This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

To dab et al. user:Barefact continues his old pan-Turkist campaign, this time on Yamna culture, discarding the Kurgan hypothesis as a specimen of "19th-century European nationalism". My edits are summarily reverted. The guy has the habit of content forking which results in such pages as Kangly (alongside the better-established Pecheneg) or Turkic Khaganate (alongside our traditional page Göktürks), so it's only reasonable to anticipate similar developments in this case. Please keep an eye on the page. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Below is my response on Talk:Yamna culture

My dear Ghirlandajo, please do not assault me, and all all the scholars who do not support the infamous Kurgan theory, with your "pan-Turkist fringecruft". You should not call scholars like Colin Renfrew, Bruce Lincoln, Mario Alinei, G. Erdosy, Meinander, Nuñez, and many more "pan-Turkists". As a scholar said, "After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980)." You should not use calling names as an argument. I will gladly attend the WP:FTN, "Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", and this theory've got plenty of the mainstream discussions. The conserns of the article bias must be discussed, referenced, and resolved, not steamrolled with soundbite declarations. Barefact ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As the number of scholars and theories on IE origin subject inside the mainstream keeps growing, the subjects are being discussed, and the different attributions of Pit Grave Culture do not fall under Fringe theories. I suggested [ [1]] to bring unbiased balance to the article, and seconded the editor [ [2]] and [ [3]] observation that the article, as it is, is a primitive propaganda of Gimbutas theory. Instead of advertizing exclusively Gimbutas viewpoint, the article should attend to what makes an archeological culture a culture: a complex of traits that make it unique and different.

And please, dear Ghirlandajo, please don't call me with this term "guy". It is not sweet Barefact ( talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

comment. Unfortunately this is not the first time. You can read the page on Ossetian Language or here: [ [4]]. I think user Dab knows what is going on with these fringe theories best. --Nepaheshgar 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This [ [5]] looks like another fringe pusher. --Nepaheshgar 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell's bells, but if this article isn't about the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia in some time. I think we need some extra eyes here. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh -- the spelling " Türkic" is a dead giveaway barefact's at it again. I suppose his unsourced stuff should be blanked without further ado. This would amount to about the same as programming a vandalbot to blank all additions that contain the string "Türkic". I guess that FACT NEEDED ( talk · contribs) is just a sock of barefact's. It may be about time to escalate this and officially promote Barefact to "Ararat arev" status. -- dab (𒁳) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another barefact hotspot is Turkic alphabets, which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script. I had missed yet another revert of his back in June. See Talk:Turkic alphabets for the more than year-long history of this piece of idiocy. -- dab (𒁳) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done at this stage? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I appreciate your inconvenience to tolerate opposing facts and present unbiased positions, but the subject is fringe vs non-fringe, and the criteria is "theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream". Instead of discussing your personal feelings, I suggest that a necessity to limit Pit Grave to solely Gimbutas in the article be justified, and the views of the above listed alternate theories scholars be refuted with appropriate references. The same rule should apply to me or any other editor who finds the present Pit Grave artuicle biased in favor of exclusively "European colonialism of the 19th century" concept, see citation above. Barefact ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no such evidence in the edit history of Turkic alphabets to support the statement "which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script". I see ONE edit by him to add the Turkic alphabets link, and that's it. Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face. You want to prove Barefact has a pro-turkish agenda, show the REAL facts, they're certainly clear enough on that topic. ThuranX ( talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to look through the history of Turkic alphabets, which is different than Turkic alphabet. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"the edit history of Turkic alphabets"? As in, here? ThuranX, if you see "ONE edit by him and that's it", you probably need to have your eyes examined. I do not remember we have interacted before, so I am somewhat surprised to be presented with vitriol like "Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face." Would it be hyperbole to say that you have just made an utter fool of yourself by trying to take a cheap shot at me for reasons best known to yourself? dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another disruptive editor on an anti- Kurgan hypothesis mission? Sigh... - Merzbow ( talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

strange alliances, sometimes. Rokus01 is shooting at the Kurgan hypothesis because he wants the Dutch to be the Proto-Aryans, while Barefact is in the same game because he wants everyone east of the Don to be Ancient Türks. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

it appears that barefact has just lost the monopoly on the "Türk" spelling -- enter MagyarTürk ( talk · contribs)! dab (𒁳) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence linked from this section will suffice to permaban barefact. His protracted campaign of edit-warring, dedicatied violation of MOS and CFORK by insisting to duplicate Old Turkic script at Turkic alphabets (well after he had been told that the latter clearly needs to redirect to Turkic alphabet), and the protracted and incorrigible insertion of fringecruft and Godwinian rants into article space,

after WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). -- note how the "reference" that Gimbutas is a quasi-Nazi is esentially "see her life's work, passim". In other words, "here's the 'canonic' academic mainstream. We at Wikipedia (i.e. User:Barefact) think it's colonial nationalist bullshit".

and finally, if that isn't enough, suspected sockpuppetry [6] (may require a RCU). At this point, this isn't a case for WP:FTN, but for taking admin action. Hence I suggest the case should be presented at WP:AN. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Over the years, Barefact has exhausted my plentiful resources of good faith and patience. I don't believe that Wikipedia benifits from his work anymore. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for those who may not know that, the above quotation on Gimbutas and the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors is taken from Mario Alinei. Please don't extend to me a credit for it, it is only a citation from a leading scholar. Barefact ( talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mario Alinei is as fringy as any scholar can get.-- Berig ( talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

M. Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory -- the place where crackpots of all creeds and races meet. dab (𒁳) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you recognize the name. Now all we have to do is to cite a professional, not even necessarily "mainstream", reference that calls him a crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic. That would justify the "Fringe_theories" label. Without a reference, sorry, it is just expression of an individual POV.

The other point that I was making is that there is a constellation of IE theories, a good indicator that there is no common view, as is forcefully (and primitively) expressed in the article. In addition, not even a mainstream in Russia, but the whole IE industry totally ignores the Gimbutas theory, in my opinion just because Baltics were a captured ethnicity and could not be allowed to lead the IE movement, and that situation has not changed since 1940es. So, an official doctrine in Russia is different, it is trodded by everybody in the RAofS and its institutions without any exceptions, exactly like it was in 1940es, but the Russian mainstream is a part, and a huge part, of the global IE mainstream. Maybe Russian concept is a fringe too, but where is a reference to Russian crackpot? They, in their encyclopedias, may treat the Gimbutas theory as fringe and crackpot, they have to trod the path, but what is the reason for WP to trod a path? Is not the beauty of WP that its motto is a respect, and unbiased tolerance, and abscence of racially-motivated coercion? We already - not always peacefully - rephrased some articles to bring a less radical discourse on IE theories, they are a good example for a consent, and that's what was called here [7] and here [8] on the Talk:Yamna culture page. No need fof exaltations and name calling. Barefact ( talk) 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding an WP:RS statement that Alinei is a "crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic" presupposes that a WP:RS and mainstream source would consider his arguments for the Paleolithic Continuity Theory as notable or serious enough to mention. The way he refers to Chomsky (whose theory has notoriously failed to explain what it was made up to explain, i.e. word order), probably disqualifies his arguments for a serious discussion in the eyes of most linguists, but those are just my two cents.-- Berig ( talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alinei is quotable, within WP:DUE, since he published academically. Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts. Alinei's PCT is notable enough for a dedicated article, I suppose, but it is far too eccentric to be even mentioned at unrelated articles, let alone mentioned prominently. PCT is bona fide WP:FRINGE, the guideline is intended precisely for cases like this. incidentially, the claim that Gimbutas was a Baltic nationalist would need some backup too. Notably, her hypothesis does not locate the PIE Urheimat in her own country, a feature which (understandably) is exceptionally rare among nationalist "theorists". In fact, Gimbutas' allegiance was to her sex, not her nation, and admittedly her later work is far too second-wave-feminist to be taken at face value. She is an icon of Wiccans and die-hard-matriarchs, not of Baltic nationalism. -- dab (𒁳) 08:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what this phrase mean "Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts." or what it implies. Note, I quoted the phrase on the discussion page, not in the article. That Pit Grave is associated with Turkic in PCT is not a "soundbite", it is a logical and inherent part of the historical sequence in PCT, and has nothing to do with Chomsky. The idea of earlier differentiation was floating around a century before Chomsky was born. Again, to deride any IE theory you do not like you need a reference. Not being a linguist, I do not qualify for a judgement, but I can read linguists' works, and use them as reference in WP. So should anybody else, it is a rule of WP, is it a problem of giving a professional reference instead of POV soundbites?

I do not think that this is a place to evaluate or resolve truths and unthruths of all confrlicting IE theories. The theorists certainly can't do it. I would not judge the demic theory of Renfrew, the point is that it does not allow for any invasion theory, including Gimbutas'. I did not hear any derision of Renfrew in this dicussion, but bunning demic from Pit Grave implies that demic is a crackpot or whatever is the other derisive terminology used in this discussion. Once again, I do not mind calling Renfrew a crackpot, as long as it is supported by means other than force, intimidation, and name calling. Please supply references for Renfrew crackpoting, and then deride him, Alinei or whoever else you desire to ban. Barefact ( talk) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working through all this. Hold on a sec. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, OK. I've blocked him for 4 months for his persistent disruption, and have warned him that the next block will be indef. BTW, FACT NEEDED ( talk · contribs) is apparently not his sockpuppet, but his NPOV violations are so frequent there's easily good enough reason to block him even without the sockpuppetry proven. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone here have a look at Marfa lights? The wildest claims seem to be near the end. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, article is written as if a supernatural explanation is the default position rather than the other way round. It needs inline citations so you may want to tag it for that or add the citations yourself. It could do with a section describing the terrain and the reported phenomenon, incorporating material presently in the lead. The "Criticism" section is only really criticism of the notion that this is a supernatural effect. "Explanations" might be a better heading for that section. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Judith, I believe the stuff that Steven was complaining about had already been removed by the time you looked at the article, by ChrisO. In my opinion the rest of the material, while perhaps less than perfect, isn't bad enough to worry about, given the nature of the topic. Looie496 ( talk) 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

After some issues on other articles surrounding the topic of abiogenic oil from a certain user, I went in to the main article to see if it couldn't be cleaned up a bit. Turns out, for a fringe science (I'm calling it that because nobody in the petroleum business takes it seriously or has been able to use the ideas behind it to find oil), this article is really long and technical. One move I made was to change instances of "theory" on the article to "hypothesis", because there is no evidence that shows any discovered petroleum to be of an abiogenic origin. This hasn't sat well with one editor who has reverted me a few times using edit summaries that I still don't quite know what to make of [9]. Any help hashing this out and pruning the article to conform with wp:undue would be appreciated. NJGW ( talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all.

Currently there are a number of editors at Talk:Cold fusion actively working for New Energy Times to try to get our Wikipedia article to conform to a position that treats the subject with more favor than mainstream secondary sources give it. They are writing articles about editing Wikipedia and publishing them on-line, glowingly praising themselves for getting the article into such a state.

Now the article is protected right now by an administrator who sees the issue as a contest of equals (which it manifestly is not, but I digress). The current version up I think is better than previous versions, but there are some issues.

1. CF-advocates want to remove the pseudoscience category even though that is how it is generally considered.
2. CF-advocates are interested in repeating the claims of various CF researchers as fact and are willing to go into some detail to do it. For example, they want to include an enumeration of all the "successful" cold fusion experiments. Of course, we do not have any secondary sources confirming the analysis of how many experiments were successful, only the articles and books written by CF-proponents. What's more confirmation bias means that we cannot easily characterize how meaningful such enumerations are.
3. CF-advocates want to include "evidence" that has not been independently verified. For example, there is one experiment where a researcher used a mass spectrometer to determine the isotopic abundance of certain atoms. He reported a "non-natural isotopic ratio" that neither characterized its significance nor the confidence level to which this is accurate. No one else has reproduced his results. Nevertheless, the CF-advocates think that this "amazing result" needs to be reported in our Wikipedia article. WP:CBALL does not seem to phase them.

There are more issues, but this gives a decent overview. Basically, there are a number of users asserting ownership over an article which needs to be carefully vetted lest we mislead the reader into thinking there is more to Cold Fusion than meets the mainstream eye.

Thanks in advance.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, do you know of any current mainstream evaluations of CF research? --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 DOE report is the best. However, many CF proponents are claiming that their research has "moved beyond" this. This is a claim that has received little to no outside attention. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Money and time are spent chasing cold fusion, but I can confirm at least anecdotally that the international physics community does not take the current research seriously. So far as I have seen, there is no "new physics" theory with any rigorous testing or explanatory power beyond ad hoc postulations. The "no new physics" explanations that I have seen are about as flawed as the claims that hydrinos conform to known laws of physics. If I may dredge up painful past experiences, the degree of paper-cruft in this article reminds me of the recent homeopathy wars - non-notable journals publish weak, irreproducible, uncontrolled, and insignificant results from biased authors, which are trumpeted as representing the full weight of the scientific community. - Eldereft ( cont.) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now the new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion! Amazing. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs to be brought here since there has been a successful mediation that SA chose not to participate in and now the article is going through GA review. There are plenty of editors of all sorts of viewpoints around and virtually no scope for ownership by a clique. If it's true that people have been boasting in publications outside WP of their success in slanting the article, then that is out of order and should be pursued, perhaps through an editor RfC. Re Eldereft's point - it is not at all the same situation as with homeopathy. Articles have been published in some very serious scientific journals - at least I have requested comments already on the status of two of them (founded by Albert Einstein and Max Planck!) and no-one has been able to say that they are minor journals. We have already been told anecdotal evidence about the physics community not taking the hypotheses seriously, but anecdotal evidence is no good to us. As far as I can see there are two reasons why this should be seen as an "alternative scientific hypothesis" rather than pseudoscience. 1) there is a US navy team actively researching the field and publishing papers and 2) there is a recent book that overviews the whole subject, issued by a reputable scientific press. Homeopathy can get nowhere near as close to respectability. Please note that I am not pushing this topic. I have no opinion on it whatsoever since I do not have the necessary physics background. My only concern is for accurate representation of scholarly sources. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The mediator was pretty bad. We should try to get more competent people to become mediators. Anyway, mediation is not binding at all unless the users agree to it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough people agreed to the mediation for it to proceed. Perhaps you might offer the mediator some constructive feedback to help him improve his skills. What do you suggest we do to try and get "more competent people" to become mediators? And do you mean "more people who are competent" or "people who are more competent"? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to mediation, I'm only objecting to the claim that somehow because I was not involved in mediation I'm somehow unable to comment on the state of the article. I have made my opinions known to this mediator and from his responses I'm not expecting him to improve any time soon. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Akhilleus's question: yes the DOE report is a very important source. Some research has continued since 2004. There is a 2007 book (by Edmund Storms) that appears to be a reliable source that could be drawn on alongside reviews of the book. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storms' book is not exactly the best source we can get per WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's published by World Scientific. Our article says that is a top scientific publisher. My main concern is for consistency in defining reliable sources. Do we have any basis to discount this scientific text? One major advantage of it being published by a mainstream academic publisher is that it will be reviewed by other scientists. I already said I thought reviews of the book also constitute good sources. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific publishers are wont to publish a variety of niche-market books that are not under strict editorial control. I'm not saying that Storms isn't a reliable source for explaining what cold fusion proponents think about the "current state of cold fusion research", but we should not view this book as an unbiased source of information on the subject just because of who the publisher is. Publishers are ultimately out to make money, and if a market can be demonstrated for a book, they will publish regardless of content. They do not vet what they publish unless they think it will affect sales. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So no, you cannot give me any reason why we should discount this scientific text. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just gave you a reason. You have to consider the author. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That whole article is a bit messy... the lead doesn't even say what cold fusion is (see this old version for an example of what would be a more informative lead). That should probably be followed by a section on fusion in general and why the scientific community generally doesn't accept cold fusion, followed by a section on the arguments for it, and then the history (as it's virtually a trivia section in this case). Just my take on the layout to help it approximate the scientific consensus. NJGW ( talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, SA, I agree that it is the author and the publisher that make a scientific text a reliable source. Storms has a PhD in a relevant subject and a career researching with the US Navy. That tends towards acceptability, doesn't it? On the other hand something that weighs heavily against the book is that the publisher's blurb is an excerpt in a review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. I am going to be guided all the way by general principle. I do not want to see this article establishing a precedent that will weigh against a scholarly attitude to sources in other articles. It is not up to us as WP editors to rule that World Scientific are in error publishing this book, even if that is our private opinion. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about it being an "error", it's about it being a parochial and intentionally one-sided presentation of Storms' ideas. I'm not saying that the source isn't "acceptable". I'm merely saying that it is not the best source for basing the article's text. Wikipedia editors are supposed to keep WP:REDFLAG in mind when considering sources. I'm afraid you haven't really taken that to heart. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. The cold fusion article is true to the DOE report. The DOE did say that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, whatever the "average scientific lab" thinks. It is against policy to represent the views of non-expert that don't publish in reliable journals: there is no reason to represent the views of the average lab. Unorthodox scientific theories deserve fair representation on wikipedia as this ArbComm decision makes clear. Let's judge edits on the ground of behaviors and policies, not on the ground of intent and opinions. It would be an issue if I wanted that the article show cold fusion as demonstrated scientifically, as I believe, but I'm not asking for that. I only want wikipedia to present what reliable sources are saying, as we all should.

