This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Fringe medical "protocol" for supposed mercury poisoning treatment. AfD candidate? Yobol ( talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an AN/I issue now about how Brian Josephson (yes, User:Brian Josephson) is acting out his COI in this article. It's probably sorted but just in case. Mangoe ( talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A statement in Animal models of autism refers to a primary study that purported to show a thimerosal-autism connection (my edits after noticing the issue: [1], [2]). This (non-MEDRS-compliant) statement is the basis for one of today's DYK hooks. I'm not sure if there is a proper procedure for this, but I have reported it to DYK [3]. Sunrise ( talk) 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Created 2 days ago as one large edit. Dougweller ( talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller ( talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos [7] but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, an AfD is merited. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe ( talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Has a "Health benefits" section, which says: "Now that the majority of health studies have displayed a tangible benefit in some areas to the practice of t'ai chi ch'uan, health professionals have called for more in-depth studies". Our article says T'ai chi has beneficial health effects for various conditions including diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer's disease and ADHD.
The article also includes an enormous "lineage" chart which doesn't seem well-sourced. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
(Update) I have boldly replaced the entire "Health benefits" section with something sourced to an up-to-date review of reviews. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So anyway, A1candidate has reverted the article to its old claims of "benefits" based on primary sources, self-published material and old research, while removing the 2011 review of systematic reviews on the topic. It almost seems as if making a point is more important than creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
See [8] and other edits by DavidSzilagyi ( talk · contribs). He's positive King Hiram came to America and insists that Americas states this as fact (we have Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact for this fringe nonsense). He's edit warring right now. Ingá Stone needs work also. Dougweller ( talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this comment, it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans.
Editors do not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials AFD. Editors noted there are problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. Therefore there is WP:LOCALCON to cleanup the article. An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But the same editor restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but the same editor continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are also not WP:MEDRS compliant. Recommending revert to this version. Make sure you bring food and treats because it is a 4 hour journey to the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Guy, QG is right. The article has been hijacked by acupuncturists who refuse to declare their conflict of interest in promoting their peculiar version of quackery. It's an embarrassment. That you are criticizing him is also something of an embarrassment considering he is one of the only people actually working to keep the article somewhat neutral. jps ( talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean, you might pat yourself on the back for those dispute resolutions, but the fact of the matter is that what ultimately happened in each of those cases was either a punt, a discussion that could have happened anywhere, or a closing resolution that simply took sides in an edit war. So I don't see that you've actually shown that dispute resolutions work any better than, say, getting someone to help from this noticeboard. What does it matter if QG makes his request here or there? Why shouldn't I take his side (or anyone else's)? jps ( talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not opposed to limiting the information about the individual trials. The same editor who admitted there is consensus to limit the results of the trials also admitted there is consensus to delete the technical details about the set-up of the trials. This is the same editor who continues to restore the information against consensus. I am in favor of the current version without the coathook information. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no local consensus. Just a handful of editors -- me, Mallexikon, QuackGuru, Alexbrn (off and on), Bluerasberry and MrBill3 (off and on) -- trying to work it out. What's really ironic, and sad, is that a lot of editors are misreading this article and focusing on who's commenting at the expense of what's being said. I'm advocating that we educate readers that this was the first well-designed experiment showing that sham acu to be the same as verum, so I'd like some experimental details to be included, so science-literate readers can satisfy themselves that it was well-designed. See my comments [32] [33] [34]. This isn't an alt-med coatrack; it's an interesting experiment documenting the evolution of scientific opinion about acupuncture, and not in the direction acupuncture proponents would like. There's no need for this discussion to have forked here, although we could use more eyes, attentive ones preferably. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit-warring on this page, and what looks to me very like an attempt to push a Hindutva pseudohistorical view, diametrically misrepresenting an academic source. Sockpuppetry allegations being made. More eyes would be very welcome. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)-"All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..."Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit warrior adding OR at Urantia Book ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Not the first time either. I gave him a 3RR warning after he hit 4 (missed the 3rd revert). Dougweller ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:
Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.
Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.
jps ( talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
*B. A late comment on Zeus and God, mythology and religion:
God = Zeus; according to some and at least but not necessarily when understood as a god. Even using expressions like God vs/XOR Zeus shows an inherent bias. Abrahamic religion from a non abrahamic perspective is or could be considered equal to mythology, at least if the reverse is considered acceptable to be said. So just like spinning philosophical/scientific concepts (A) to support religious paranormal untestable claims is absurd, it's also absurd to invoke religious persecution and bias against one's own religion when one is denying respect, plausibility etc to the religion of other people(which in this case was a propos practically eradicated through every means possible by the family of religions of the accuser of his or similar views being a victim of religious or atheistic persecution/bias against), claiming unique existence and credibility of one's own supposedly only true/real god and religion.
P.S.Personal Note: In fact when things like interpretatio graeca are considered, i.e. when considering that the followers of Zeus (et al) didn't make such unique exclusive absolutist claims against the (various) followers of Jehovah (formerly in the company of Asherah et al), it's very very sad to some people that the Hellenes and the Hellenists lost (lost meant as at least to some degree), at the Maccabean period or later... ;-)
A restrictive diet promoted as useful for a number of conditions including autism and Crohn's Disease. The article has seen a bit of activity lately with questions of balance and neutrality being aired. May need more eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (Update) I modify my final statement. The article does need more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, QuackGuru is trying to remove long-standing sources, in bulk, without consensus. A lot of these are actually cited in the article (e.g. as "Smith 1985, p.7"), so removing them is destructive. [39]. Some of them are of very high quality [40]. I'm sure the refs can be trimmed, but this is over the top.
QuackGuru is approaching TCM topics the wrong way: making changes without consensus, asserting there is consensus (or otherwise IDHT-ing and misrepresenting the situation), and running here prematurely. I know QG is respected for his work in other fringe areas, but Chinese medicine is a mix of fringe and legit science (e.g. [41]) and he doesn't grok the nuance, and is a disruptive influence. It's too bad that some editors support him reflexively. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The mass WP:EL violation and other disputed text has been restored. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Non-notable or duplicate sources moved to talk for the current discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Another editor identified the OR/SYN with some of the text. For starters, the part about the "heart-clearing" is SYN. There is also a bigger problem. The new section about Drug discoveries is a WP:WEIGHT violation. I explained on the talk page, I moved only the sourced text that is not about efficacy to other articles. [43] [44] I do not see a reason to have this section with all the low level details. The text about efficacy should stay but it should be merged back into the efficacy section IMO. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Research to develop antimalarial drugs led to the discovery artemisinin, which is extracted from Artemisia annua,[111] a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]"
"a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]" is a SYN violation. This was previously explained on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"After reading the ancient Chinese medical description, “take one bunch of Qinghao, soak in two sheng (∼0.4 liters) of water, wring it out to obtain the juice and ingest it in its entirety” in The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments by Ge Hong (283–343 CE) during the Jin Dynasty, she realized that traditional methods of boiling and high-temperature extraction could damage the active ingredient. Indeed, a much better extract was obtained after switching from ethanol to ether extraction at lower temperature." [45]
The current text at Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug discoveries is misleading. Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: After I neutrally written the text according to what the source said it got deleted. The main point from the source was whitewashed. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"The device, operated by special SS units, supposedly resembled a tortoise shell in shape, and flew by means of gas jets that spun like a Catherine wheel around the fuselage". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel According to Seneca needs attention. I'm not finding evidence for this supposed heterodox scripture. Mangoe ( talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination) is up after a complete strip-out of negative material. In fact as you can see he has been hit with cease-and-desists from the FDA and local district attorney, as well as some SEC action. Scam watch blog posts on his enterprises abound. Personally I would like to save the article, but it actually has to tell the truth about him, which may be hard to source. Mangoe ( talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that one third of the article text be devoted to fringe conspiracy theories that one of his own sources says there is "no solid evidence" supporting them. Attempts to truncate this section per WP:UNDUE and add a further reliable source disputing these theories are being reverted. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols [46]. I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.
jps ( talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this is an idea which applies to art ?!? jps ( talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.
jps ( talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Help at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be appreciated. I proposed that the inclusion criteria be made a bit stricter, but other ideas would be welcome too. jps ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is a mess and is up for AfD. Of particular concern is to us the section about Hindu idols supposedly found in Russia. Mangoe ( talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts on this please, ladies + gents.
