This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Does this even reach the level of "Disputed science", like the sidebox prominently labels it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

the problem is with {{ Infobox Pseudoscience}}. I am doubtful about this template. Can we treat pseudoscience as a topic of taxonomy, neatly labelling it with infoboxes? If we want to use this template, it should say "pseudoscience". But perhaps the template should be deleted, or turned into something else? dab (𒁳) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience? It doesn't give any parentage. Shouldn't it be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, and perhaps with Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal? Wikiprojects are supposed as a platform for editors interested in the same group of topics, they are not supposed to separate these editors sorted by their opinion or point of view. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the sidebox. Let's see if that sticks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Assumtions_are_unethical_and_a_disgrace_to_acedemics_which_use_wikipedia

Why is it that I have such difficulty trying to get these members to understand that it is unacademic to allow the article in discussion to assume the guilt of a certain part even though no court case has ever proved so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because your contention is irrelevant to the article and the point of view you're pressing violates WP:WEIGHT. And looking at the article talk page shows you're about a millimetre from being blocked for disruptive editing, so you might want to take some time for reflection instead of pressing the issue in the manner you've been doing. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...God, this article is AWFUL. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

When cruising around for background on water clusters I found this nice site. [1] It has a great quote:

The fact is that none of these views has any significant support in the scientific communities of chemistry, biochemistry, or physiology, nor are they even considered worthy of debate. The only places you are likely to see these views advocated are in literature (and on Web sites) intended to promote the sale of these products to consumers in the notoriously credulous "alternative" health and "dietary supplement" market.

It was specifically about the water cluster nonsense, but it could apply to any number of woo-woo nostrums promoted on Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Adding Penta to Pap smear test samples increases the accuracy of cervical cancer screening"?! Please, let me have a word with the IRB which approved that particular study. Parenthetically, we should really have a bot which automatically slaps an {{ original research}} tag on any article containing the words "It is important to note..." MastCell ^Talk 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,620 from en.wikipedia.org for "it is important to note". Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the company may now be dead, many of the links are dead. I removed some sourced claims but there's a ton of work to do on this one. Mostly I think it should be trimmed, there's just too much weight given to the "theory" futurebird ( talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've cut the two pages on questionable studies - they're mentioned and briefly discussed elsewhere in the article anyway, and it was just giving undue weight to them. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a little bit also, the whole thing is poorly written and full of unencyclopedic commentary. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the UK operation, at least, has been shut down as a result of regulatory action ( [2]). Presumably there is still a US branch, unless it has died an unnoticed (dare I say non-notable?) death... MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the articles Political status of Taiwan and Legal status of Taiwan, there are a series of external links to sites that argue that Taiwan is technically an occupied territory of the United States. In the political status article, a section describes the attempt by certain individuals to have the US judiciary declare it as such. Now, I think the argument is clever but wrong (when one considers oppsing arguments it becomes obvious :-) ). The question is to what degree is it fringe and to what extent are the links producing weight issues. (A few months ago, I queried the people at WikiProject Taiwan, who noted that the links belong only at the political and legal status pages.) Their sheer number though still seems to produce weight issues. (1) Should the links exist at all? and (2) if so, should they be trimmed? Advice appreciated. Ngchen ( talk) 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A new user is trying to push his view that info-gap is completely wrong, even though he agrees that his view is a minority opinion, supported by a single paper which he wrote himself. There is currently an RfC about this, but there seems to be fairly little interest in the article right now. I would appreciate another voice telling him that WP is not intended for POV-pushing. Thanks. -- Zvika ( talk) 05:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The is an on-going dispute over if the view, espoused by Front Page Magazine that Kwanzaa "is a racist holiday" is notable or fringe. Thus far, no solid mainstream sources have been offered, but now there is an NPOV tag on the article because of this. futurebird ( talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, not Ann Coulter again! That wretched woman causes far more trouble on Wikipedia than she's worth. Humbug!

More seriously - shrug. None of the sources that are directly cited would appear to be especially good ones, but that's nothing unusual. The article doesn't appear particularly POV, it just needs better sourcing. Coulter's opinion is worthy of inclusion in the criticism section, yes: she's a highly notable figure. Front Page Magazine - hmm, certainly not the world's most reliable source, and the opinion published there is doubtless fringe, but it may also be notable. I'll remove the POV tag and leave a note somewhere about improved sourcing. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While Coulter is notable for other stuff, her views on Kwanzaa may not be notable. Notability is in relation to the topic of the article, in this case Kwanzaa, not Coulter. Would this sentence make sense: "It is noteworthy that Ann Coulter criticizes Kwanzaa as being a racist holiday". No, not really in my opinion. Just being famous doesn't make one's views notable. They have to be notable to the topic at hand. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Coulter strikes me as just one of the most conspicuous of a large set of US far-right windbags. She has her own WP article, to which she's welcome. Within something purporting to be an encyclopedia, why must the article on her every target write up her nutty view about it? -- Hoary ( talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nooo idea. Still, she's a notable US far-right windbag, and something's got to go in the jolly old criticism section. Wikipedia has worse problems than Ann Coulter over-representation :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone is wikilawyering in order to insert personal views onto an article.-- Jersey Devil ( talk) 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. This clearly violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Frontpage magazine is not a "maisntream source," but fits the definition of "extremist sources of a political nature." Nevermind. Noting the political criticism of Kwanzaa as a racist holiday does not by itself violate WP:FRINGE provided that it's simply acknowledged as merely "criticism by Conservatives." To address possible NPOV issues, I added a lead. Zenwhat ( talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Zenwhat. But, I noticed you took out Ann's name, I think it's more neutral if her ideas are attributed directly to her. Ie. Coulter writes that... blah blah blah etc. (Since she's not an expert on holidays or anything I still wonder if it's notable, but as long as we give the source properly it's not that big of a deal provided we don't give undue weight to these things.) futurebird ( talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as Coulter is a moron, she's pretty influential, such that saying, "Coulter writes," would unduly marginalize her views. Generally that's a good thing, of course, but it violates Wikipedia policy. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion on the talk page of the above page, as part of an ongoing RfC, regarding the amount of weight which should be given to the subject's adherence to the Mormon faith, and at least in my eyes some very serious questions raised about how much material should be included. One party has already indicated that the article should include references to Mormon underwear and indicate which planet the subject will, according to Mormon doctrine, possibly rule in a future life. Any reasonable input would be more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented. Basically, it may be appropriate to mention that it's been a political issue, because I don't doubt it is, and to set out major talking points used in discussing it. However, we must take great care to attribute and present it neutrally. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a weird message board for this. I think WP:BLP/N might be a more appropriate forum. Cool Hand Luke 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the above, except that suggestions such as Mormon underwear aren't seriously meant, I think. It's hard to read the talk page because people keep pasting in again old comments, and because of a general lack of civility. That said, the article isn't that bad. I changed 'Mormon' to 'LDS' a couple of places. Not that the word 'Mormon' can be avoided, but the ones I know generally call themselves LDS and don't much care for the word 'Mormon'. No point, for example, in saying that a non-Mormon isn't welcome in LDS temples when non-member says it as well.

Essentially the talk page shows disagreement on relatively minor points, and it looks to me like the eager participants can keep each other in check. The trickiest part IMO is wanting to state that Romney is out of the race before he himself has said that. -- Hordaland ( talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of attempts to push a pilot study into this article, claiming it proves homeopathy works, after it got rejected over at the better monitored Homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Happened years ago. Never implemented anywhere. No impact on clinical practice. No currently published studies cite it or confirm it. Small sample size. Not interested. Ante lan ^talk 07:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Still on your mission then, Adam [3] [4], still pushing your POV. The study published in Chest journal is entirely reputable and notable and should be kept. It does not attempt to prove homeopathy works, as you allege, it merely shows Potassium dichromate has been studied in a trial and the result published in a reputable mainstream medical journal. You clearly have no idea how difficult that article would have been to get published, or how rigorously the study would have been reviewed in order even to get published? Yet again you have no idea what you are talking about and the study should remain in the Potassium dichromate article. Yet again you have showed that you have no remorse and have learned nothing from this RfC or the arbcom. Peter morrell 08:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Peter, but your idea of proper behaviour means "sit back and allow fringe theories to spread throughout Wikipedia". I'm not going to learn that, sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that homeopathy features so prominently in the article. Is it perhaps receiving too much weight? How do other articles on this compound compare (I'm sure the ACS information does not include anything on pseudoscience, for example). ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominently? are you serious? 10.5 lines out of over 80 lines. That is less than 15%. I would hardly call that prominent. Peter morrell 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be a more effective description if the number of letters used in discussing it as a homeopathic rememdy are diluted to a vanishingly small amount. Hal peridol ( talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Tparameter ( talk) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's its own section. That's prominent. It may deserve, for example, to be completely excluded from this article since this is a mainstream scientific article. See WP:FRINGE. After all, even though head-on uses it, there is so little of it in head-on we probably could list thousands of other products that contain a greater amount/concentration of it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be disingenuous for us to claim that it is contained within that product if it, in fact, is not. Ante lan ^talk 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going again over old ground...read the edit history and talk page and you will see. Peter morrell 16:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In Domestic sheep, it claims that homeppathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and herbalism have been proven to work for some ailments, citing a statement in a couple books. I checked the scientific literature, and found this which says veterinary homeopathy has not been proven, and so deleted the statement that it had been.

It's been restored. What now? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help. I think the problem is sources. VanTucky probably has excellent sources on sheep but these sources are probably not particularly up on the scientific issues associated with alt med in general. That certain sheep producers anecdotally report success is probably what the source means. I doubt there have been extensive scientific trials on the efficacy of homeopathic cures on sheep. ScienceApologist ( talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is an excellent example of an article that should mention homeopathy (unlike potassium dichromate, for example). Van Stucky was able to point to a guidebook about sheep which mentioned it explicitly as being used by various sheep producers, but being met with skepticism. This is the kind of good sourcing I have been discussing all day. We need independent sources that establish the promience of homeopathy with respect to the subject at hand. What we should not use are primary sources written by homeopaths that assert prominence in other fields. ScienceApologist ( talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On what basics are theories added to 9/11 conspiracy theories , the whole article seems to be WP:OR , WP:NPOV and WP:Nonsense Gnevin ( talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is an absolute mess. Roughly 90% of the article is nonsense and I know veracity isn't Wikipedia's standard, WP:RS and WP:V are. But of course, since these claims are false, they either aren't cited or poorly cited.

Examples:

• Discrimination is not the same as prejudice, the lead (and much of the article) treats them as if they are.
• The article invokes a slippery slope: "When anti-Christian discrimination becomes systemic, the result is the persecution of Christians."
• The terms Christianophobia and Christophobia are not NPOV nor are they widely used.
• The characterization of the terms Bible beater, Bible basher, Bible-thumper, and Jesus Freak are "hate speech," is original research.
• "Some elements of the black metal scene declare open hatred of Christianity"
• "The persecution of Christians is the religious persecution that Christians have endured as a consequence of professing their faith, both historically and in the current era."
• "The ruling Communist Party maintains tight control over all religions in China."
• Anti-Christian_discrimination#United_Kingdom
• Anti-Christian_discrimination#United_States
• Anti-Christian_discrimination#Canada
• Further reading:
  • David Limbaugh. Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity
  • Marvin Olasky. Prodigal Press: The Anti-Christian Bias of American News Media

Who wrote this article? Pat Robertson? I suspect this article was pretty decent in the past. Somebody just needs to dig through its history, find it, and then revert all this silliness.

For one thing, the article fails to note that many claim that so-called "anti-christian discrimination" is invoked when freedom of religion is upheld. You work at Macy's and you don't say, "Merry Christmas," and you're automatically a bigot. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good for a laugh. -- Hordaland ( talk) 17:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not that great. I fact tagged a bunch, and removed some of the commentary, fixed some of the links intended to be refs, but the whole think needs some work. A start would be to either find sources or delete any of the unreferenced material, then see what's left. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the article Anti-Christian sentiment. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a hoax. But the background is amusing, involving another page of dubious quality.

• original form by a hapax IP. Note the disarming "has begun to fall into disuse" for something that isn't even a neologism yet.
• "See Also" added (with text) to another OR-ish page.

• wikified text from "See Also" link, by a hapax account, unobtrusively tacking on the text to a copy-edit.
• At this point, a now banned account gets involved, triggering a brief revert-war and, given his OTT antics, probably convincing others that this is a legit article under troll attack that "needs" references.
• Duly provided by a hapax tris account.
• My {{prod}} tag got reverted ( rightly, as it turned out), obliging me to track these references down. They are, of course, bogus.
• Meanwhile, my attempt to remove the "link" on the Maharaj page has been reverted by someone who seems quite convinced that the text should stay.

I'm not sure how to proceed. AfD for Brahmanical See seems pretty clear cut, but what to do about the disinformation on the Maharaj page? rudra ( talk) 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the AfD discussion. As for misinformation, any misinformation should be removed. Generally, if you think a claim is false, throw a {{fact}} template on it. Since this nonsense has persisted for so long, the stuff on Maharaj can be removed. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, we probably have a chance at fixing this article at the moment. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a little urgent,a s Martinphi has marked all the criticism with fact tags, and wants to remove it if it isn't sourced soon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is an appropriate reliable source available and you have promised on the talk page to add a number of references to it. Is there anything you suggest that readers of this page need to do with the article at this point? Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my source is a bit old, so... you know. If anyone knows of more modern sources, I'd like to use them. (Radionics is one of those warmed-up 1920's quackeries) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My gods, this could practically stand as a POV-fork of Homeopathy at several points. Lots ofdubious facts and aggrandisement. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated The China Study for deletion on notability grounds and because it may constitute the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. The article presents only one source/POV--that of the book's authors. The fringe theory issues come from the authors' advocacy of strict veganism in association with claims such as:

1. Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals.
2. The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages.

Also, there are the remarks of Chris Masterjohn, a principal critic of The China Study. Here's an example (emphasis added):

Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that “eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,”5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

I want to be clear that I don't consider veganism to be a "fringe theory" per se. Please consider commenting on the AfD page here. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all what do the rest of you think of this source? Is http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/525483/description#description NUTRITION RESEARCH] a solid academic journal. It looks like one to me. Well it seems that the findings of this book were reviewed in the journal in this article. So it looks like this book was taken seriously. I can't read the article to find out if it was reviewed in a negative or positive way, but I don't see any evidence that having an article that outlines the findings of the book and the response from solid academic sources would be a problem. futurebird ( talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is crying out for merger with China Project and then much more information needs to be sought about the project's scientific origins and funding, the involvement of universities and government, whether there has been any publication in scientific journals etc. etc. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Futurebird, it is incorrect that "the findings of this book were reviewed" in Nutrition Research. The article you linked to was published in 2002 and The China Study was published in 2005. If that were not enough, there is no mention of the book or the study in the abstract or keywords. It is also very interesting to me that The China Study is not included among the numerous publications listed on the China Project web site. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked third opinions in many places on removing tags issues in it. But no comments/consensus formed yet. Please verify the article & leave your comments. -- Avinesh Jose  T  08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To establish consensus, this AfD discussion needs additional input. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fruitful discussion seems to have stalled on the What the Bleep Do We Know!? article, and I'm looking for some suggestions as to what to do. We're getting into what I think are strange arguments about scientific philosophy (mainstream science being labeled authoritarian, among other things) regarding a relative straightforward content disagreement. We've put out RfCs to relevant wikiprojects, including totally orthogonal groups (wp:film, for example), but there hasn't been much real outside involvement. Any thoughts for how to proceed? I don't know if this is the best place to ask this question, but it's a place I'm familiar with so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ante lan ^talk 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of deleting the article and salting the namespace. Kww ( talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a funny idea but it won't work, it would be resurrected as What the ^%@$!# Do We Know!?...