Also, what evidence is there of "article ownership" ? There are so many editors who contributed to this article, and I've always encouraged them to do so, provided that they follow wikipedia policies. Pcarbonn ( talk) 07:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again re the Storms book: I don't think there is any precedent for a scientific book to be deemed unreliable even in the circumstances of WP:REDFLAG. If you can prove me wrong, fine. I really do not want this case to set a precedent that we can judge for ourselves what is or isn't scholarly simply on our impression of a book's contents. BTW, "one-sided" is to be expected in the context of academic disagreement. The usual remedy is to balance with an opinion on the opposite side. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have a very good friend who was in the lab at Southampton when the original Pons-Fleischmann experiments were conducted and is now a full professor in the field of electrochemistry at an English university with an international lecturing career (he is also the author of a standard text on analytical chemistry). I showed him the FA version of our article, the one before the NET mob got to it, and he thoguht it a pretty fair summary of the state of the art. He also thought the 2004 DoE review was solid. His view, as I recall it, was that the NET mob are not going to get any traction in the mainstream science community until the resolve the fact that there are no properly verifiable, accepted mechanisms by which this supposed effect can work. That's also what the DoE review says, in essence: go away and do the basic science, then come back. The basic science is still missing. Cold fusion is a laughing stock among mainstream scientists, as Physics Today pointed out, mainly because Pons and Fleischmann made the most spectacular balls-up of it. Our article is, and has been for a long time, used as a means to blaze the trail in rescuing the reputation of a pariah field. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The NET mob have their own websites (which they have promoted relentlessly here) and that is the place for thier advocacy. Pcarbonn picks cherries fomr the DoE report while completely ignoring its unmistakable overall tone, which is skeptical (as is the default in the sicentific method). The pretence that the DoE report is even marginally favourable is like the supposed Christians pulling cherries fomr the Bible to support the idea that it's fine to be conspicuously wealthy. But as usual the laurels go not to those who bring the best arguments, b ut to thse who are most determined to get their POV across. Which, of course, is the NET mob, since mainstream scientists for the most part either deride cold fusion or don't give a damn. Guy ( Help!) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you've said all this before, more or less this exact post. You're saying that there is COI. That may well be true - I have seen attempts to combine on- and off- wiki advocacy. We should make sure that that is kept out. Lots of people are coming down heavily on the pro-CF websites as poor sourcing and/or linkspam. The DoE report is a public document and we can all help to ensure that it is not spun in either direction but simply reported as is. It did say "go away and do the basic science", and people did. There was a long-standing research project in Japan, which resulted in papers that some editors have tried to keep out of the article. There is a team in the US Navy labs, publishing papers in second-rank journals (second-rank, but still scientific papers in journals). If WP is being used for POV-pushing, then we must all be there to stand up for standards. You haven't been around the article much, fair enough if you've had other things to do, but others were there to discuss with Kirk Shanahan when he turned up (author of a series of papers that disprove aspects of CF). What are you saying, that you have given up? Or that the scientific establishment won't come up with the goods then we have to discredit CF ourselves? No, there is a bunch of us on that article that care about NPOV. I'm of little help because I lack the science background but others can do more. We've been discussing - with both the pro- and anti- CF editors - how to find more and better sources to represent the anti-CF viewpoint. When you have time you are very welcome to come and help. But what your professor friend said to you informally is just anecdotal evidence and we can't give it any weight. This article is a really important opportunity to show that the WP source research method works. Let's accept that there are RS on each side, a story to be told, and let's allow that story to tell itself through the sources that we identify and bring to the table. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The section "Statistics" seems to be one huge original synthesis. Article has been tagged as NPOV violation since March 2007. I found it in the backlog, where there are many other fringey articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It does have WP:N problems, but I wouldn't describe it as original synthesis. Some degree of editorial discretion is inherently necessary in determining what content to include and what to skip. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs a reference discussing "race and crime" head-on. Just citing various statistics and pulling a "race and crime" analysis from them is pure WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A good chunk of the sources do discuss the association between race and crime in general terms; it needn't be explicit in the publication title. Of course, as with any article, we inevitably must exercise some minimal discretion in deciding which statistics to include. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 10:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

um, yes? you just said that? The question is that of establishing notability as a stand-alone article. Once that has been established, of course also non-dedicated sources may be used to document a point. Just because someting "has been discussed" doesn't mean it's an encyclopedic topic in and of itself. Hence my suggestion to merge this into a wider discussion of Biological criminology. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the best thing to do would be to delete this article. The Statistics section is random junk, and there is little of value in the rest of it. The topic may deserve an article, although it would be quite difficult to write a good and balanced one, but the current version doesn't even provide a useful starting point. Looie496 ( talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If we carry out the merger that dab suggests, we can add a tiny bit to the sections on the early schools of criminology in the Criminology article. Those sections will then need some further work. Currently, positivism is thrown around with abandon and Emile Durkheim is unsourcedly accused of social determinism. The stats section is just rubbish I agree. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some SPAs have popped up to revert back in the statistics section: I've reverted and blocked + semiprotected. The rest of the article isn't that great either, so I agree that a merge to someplace else is probably the best option. Long-term, eyes will need to be kept on this material wherever it winds up. It's a natural spill-off point for the Race and intelligence warriors. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

well, then, would the more criminal race be the more intelligent or the less intelligent one? :oP dab (𒁳) 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol :) Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The statistics section looks like it was terrible. FYI, the topic itself is tiptoed around in academia. The most influential paper on the subject in recent years is this one, which has its own article. Though the paper purports to "not be about race" this is hotly disputed. My own belief is that an article is warranted but would probably be un-maintainable. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And all because the authors forgot to post a query to the WP reference desk. All together now, 1-2-3.... Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. ( contd. p. 94). Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

somewhat predictably, we get editors at that article emphasizing the dates preferred in medieval Talmudic philology, trying to tone down actual academic consensus by blatant editorializing ("the Talmud says 1200 BC, however, some confused modern scholars are unsure about it and find it difficult to accept"). Any article introducing academic mainstream position in a "however" phrase following some historical or eccentric minority position is clearly in WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE territory. Of course (as always in these cases), Talmudic philology should also be discussed, in proper terms, DULY, and at the pertinent articles. -- dab (𒁳) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A look at Special:Contributions/Meieimatai shows that this is not an issue isolated to a single article. Vassyana ( talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism wikiproject might be able to find an expert to help. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need an expert on Judaism here. We need an expert on WP:5P. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the lengths I have resorted to, in order to explain the basics of a topic to the editor. [10] They have a very ... unusual ... perspective on things that is grossly at odds with both the most basic academic instruction in religious topics and the basic principles of Wikipedia. Advice? Suggestions? Vassyana ( talk) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

well, these people are the reason we have this board in the first place, aren't they. dab (𒁳) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone else please have a word with Meieimatai ( talk · contribs)? I am at my wit's end trying to reply to his misconceptions and explain things to him. It's gotten to the point where he's just trashing normative scholarship. [11] [12] You review Talk:Torah and his talk page if you need a better idea of his ideas and approach. Can someone please help? Vassyana ( talk) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his behaviour will immediately improve if he gets more posts about it. You've been very patient. A user RfC is called for here. Or wikiquette noticeboard. Or RfCs on the affected articles and an alert here so that people who contribute here will respond. I also think you have nothing to fear from posting to the religion-related wikiprojects. Itsmejudith ( talk) 06:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable jumping immediately to a user RfC, considering the short period of interaction with him. I will take the step of posting neutral notices about the disagreement to a couple of WikiProjects first and go from there. Vassyana ( talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO ( talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

complete nonsense. -- dab (𒁳) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit seems to be a view with sourced information. If the Hindus think its their temple or have some connection, nothing is wrong with adding views with sources. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 15:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This dude has been blocked (Along with around 100 socks). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained on the talk page, it doesn't seem to be a "Hindu view" - it's (very poorly) sourced to an Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, a member of the Ahmadiyya sect (which is apparently considers itself Muslim but isn't categorised as such by outsiders). -- ChrisO ( talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The source regarding Abdul Haq if you look into the Google data base it states one source that was reviewed and digitized from the University of Michigan see ([ [13]]) that review from the University of Michigan should be reliable enough. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a review, it merely indicates that Google digitised a book at the University of Michigan. That's why it says "Original from the University of Michigan". -- ChrisO ( talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still an source and the academic Oxford should be one reliable source according to footnotes it falls into category. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the source? I have, and it doesn't mention Abdul Haq Vidyarthi or the Ka'aba. There's no page reference and no cited passage in the footnotes, so it's impossible to tell what it's actually supposed to be sourcing. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of any admins who might read this, it may be useful to explain that the Ka'aba is as important to Muslims as the Cross is to Christians, so it is very important to defend this article from fringecruft. Looie496 ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the article has been on my watchlist for a while because it has one of those pesky images of Muhammad in it. It tends to get blanked or redacted a lot. It's a little surprising to find people adding stuff to the article, since that doesn't seem to happen much... -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

this is such a non-issue. BabaTabla, read WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTE, WP:DUE. Ahmadiyya authors often come up with far out surreal stuff. Discuss these in Ahmadiyya related topics, if at all notable, but don't spam unrelated articles with this. dab (𒁳) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

its under views its not harming anybody. Theres sources from sacred literature, abdul haq and academic source under foot notes. Nobody said abdul haq was mentioned in the academic source it says abdul haq pg 91 seems to refer to another book. Nothing is wrong with adding views from another prespective. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BabaTabla, are you by any chance the anonymous editor who added this section in the first place? (see [14]) -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i cannot help you with that issue. The information is under Black Stone to my knowledge the Hindus must have their own view of the Black stone. Its not under Kaaba, so maybe the view could be merged into the Other Views section or could be seperate. The footnotes seem to be in place with notable scholars. No harm in adding views to my judgement. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 02:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

no "notable scholars" to be seen here. This is nonsense. If it's in the Bhavisya Purana or similar, discuss it in the pertinent article. Black Stone isn't an article on Ahmadiyya pseudohistory: WP:DUE. dab (𒁳) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnotes listed is number 12 that seems to be from the Atharveda then number 13 and 14 is used from abdul haq. number 15 is the academic one and some Sayar-ul-Okul for number 16.

you can go through more sources they can be found in the google book search. The information seems to have a good amount of sources here are some

Some Academic Sources:

• [ [15]] - more detailed and claims the black stone was a incarnation of shiva (note this book has refs for claims)

• Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization Oxford University Press, USA ISBN  978-0195779400

Regual search:

• [16] - Vikramadityas empire in Arabia, the gold dish in kaaba and the culture.
• [ [17]] - mentions ancient idols found in mid east
• [ [18]] - vikramadityas empire in arab and temples
• [ [19]] - similar to abdul haq book (claims kaaba)
• [ [20]] - encyclopedia of islam

There seems to be indefinte sources and sure deserves to be notable. -- BabaTabla ( talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop citing cranky literature of the sort of "Jesus in Kashmir - The Lost Tomb", "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence" ( Stephen Knapp!) or "Indian Kshatriyas Once Ruled from Bali to Baltic". You must not think very highly of everyone else's intelligence to say the least. You want to proceed as follows: If you are interested in the Sayar-ul-Okul, write an article, based on reliable sources, at Sayar-ul-Okul. Once you've done that, come to Talk:Black Stone and seek WP:CONSENSUS for including a brief mention and a link to the Sayar-ul-Okul article at the Black Stone article. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[ [21]] there just sources now you can see that there notable ? -- BabaTabla ( talk) 16:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've googled Sayar-ul-Okul and created a stub. Allegedly an 18th century Ottoman anthology of Arabic poetry, it is only ever mentioned in crackpot Hindutva trash literature. Even the alleged editions of 1864 and 1932, which feel credible enough, are taken from Hindutva sources. I have tagged my own stub with {{ hoax}} until we can at least substantiate the existence of the manuscript. dab (𒁳) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I've been unable to substantiate the existence of this manuscript, I've userified my stub, see User talk:Dbachmann/Sair al-Okul for details. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

noting that we already have an article on Purushottam_Nagesh Oak, I've made Sayar-ul-Okul a redirect to the newly created section at Purushottam_Nagesh_Oak#The_Kaaba.

Purushottam_Nagesh Oak itself may be a candidate for review by the esteemed editors frequenting this board. -- dab (𒁳) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems full of OR and POV nonsense. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The worst problem I could see was actually in the Criticism section (the comparison with Scottish/Iraq genetic linkage). Most of it seems adequately framed as speculation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Doug on this one. The article needs a lot of work. I'd like to see it written up from a history of ideas perspective. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is weird. I've never heard of "British Israelism" before this, and would like some confirmation that the term is actually used beyond some small groups. Obviously there are lots of weird theories still splashing around about Biblical characters, incluing Jesus, visiting Britain at some point in their careers, but I've never heard of anyone unifying these under the heading "British Israelism". What we look to have here is the last remnant of cranky 19th century nationalist pseudoscience. I think the article should probably focus more on said 19th century crankiness and less on it's 20th/21st century remnant. But academic sources may be scarce. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate)

Moreoever, the article doesn't really make clear enough that this is not scientific material. As Judith says, it's an old idea that has no scientific currency. So write it like an "old ideas" article. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do this search on Google -- both phrases together "British Israelism" "Christian Identity". A couple of interesting finds [22] from an atheist about.com site, [23] from religioustolerance.org, and [24] a useful .pdf -- the late and by me unlamented Raymond E. Capt was a proponent. Doug Weller ( talk) 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we feel about the Religious Movements Homepage Project as a potential source for the article? It was set up by one academic at the University of Virginia and since his death is in the process of being transferred to another university. The archives are available and have a page on British Israelism. I found this by linking from the Religious Tolerance website, ho hum. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, British Israelism is a real idea and concept. it has long historical and literary roots. It may sound strange to our hyper-rational American ears, but so do plenty of other things around here, so there you are. I'm sorry to let you know that the English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon drive towards empire occasionally has such slightly sentimental or perhaps mystical, concepts in its repertoire, but sometimes that's the case. there is every reason to keep it here, as a cultural concept with long notable, and quite well-documented roots. Thank you. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 13:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure. I am English, however, live in England, am fairly well-educated, and have never heard of this. Hence my slight confusion. I still think parts of the article are synthesis to make this look more prevalent than it really is. You are, of course, absolutely correct about the offshoots of empire mentality, but IMHO most of that stuff died off around WWI and got finally killed by the Suez. The article doesn't really get this across. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 13:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

appreciate your reply. Actually, i was being, I suppose, a bit whimsical in my reference to empire. In truth, the concept is more a window into perceptions of British national self-identification. Referring to it as empire-driven means giving it a slightly cynical utilitarian interpretation. it is probably much deeper than some politically-motivated rationale for empire.