No independent references as fas as I can tell. only papers are in notorious pseudojournal/ unreliable source Journal of Consciousness Studies. AFD? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
According to our Wikipedia infobox, Noah lived to be 950. And I'm not sure what the parenthetical "Biblical dating" means. I have tried to clean this up, but have been reverted a couple of times by someone who feels that the info is properly sourced (to the Bible). LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
A favorite fringe subject forked off by an editor who seems to have a POV problem, judging from the fuss he kicked up at Ashkenazi Jews. Mangoe ( talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether this belongs here or not. Gentech Pharmaceutical appears to my research to be a company that markets pharmaceuticals that have never been described in peer-reviewed publications, which would place their product as a fringe medicine. Whether or not what they're selling is snake oil, I couldn't tell you, but as they've never published any research that suggests otherwise, I think we need to assume that it is. Their home page is of course replete with unsubstantiated claims about their products (the main one is apparently "widely regarded as the most advanced and effective Synthetic Amphetamine", although they don't ever tell you by whom, or indeed define what "synthetic amphetamine" actually means). 87.112.96.96 ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Begins "Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent." The article contains a couple of instances devices used as a deterrent (e.g. a burglar alarm, or opera on the subway to deter teenagers), but the key claims about weaponry seem unsourced - the UK report cited in a section entitled "Demonstrated infrasonic weapon" refers scornfully to the "'mythological" phase" of speculation about infrasound. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Relatedly: Infrasound, particularly Infrasound#Suggested relationship to ghost sightings. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
AAH is well-established fringe but persistent advocates are setting the standards on the talk page referring to "talk page consensus" (as far as I can tell) within the tiny group that are advocating it (everyone else gave up). The most arrogant and persistent advocate was reported on ANI without success. I've reported AAH before and last time that page got chopped to pieces. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Owing to this extremely problematic comment, I have notified CEngelbrecht ( talk · contribs) of discretionary sanctions that are in effect at aquatic ape hypothesis. Further disruption should be referred to WP:AE with reference to this notification. jps ( talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There were some image problems on that page. Please remind people that images should only be used when they can be directly connected to the content. A swimming baby is not an appropriate image at all for such an article. jps ( talk) 20:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:NORN#Images at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. jps ( talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A false equivalency between global warming denialism and climate science was being asserted by Froglich ( talk · contribs) using unreliable sources in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Please watch out.
jps ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Could use a few more eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This article survived a November 2013 deletion attempt but I have my doubts about that. I deleted an initial section promoting one specific device but the whole thing strikes me as a stew of OR and promotion; it seems to lurch back and forth between "here's a new device" and "here's why the idea will never work." Googling seems to show that this is a Pop. Sci. perennial with a long string of new "breakthrough" devices that vanish as soon as they are introduced; it's not quite the cold fusion of diving but the material as a fringey feel to me. Any suggestions? I almost started another deletion discussion but gave that up, and I don't know that I could get away with an accurate stubbing. Mangoe ( talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Spirit possession is loaded with statements made as if they are factual when the whole subject is fringe. There is a section on Islam that is glaring POV and cites only religious texts. There is a list of fringe books in the article and the titles of the authors are cited and listed. If someone wants to wade into this there is a salvageable article in there. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So very many claims. According to this article, it can treat your cancer, cure Parkinson's, help with diabetes, fix your high blood pressure, and lower your cholesterol. Source: Low-quality Chinese in vitro and mouse studies, mainly. 86.129.152.82 ( talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Described as "a British historian, astronomer, archaeoastronomer, astro-archaeologist and author", he actually seems to have an academic career teaching Mathematics and Engineering which he left to become an author and astrologist. He has no qualifications in history, astronomy, archaeology, etc although he writes about the subject. His website [48] says he "teaches astronomy at an Oxford University FAS summer school but our article on the FAS Faculty of Astrological Studies doesn't suggest it is part of the university - they simply use Oxford University facilities, eg Exeter College, to hold their summer school, so that's a bit economical with the truth. Since I've just reverted an edit by his brother, I'd like other eyes so it doesn't look personal. Dougweller ( talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of editing currently on BlackLight Power. I don't have the time to check all the changes. The article has just come out of a three day protection. Bhny ( talk) 04:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input on the Alexander Helios page. I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from that page, which has been reinstated by user Til_Eulenspiegel. The relevant section alleged that Helios, who was born in 40 BC as the son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, may have sailed to the US state of Illinois where he "ruled over a secret colony" and left artifacts in a cave.
This claim has two citations: 1) an episode of America Unearthed, a mystery investigation show on cable TV, and 2) an article in the peer-reviewed journal Public Archaeology. A peer-reviewed article might be a decent source, but in fact the abstract seems to indicate that the article is only a discussion of mainstream archaeology's dismissal of these Illinois claims, and not a source backing the claims themselves.
I removed this section, writing: An episode of a cable TV mystery investigation show is not a reliable source. The Illinois cave thing is a textbook fringe theory. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. The user Til_Eulenspiegel reinstated the section, writing: Undid revision 591083228 by 174.70.43.85 (talk) rvv anonymous editor removing cited information basically because they disagree with it and DONTLIKEIT
I don't often edit on Wikipedia, and don't know the procedure for handing these issues. I look to the community for advice. Thank you. IbisNext ( talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
On the article of the historical figure, I would have to agree that this topic is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be mentioned. However, I could see a potential article on the hoax/tourist attraction/person , as there does appear to be coverage of the guy/place (A&E, and then meta coverage thereof) http://thesouthern.com/news/caves-to-appear-on-america-unearthed/article_3a59ed62-66df-11e3-bbb9-0019bb2963f4.html, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&relevant_count=1. If the academic article is debunking the hoax, then it of course should be used in that context as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone else care to take a look at New Chronology (Rohl)? In reading through the article it seems to me that it has serious problems with WP:Balance. Particularly the section on “In Egyptology” which contains six quoted paragraphs, five of which of are favorable to Rohl. I was under the impression that a pseudoarchaeologist doesn’t generally get to “have the last word” on Wikipedia, yet even the radiocarbon dating (which scientifically refutes Rohl) receives a “rebuttal”. Thoughts? 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the article on the TV series, I see nothing that indicates a reaction from the archaeological community, though a quick read through the list of episodes suggests that such reaction would be profoundly negative. Mangoe ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone is complaining about the article on Rolfing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), on the basis that it is reality based. Among their arguments, they threw in the fact that we have essentially uncritical articles on Myotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Myofascial release ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since these appear to be credited to Andrew Taylor Still, back in the days before osteopathy morphed into something a k-soundinlg, I suspect they may contain merda bubula mother tincture that could do with some dilution and twerking to achieve the homeopathic level of nonsense which is generally preferred.