Seriously though, I've been watching that talk page and have been having trouble even understanding what the dispute is. The artcle lead seems OK as it is now - it describes the film, says it's supported by new age people, and that scientists have criticized it as pseudoscience. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.... but what's the problem with that intro? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wrote much of the scientific part of the current lead, so I'm biased... I would try to summarize the arguments against, but to my mind, the arguments against keep changing, so I'm not sure I can faithfully recap those arguments. Ante lan ^talk 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell: do we have sufficiently strong sources that we are able to simply say "What the Bleep is a movie that misrepresents science" and still satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:V? Or do we have to refer to it as a movie that has been "criticized for misrepresenting science"? Neither side cares much for the current lead ... when the RFCs went out, I lobbied pretty strongly for just freezing it, no matter what it said, so we could criticize a stable target. It's moot, now ... after ScienceApologist's last flameout, it's protected. Actually, Antelan, the arguments never change ... we've just been running in a circle for 12 weeks or so. Kww ( talk) 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot the sub-argument (which probably is the base argument, when you come down to it): is the article governed by the standards of science articles (where we are fairly rigid about whose say counts, and avoiding statements that give credence to fringe positions), or is it governed by the standards of pop culture articles, where Roger Ebert and Richard Dawkins have equally valid viewpoints? Kww ( talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the case could be made for either, depending on the tenor of the article. This one clearly draws heavily from both, and should comply with both sets of guidelines where appropriate. I might have missed some of the arguments since I had an exam earlier this week, but are people there actually saying that only certain guidelines apply there? Ante lan ^talk 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar has repeatedly said that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply, because its not an article about science. Kww ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Kww can have most everything he wants besides saying that Bleep mis-represents science without any attribution. That is the sticking point, in addition to phrasing and arrangement that just underhandedly tries to bias. But basically, that is the main dispute. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I forgot he wants to call it dirty names- can't have that either (: —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to that end, Kww and others have provided RSes that have described the movie as pseudoscience and used other language to get that point across. What is the sticking point? Ante lan ^talk 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make the claims pseudoscience. It merely makes the movie accused of pseudoscience. Per paranormal arbcom such controversies should not make a conclusion, but rather be described. Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Can you elaborate? Ante lan ^talk 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie is controversial, and wikipedia should abstain from making a conclusion to the controversy. Claiming that the movie is plain out lying, as some editors want to state, is completely POV. So even if some of the sources are considered by some to be authoritarian, they are actors in the controversy rather than arbiters of truth. Don't you see the problem?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim ( talk • contribs)

The movie is controversial. The scientific claims are pseudoscientific, etc., as has been well sourced. That you consider the Physical and Chemical societies to be authoritarian is a problem that you have with the system, not a problem with the sources. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. This isn't the place to solve that problem. Ante lan ^talk 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just think a consensus will only exist as long as these are correctly attributed. Actually I think it would be better to focus on the criticism of specific claims in the movie instead of making sweeping statements. That some reviewer over at P&CS thinks it is pseudoscience is still an opinion of the reviewer, not a product of scientific inquiry. The movie is about unknowns in science after all. Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with you on one thing: I have long argued that we should attribute these statements, but Dreadstar keeps arguing that making such attribution in the lead makes for an inappropriately long lead, nevermind that the lead already disproportionately underrepresents the criticism section of the article. Ante lan ^talk 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think the lead shouldn't contain more than an outline of the general criticism since there is really not much apart from "accusations of pseudoscience and claims that are unlikely according to mainstreams science" which is the problems. The criticism section could easily be cut down to only be about notable specific criticism instead of overall slashing of the movie, since these are the most relevant to the reader. But yeah, I think we can reach consensus once we move the "high-level" debate out of the article and refactor. :) Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep our terms straight. I have no objection to citation: i.e. "WTB is a 2004 film that misrepresents science [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". I have have objections to attribution: "WTB is a 2005 film that is criticized by some scientists as misrepresenting science". Kww ( talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, the balanced position involves us stating which organizations have published articles stating that it misrepresents science/etc. This is what Dreadstar has disagreed with, which in my opinion has driven us to two extremes. Ante lan ^talk 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, next up we could start editing Fahrenheit 9/11 to state that "F9/11 is a film that misrepresents the WTC attack" ... Should be easy to source that. Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And if this were about Fahrenheit 911, I would respond to that after carefully looking over the sources. Ante lan ^talk 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry for the rethoric, but I just think it would be the best for the concensus to attribute, instead of doing what kww suggests, which would pretty much be WP:POINT and making conclusion on basis of an active debate. Is attributing it so bad? It would be exactly the same in meaning! The article as it is already gives very little credence to the theories and states a minimal amount of actual points the movie raises. Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I've been advocating for that stance, and I've been getting shot down because people don't want this material in the lead, period. Ante lan ^talk 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the lead, because it is a notable exception. Not in the description sentence tho. Otherwise I agree with the majority of the current involved editors. Now if the overarching debates could be closed and moved somewhere else. Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's lead-sentence worthy, either. But the others disagree that this type of wording should be in the lead at all. They argue that "scientists have criticized" is sufficient, whereas several of us think that it is superior to say "X group says that the movie promulgates pseudoscience" or whatever the source says. We can't close the discussion, because others still disagree. Ante lan ^talk 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the racetrack we're on: write it my way, many say it's too blunt; write it with full citations, and people argue that it's too long for a lead; write it the "some scientists say" way, and it's too vague and mealy-mouthed. Kww ( talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What dirty words have I encouraged using, Martinphi? Also, Wikipedia makes statements all the time. No one wants to say "What the Bleep is considered by some to be a film", and no one but me argued that we couldn't describe it as a "documentary" without attribution. Kww ( talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The sticking point is WP:ATT. A sentence like "Bleep has been criticized as pseudoscience by scientists such as X and by other scientific reviewers" would be fine. The entire problem is those wishing to make absolute statements. But we can't do that here.

Kww: I meant words like "balderdash." Read WP:ATT your other questions are directly and explicitly addressed there. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, Martin, I've read it repeatedly. Please show me the part that says that statements to which all reliable and credible sources agree cannot be treated as facts. Kww ( talk) 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously think editors would do well to credit their readers with some intelligence. For all of the versions under discussion, it is clear that any readers who haven't their head stuck in a bucket of molecularly altered water will realize that this movie is so much shiny nonsense. Any one who refuses to admit as much, will do so no matter what our article says. dab (𒁳) 11:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Dab. folks need to lighten up on labels, just present the information and let the gentle reader think for him or her self. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that some useful information has been removed from the article under dubious circumstances. We are discussing it at Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#Here's a better version. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, sheesh. I've linked prominently to Ramtha and JZ Knight, both useful articles, what more do you need? Our readers are not fools - we provide with the relevant links/info and they will work this one out. No need to unduly strain the point. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to begin a concerted effort to remove homeopathy from mainstream science articles per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. There is no reason why we cannot have mention in pages that discuss homeopathy as a pathological science the various implications for substances they use, but for the most part, such uses do not belong on the articles' pages themselves. This is the so-called "one-way linking principle" that was first delineated in discussions of mainstream astronomy versus fringe ideas. Succinctly, it is perfectly legitimate for a fringe theory to link to a mainstream article. However, in order for a mainstream article to link to a fringe theory, it needs to be established that there is enough mainstream notice of the fringe theory in reference to the mainstream topic. In other words, in the article about onion we should not be mentioning homeopathic remedies since the vast majority of sources that have information on onions do not include homeopathic remedies in their discussions. Only in cases where homeopathy has actually been mentioned in the mainstream discussions (for example, the malaria article) should the idea be mentioned. I would appreciate any and all help I can get with this mammoth task. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. When homeopathy discussion was a significant percentage of the total article content on hair of the dog, then there is clearly a problem. Tparameter ( talk) 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

seems reasonable. I would caution to err on the side of leaving a link to the relevant homeopathic article, when cutting down the over weight sections. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually doing this by looking at what links directly to homeopathy. Undoubtably, I'll miss some places that fail to wikilink to that article or wikilink to a related article. Fortunately, homeopathy has not blossomed into too large a walled garden yet and so I'm fairly confident I found most of the issues.

Also I noticed in more than a few cases people confused folk medicine with homeopathy. There may be a few instances where I mistakenly removed a reference to homeopathy when it was actually about folk medicine use. I'm inclined to think that folk medicine use is relevant for inclusion in the article because chewing on the bark of the willow tree is not the same as diluting some distilled substance past the point where any molecules of the substance are left in the solution.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, this kind of thing is long overdue. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check out the Asthma article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at that article earlier today and couldn't decide what to do with it. I think there is a real danger that Wikipedia may be presenting misleading information about the efficacy of alternative medicine treatments (not just homeopathy). However, the paragraphs asserted that alternative treatments for asthma were somewhat popular and, if true, we definitely should discuss them in the article, if for no other reason that to provide accurate information about them. Perhaps you should hit up Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

well, hm, to be fair, hair of the dog is exactly the same principle as "homeopathy". Of course we don't want an entire section on homeopathy in the "hair of the dog" article, but mention of the principle of homeopathy is probably warranted. After all, it's not as if "hair of the dog" was a venerable academic mainstream topic. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning it is fine as long as you can find a reliable source that does this. Once that's done, go ahead and write something on it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand you are fed up with homeopathy. No need to WP:RS me, I wasn't going to push this. My idle observation that "hair of the dog that bit you" is an actual example of the principle of "homeopathy" stands. I am not going to allege that it is actually a good idea to treat dogbites with dog hair though. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The same principle as homeopathy? I think not. A nice bloody mary always helps a stubborn hangover. I'm not sure that a bloody mary diluted to 0.0001% of it's original content, then put into sugar tablets, would have the same effect. Tparameter ( talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two things 1) homeopathy in the etymological sense, which is the same as "hair of the dog", the treatment of like with like, opposite of allopathy. And 2) homeopathy as it is usually practised, where substances are usually (but perhaps not always?) diluted to the extent that they are pure water. If homeopathy is mentioned in the hair of the dog article then this can be clarified. There must be thousands of reliable sources to cover it, e.g. handbooks of family health, textbooks for nurses. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So, should we also add a couple-paragraph section to hair of the dog about fighting fire with fire, since it is also a remedy for a problem that has a somewhat similar solution? In a body shop, if you have silicone exposure in the shop, there may be "fisheyes" in a finished paint-job - so, you can add silicone to the paint mix before-hand to help prevent those problems. The fight fire with fire remedy is ubiquitous, which is exactly why it's cliche - but, we shouldn't have gigantic articles that list every instance of every other form of the phenomenon. Instead, each article can stand on its own. Tparameter ( talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See UK National Health Service pages for a simple intro. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Related conflict of interest

the conflict of interest noticeboard. Please comment. I think this user may not be aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV issues. He has now reverted my removal of homeopathic uses for various plants and chemicals twice with the claim that such were "POV edits". The more people that can coach this user the better. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is homeopathy pseudoscience?

copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeals and requests for clarification

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience et seq., is homeopathy generally considered pseudoscience, or just questionable science? MilesAgain ( talk) 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience makes a reference to scientific versus nonscientific evaluations and treatments of the human mind where there is a great deal of uncertainty and where the term pseudoscience should not be used lightly. Homeopathy by contrast makes claims about chemistry that are illogical and have been dis-proven by science and that no scientist takes seriously. Homeopathy is clearly pseudoscience. Does ink get more ink-like if you dilute it? Does sugar-water gain calories if you add water? Is blood serum better to give as a transfusion if you add more water? When you take Vitamin C, is it more potent to dissolve in water and take less? Does gasoline for your car give more energy if you dilute it in water? Diluting a substance decreases the qualities of that substance. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the article itself states (with good references) that "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment, a lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst". Nergaal ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You using a wiki article to prove a point? The article is a point of contention and a work in progress. Homeopathy is currently the subject of much research by reputable scientist. The research methodology is evolving (improving) as is common with topics worth scientific review. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your claim of "reputable scientist [sic]" conduducting research is somewhat false. What reputable studies have been done show no basis other than the placebo effect, and those that show some other benefit have major flaws (lack of control and small sample sizes to name but two) LinaMishima ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The present article is not NPOV in the opinion of a number of editors. Homeopathy does not make claims about chemistry, contrary to WAS statement above. It is not obvious pseudoscience, it may be an alternative theoretical formulation. — Whig ( talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they often do make such claims. There are entire (unreliable) journals devoted to "water memory" and "quantum" effects. If one uses the terminology of science, one must be prepared to defend oneself against it. LinaMishima ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims have to do with the physical structure of water and are consistent with quantum electrodynamics. This is not chemistry, however, and as you note this is a content issue not properly resolved here. — Whig ( talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no QED has nothing to do with water memory. This is completely bogus, and I have the benefit of a PhD in mathematical physics and several years worth of graduate study in QFT.-- Filll ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They are most certainly not, if you actually understand the science involved. The scales at work with homeopathy are such that said claims have no basis remaining in fact. But that is a discussion for elsewhere. I shall have a search for specific discussions, but for now try reading [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I certainly do not agree with the overly aggressive tone of some of these, but their content is generally sound. If you wish to discuss this further, it would probably be an idea to head over to my talk page LinaMishima ( talk) 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, serious scientist are researching homeopathy. [10] [11] [12] Anthon01 ( talk) 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the commentary attached to the BMJ article. This points out a number of flaws, and shows that conclusions cannot be drawn at this time. There is a common misunderstanding that scientists do not investigate pseudoscience. The difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are happy to investigate fully any claim, and are willing to change their opinion on a subject based upon the evidence. The evidence currently for Homeopathy is extremely lacking, and furthermore there is no means for any method of action to actually exist, given the dilution beyond the Avogadro limit. Again, to conclude, investigation does not automatically lend merit. LinaMishima ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

content dispute: as much as I have a professional opinion on this matter, this is clearly a content dispute, and as such I'm not sure if it is really an appropriate matter for ArbCom. LinaMishima ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to ArbCom, the Clerks and other uninvolved parties for being part of a discussion which is really off-topic here and belongs elsewhere. Sorry. LinaMishima ( talk) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was distracted by the fact that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience is clearly a content guideline, so I thought to ask here. On reflection I realize this question should be asked on WP:FTN and I will copy the discussion there. MilesAgain ( talk) 04:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 says that serious scientists are investigating. Should they have any new conclusions which contradict the established duck Test results, then we might revisit this, but I think that mucking with the definition of Pseudoscience to exclude one Fringe topic means opening the floodgates to any Fringe science, which I doubt even the supporters of homoepathy want. ThuranX ( talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "theory" and "science" underpinning homeopathy is generally discredited and can probably be safely described as pseudoscience as it has no rational, proven/provable basis. The grey hand behind much health-related "pseudoscience" is the placebo effect which appears to be scientifically valid and yet also completely unexplained. There is quite possibly an invisible hand at work - but it probably resides in the undiscovered mind, not in the various Wikipedia articles edited by proponents of the various pedestrian theories currently afoot. Franamax ( talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

some homeopaths themselves reject the scientific method - surely evidence of a pseudoscience. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one counter-example is found in most of mathematics, where the scientific method is "rejected". Evidence is worthless in proofs of theorems, for example. But, I see what you mean anyway. Tparameter ( talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But most people do not think mathematics is science. So...-- Filll ( talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if "most people" is accurate - but, I get your point. My bachelor of sciences in applied math from the department of mathematical sciences, within the college of sciences, suggests that at least someone out there thinks math is a science. Tparameter ( talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting that idea from, but it is blatantly false! Logic and mathematics is the very basis for the scientific method. As most mathematical proofs deal with infinite ranges of numbers, raw evidence simply cannot be found. That is were the various types of proof and disproof come into play. This very fact is why we have the concept of the scientific theory. LinaMishima ( talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From scientific method, "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses." We know in mathematics that experiment proves exactly nothing. While in many fields of natural sciences, the whole foundation may be built from experiment/verification. My point is that math doesn't use the scientific method in general, because it is pure logic. Theorems require rigorous proof. Experiment may support a conjecture - but it will never prove a theorem. And, for the record, I'm definitely NOT equating math with homeopathy. ;] Tparameter ( talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this description of research in pure mathematics is quite wrong. Mathematics does have empirical evidence - examples, calculations, sometimes even predictions from quantum field theory, old conjectures - and then attempts to provide proofs of these phenomena. This even applies to parts of algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry, which currently have strong interactions with mathematical aspects of string theory. The debate about the pseudo-scientific nature of homeopathy is not helped in any way by this complete misrepresentation of the nature of "pure" mathematical research. Mathsci ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Compare and contrast:

1. "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment, a lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst"
2. "homeopathy is a pseudoscience"

Which is the strongest statement? which is more acurate? Indeed which is more scientific? Which is likely to boost the credibility of wikipedia? -- Salix alba ( talk) 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. I can see rationale for wanting to have both descriptions in a good article on homeopathy. There will be people reading our articles who will not understand the first formulation but who will understand the second. Why should we not help them? Wikipedia: Summary style is relevant here. Being longwinded may seem helpful at some times, but sometimes it simply confuses the issue. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A new Wiki for paranormal topics is available here. I think all interested editors and readers should consider strongly contributing there.-- Filll ( talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

well....except that I'm the only one on recent changes there....actually, if the articles their can be tidy up into real essays, they might have some value as commentary for our paranormal articles. The wee little I've seen, it will take some work to make that happen. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, it will take a bit of work. I have noticed that most "cranks" seem unwilling to put in the work, and want to alter articles here on Wikipedia to suit themselves, since these articles already have high google rankings, and some measure of "respect". They do not want to put in the work from starting out in a new place with a low ranking. Also, I think many of them are driven to stamp out the scientific interpretation since that is a threat (see homeopathy), or to just get into fights and produce nothing (they are only here to fight, not to write).-- Filll ( talk) 14:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about fight not write, but certainly many "pure fringer's" don't feel like putting up the work to make decent articles. I have some fully OR idea's as to why, but my mother always said, if can't say something nice....-- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in these articles a while ago when there was some very intense POV-pushing by a now-banned sockpuppeteer, but I never quite felt I knew what I was doing. One is a BLP of the editor of the other. Both really need attention from more editors who understand how to deal with very controversial issues. Dalit Voice probably qualifies as an extremist source, so should be "handled with care" even in the article about itself. I'm not quite sure what that care should be. It is incredibly easy to trawl through its online archive and pull out statements on all kinds of issues, much harder to do that in any systematic or balanced way. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i recall those issues a while back. generally this is not so much fringe issues, as reliable source and misuse of sources issues. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask for comment on the RS noticeboard. If anyone would like to cast an eye over it I'd appreciate it. Itsmejudith ( talk)

Oh dear. I'll have a look. Relata refero ( talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

is this a full-fledged crackpot theory, or a respectable, if eccentric, academic minority hypothesis? dab (𒁳) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dennett quote, the post at Princeton and the Penguin publisher point to respectable speculation. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

that was in the 1980s. The idea has a certain charm prompting you to go 'hm, interesting thought' the first time you hear it. I shouldn't have said "crackpot". It was briefly given some attention in the 1980s. But is there anything left of it today, or will you just be laughed out of court if you mention bicameralism with a straight face in 2008? I am not trying to suggest you will: I genuinely don't know. I just noted that the man is still around, and there is a "Julian Jaynes Society" still arguing the 1976 idea, and that a volume entitled Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited appeared in 2007 (published, it should be noted, by the Julian Jaynes Society) [13]. I suppose I'll have to search for reviews of that. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I observe that lots of psychology ideas take a while to move in and out of the "academic consensus" mostly as it takes so long to do any meaningful research on most of the ideas, so....it might still be a valid area of work, even though maybe a minor one. I really have no idea. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would put it under "out there but a little bit interesting" - one of those things that pops up and almost immediately falls by the wayside. Mostly now it is interesting as a picture of the zeitgeist of 1976 and how far neuroscience has come in forging itself as an actual science. Frankly, our minds are not lateralized to the extent necessary for this to occur, and neither in the article nor that I have ever heard (IANA neuroscientist) is ever put forth a convincing explanation for why early humans would evolve this way or what forced the integration. Interestingly, there *is* actual research suggesting that our minds are not nearly the unified self it usually feels like. A patient who had a particular area of her brain stimulated laughed, explaining that she found highly amusing 'just the way you people are standing around' or 'that picture over there'; apparently, she was rationalizing her behavior after the fact (without cognitive dissonance, no less). And, of course, there is all the fun with presenting words or colors to only one half of the visual field so the halves of the brain are getting different stimuli.

Unless someone is pushing it in a way of which I am not aware, I would just file it under pop-psychology and move on. Eldereft ( talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Nobody is pushing it, I just stumbled on it and was wondering. It would be nice, however, to add some pointers to actual (current) research into this direction. dab (𒁳) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I added lateralization, which explains how left-brain/right-brain dichotomy actually works. Any other ideas? Eldereft ( talk) 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>My impression is that it is controversial, but of historical interest and was quite influential in some circles. It still is influential among those who suffer from "hearing voices syndrome", since it is sort of one of their bibles. If I remember correctly from a documentary I heard, more and more people are turning up who "hear voices" but few of these are actually bothered by the voices or pay attention to them, and therefore are not classified as psychotic. With the internet, these people can find each other and network and form support groups, leading some academics to study them. And this bicameral mind material features prominently in the therapies of those who "hear voices" and is referred to by those in these support groups as a way to "explain" this symptom (probably the wrong explanation, but oh well).-- Filll ( talk) 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a notable fringe theory. I changed the word "theory," to "hypothesis," since it hasn't been widely accepted. It is often referred to as a "theory," but this is an incorrect, colloquial usage. As an example, the Sapir-whorf hypothesis is broadly accepted by Sociologists, but obviously it isn't a "scientific theory."