But anyway, i appreciate your reply and your last comment. I would not totally agree that the article needs to convey it as a means towards empire, for the reasons whioch i just stated. however, i would accept your point, that perhaps the article needs to make clearer its social, political and cultural context. i have re-ordered the sections slightly, to give this a bit more significiance and some more visibility. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"hyper-rational Americans"?? The only people who still believe in this stuff are the followers of Armstrongism, via Edward Hine. This stuff is a creature of the Georgian era. Back then, it was still possible even for educated people to entertain speculations that have long since been ruled out. If the last shred of credibility this may once have had didn't expire with George IV, it did most certainly with John Wilson. Today, this isn't more than a curiosity of the history of Georgian Britain, and of the Christian fundamentalist lunatic fringe in the USA. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It hardly exists in the UK, and is basically harmless here. In the US it is not harmless, it is right-wing racist and called Christian Identity (with dual and non-dual seedline variations?) It is also found in Aus/NZ [25]. This forum thread discusses it in the UK [26] and has a believer talking about his church - some interesting stuff. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What all this discussion is really pointing to is that the page, regardless of its fringyness, is critically lacking in basic information, such as what the term "British Israelism" means, who first used it, who uses it now, and who associates themselves with it. Some of this is hinted at, but not clearly stated. Thus the article cannot be considered encyclopedic at the moment. Until it is improved, I suggest that it be stubbified or something. Looie496 ( talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a surprisingly widespread fantasy in earlier generations, and there is no problem sourcing it: the LC subject heading is "Anglo-Israelism" and WorldCat has 932 books under that subject, the most recent from 2008, including a number of active periodicals. The British Israel World Federation alone has 171 entries there. From what i understand, the article is actually in my opinion a pretty good start, with appropriate links and references. That it comes across as nonsense is another matter entirely. . DGG ( talk) 07:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PTWilkinson is new today and is 'removing vandalism', ie stuff he doesn't like, from this article (Wilson is a pseudo-historian). It's bad enough anyway, with a lot of unsourced stuff about his career, but Wilkinson's changes and deletions [27] turn it into even more of a PR piece. I've reverted twice so far but obviously can't continue. I will add that of course we must follow WP:BLP. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, this person is simply reverting back to this version, which is basically removing 3 months of edits by Doug and Enaidmawr. NJGW ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read both versions of the article, and on the face of it, Doug Weller is correct. However it appears that nobody has really made a serious attempt to discuss this with User:PTWilkinson, beyond posting a formal alert on his talk page, so I have added a note there asking him to try a different approach. (unsigned edit by Looie496)

Since he'd just called my edits vandalism, I guess I wasn't feeling very cuddly towards him. I wonder if he really is new as of today. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to add my thanks for your note on his talk page, I thought it was very good. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edit history, it seems possible that PTWilkinson is a sock puppet for User:Ouldbob, but I would think a bit more evidence is needed. Looie496 ( talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with knowledge of nutrition like to cast an eye on the short sentence in Blackberry that deals with the antioxidant content. AFAIK, all fruit and vegetables contain antioxidants. And antioxidants are probably good for you. Certainly fruit and veg are good for you. They taste great. Let's all eat plenty of them. Obsessing about the exact proportions of antioxidants in blackberries compared to blueberries and other fruit could be getting into fringe territory and the source doesn't look great. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - the statements seem well-sourced, and doesn't seem to be proclaiming blackberries as the next miracle cure for anything, so even though it is a bit obsessive, I don't see any real reason to object to it. maybe we could suggest to whoever wrote it that they need to get out of the house more?  :-) -- Ludwigs2 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good after Ronz's edits to remove the off-topic bits. As a side note - does anybody know if the density of blackberries is 144 grams/cup? Oxygen radical absorbance capacity cites a different number for blackberry's ORAC, but in cups rather than the grams used in blackberry. - Eldereft ( cont.) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know about the American cup measurement, but since blackberries (and other fruit) are mainly water, the density should be about 100g per 100ml. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At 100g/100mL, that would make the density of 1 cup of (homogenously mashed blackberries) approximately 237 grams. That said, (1) they're not pure water, and (2) if they're not mashed, you have to account for the airspace. Antelan 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole antioxidant fad probably ought to be considered fringy in a strict sense, there there is remarkably little solid evidence that massive levels of antioxidants actually prolong life or improve health. But since the article doesn't make any strong claims about that, it probably isn't the right place to have that fight. I am more bemused about the fact that it never gives any hint of how hard it can be to manage a blackberry bramble once it starts growing. Looie496 ( talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because a large chunk of the article addresses the commercial grower's perspective. It was only a minor amendment to the article I was wondering about, now done. I know that some people are very keen to keep health claims about plants to the minimum (i.e. the sourceable). I hadn't come across antioxidant claims before and I wonder whether they have been added to other articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 06:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

the justification for taking the fad a little more seriously than some is the the biochemical phenomenon is real, unlike the dubiously existant basis of so many other fads. The human applicability is another matter, but at least a possible mechanism does exist. Restricting health claims about plants to the sourceable is necessary, but hardly restrictive--almost anything conceivable can be sourced. DGG ( talk) 06:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Osteomyology is currently the subject of an edit war. One version is promotional and the other appears to be plagued with original research. It needs some serious attention from people knowledgeable in cleaning up original research and with experience in medical fringe topics. Vassyana ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

one version is promotional, but the other is decidedly hostile. It will indeed need some work;I think neither version is acceptable from the standpoint of NPOV. I suggest that those who have previously involved themselves heavily with related subjects stay clear of this one.I doubt that anyone who knows much about this group of subjcts is truly neutral, but I will give it a try. DGG ( talk) 08:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Vassyana ( talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Could some univolved could take a look at it. IP is reverting well refernced version in favour of openly anti-Semitic essay containg frases like "Jewish lies", "lies about false numbers of Holocaust" etc. [28] M0RD00R ( talk) 10:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

well, ranting about "Jewish lies" in article space is a sure way to get yourself blocked in record time. This should just be treated as vandalism. -- dab (𒁳) 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be an IP sock of User:Codreanu, who was banned for exactly the same edits. But I guess it is too late to request checkuser. M0RD00R ( talk) 10:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the page should be semi-protected. -- Folantin ( talk) 10:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it should. I'm pretty sure IP is Codreanu now, editing pattern is exactly the same, so RFCU filed here [29]. M0RD00R ( talk) 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been stubified, which is probably good. Could someone who knows about these things put a note to this effect on the talk page? -- SesquipedalianVerbiage ( talk) 13:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This idea has two issues: one there is an anon actively editing the article who likely works for the company trying to raise venture capital in support of it. Two, cold fusion proponents don't like the idea to be criticized because it's one of the only attempts to explain how their claimed low energy nuclear reactions could actually exist. So we have two different groups trying to get this pseudoscience crankism redescribed as revolutionary new discovery! Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi SA, can you help me find the relevant history for this article? There has been some redirecting, and most of the things discussed on Talk:Hydrino don't show up in the history of Hydrino. So it's hard to make any assessment of the validity of the edits. Looie496 ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect that this is the most relevant series of edits. In my humble opinion, the restored version is accurate without being unduly promotional. - Eldereft ( cont.) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a bit disturbed that the list of references includes papers that are critical of the theory and promotional materials, but doesn't seem to include any of the papers that actually presented the elements of the theory (some of which were published in reputable journals, such as J App Phys). Looie496 ( talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the editors active here may not remember this, but we had an epic showdown with a flurry of Hindutva zealot accounts orchestrated from some yahoo group back in 2005-06, as it were the classic original case of pseudoscholarly fringe campaigns with ideological motivation. We were able to tackle it by stubborn sticking to encyclopedic documentation, exposing editors' allegiance by referring to academic literature on the religious right in India -- which gave us our present revisions of Indigenous Aryans, Out of India, Indo-Aryan migration, Voice of India, Koenraad Elst, Subhash Kak and N. S. Rajaram articles besides spin-offs like Historiography and nationalism and ultimately this board. Eventually, the Hindutva sock armies gave up and disruption subsided.

We are now seeing signs of a revival of such, ahem, crusades. Beginning with comparatively harmless naive piety at Hinduism, users Tripping Nambiar ( talk · contribs), Sindhian ( talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent Wikidas ( talk · contribs)) are currently doing their best towards filling the boots of immortal zealot trolls of the stature of Bharatveer ( talk · contribs), Sbhushan ( talk · contribs) et al.

The articles I mentioned could do with some supervision before this gathers any more momentum. Tripping Nambiar at the moment is blanking away material he doesn't like at Indigenous Aryans. -- dab (𒁳) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The case of BabaTabla ( talk · contribs) and his Sayar-ul-Okul, besides increasing levels of vandalism at Indus Valley Civilization are also instances of this disturbing trend. dab (𒁳) 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A slight difference of focus here: this lot are more interested, for various reasons, in the South Indian caste system (See Nair, for example) than the previous wave. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For that, see the constant battle to keep Reddy in approximate shape. Has overlapped into Nair at times, I recall. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

yep, this is just to take note of the general trend. No immediate action is required, but some vigilance is appreciated. In the usual course of events, some of these accounts will soon resort to sockpuppetry as they become frustrated with their 3RR blocks. The more tenacious ones will then prance around for a couple of months (Ararat arev style) before they become frustrated with that game too. -- dab (𒁳) 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All duly noted, and a few more articles watchlisted. This won't go away: I think Irish-British will become quieter over time, but I confidently expect this to be around for maybe the next 50 years or so. Oh, well, such is life. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Give the Indians some credit. They are smart. It's not their fault they were bullshitted by their fundamentalist gurus for 100 years. Now, with good online coverage of these topics and increasing internet access, I trust that at least among the educated Indians (who are able to contribute to en-wiki), the bullshit coefficient will gradually go down, ultimately to a level we get from Christian fundamentalists. The Christan fundamentalists give us very little grief, because their kind of pseudoscience is very well referenced. They chip away at Intelligent Design topics, but they ultimately understand Wikipedia isn't for them and they bugger off to sites like Conservapedia. The Hindu fundamentalists will do the same as the Indian public wisens up. This is where Wikipedia can really make a difference. On the pre-Wikipedia internet, you were awed to learn about "eminent scholars" quoted on arcane topics like the Sayar ul-Okul. Today, you can double-check your blogcruft against google (i.e. Wikipedia) and will be presented with a debunking or putting-into-perspective immediately. -- dab (𒁳) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be a rosy scenario, but I suspect it won't be as easy as that - I get the impression that the Hindu fundies have a nationalist component to their ideology that doesn't really map onto the Christian fundie experience. Religious nationalism is, I suspect, significantly more durable than just religious fundamentalism by itself. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, it's not going to be easy. But note how Conservapedia-style fundamentalism combines Christian fundamentalism and American patriotism. The US Christian fundies are exactly the same type as the Hindu fundamentalists and the Islamist fundamentalists. That's why they thrive so much on their mutual hatred. This is just human, these patterns are inherited from pre-human primate clan societies. They are not to be blamed, but they are to be prevented from dominating world politics. Millions of civilized and educated people of all nations show that human common sense can mitigate and overcome primate kneejerk clan aggression. Religion and nationhood are part of humanity's childhood. I do not think that as grown-ups we should belittle or repress our childhood. We should cherish it and draw strength from it. Healthy practice of religion and patriotism is like adults leading a good life before the backdrop of a happy childhood. Fundamentalists in positions of power are scary like grown-ups throwing toddlers' temper-tantrums. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

btw, I think what is ultimately behind this is the Indian general election, 2009. The BJP is going to capitalize on religious tensions and national mysticism in their bid to get back into power, and as a side-effect we'll get months of " ABCD" tech students trying to turn en-wiki into a propaganda platform. That's just how it goes, and we have the tools to deal with it. -- dab (𒁳) 08:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys!. Interesting read of the viewpoint of Dab and his WP majority demographic, actually no its just Dab doing most of the posting as usual. Remember Dab the more you try and propagate a viewpoint on WP by trying to make certain material appear more like the Westboro baptist church for example, and therefore easier to criticize and discredit, the more other/new editors are going to realize the game. The important thing to realize from all viewpoints is that Hindutva cannot be stereotyped with movements seen in the West. There are similarities and important differences that should not be underestimated. Trips ( talk) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

sure -- the game is WP:ENC, I'll be grateful if you're going to "realize" that soon. Bring on your WP:RS (in your case, academic, peer-reviewed Indological literature), but don't expect anyone to take your word for anything. -- dab (𒁳) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if everyone is aware of the discussions going on at [31]. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone feels up to looking at this - it starts "n ethnic group of people[2] native to mainly the Punjab region[3] of Northern India and Pakistan that have attributes of an ethnic group, tribe and a people.[4][5] The Jat people are considered by some to be the merged descendants of the original Indo-Aryans and a later addition of Indo-Scythian tribes of the region, merging to form the Jat people.[6] Others conclude a native Indo-Aryan lineage on the basis of ethnological, physical and linguistic standards[7][8][9][10][11][12]." Dubious references (I've removed one really racist one), and more of the Aryan race nonsense I tried to get rid of at Kashimiri people. I've been asked to do something about User talk:24.185.128.31 but (a) I am not an Admin and (b) I have to go make naan bread for dinner. Thanks. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is at a good standard at the moment and does not require any major changes. I'm just worried that these anons (including User talk:24.185.128.31) are going to just come along destroy all the hard work and turn it into a mess.-- James smith2 ( talk) 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"good standard"? Compared to what? It's a mess. Also Etymology of Jat which throws around some hilarious nonsense about a "Gothic etymology" of the name. I ask you. dab (𒁳) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the obvious mistake.-- James smith2 ( talk) 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one corner of the bottomless pit that is Wikipedia's Indian clan cruft. See also Category:Jat; Category:Kambojas; Category:Khatri clans; Category:Sakaldwipiya; Category:Brahmin communities; Category:Social groups of India. I grant you the topic is complex, but some people truly don't know where to draw the line in their enthusiasm for their ancestry (needless to say, these articles are all written by members of the respective groups). Probably unbeatable is Satbir Singh ( talk · contribs) and his epic coverage of the Kambojas (who get about two brief mentions in all of the Britannica). Devesh.bhatta ( talk · contribs) also deserves mention here. I've pretty much given up keeping track of these things until they start spilling beyond their walled gardens. dab (𒁳) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is what can be considered a sane encyclopedic coverage (from a hundred years ago), from the 1911 Britannica ("Some writers have identified the Jats with the ancient Getae, and there is strong reason to believe them a degraded tribe of Rajputs, whose Scythic origin has also been maintained. Hindu legends point to a prehistoric occupation of the Indus valley by this people, and at the time of the Mahommedan conquest of Sind (712) they, with a cognate tribe called Meds, constituted the bulk of the population.") Compare the coverage in the current Britannica,

"peasant caste of northern India and Pakistan. In the early 21st century the Jat constituted about 20 percent of the population of Punjab, nearly 10 percent of the population of Balochistan, Rajasthan, and Delhi, and from 2 to 5 percent of the populations of Sindh, Northwest Frontier, and Uttar Pradesh. The four million Jat of Pakistan are mainly Muslim by faith; the nearly six million Jat of India are mostly divided into two large castes of about equal strength: one Sikh, concentrated in Punjab, the other Hindu. The Muslim Jat in the western regions are organized in hundreds of groups tracing their descent through paternal lines; they are mostly camel herders or labourers. Those of India and of the Punjabi areas of Pakistan are more often peasant proprietors. Numerically, Jats form the largest percentage of the Sikh community and therefore vie for leadership of the faith with urban Khatris, the group to which all 10 Gurus (spiritual leaders of Sikhism) belonged. Some scholars attribute Sikh military tradition largely to its Jat heritage. The Jat first emerged politically in the 17th century and afterward, having military kingdoms such as Mursan in Uttar Pradesh, Bharatpur in Rajasthan, and Patiala in Punjab. Their sense of group solidarity, pride, and self-sufficiency have been historically significant in many ways. During the rule of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (late 17th century), for example, Jat leaders captained uprisings in the region of Mathura. A Jat kingdom established at nearby Bharatpur in the 18th century became a principal rival for declining Mughal power, its rulers apparently seeing themselves as defenders of Hindu ways against the Muslim Mughals."