Sorry about the Rolf Harris reference. I couldn't resist. Guy ( Help!) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Referring to Voltaire#Islam, there are some quotes, claimed by Inayity that Voltaire's "view seriously changed to one of praise once he realized possible the Islamic Golden Age", however it seems to be contradictory to the tons of sources, where he is only criticizing them. The given sources by Inayity are as follows:-
"{{cite web|url= http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23044965?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103367361423%7Ctitle=The Enlightenment Qur'an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam|accessdate=27 June 2009|author= Ziad Elmarsafy|quote="Of all the legislators and conquerors, there are none whose life was written with greater authenticity and in more detail by their contemporaries than was than of Mahomet." EM, vol 1, page 255."
And:-
"According to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment" about Muhammad and "shows full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as a rule of life"(ref) René Pomeau, Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995, t. 1, p. 407.
Yet there are no results of any of these qoutes/comments, either in high amount or presented by any reliable sources. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear me, this certainly is one of those cases in which what Voltaire would call religious "enthusiasm" does not help Wikipedia. We get a messed up section on Voltaire and Islam, which is less about illuminating his view and more about cherry-picking bits of sources by pro and anti-Islamic editors. We have the line "according to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment."" Right, that would be a favourable judgement of what exactly? The Essay on the Manners is not about religion as such, and it does not discuss Islam as a religion, but rather the courts of some Islamic rulers, about which he has some favourable things to say. But the way the quotation is used does not illuminate the reader. It's cut to create a vague idea of a "favorable judgment" without telling us anything of substance. But on the other side, we have a letter to the Pope, clearly an egregious piece of flattery, quoted to represent his anti-Islamic views. I doubt that any of this is fringe, just that it tells us next to nothing useful about Voltaire's actual views, and a lot about the weaknesses of Wikipedia in this aspect of the coverage of history. Paul B ( talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him."
Published in Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, Vol. 7 (1869), Author is Georges d'Avenel, there are few more sources than this one, rather than other claims, that are backed by not even 2 sources. And the play, to which this user is referring to, Voltaire defended the play by telling that "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds", (noted in "Voltaire,Lettres inédites de Voltaire", Didier, 1856, t.1, Lettre à M. César De Missy, 1er septembre 1743, p.450) He wrote to King of prussia again, he writes that:-
Muhammad is "whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command", on 20 january 1742. Tells enough that his view for Islam, or Muhammad, never changed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just reported an editor there to AN3, the article could use some eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Article could use some more eyes, a couple of brand new accounts have come in adding dubious sources and removing material critical of this fringe program. Yobol ( talk) 16:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Huge blocks of unsourced narrative, alleging…I'm not sure what. Includes a bonus section of WP:OR that attempts to tie the history of UFOlogy with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've tried once to clean this mess up [53] but was shortly reverted [54]. LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
This could use attention. I think JPL has a point about neutrality and suggestions for renaming would be welcome. Mangoe ( talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
... what there is of it ... needs eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you get when you combine Numerology, 2012 Eschatology, and tripping on 'shrooms? You get Terence McKenna's "novelty theory", something so absurd that few have bothered to criticize it. Fortunately there is a source stating, "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community." A couple critiques with sourcing via WP:PARITY are also provided. Incredibly, there is pushback at Talk:Terence_McKenna#Scientific_community, where editors wish to say that "some" members of the scientific community regard it as pseudoscience, as if some do not. They have found a physicist and a mathematician who are sympathetic to 2012 eschatology/numerology voodoo.
I may need to find a reliable source stating that 2012 has passed and the world has not ended. vzaak 03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 ( talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Help at Auditory hallucination please. GDallimore ( Talk) 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Puhlaa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pleasant person, an advocate of the school of Chiropractic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which rejects most of the blatant pseudoscience. Unfortunately, Puhlaa keeps trying to reframe the article in terms that describe an idealised form of chiropractic to whihc this school aspires, rather than the wretched nest of quackery that it usually is in practice. I have proposed, following the most recent set of edits and reverts, that Puhlaa propose changes n the talk page and achieves consensus before making them; if this does not hapen then unfortunately I tink we're going to need to ask for pseudoscience arbitration sanctions.
On which subject, I am advocating reinstating chiropractic in template:pseudoscience, see discussion. Guy ( Help!) 09:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
A user has made a large number of edits over a short period, each restoring or inserting material that is favourable to the idealised view of chiropractic which does not reflect reality. This may require discretionary sanctions. Please review this article and its talk page. Guy ( Help!) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Genesis flood narrative ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite essentially no sources calling this story the "Genesis flood narrative" directly, we have Christian POV-pushers successfully removing all instances of identifying the story as a myth except for the first sentence. The entire article is actually a WP:POVFORK of Noah's Ark it seems. I AfD'ed it, but would appreciate more eyes on it and Genesis creation narrative.
A trend has started, folks.
jps ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor is pushing a theory that what is variously translated as "sweet cane" or "calamus" in various bibles at Exodus 30:23 is actually cannabis. I'm finding no serious support for this (i.e., not outside the weed community) but then I can't find significant support for calamus either. Lots of edit-warring going on, not a lot of citing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of this is out of the WP:RS ballpark, however one of the things which has come up which at some point will need to be dealt with (once we get past Til Eulenspiegel's constant stream of personal attacks on any editor wanting to use academic sources) is what to do with a comment by an academic out of his field. The academic is Carl A. P. Ruck, an unquestioned specialist on mushrooms in Greek religion who with Blaise Daniel Staples and Clark Heinrich produced The Apples of Apollo: Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist 2001, ISBN 0-89089-924-X - which per WP:RS criteria should be regarded as a relevant and notable argument for transfer/influence of entheogen use in Hellenistic religion into some sects of early Christianity. So far so good. In this area Ruck is within his field, and also within a certain minority stream of argument from John Allegro (1956) The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - albeit a stream generally rejected.
The problem comes with extension backwards into Ancient Israel. The suggestion of cannabis in Exodus is something limited entirely to the theory of one non-(paleo)botanist writer, Sula Benet. Benet's lexicographical (not botanical) argument is either rejected or ignored by lexicographers. And it seems totally considered unciteworthy by post-Sula Benet botanists such as Michael Zohary, James A. Duke and Hans Arne Jensen (I regret I'm not aware of any specialist paleobotanists/Hebrew Bible reference works outside these 3). When a theory/claim of an outsider is publicized popularly but then doesn't even get replied/addressed/mentioned by relevant scholars in any field this is usually a sign of the theory/claim being known, but not considered worth reply/addressing/mentioning.
The other problem is the format of Ruck's opinion - in a Sunday Times article he wrote rather than a peer-reviewed academic paper. His view came to everyone's attention in this area back in January 2003 with comments reported in various newspapers:
"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said. Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures." The Guardian 6 Jan 2003
I believe there's a US newspaper soundbite of Ruck in December 2002 prior to The Guardian mention - which looks like a cross-Atlantic telephone interview soundbite, but cannot locate it. In any case the main publication from Ruck is an invitation a week later to submit an article to the Sunday Times: “Was There a Whiff of Cannabis about Jesus?” The Sunday Times, January 12, 2003.