I haven't been able to find a source for this fringe theory, but I looked in both my intro to psychology and abnormal psychology textbooks, and it isn't cited in either one of them, which is a red flag. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole article needs better sourcing anyway, but this appears to have generated quite a flurry at some time, so that shouldn't be too hard. To me this looks like an eccentric development of oldish theories proposing a drastic split down the middle in the functions of the human brain, an idea which is, AFAIK, not nearly as influential as it once was. Lateralization looks to explain this quite well. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an awfully beguiling idea, isn't it? I do note that it seems to have had a certain amount of literary influence, especially among cyberpunk authors. I'd say we're dealing with a single individual's eccentric idea, but an idea presented within the academic framework, i.e. no POV-pushing or claims of censorship, and at least the acceptance of possible falsification. Relata refero ( talk) 08:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"lateralization" in general is a perfectly valid topic (as Eldereft notes above). The cranky aspect here is the idea that the "collapse" happened suddenly, as recently as at the Bronze Age collapse (the driving inspiration appears to be that Homer still records the pre-collapse situation). If you move the "collapse" back to the emergence of behavioral modernity (Upper Paleolithic), the scenario would become ever so much more plausible, but sadly you'll then be left with the Homeric deities (the theory's original motivation?) being deeply post-collapse. dab (𒁳) 12:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing difference of opinion as to how to interpret this on the article Waterboarding. Most editors are in favour of stating in the lead: Waterboarding is a form of torture. As I understand it the views on this are:

1. Most experts (>140) consider waterboarding torture,
2. A very small group experts (<4) and notable individuals consider it not torture,
3. The fact some oppose the majority view this is torture proves there is a dispute.

Regarding the above I am interested to hear how to interpret this. Do we, as in Intelligent Design, start with the consensus among experts (it is torture) and continue to explain in the article body what a notable minority thinks? Does opposing a similar stance as with ID violate WP:FRINGE/ WP:WEIGHT? Respectfully Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as the individual experts considering it tortur is the Council of Europe. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This question should be placed on the main noticeboard page, not on the talk page. Here on the talk page the discussions address how to organize and use the noticeboard. Comments here are not answered as quickly. I suggest you move your question to the main page at WP:FT/N. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(moved here from talk page Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Fringe is often defined as at the edge or outside of the mainstream or prevailing view. Mainstream is typically seen as the most popular view, but I don't think that's necessarily always true. Take the debate on creationism for example. In America we have a large portion of the population who subscribe to the Christian religion and statistics show that apparently there are more people here that don't believe in evolution than those who do. The prevailing view, however, the one that wins out, is that evolution should be taught versus creationism. I don't think it's always a numbers thing, and instead should be looked at as which view is more dominant. I don't know which is in waterboarding, but I can give you a hypothetical example that might help. If there are more military experts who do not feel that waterboarding is a form of torture, but waterboarding is illegal and people have been prosecuted for doing it, then the prevailing view is that waterboarding is a form of torture despite that not being the popular view. I don't know if any of that is actually the case in waterboarding, it's just an example of what I'm talking about. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire debate (over whether waterboarding is torture or not) is not really FRINGE. Both views have been expressed by multiple mainstream sources. This is a debate that is taking place within the mainstream and not on the Fringe. Blueboar ( talk) 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue that the term "torture" is defined through humanistic rather than materialistic constraints. The key here is the legal definition and precedent: if courts have ruled waterboarding to be "torture" and no court has ruled to the contrary, then you are in business for applying WP:FRINGE to the idea that waterboarding is not torture, for example. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, from the POV of the US courts. It is still an international debate. Nigel Barristoat ( talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

in fringe theories along the lines of "Troy was in Britain", it is neither the meaning of "Troy" nor of "Britain" that is under dispute, but the actual claim. What we have here is political hand-waving surrounding the term "torture", not fringe claims about what waterboarding is or is not. In this sense, this isn't about waterboarding at all, but about hte propagandistic uses of terms like "torture". We had a similar case involving "genocide" before. dab (𒁳) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In '67, prominent British philosopher Bertrand Russell convened the Russell Tribunal in Stockholm that was critical of US war actions. Numerous other prominent persons for instance Dr. Benjamin Spock were also outspoken critics of US foreign policy. No doubt the US government had a definite political interest in marginalizing such viewpoints by presenting them as "fringe", but our interest is remaining neutral, since the Russell Tribunal et. al certainly represented a significant POV at the time. Things in the world today have not changed much for the better since then, so naturally the dispute continues. Nigel Barristoat ( talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems at Waterboarding is that one group of editors seems to think that any questioning that involves the use of water is both waterboarding and torture, since they can find many sources that do this confounding, while others object to this confounding and want the article to be about the specific (if vague) topic of waterboarding. htom ( talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This content dispute contains issues for NPOV, RS, V and a host of other policies and guidelines, but not one for WP:FRINGE. The idea that Waterboarding is torture is simply not a Fringe theory... and neither is the idea that it might not be torture. These are both opinions that are discussed heavily by mainstream media, in the political arena, by religious leaders, etc. etc. etc. People may (and do) disagree as to whether waterboarding is or is not a form of torture... but there is nothing even remotely FRINGE about the debate. OK... The Waterboarding of Bigfoot by Illuminati Space Aliens to discover whether he was the second gunman on the grassy noll, might be fringe... but not the topic in general. I realize that the various parties to the dispute would like to be able to point to a Wikipedia Policy to back their particular view point... but this simply is not the right policy to point to. Blueboar ( talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly my question was too vague. Confronted with a dispute consisting of 150+ sourced consensus against 2-5 people being unable take a position, does the 5- side fall within WP:FRINGE? Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In this specific case, no. Neither side in the dispute falls under WP:Fringe... because the entire topic itself simply isn't a WP:Fringe issue. What you are discussing is more properly a question of weight, two legitimate points of view that have an uneven number of adhearants. Blueboar ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it a fringe issue if the scholarly opinion on the matter is fairly clear? (I know nothing of the issue, but I get the sense that this is yet another instance of a lively "popular" debate being mistaken for scholarly disagreement. We can't use the "debate in media" to gauge if an issue is settled among experts. Lots of things are debated publicly about which the experts see little need for debate. Could that be the case here?) futurebird ( talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there isn't a theory involved here. Waterboarding isn't a theory, nor is torture. Whether waterboarding is a form of torture is not a theory... it is a point of view. And while published scholarly opinion may lean heavily in favor of a particular POV on the issue... you also have to take into account non-scholarly published opinion (such as political opinion, the opinion of the media, etc.) This isn't just a scholarly issue. It isn't Fringe to adhear to one view or the other... and it isn't a Fringe theory to state view either. Blueboar ( talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)The problem (well, part of the problem) is that many of the 150 sources confound waterboarding with other water tortures, and so it may not be that they are actually talking about waterboarding (whatever waterboarding is; the definition of that seems to have changed several times over the last fifty years, but there are many other water tortures as well.) Since there are these many different things swept up in this popular confounded "waterboarding" it is only natural for people who know particulars about the things swept up into it to have differing ideas, it is not so much fringe as it is confusion. htom ( talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

←This is not an issue of WP:FRINGE, which applies to fringe theories of science, including social and political sciences. The policy that covers the issue you asked about is WP:NPOV, and in particular the section on undue weight, found here: WP:UNDUE.

After reviewing the article, my first impression was that the coverage space given to people saying it's not torture is out of proportion, because the vast majority of sources say that it is torture. But then I saw the poll that found 29% of Americans polled did not think it's a form of torture. Wow, that's an eye-opener! So I read the article about the poll, on CNN's website. Clearly it's a reliable source, so with 30% that's not a tiny minority, it's a significant minority and their views are relevant to the article in some way. But it should be in proportion - and, as someone above mentioned, it should only be in the part of the article about policy/legal debate.

There's no dout that the majority of sources defining it as torture among scientists and academics turns out to be much larger than 70%, so the minority view among the population in general that it's not torture should not receive undue weight. If you need stronger references, try using Google Books and Google Scholar, with search terms like "Waterboarding +torture +history" and other combinations. Instead of leaving the references on this to the popular press or political magazines, find some scholars to make it clear that there is no question about it being a form of torture, in any forum other than political debates where it is not truly a debate about the truth of what waterboarding is, the debate there is actually about whether or not the method can continue to be used. The only way it can be used is if it's not called "torture"; that's a clouding technique being used in the public forum and does nto apply to the actual definition of the procedure. That's why I suggest finding scholars discussing this from outside the present day policy arguments.

Here's a few sources I found that may be helpful - there are many more in the searches:

• NPR analysis
• google books Democracy in Chile: The Legacy of September 11, 1973
• google books The Phenomenon of Torture: Readings and Commentary
• google books Human Rights Watch World Report 2006

If the pages with the details don't come up in the link, just search for the term inside the book and they will appear. Apparently in Latin America, the call the technique "the Submarine". Good luck with the article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The NPR Report you list above is one of those that confounds waterboarding with water cure. htom ( talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the harping on confounding becomes nitpicking. While is appropriate for Wikipedia to carefully disambiguate, it is not our place to discard sources simply because they haven't done as good of a job researching as we have. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, after all. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the use of reliable but inaccurate sources becomes WP:SYN. htom ( talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It may generate problems with verifiability, but it's not original research. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy to resolve, in theory. Simply state: "Waterboarding is considered by many groups to be a form of torture, ^who? though some have defended its use as a legitimate interrogation tactic. ^who?" Of course, as Homer Simpson once pointed out, communism works in theory. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love for it to be so simple, but I don't know if that would fly at this point. Each conversation there now upon reading them can be summed up as d'oh. I can only imagine the state it will be in by November if water boarding stays a hot potato. Lawrence Cohen 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue has been accepted by ArbCom. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 05:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the US has already ruled that this is torture and that its use can be considered both a war crime and a criminal offense. In Asano Yukio a Japanese soldier was convicted of torture after using water boarding and in 1983 a Sheriff in Texas was sentenced to 10 years after water boarding a prisoner in his jail. - perfectblue ( talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. All of Asano's conduct was collectively described as "torture" by a prosecutor, not by the court; and his conduct included repeated beatings of POWs (who were protected by the Geneva Convention) with his fists, feet and a wooden club, and burning them with cigarettes. The actual offense for which Asano was convicted by the Court was "violation of the laws and customs of war." Not "torture." The sheriff in Texas was convicted of violating prisoners' civil rights. Again, not "torture." Again, a prosecutor called it "torture," but the court did not. Perfectblue, it is exactly this blurring of subtle but important distinctions that has led to so much hostility and incivility on Talk:Waterboarding. It is apparent from the proposed decision at ArbCom that they will not resolve this issue for us. We must resolve it ourselves. Where there is a significant dispute among experts over facts and definitions, Wikipedia cannot pretend to resolve the dispute. Neutral Good ( talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a number of really horrible articles on this, but they're in horrible shape. This isn't a "fringe theory" persay, but editors are operating with the same essential modus operandi of POV-pushing, so I thought I'd post it here for you folks to comment.

Some good info, but POV fork:

• Justifiable homicide
• Make My Day State
• Make My Day Law

Need to be merged\distinguished:

• Right of self-defense
• Right to bear arms
• Imperfect self-defense (in particular, look at the "see also" section [14])

Other relevant articles:

• Castle Doctrine

Also, the article on gun politics is bad, too. Not POV for gun control. On the contrary, it's cluttered with dozens of bad sources with the intent of opposing gun control. Somebody posted on WP:RSN and I commented in the talkpage about it. Check it out.

☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they really are awful. What about tagging for experts or bringing them to the attention of people who edit United States law articles. US-centrism is a huge issue here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Which POV do you think prevails? Tparameter ( talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

POV is not the main problem. Plagiarism is the first thing that needs to be checked out, followed by sourcing and, as Zenwhat says, deciding where articles need to be distinguished and merged. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, he mentioned POV-pushing - so, I'm wondering which POV prevails. Tparameter ( talk) 13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tparameter, it doesn't particularly matter which POV prevails, only that all POVs are removed and the article reflects the NPOV, based on reliable, verifiable sources. The fact that you'd ask such a question is absurd. To answer, though: there is POV-pushing on both sides. As noted above, overall, there are several Wikipedia articles that were apparently written by some Europeans, "Oh! Those horrible Americans and their horrible guns!" But then, on the other hand, on gun politics, you have some gun nuts typing "gun rights" into Google and flooding the article with the first articles they come across. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

an example of the problems involved is that the 2nd paragraph of Imperfect self-defense is a pull quote, sourced to answers.com 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. An absurd fact. Interesting oxymoron. Hadn't heard that one before. Well, anyway, I was just curious if one side or the other was currently prevailing in their POV pushing - absurd or otherwise. Tparameter ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gregalton brought this to my attention.

From the article [15]:

Additionally, one notable myth debunker documents how the Federal Reserve system is audited and cites numerous instances of independent inspection of financial documents by private accounting firms and the Government Accountability Office. {{Cited in Geocities This debunker's website then also lists the legal exemptions to outside audit, "Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits:The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (31 USCA §714) stipulates the following areas are to be excluded from GAO inspections: "(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations." The same author also can be quoted in one related article as saying "in terms of monetary policy, the most important power is ... open market operations." The GAO certainly does have the power to conduct audits, but one author noted that 'the GAO audit is extremely limited: it can only examine the Fed’s 'administrative expenses.'" {{False citation [[http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-0305100-180653/unrestricted/Ch.5.pdf here} see page 142}} As the New York Times summarized in 1989, "such transactions are now shielded from outside audit, although the Fed influences interest rates through the purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasury securities." {{Okay citation in the New York Times''', but a little silly and somewhat used improperly with the rest of the paragraph above}}

On that last source, newspapers themselves have occasionally played up monetary crankery to sell papers and generate ratings. A boring lecture on the Federal Reserve isn't all that scary and is actually better if it's independent doesn't catch your attention, like, "THE BIG EVIL BANKERS ARE PRINTING MONEY AND STEEEEEEEEEALING IT FROM YOU! WE MUST TAKE AMERICA BACK! RON PAUL, 2008"

Similarly, you sometimes see newspapers misrepresenting science by implying in some of their stories that there is a genuine "debate" over intelligent design and global warming. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My biggest issue is the use of a (credible) ecological economist's paper -- not on monetary policy -- to support a statement that is both loaded and obscure on monetary policy. Now, with all due respect to ecological economics, it is not mainstream, and certainly not notable on monetary policy. There has been an RfC, but few straigthforward comments that in a discussion about monetary policy, ecological economcs is hardly a core reliable source.-- Gregalton ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First.... The title of this noticeboard section ("Monetary crankery") is loaded, and somewhat disparaging to me, personally, as I am the primary editor behind the alleged "crankery."

Next, it seems there are two separate issues here:

1. dispute over audits, and
2. dispute over the ability to quote an expert economist who discusses things that are not related to heterodox theories in a reliably-published source.

Is this section about 1 or both? BigK HeX ( talk) 04:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh ... I'll go ahead and assume both. BigK HeX ( talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is slowly being re-written, so a lot of this will go out the window over time. -- Haemo ( talk) 04:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, .. what does this mean? "{{False citation blahblah see page 142}}

The citation should be appropriate according to Wikipedia:REF#Say_where_you_found_the_material, no?

Dispute over comprehensive audits of the Federal Reserve

Well ... this one is easy. If the NY Times article is in question, then we can quash that right now. Quoting from WP:V, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. The policy strongly implies that, if there is a conflict or contradiction here, then the best that should be done is to include any conflicting view. The wiki article already (somewhat) attempts to do this (although I highly doubt that any reliable source states that monetary policy transactions have ever been verifiably audited by any independent party). I make no mention of it in the wiki article for NPOV reasons, but even the Fed's own Office of the Inspector General serves only at the leisure of the Board, unlike the "true" OIGs imposed onto other agencies of the government. BigK HeX ( talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that was easy. But wrong, or at least biased allegations based on innuendo, and essentially following or repeating allegations of fringe/conspiracy sites.

This source clarifies the situation: Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality, G. Thomas Woodward, Specialist in Macroeconomics, Economics Division, July 31, 1996, Congressional Research Service Library of Congress, CRS Report for Congress, No. 96-672 E. (This source is also available in book form at [16], I'm just using this one for ease; unlike some other branches of government, the CRS does not systematically publish all their reports).

"One of the difficulties in understanding the audit issue is in the different types of audits. Most people think of audits as financial audits. These are principally concerned with whether an institution has spent the money and maintains the funds as it has claimed in its financial statements, and whether it is complying with procedures designed to safeguard it from misappropriation of funds. This is no doubt the kind of audit most people have in mind when expressing their concern over whether the Fed gets audited."

"But audits are also designed to review management efficiency and to evaluate the policy of an institution. It is the latter kind of audits that are the reason for the restrictions on GAO's audit authority over the Fed. The concern is that more extensive audits will become policy evaluations second-guessing the Fed's monetary policy, and not examinations of Federal Reserve financial safeguards and procedures. Under current law, policy is reviewed twice annually by the Congress."

The conflicting view quoted from the Times article is prior to the docs above, and prior to a change in law in 1999 requiring the Fed to have their financial statements audited. The specific comment above, "I highly doubt that any reliable source states that monetary policy transactions have ever been verifiably audited by any independent party" is silly: anyone remotely familiar with financial audits (and as Woodward makes clear) would know that monetary policy transactions would affect both the balance sheet and income statement, and hence are audited as part of the financial statements. This does not ensure perfection, but nor does any system made of man.-- Gregalton ( talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1999 law revision is completely irrelevant. It makes no mention of monetary policy, and has been characterized as only "formalizing existing procedures." The claim about "open market operations affect statements" being asserted as if that were sufficient in some way is a silly claim ... especially considering that the same editor him/herself posted a source from the GAO comptroller that is fighting for audit privileges over monetary policy transactions (only 1 of MANY attempts to receive such oversight). This is a book from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors published in 2002 where they themselves still maintain that the GAO is restricted from audits, as does this source from 2005. In any case, many different figures maintain that the exclusion of this audit is signifcant, even despite the audits that are allowed. Assertions that attempt to downplay the difference are quite tenuous ... perhaps, "disingenuous."