(that's the full article).I daresay that their "sense of group solidarity [and] pride" is also responsible for Wikipedia's inability to come up with a decent article on them (holds for many other castes as well). To begin with, I would try adapt the "ethnic group of people" to something closer to Britannica's "a peasant caste of northern India and Pakistan" dab (𒁳) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of this data is from 1911 Britannica that is sourced from sources, which are almost 100 years old, non-secular and out of date (some of the sources are bias & a have a negative propaganda context). In short this is soo old (almost 100 years) and is written in non-secular & unscientific manner that it is heavily distorted and out-date. The current version borrows heavily from the old version. The whole article should use secular & scientific vocabulary (like it does now) instead of Hindu religious vocabulary as the many Jats who are non-Hindu or/and atheist. Improvement will be slow and be done in years. I agree on one point, which is lets just keep the anon away and leave it & let it rest.-- James smith2 ( talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

yes? I was not suggesting we use the 1911 text. The current text is, of course, more current, but then of course copyrighted. dab (𒁳) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thats for clarifying that. I will order 1-2 new good secular & scientific books on the Jats in the next 3 months and begin slow improvements, until then I'm not going to use up anymore time on this. Friend, I end with your advice, which I agree on, lets not waste anymore time on this, leave it & let it rest. Keep well, regards.-- James smith2 ( talk) 19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

dab what are the best sources for contemporary Indian society? I suggested on a talk page that we should be using works by Indian sociologists. Is that realistic, though? Do such works exist in English? Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tons, tons. The Jats are what Andre Beteille calls a "dominant caste" in certain areas of Northern India, and were among the first caste groups to organise effectively in modern India: see Charan Singh for their greatest success. Paul Brass and Rajni Kothari are the most respected authorities on caste mobilisation, and are of course extensively published in English. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, redlinks. So much left to do. Work by Christophe Jaffrelot, Ashutosh Varshney and Myron Weiner also exists. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

no, using "works by Indian sociologists" isn't realistic. Indian academia is fundamentally broken. It's all political and "communalist" (the Hindu zealots vs. the Muslim zealots vs. the Marxists). We need to base the gist of the article on tertiary sources (encyclopedias), and then flesh them out with whatever secondary sources we can find. -- dab (𒁳) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, there's enough reasonable people actually publishing. The ones above, for example, are all world-class. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Followed up on this, looking around a bit. Beteille, Jaffrelot, Varshney, Weiner and Kothari are none of them political. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

sure, I'll take your word for that. The problem is that the various partisans will always be able to come up with "secondary sources" with allegiance to their own faction, and endless "relative notability" quibbles will ensue. For this reason, it is important to have a solid foundation in a tertiary source. -- dab (𒁳) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking of Indian topics, I've got some motivated young men at History of Hinduism atm, dropping me vandalism warnings at this point, if anyone's interested. -- dab (𒁳) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a 3RR reminder. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for your replies even if they contradict at present. I want to get up to speed enough to be able to revert vandalism to these articles. When I first went to Reddy it was full of blatant BLP violations so I knew how make a start. But then I got stuck until a knowledgeable Indian editor came on the scene and had the confidence to delete a lot of junk. Should we be using Edgar Thurston and Raj-era censuses? Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be using the censuses directly, though there have been no post-Raj censuses that ask the respondent his caste. Even so, the censuses should be quoted by several more modern writers. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also {{ Sakaldwipiya}} and {{ Kambojas}}. We can be proud if we have full articles on obscure castes and tribes that only receive a brief mention in Britannica or any other print encyclopedia, but to have full navigation templates betwenn a dozen half-baked articles riddled with problems is beyond the reasonable even for a "work in progress". I have moved {{ Sakaldwipiya}} to {{ Ancient India and Central Asia}} in the past in the interst of sanity, but someone apparently felt they had to recreate it... Looking at the epic mess in articles like Brahmin communities, Brahmin gotra system etc. I really what is the problem with the Indian topics. We get a lot of people willing to invest a lot of work in them, but none of them appears to have any basic grasp of good editing, encyclopedicity or style. It's really quite exasperating. dab (𒁳) 09:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

stuff like this is really beyond the pale. So some joker decides to harp on the idea that " Sakaldwipiya are magi/magicians", listing random wicca literature ("True Magick: A Beginner's Guide") as "reference books", and we have to remain calm and friendly, treat this stuff with cultural relativism and respect? This attitude of "not biting the ethnic editors" annoys me to no end. The implication that "ethnic" people must be cut slack (" positive discrimination") because they aren't able to produce quality content is an expression of condescending western cultural hubris at its worst. I don't care where an editor is from. if they produce epic bullshit, we blank it. That's as it should be, and that's the only acceptable, "colour blind" approach. The same holds for Afrocentrism. If the white power idiots would produce the same sort of walled gardens in Wikipedia, the admin community would clamp down on them with cries of outrage, but of course it is different when it's "ethnic", isn't it. -- dab (𒁳) 10:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverse racism is also racism, but it's all too easy to jump to conclusions and end up being incivil when it wasn't called for. AGF and welcoming newbies still apply. Revert, explain, and then be firm, I suppose. Sakaldwipiya is appalling. I intervened on Dorje Shugden after a message here and now at least two reasonable people have arrived there. In contrast I got my fingers truly burnt on A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - caused perhaps in part by Anglo-American cultural misunderstanding. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm just tired of being called a racist and a Nazi for insisting on opposing all racism, including "reverse racism". It's difficult to remain "civil" when you're being ranted at by about the 50th newbie account pushing racial-national mysticism. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and BTW when I suggested "Indian sociologists" I didn't mean that I thought that only Indian writers were appropriate sources for India-related articles. Relata's list includes both Indian and Western names which is entirely as expected. My comment was born out of a frustrated sense that with all the rapid development of higher education in India there must be some people teaching sociology or social anthropology and outputting papers and books. In Wikiproject Vietnam we have a "list of resources", although they don't include academic books at present. Maybe you and Relata can add academic sources to the India wikiproject and/or relevant sub-projects. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the poor prose in Indian/caste related articles can be attributed to rising number of Indians who have a basic understanding of the English language but is still not at a level to write coherently for lengthy periods. The content tends to be just as hopeless however, and it is difficult to find out why. Perhaps most Indians learn about castes, etc. thourgh oral and local tradition rather than by reading books on the subject. Gizza ^{Discuss ©} 09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page of chav for the similarly unacademic nature of popular beliefs about UK society. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Koenraad Elst RS? Should we include this paragraph in the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut it a bit - there's no need for a whole extensive paragraph quoting Elst, but yes, I guess Elst is an RS for this sort of stuff. He does, after all, have a PhD in this sort of thing. He's much less of a RS for Out of India theory, Indo-Aryan migration, etc. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elst is quotable as a partisan author in Hindutva topics. "Noted Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst" is ridiculous. "Noted Belgian far-right journalist" is more like it. Giving a full paragraph of Elst ranting at critics is silly. We can state something like "In the opinion of Hindutva supporter Koenraad Elst, criticism of RSS is dishonest.[footnote with link to rant]". dab (𒁳) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are people aware of this? See [32]. The recent attempts to change Pseudoscience are related to this. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a synopsis? Thanks. Verbal chat 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements as to what should be called pseudoscience, some of the disagreement being about alternative medicine, faith healing, homeopathy.

I forgot that there is a big disagreement at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts with an attempt to delete a large number of subjects, eg pseudo-archaeology, ancient astronauts, etc. 45K worth of stuff. This article is under an ArbCom decision, by the way. I'm obviously suffering from recent lack of sleep since I meant to put this in originally. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why we do not need this sort of list article. I don't think anyone could show an encyclopedic reference containing a "list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", that's a pure on-wiki creation. I am opposed to this sort of thing on principle. We have categories for grouping Wikipedia articles. Lists that are in effect glorified category listings are harmful as a waste of the manpower necessary to maintain them. dab (𒁳) 07:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did some editing on the Kabbalah Centre article. The entire Teachings section [33] section contains some pretty amazing claims without any sourcing at all, and I wonder if that whole section should be deleted. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur ( talk · contribs) is still engaged in his mindless reverting to a claim of the first attestation of the Tamil language dating to 600 BC at List of languages by first written accounts. [34]

If this was argued in any way, it would be a fringe theory. As it is, no argument is presented in the first place, this is just a Tamil nationalist kid that escaped his long overdue block for some reason. If anyone was to build Thirusivaperur's argument for him (the first scattered evidence of writing in Sri Lanka dates to the date mentioned),I have placed the correct reply here in anticipation. dab (𒁳) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some recent changes to the article First Sex that are a bit too deferential to the book and its influence. Standard lines about "The controversy continues" and insinuations that critics are living off the patriarchy's largess. I'm no anthropologist and I've never read Gould Davis, so I don't feel competent to fix the article, but it would be swell if someone more qualified would give it a looking-at. (The article has been in a pretty sorry state for quite some time, in fact.) Thanks. Phiwum ( talk) 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is interesting. We've had both neo-paganism and second-wave feminism on this noticeboard before. I agree about the recent edits. The section "Influence and criticism" is currently too positive, insinuating a big misogynist conspiracy, when it seems pretty clear that the book is classic fringe theory material (though obviously notable). I like the bit about "those funded by institutions will never accept this" at the very end.

Anyway, the rest of the article isn't that bad. The last section just needs drastically cutting and bringing into line with scholarly consensus. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Morgaine did some good to the rest of the article. Also, the criticism material was pretty badly presented before her edits as well, so I can't say she's worsened the article. I just hope that it can be cleaned up a bit and presented more neutrally. (Morgaine emailed me for some reaction to her recent edits, so we can reasonably assume good faith here!) Phiwum ( talk) 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just finished a thorough copy-edit of the article. The criticism material was bad before Morgaine came in, but she made it worse (in the opposite direction), and inserted a lot of irrelevant and/or unsubstantiated cruft, not to mention several instances of blatant self-promotion, including a link to her personal web page, which is currently devoted to a call for the impeachment of George Bush. Anyway, being myself pretty impartial about this stuff, I believe I have mainly fixed the balance issues; we'll see how it fares. Looie496 ( talk) 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(update) There seems to be a new problem developing here, with an editor claiming a right-wing Christian male conspiracy to remove their edits and destroy the wiki with their anti-science. Could do with more eyes. I think I've engaged enough and don't want to get further involved with this editor. -- SesquipedalianVerbiage ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I've asked her for a quote but have also removed her edit with a list of alleged supporters which I am sure is being misused. This is a book whose librarian author "uses myth to posit the existence of an original, female-dominated civilization, possibly extraterrestrial, possibly on Atlantis, which spawned later, goddess-worshiping cultures, all eventually destroyed by male barbarians". It is fringe, badly cited, etc. I've added some material on the talk page people can use from a book by a female author and also have 2 reviews to look at. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please monitor the contributions of User:Lakinekaki especially at Process equation and Solar cycle where he is adding a lot of pseudoscience to articles about mainstream ideas in defiance of WP:WEIGHT and also his own conflict of interest. Also note that the user is building something of a walled garden to keep previously deleted articles promoting his pet ideas. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory

ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that ScienceApologist doesn't like my arguments in Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories and he started stalking my edits. Here are few examples:

• He lies about images not being free so to justify deleting them [35]
• He is doing original research and removing a sourced statement [36]
• He deletes a reference that bothers him without explanation [37]
• He erases citations search saying they are 'self-publication' which is not true [38]
• Then after I reverted his vandalism he changes the 'argument' and uses 'ad hominem' this time, quoting conflict of interest which is not true. Process equation was published before I even came to USA, or have heard of it. [39]
• Then he vandalizes another sourced paragraph in another page using his favorite word pseudoscience [40]

Update:*Again he sees my name and reverts the edit, without even knowing why and what I edited. [41] I fixed 404 error with the archived page. Lakinekaki ( talk) 19:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• And he also wants to delete my sub user page where people can add secondary sources for one deleted article, which was deleted because it didn't have secondary sources. User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory, User:Lakinekaki/Bios_theory_citations

And finally, he writes above '...promoting his pet ideas...', which is also false. Bios is NOT my idea. I happen to know about it, and like every other Wikipedia editor who finds that an article is missing on topic he know something about, I also get exited about being able to contribute.

Note that I tried to start bios article on two occasions before I had a WP account, as back then I was anonymous editor, AND back then I had just learned about bios. However, in time I learned more about WP rules, and have learned how to source material I add to WP, and that is how it stayed there for over 6 months, until the issue of secondary sources came up -- WP Notability policy evolved. Lakinekaki ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And finally, please warn ScienceApologist not to do any more vandalism, but to explain his actions on articles talk pages. Lakinekaki ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to 'walled garden', I really have no comment for that nonsense. Lakinekaki ( talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bios theory, and "Process Equation", are not pseudoscience: they are mathematical rather than scientific. They aren't spurious, either (like squaring the circle, etc), but there is nothing to make them notable, in my opinion. Looie496 ( talk) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as pseudomathematics, and "bios theory" qualifies most excellently in that department. It's Teilhard de Chardin's blatherings dressed up in jargon from dynamical systems theory. Just listen:

Mathematical recursions show that biotic patterns are generated by the recursion (action) of bipolar and bidimensional oppositions (e.g. sinusoidal waveforms) and conservation.

There is no meaningful sense in which sine waves are "bipolar and bidimensional oppositions". That's the language of, ahem, fractured ceramics. It's words made up and thrown together to sound good. And shortly thereafter, this is what "bios" guru Hector Sabelli is saying:

Thank you for the references. I had noticed the fact that E8 also produces a Mandala. My explanation of Manadalas in heart, Schrodinger equation, and primes (three places where we found them) is that they represent the rotation of harmonic opposites, meaning opposites such as sine and cosine that are bipolar and together form a quadrupole. This is the Bios Theory update of dialectics, as you can see a very physical and mathematical version of dialectics.