These claims by Ruck are notable enough to be placed in his own BLP, and linked in 2 areas - relating to Moses and Jesus. However the problem is that Ruck is more out-of-his-field in the Hebrew Bible than the Hellenistic environment. How much WP:WEIGHT is given to an out-of-his-field source in context like this? So my question is: How much content goes in the main article, how much in the BLP of the writer? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the section on "Keneh bosem" was an utter mess. It just repeated itself constantly, and then contradicted itself. Much of the content was endlessly recycled from this passage in The Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan:
"Keneh bosem in Hebrew. Ancient sources identify this with the sweet calmus (Septuagint; Rambam on Kerithoth 1:1; Saadia; Ibn Janach). This is the sweetflag or flag-root, Acoras calamus which grows in Europe. It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7). Other sources apparently indicate that it was the Indian plant, Cympopogan martini, which has the form of red straw (Yad, Kley HaMikdash 1:3). On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim). Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel)."
Passages from this paragraph were copied word-for-word in the main text, then repeated with variations, or chopped up in ways that made it meaningless. The two main identifications, Acoras calamus, Cympopogan martini were mixed up in such a way that it was unreadable. Then we had the largely uncited section on cannabis, which was certainly giving undue weight to a minority view. However, it's clear that Kaplan treats that theory as legitimate, if relatively marginal.
There is a sentence asserting that Kaplan endorses Maimonides' view, identifying the plant as Cympopogan martini. A footnote quotes a source to support this claim. However, I am inclined to think that the source has been misinterpreted. I think Kaplan is simply endorsing the view that Maimonides meant to refer to Cympopogan martini (using whatever pre-Linnean name he did), not agreeing with him that it's "Keneh bosem". Certainly nothing in the quoted passage suggests that Kaplan is endorsing Maimonides. Paul B ( talk) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Every Plato related image, template and article is being refocused to 'Socrates'. This is counter to scholarship, and it undermines the credibility of all philosophy articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) editors can't manage the issue. Admin intervention is required. BlueMist ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an editor, User:Adn1990, who has repeatedly removed the category Category:Far-right politics in the United States from the category Category:Tea Party movement, initially without comment, but later with angry edit comments. I have been reverting the deletion per WP:PROFRINGE. After two reverts, I was initially advised that WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism/profringe. But after four reverts, it's turned into an edit war of repeated deletion and reversion, as you can see here. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this situation. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 21:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in outer space ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article exist? It is rather poorly sourced and seems like a slapdash amalgamation of trumped up conspiracy theory claims. I already removed one "incident" which was referenced solely to a youtube video.
jps ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know your opinion on this article, I believe it should be redirected to parapsychology.
Also these should be delete/redirected (no reliable references):
Goblin Face ( talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this, good work. I will search for some sources for the Psionics article. I have also found this article:
I can't find a single reference for this person, they seem to be an unknown parapsychologist. Goblin Face ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No references for these stones outside of the fringe writers Colin Wilson and David Hatcher Childress. No idea how this article has survived this long. Goblin Face ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Narragansett Runestone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a new fringe archaeology article based almost entirely on sources that fail WP:RS, eg the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American, edited for years by Frank Collin under the name Frank Joseph, and a pdf by RM. de Jonge (coincidentally an editor here, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands and User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge and his website. [60] The pdf downloads automatically but is from the Migration-Diffusion website [61] - the copyright status of the pdf is unclear but it hosts complete copies of articles from the hyperdiffusionist journal "Migration & Diffusion - an international journal". Dougweller ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This looks like we're somewhere between a list and an article. The content references so many different and disparate sources it's hard to argue it is not WP:SYNTH. Perhaps it's not conducive to being on Wikipedia? jps ( talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Alien abduction entities ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article is sourced to rather dubious sources. And is it ever thorough!
jps ( talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
What do you think of
Family Constellations and
Systemic Constellations? I'm concerned that, although they appear to have plenty of sources, there are plenty of buzzwords and claims borrowed from other fields, and some rather idealised borrowings from Zulu culture.
bobrayner (
talk) 00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The article was reverted to an old version which included dated sources and original research. NPOV is not a "blatant bias" article. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Two new accounts (socks?) adding content lately. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Article for deletion on the Michael_Talbot_(author) page. Proposal for deletion removed on basis that it survived a previous AFD so listed as second nomination but no record in AFD of first. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Conspiracy theory to evaluate recently added POV that "theories on small and large-scale conspiracies are often correct" or "many small- and large-scale conspiracies are indeed real" etc. Also review Talk:James H. Fetzer for similar arguments seeking to portray a conspiracy theorist/theories as someone "seeking truth regardless of how it makes anyone feel." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion at the Help Desk ( saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning-making Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted synergy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultured resonance
This seems like it would be of interest to those who monitor this noticeboard. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As a relative newbie, I have never nominated an article for deletion before, but this should go imho. A puff piece, unreferenced, and adequately covered on the Naturalnews page. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A brand-new editor has turned up on that page and is reverting edits, making accusations of vandalism. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those of you who don't keep track, this list survived an AfD in no small part because it has a large number of fans. While I do not understand the motivation of these fans, it is clear the list of people (if not the framing material) is in stark violation of WP:FRINGE including a number of completely unreliable sources being used ( World Net Daily, Newsmax.com, and any number of blogs) because "they're only demonstrating the opinion of the person, not promoting the view". This is a classic coatrack situation. When I tried to move the list to only include peer-reviewed opinions (it is, after all, a list of scientists), I got a rather absurd result which was reverted by one of the fans of the list. Consensus on the talkpage is almost impossible to come by, mostly because the fans of the list are experts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Help would be greatly appreciated.
jps ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is in opposition to Wikipedia's stated aim to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus. WP should describe the arguments that deniers use, but that's not the purpose of this article. The content is something I would expect to see on special-interest blogs. I see that the article has had six deletion nominations. Has anyone noticed off-site canvassing for the article? vzaak 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
vzaak 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Stick a fork in me. I am done. I have posted my advice that this blatant attempt to recreate the climate change debate here should be ignored, and I am now going to follow my own advice and stop reading or replying to this section. One can only hope that they will grow tired of shouting into an empty room and go back to the article talk page where this discussion belongs. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents.
Read. Comment. Argue.
jps ( talk) 13:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Has just appeared. Not sure yet how this might fit into the topic of chiropractic as a whole, or the ethics of chiropractic in particular - but this is likely to be of interest to this noticeboard.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 20:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Some other recently-created articles in this space, which may have some fringe aspects:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Non-physical entity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I can't find anything worth saving in this article either. But maybe you can?
jps ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nick Pelling may or may not be notable as a computer gaming guy. He's also a Voynich Manuscript guy. The AFD is turning into a bit a mess, including an appearance by Mr. Pelling himself. I'm still forming an opinionon the AFD but it could use attention from others, in any case. Mangoe ( talk) 13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone ever hear of this Ron Wyatt and New World Order conspiracy theories advocate? Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Is Wikiversity subject to the same editorial policies as Wikipedia? Some UFO stuff [68] as well as Paranormal stuff [69] appears to be growing there (the latter proclaiming that "Edgar Cayce is probably the most effective psychic that has lived in the last 100 years.") - LuckyLouie ( talk)
Basically, as far as I've seen, it's anything goes. The site isn't very active either. Considering how terrible the content is, long may that continue. Second Quantization ( talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Fringe medical "protocol" for supposed mercury poisoning treatment. AfD candidate? Yobol ( talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an AN/I issue now about how Brian Josephson (yes, User:Brian Josephson) is acting out his COI in this article. It's probably sorted but just in case. Mangoe ( talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A statement in Animal models of autism refers to a primary study that purported to show a thimerosal-autism connection (my edits after noticing the issue: [1], [2]). This (non-MEDRS-compliant) statement is the basis for one of today's DYK hooks. I'm not sure if there is a proper procedure for this, but I have reported it to DYK [3]. Sunrise ( talk) 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Created 2 days ago as one large edit. Dougweller ( talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller ( talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos [7] but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, an AfD is merited. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe ( talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Has a "Health benefits" section, which says: "Now that the majority of health studies have displayed a tangible benefit in some areas to the practice of t'ai chi ch'uan, health professionals have called for more in-depth studies". Our article says T'ai chi has beneficial health effects for various conditions including diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer's disease and ADHD.