As for "oversight" through the the Congressional hearings ... those have been characterized as having little effect for oversight purposes. BigK HeX ( talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over use of non-heterodox statements from a proponent of heterodox economics

One particular editor continues to dispute the usage of a source from Herman Daly, even though the source was academically vetted and published reliably. No editor involved in the dispute has provided a conflicting "mainstream" view, so WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would not seem to apply yet. As posed in the RSN page, does a person's vigorous support of a non-mainstream theory, 'taint' everything else that an otherwise acknowledged expert ever says in his field of work, even when not related to his fringe theories? BigK HeX ( talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually more than one editor. The question as put above does not faithfully represent the dispute. I would rephrase as "can an expert's views be used as a core source when the subject matter is not that experts area of specialisation?" Some might say "it depends": to which I'd add the following info: a) expert in question is a leading figure in a branch of economics that is (by admission of the expert himself) heterodox; b) the source in question that is being cited is not on monetary economics, but on ecological economics, so to use as a reference in a Wiki article entitled "Monetary policy..." is inappropriate; c) the specific formulation is not found in mainstream texts. On point c) alone I would say that this is undue attention to an approach that has no visibility.

In addition, the editor who insists on keeping this source has frequently said that mainstream texts say "the same thing"; feel free to provide.-- Gregalton ( talk) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Err .. what? The expert's field *IS* economics. You keep using this "specialization" rationale as if he were a some lowly office-clerk waxing philosophic on the nature of the Universe or something. The author is a noted expert on economics and the material I quoted was on the topic of economics. By your qualifications, apparently an organic chemist is "unreliable" when discussing the "inorganic chemistry" of combining baking soda and vinegar. I'd say Gregalton's protest in this case is quite heavily contrived. BigK HeX ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right! Lets quote Marx! And Hayek! And, while we're at it, LaRouche! Please. The paper states in the beginning that its about ecological economics, that that is not part of neoclassical economics, and WP has no business at all putting anything non-neoclassical on pages not devoted to evaluating those other marginal theories. Relata refero ( talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Marx draw any widely notable and informative conclusions about Monetary policy in the US that were reliably published, too? Hmmm ... if so, we definitely better get him in there. Isn't this type of hyperbole fun, Relata? BigK HeX ( talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One way to resolve this might be as follows: economists of various orthodox and heterodox schools disagree about the nature of money itself and the way that money works in a developed capitalist economy. So present all those debates in the articles about money, money supply, monetary policy in general. US monetary policy is just one specific case to which those principles debated by economists are applied. At the moment I find the article virtually impossible to make sense of because there is constant slippage between the facts about what the US policy in relation to money is or has been, and the theory-derived arguments about whether this is what its policy should be. In other words the article has been allowed to take a normative tone. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really though, I have *yet* to understand why neoclassicism or even ecological economics keeps being brought up as some sort of legitimate challenge to this source. The text in question is not derived from either theory. Instead the text is simply a (fairly obvious) conclusion drawn from the way that monetary policy is used today. Its not delving into IS-LM Models or any such theoretical underpinnings; it is really not theoretical at all. BigK HeX ( talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Marx was not a trained and qualified economist. Neither is LaRouche. Wjhonson ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are talking about Marx in the context of an article about US monetary policy but just to quibble, in his day he was as trained and qualified as anyone else writing about political economy. At least he had a PhD which is more than you can say for Smith, Ricardo, Ure and the rest of the giants whose shoulders we aspire to stand on. And Hayek - an absolutely indispensable figure to mention when discussing monetary theory in general, but by no means a primary source for US policy in the 21st century. "WP has no business at all putting anything non-neoclassical on pages not devoted to evaluating those other marginal theories" is one of the weirdest statements I have read for a long time, and by Relate refero too, an editor whose work I've been mightily impressed with until now. Are we supposed to be policing the whole of economic theory to make sure that it conforms with someone's criteria of orthodoxy? No. Do we make sure we reflect the range of academic opinions about the major debates in the field? Yes. Surely there's enough being written about US monetary policy to quickly knock up an NPOV article on it that does not have to go into delve into theoretical issues that are better covered in their own articles? Itsmejudith ( talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Marx's PhD was in Philosophy not Economics. There's no indication he really had a good grasp of economics even by the standards of his own day. His work is full of bizarre ideas that simply do not and could not work. None of the communistic systems set-up actually follow what he actually said. Marx was mentioned above, I'm just pointing out that bringing up extreme statements in this discussion does not lead to resolution. And coming to a consensus is why we're all here. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, we don't have to police economic theory: they do a good job by themselves. Anything non-neoclassical announces itself as such in the abstract, like the piece that BigK is trying to quote does. Economists make it clear what part of what they produce is mainstream work, and what part is abstract speculation or heterodox theory. They even make it clear when they are using mainstream theory to try and get heterodox conclusions. We don't have to do anything.

We do have to, however, take them at their word, and ensure that our economics pages - which are terrible, really, and its only because each time I try to fix them MBAs come along and revert them to some kind of odd business-speak - are not over-run by people who've read pop economics.

About Marx, Hayek and LaRouche: Marx is invaluable to the study of the history of political economy and of philosophy. As an economist, use value and exchange value is considered fringe now in economic analysis (I can actually remember when it was not), so not very helpful there. The others, we all know have determined adherents who'd want them on every econ-related page if poss. We can't allow that.

About what is written by US monetary policy: pretty much everything in an RS that does not announce that it is fringe is fair game. The problem is that this editor has gone about and found something published in an RS in which a respected economist has published something that says: "look, here's another way of thinking about these things, I know none of you thinks like that, but isnt it interesting to look at these problems in a different and novel way" and is using that as a significant minority opinion when its actually nothing of the sort. Relata refero ( talk) 08:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissertation?

I don't know enough about economics to follow this dispute very well, but a citation in the blockquote at the top of the section appears to be from a doctoral dissertation: [17]. It's cited in the current version of the article as footnote #42. Doctoral dissertations are not really peer-reviewed publications, and in general shouldn't be used as sources in Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The dissertation is actually a secondary source of the quote that is used in the wiki article. The primary source is

Kettl, Donald F. (1986), Leadership at the Fed, New Haven: Yale University Press {{ citation}}: External link in |title= ( help).

Unfortunately I must follow Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_found_the_material. BigK HeX ( talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when are doctoral dissertations "not peer-reviewed," according to Wikipedia guidelines? My goodness, for anyone who has received a doctorate or for anyone who knows someone who received a doctorate (especially in the United States), they would realize that doctoral candidates have supervisors and sometimes co-supervisors, not to mention a fairly rigorous defense of their findings every step of the way against doctoral committees. This subject comes up quite often on the reliable source noticeboard. Unless the consensus recently changed, editors usually agree that dissertations constitute reliable sources. J Readings ( talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Peer-review" is a fairly elastic concept, I suppose, but I usually take it to mean the kind of double-blind review practiced at many academic journals. The kind of editorial control exercised by a dissertation committee is of a different sort: the director is usually someone who is personally acquainted with the dissertation student, ditto for the rest of the committee. In the fields I'm familiar with, dissertation work is a kind of rough draft of the articles or monographs that the student will publish once s/he gets a position. They're far from finished products, and they haven't been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that an article or manuscript receives as it gets reviewed.

If it's common practice in economics to use dissertations as sources for journal articles, then perhaps it's ok to use Mitchell's diss; but take a look at the articles in journals in classical studies, ancient history, or religion, and I think you'll find that there are no citations to doctoral dissertations. That's because in these fields dissertations aren't regarded as very good sources. (I can think of exceptions, but they are usually unpublished dissertations from German universities in the 19th/early 20th century, or the dissertations of scholars who went on to become prominent after they got their doctorates.) --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Never let it be said that I'm not open-minded (^_^). I take Akhilleus' point regarding his field of study (classical studies, ancient history, religion, etc.) and happily concede his experiences to be true. Speaking from my own personal experiences, however, and realizing that this comment is still anecdotal, I've found the social sciences to be a bit different depending on the subject matter and the academic. For political science, political economy, and sociology, I *have* come across cited doctoral dissertations in academic works from reputable university publishers. Would that make Mitchell's dissertation acceptable? I would lean towards thinking so, but I haven't read the Mitchell dissertation to form an definitive opinion of what's being cited. J Readings ( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can speak for economics and political science in the US: the dissertation is not usually that reliable in its entirety. The general rule is that it is composed of three separate papers, one of which is the 'job market paper', and that's the one that is most carefully researched, presented in most places, and eventually submitted for publication. Usually when a doctoral dissertation is cited, its because of that section of it. (The time to publication after submission in econ journals has grown enormous, so if people were always to wait for publication before citing something, it can grow troublesome. It is still very much the exception, though.) Relata refero ( talk) 13:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would recommend, then, is that dissertations *generally* not be considered reliable sources, with exceptions made for those that are cited by journal articles, etc. In the present situation, that would mean that the Mitchell quote is admissible, because it's been cited in a monograph. However, I'm still puzzled by the way the quote found its way into Wikipedia: is this part of Kettl's argument (in which case cite Kettl, and don't quote Mitchell, instead summarize Kettl), or is this Mitchell's argument? Is there a different source that can be used to make this point (in which case we avoid the dissertation issue entirely), or is this so non-mainstream that only Mitchell (or Kettl) make this point? --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

About BigK Hex

On List of conspiracy theories:

The Federal Reserve is a plot to bankrupt the United States

Please see my posting on WP:ANI. [18]

On the talkpage, he admits to being blatantly biased and fooled by fringe sources. Then when his behavior is challenged, he suddenly accuses others of attacking his "reliable sources" in order to "censor" him.

Now, he manages to dig up one heterodox economist to prove the fringe claim that the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy (see WP:SYNTH). When he did this, he gave the reference the inflammatory title "slamdunk_bwhahaha_booyah" [19]. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 09:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this as I now see why editors were so concerned. I was alarmed that heterodox economics was being equated with fringe theory and now I understand that that was not the intent. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Non-neoclassical economics is not fringe by any means. It is merely too minority a view for certain policy-related articles. In Monetary Policy of the US, for example, we should rely on orthodox economics. In Theories of Money, we are definitely permitted to - indeed, should - include major alternative viewpoints. Relata refero ( talk) 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

... and where is THAT policy? WP:IgnoreSignificantMinroityViewpointsAboutPolicyInArticlesAboutPolicy (not that I agree about the "minority viewpoint" contention) BigK HeX ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

errr ... WHA??

"he admits to being ... fooled by fringe sources"

If you're going to continue to make perjorative characterizations about me, then at least have the fortitude to admit that your assertions are your own. Don't try to falsely pass them off as my own admissions. You are blantantly crossing the lines of civility and decency, here.

As to "when his behavior is challenged, he suddenly accuses others of attacking his "reliable sources" in order to "censor" him." ...... I apologize. I must have misunderstood the protestations to a source acknowledged as meeting WP:V (and admitted), and I must also have mistaken the deletions of the verifiable text as censorship.

But anyways, for the record, please provide the diff where I added into any wiki article anything that implies 'The Federal Reserve is a plot to bankrupt the United States'. Thanks in advance. BigK HeX ( talk) 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BigK Hex, that was based on your own comments on the talkpage here. After being accused of pushing fringe sources, you cited WP:Disrupt:

So, if you truly belive that I am pushing a fringe opinion with undue weight, then the guidelines suggest that "Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence..."

If that was not an acknowledgment of your own blatantly horrible use of sources, then his accusation of bad-faith was justified. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your comtempt under control. I'm pretty sure that the qualifier "if you truly belive[sic]" strongly implies that I, personally, do not believe the following assertions. Misrepresenting my statements is quite incivil. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the request, "please provide the diff where I added into any wiki article anything that implies 'The Federal Reserve is a plot to bankrupt the United States'": please see here, where the following text was added - "Much of the movement of the US Economy is artificially engineered through the monetary policy crafted by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System - a group of private banking corporations which are chartered by the national government to influence the [[Economy of the United States}economy]]." True, does not exactly say "to bankrupt the United States"; terminology is strikingly similar.-- Gregalton ( talk) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks I'm picking at random, the [ diff] from before other editors started getting involved (i.e. most is BigK). Some samples: "In, summary, almost every single US Dollar↑↑ anywhere in the world represents a current outstanding loan of some US citizen somewhere.[11] By virtue of this process, more loans must be granted than are repaid every month in order to support the amount of US money in the world. If the total amount of loans were repaid to banks, then the entire supply of US dollars would be destroyed (and, actually, not even the entire collection of US money in the world would be sufficient to cover all of the loans due to the interest that is also expected to be repaid)." "Despite the arguments of many myth debunkers, Americans actually do have to pay for the money that is printed by their government. This payment is in the form of the interest that is charged on the bank loans - loans which are required in order for money to be injected into the economy, and even simply for existing money to be maintained (as noted in "Step 7" in the above process)." "hough gold was once the basis for the money supply, the government gradually transitioned away from precious metals and into the use of the National Debt as the economy's foundation. Experts are hopeful that other assets could take the place of National Debt as the fundamental basis, but comments from Alan Greenspan, the longest-running head of the Federal Reserve, indicate that there is no clear or easy plan." "An additional important ramification of this process is the fact that economic growth becomes coupled with debt, and this coupling is argued to create a social conflict, which may otherwise not exist." "Thus, this exponential need for more and more money may be contributing directly to inflation in the US. Inflation raises the cost-of-living for everyone, and if inflation exceeds the growth of income, then people are effectively made poorer over time through no fault of their own."

I cannot be certain that all of this text is BigK's, however.-- Gregalton ( talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Errm yeah. My request was to please provide the diff where I added into any wiki article anything that implies 'The Federal Reserve is a plot to bankrupt the United States'. I did NOT request a diff where I say things that are "strikingly similar (but don't actually mention bankrupting anyone)." Please provide this diff, immediately. The accusations of me engaging in outright crankery is very much a personal attack. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that providing a diff that clearly indicates support for a fringe interpretation of Fed policy, on a fringe noticeboard, is a personal attack, then please report me. I think your text speaks for itself, the "bankruptcy" part is just one of the many different variations on a conspiracy theme, and your insistence on that part of it is disingenuous wikilawyering.-- Gregalton ( talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohh.. OK. Well, I'm going to continue being "disingenuous" and request the diff where I state there is ANY type of plot ANYWHERE. Please provide immediately. Thanks in advance. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Let's all try to refrain from personal attacks and focus on discussing the argument. I'm sure you are all aware that even reasonable people can read two different sources differently. Hitting other editors with a club doesn't make them see the light. Have a great day! Wjhonson ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no idea how creating a section to attack my persona is in any way appropriate. This issue is being addressed elsewhere. BigK HeX ( talk) 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big problem in the article that I have no idea what to do about. Someone keeps inserting wild, unsourced assertions about House's supposed involvemen in various illicit and subversive plots. Several of us have tried to correct these but they keep coming back. This is the sort of thing that leads many scholars to reject Wikipedia out of hand.

Ouch. Just get rid of that stuff every time it rears its head, unless there are some actual reliable sources behind it. If it's a specific editor having problems, then let me know. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain this well because it's a confusing mashup and hard to weed through. There is a religious movement called Spiritualism (religious movement) that was really popular between 1840 and 1920. It's still around today, and has spin-offs in Spiritism. Defining characteristic of the movement is a belief in communicating with spirits through seances and mediumship. That's one third of the equation. Second part: "Spiritualism" is often synonymous to, especially in Europe, the philosophy of Idealism, by far a more mundane philosophical thought that is pretty much just a belief in the supernatural and spirits. So already we have a problem because in America the popular use of the term "spiritualism" is to refer to the religious movement and in Europe it's to refer to "idealism". Which gets top billing, and which one is disambig, and should idealism mention "spiritualism" or is that giving fringe weight to the religion? Big mess, and I haven't even gotten to the third part. Third part: Often "spiritualism" is synonymously used to refer to animism and shamanism practices.

That third part is what brought me here looking for help in sorting out an article. A few editors split the spiritualism article into two articles, one for the religion and one (presumably) for "other uses". Well, an enterprising editor came in and filled the "other" article up -- Spiritualism (beliefs) -- with what appears to be WP:SYNTH that takes Western philosophy (idealism called spiritualism), mixes it with the religion, and mashes in Eastern mysticism, shamanism, animism, spiritism, and occultism in an attempt to write an article about some sort of universal ground to all spirituality which would be less dubious if the editor didn't say, "So what is your point? Spiritualistic phenomenon manifests itself worldwide ... and is referred to as that. The topic is very well referenced" when I called them on it.

What's more, is that I found at least one section that they wrote called "Mediumship in Tibet" that was completely bogusly sourced. [20] I looked the book up at Google Books, searched inside the book, and it said nothing whatsoever about "mediumship" or "spiritualism".

I don't know what's WP:OR, what's WP:SYNTH, or what's legit in the article Spiritualism (beliefs). I'm also concerned that it's trying to equate the Western philosophy of idealism with less popular practices like shamanism, mediumship, and seances to make it appear that those practices are more widespread than they actually are (which is why I'm at the WP:FRINGE noticeboard).

Anyone familiar with these topics that can hop over and help sort out the mess, I'd really appreciate it. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like WP:SYNTH to me - these are the characteristics of spiritualism, X has those characteristics, ergo X counts as "spiritualism" irrespective of what any sources actually call it. Also, for what it is worth, you are entirely correct that it would be silly to put that infobox on Faith healing. Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but removing it from all the articles it doesn't belong at (like spirit of all things [21]), and making sure one single editor who wants it there doesn't keep putting it back, is apparently considered disruptive editing and gets you blocked for 48 hours : ) Now I have to seek help sorting things out instead of just being WP:BOLD about it. If it were just up to me, I'd wipe the whole article and make a disambig list out of it, but I'm on a short leash. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note that philosophy and religion are not necessarily distinct concepts. They have historically been considered opposed in western history, but this is not true in the east. A lot of westerners who have absolutely no education in either philosophy or eastern religion continue to have this blatant misunderstanding. To see what I mean, see Talk:Eastern_philosophy#Merger_proposal.

The founders of Spiritualism themselves seemed to mix philosophy with religion, just as Deists did. So, I don't really see anything objectionable about the article, just that its sources need to be checked.