WTF? Dialectics, Hegelian, updated or otherwise, are not mathematics. The sine and cosine functions are not bipolar, and together they do not constitute a "quadrupole"; the Lie group E8 has nothing to do with Mandalas. Again, this is all just jargon — sound and fury, signifying nothing. Anville ( talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bios theory
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process equation
• Fringe theories policy discussion at wikimedia.org

for some relevant discussion. --- CH ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that someone take a look at the FairTax article and the associated sub articles. I've been trying to improve the article and the primary editors will use any claim as long as they can point a reference link at it. While I'm fine with that for the sections on the history of the bill and the social movement behind it the majority of the article is specific predictions of economic activity and when I trace back through the references to find the actual source calculations I find nothing, just bare assertions with no indication of method or models used. After going through the links it appears that only one economist has ever published on the matter, on the pro side and those articles seem to be the source for few if any later citations by other authors. No professional economist has published anything critical of the bill that I can find which makes making the article less of an ad for the group that wrote the bill somewhat challenging. After going over the wikipedia rules it appears to me that the economic prediction parts of this article falls under the WP:FRINGE policy but an outside opinion would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbs666 ( talk • contribs)

As one of the editors in discussion with Kbs666, I thought I would comment. The FairTax (a WP:FA) has had 2 NYT bestsellers written about it and was a notable tax position debated in the U.S. 2008 presidential election. The article is about that specific topic and does not fall under fringe. Sources follow the verifiability policy. With regard to the economists, Kbs666 is incorrect. There are many economists that have researched the plan - here are some.. Tuerck, David G.; Haughton, Jonathan; Bachman, Paul; Sanchez-Penalver, Alfonso; Viet Ngo, Phuong; Jokisch, Sabine; Rapson, David; Auerbach, Alan J, Burton, David; Mastromarco, Dan; Walby, Karen; Altig, David; Smetters, Kent A. ; Walliser, Jan; Bhattarai, Keshab; Jacob, Sylvia; Dinwoodie, Sara; Bartlett, Bruce, Gale, William; Diamond, John W.; Zodrow, George R, Fox, William F.; Murray, Matthew N., a group at Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, and numerous universities. Morphh ^(talk) 1:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That article sucks big time. Sucks sucks sucks. As has been pointed out by numerous people on the talk page, it presents almost exclusively positive arguments (at astonishing length) for a proposal that pretty much everybody except extreme right-wingers sees as very radical and very unfair. User:Morphh and others who agree with him/her have strongly resisted any attempt to make it to make it more representative of other views. It is useful to compare this article with flat tax, which describes a similar concept in a much more acceptable way. Looie496 ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a featured article and was featured on Wikipedia's mainpage. Editors who have problems with this article usually are arguing and debating against the topic as opposed to the article. They argue over specific policies and then say that the policy is wrong or false. They may also cite a particular sentence and then say that the whole article is POV or someother taboo. I happen to disagree with the topic but I think the article is not subject to POV or Fringe issues that would tank the article as it is. An editor had a big problem with the article and thought the article was fringe, so I suggested posting the article to this notice page so that the editor may get an outside opinion. The fringe argument centers on sources tied to proponents of the legislation originating from those involved with the topic of the article (like Congresspersons) or those who are proponents of the topic. However, there is also a substantial presence of sourced counter-arguments. This article endeavors to be on the topic of the proposed FairTax legislation and includes who is against it and who is for it and why and what arguments each side uses. EECavazos ( talk) 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuts. The intro isn't too bad, but the rest is 10 pages of snow designed to obscure the simple fact that the main effect of this plan would be to greatly reduce the taxes paid by millionaires, while spreading the burden among other people, mainly the middle class. The article is full of propaganda and weasel words. Looie496 ( talk) 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing the topic. I disagree with the tax and its principles. But whether you or I disagree with the tax is not the point. The point is the article and whether the sources it uses constitutes fringe. This is a noticeboard on fringe, not whether the topic negatively affects the middle-class, "sucks", or is "unfair" or supported by "right-wingers." Lets stick to the point. EECavazos ( talk) 06:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is fringe. The support base for flat tax proposals is very narrow, consisting mainly of the very wealthy and people who want to please them. Most politicians keep quiet because they don't want to offend wealthy donors, but I believe the great majority see proposals of this type as misguided and politically impossible. But regardless of that, we shouldn't be wikilawyering. The underlying purpose of all these notice boards is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia, and this article, by being written in a deliberately misleading way, damages that integrity. Looie496 ( talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please identify which sources you think are fringe? Stating what you think about the topic is debating the topic and not discussing the article or whether its sources are fringe. Debating the topic is not the purpose of notice boards or wikipedia. We should try to uphold the integrity of wikipedia by discussing whether the sources are fringe rather than make arguments on our political beliefs. Debating the topic like speculating that politicians don't want to offend wealthy donors, the only support for the topic comes from the very wealthy or people who somehow want to please them, and speculating that the article is deliberating misleading is not constructive. Constructive would be a discussion on the sources and whether they are fringe. What do you think about the sources? WP:FRINGE makes note that articles on fringe-y topics are okay as long as the article uses non-fringe sources to discuss the topic. Are the sources fringe and no companion-sources distinguish them? This process is not wikilawyering. It is the minimum necessary diligence required for a constructive comment. The absence of proper diligence is laziness. If you see that the article relies on fringe sources, and those sources are not bolstered or distinguished or disagreed with by non-fringe sources then please identify those fringe sources. EECavazos ( talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of Fringe is not picking at individual sources. They follow the policy of WP:V. The FairTax is not a theory, it's a bill in Congress. The topic has been published in mainstream news (CBS, NBC, FOX), print (WSJ, NYT), tax journals, and other books that study general tax policy. A sales tax and consumption taxes in general (VAT, GST, ect) are not a new method of taxation and the economics behind them are not fringe science. The sources under discussion are two third party published NYT bestsellers (one spent 7 weeks as #1) that are on the article topic, along with academic research on the plan from universities and economic institutions. Public support of a particular piece of legislation (which is unmeasured at this point) is not a means to determine Fringe. Morphh ^(talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, a "fringe theory" is something along the line of "the earth is flat" or "the moon is made of green cheese" or a tax protester argument such as "no law makes me liable for a U.S. federal income tax." I agree with editors EECavazos and Morphh. The article in question is about the FairTax, an actual proposal to change U.S. tax laws. The proposal has been referenced in the Washington Post, in the Boston Globe, at CNN and other places. I do not support the FairTax itself and I don't edit the Wikipedia article very much, but I agree that the subject of the article is not a "fringe theory" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Debates about the verifiability of sources used in the article, about the neutral point of view of the article, and about other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, are properly handled in the talk page for the article itself -- which is where those kinds of questions have been handled. The argument that the article covers a "fringe theory" is not, in my view, tenable. This noticeboard on "fringe theories" does not seem to be the proper place to be discussing the merits of the article. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the bill or the social movement around it. I'm concerned with the enormous number of positive claims about economic results of the implementation of the bill. These claims, when traced back to the references provided almost never provide any details as to how these numbers were arrived at. I've repeatedly mentioned that almost the entirety of these claims are simple assertions quoted in the article as if they were in any way factual. Because no one outside of the libertarian world even takes the idea seriously virtually no studies have been done by economists uninvolved in the social movement. Which allows some of the editors involved to argue that the claims should be allowed in the article since no contrary claims exist. Which is what the WP:FRINGE policy is supposed to prevent. I'm saying that due to the fact that no mainstream economists have challenged the claims presented is not sufficient cause to allow those assertions to be presented as facts or presented at all. IMO the article would be better trimmed down to a history of the bill and a section on the movement with the 3 subarticles making specific economics claims deleted. Let interested parties go to AFFT's website for the biased stuff that shouldn't be here in the first place. Kbs666 ( talk) 21:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been studies done by those outside of the social movement. Here is one from the JCT that shows positive economic growth under such a tax model. [42] As far as only Libertarians taking it seriously, it was the major platform for former presidential nominee Mike Huckabee (R) and Mike Gravel (D), as well as being supported by many other nominees. The plan has criticism, which we detail in the article. With regard to economic growth, is it so difficult to believe that a plan that removed taxes on business, broadens the tax base, and untaxes savings and investment would boost economic growth? We have sources that suggest that virtually all economists agree on these points. We have other sources that say the superiority in this area is "conventional wisdom". The economist that have studied the microeconomic and macroeconomic effects of such a plan suggest economic growth. It is seems likely that many economists that research it just agree that such a model would have positive effects on the economy, which is what the sources state. [User:Morphh|Morphh]] ^(talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The JCT study was done in 1997. The FairTax plan didn't exist in 1997. Now you're arguing that common sense indicates growth would occur. Unfortunately for you my common sense says the exact opposite. That's why neutral third parties are vital to quality science and is the problem with the article in question. As to the "virtually all economists agree" gambit you already tried this. You have no evidence to suggest more than about a hundred economists have even heard of it and most of that number comes from an open letter whose validity has been called into question by another editor. As to the supposed research we've been over this ground seemingly ad infinitum, assertions that reference other assertions with no indication of how the figures are arrived at and without peer review to indicate that the authors were able to satisfy other experts as to their methods are not a good reference when presented as if they were facts. I'm hoping for some other independent opinions on the matter which would hopefully settle the matter. Kbs666 ( talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While that document is not sourced in the article, it is used by proponents as an example where similar consumption taxes have shown economic growth. It is similar to opponents using the NRF study on the Individual Tax Freedom Act or Tax Panel's hybrid tax. We discuss both in the article. As far as economists agreeing, we don't have to prove each one - we have sources that make the statement and we attribute the sources. You would need to have some source of data that disagrees with this assessment to then include that. It is clear that what you require from source data and what Wikipedia requires is different. You can be sure that we'll be following the policy of Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The FairTax is a fringe theory in the sense of WP:Fringe -- it "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". It is difficult to find much public academic discussion of it. Most of the published material consists of position papers by proponents, some of whom work in right-wing think tanks. (And the FairTax books, of course.) There is, however, one excellent resource: the recommendations published by the US Official Tax Reform Panel in 2005, which explicitly considered this plan, among others. [43] They placed the FairTax plan in the category "what landed on the cutting room floor", and wrote:

      A Houston-based conservative group has recently advocated replacing all federal income taxes
     (as well as the payroll tax) with a retail sales tax, which it characterizes as the Fair Tax.18
     Recognizing that, by itself, a RST would impose an unacceptable burden on low-income
     families, advocates of the Fair Tax have proposed packaging the RST with a “prebate,” a lump-
     sum payment to all families intended to offset the burden of the RST on low-income families.
     Proponents of the plan have not stressed its distributional effects at the opposite end of the
     income distribution – substantial reductions in tax burdens, broadly similar to those that would
     occur under a Flat Tax. The panel notes that under the RST the share of total taxes paid by the
     five percent of families with the highest incomes would fall from 58.6 percent to 37.4 percent.19
     It would seem difficult to characterize the resulting system as “appropriately progressive.”
         In rejecting the RST as a viable reform option, the panel noted these problems:
       1. In the absence of the prebate, the replacement RST would violate the requirement that
           tax reform options be “appropriately progressive.”
       2. A prebate program designed to offset the burden on low-income families would cost
           an estimated $600-780 billion annually, making it by far the largest entitlement
           program in history.
       3. The required sales tax rate would be at least 34 percent – far higher than state sales
           tax rates and VAT rates found in Europe – and probably much higher, once statutory
           base erosion and evasion are considered.
       4. The federal administrative burden would be similar to that of the income tax.
       5. If states continued to levy income taxes, taxpayers would experience little
           simplification, and complexity might actually increase as states could no longer rely
           on the administrative efforts of the federal Internal Revenue Service.
       6. A targeted cash grant program, in which payments were phased out as income rose,
           would require calculations of income similar to those under the income tax.

This paper is not cited in the article. Looie496 ( talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as your Fringe comment regarding departing from mainstream, the FairTax is very similar to Flat tax and VAT plans used across the world. The main difference is the collection point. The relevant criticisms in the article you presented are discussed in the article and normally sourced directly to the Tax panel study, which was not a study of the FairTax but a RST hybrid (it did not replace regressive payroll taxes). Their study also had multiple versions, one included a prebate (like the FairTax), one didn't (as noted by #1), one used an expanded tax base (like the FairTax), one didn't. It is clearer in the tax panel study, which is sourced 8 times. I can add it as a secondary source though, and will read through it to see if any additional information should be included. Morphh ^(talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tax panel study is actually not sourced in the article (unless I missed it), only a rebuttal to it. The panel did consider several versions, but their aim in doing so was to exhaustively evaluate the FairTax proposal -- their report mentions FairTax by name. (The tax panel report can be found at [44]. Chapter 9 is devoted to the FairTax concept.) Looie496 ( talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The study is included as a source - it is #6. The FairTax is only mentioned with regard to the rate and the tax base in the study. The panel study makes no claim they are studying the FairTax, this is your assumption. Everything else is an analysis of their hybrid tax, which we did cover in the FairTax article. We even included points on the tax distribution, even though it excludes the replacement of a regressive tax that 80% of the U.S. population pay more of (a major part of the plan - about 1/3 of the tax). Morphh ^(talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion is continuing to wander off on some tangents. The tangents consists of (1) the debate over the validity of the economic theory underlying the FairTax proposal, (2) the debate over how the sources are currently being used in the article, and (3) the neutral point of view of the article. Those debates are more properly presented in the talk page for the article itself. For example, arguing that the economic theories behind the FairTax proposal are "fringe" theories would not be the purpose of this noticeboard -- even if those economic theories were indeed "fringe." The FairTax proposal itself is not a "fringe theory"; it's not a "theory" at all. The FairTax is a proposal for a change in the tax law.

User Kbs666 says:

I'm not concerned with the bill or the social movement around it. I'm concerned with the enormous number of positive claims about economic results of the implementation of the bill.