The article also includes an enormous "lineage" chart which doesn't seem well-sourced. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
(Update) I have boldly replaced the entire "Health benefits" section with something sourced to an up-to-date review of reviews. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So anyway, A1candidate has reverted the article to its old claims of "benefits" based on primary sources, self-published material and old research, while removing the 2011 review of systematic reviews on the topic. It almost seems as if making a point is more important than creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
See [8] and other edits by DavidSzilagyi ( talk · contribs). He's positive King Hiram came to America and insists that Americas states this as fact (we have Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact for this fringe nonsense). He's edit warring right now. Ingá Stone needs work also. Dougweller ( talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this comment, it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans.
Editors do not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials AFD. Editors noted there are problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. Therefore there is WP:LOCALCON to cleanup the article. An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But the same editor restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but the same editor continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are also not WP:MEDRS compliant. Recommending revert to this version. Make sure you bring food and treats because it is a 4 hour journey to the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Guy, QG is right. The article has been hijacked by acupuncturists who refuse to declare their conflict of interest in promoting their peculiar version of quackery. It's an embarrassment. That you are criticizing him is also something of an embarrassment considering he is one of the only people actually working to keep the article somewhat neutral. jps ( talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean, you might pat yourself on the back for those dispute resolutions, but the fact of the matter is that what ultimately happened in each of those cases was either a punt, a discussion that could have happened anywhere, or a closing resolution that simply took sides in an edit war. So I don't see that you've actually shown that dispute resolutions work any better than, say, getting someone to help from this noticeboard. What does it matter if QG makes his request here or there? Why shouldn't I take his side (or anyone else's)? jps ( talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not opposed to limiting the information about the individual trials. The same editor who admitted there is consensus to limit the results of the trials also admitted there is consensus to delete the technical details about the set-up of the trials. This is the same editor who continues to restore the information against consensus. I am in favor of the current version without the coathook information. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no local consensus. Just a handful of editors -- me, Mallexikon, QuackGuru, Alexbrn (off and on), Bluerasberry and MrBill3 (off and on) -- trying to work it out. What's really ironic, and sad, is that a lot of editors are misreading this article and focusing on who's commenting at the expense of what's being said. I'm advocating that we educate readers that this was the first well-designed experiment showing that sham acu to be the same as verum, so I'd like some experimental details to be included, so science-literate readers can satisfy themselves that it was well-designed. See my comments [32] [33] [34]. This isn't an alt-med coatrack; it's an interesting experiment documenting the evolution of scientific opinion about acupuncture, and not in the direction acupuncture proponents would like. There's no need for this discussion to have forked here, although we could use more eyes, attentive ones preferably. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit-warring on this page, and what looks to me very like an attempt to push a Hindutva pseudohistorical view, diametrically misrepresenting an academic source. Sockpuppetry allegations being made. More eyes would be very welcome. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)-"All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..."Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit warrior adding OR at Urantia Book ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Not the first time either. I gave him a 3RR warning after he hit 4 (missed the 3rd revert). Dougweller ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:
Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.
Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.
jps ( talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
*B. A late comment on Zeus and God, mythology and religion:
God = Zeus; according to some and at least but not necessarily when understood as a god. Even using expressions like God vs/XOR Zeus shows an inherent bias. Abrahamic religion from a non abrahamic perspective is or could be considered equal to mythology, at least if the reverse is considered acceptable to be said. So just like spinning philosophical/scientific concepts (A) to support religious paranormal untestable claims is absurd, it's also absurd to invoke religious persecution and bias against one's own religion when one is denying respect, plausibility etc to the religion of other people(which in this case was a propos practically eradicated through every means possible by the family of religions of the accuser of his or similar views being a victim of religious or atheistic persecution/bias against), claiming unique existence and credibility of one's own supposedly only true/real god and religion.
P.S.Personal Note: In fact when things like interpretatio graeca are considered, i.e. when considering that the followers of Zeus (et al) didn't make such unique exclusive absolutist claims against the (various) followers of Jehovah (formerly in the company of Asherah et al), it's very very sad to some people that the Hellenes and the Hellenists lost (lost meant as at least to some degree), at the Maccabean period or later... ;-)
A restrictive diet promoted as useful for a number of conditions including autism and Crohn's Disease. The article has seen a bit of activity lately with questions of balance and neutrality being aired. May need more eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (Update) I modify my final statement. The article does need more eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, QuackGuru is trying to remove long-standing sources, in bulk, without consensus. A lot of these are actually cited in the article (e.g. as "Smith 1985, p.7"), so removing them is destructive. [39]. Some of them are of very high quality [40]. I'm sure the refs can be trimmed, but this is over the top.
QuackGuru is approaching TCM topics the wrong way: making changes without consensus, asserting there is consensus (or otherwise IDHT-ing and misrepresenting the situation), and running here prematurely. I know QG is respected for his work in other fringe areas, but Chinese medicine is a mix of fringe and legit science (e.g. [41]) and he doesn't grok the nuance, and is a disruptive influence. It's too bad that some editors support him reflexively. -- Middle 8 ( talk) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The mass WP:EL violation and other disputed text has been restored. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Non-notable or duplicate sources moved to talk for the current discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Another editor identified the OR/SYN with some of the text. For starters, the part about the "heart-clearing" is SYN. There is also a bigger problem. The new section about Drug discoveries is a WP:WEIGHT violation. I explained on the talk page, I moved only the sourced text that is not about efficacy to other articles. [43] [44] I do not see a reason to have this section with all the low level details. The text about efficacy should stay but it should be merged back into the efficacy section IMO. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Research to develop antimalarial drugs led to the discovery artemisinin, which is extracted from Artemisia annua,[111] a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]"
"a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]" is a SYN violation. This was previously explained on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"After reading the ancient Chinese medical description, “take one bunch of Qinghao, soak in two sheng (∼0.4 liters) of water, wring it out to obtain the juice and ingest it in its entirety” in The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments by Ge Hong (283–343 CE) during the Jin Dynasty, she realized that traditional methods of boiling and high-temperature extraction could damage the active ingredient. Indeed, a much better extract was obtained after switching from ethanol to ether extraction at lower temperature." [45]
The current text at Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug discoveries is misleading. Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: After I neutrally written the text according to what the source said it got deleted. The main point from the source was whitewashed. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"The device, operated by special SS units, supposedly resembled a tortoise shell in shape, and flew by means of gas jets that spun like a Catherine wheel around the fuselage". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel According to Seneca needs attention. I'm not finding evidence for this supposed heterodox scripture. Mangoe ( talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination) is up after a complete strip-out of negative material. In fact as you can see he has been hit with cease-and-desists from the FDA and local district attorney, as well as some SEC action. Scam watch blog posts on his enterprises abound. Personally I would like to save the article, but it actually has to tell the truth about him, which may be hard to source. Mangoe ( talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that one third of the article text be devoted to fringe conspiracy theories that one of his own sources says there is "no solid evidence" supporting them. Attempts to truncate this section per WP:UNDUE and add a further reliable source disputing these theories are being reverted. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols [46]. I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.
jps ( talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this is an idea which applies to art ?!? jps ( talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.
jps ( talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Help at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be appreciated. I proposed that the inclusion criteria be made a bit stricter, but other ideas would be welcome too. jps ( talk) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is a mess and is up for AfD. Of particular concern is to us the section about Hindu idols supposedly found in Russia. Mangoe ( talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts on this please, ladies + gents.
