another notable point of view. But the fact is that gay rights activism has deeply subverted our entire coverage of homosexuality topics, down to the categroy structure. Nobody dares to clean this up because of the flak anyone daring to touch it is going to get from our resident activists, and because nobody wants to be bashed as anti-gay. So it simply stays in place. This is probably one of the worst cases of systemic bias on Wikipedia, because any other bias, such as pro-Israeli vs. pro-Palestinian, or pro-Muslim vs. anti-Muslim, is going to be challenged by the opposite faction. This mechanism so far has almost completely failed to work in the "LGBT" area, I assume mostly because nobody except gay activists is going to bother even reading through the countless "LGBT" articles on Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
or remove it based on
WP:DUE, don't blanket blame everyone The lead of Marriage also reflects what Dab is describing. I'm 100% in support of gay marriage becoming legal everywhere, but historically and cross-culturally the institution of gay marriage has been virtually insignificant, yet as far as I understand it is impossible to change the lead of that entry to reflect the fact that heterosexual monogamy has been the most prevalent form of marriage in recorded history. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) A central issue is the near complete lack of any citations in the lede. There are only two, the first of which is not germane. The second citation is to this law journal article, and it presents two theories about marriage. The first is more clearly reproduced in our article, because it is more obviously same-sex-friendly; the second, however, seems to better reflect the institutional history:
Marriage is everywhere the word we use to describe a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union between a man and woman which creates rights and obligations between the couple and any children the union may produce. Marriage as a public tie obligates not only fathers, but fathers’ kin to recognize the children of this union. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged. Marriage is the way in which every society attempts to channel the erotic energies of men and women into a relatively narrow but highly fruitful channel—to give every child the father his or her heart desires. Above all—normal marriage is normative. Marriage is not primarily a way of expressing approval for infinite variety of human affectional or sexual ties; it consists, by definition, of isolating and preferring certain types of unions over others. By socially defining and supporting a particular kind of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.
The "problem" with this definition is that it plainly puts same-sex marriage in the same position as other non-fruitful arrangements as something of an analogue to or extension of the central model, and therefore it is likely to be fought. But we really need something that at least is cited. WHat we have not is, in a sense, OR. Mangoe ( talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Found this page doing wp:NPP. I think it might be a fringe theory coatrack, there are few sources, most are offline, some I can't find evidence of actually existing but that just might be my google-fu failing me. Has anyone else had any experience with the topic? I'll admit I'm sort of out of my depth on this one but I don't think it'd be very responsible to just leave it unreviewed for some other sap to sort out, it's already been unreviewed for months. HominidMachinae ( talk) 07:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone has once again applied a neutrality template to this article and another editor has simultaneously chimed in on the talk page complaining that we're unfairly rejecting "exoscientific explanations for something beyond [our] comprehension". Since there are two editors involved here right from the get go, I decided to seek more eyes here first before proceeding. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The usual genetics train wreck. Salvageable in principle, but we don't have enough editors with genetics expertise to keep up with the patriotic kids adding this "genetics of $MY_ETHNICITY" trash. -- dab (𒁳) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. — [d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on (well, actually getting stale now) at WP:ANI regarding what appears to be a fringe scientist by the name of Luis González-Mestres and a theoretical subatomic particle he has proposed called a Superbradyon. No one but González-Mestres seems ever to have taken notice of this particle's existence. The article on the particle (hey, I rhymed) has been nominated for deletion. The one on González-Mestres - well, it seems very long with a lot of references (a great deal of them to his own work) for a bio of someone of what seems to be marginal notability, although I haven't reviewed it in detail. Both of them have been heavily edited by someone who refers to himself as "our collective." I'm cross-posting here because I think both articles (and the deletion discussion) could benefit from the attention of editors who are familiar with fringe science. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A section has been added to this article "Secret Service Trap" by User Hubertgrove which claims that false orders were broadcast to the German Squadron by British Intelligence. This claim is supported in a book Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926. The issue here is that while the citation might be valid, this German officer is relaying something that was told to him by a friend. Search as I might, I can not find a single other source for this claim. In point of fact, at least two of the Historians Massie and Halpern give views quite to the contrary of this assertion. I have searched the online British Archives without finding a single supporting piece of evidence. User USER Simon Harley's research list here:
As always, finding something contrary to a single assertion presents its typical difficulty but at some point common sense has to play a part here as well. An Intelligence service broadcasting false orders in a broken naval code would be announcing the fact that their codes had indeed been broken, inviting the enemy to change codes immediately. The base problem is that unsupported claims like this do much to undermine the project's credibility and user trust. Tirronan ( talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't make head nor tail of whether this article is about a fringe cult, a satire, or a monopoly capitalist conspiracy. I think it needs looking at though... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems full of original research, especially the latest edits. Dougweller ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Additional eyes may be needed for a while at Starchild skull and perhaps at the related Lloyd Pye. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy seems to present some new medical insights (not reported in scholarly sources at first glance) as reality. It seems to be more like "alternative medecine", but I have no idea how fringey it actually is. Fram ( talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear are two fringe creationists for the CSM ( Creation Science Movement). I collected references for them both, but a user has claimed they are not third party sources (i partly agree on some but not all). See here: WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden
It comes down to three options:
I tried the third option, but a user has deleted it all. - When we had third party sources from the BBC etc. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Current references for Malcolm Bowden:
Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
References for David Rosevear:
Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from above, many third party references for Both Rosevear and Bowden - Including in total three BBC articles, two Thirdway magazine, profiles at bcse, a review of Bowden at talk.origins etc etc, nobody even bothered to look or help out. - If Rosevear and Bowden were two mainstream evolutionists they would of been given a warm welcome at wikipedia even without references, but being two "crackpot" creationists who own a creationist museum (one retired engineer) and one (PHd biochemist) - they are not suitable for wikipedia. Articles deleted, case closed Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing Liveintheforests' creation of articles on WP:FRINGE figures of questionable notability:
Olan Hyndman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An obscure Iowan neurosurgeon whose book propounding his idiosyncratic theory of evolution/philosophy of science received a pair of reviews (in The Philosophical Forum and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, not in any journal that specialises in evolutionary biology, or philosophy of science). Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack removed by KillerChihuahua. Liveintheforests; you are welcome to comment on the subject at hand. You are not welcome to make personal attacks. If you have concerns about the editing or behavior of another editor, you are welcome to open an Rfc, where you are welcome to describe in civil and concise terms how you feel his or her editing violates Wikipedia policy. Puppy has spoken; do not continue down this path. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you serious??? It doesn't matter what the sources say? Please go start a blog and stop wasting our time. On Wikipedia, it matters what the sources say. Please see WP:V, WP:RS. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Hfran, I suggest you list the article on Afd. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
lol there are HUNDREDS of wikipedia pages like this: John Foster (philosopher) with no references at all on - they stay on wikipedia for years, untouched, hey are you gonna tag this one? Why do you only tag evolutionist pages?. I can list you another 40 articles of living people - no references all left on wiki. - These pages won't be touched becuase they do not mention "evolution" they have no third party references on them. As soon as someone proposes a new mechanism for evolution it is looked down upon and those peoples wikipedia pages are put into the "fringe watch" even when they are well sourced, "one law for them another for us". Liveintheforests ( talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone with a decent pair of eyes could of seen that there were many references for Olan Hyndman, - also searching Dr. Hyndman MD or Olan Hyndman Iowa University brings up many other references in a search engine. Case closed, article deleted, if Olan hadn't of written his own evolutionary theory, his article would be left up on wiki without anyone at all caring who or what he was. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some BLP violations which I suspect will reappear. There's still a problem with original research. It's a pretty poor article in any case. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont care anymore, just delete the articles I created: Delete the following:
Soren Lovtrup Malcolm Bowden David Rosevear Olan Hyndman
It isnt worth the bother - All articles have both a mixture of primary and third party references but they will not be aloud on wikipedia becuase apparently they challenge the mainsteam view of evolution and according to members here they are all "cranks". Hrafn will not give up until they are tagged and deleted so no matter which references i put up they will not be good enough. So may aswell delete them all anyway, users are not even reading the references. Cheers. Liveintheforests ( talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
All 4 articles have been deleted. Party anyone? Get your Darwin banners out!! You win. Any scientist who questions natural selection is a "crackpot" and not is not reliable to be on wikipedia even if they are well sourced!!. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The Energy Catalyzer ('cold fusion') article needs more eyes on it. It is attracting SPAs who seem to have some odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream science. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Soren Lovtrup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This embryologist appears to have written a lot of rather WP:FRINGE-sounding material about evolution, including in the notorious pseudoscience-peddling journal Rivista di Biologia. Most of the article is cited to primary sources. I'm probably looking at AfDing it, but thought I'd post it for comment here first. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, Macromutation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is wholly unsourced, and probably deserving of closer attention. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Liveintheforests for this:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(Actually, we might be able to achieve 1&2 by a WP:USURPTITLE procedure. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Many reliabled third party sources here:
Why does Hrafn deny all of this? And keep putting notability tags on the page? Liveintheforests ( talk) 11:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
— WP:GNG
Significant third-party coverage is REQUIRED for notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua has removed a third party reference claiming:
"Remove reference which is not about subject at all, but about work on finches by Grant"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf
Click on the link above, scroll down to page 3 of 5.
Soren lovtrups book and work is reviewed in great detail with much description about Lovtrups theory of macromutation by W.Dohle in the Journal of evoltionary biology on page 3. What does this show? It shows that Killer is not even reading the references (he hasn't gone further than the first line which is actually a seperate review of another book), hes just eager to get these sources deleted. It also appears that this edit can not be undone now either and has done be done manually, i am not happy about what is going on here, no respect at all, users here are not even reading the references, they are making big mistakes, the source was third party. Liveintheforests ( talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been deleted now and you can close this case, but as you can see there was actually other third party sources out there, nobody bothered to look though except me:
http://ep.physoc.org/content/59/3/261.full.pdf+html - Review of Lovtrup's work from C. H. Waddington a developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology - not at all a "crank", though Hrafn would probably call him a "crank" as outside of science he was influenced by the process philosophy of Whitehead. Liveintheforests ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)