This illustrates my point about the tangents. You are essentially arguing that the underlying theories are "fringe." Fine. But this noticeboard is about the article itself. The article is about the FairTax proposal, a "bill" -- not merely the "positive claims about the economic results" of the proposal. My advice would be: Take this discussion to the talk page for the article. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From the top of this page "Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."" Which means its fine with presenting all the details about the bestselling books and other movement factors but it isn't ok to spend the majority of the primary article and 3 subarticles presenting fringe claims as factual. This isn't a tangent. The tangent is acting like this discusssion is any different from a multitude of other issues being discussed right here. No one is considering deleteing the entire set of articles on Hindu even though some editors are putting up lots of fringe claims. What is happening is that people are making sure proper attention is paid to articles which are on fringe topics, like FairTax, or that attract fringe claims, like Hindu. As to discussing on the articles talk page It took the better part of two weeks to get 3 sentences deleted/corrected and 2 self published books removed from the further reading section and in one case an editor continues to insist that a clearly biased and wrong claim was ok. Without drawing some outside attention the article will remain a lengthy press release for AFFT rather than an encyclopedia article. Kbs666 ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, it's your opinion that they are fringe theories. Second, they are not being presented as fact but as the opinion or conclusion of the individuals referenced. Morphh ^(talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not matter whether the Fair Tax was a Fringe Theory or not. The WP:FRINGE guideline states:

• A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

Even if we define the Fair Tax as being Fringe, it was extensively covered in a serious manner by multiple mainstream sources. It thus clearly meets our requirements for notability. In other words, while it may be Fringe, it is Notable Fringe and it is appropriate for us to have an article about it. Now, it sounds like there might be WP:NPOV issues related to how the article is written (although it seems fairly well ballanced to me, I do admit to not being an expert on the subject)... if so, that is remedied by editing the article to give it balance, not by complaining here. Essentially, this is not a WP:FRINGE issue. Blueboar ( talk) 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As the very first line of this page says, this noticeboard is "a place to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories". So that's what this is about. And that's what I argue is happening. I am presently going to attempt some editing on the page, but I know from harsh experience that my edits are likely to be immediately reverted, so it is necessary to lay the groundwork here first. There is no argument about whether the FairTax is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article: it certainly is. The argument is about whether the article gives sufficient weight to mainstream views. In my opinion, it doesn't, not even close. Looie496 ( talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about general taxation, it's not about Taxation in the United States, or any of the sub U.S. tax articles. The article is specifically about the FairTax, which includes research about the plan and criticism of the plan. This article is not about "mainstream views", whatever that entails since consumption taxes are used all over the world. If we have notable criticism of the plan that is not included, than please provide the sources and we can work on including it. As stated above though, I think we can move past the WP:FRINGE challenge. Morphh ^(talk) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the kind offer, but I wouldn't want to put you to all that trouble. I'm quite happy to do some editing myself. I have started by adding a short paragraph summarizing the Tax Reform Panel findings (the most authoritative of mainstream views) to the article intro. Looie496 ( talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not the place for a detailed paragraph on a tax panel study that is not even on the FairTax. It is to summarize the article and provide the main points that are later discussed in the article. The main points made in the study are included in the lead (rate, evasion, tax distribution, etc). Morphh ^(talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take the discussion back to the article's Talk page... You are now discussing issues that do not relate to this noticeboard. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Morphh ^(talk) 14:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you read correctly. In case you haven't heard of this (and I'm assuming the frequenters of this noticeboard have heard of almost everything), it's, well, what it sounds like. I just made several edits there: deleted a section of medical claims referenced to a source called INeedCoffee.com (seriously), changed a section title from "How it works" to "Claims of effectiveness" and a few other NPOV and spelling cleanups. I'm bringing this here because I don't intend adding the article to my watchlist. Arguing with someone about whether squirting mountain grown Folger's French roast up one's poop chute might have beneficial medical effects is just a more loathsome experience than I'm prepared to contemplate at this juncture of my temporal existence. Consequently, I'm requesting that others keep an eye on the article. Also, a quick look at Max Gerson and Gerson therapy might not be such a bad idea. I haven't really looked them over myself and don't know if they have problems.-- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have two articles on BOTH Max Gerson and Gerson therapy. I made a bold judgment that the biography was probably a more natural article than the therapy since the therapy will be prone to lots of legacy-promoters spamming their wares and it is difficult to decide who owns Gerson's approach now that he'd dead. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the sourcing situation some...It's amazing what people will put up their butts. — Scien tizzle 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Efforts to rewrite the Kenneth Lay article, presenting the theory that he faked his death, have returned. -- Allen3  ^talk 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At List of minority-opinion scientific theories a known alternative medicine POV-pusher is trying to claim that various pseudoscientific ideas are actually minority opinions within science because there is a peer-reviewed paper on the subject in an out-of-the-way journal. I let him know on his user talk page that the criteria for inclusion should be that the idea has been described as a legitimate theory within science by someone who does not accept the idea. Since there are thousands of journals, it isn't too hard to get any and all crazy ideas published by somebody. That does not make the idea a "minority opinion" within the scientific community. I would appreciate it if people here would watch this article carefully: a lot of POV-pushing seems to be rampant there.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does this criterion come from SA? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I'd like to know that as well - it seems like a pretty senseless criterion to me. -- Ludwigs2 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's a criterion with consensus behind it, but it certainly isn't senseless. If a theory has a rational basis, scientists that subscribe to other theories will describe how their theory fits the facts better or makes different predictions.
Kww ( talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww - there's a pronounced difference between a theory having a 'rational basis' and a theory having an 'evidentiary basis' - this is really at the heart of how science works. plenty of theories are advanced every year within mainstream science that are perfectly rational (from within their own set of assumptions) and yet still fail to gather any effective evidence in their favor. often those theories continue to be pushed by their supporters long past the point where other researchers would have given up; occasionally they eventually turn up enough evidence to merit reconsideration. the fact that certain AltMed procedures do eventually become mainstream procedures is proof enough that this criterion cannot be quite correct. even some decidedly fringe ideas (like abiogenic petroleum) have strong rational bases - they just have no evidentiary support, and get rejected on those grounds. -- Ludwigs2 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no need to discuss them in an encyclopedia before they become mainstream ones. We aren't a leader in thought, nor a site intended to present leading edge material. If something has a rational basis and evidentiary support, it will eventually become mainstream, and we can discuss it then. This is especially true with a field like alternative medicine, where the vast majority of treatments range from useless to deadly. Even the useless ones can be argued to be dangerous, because they prevent the gullible from seeking real medical treatment.
Kww ( talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww - you missed my point. I was trying to tell you that something can be perfectly rational and still be incorrect, and if so it should be presented as exactly that: rational in its own terms, but incorrect. you are exactly correct that wikipedia is not a leader in thought, and so your OR assertion that "the vast majority of [AM] treatments range from useless to deadly" has no place here. when a treatment (conventional or alternative) is identified as dangerous by the medical community, we can report that. when a treatment (conventional or alternative) is clearly identified as useless, we can report that as well. but most AM procedures are simply untested, with no pronounced history of causing harm and a degree of experiential evidence that they do some good. they are rational in their own terms, without scientific evidence that supports or refutes them. why do you have a problem presenting them that way? -- Ludwigs2 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with presenting things this way is that it subtly misrepresents how science (or at least medicine) works. Researchers don't go around looking for untested claims to refute. The assumption is that a treatment is no better than placebo. The burden of proof requires someone to actually do a solid, rigorous experiment demonstrating safety and efficacy. Very few alternative treatments are conclusively "refuted" by scientific evidence, because that's not the direction that medical science takes. If you want to accurately represent the scientific/medical "mainstream" view, then these treatments should be presented as presumed ineffective until proven otherwise, not just "untested". Once someone actually shows convincingly that they might do some good, then they may or may not be "refuted" by subsequent studies.

It doesn't make sense to demand upfront proof of "refutation" by medical science, and doing so just leads to a proliferation of crap articles which say: "Snakeoil.com reports that the mango juice enema treatment(TM) has a 100% success rate in metastatic cancer; these data hvae not been confirmed or refuted by the medical community." MastCell  ^Talk 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I agree with MastCell on this. To amplify, to simply allow "untested" claims would allow any number of crackpot claims to achieve apparent legitimacy.
Kww ( talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some significant changes have been proposed at WP:FRINGE. Input from a larger segment of the community is needed. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Rastafari has no sources. Is this a legitimate phenomenon and is it notable enough to be separate from Rastafari?

Also, see the main Rastafarianism article. A lot of rastafarian theology is presented as fact and the article is more of a sermon than an encyclopedia entry.

Perfect example from the main article:

Rastafari is not a highly organized religion; it is a movement and an ideology. Many Rastas say that it is not a "religion" at all, but a Way of Life.

Also:

Today, Rastas are not just Black African, but also include other diverse ethnic groups including Native American, White, Māori, Indonesian, Thai, etc.

The article is a treasure trove of bullshit. ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't mean to demean Rastafari or claim Rastafari itself is B.S.. I'm saying the article is B.S.. -- just in case that wasn't clear.

Also, another thing I've noticed: The article puts forth the fringe theory that the word, cannabis, is derived from the Hebrew "qaneh bosom." ☯   Zenwhat ( talk) 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Rastafarianism. The persecution article is separate to fit inot the series of persecution of religious phenomena articles which is standard WP practice. I certainly disagree that the Rastafari movement article violates POV, it does not preswent rastafari as fact but it does present what rastas believe in. Why is this on the fringe noticeboard. To the best opf my knowledge no Rastas or people with rasta afarian beliefs have edited the article in the last year or so. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a shittonne of unrelated stuff about fluorosis from the Water fluoridation conspiracy theory. More eyes would help! ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Formerly Water fluoridation opposition. - Eldereft ( cont.) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So far no references on the conspiracy theory. I agree that it would be nice if some people would be willing to objectively look at the content. In the wake of the 2000 systematic review published in the BMJ which was "unable to find any high-quality reliable evidence for fluoridation", the BMJ editorial on the subject noted that the cost-benefit ratio had seemingly declined substantially; the editor commented that he was content to get his fluoride from toothpaste. [45] SciAm ran an article in 2007 noting that "expert opinion may be changing", and China has avoided fluoride after several epidemiological studies found an inverse correlation with IQ. There's evidence that it increases the leaching of lead from brass pipes. [46], which is why a couple studies have highlighted this aspect. [47] So far there's not been one person willing to objectively engage these studies, and ScienceApologist removed them all. If there's anyone with an open mind who's willing to read papers, they'd be refreshing among all these closed minds. II | ( t - c) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus for the page move, so I have undone it. For any future controversial page moves, please go through WP:RM, thanks. -- El on ka 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From reviewing the page move, while I disagree with the move, it wasn't "controversial" and can (and appear to have been) be dealt with via WP:BRD. Shot info ( talk) 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We need some incredulous people at Talk:Atropa belladonna who are willing to combat a severe amount of ignorance.

I have two editors who don't belong at Wikipedia tendentiously and disruptively attempting to justify terrible sources (per WP:REDFLAG) about atropa belladonna. I need help. No one is paying attention to this issue.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 alternative theories. Read. Weep. Try to fix.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it as a severe lack of independent sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see the problem. The article seems neutral as to whether any of the conspiracy theories are true. Not clear that this topic is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, but if it is, how else could the article be written? (SA, please give a little more thought to your subject headings and edit summaries.) Looie496 ( talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is fine. It's the list of really obscure ideas that probably defy notability that cause consternation. Has anyone actually noticed half of these proposals anywhere other than Wikipedia? As Ronz points out, we need independent sources in order to verify the prominence of these ideas. ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "alternative theories" not a bit of a weaselly phrase? We are talking about conspiracy theories here. I'm inclined to invoke WP:SPADE here. If we use 9/11 conspiracy theories, we can surely use the same terminology for Flight 800 conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the article discusses more than just the conspiracy theories. It is certainly full of fringe theories... and most of these are conspiracy theories... but not all. I don't think we can rename to "TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories" unless we cut the theories that don't involve a conspiracy. Blueboar ( talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysical parallelism has been changed rather drastically lately. The article is about a concept in psychophysics, which is part of psychology. One editor has attempted to hijack the content and add stuff from an article he already had deleted. Now, this may not sound too fringey, yet, the stuff he adds (and from his former article) are pretty far out there. I ask that people take a look. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysical parallelism has nothing to do with psychophysics or psychology, it's pure philosophy. It's the idea that mind and body parallel each other without causally interacting. This is weird stuff, and any accurate description of it is going to look pretty bizarre. Even so, the fact that the idea came from Leibniz, and is well-known even if rarely taken seriously, makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. The biggest problem, though, is that the article is too ungrammatical and incoherent to make much sense of. Looie496 ( talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I figure it has to do with psychology because of the whole mind body problem and such, and I have, on the talk page, tried pointing out that it is about psychology and philosophy. The other editor is claiming it should be part of the physics wikiproject. He also thinks it is well about all of science it seems. Thanks for looking, it is appreciated. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit too credulous account of a conspiracy theory, with claims like "Between 1982 and 1990 twenty-five British based GEC-Marconi scientists and engineers... are known to have died in mysterious circumstances." Suicide is mysterious? I'd like some more attention on this. Phiwum ( talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there were some coincidences strange enough to generate a few newspaper stories in the 1980s, but this doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and in any case the article as written is 95% OR. I think it should be deleted. Looie496 ( talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but 9 newspaper articles, a magazine article, and a book devoted entirely to these deaths seems notable to me. It certainly satisfies the letter of notability. It seems likely that the article is basically repeating the sentiments expressed in these sources, meaning no OR. It would be better to change the "known" to "believed". II | ( t - c) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper articles, all dating from 1987-88, are not sufficient to establish notability; the magazine article is from Hustler; the external links are trash; the book is nearly impossible to obtain or find out anything about -- it looks like it was probably vanity-published, but at best was a paperback throwaway, from a small publisher that went out of business the same year it was published (1990). This is just another one of the thousands of senseless conspiracy theories that float around. Looie496 ( talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the articles were from 87-88 is irrelevant. They establish notability as a historical event. 9 articles is a fair amount. Anyway, take it to AfD if you're really all that bothered by it. II | ( t - c) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What mainly bothers me is that the article is chock full of unsourced assertions. They may derive from the book, but since the book is pretty much unobtainable (Amazon shows 2 used copies at a min price of $100), there's no reasonable way of checking. When I talk about notability here, what I really mean is that the topic is not notable enough to make the article worth trying to fix. Looie496 ( talk) 00:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A pile of conspiracy theory. It is obviously intended to make it seem like a grand conspiracy is at work throughout the whole article from the title on out. This is a fringe case and a blatant view push of such a degree that it could be held up as a perfect example of such problems. Vassyana ( talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article and made a pass at rewriting the lede and overview sections. It needs further verification and drastic work. "It exists", despite the ridiculous conception of notability as such, is not notability and does not automatically clear a topic for inclusion. I strongly doubt the notability of the topic, as sources existing is not sufficient if the topic still would create an article inappropriate for Wikipedia. We're not a tabloid and tabloid-esque coverage is specifically something that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Assistance from people familiar with conspiracy theory issues on-wiki would be vastly appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Submitted to AfD here. Let's see what the community thinks... Verbal chat

Because the previous discussion of this article was long and confusing, let me summarize the current situation as I see it. The article is dominated by a fringe group (proponents of the FairTax proposal), and is strongly weighted against more mainstream views, represented most clearly by the 2005 report of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform [48]. As a first step toward balancing the article, I added a short paragraph to the lead, as follows:

In 2005, President George Bush established an advisory panel on tax reform, chaired by former senators Connie Mack III and John Breaux. As part of its task, this panel examined several variants of the FairTax proposal in detail. Chapter 9 of their final report was devoted to an evaluation of proposals of this type. The panel concluded that some of the calculations underlying the FairTax plan are based on incorrect assumptions, and that several concerns, including difficulties of enforcement and administration, made it undesirable to recommend a plan of this type.