No independent references as fas as I can tell. only papers are in notorious pseudojournal/ unreliable source Journal of Consciousness Studies. AFD? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
According to our Wikipedia infobox, Noah lived to be 950. And I'm not sure what the parenthetical "Biblical dating" means. I have tried to clean this up, but have been reverted a couple of times by someone who feels that the info is properly sourced (to the Bible). LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
A favorite fringe subject forked off by an editor who seems to have a POV problem, judging from the fuss he kicked up at Ashkenazi Jews. Mangoe ( talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether this belongs here or not. Gentech Pharmaceutical appears to my research to be a company that markets pharmaceuticals that have never been described in peer-reviewed publications, which would place their product as a fringe medicine. Whether or not what they're selling is snake oil, I couldn't tell you, but as they've never published any research that suggests otherwise, I think we need to assume that it is. Their home page is of course replete with unsubstantiated claims about their products (the main one is apparently "widely regarded as the most advanced and effective Synthetic Amphetamine", although they don't ever tell you by whom, or indeed define what "synthetic amphetamine" actually means). 87.112.96.96 ( talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Begins "Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent." The article contains a couple of instances devices used as a deterrent (e.g. a burglar alarm, or opera on the subway to deter teenagers), but the key claims about weaponry seem unsourced - the UK report cited in a section entitled "Demonstrated infrasonic weapon" refers scornfully to the "'mythological" phase" of speculation about infrasound. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Relatedly: Infrasound, particularly Infrasound#Suggested relationship to ghost sightings. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
AAH is well-established fringe but persistent advocates are setting the standards on the talk page referring to "talk page consensus" (as far as I can tell) within the tiny group that are advocating it (everyone else gave up). The most arrogant and persistent advocate was reported on ANI without success. I've reported AAH before and last time that page got chopped to pieces. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Owing to this extremely problematic comment, I have notified CEngelbrecht ( talk · contribs) of discretionary sanctions that are in effect at aquatic ape hypothesis. Further disruption should be referred to WP:AE with reference to this notification. jps ( talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There were some image problems on that page. Please remind people that images should only be used when they can be directly connected to the content. A swimming baby is not an appropriate image at all for such an article. jps ( talk) 20:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:NORN#Images at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. jps ( talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A false equivalency between global warming denialism and climate science was being asserted by Froglich ( talk · contribs) using unreliable sources in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Please watch out.
jps ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Could use a few more eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This article survived a November 2013 deletion attempt but I have my doubts about that. I deleted an initial section promoting one specific device but the whole thing strikes me as a stew of OR and promotion; it seems to lurch back and forth between "here's a new device" and "here's why the idea will never work." Googling seems to show that this is a Pop. Sci. perennial with a long string of new "breakthrough" devices that vanish as soon as they are introduced; it's not quite the cold fusion of diving but the material as a fringey feel to me. Any suggestions? I almost started another deletion discussion but gave that up, and I don't know that I could get away with an accurate stubbing. Mangoe ( talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Spirit possession is loaded with statements made as if they are factual when the whole subject is fringe. There is a section on Islam that is glaring POV and cites only religious texts. There is a list of fringe books in the article and the titles of the authors are cited and listed. If someone wants to wade into this there is a salvageable article in there. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So very many claims. According to this article, it can treat your cancer, cure Parkinson's, help with diabetes, fix your high blood pressure, and lower your cholesterol. Source: Low-quality Chinese in vitro and mouse studies, mainly. 86.129.152.82 ( talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Described as "a British historian, astronomer, archaeoastronomer, astro-archaeologist and author", he actually seems to have an academic career teaching Mathematics and Engineering which he left to become an author and astrologist. He has no qualifications in history, astronomy, archaeology, etc although he writes about the subject. His website [48] says he "teaches astronomy at an Oxford University FAS summer school but our article on the FAS Faculty of Astrological Studies doesn't suggest it is part of the university - they simply use Oxford University facilities, eg Exeter College, to hold their summer school, so that's a bit economical with the truth. Since I've just reverted an edit by his brother, I'd like other eyes so it doesn't look personal. Dougweller ( talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of editing currently on BlackLight Power. I don't have the time to check all the changes. The article has just come out of a three day protection. Bhny ( talk) 04:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input on the Alexander Helios page. I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from that page, which has been reinstated by user Til_Eulenspiegel. The relevant section alleged that Helios, who was born in 40 BC as the son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, may have sailed to the US state of Illinois where he "ruled over a secret colony" and left artifacts in a cave.
This claim has two citations: 1) an episode of America Unearthed, a mystery investigation show on cable TV, and 2) an article in the peer-reviewed journal Public Archaeology. A peer-reviewed article might be a decent source, but in fact the abstract seems to indicate that the article is only a discussion of mainstream archaeology's dismissal of these Illinois claims, and not a source backing the claims themselves.
I removed this section, writing: An episode of a cable TV mystery investigation show is not a reliable source. The Illinois cave thing is a textbook fringe theory. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. The user Til_Eulenspiegel reinstated the section, writing: Undid revision 591083228 by 174.70.43.85 (talk) rvv anonymous editor removing cited information basically because they disagree with it and DONTLIKEIT
I don't often edit on Wikipedia, and don't know the procedure for handing these issues. I look to the community for advice. Thank you. IbisNext ( talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
On the article of the historical figure, I would have to agree that this topic is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be mentioned. However, I could see a potential article on the hoax/tourist attraction/person , as there does appear to be coverage of the guy/place (A&E, and then meta coverage thereof) http://thesouthern.com/news/caves-to-appear-on-america-unearthed/article_3a59ed62-66df-11e3-bbb9-0019bb2963f4.html, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&relevant_count=1. If the academic article is debunking the hoax, then it of course should be used in that context as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone else care to take a look at New Chronology (Rohl)? In reading through the article it seems to me that it has serious problems with WP:Balance. Particularly the section on “In Egyptology” which contains six quoted paragraphs, five of which of are favorable to Rohl. I was under the impression that a pseudoarchaeologist doesn’t generally get to “have the last word” on Wikipedia, yet even the radiocarbon dating (which scientifically refutes Rohl) receives a “rebuttal”. Thoughts? 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the article on the TV series, I see nothing that indicates a reaction from the archaeological community, though a quick read through the list of episodes suggests that such reaction would be profoundly negative. Mangoe ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone is complaining about the article on Rolfing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), on the basis that it is reality based. Among their arguments, they threw in the fact that we have essentially uncritical articles on Myotherapy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Myofascial release ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since these appear to be credited to Andrew Taylor Still, back in the days before osteopathy morphed into something a k-soundinlg, I suspect they may contain merda bubula mother tincture that could do with some dilution and twerking to achieve the homeopathic level of nonsense which is generally preferred.