Spiritualism (beliefs) certainly seems to overlap a lot with Spiritualism (beliefs), though, and an investigation into the matter may yield the fact that they're the same idea. Historians tend not to be very good scientists. In my opinion, they largely have a tendency to just make stuff up as they go along, so they aren't very consistent and will have very absurd categorizations, like this. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that philosophy and religion mix, for example Buddhism. What you've got going on in this article, though, is mixing the religion of Spiritualism -- an 1840s to 1920s religious movement that emphasized seances, ouija boards, and hoaxes like spirit photography to create a sensational belief in the afterlife -- with ancient shamanism and animism, a little mysticism and occultism, and passing it off as a foundational philosophy when there's little distinction between the religious use and the philosophical use, and a lot of synthesizing of the philosophy with dubiously related philosophies. The sources are the real problem. They're a mix of sources about shamanism with sources about the religious movement, equating it all as the same thing. What's more is that the editor who wrote the article actually has demonstrably thrown in quite a bit of synthesis. I started going through the sources and stopped after finding that most of the sources in the first few sections either didn't even mention "spiritualism" at all, or was just about the religious use. Honestly, it's too much for me to sort through and see what's legit and what isn't, so I'm passing it off here : ) I don't have the time to deal with it myself. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 06:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit I don't really know much about it. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 10:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a long, slow burning conflict on that page between opponents and proponents of including extensive information from a book called Gold Warriors by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave. The claim is that a massive Imperial Japanese hoard of looted gold was secretly discovered during the Cold War and used as the lynch-pin of American "dirty tricks" and CIA activities in Asia for decades. The Seagraves provide enormous volumes of documentation, none of which actually proves their key claims, which might as well be sourced to "that guy, what was his name, Dave I think?, in the airport bar at 2 AM." And they literally claim that the conspirators are out to kill them. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the page. The page is about a cache of gold that may or may not have existed, and if it existed may or may not have been removed, and if it was removed may or may not have been removed by the Japanese to fund their postwar miracle, the CIA to fund the Cold War, or the Marcoses to fund Imelda. It is a Historical Mystery of the type that belongs on pop history channels at 2am, and, as such, I hardly think that the CIA-gold theory, which spawned a dozen bestsellers and random programmes, is irrelevant. You might as well remove speculation from Jack the Ripper. (I see someone did, but only to spawn a couple of daughter articles and a category. The point remains, though, that notable speculation belongs in an article about a subject notable for speculation, and this particular speculation is notable.) Relata refero ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I failed to find a dozen bestsellers that supports the conspiracy theory birthed by the Seagraves’s novel that the United States military intelligence operatives located much of the “loot”; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War. Jim ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seagraves' book, however, does meet our definition of a reliable source. Therefore, instead of trying to throw out the book as a source, the article should simply reflect all of the reliably sourced viewpoints on the subject, Seagraves's and any others, as we have done in countless other articles. Cla68 ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Cla68…the Seagrave’s novel falls under Wikipedia guideline for Questionable Source: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." There is no peer-review, only a book review. Jim ( talk) 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the book have a "poor reputation for fact-checking"? I don't think so. We have to be careful when dismissing an opinon that we (not a nosism) don't agree with as being from a questionable source when it's from a published book. Better to introduce the author's opinion in the article along with dissenting or opposing, documented opinions so that the article's readers can make up their own minds. Cla68 ( talk) 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the novel has a poor reputation for fact checking. In the same “glowing review” in the London Review of Books, it is noted: “The Seagraves’ narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians”…"The book is full of errors that could easily be corrected by a second-year student of the language” and “One of the Seagraves’ more controversial contentions is that the looting…”

Oddly enough, the same book review that applauds this single-source conspiracy theory…also condemns the “reliable source” reference. Not fully reliable as historians, the book is full of language errors and controversial contentions should qualify as questionable sources. Therefore, your suggestion is to include the material in the article, and then argue within the article the validity of the material. That would probably work IF the article were about the Seagraves’ publications. However, it is not. Jim ( talk) 11:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Repeat after me: the Gold itself is a conspiracy theory. Given that, excluding a major take on that theory because its - wait for it - a conspiracy theory is hardly likely to wash. Relata refero ( talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the actual gold itself is a known urban legend in the Philippines. The conspiracy theory comes into play in the Seagraves’ novel. Lost treasure legends themselves are not conspiracy theories. Jim ( talk) 08:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

no comment necessary. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, none. This is beyond ridiculous. I've removed some of the most painful silliness, but there's still a lot remaining. Some people need to remember Wikipedia is not an advocacy vehicle for your favourite nationalist author. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing - I got reverted. Thankfully someone reverted back and I've permanently semi-protected the article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To save people time, you should clarify that it's specifically about Origin theories of Christopher Columbus#Portugese theory. The whole page isn't a fringe theory, just the contentious edits a few users have been making to that one section.

It's such patent nonsense that it doesn't even really belong here. I sent it over to WP:ANI as patent nonsense. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 10:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how as Moreschi already sees it, sending it over to WP:ANI would be counterintuitive. So, I removed my posting there. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 08:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An IP editor is campaigning against genetics research included in Palestinian people, which relates to a particular genetic marker "167delT, which appears specific to Israeli Ashkenazi and Palestinian populations."

This user is arguing an originally researched reason why this information is not valid; he attempts to discuss population genetics but does not appear have the slightest idea of what he is talking about (see above.)

The article has been the subject of Israeli-Palestinian POV wars but I don't even know which side this guy's on, if any. It's just a matter of science versus fringe theories. Please keep an eye and make sure the information doesn't get suppressed by an Internet kook. < eleland/ talk edits> 08:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I thank Eleland for their as usual diligent and highly valuable efforts, to uphold Wikipedia's integrity and standards. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a classic anti-semitic conspiracy theory. It's true that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of non-semitic caucasian DNA (hence the reason why Iraqi and Iranian Jews look so little like Ashkenazi Jews). However, using that to push the claim "they're not real Jews," is absurd, because their still genetically of partially semitic origin. The claim "they're not real Jews," is generally used as a basis to support anti-semitism. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, though, one thing I would add: The entire section on genetics should be deleted. Scientists do not recognize the idea of a "race" based on genetics and genetics are occasionally used by Kahanists and anti-Arab racists, too, to argue "There's no such thing as a Palestinian people."

Well, yes. This is true. But based on the same data, there is no such thing as a Jewish people. It's all based mostly on social convention, not DNA. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientists frequently use genetic comparisons of populations, put them together with genetic drift and compare that to linguistic data to try and establish the evolution and movement of ethnicities. That isn't fringe at all, actually. Relata refero ( talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason to include DNA evidence denigrating another group. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

None at all, and that would be grounds for a severe warning, and a block if reinstated. Referenced, mainstream comparative studies are, however, another matter. Relata refero ( talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DNA Clues section are found in many other wiki articles, and banning it in Palestinian People confirm the suspition being rumered in the internet that wikipedia is not a so called Free encyclopedia but run by zionists or at least controlled media ( one sided media that uses double standards.

a claim suppoted by more than one reference ( scientific research that is repitable ) is not to be deleted according to wiki riles. I demand that any such statements that are scientifically firmly reliabe as mentioned above should stay and any counter statements should be also stated if more than one study prove it.

As my referenced studies are mostly made by academically strong jewish scientists and the strongest DNA testing to date (autosomal), the counter objectors should rather find and search for good scientific evidence to support their claims and anxieties( seems to me they are inable to do that)So far their requests are politically and racially motivated since they are unable to refute (scientifically) different referenced statements 75.72.88.121 ( talk) 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Also, there is no such thing as fringe theory or original research in my contributions. All my words are taken to the letter from other proven-scientific websites! 75.72.88.121 ( talk) 07:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded this article because (a) the subject does not assert it to be a notable fringe theory, (b) the article is still a mess almost 3 years after creation, (c) the article cites no sources, and (d) it gives undue weight to the theory. The creator of the article has been notified, and I will notify other users who have made significant edits to the article. Bearian ( talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious.

The GUCT is the Grand Unifying / Unified Conspiracy Theory (a play on Grand Unified Theory) and is a disparaging term used by doubters to refer to supposed links drawn between one or more conspiracy theories, for example, chemtrail theory, JFK's assassination, the Apollo landing hoax, the Bilderbergers, free energy suppression, and water fluoridation are all part of some overarching plot (probably by aliens).

In the edit-history, at one point somebody added a mythology stub, another person added "see also -- vast right-wing conspiracy." As time went on, people also added to the article, by tacking on new, different conspiracy theories. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 02:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a classic example of a "neologism which is in wide use, but for which there are no treatments in reliable secondary sources." ( WP:NEO) I really see no risk of "undue weight to the theory," as it is treated as self-evidently nonsensical. The term is mostly used to disparage conspiracy theories, anyway. < eleland/ talk edits> 07:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that its content originated from a Humorix article, dated April 16 2002, titled "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory Of Everything" (and subtitled as "Fake News"). Ayla ( talk) 10:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is economic support for the theoretical advantages of "full-reserve banking" considered to be non-mainstream? (Disregarding the practicalities, I suppose.)

The criticisms of fractional-reserve banking seem to have wide support, including:

• Irving Fisher,
• Frank Knight,
• Milton Friedman,
• many ecological economists (such as Herman Daly)
• along with economists of the Chicago School (such as Henry Simons)
• and Austrian School economists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigK HeX ( talk • contribs)

Fisher, Knight, Friedman and Simons are all acceptable sources. I'd have to look and see whether there's unacceptable synthesis happening, however. Relata refero ( talk) 13:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism of fractional-reserve banking article would appear to be a POV-fork. I would much rather see all the relevant criticisms, including the ecological one if it is well sourced, added to the Fractional-reserve banking article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

there are allegations of pushing of fringe theories I find difficult to evaluate. Sumerophile ( talk · contribs) appears to take any comparison of Sumerian and Biblical flood stories as implying the claim that they refer to some "real" historical flood. That is, it appears this user is reading fringe claims that nobody ever intended to submit. But maybe I am missing something. See here, and Talk:Ziusudra. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

looking into this, the picture becomes rather clear. While "Sumerophile" in his mission to "remove fringe theories" doesn't shirk from removing without comment references to University of Pennsylvania Press or Cambridge University Press published sources (apparently because they were being used to reference view he opts should be deprecated), his nemesis Greensburger ( talk · contribs) who is allegedly a subtle pusher of fringe views shows a perfectly sane editing pattern, removing fringe claims or reverting blanking (and shows a refreshing failure to qualify as a single-purpose account [22]). dab (𒁳) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

another loopy theory that escaped notice. I have done some preliminary cleanup, but this article clearly needs to be surveyed (if not deleted or merged as unnotable kookery). dab (𒁳) 13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the theories mentioned are notable. I have a scholarly book that mentions one or two and hope to add refs when I have a minute. There was also a documentary about the issue shown on UK television a few years back. We should bear in mind that there is also much speculation and uncertainty in the mainstream views of how the Americas were peopled. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable in the sense of? None of the uncertainty in mainstream views is about African contact. The basic arguments about how and when Native Americans arrived from Asia. There is one hypothesis (put forward for testing that is) which is very minority that some may have come from Iberia (the Solutrean suggestion). I have no idea what TV programme you have in mind and I'd be very interested in what scholarly book you have, even just the name would be useful. Thanks.-- Dougweller ( talk) 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made here between origin and contact. Dougweller seems to be discussing the various theories about the origin of humans in the Americas... and I would agree with him on that issue. But I think the topic here is contact... the various theories that once humans had settled in the Americas, there was occasional contact between them and humans in Africa. These theories are certainly Fringe, they are not accepted by most scholars of pre-columbian history. However, I think they do pass the basic test for inclusion outlined in this guideline. I too have seem programs on TV (Discovery Channel, History Channel etc) that have discussed such theories. Thus, the topic has achievied the level of mainstream recognition that this guideline requires. It is appropriate to have an article on the topic. Determining what is stated in that article, and how it is stated is a different matter. Blueboar ( talk) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

note that I am not opposed to keeping this article around (or I would just have AfDd it): Wikipedia articles are justified by notability, not by sanity of their subjects. The point is that the article needs to make clear that although notable, these theories have no merit. dab (𒁳) 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, we have to make clear that we here at WP:HERESY have unanimously declared this idea 'heretical', and thus we must 'educate' all those poor fools who do subscribe to it, that their POV is simply wrong, because their books are wrong - while our 'approved' books are right. Wouldn't be 'neutral' any other way, would it. ;) 141.152.54.105 ( talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I am sure that there are good sources that have debunked all of these theories. They should definitely be discussed. Blueboar ( talk) 16:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Book is Timewalkers by Clive Gamble. By a scholar for general readership. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just ordered it from Amazon. -- Dougweller ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note it is about origins rather than contact. It describes the way that humans spread throughout the world. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out the various articles related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. In particular there is Social cycle theory of Sarkar. Progressive utilization theory, Microvitum, Neo-humanism, Ananda Marga, Ananda Marga Tantra, and AMGK. Do we really need all these articles? ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with philosophical and religious topics. I will take a better look over that set, but on first impression it's at the least a promotional set of articles. In terms of fringe concerns, "neo-humanism" is the most obvious problem. "Neo-humanism" bears no apparent relation to the philosophy of humanism and seems preoccupied with "New Age"-style concerns such as "universal love" and "holism". Additionally, there is a promotional tone used throughout the articles. For example, from the subject's main article:

“

P. R. Sarkar was born on a full moon day, likely on 21 May, 1921, in the small town of Jamalpur, Bihar, India. Although known as a bright child in his youth, he showed few signs of the mystical and largely controversial life that lay ahead of him, aside from the fact that even at a very young age, many of his family members recall seeing him perform long meditations in the middle of the night.

”

After I take a better look over the articles, I will tackle maintenance task such as merges, PROD/AfD, cleanup tagging, clearing up the promotional tone, etc. Any assistance would be vastly appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 06:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

good catch, ScienceApologist :) dab (𒁳) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a first go at merging and redirecting, as appropriate. However, the remaining articles ( Ananda Marga and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar) still need a lot of work and attention. Any assistance in cleaning up the language, condensing the material, removing promotional and instructional text, finding additional references, etc would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

and another

Category:Uhuru Movement, surrounding Omali Yeshitela. An entire category of articles without a single citation that would establish notability. Omali Yeshitela himself may be notable (some 10,000 google hits), but the remaining articles accreting around him clearly are not. dab (𒁳) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

African nationalism uses "Uhuru Movement" in quite a different way since "uhuru" means "independence" in Swahili. I imagine that many Africans would be quite upset to see this general principle taken over and by a relatively small group of Americans. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

there is Uhuru (independence) (a redirect). Uhuru is just the Swahili for "freedom". As such, it would belong on wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The " Uhuru Movement" appears to be of rather limited notability within US Afrocentrism, but its notability could be sufficient for inclusion. It's just that somebody will have to establish notability (as in, cite third party sources). dab (𒁳) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of that is non-notable. The African Socialist International probably is for the history of third-world fellow-traveling. There seem to be a couple of discussions of its founding in 1981 in the appropriate commie-watching journals, and it merits an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. Also known as the Socialist Inter-african and the League of Something or other. Relata refero ( talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link in the African nationalism article. African Socialist International is surely not notable if they are still talking about holding a founding congress in the near future. If they eventually do found the organisation properly then perhaps it will be worth including. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's an error. I fancy this chap is piggybacking on an actually notable organisation. Founded apparently by Leopold Senghor of Senegal. Relata refero ( talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some merging/redirecting. The remaining problem articles are African Socialist International, Omali Yeshitela and Chernoh Bah. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewrite ASI. Relata refero ( talk) 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. It was great! If there's anything more absurd than Soviet propaganda in full flight... "Dangerous and opportunistic". "Betraying the worker's revolution". "Petty-bourgeous conspiracy." Relata refero ( talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where a controversial 'historian' (who has no formal education in history and makes claims that have gained no acceptance in the academic historical community) is widely described as a "pseudohistorian" and has had his work widely criticised by legitimate historians, is it reasonable to note these facts in the article lead? This seems to be authorised by WP:LEAD when it states: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." [My emphasis] There is another editor who is trying to move all mention of this characterisation and criticism out of the lead to the end of the article. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at how this is handled in the case of Bat Ye'or where a compromise has been quite painfully hammered out between opposing groups of editors. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rife, particularly the talk page: there are no active content issues, but the talk page is an absolute mess of conspiracy theories and the like, and has drifted quite a ways from anything relevant to improving the associated Wikipedia article. I'd just like some outside review of the talk page with an eye toward the talk page guidelines and moving it away from Conspiracypedia and back toward discussion of concrete improvements to the actual article. MastCell  ^Talk 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I archived it and semi-protected for a while. Looking at it from afar, I'm afraid that "David" had no interest in policy, neutrality or anything else, he just wanted to use Wikipedia to correct the fact that the world regards Rife as charlatan. Guy ( Help!) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "Criticism of atheism" article (which btw has a pretty pro-atheist slant but thats not the point of my discussion) there is a section detailing a Christian writer noting that "Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic". There's a 'rebuttal' by Sam Harris that goes "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions." That kind've avoids the point, but again, this my POV so I'm not going to add it into the article. So far it contains two cited arguments.

Now this was followed up by "Further, this criticism is simply a poisoning the well fallacy variant, as well as a strawman of atheism. It is clear that not all communists are atheists (see Christian Communism), not all atheists are communists (see Ayn Rand), and attacking atheism via communism attempts to paint atheists in a negative light initially so as to discredit anything they may say." which I removed as uncited POV. The user who added it, Knight of BAAWA, reverted it back saying it was a fallacy and thus did not need a source. The wikilink to " straw man" was enough. At the very least, they needed a quote from someone stating that argument.

Now a second user, Deus Ex Machina, has added it back saying "The source is already there" without adding any. I reverted, it saying that I didn't see a source.