As I expected, this edit was immediately reverted, by Morphh. Past experience leads me to believe that it is a waste of time to attempt to improve this article without help from an administrator. Looie496 ( talk) 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not a fringe issue and should not be discussed here. I feel I should respond though. There are not "several variants of the FairTax proposal", there is only one proposal, which the tax panel did not evaluate. WP:LEAD requires the it to be a concise summary of the article. We should not mention particular studies in the lead, only basic points of view, which the lead already does. Such detail on one particular study (that's not even a study of the actual plan) gives vast undue weight over other studies (that are studies of the actual plan). Looie496 has not shown that this is the "mainstream" view or that any other view is "fringe". Morphh ^(talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my first request for assistance, any and every attempt at making this article less of a cheerleader for this bill has been met with absolute refusal or immense amounts of arguing. There is a multiple post back and forth where Morphh argues the definition of 'most.' The article and subarticles repeatedly makes specific claims about economics and when those are questioned, some are provablly wrong or deceptive, I'm met with the 'no rebuttal evidence is available' argument which is frequently cited by the editors arguing that side is due to the subject being fringe. It was only when I started saying that all these claims violated WP:FRINGE that those editors started claiming this wasn't a fringe idea. In the several weeks I've been aware of and working on this issue many other editors have made comments that they are unsatisfied with the article's bias but with the entrenched editors absolutely refusing to budge and those of us looking to improve the article being too well behaved to start an edit war nothing can get improved. An administrator or other binding process seems the only possible resolution. Kbs666 ( talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, it does not matter if this is Fringe or not. Since it has been extensively discussed by the mainstream media, in Congress, and by enconomic experts, it really does not fall within the scope of the WP:FRINGE guideline, nor this noticeboard. If there are NPOV issues, raise them at WP:NPOV... otherwise your debate must be hammered out at the article talk page. But this is not the correct venue. Blueboar ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design has been discussed in the mainstream media and in Congress but wikipedia doesn't present those claims as factual. The FairTax articles present voluminous claims despite the lack of mainstream review of those claims. While the article should exist those sections making economic claims are violations of WP:FRINGE and should be deleted or rewritten. Kbs666 ( talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

there still needs to be enough to explain what it is. DGG ( talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't look that bad. The tax evasion/enforcement is the biggest hurdle, and it is clearly mentioned in the lead. The other problem is that it won't actually collect as much revenue, and that is also mentioned in the lead. The Advisory committee is not powerful enough to add to the lead, and I'm sure it could be added to the body of the article. II | ( t - c) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. The article is extremely inappropriately weighted, with a vast amount of material sourced to non-peer-reviewed partisan work and from working papers of one or two major proponents of the idea. The fact that this is a notable political proposal does not mean that the actual economic benefits have been studied as part of mainstream public finance (and as such, is appropriate for this board). I'd fix it, except its clearly WP:OWNed by someone. Relata refero ( disp.) --07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Kotlikoff is not exactly outside of the mainstream. Do you have any evidence that they've cut out RS added to the body of the article? II | ( t - c) 08:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of FRINGE articles is that mainstream sources rarely address the particular points made by proponents. In this case, I don't see any peer-reviewed work by this particular economist cited. As I said, "vast amount of material sourced to non-peer-reviewed partisan work and from working papers of one or two major proponents of the idea". -- Relata refero ( disp.) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales taxes are a mainstream tax policy in the U.S., as well as around the world. Economic growth is one of the primary points of a consumption tax, which is supported by many mainstream economists. Money Magazine states "the superiority of consumption taxes is almost conventional wisdom these days." What if there is nothing to "address"? What if it is just economically a more efficient tax as all the sources suggest? Economists disagree on how much growth but this is one area that is going to be positive point for the plan. Not everything is criticized and we need present their point of view and research. We've attributed and sourced the points. We tried to source direct studies of the plan but if you want more sources that address the mainstream economic theory, we can do that. Here is a source where it states that Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his support to an overhaul of the U.S. tax code and said some form of a consumption tax — such as a national sales tax — could help the economy: [49] "As you know, many economists believe that a consumption tax would be best from the perspective of promoting economic growth — particularly if one were designing a tax system from scratch — because a consumption tax is likely to encourage saving and capital formation". I could add many sources on more general research but it seems more appropriate to describe the particular economic studies of this plan. The economics are not fringe theories just because they haven't been criticized. Morphh ^(talk) 3:30, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite peer-reviewed articles about this plan, please, not general points about consumption taxes, which are certainly studied by the mainstream. Address the claims to revenue-neutrality and progressivity, as well as simplicity, directly, please. I notice this strange boosterism has spread to our articles on Consumption tax, for example. This is worrying. There is absolutely no reason for a minor political proposal specific to America to be mentioned in a general article. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This article could do with some help. The "oral tradition" section for some reason has an anti-science/medicine calypso songs lyrics within it, while the (admittedly awful and biased) "modern connotations" section has now been blanked. All of the sections need some work, and this article doesn't really leave you any the wiser about Traditional Medicine (although I did learn a bit about Martin Luther after following some links) Verbal chat 09:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Over the past couple weeks, a small but vocal (gee, go figure!) contingent of editors has been repeatedly acting to remove Category:Denialism and/or insert Category:Exposé from the Great Global Warming Swindle article. A small sampling of diffs: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (with that diff citing a 7-4 "vote" as consensus, reminds me of someone) [55] [56]. As this, a hokey British "documentary" (in "scare quotes", naturally) allegedly "disproving" global warming using bad science and dishonest methodology, is by now the deadest of dead issues (all the cool kids are over at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed), it's rather tricky to establish a howling Zerg rush of opposition on the talk page, which is pretty much the only thing these editors respond to (any one person, especially the particular one person who's making this post, tends to be ignored amongst the series of ridiculous straw polls and glorified back-patting). I'm up against 3RR, and quickly running thin(ner?) on WP:CIVILity. More eyes and perhaps a few more eloquent voices than myself would be a good thing. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who feels an urge to get involved here might benefit from glancing first at this: [57]. Looie496 ( talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's only half the story. Half-truths from a global warming skeptic? Color me shocked... I need a break, you're right. It still stands that this article needs a few more sets of eyes, though. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) updated Badger Drink ( talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you all slap both categories on the article and be done with it? Cla68 ( talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an ideal approach. Essentially both sides are trying to use categorisation to push their respective POVs. It's denialism of global warming! It's an exposé of the global warming scam! All rather childish, frankly. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to avoid this sort of thing would be to have a rule against normative categories, e.g., Category:Bad_Articles. Looie496 ( talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#RfC_on_Category:Denialism

As you can see, there is now an RFC about the category Denialism (not started by me). There is also a war developing on the talk page about including the word controversial (which the film admits to being) and polemical (which the makers of the film and th regulators claim it is). More eyes and opinions on this would be helpful. Verbal chat 07:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is in the category media, art, architecture or literature. Is there a science category this could be added to. Also, the RFC is broken anyway with the reason not showing. Can anyone fix these problems? Verbal chat 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is listed at WP:RFC/ART. There is a RFCsci, but nobody seems to look at Requests for Comment/All ( WP:RFCA) anyway, so the point seems moot. People can't "watchlist" RFCs, unfortunately, so RFCs are basically useless. They don't draw anyone outside of the people who have watchlisted the page, when the point would seem to be to draw uninvolved people. Little rant; I wish my watchlist would give me a message every time a RFC was filed, since I "watchlisted" them all WP:RFC. Incidentally, I wish those RFCs were given a datestamp. WP is such a mess right now, and watching RFCs is one of the things that really needs to be fixed. WP:RFC didn't even link to WP:RFC/A until I fixed it a few days ago. [58] II | ( t - c) 08:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason isn't showing on the talk page though. Is that correct? Verbal chat 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's how it works, yep. I copied it down. II | ( t - c) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that trouble is brewing on these articles (both need massive work anyway) related to the Great Global Warming Swindle problems discussed above. If people could help out with sourcing, definition, content and balance issues for these articles that would be great. I'm going to be away for a while and will only have sporadic access to WP, so please add these articles to your watch lists (and despair!) :) Verbal chat 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I first encountered this new-to-me content on the Harvey Milk bio which I'm pretty familiar. i have been reading about Milk for years. An editor kept adding in a "Milk's Support for People's Temple" even though there seemed to be little support for this content in reliable sources. I did my own research of what any RS's had to state and inserted several neutral sentences but this alone did not appease their desire to see an entire section devoted to the subject. After an RfC, ANI report and full page protection, Wikidemo came to the rescue and started an article to house much of the content that was seen as undue in this other articles. I'm not greatly familiar with all the other players and politicians in the Jim Jones/People's Temple universe so I only commented on what I saw as POV and, IMHO, questionably sourced items in the Political Alliances of the People's Temple#Harvey Milk section. I detailed these out on the talk page in hopes that the main editors there would look into the concerns and hopefully address them. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith and my asking for reliable sourcing is disingenuous in some fashion. It took me 2.5 months to get the "bonus" undue content off the Milk article but now I feel by having an article just on this subject the editors are emboldened to present information without regards to neutrality. I may be over-reacting to this however there seems to be some agenda of painting Milk as a major pro-Jones/People's Temple supporter when my looking into sources shows almost the opposite. Milk stated at the begining he thought they were weird and dangerous. As a politician he basically did what all the politicians were doing. I'd appreciate someone else looking at this as I don't thing anything I say will be received well at this point. Banjeboi 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't belong in Harvey Milk, but it seems relevant to an understanding of Jim Jones, and it strikes me that [59] goes a little beyond "what all the politicians were doing". Looie496 ( talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, I just happened to have watched the PBS Documentary on Jonestown which is quite good and I highly recommend it. In any case, from what I gathered from that work, Jones was NOT aligned with Harvey Milk per se, but he WAS aligned with George Moscone. Harvey Milk also supported Moscone and indeed Moscone and Milk were assassinated by the same person: Dan White. According to the documentary (which I would deem a reliable secondary source) Jim Jones got many members of the People's Temple to actively campaign and rally for Moscone and, in return, Jim Jones was named chairman of the SF Housing Commission. That's as far as I know any political connection between Harvey Milk and Jim Jones and it's already mentioned. Much of the commentary at the Political Alliances article seems cherry-picked. It's difficult to determine when a politician is being "political" or when they truly are "aligned". In the case of People's Temple, much of the 20/20 hindsight used to associate Jim Jones with some person/cause/idea is done in order to scandalize rather than elucidate. We must be careful not to wax eloquent about chance encounters and happenstance interactions since this is such a laden subject. However, Fringe Theory, this is not. I recommend instead transferring this legitimate complaint to WP:NPOVN. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. The Carter letter, BTW, is exactly the kind of thing a politician does and we don't know why it was written. However, if we are to accept as as genuine it does seem to cite widespread political support from all of Milk's colleagues and other elected officials. Will take this to WP:NPOVN as advised. Banjeboi 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is still an open issue. If the question is was Milk uniquely involved with the criminal enterprise known at the People's Temple, the answer is no. Jones succeeded in subverting the entire Democratic political machine in San Francisco of the time, not to mention the two local newspapers and other city institutions. He did this by providing substantial "get out the vote" workers from his enterprise as well as straight financial contributions. It's unfair to single Milk out, but it's accurate to count him as an adrent supporter of Jones albeit a hoodwinked one. Jones conducted a similar political subversion campaign in Ukiah, CA, the place his enterprise operated before moving to San Francisco. As a skilled white collar criminal he understood the value of having local politicians in his "pocket" in order to create credibility for operations and fend off investigation. He was, tragically, very effective at this in San Francisco. Nolatime ( talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I just took another look at the site that documents all this. Apparently in addition to normal campaigning, the issue of Jim Jones engaging in election fraud while in San Francisco was serious enough that it merited significant coverage by the New York Times. http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown/electionfraud.htmlAlso, it's important to note that many SF public figures expressed concern about Jones and his operation. Their concerns were often shouted down until pressure became such that Jones left town with his followers. The letter by Milk to Jimmy Carter cited in a footnote above (which appears to be a scan of a copy from the archive of the US State Department) indicates that Milk was among SF politicians who took it upon themselves to attack Jones' critics and defend Jones. Worth mentioning in a bio if Milk? I have no opinion either way other than to say he appears to at the very least been one of many who were successfully manipulated by Jones into essentially doing his bidding. Nolatime ( talk) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I'd be grateful for views on an odd issue that has cropped up on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. (I have cross-posted this to the reliable sources and fringe theories noticeboards as it presents overlapping issues.)

A disagreement has arisen about a statement sourced to this article from the Australian newspaper The Age, concerning an individual named Nahum Shahaf, who has been in the limelight concerning claims that a vast international conspiracy staged the death of a Palestinian boy in 2000. In the context of a critique of Shahaf's views, the source states that Shahaf "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications". Several other newspaper sources say that "Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics", that he is "not an expert" and that he is "known mainly as an inventor". He describes himself as a physicist. It's not clear if he has any formal qualifications as such, since nobody has yet been able to find any sources which describe his qualifications. There is, in short, nothing to suggest that the statement that he "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications" is in dispute by anyone, not even by the man himself.

A relatively new editor, User:Tundrabuggy, disagrees with the source on two grounds. First, he states that the reporter is "considered by some to be highly biased [against Israel]" (i.e. a few pressure groups and individuals have criticised his reporting) and has requested the removal of his use as a source - see : Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Challenge on one of the reporters. Second, Shahaf himself has said that his expertise is based on his having "finished all the stages necessary in learning this topic", "read the scientific material" and "consult[ed] with several experts", but has not at any point that I know of asserted that he has any qualifications in that area. On that basis, Tundrabuggy argues that Shahaf is qualified and it's therefore wrong to state that he has no qualifications. Here Tundrabuggy seems to be elliding the distinction between having knowledge of a subject and having qualifications in that subject. (I have knowledge of the daily struggles of being a man, because I'm a man. I don't have qualifications on that subject because I've never passed an examination on gender studies.)

The rather tedious discussion can be found at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf.

It seems to me that this is an example of (a) would-be censorship - if we removed every source that someone disagreed with at some point, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia left; and (b) original research, since Tundrabuggy is essentially arguing on the basis of his personal belief that Shahaf has "qualifications" and it's therefore wrong to cite a newspaper report which says he doesn't, even though the man himself isn't known to have made this claim. I'd be interested to know what people think of this from a fringe theories perspective, since I'm conscious that proponents of fringe sources often claim that they have a greater degree of expertise than is really the case (cf. the ID and anti-AGW crowd). -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this falls into WP:FRINGE as a topic. With regard to the information, it appears to be published from what we consider a reliable source. The material should be attributed to the individual. While it should be avoided on a general topic, it is acceptable to include bias or POV materials and sources in Wikipedia, as long as they conform to WP:V. If there is a contrasting viewpoint, than it should also be included per WP:NPOV. Be aware of WP:BLP policies, if this looks like slander or libel, think closely about if it should be included. Also determine if the material contributes to the persons notability. Not everything that is published in the news about someone merits inclusion. Look at the topic point and determine if this particular piece of information is worth mention in the historical biography of that person. Morphh ^(talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. Where is the link to the WP article? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I understand now. It seems a little strange to bring a talk page problem here. Talk page problems usually wind up on the Administrators Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

AN is a drama magnet; I try to avoid it wherever possible, as discussions on specialised noticeboards are more likely to produce on-topic responses in my experience. The source is certainly reliable; The Age is a major, long-established Australian newspaper, roughly equivalent to (say) the Boston Globe or The Scotsman. The article in question is a regular investigative news report, not an opinion piece, and as such we have to assume that it's gone through the usual fact-checking and legal clearances (I believe Australia has fairly strict libel laws). With regard to NPOV, I'm mindful of the fact that it deals with "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That doesn't really apply in this case. The "conflicting perspective" appears to be sourced entirely to the mind of one Wikipedian. No reliable source I know of contradicts the newspaper report - there's no source that says "yes, Shahaf does have qualifications", and the man himself hasn't asserted that as far as anyone can determine. So what we have here is a fairly straightforward, editorially reviewed assertion of fact with wihch no other source is in disagreement. I'm not sure that a qualifying statement is needed in that circumstance. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why there is so much emphasis on a newspaper article that is nothing more than a compilation from other sources, some of which sources may themselves be either reliable or unreliable. As for Nahum Shahaf, his article describes him as an engineer having extensive experience in weapons development for the IDF, including helicopter missile technologies. So if he does not understand ballistics, I am not sure just what he would understand. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the article you mention is the subject of some dispute (see the talk page), as it seems to be sourced primarily to the man himself. We actually don't have very much information that comes from reliable third party sources. I had the opportunity to do a Factiva namecheck on him concerning your implied question; I found a number of articles about his involvement in the Muhammad al-Durrah case, in which he seems to have a central role, but nothing whatsoever about him in any other context. I might add that involvement in helicopter missile engineering is no guide to whether a person has a knowledge of ballistics. It would be relevant if you were designing the casing, but not to someone working on (let's say) guidance systems or optronics. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the article on Nahum Shahaf was created very recently and mostly written - even its current version - by User:Tundrabuggy, so can hardly be used to back up that same editor's arguments against well-sourced descriptions of Shahaf, unless we truly live in a world of mad circular self-justification. In fact Malcolm, you've just proved the point with the Shahaf article as it's written - people will link to it from the al-Durrah article and make a snap judgement that "well, this guy is a scientist who knows what he's talking about generally, and probably does as well in respect of rifle ballistics or crime scene reconstructions". He may well do, but none of this is at all clear from any serious source, even those currently being used in respect of his more general scientific expertise.