Sorry about the Rolf Harris reference. I couldn't resist. Guy ( Help!) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Referring to Voltaire#Islam, there are some quotes, claimed by Inayity that Voltaire's "view seriously changed to one of praise once he realized possible the Islamic Golden Age", however it seems to be contradictory to the tons of sources, where he is only criticizing them. The given sources by Inayity are as follows:-
"{{cite web|url= http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23044965?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103367361423%7Ctitle=The Enlightenment Qur'an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam|accessdate=27 June 2009|author= Ziad Elmarsafy|quote="Of all the legislators and conquerors, there are none whose life was written with greater authenticity and in more detail by their contemporaries than was than of Mahomet." EM, vol 1, page 255."
And:-
"According to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment" about Muhammad and "shows full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as a rule of life"(ref) René Pomeau, Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995, t. 1, p. 407.
Yet there are no results of any of these qoutes/comments, either in high amount or presented by any reliable sources. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear me, this certainly is one of those cases in which what Voltaire would call religious "enthusiasm" does not help Wikipedia. We get a messed up section on Voltaire and Islam, which is less about illuminating his view and more about cherry-picking bits of sources by pro and anti-Islamic editors. We have the line "according to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment."" Right, that would be a favourable judgement of what exactly? The Essay on the Manners is not about religion as such, and it does not discuss Islam as a religion, but rather the courts of some Islamic rulers, about which he has some favourable things to say. But the way the quotation is used does not illuminate the reader. It's cut to create a vague idea of a "favorable judgment" without telling us anything of substance. But on the other side, we have a letter to the Pope, clearly an egregious piece of flattery, quoted to represent his anti-Islamic views. I doubt that any of this is fringe, just that it tells us next to nothing useful about Voltaire's actual views, and a lot about the weaknesses of Wikipedia in this aspect of the coverage of history. Paul B ( talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him."
Published in Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, Vol. 7 (1869), Author is Georges d'Avenel, there are few more sources than this one, rather than other claims, that are backed by not even 2 sources. And the play, to which this user is referring to, Voltaire defended the play by telling that "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds", (noted in "Voltaire,Lettres inédites de Voltaire", Didier, 1856, t.1, Lettre à M. César De Missy, 1er septembre 1743, p.450) He wrote to King of prussia again, he writes that:-
Muhammad is "whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command", on 20 january 1742. Tells enough that his view for Islam, or Muhammad, never changed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just reported an editor there to AN3, the article could use some eyes. Dougweller ( talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Article could use some more eyes, a couple of brand new accounts have come in adding dubious sources and removing material critical of this fringe program. Yobol ( talk) 16:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Huge blocks of unsourced narrative, alleging…I'm not sure what. Includes a bonus section of WP:OR that attempts to tie the history of UFOlogy with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've tried once to clean this mess up [53] but was shortly reverted [54]. LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
This could use attention. I think JPL has a point about neutrality and suggestions for renaming would be welcome. Mangoe ( talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
... what there is of it ... needs eyes ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you get when you combine Numerology, 2012 Eschatology, and tripping on 'shrooms? You get Terence McKenna's "novelty theory", something so absurd that few have bothered to criticize it. Fortunately there is a source stating, "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community." A couple critiques with sourcing via WP:PARITY are also provided. Incredibly, there is pushback at Talk:Terence_McKenna#Scientific_community, where editors wish to say that "some" members of the scientific community regard it as pseudoscience, as if some do not. They have found a physicist and a mathematician who are sympathetic to 2012 eschatology/numerology voodoo.
I may need to find a reliable source stating that 2012 has passed and the world has not ended. vzaak 03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 ( talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Help at Auditory hallucination please. GDallimore ( Talk) 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Puhlaa ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pleasant person, an advocate of the school of Chiropractic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which rejects most of the blatant pseudoscience. Unfortunately, Puhlaa keeps trying to reframe the article in terms that describe an idealised form of chiropractic to whihc this school aspires, rather than the wretched nest of quackery that it usually is in practice. I have proposed, following the most recent set of edits and reverts, that Puhlaa propose changes n the talk page and achieves consensus before making them; if this does not hapen then unfortunately I tink we're going to need to ask for pseudoscience arbitration sanctions.
On which subject, I am advocating reinstating chiropractic in template:pseudoscience, see discussion. Guy ( Help!) 09:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
A user has made a large number of edits over a short period, each restoring or inserting material that is favourable to the idealised view of chiropractic which does not reflect reality. This may require discretionary sanctions. Please review this article and its talk page. Guy ( Help!) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Genesis flood narrative ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Despite essentially no sources calling this story the "Genesis flood narrative" directly, we have Christian POV-pushers successfully removing all instances of identifying the story as a myth except for the first sentence. The entire article is actually a WP:POVFORK of Noah's Ark it seems. I AfD'ed it, but would appreciate more eyes on it and Genesis creation narrative.
A trend has started, folks.
jps ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor is pushing a theory that what is variously translated as "sweet cane" or "calamus" in various bibles at Exodus 30:23 is actually cannabis. I'm finding no serious support for this (i.e., not outside the weed community) but then I can't find significant support for calamus either. Lots of edit-warring going on, not a lot of citing. Mangoe ( talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of this is out of the WP:RS ballpark, however one of the things which has come up which at some point will need to be dealt with (once we get past Til Eulenspiegel's constant stream of personal attacks on any editor wanting to use academic sources) is what to do with a comment by an academic out of his field. The academic is Carl A. P. Ruck, an unquestioned specialist on mushrooms in Greek religion who with Blaise Daniel Staples and Clark Heinrich produced The Apples of Apollo: Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist 2001, ISBN 0-89089-924-X - which per WP:RS criteria should be regarded as a relevant and notable argument for transfer/influence of entheogen use in Hellenistic religion into some sects of early Christianity. So far so good. In this area Ruck is within his field, and also within a certain minority stream of argument from John Allegro (1956) The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - albeit a stream generally rejected.
The problem comes with extension backwards into Ancient Israel. The suggestion of cannabis in Exodus is something limited entirely to the theory of one non-(paleo)botanist writer, Sula Benet. Benet's lexicographical (not botanical) argument is either rejected or ignored by lexicographers. And it seems totally considered unciteworthy by post-Sula Benet botanists such as Michael Zohary, James A. Duke and Hans Arne Jensen (I regret I'm not aware of any specialist paleobotanists/Hebrew Bible reference works outside these 3). When a theory/claim of an outsider is publicized popularly but then doesn't even get replied/addressed/mentioned by relevant scholars in any field this is usually a sign of the theory/claim being known, but not considered worth reply/addressing/mentioning.
The other problem is the format of Ruck's opinion - in a Sunday Times article he wrote rather than a peer-reviewed academic paper. His view came to everyone's attention in this area back in January 2003 with comments reported in various newspapers:
"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said. Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures." The Guardian 6 Jan 2003
I believe there's a US newspaper soundbite of Ruck in December 2002 prior to The Guardian mention - which looks like a cross-Atlantic telephone interview soundbite, but cannot locate it. In any case the main publication from Ruck is an invitation a week later to submit an article to the Sunday Times: “Was There a Whiff of Cannabis about Jesus?” The Sunday Times, January 12, 2003.