Now this paragraph doesn't seem to be in align with any of WP's policies, but if someone with more experience could run in that would be great.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New user Pelasgicmoon and not new Dodona have been reposting material on Fringe theories and have been rejected about 50 times(Dodona mostly since Pelasgic is new) on various pages by Admins,Users and Dodona even by his mentor. [23] They dont get the rules and have a dogma about it and just keep posting reposting ignoring and going on reposting.......... Megistias ( talk) 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

that would be blockable as disruption. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please do so. Megistias ( talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, we have some minor problems with Albanian nationalists at Talk:Pelasgians, Talk:Chaonians in case anyone is interested. See also Origin of the Albanians, Albanian nationalism, Dodona ( talk · contribs), PelasgicMoon ( talk · contribs). Things are generally under control, but more eyes are welcome. dab (𒁳) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how did I not have Pelasgians on my watchlist already? Admins should be aware of WP:ARBMAC if things get hyper. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion on WP:RS/N is trying to obfuscate some fringe-y POV-pushing regarding the origins of Carnatic music, pitting a bunch of Tamil chauvinists against an equally fractious lot of Kannadigas (who usually are the most sensitive to their neighbors' antics) over the WP:RS status of a website. This could get bloody. rudra ( talk) 04:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Heating up already. rudra ( talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Page now protected until March 1. Surely they can settle their differences before then...or hang on a sec, maybe not. We'll see. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to merge the Galactic Confederacy article into the main Scientology article on the basis that the Galactic Confederacy qualifies as "fictional" at Talk:Scientology#Merge proposal.. Any input as to whether this apparently acknowledged belief of Scientologists qualifies as "fiction" would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what is the basis for differentiating this topic from any other religious belief/scripture? Is there any argument for this being "fictional" that couldn't as easily apply to them as well? But in any case, even if it isn't "fictional", I don't see it having any notability at all that isn't heavily dependent on, and derivative of Scientology's notability -- so it should probably be merged somewhere (though I tend to agree that Xenu or Space opera in Scientology scripture would be more appropriate targets). Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. All we have is one editor, comparatively new, who is insisting that it qualifies as "fiction". I have left a note for him on his talk page to the effect that he has to prove that this matter of religious belief qualifies as fiction. He has also accused an experienced editor of "vandalism" for having removed a merger tag. And, it has at least three cited references, which I think qualifies it as notable enough. I agree that there isn't much content, and that might be reason to perhaps merge it to Scientology beliefs and practices. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a guideline or policy which specifically differentiates between matters of religious belief and fiction. Does anyone know of such a policy, guideline, or whatever? John Carter ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the merge goes through, then I'm going to do something I always wanted to do: go through some of the worst written articles on Bible chapters and the like, dropping Template:In-universe on all of them that treat religious dogma as historical fact. Relata refero ( talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They should all be written from a scholarly ( Biblical criticism, Biblical archaeology, etc), rather than theological, perspective. However dropping a tag that explicitly calls them "fiction" on them would be highly incendiary -- I hope you have your asbestos underpants on. ;) Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

After a little escapade at Book of Esther round Purim time one year, I always keep the asbestos handy with those articles... No, the reason I said it is because it sometimes seems the only way to wake the main contributors up. Otherwise it usually is just the "in-universe" people who edit those. Relata refero ( talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And my objection isn't that they're written from a theological perspective.. that's not that bad. Its when they're written as history that I get irritated. ("..and then in the next decades the Medes conquered XYZ..." and the like, sourced to specific Bible verses.) A related problem is in all ancient Near East articles, where "in-universe" Bible commentary and the Catholic Encycl. is treated like a reliable secondary source. See Nebuchadnezzar, though at least there someone managed to persuade them to use the word "portrayal". Relata refero ( talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance on BLP-article on John Zizioulas, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon. The page has been protected due to an edit war (see Talk:John_Zizioulas) over the inclusion of fringe-group material and references accusing Zizioulas of being 'deceitful', 'heterodox' and at odds with 'traditional Orthodoxy', which had been occupying half the article. Seminarist ( talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

for everyone battle-hardened on the homeopathy front, you may be interested in looking at Research and innovations in Ayurveda and similar articles.

dab (𒁳) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have a look round and see what I can fix. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors with experience of dealing with such issues on this noticeboard might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the last several months; on the Vaishnava section. There is a Hare Krishna/ISKON person maintaining a very strong Hare Krishna/ISKON slant and bias to that section. Others and myself, have been contending and arguing with this person to put our vaishnava groups information section. We have all editted, and he would come and re-edit what we have done. I have emailed Wikipedia about the situation three times already and they have not been helpful. This person has written the whole section with a definite ISKON/Hare Krishna slant. He has a strangle hold on the whole section. I will be taking this to wikipedia one more time. If they have done nothing to resolve the problem...

Though not primarily. I believe that diff1 and diff2 are instances in the issue at hand. It looks like WP:PROVEIT needs to be invoked, though I fear I cannot discriminate the good information from the bad and will be sitting this one out. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 07:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

this is difficult because it isn't about "fringe theories" as such, but about the relative weight a valid sub-sect ( Gaudiya Vaishnavism) should be given in the treatment of a larger movement ( Vaishnavism). It's a case of WP:UNDUE, but there will be room for bona fide disagreement. dab (𒁳) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not the best place to post this, but an editor has expressed concerns elsewhere that the above mentioned article is becoming overly reliant upon and probably giving undue weight to the belief that many of the claims of satanic ritual abuse are valid. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject, particularly if they can contributed sourced information regarding the consensus who tend to discount the majority of these claims, is more than welcome to do so. John Carter ( talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, y'know something? This article has improved since the previous two times it's been up on this noticeboard. That awful list of "allegations" has gone from the main article, split off to elsewhere - have to monitor that, though, and NPOVfy - and the proposed split looks reasonably sensible, though one must be careful to avoid POV forks. Someone's been doing good work. If we are going to split the material up, though, care has to be taken that Ritualized child abuse doesn't become filled with all the crap that previously clogged up the SRA article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment - the spin-out of specific cases was contested. There is an extant discussion as part of this section, and a much longer discussion focusing on the spin-out here. The rational was WP:UNDUE given to allegations, and my more recent thinking is that many of the allegations had satanism as an afterthought or allusion rather than a central aspect of the case. If I'm missing any policy or guideline based reasons for the split I would appreciate them pointed out, as the spin-out has been reverted once already. Thanks for the attention on this matter, it has been a labour of hate since no-one can love such a long, drawn out contested work towards the current version. WLU ( talk) 14:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Ritualized child abuse become filled with all the crap. I started it (I am a skeptic of the "Satanic" claims of SRA) and, curiously, the SRA believers immediately nominated it for deletion! My educated guess is that they want the hard facts of child abuse mixed together with the highly dubious claims, the "Satanic" ones.

Thanks again for the attention on this matter.

— Cesar Tort 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation on the motives of other editors doesn't really help the page, which should be based on reliable sources. You knew I was going to post this Cesar, I will beat you with this wiffle bat until you repent : ) WLU ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently in horrible shape. It presents the clear majority view the Satanic ritual abuse does not exist as an actual conspiracy as a minority view. It busies itself with presenting apologetics in favor of the fringe conspiracy theory, much of it in an "absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence" fashion that likely violates WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. Some feedback and extra eyes would be appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise a few people to check out the contributions of Abuse truth ( talk · contribs). I agree the SRA article is a joke at present - we've already had complaints about it on this noticeboard at least once before - but with the current crop of users editing it I'm not sure much can be done. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to be of good quality, until a handful of conspiracy POV-pushers came along and screwed it up, and ever since then they have staunchly insisted upon keeping conspiracy theories in. There are a number of underlying problems. First of all, many of the journals being cited are not available for free on the Internet, so people pretty much have to take the word of the poster that the source is not being misrepresented. I no longer trust the conspiracy theorists to cite sources fairly. Secondly, we have an issue of people outside the field being used as expert opinions. Allegations of SRA are primarily a criminological and sociological issue. Virtually all criminologists and sociologists agree that the SRA scare was a moral panic (though there may have been isolated cases where abuse took place with ritualistic overtones). Most of the gullible conspiracy theorization comes from psychiatrists and people in a handful of radical fringe fields. But I see no reason why psychiatrists should be considered expert on this subject, any more than they would be on (say) evolution or American history. *** Crotalus *** 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the chief POV-pushers (I posted a detailed critique of the edits here, it's now in the archive) seems to be AWOL since mid-December. No doubt THEY got to him. A conspiratorial mind might note that the disappearance occurred exactly as we were beginning to move towards mediation. < eleland/ talk edits> 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

not again. Enough time has been wasted in futile debates with conspiracy mongers who are obviously not interested in a neutral report on mainstream opinions. Good faith has been stretched to ridiculous lengths. This article needs to be put on Wikipedia:Article probation, and probably also needs to be semi-protected. Before we go any further here, it needs to be reverted to the last sane version. After this, uninvolved admins should clamp down on any editor trying to push an agenda or spin the article into suggesting conspiracy mongery. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the real problem as being that certain editors only want one POV on the page. One that is skeptical of SRA. Any sources that may even suggest the existence of SRA are attacked, no matter how reliable and editors that promote these sources are threatened and called names. IMO, this is the real problem here. To have a NPOV page that is edited via the consensus process, the threats, name calling and reversions without consensus by those skeptical of the concept of SRA would need to stop. Abuse truth ( talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AT's claims aside, there are problems with the assertions of the existence of SRA. These are discussed in detail and generally dismissed. AT has never managed a reply, rebuttal or follow-up that was convincing. I have read every post AT has left on the talk pages we are involved in, and always reply. If AT has a point, I edit accordingly. If not, I reply why I don't think there is merit. WLU ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not only read his posts, but printed and re-read the entire SRA archived talk pages. It took me several days to go through and digest all of the "Satanic" child abuse debate.

We have pointed out to AT what a good RS is, the peer-reviewed journal. He ignores it and continues to call self-published texts "RSs".

It's not that skeptical editors are allowed in the wiki and the believers not. It's a matter of the reliability of sources: something that AT has not understood yet.

User:Cesar Tort — 189.145.190.2 ( talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars#Iranian_theory: Comparable to the Albanian frolicking above, here we have expounded an apparent fringe theory popular in 1990s Bulgarian nationalism. Wikipedia is very vulnerable to this sort of thing. I tend to file these cases under Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups: reviewing that category will raise your hair, and give you an inexhaustible field of fringe cleanup work. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Azerbaijanis is another all-time favourite, if you can be bothered. dab (𒁳) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of the time a friend's half-senile mother was reading an account of the Wolfenden report and declared that "they can't spell burglary". Guy ( Help!) 15:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

these articles are apparently written by people who are not quite senile enough to be prevented to use a web browser... dab (𒁳) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, Armenians trying to claim Mitanni. rudra ( talk) 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

these kids are not really a credit to their nation, are they... I guess I'll just semiprotect the article to buy it some peace. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what we've got to start doing with fringe theories like this is to give the reasons why they arise and why they become so popular. For instance, it's not really going out on a limb to speculate that the "Iranian origin of the Bulgars" theory caught on because of the anti-Turkish campaigns in Bulgaria in the 1980s and 90s when it became politically undesirable for the Bulgars to have been Turkic. If we can find a scholarly source explaining this we should add it. -- Folantin ( talk) 10:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sure, we have dedicated articles for this sort of stuff. Macedonism. Illyrian Movement. Albanian nationalism. Armenian nationalism. National awakening of Bulgaria. Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire. Indigenous Aryans. National myth. Nationalism and ancient history. Strangely enough, the nationalist zealots never seem interested in adding material to these. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

speaking of "Indigenous Aryans", could somebody be bothered to speedy Aryan invasion theory (Europe) and have a chat with its creator? dab (𒁳) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. PROD is rather too kind for stuff like that. Such patent nonsense really is CSDable. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: in fact, I've just blocked the author of Aryan invasion theory (Europe) indefinitely as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goldenhawk 0. Hats off to Dieter for spotting the socks here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this has come up before; it's one of the most ridiculous, embarrasing young-earth-Creationist fantasies ever promulgated. To the point where Answers in Genesis rails against it. But not Wikipedia! :-)

The ground penetration radar yielded a regular internal structure as documented in a report to the Turkish government. Fasold and the team measured the length of the formation 538 ft (164 m), close to the 300 cubits (157 m, 515 ft) of the Noah's Ark [...] so-called drogue (anchor) stones that they believed were once attached to the ark were investigated. These very large stones have in common a hole cut on a radius at one end (so as not to chafe an attached rope). Such stones are alluded to in Babylonian accounts of the ark.[10]

< eleland/ talk edits> 07:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Babylonian accounts of the ark"?? dab (𒁳) 10:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. See Sumerian creation myth and Ziusudra. Fasold was an atheist and thought the ark found was that one, not Noah's.-- Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have redirected David Fasold as a coatrack fork on the same topic, but I found myself reverted by Tuckerresearch ( talk · contribs). dab (𒁳) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the ridiculous "Scientific evidence" secrtion Dana Ullman added, and which homeopaths are fighting at all costs to keep in the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I respect what you're doing a lot. You should already know that. However, to avoid clutter, can we make a main Homeopathy section on this noticeboard and when you find multiple articles, then create sub-sections? There's the same kind of clutter at WP:RSN on Islam and it makes using the noticeboards difficult. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 12:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It might work, but this one is particularly bad, so I'd suggest a look. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see one of the sources is [ eCam] which is obviously not self published and is a peer reviewed scientific journal. This seems to me to be a reliable source. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see another source is something like Science of the Environment. It is not clearly stated that this is a peer reviewed journal, but I note that there are guidelines for reviewers. I looked at those guidelines and the way the reviews are scored, and it appears to be a scientific peer reviewed journal also. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is cherry picking. VEry small studies being presented as the end word on the subject. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are saying above that the sources are ridiculous. They do not appear to be ridiculous but you appear to be overtly biased and not assuming good faith. More importantly though, if you believe that there is an alternative view, then find other studies and present them. Then both sides of the issue should be presented according to the guidance of NPOV. But I note that where there are peer-reviewed journals that specifically have studied this issue, these should not be called "ridiculous" and "particularly bad". -- Blue Tie ( talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I don't mean to sound like Jimbo here, but if they're cherry-picked studies, then dig out references to dispute them. Yes, I know it's tedious but it's policy, so w\e. You can't claim, "Such and such is not reliable," on your own basis, because all claims about sources have to be cited in sources, themselves, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you think something is disputable, you can get rid of it while you try to find stuff to verify it, but you can't just remove it if it looks like a reliable source without having an additional source to back up your claim.

The only exception is the really wild fringe theories where there won't even be any papers on mainstream journals ridiculing it. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These are fringe theories, and I've added plenty of studies generally refuting homeopathy in the lead. However, these are tiny studies published in very low impact journals or CAM journals, and as such, there does not seem to be specific comment on most of them outside of this Wikipedia article, and even the New Scientist reference seems never to have been picked up again. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant standard here would appear to be WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources -- claiming experimental scientific validity for a concept that gives every appearance of violating all known theoretical science would appear to be sufficiently "exceptional" to require absolutely bulletproof substantiation. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that this is so. As wikipedia's goal is to disseminate information, part of the information includes studies -- one way or the other. Both sides can get some review and peer reviewed journals are good sources. Moreover, before you can declare that research to be "contrary", you must show research that is contrary to it. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with hrafn, generally. If these are real studies, but small...we need to say that. If they indicate that it works, say that. In health, especially, very little is super rock solid under any circumstance....so....Say what's what. "some small studies indicate success, most larger one's don't and the theoretical basis doens't fit with most science." -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Rocksanddirt's approach, however the "most larger ones" need to be cited. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it becomes a WP:DUE weight question, and the majority of weight would need to be placed on the larger, more reliable, studies. Where the size/reliability disparity is sufficiently large, the smaller studies should be ignored altogether. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First you must find the larger, "more reliable" studies that studied this matter specifically. So far, I have not seen ANY other studies but those that are cited here. You cannot claim that the studies identified here should be done away when you offer nothing in response. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

well....if the smaller ones have an intersting result (like efficacy waaaay over expectations), we might want to keep them anyway. but yes, REFS FOR ALL! -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But these "interesting" results are generally because the experiments were "waaaay" unreliable, so should be excluded -- as I pointed out above, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Hrafn ^Talk _Stalk 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is exactly the point being made, and tend to agree with it. The statement "homeopathy has medical merit beyond a placebo" is an extraordinary statement, and in the absence of absolutely bulletproof evidence for it, we should not make it — even in the qualified form that "Study X said that homeopathy has medical merit", since that gives the false impression that there is a body of literature out there which provides substantial scientific evidence to support the extraordinary claim. -- Haemo ( talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is there a study that has reviewed this Arsenic Album and found it to be ineffective? If the only study you can cite is one that generically lambastes homeopathic remedies but is not focused on Arsenic Album, then it would be undue weight to give that study too much sway above studies that are specific to the subject (Arsenic Album) in an article about Arsenic Album. At the same time, wikipedia does not have to advocate homeopathic remedies. Just report the facts. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a claim a particular treatment had particular effects under particular conditions, and broad general claims such as "homeopathy has medical merit." Whether a particular treatment works empirically or not is not necessarily correlated with the validity of any claimed theoretical basis behind it. Small doses of Arsenic Album may or may not have any legitimate medical benefit, I wouldn't know, and if it does the reasons why would not necessarily have anything to do with the validity of homeopathic medicine. We can point out information included in studies, such as if numbers of patients are very small compared to other studies, whether or not there was some sort of control, randomization, consistency of instruments, etc. We can print this factual information if described in the articles. What we can't do is print our own conclusions about whether or not studies are reliable. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Pseudoscience. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor tussle. A number of the editors asserting ownership of this article are obvious fans of quantum mysticism and don't like having the science rug wisked out from under them. A few voices of reason could be helpful here even while the article is protected. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a recent upsurge in AIDS-denialist agenda-account activity. Specific pages involved include:

• AIDS reappraisal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Koch's postulates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zidovudine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Root-Bernstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since AIDS-denialist groups have in the past coordinated "attacks" on Wikipedia, I'd just ask for eyes on these articles and any others which turn up (I could list a bunch of other former POV forks and walled gardens of AIDS denialism, but that would violate WP:BEANS). MastCell  ^Talk 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Add Incarnation Children's Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the list. This facility, which provides care for children with HIV, was the subject of a report by a journalist named Liam Scheff alleging that they were force-feeding the kids poisonous medications (N.B. that Liam Scheff denies that HIV causes AIDS). These charges were amplified in a BBC documentary, but subsequently the BBC backtracked in response to complaints about their accuracy ( [24]). In any case, Liam Scheff ( talk · contribs) has now edited the article introducing his (unsourced) take on this dispute. I've left a WP:COI warning, but again, more eyes are necessary on these articles at present. MastCell  ^Talk 06:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On it. Relata refero ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Paul Gann to the list; an account is continually replacing his cause of death (AIDS, as described by the New York Times) with AIDS-denialist claims from Peter Duesberg's book. MastCell  ^Talk 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From Mescaline:

Users typically experience visual hallucinations and radically altered states of consciousness, often experienced as pleasurable and illuminating but occasionally is accompanied by feelings of anxiety or revulsion. Like most psychedelic hallucinogens, mescaline is not physically addictive. Mescaline-containing cacti can induce severe vomiting and nausea, which adds an important part to traditional Native-American or Shaman ceremonies as it is considered cleansing.

From Psychedelic psychotherapy:

Psychedelic psychotherapy in the broadest possible sense of the term is likely as old as humanity's ancient knowledge of hallucinogenic plants itself. Though usually viewed as predominantly spiritual in nature, elements of psychotherapeutic practice can be recognized in the entheogenic rituals of many cultures.

Then there's also the nonsense I dealt with a while back on Cannabis. Cannabis-related articles, including the various "strains" on Template:Cannabis resources need to be cleaned up (some strains may need to be deleted) and Portal:Cannabis needs to be made encyclopedic.

On Portal:Cannabis:

Did you know that cannabis is considered a soft drug, and it can not cause physical addiction, as opposed to ethanol ('alcohol') and nicotine.

Also:

Hard and soft drugs

I agree with that assessment of cannabis as a soft drug, but it's still OR, because governments and scientists of the world (despite their distorted view of cannabis) do not share that view. Because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, it doesn't matter that the mainstream view of cannabis is wrong. The fringe view should not be given undue weight, regardless.

Regarding other psychadelics, like mescaline -- just imagine if some kid reads this material on Wikipedia, then goes out and OD's on some psychadelic drug, like MDMA, because he read on Wikipedia that it was harmless.

So, yeah, a broad variety of articles related to psychedelic drugs needs to be given a closer look. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this mainly an issue of improving sourcing? The BBC website currently carries a feature on whether MDMA is less harmful than alcohol. There has been a great deal of discussion recently in the UK about the classification of cannabis, with various doctors and scientists weighing in on one side or the other. All that can be cited. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This relates to the issues of WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. What happens if a paper is cited that can unequivocally be demonstrated to contain unreliable information, albeit that it is from a peer-reviewed journal which is regarded at Wikipedia as WP:RS by definition? [25] This resembles a converse of the "oneway linking principle"- The mainstream will ignore many fringe ideas especially when we get into the minute details of that fringe idea so the mainstream does not bother to create a WP:RS refutation of that fringe WP:RS. One might hope that when discussion on a Talk page has revealed that the cited sources are unreliable a well-intentioned editor acting in good faith would accept the need to withdraw them. But, I cannot see an route by which to insist that such Fringe information should be held away from a main Article page especially when the Article is already in a Fringe area and the effect of WP:WEIGHT is less strong. In the current instance, there is no way that the Mainstream would have created a detailed refutation of a 20-year old research paper in an obscure journal and a 14-yr old meta-analysis in a similarly low-quality journal. How can their inclusion in an Article be challenged, or at least balanced especially when another editor refuses to accept the refutation of his sources' ideas? OffTheFence ( talk) 13:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this section is a continuation of what was discussed above, but things have moved on at the Talk page itself. [26] OffTheFence ( talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have already tried arguing from logic and from editorial license to choose a fair representation of the field as a whole rather than just cherry-picking examples. Your best bet now may be to track down one of the more recent metareviews (described here and here, abstract or more online [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]) of homeopathy as a whole (I have not seen anything else for arsenicum album itself) and find these studies (I assume - I have not checked) listed as methodologically lacking. A second option would be to use GoogleScholar or CrossRef (or whatever equivalent for biomedical) to see how papers in quality journals treat the Linde et al. (1994) and Cazin et al. (1987). One equivalently reliable source expressing concerns or dismissing the results or analysis would require a caveat in the article, and several might require that the papers be treated as solely of historical interest. They probably should not be eliminated from the article both for encyclopedic reasons of detailing the intermittent interest actual researchers show this stuff, and for the practical reason that such removal would not be stable - some editor will wander along later to "correct" the "oversight" of omitting them. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a real problem - without commenting on the particular aspects of this dispute, more sophisticated editors wishing to advance a fringe or minoritarian POV often track down individual peer-reviewed studies supporting their view and insist on their inclusion as reliable sources. I can produce maybe a dozen peer-reviewed papers arguing that HIV is not the cause of AIDS - but that doesn't mean that these should be cited and expounded upon in our article on AIDS. Similarly, there are a number of peer-reviewed studies claiming that secondhand smoke is harmless, but to cite them all and discuss each at length would produce an inaccurate representation of the actual state of human knowledge on the subject. It's a question of WP:WEIGHT. Individual studies should be viewed in the context of WP:WEIGHT provided by expert reviews, scientific consensus statements, and other secondary-source representations of expert opinion in a field. It is way too easy to cherry-pick the primary peer-reviewed literature to produce an inaccurate, biased, or inappropriately weighted overview of a subject, and this is exactly the sort of abuse that WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT are intended to prevent. MastCell  ^Talk 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm comparatively new here. Is there a specific rule that prohibits the consideration of anything that isn't from a RS in discussions on a talk page (I can see the need to keep these off the actual articles)? In the course of recent discussions of a particular paper that is claimed to provide positive evidence for homoeopathy, and whether it should be included in an article, some perfectly valid (and as far as I'm aware unrefuted) criticisms of the article were cited, but two editors who are supporting the inclusion of the article simply stated that we can't consider them because they had been published on a blog. Brunton ( talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A useful policy in this regard is WP:REDFLAG. It should be used more forcefully throughout talkpage discussions. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what SA means here. It is very common on talk pages to bring attention to texts that you are not proposing to use as a source in the article. So long as you keep within the rules of discussion (be civil, work towards consensus, stick to discussing improvements to the article) then you can mention any text you want to. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some people refer too often to texts that are making extraordinary claims to bolster their tenuous and decidedly "fringey" position. This can have the effect of overwhelming talkpage discussions to the point of making it appear that the sources are good enough to pass WP:REDFLAG when in fact they are not. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But the problem here is different. It is that a WP:RS is being demanded on a Talk page merely to support criticism of papers that have been added to the main Article, when an analysis of these papers makes it self-evident that the studies are defective but no one else has ever bothered to do that analysis. So, in Wikipedia terms the analysis is WP:OR but it is also uncontestably correct. I would not want to include this WP:OR in the main Article, the appropriate remedy is to remove the defective studies from the main Article, but their fans do not accept this. My problem therefore is that Wikipedia's rules are effectively being exploited to ensure that bad studies can't be deleted from an Article by consensus. OffTheFence ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If the paper is dubious (has internal inconsistencies, for example) it may be judged to be an unreliable source in spite of the journal in which it was published. One need not necessarily have to provide a paper refuting it if it is a poorly done paper. Peer review does not equal imprimatur. WP:REDFLAG is important because a reliable source for an extraordinary claim (e.g. "homeopathy works!") needs to be exquisite above and beyond normal sourcing requirements. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Any confusion here may be my fault: AS wasn't replying to me; I had indented my comment under MastCell's (as it seemed more relevant to the issue of peer-reviewed sources without peer-reviewed criticism) and above SA's comment. Brunton ( talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see. The only thing that concerns me now is that it should be remembered that we are working to verifiability rather than truth. It isn't our job to correct the scientific consensus. When there are different views in peer-reviewed papers then we need to establish weight by referring to overviews (e.g. reviews of the literature) or by looking at the standing of the journals in which the different views are published. While it is up to those who want the material included to show that it is notable and well-sourced, I'm not sure how far you will get by arguing that a peer-reviewed study is defective unless you can show a very good reason. A source that contradicts it would definitely help your position, but it is not appropriate to demand on a talk page that someone produce a source for their argument. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that idea - those articles seem to have (deservedly) foundered in unciteability as far as mainstream WP:RS are concerned. Mentioning when the studies were published and the lack of high quality confirmation is relevant. Commonly accepted methodological problems, such as lack of blinding or randomization, should be noted, and there are a couple of metrics for comparing the quality of studies that should be allowable to compute under the obvious deductions section of the not-OR essay. In any case, utter lack of scientific plausibility and the scientific consensus against homeopathy are perfectly relevant. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that reliability of a journal refers to its current reputation for accuracy in a community -- the reputation of the journal as a whole. An editor's opinion about an individual article wouldn't seem to be relevant to the reputation of the journal publishing it in the community, so I don't understand why such things are thought to have any bearing on the question of a journal's reliability. It is the journal, not the study, that is the source. The journal is our evidence that a study existed. The journal's (or possibly the author's) reputation -- not anything that can be said about an individual article's content -- is the basis for reliability. I completely agree that editors' personal personal beliefs about and critiques of study methodology etc. are entirely original research and canot have any weight. A claim that a study in a reliable journal does not reflect consensus or has so little weight as to be fringe has to cited to some other reliable source. What editors personally believe is correct has nothing to do with it. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really - journals themselves generally say nothing other than to validate that a certain article passed a bar of peer review, which varies by the importance of the journal to the field. Being published in Science or Nature carries more stringent requirements than something with more adjectives (or Medical Hypotheses, which is not a reliable source at all). This high regard by the scientific community is why such articles are generally RS. It would, however, be entirely incorrect to cite any information from Schön's withdrawn papers regardless of publishing journal, or to cite "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" other than in the context of the Sokal Affair.

The case at hand, I will admit, is somewhat less clear-cut than these examples. It remains, however, appropriate to exercise editorial oversight to ensure that our articles fairly represent the whole of the relevant corpus. By all means any quality studies which have not been superseded should be cited, but they should also be provided with context. Ideally, an unbiased reader who happens across Arsenicum album should leave knowing what it is, how it is produced, why it is prescribed (history and symptoms), and that there is some small evidence of efficacy but no sound theory of action. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 02:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that bad studies can either be removed or have their deficiencies shown in a main article- sacrificing WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in favour of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, and probably WP:IAR, amongst others. But with the whole of homeopathy under "probation", if I edit the main Article don't I still find myself subject to being complained against, because no consensus has been reached? None of this should be necessary if editors acted in good faith and withdrew source material that has been shown to be unreliable or appeared open to qualifying any account given of it in the main Article, but that is where we are. I feel that the principle is important enough to take it up the decision chain to establish a proper precedent. Where does it go next? OffTheFence ( talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A request was posted at WP:RSN#Arsenicum album. I should not need to point out that we are not going to sacrifice WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in favor of your POV. — Whig ( talk) 08:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I phrased that badly. The aim is to achieve NPOV. What needs to be sacrificed/compromised is the idea that NPOV falls out immediately simply by following a rigid and narrow interpretation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. NPOV is not negotiable, it is the means to achieve it (and, I suppose, the definition of NPOV) that are. NPOV has not been achieved by going down the path you and DanaUllman have taken us. That is why we have a problem. OffTheFence ( talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to AGF, but it is hard to do so when many of the above editors give you only half of the picture. Still, I will AGF. Although these editors insist upon the "unreliability" of the Cazin study and the Linde (1994) meta-analysis that verifies the study as valid, these editors have accidentally (?) not mentioned the numerous double-blind placebo controlled studies (on animals and on humans) published in RS journals showing benefits from homeopathic Arsenicum album. Recently, yet another human trial was referenced to an even more prestigious journal ("Science of the Total Environment"), and yet, editors have stonewalled its inclusion. I also referred to an article in Annals in Internal Medicine in which the Linde paper is also described as a review of "rigorous laboratory trials." Please note that one editor above expressed concern that randomization of rats was not done (I personally thought that this was humorous and asked if he wanted blue-eyed rats to be separated from those brown-eyed rats). That said, I have asserted that blinding is not used in certain scientific arenas, such as surgery (and I should also add that many physics experiments also are not blinded). I believe that it is not our duty as editors here to judge whether a study is or isn't worthy just because it wasn't randomized or blinded. Instead, we must rely upon their source of publication. Is the source a RS? Also, once one sees a pattern (as I have described above and as is in the Arsenicum album article), editors must avoid stonewalling the body of evidence. DanaUllman ^Talk 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's looking like your confusion over randomisation was genuine not arch leg-pulling (and, no, I am not being sarcastic, I think the confusion IS honest). The rats weighed 70g, therefore they were far from adult. We don't know and cannot tell over what period these trials were run, but rats of that age would be undergoing a rapid maturation of their physiology. I hadn't expected to find something quite so neat, but look at this [32] and you will gain some appreciation of the problem. A 70g rat would be on the extreme left hand side of those growth curves where the slope is nearly vertical. Unless the treatments were randomised, all the authors have done is document alterations in Arsenic elimination with increasing maturity. Like I said, I cannot tell what was really going on, but the quote I gave on the Ars Alb Talk page says all that needs to be said- randomisation serves "to guarantee inferential validity in the face of unspecified disturbances". I really, honestly and truly thought this was obvious. It seems it was not. OffTheFence ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However, this is less acceptable- "I also referred to an article in Annals in Internal Medicine in which the Linde paper is also described as a review of "rigorous laboratory trials."". Maybe so, but who said it? "Jonas, Kaptchuck, and Linde" two of the three authors also published Linde (1994) that is the source of all the problems. The Belon, Bannerjee et al paper is just shockingly awful. 14 of 39 subjects dropped out! I'm not even to engage further with that one. Life's too short. OffTheFence ( talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not who said it, but where, that makes this a reliable source. Annals of Internal Medicine isn't a RS? Please also note that NOR is just as much a fundamental policy of Wikipedia as NPOV and V. — Whig ( talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to believe you if there wasn't so obvious a conflict of interest soapbox for you to promote homeopathy. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask ScienceApologist to strike this comment and AGF. — Whig ( talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Get someone other than you to ask this. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why is my request not worthy of consideration? — Whig ( talk) 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3 RfCs you ignored about yourself are the reason that we shouldn't really take you seriously since you don't take the Wikipedia community seriously. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate and coming from someone who has been subjected to ArbCom warnings, you should stop now. — Whig ( talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are restricted and your edits above are uncivil personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. — Whig ( talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, AGF...and thanx OffTheFence for that explanation...but the point here is that Jonas and Linde are highly regarded physicians/scientists/evaluators of research, and they are known to critique their own work. In THIS case, however, they have not done so. They published in a RS; they made comments about their research in a very high impact journal. The information stands on this. Your information, while interesting (and not as humorous as I once had thought), is good OR for the talk page. DanaUllman ^Talk 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has now moved a million miles from the topic of this section. Probably best to return the Talk:ArsAlb page if you want to take that further and hear how happy I'd be to insert a line like "In a 2003 review 2 of the authors of Linde 1997 congratulated themselves for the rigour of their research". Just kidding, but it would be pretty funny. OffTheFence ( talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

← I'm sorry; it's no longer clear to me what's being discussed here. MastCell  ^Talk 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we are discussing reliable sources, follow-up should be to WP:RSN#Arsenicum album. — Whig ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute at this page regrading an editor's inclusion of certain non-standard interpretations of historical events, shown in the second paragraph here. I'm not certain this is the correct noticeboard, but posting elsewhere has been ineffective in resolving the dispute. I would aprreciate any suggestions other editors may have on the proper course of action. Thank you. Coemgenus 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It definitely seems like undue weight to have this in a general encyclopaedia article about Louis. Maybe worth a paragraph in a full-length biography but not here. Some of the sources look a little dubious too. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a WP:FRINGE issue... but irrelevant in an article on Louis XIV. Delete the offending paragraph. Blueboar ( talk) 15:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Zapped. Out of place in an article supposedly written as a summary. Moreschi ( talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was moved to another paragraph and re-written. It seems this is really all about mentioning that Louis's birth was caused by the Virgin Mary. The debate continues... Blueboar ( talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Aoseksd3uu ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Torahjerus14 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't have the time to deal with this. These may be any of: returning banned user, socks, or independent pov-pushers. Someone should deal with this or we'll once again have our entire coverage of "Armenian antiquity" in an unrecognizable mess within no time. dab (𒁳) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by his very first edits, Aoseksd3uu is a reincarnation of User:Angine, a sock puppet of our old friend Ararat arev. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Both names also appear virtually simultaneously, and immediately dump innocently looking userboxes on their user pages. Also both names appear randomly generated. I say block them as Ararat arev socks now. dab (𒁳) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Today's been busy. Both blocked. Torahjerus14's first edits also show a connection to Ararat arev, if you look. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hosnnan38 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How about this one? First and second edits, within minutes of account creation; user boxes; a bogus correction(see [33]); another one; some wikilinking; more userboxes; and then, to business. (And still nothing from any of these warriors on Talk:Mitanni). rudra ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed. So much effort wasted for spite and insulting our intelligence, time the kid could have invested in actually learning something about the topic :( dab (𒁳) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hosnnan38 is indef blocked as a sock of Ararat arev. Any other ducks out there? --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's back to warring with anon-IPs. 68.122.154.100, for example. rudra ( talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And again as 68.122.159.170 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Still not giving up, I see. Moreschi ( talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy just doesn't stop. Would it be helpful to semi-protect his favorite articles, or should we just keep playing whack-a-mole? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. We're going to have to do both: Hurrians (just done now by self) and Mitanni are both semi-protected but this won't stop him using accounts. He's also probably got too many target articles for us to protect them all. Current IP range seems to be 68.122.15...so it's eyes open as usual. Moreschi ( talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There's probably too great a possibility of collateral damage for a rangeblock, right? What other articles should we be watching? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think a rangeblock will work here. As regards articles, judging from the contributions of the main account and socks...probably Urartu, Armenian Highlands and related articles, Hayk, Proto-Armenian language...and mostly everything related to Armenian antiquity. As I say, there's a quite a lot :) Constant vigilance is pretty much the only solution. Moreschi ( talk) 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

we can well leave most of the articles affected semi-protected: the possibility of their being improved by a passing anon is practically zero. Since the vandal is using AT&T Texas, a wide rangeblock isn't an option. I realize that it could make sense to make IP blocks article-specific. There would be next to no collateral damage in blocking everyone using AT&T from Richardson TX from editing Mitanni and Armenia (name) specifically. Here is a list of articles affected by this particular troll (probably incomplete):

• Armenians, History of Armenia, Prehistoric Armenia, Armenian nationalism, Hayasa-Azzi, Urartu, Mitanni, Armenia (name).