These claims by Ruck are notable enough to be placed in his own BLP, and linked in 2 areas - relating to Moses and Jesus. However the problem is that Ruck is more out-of-his-field in the Hebrew Bible than the Hellenistic environment. How much WP:WEIGHT is given to an out-of-his-field source in context like this? So my question is: How much content goes in the main article, how much in the BLP of the writer? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the section on "Keneh bosem" was an utter mess. It just repeated itself constantly, and then contradicted itself. Much of the content was endlessly recycled from this passage in The Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan:
"Keneh bosem in Hebrew. Ancient sources identify this with the sweet calmus (Septuagint; Rambam on Kerithoth 1:1; Saadia; Ibn Janach). This is the sweetflag or flag-root, Acoras calamus which grows in Europe. It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7). Other sources apparently indicate that it was the Indian plant, Cympopogan martini, which has the form of red straw (Yad, Kley HaMikdash 1:3). On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim). Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel)."
Passages from this paragraph were copied word-for-word in the main text, then repeated with variations, or chopped up in ways that made it meaningless. The two main identifications, Acoras calamus, Cympopogan martini were mixed up in such a way that it was unreadable. Then we had the largely uncited section on cannabis, which was certainly giving undue weight to a minority view. However, it's clear that Kaplan treats that theory as legitimate, if relatively marginal.
There is a sentence asserting that Kaplan endorses Maimonides' view, identifying the plant as Cympopogan martini. A footnote quotes a source to support this claim. However, I am inclined to think that the source has been misinterpreted. I think Kaplan is simply endorsing the view that Maimonides meant to refer to Cympopogan martini (using whatever pre-Linnean name he did), not agreeing with him that it's "Keneh bosem". Certainly nothing in the quoted passage suggests that Kaplan is endorsing Maimonides. Paul B ( talk) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Every Plato related image, template and article is being refocused to 'Socrates'. This is counter to scholarship, and it undermines the credibility of all philosophy articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) editors can't manage the issue. Admin intervention is required. BlueMist ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an editor, User:Adn1990, who has repeatedly removed the category Category:Far-right politics in the United States from the category Category:Tea Party movement, initially without comment, but later with angry edit comments. I have been reverting the deletion per WP:PROFRINGE. After two reverts, I was initially advised that WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism/profringe. But after four reverts, it's turned into an edit war of repeated deletion and reversion, as you can see here. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this situation. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 21:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
UFO sightings in outer space ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article exist? It is rather poorly sourced and seems like a slapdash amalgamation of trumped up conspiracy theory claims. I already removed one "incident" which was referenced solely to a youtube video.
jps ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know your opinion on this article, I believe it should be redirected to parapsychology.
Also these should be delete/redirected (no reliable references):
Goblin Face ( talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this, good work. I will search for some sources for the Psionics article. I have also found this article:
I can't find a single reference for this person, they seem to be an unknown parapsychologist. Goblin Face ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No references for these stones outside of the fringe writers Colin Wilson and David Hatcher Childress. No idea how this article has survived this long. Goblin Face ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Narragansett Runestone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a new fringe archaeology article based almost entirely on sources that fail WP:RS, eg the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American, edited for years by Frank Collin under the name Frank Joseph, and a pdf by RM. de Jonge (coincidentally an editor here, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands and User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge and his website. [60] The pdf downloads automatically but is from the Migration-Diffusion website [61] - the copyright status of the pdf is unclear but it hosts complete copies of articles from the hyperdiffusionist journal "Migration & Diffusion - an international journal". Dougweller ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This looks like we're somewhere between a list and an article. The content references so many different and disparate sources it's hard to argue it is not WP:SYNTH. Perhaps it's not conducive to being on Wikipedia? jps ( talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Alien abduction entities ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article is sourced to rather dubious sources. And is it ever thorough!
jps ( talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
What do you think of
Family Constellations and
Systemic Constellations? I'm concerned that, although they appear to have plenty of sources, there are plenty of buzzwords and claims borrowed from other fields, and some rather idealised borrowings from Zulu culture.
bobrayner (
talk) 00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The article was reverted to an old version which included dated sources and original research. NPOV is not a "blatant bias" article. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Two new accounts (socks?) adding content lately. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Article for deletion on the Michael_Talbot_(author) page. Proposal for deletion removed on basis that it survived a previous AFD so listed as second nomination but no record in AFD of first. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Conspiracy theory to evaluate recently added POV that "theories on small and large-scale conspiracies are often correct" or "many small- and large-scale conspiracies are indeed real" etc. Also review Talk:James H. Fetzer for similar arguments seeking to portray a conspiracy theorist/theories as someone "seeking truth regardless of how it makes anyone feel." - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion at the Help Desk ( saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning-making Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted synergy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultured resonance
This seems like it would be of interest to those who monitor this noticeboard. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As a relative newbie, I have never nominated an article for deletion before, but this should go imho. A puff piece, unreferenced, and adequately covered on the Naturalnews page. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A brand-new editor has turned up on that page and is reverting edits, making accusations of vandalism. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For those of you who don't keep track, this list survived an AfD in no small part because it has a large number of fans. While I do not understand the motivation of these fans, it is clear the list of people (if not the framing material) is in stark violation of WP:FRINGE including a number of completely unreliable sources being used ( World Net Daily, Newsmax.com, and any number of blogs) because "they're only demonstrating the opinion of the person, not promoting the view". This is a classic coatrack situation. When I tried to move the list to only include peer-reviewed opinions (it is, after all, a list of scientists), I got a rather absurd result which was reverted by one of the fans of the list. Consensus on the talkpage is almost impossible to come by, mostly because the fans of the list are experts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Help would be greatly appreciated.
jps ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is in opposition to Wikipedia's stated aim to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus. WP should describe the arguments that deniers use, but that's not the purpose of this article. The content is something I would expect to see on special-interest blogs. I see that the article has had six deletion nominations. Has anyone noticed off-site canvassing for the article? vzaak 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
vzaak 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Stick a fork in me. I am done. I have posted my advice that this blatant attempt to recreate the climate change debate here should be ignored, and I am now going to follow my own advice and stop reading or replying to this section. One can only hope that they will grow tired of shouting into an empty room and go back to the article talk page where this discussion belongs. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents.
Read. Comment. Argue.
jps ( talk) 13:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Has just appeared. Not sure yet how this might fit into the topic of chiropractic as a whole, or the ethics of chiropractic in particular - but this is likely to be of interest to this noticeboard.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI 20:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
(Add) Some other recently-created articles in this space, which may have some fringe aspects:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Non-physical entity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I can't find anything worth saving in this article either. But maybe you can?
jps ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nick Pelling may or may not be notable as a computer gaming guy. He's also a Voynich Manuscript guy. The AFD is turning into a bit a mess, including an appearance by Mr. Pelling himself. I'm still forming an opinionon the AFD but it could use attention from others, in any case. Mangoe ( talk) 13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone ever hear of this Ron Wyatt and New World Order conspiracy theories advocate? Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Is Wikiversity subject to the same editorial policies as Wikipedia? Some UFO stuff [68] as well as Paranormal stuff [69] appears to be growing there (the latter proclaiming that "Edgar Cayce is probably the most effective psychic that has lived in the last 100 years.") - LuckyLouie ( talk)
Basically, as far as I've seen, it's anything goes. The site isn't very active either. Considering how terrible the content is, long may that continue. Second Quantization ( talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)