The tenacity of this one long after he must have realized he has no chance is a striking illustration that nationalism to nationalists is a surrogate of religion. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one more: Military history of Armenia. Moreschi ( talk) 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think any Armenian history article is going to be safe from this clown, think again: [34]. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a case for Wikipedia:Long term abuse. This doesn't require any "fringe recognition" skills, and Wikipedia's RCP is a force to be reckoned with. We should take this off our shoulders and hand it to the dedicated vandal fighters. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll write up a subpage at LTA. Usually I'm reluctant to do so, but WP:DENY is really not relevant to Ararat arev. Moreschi ( talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ararat arev is a start, at least. Moreschi ( talk) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to be away for most of the next two weeks — but I'm worried that a number of proposals on the 9/11 and 9/11 conspiracy theories articles will compromise their neutrality and insert fringe material or wording. I'm requesting some more eyes on the articles while I'm away, since this might be a problem for this board. Take a look at the talk pages, and you'll see what I mean. Good luck! -- Haemo ( talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For nearly a month, a single editor Geir Smith has been grafting a large amount of original research and probably fringe theory into the article Battle of Baghdad (1258). The editor has inserted a considerable volume of material connecting the the Mongol sack of the city to some barely comprehensible concept from Tibetan Buddhist cosmology. At least I think that is what he is writing about: his prose is rambling, discursive, and misspelled. This editor has produced similar work in the past which has been deleted (examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyalpo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalpo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalachakra King, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Buddha Online Library). The task of removing this material would be fairly easy if not for some recent post to the talkpage ( here). These comments by editor Dominique Boubouleix or Dr Boubouleix, particularly the personal attacks on Elonka, squarely connect the tendentious editing in Battle of Baghdad (1258) to an open Arbcom case in which I have submitted evidence. In short, I would appreciate help removing the nonsense to avoid accusations of partisan behavior. Thank you. Aramgar ( talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Absolutely crazy. A (highly) personal essay has been welded on to the original,, historical article. It contains gems like: "Revealing it, is a spiritual Occultation's goal, not for it to remain murkily shadowy and hidden. Kalachakra is a code-name and hidden, as Helmut Hofmann says above i.e. "It's lineage... is a mass of contradictions". The Highlander game above is also an imagination's creation. The Prester John myth changes following the alliances that the Church made with Muslim and Buddhist Mongols through time, and thus has no direction. All faiths have occulted the part of truth that they held. The names have been changed and the events redirected to gain acceptance by their own people. Betrayal of the truth is rife in this. Things need to be CLEAR". I couldn't even count the number of Wikipedia policies this stuff violates. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for some stray references, there doesn't seem to be anything salvageable. rudra ( talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If this fellow wants to write a Buddhist influences on Hulagu Khan article, he's welcome to, except that at the rate he's going, it might be {{prod}}-ed in short order. rudra ( talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. :) Aramgar ( talk) 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that other editors ought to be aware that per Geir Smith's website, the posting of a comment on the talkpage of the Battle of Baghdad (1258) is part of how one becomes a "Warrior of Shambhala." Does this violate some Wikipedia policy? Aramgar ( talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This gets stranger and stranger. Such solicitation is definitely not on. The policy that immediately springs to mind is this one. WP:TALK should also be used to delete off-topic nonsense on the talk page. -- Folantin ( talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is free to say what he wants on his own webpage. Wikipedia has no controle over that. But it certainly does make his edits seem less like a mistaken (but essentially well meaning) attempt at including his own original research in wikipedia, and more like POV vandalism. We will keep an eye on the situation. Blueboar ( talk) 22:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new address is to be New Mongol Buddhist history (1258-1350). Watchlist accordingly. I'd say the material so far is hardly written in an encylopaedic style. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied that. Off-site canvassing is in fact a block reason, but I am unsure whether the claim that you are a Warrior if you edit a specific article qualifies as "canvassing". dab (𒁳) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See my link below to a forum where he is explicitly canvassing.-- Dougweller ( talk) 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made heads or tails of this yet, but it looks like a great candidate for WP:BJAODN if anyone is still updating that :) dab (𒁳) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the revelations at User:Geir Smith/Sandbox be deleted through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? This policy [35] seems to suggest that it can. Aramgar ( talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, he's trying to reinsert material into the original Battle of Baghdad page and he's reinstated the talk page abuse by his friend Dominique Boubouleix (AKA Dr Boubouleix - check Dr. B's French Wikipedia bio to see who began the page not so many days ago [36]). An eloquent new user Edward lonesome Wolf has also just emerged there too. So, predictably, we have sock/meat puppetry going on. I don't think this is going to end without some more decisive action.-- Folantin ( talk) 10:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet I think but a recruit: see Violent War of words erupts on faiths, Kalachakra, between Christians and Buddhists online - also look at page one of the thread, where he writes "I'd really need help from people who could come along to the page with me and we do this as a group of people" -- Dougweller ( talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a clear warning on his talkpage. This case is so far out that I will take it upon myself to implement an indef block without further prancing around if this continues. This is simply too silly even for us fringecruft-addicts to waste more time on. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I've blocked Edward lonesome Wolf ( talk · contribs) indefinitely as a disruptive meatpuppet account. Dab's made it quite clear to Geir Smith he's on his last chance. If the same nonsense is being pushed at fr.wiki, someone should probably contact the admins there. A review of Geir Smith ( talk · contribs)'s contributions may be in order, as he'd been doing this sort of thing for a while on some fairly obscure articles and not all of his material may have been reverted at the time.

I suppose congratulations to Geir Smith are in order. Such egregious folly as this smacks of sheer genius. A lesser mind would be incapable of it :) Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the French WP yet. All Mr Smith's contributions so far have been to the Dominique Boubouleix article. But if you look at the latest entries there by one Lord Hearntown then check his edit history you find him posting this rant to another page (in English) [37]. The one thing linking all these people (apart from the obvious) is they seem to be part of a vendetta against User:Elonka. I suspect this is somehow related to the Franco-Mongol alliance dispute. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether Dr Dominique Boubouleix is real. Seriously, a supposed Sorbonne professor goofing around on Wikipedia? Is there some way to find out if he was ever associated with the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes? rudra ( talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord Hearntown?? Check this out. rudra ( talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Calamus International University features on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. -- Folantin ( talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar has no hits for "Dominique Boubouleix" and only one for "D Boubouleix". There's also this with a link to the opening paragraph. (There is a Kālajñāna-Nirnaya by Matsyendranātha, but that doesn't mean anything if the French version of the article wasn't peer-reviewed.) Boubouleix sounds like a very obscure scholar... rudra ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly. How about finding out if all his alleged degrees and qualifications are a) real and b) meaningful? And what exactly is the link to the Franco-Mongol alliance ArbCom case? All this lot seem to be very keen on the contributions of PHG ( talk · contribs), but why? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find out much about the London Diplomatic Academy - it's website [38] makes it sound more like a club. Beware, one Google link was a very persistent attempt to download a virus.

The Albert Schweitzer International University works with the World International Distributed University, which looks like a diploma mill: [39] [40] [41] but some of the people associated with the ASIU seem quite legitimate academics. There seems to be a whole network here, all linked together. Lord Hearntown sounds like some sort of joke, I can't find anything about 'Hearntown'.-- Dougweller ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, checking only Wikipedia and not Google I thought at first the London Diplomatic Academy was the entirely bona fide Diplomatic Academy of London - which is exactly what I was supposed to think. Phoning up the DAOP, they could of course tell me nothing about Dr Boubouleix: I then asked if the London Diplomatic Academy was a separate institution. The response was brilliant. "Oh yes". Then a pause. "We're a bit more academic". LOL! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, my dear people, Wikithanks to everyone involved, I am really enjoying this greatly. This is just excellent. The link to a BUY A DEGREE AND GET THE WAGES YOU DESERVE joint adds flavour. The Franco-Mongol arbitration case has been opened three weeks ago. PHG is an involved party, and it transpires that he is embraced as a brother in arms by the Warriors of Shambhala because he is in dispute with Elonka. I am sure he will be nonplussed to learn of his popularity among the Immortals. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ahah, and here we find ties to Sze cavalry01 ( talk · contribs), an early incarnation of the Kambojas kook if I remember correctly: at least his "Origins of Pallava" (May 2006) cites Dr Dominique Boubouleix among a flurry of other academic worthies. Origins of Pallava should probably just be redirected into Pallava at this point. Our current expert on ramblings on the Kambojas is Satbir Singh ( talk · contribs) (and related IPs such as {{user{76.105.50.27}}). -- dab (𒁳) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is a web page on the World International Distributed University website complaining about being called a diploma mill. After all, it says, "To award the all degrees to scientists of European Countries the AEI and WIDU use the Accreditation and the licensing, given those by the AIS which are registered in San Marino" [42]. So, what is the AIS? It has its own Wikipedia article, Akademio Internacia de la Sciencoj San Marino which needs to be either deleted or better yet made NPOV and written in something more resembling English than it does now. I can't find any other comments but I did find its website - the English version is at [43]-- Dougweller ( talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, Dr. Dominique Albert André Boubouleix was featured in the minor but apparently legit "International Journal of Tantric Studies" in 1998. [44] Geir Smith announces that he will, "when confirmed to full Warrior", Dominique Boubouleix Lord of Hearntown "will be given the rank of General of the Army". Besides being Lord of Hearntown, Dr Bobouleix is apparently decorated with four knighthoods: of the "International World Order of SCIENCE, EDUCATION, CULTURE" [45], of "the British BVA", of "St Constantine the Great" and of St Isidore Membre Spirituel -- plus, apparently, member of the Brotherhood of the Blessed Gérard [46]. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not really the learned Docteur Faustroll, inventor of the science of ’Pataphysics, whose gestes et opinions were relayed to us by Alfred Jarry. According to Faustroll's French Wiki bio [47], he was born in Circassia in 1898 at the age of 63 and died the same year but is still communicating with scientists telepathically from his home in "ethernity". Maybe he's got a Wiki account now too. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm, According to IJTS, M. Boubouleix is "Professor at the Ecole of Anthropologie". His "Calamus" profile confirms this. Interestinly, this institution was founded by Paul Broca in the 1870s, but appears not to have been in existence since WW II. [48] Could M. Boubouleix be an imaginary friend of Mr. Smith's? If M. Boubouleix-Hearntown is the learned Docteur Faustroll, and a member of the école d'Anthropologie, his 1998 article must really have been communicated by paranormal means. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That would have been an amazing feat. Apparently this is an online French-language essay of his about Indo-China (warning: pop-up hell) [49]. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he's real, but? [50] "D. Sc. in Archaeology, England; Hon. Ph.D. in Anthropology, USA. Professor of General Anthropology, School of Anthropology, Paris; Director, Centre for Advanced International Studies in Anthropology, Archaeology and Ethnology (CAISAAE), Florida; Director, International Centre for Anthropological Research in India and South East Asia (CIRAIASE), an autonomous department of the International Institute of Anthropology (IIA, Paris); Professor of Philosophy in Anthropology, England." I don't believe it. There's no CAISAAE. no CIRAIASE, except on the Bridgeworld web site. You never list degrees with the institution granting them, so his D.Sc. from England and honorary degree from the USA sound fake. I'm going to challenge him.-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I've found the "Ecole d'Anthropology" [51] [52] (published since 1974??). It appears to be run by S.A. Locch Chancchai Apaiwongs de Battambang, and the Vénérable Phra Eric Xayabandith besides Boubouleix. It was apparently cobbled together around 1998, just in time for Dr. Boubouleix' only known academic paper (the ITJS one). The impressive bit is that all these unlikely sounding names do in fact exist. Mr. Smith must been having a lot of fun with his internet connection :) dab (𒁳) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He isn't a member of the British Society for the History of Philosophy now.

The Human Bioethics Treaty Organisation is another one of these weird organisations. Look here: Euclid University Consortium. This seems to have taken over the Human Bioethics Treaty Organisation in some way as the linke I had to the HBTO was to www.hbto.org/hbto/ which is now Euclid. Then there is this guy Laurent Cleenewerck who I suspect has created his own web page -- which is just a PR piece, can we do anything about that? -- Dougweller ( talk) 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm checking out the reliability of the refs provided on the French Wiki bio. The "International Who's Who of Intellectuals" is published by these guys. "THE ROYAL BOOK OF DIPLOMACY AND SCIENCE" gets 11 Google hits. And read our own article on the American Biographical Institute. I think it's fair to say they don't qualify as reliable sources. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Lord Hearntown" isn't very happy Doctor Boubouleix's credentials have been called into question on French Wikipedia and has launched into a tirade [53] against the "uncultured donkeys without a university background" who edit WP and can't write French proper. Once again, it's all Elonka's fault. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what credentials these people claim (whether real or fake)... Wikipedia considers edits on their merit, not on the credentials of those who post them. Blueboar ( talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We certainly consider such things when people have their own biographies on Wikipedia. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

and as to the merit of the Geir Smith version of Battle of Baghdad (1258), well, judge for yourself...

bruaha, Wikipedia est vraiment une encyclopédie rédigée par des ânes incultes, sans background universitaire -- it's a fair cop. This very page is living testimony of the fact. My theory at the moment is that Dr Boubouleix and Geir Smith are two real, bona fide cranks, one collecting bogus academic titles and knighthoods, the other building the kingdom of Shambhala, who have managed to impress one another. Dr Boubouleix wanted to collect another fancy title, and Geir Smith was overjoyed to have such a distinguished gentleman apply for his outfit. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got cold feet about having a Wiki bio even when written by experts (i.e. himself, himself and Geir Smith) [54]. He's also kind of threatening to take legal action on the talk page of this very noticeboard. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We're having a little dialogue right now on his discussion page. He doesn't like Americans. :-) Which allows him to duck answers to my questions.

And yes, I think they are two real people, there's too much evidence that they are not the same person.-- Dougweller ( talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that we not feed the trolls any longer. We can watch what these folks do, remove OR and other stuff that may violate policy... and if needed send them to ANI for blocking. 'Nuff said. Blueboar ( talk) 21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aw, don't say that, we're all having far too much fun to stop. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sakya, Sakya Trizin and Sakya Pandita also contain information "generally occulted or omitted in history books," some of which was added by Mr. Smith and some from 88.141.184.146, whose additions in general are curiously similar to Mr. Smith's. Kafka Liz ( talk) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More background. (Note "Geir Smith is the lineal successor of Taranatha, that is banned in Tibet, and forbidden to study by Tibetans. Geir Smith is the only person in the world, to thus have studied Taranatha in depth"). rudra ( talk) 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And 88.141.184.146 is Geir Smith. rudra ( talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Over at the forum Violent War of words erupts on faiths, Kalachakra, between Christians and Buddhists online there are complaints that we, and specifically Elonka, are hacking people's computers!-- Dougweller ( talk) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

geir wrote: I think the wry humour will be lost on them. It is not. this is the wriestly humourous section on this board I have seen yet :) dab (𒁳) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

you want to be full Warrior ? Then, in that case, you write this... cut and paste : "I want to meet Asian girls" and you'll be automaticallly full warrior. -- wth?? dab (𒁳) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think the idea they're going to get some "chicks" out of this is the bizarrest of the lot. Looks like attention is turning to Sakya. So, my fellow members of the Catholic-Hindu KGB, you know what to do! -- Folantin ( talk) 09:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Inciting vandalism? (Maybe the idea is to radicalize the meatpuppets by giving them an early taste of being "unjustly" blocked). rudra ( talk) 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The good doctor now intends to take legal action against me....he is so funny! [55]-- Dougweller ( talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vigilance is necessary, but this issue is resolved. Thank you for all the help. Aramgar ( talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

how is it "resolved" with Geir Smith still on the loose? [56] It's not acute at present, I grant you, but no action has been taken. dab (𒁳) 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus we still have the bizarre saga of Dr. Boubouleix threatening to sue us over a Wikipedia article he wrote himself with the aid of his friend Geir Smith. Must be the first time in history that an autobiography has been accused of being libellous. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, now it is resolved. With a view to his latest postings to phayul.com, I have indefblocked Geir Smith for disruption and off-site calls for vandalism. Unless a reviewing admin undoes my block, this should conclude the episode. dab (𒁳) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good - and I predict the Boubouleix episode will end with his French wiki article being deleted for failing notability and lacking reliable sources. So that's the end of that. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

not bad... fr-wiki admins have locked down the talkpage now. I don't think I've ever seen this on en-wiki. The Boubouliex article has just been deleted. On phayul.com, geir is vowing revenge. dab (𒁳) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And Boubouliex actually left me a polite message suggesting I email him, quite a reversal.-- Dougweller ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the forum, he's threatening to get the Dalai Lama involved in this. Amazing. Whereas most banned users try appealing to Jimbo, this one goes for the Dalai Lama. Just...awesome. Moreschi ( talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I seldom laugh out loud in front of my screen, but here I couldn't help myself. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor Geir Smith. Little does he know. The Dalai Lama doesn't have our ICBM coordinates. rudra ( talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just read this section for the first time. I think I may have broken a rib laughing. Relata refero ( talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! You guys is carzy! Best WTN thread ever. Hahaha! -- Folantin ( talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Boubouleix and I have had a very friendly email exchange initiated at his request. I don't want to quote his email of course, but I am now happy about his credentials and don't think he has personally overstated them although errors have crept in to the online sources. I don't think he is going to end up a Warrior of Shambala, Geir Smith does not seem a favorite person of his. :-) I've retracted my negative comments about him on the Battle of Baghdad talk page (my initiative, he didn't even mention it) and do so here also (again, he didn't mention it).-- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine that if someone like Geir Smith becomes enthusiastic about you, things are bound to be distorted. This is why we have WP:BLP: M. Boubouleix is surely best served by his various titles of knighthood not being detailed on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he explain the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic personal attacks? Kafka Liz ( talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know about those too, especially since French WP checkuser confirms that D A A Boubouleix and Lord Hearntown are one and the same [57]. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't raise those issues or his anti-American comments. But - D A A Boubouleix? That page exists, but doesn't in the history the posts in question, or mine. I'm confused.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

D A A Boubouleix was one of his many sock puppet accounts. Under that name he contributed to the French WP bio and related talk pages. Most of that stuff has now been deleted, as well as "Lord Hearntown"'s anti-Semitic conspiracy theorising against Elonka -- Folantin ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At one point I could find it in the history.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Geir is back [58]. Aramgar ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He's a banned user so his contributions can be reverted and his socks blocked by an admin. It's become pretty obvious his primary aim is trolling for hits for his website(s). -- Folantin ( talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=1895&st=120&start=120 for what he hopes will happen. He claims to be erudite, but he can't even write English properly!-- Doug Weller ( talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I begin to feel uncomfortable with making fun of him, it feels like taunting a disabled person. I think the fun is over and we're in the WP:DFTT stage. Just block his socks and IPs as they come in and let's avoid making further ado over it. dab (𒁳) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)