And regardless of those specifics, Wikipedia is not of course a source for itself. The fundamental issue is surely that statements of supposed fact, sourced to a mainstream media outlet subject to editorial oversight and in some cases regulatory oversight, are good as reliable sources here, even if they can be interpreted as being critical. This is non-negotiable, regardless of whether minority nationalist advocacy groups have disparaged that outlet or a particular journalist who works there at one point or other. Nor is corroboration necessarily needed for claims in a reliable source, as suggested below, and to demand it sails pretty close to advocating blacklisting. The day we accept that partisan advocacy groups carry more weight than any other source is the day Wikipedia degenerates into a real POV bunfight. Such groups exist on both sides of any dispute of course, even if some are less vocal than others or get less airplay.-- Nickhh ( talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the article on Nahum Shahaf using what references I could find. Everything there is sourced. Anyone is welcome to look outside of wiki for more information. The man himself claims he is "qualified," his jobs with the defense industry, his inventions, and his description by 99% of reporters as a "physicist" ought to have some weight. The IDF seems to consider him qualified enough to ask him to lead this investigation. Surely with the high degree of technical expertise to be found in Israel, they could have found some "qualified" person in the area of ballistics or forensics that they could have chosen instead of some dude, as this one reporter claims, "has no qualifications or expertise." In fact, in making a claim of "no qualifications" the reporter has left himself wide open to criticism for not specifying. Is he referring to formal qualifications? He doesn't say so. I have suggested that this is indeed a BLP issue, similar to saying that a doctor or lawyer is "unqualified." It is simply not something one wants to say without some specificity or corroboration. It has nothing to do with partisan advocacy groups. Each question must be determined on its own merits. --09:41, 6 August 2008 Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, ChrisO is mischaracterising my points. I never "requested the removal of his use as a source." Specifically I said: "So my point is, I don't think this is a good source used alone, and vote to strike anything that is backed up by his word alone." (italics added later for clarity) My reasoning had to do with a number of articles accusing the reporter of "systematic bias" - "a talented journalist who brilliantly distorts facts and substitutes opinions for news" - etc --for example see: [60] 2) The concerns ChrisO addresses regarding qualifications are addressed on the article's talk page, [61], in a section I initiated July 23 about just this issue, in which I argue that to claim Shahaf has "no qualifications" is an exceptional claim requiring high quality reliable sources. I can't understand why ChrisO did not point to my arguments, in which he participated, here: it. [62] On July 24th, I initiated a request on this issue at the ongoing mediation page here: [63] He participated in the mediation page as well. This was posted here and at the RS message board on the 28th, and despite being an interested and involved party in the mediation as well as this posting, I was never given the courtesy of a heads-up on my TALK page, and only today was the notification made at the mediation page. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna. I need some HELP at this page. Please. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems OK to me at the moment. One neutral mention of homeopathy is hardly overkill. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a great many herbs and poisons are "used" in homeopathic formulations (which are really just pure water), and once you let this weed sprout, it will start popping up all over the place. Better to suppress it now than have to take radical measures later. Looie496 ( talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It really only will pop up and flouish where it has the necessary fertilizer of reliable sources, and where the editorial sunshine and watering of maintaining NPOV, especially UNDUE and COATRACK, keeps it pruned to proper encyclopedic stature (which for many might be by pulling them up). Cetainly we can describe instances of such use in a way which in no way prescribes or endorses it, so I see no need for suppression. After all the most radical measure we'll ever need to make is a reversion. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One cited sentence is pretty suppressed anyway. And that's good, coz homeopathy is crap, but no need to kill that golden goose. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source: "An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care", a book by Sidney Skinner. You can preview the book on Google Books. Appendix A shows the "homeopathic pharmacopea of the United States", as of 1999. It shows over 1500 items. By your rules, every one of these could potentially be mentioned in Wikipedia, sourced to that book. Once we let atropine in, there's no obvious place to draw the line. Looie496 ( talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one sentence in each of 1500 articles is not going to break Wikipedia's back. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but 1500 mentions certainly exaggerates the importance of Homeopathy.
Kww ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering how big Wikipedia is? Not really. The info is just about encyclopedic enough, doesn't promote homeopathy (god forbid), and one sentence isn't undue weight. I still fail to see the problem. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Moreschi. Imagine that a person goes to the store and sees a homeopathic remedy and looks it up in Wikipedia. Our page atropa belladonna provides an interesting, complete and essentially accurate view of what that is. Why not let homeopathy be mentioned when it can be cited to a reliable source? There is greater harm to NPOV in trying to stamp it out than in giving it a quick mention and providing the relevant facts. Any user who reads our article on homeopathy will get a pretty clear understanding of what it is. Placebo therapy is not so bad for many conditions. It causes very little (no?) iatrogenic illness. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(E/C) I restate my agreement with these last couple posts. I do think I understand the concern, that even within this list from one source, that some of the items will be found only in there for the most obscure of reasons, and so even their inclusion here would be better off omitted on very subtle WEIGHT grounds, even if sourcing policies could be used to argue for inclusion (for a slightly less subtle version of this issue, check out this). But that all said, I would agree with others here that this really isn't a big deal; articles about related topics to this have far more pressing issues, in many cases, and we're not paper. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

People, this is an article on the PLANT, not on the remedy. If we want to have an article on individual remedies, that's one thing. But to pollute articles on an essentailly unrelated subject with homeopathy is my beef. In January I went through and removed homeopathy from all the articles that did not have sources which indicated that homeopathy was somehow important to the subject of the article ( Domesticated sheep is an example where homeopathy stayed). This is the last article left that does not have a source which explicitly indicates that homeopathy is important to the plant. Actually, if anyone knows of a source that says something about this plant being famous for its homeopathic use, that would make me feel MUCH better, but as it is the best we can do is an anecdotal mention in the OUP book on health foods (how Deadly nightshade became a "food" I'm not sure, but anyway). That's simply not very good sourcing and definitely looks to me like a WP:WEIGHT violation. People think that just because it's a small instance that it isn't a big problem. Well, we have a system for dealing with these attempted "small mentions" of homeopathy that had found their way into no less than 30 different articles on plants and chemicals: excising.

You know, List of homeopathic remedies is a great page. Why violate the principle of one-way linking? ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The plant article refers to many remedies, not just the homeopathic one. So why have you been focused on the homeopathic one for so long? We aren't promoting the remedy, but rather presenting the mainstream's lack of support for its use. The homeopathic remedy has been mentioned, described and/or studied in several reliable sources including books from reputable published, scientific government agencies, and peer-reviewed indexed journals, all of which satisfy your desire to show that this plant is "famous" for its homeopathic use... whatever that means. And the system for dealing with the small mentions which you describe above - excising - seems to have just been your personal ideological campaign to remove information which you don't like. Finally, the "principle of one-way linking" is just your made up rule which only exists on your user page, so who cares if we violate it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is and has always been that there is no PLANT in the remedy named belladonna. So the association is all on the say-so of unreliable sources (that is, homeopaths). Other remedies at least use the plant (if not necessarily in a way that has scientific evidence backing the use). The problem is that this PLANT is not found in the remedy and the association is only done by fringe promoters. And the principle of one-way linking is actually found in WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT too. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked and I don't see any "principle of one-way linking" found on either WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Can you please point it out? So far, your user page is the only place where I have seen this mentioned. And of all of the editors at Wikipedia, I have only seen you assert your self-created rule as some actual policy which we must all follow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there are a no molecules of atropa left after the preparation (uncertain), the fact remains that they were prepared with atropa, and are marketed as "atropa belladonna" homeopathic remedies. So someone might look up atropa belladonna after buying it, and find a brief sentence stating that there have been 2 studies on the remedy, both which found no effect. The fact that mainstream researchers took the time to do 2 clinical trials suggests that there is some interest in it, and clearly they are reliable sources for describing it. II | ( t - c) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What you claim as fact is actually not a verifiable fact, II. WP:REDFLAG must be taken seriously. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which claim? II | ( t - c) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to put words in SA's mouth, but my guess would be that he means that it would be very difficult to prove that most homeopathic remedies had ever been near the ingredient they were named after. They've been diluted so heavily that most bottles contain none of the purported ingredient, and those that do may have only one molecule ... such a small amount that no equipment could detect it. Essentially, homeopathic medicines are distilled water, and one relies upon the producer to actually use the chemical he claims to use. Since the producer quite likely knows that the initial ingredient has no effect on the finished product, and knows that his product has no effect whatsoever on the disease it is being purchased to treat, he can't be relied on to accurately describe its contents. In fact, given that the chemicals claimed to be in the remedies are poisonous, there is actually a counterincentive: if he intentionally ships distilled water, no one can tell the difference, and there is no risk of a manufacturing defect actually shipping a bottle full of the active ingredient and killing someone. He's guilty of fraud in both cases, but only liable for physical harm if he tries to produce what he puts on the label.
Kww ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some dilutions may contain just one molecule, while some dilutions can contain much more. I am not an expert of homeopathy. I am not a proponent of homeopathy. I am not even a believer in homeopathy. But I think this "no molecule argument" is a red herring in terms of inclusion. Inclusion in the article is not dependent on whether the remedy was actually made with Atropa belladonna or whether there is any left in the remedy once it has been diluted or if a homeopathic manufacturer is guilty of fraud or if the remedy works or if it's just water. The remedy is associated with the plant regardless of all of this. There are several reliable sources making this association for us and therefore, I must agree with the editors above - a one-sentence mention of the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna is certainly merited in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. We cannot verify that there is any of the plant in the stuff sold as this "preparation". That's the real issue. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting verifiability. I'm no homeopathy expert, but I read the link from PhilKnight. It seemed to be self-published, and it suggested that past 7C there was likely to be no molecules. Some homeopathic preparations, apparently, are at 5C. Anyway, it is all irrelevant since they are prepared for with atropa. II | ( t - c) 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To my total disgust as a scientist, such preparations are legally sold and advertised as remedies and the ingredients treated as real. We need to provide information on them just as for any other widely used drug. Regardless of what is actually in this, it is prepared from the plant being discussed. Its appropriate to mention this. DGG ( talk)

To be clear, I have no problem with discussing the legally sold and advertised products or even saying what those products list as ingredients. We have articles like List of homeopathic preparations where this is more than appropriate. I just have a problem listing those products on the pages devoted to the ingredients when they don't actually include the ingredients. That's a monumental violation of WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I would prefer not to mention this at all, but since this seems like an unwinnable fight, I've tried to make the best of it, by editing the article so that the body contains a sentence reading, "Homeopathic formulations of belladonna are also sold", and a footnote is added that reads, "Homeopathic formulations are usually diluted so strongly that an entire bottle may not contain even a single molecule of the substance a formulation is named after. Thus, a homeopathic formulation of belladonna is unlikely to actually contain any belladonna." Let's continue discussion on the talk page, please -- I expect we're getting annoying here. Looie496 ( talk) 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this square with WP:WEIGHT? Isn't this the ultimate in not having weight? ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if we were dealing with atomic weight. ;-) We are not. We are dealing with relevant weight. Given the quality of the sources, the brief mention is wholly warranted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We know what your standard for a high-quality source is. Let's let Looie496 respond, okay? ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, I prefer the same solution that you do, but I don't see it as productive to continue this fight. The numbers aren't working for us. Looie496 ( talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496. ScienceApologist. All. I feel your frustrations. Please believe me. I do. I think medical fraud is disgusting and I would never be party to actively promoting it. Though I am not saying that Homeopathy is outright fraud, I am personally skeptical of homeopathy as the scientific data doesn't add up in its favor - at least what I've seen. Regardless of my opinion or your opinion or a homeopath's opinion, perhaps what we have here is kind of a Wikipedia First Amendment challenge and this article is like Skokie, Illinois circa 1977. Without making a direct 1:1 correlation between homeopathy and the NSPA (though I bet some of us here would like too! ;-), this might be one of those ultimate litmus tests of one of our core and most precious freedoms. And as much as it might pain us to do so, we must be willing to defend this liberty for those whose point-of-views we most oppose if we expect to have the same liberty protecting our own views. And I know what Wikipedia is not, so let's not go there. Instead, let's remember what Wikipedia is.

::::::::: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

Now consider that a source such as the Oxford Book of Health Foods is an encyclopedia of sorts and one that comes to us from a most reputable source of human knowledge.

To be fair, I must point out that Freedom of Speech (at least in my neck of the woods) has limitations and doesn't protect all forms of speech. Similarly, WP:Fringe is a limitation on NPOV; one which we all recognize and support. But let's look at the text we are disputing here. It is not reckless. It is not promoting the use of homeopathy. In fact, it is doing quite the opposite by presenting the less-than-favorable mainstream scientific opinion on the matter. We are doing our WP:FRINGE due diligence here, and then some. After all, we are not referencing this mere sentence with one (1), but rather four (4) reliable sources all describing (and essentially condemning) belladonic homeopathy. Consider this a success for Wikipedia. For all of us. We are really doing this one right by presenting some interesting, relevant information about a very common but questionable practice in a most starkly neutral light.

Deep breath. For me. For ScienceApologist. For all of us who have gathered here and all of us who have discussed this issue going on nearly 6 months now. Let's all withdraw, swallow the bitter pill and wash it down with a cool vial of inert distilled water and get on with making Wikipedia the best damn collection of human knowledge this planet has seen in a very, very, long, long time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Before I made the tweaks, it claimed that they literally could heal and harm people with their minds. In the lead. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Xrroid article, and the accompanying discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xrroid. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs some looking at. It appears to be intended as a timeline of events in insular Celtic history. The bizarre title "Pretanic isles" seems to be a Celticist coinage to avoid the phrase "British isles". The creator of this article claims it is justified by one sentence in the British Isles naming dispute article - a sentence that is footnoted to Google seraches. The article also lists exact dates for quasi-mythical events such as the battle of Camlann. Paul B ( talk) 13:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it to British Isles. AFAIK we don't actually do "political timeline" articles like this, particularly not ones that appear to be pushing some sort of weird Celtic nationalist agenda like this one. Neither do we do ones with such...odd...titles. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's spammed a lot of pages with "See also" links to the "Pretanic" page [64]. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The date for the Battle of Camlann comes from the Annales Cambriae, which is given as one of the sources. Since many of the articles on various religions are written as if the events in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc., are actual fact, I don't see the problem. The timeline includes political events of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, the Kingdom of England, and the United Kingdom, equal to or more than mentions of Ireland, so it's not simply "Celticist". A large part of the reason Celtic areas have so many entries in the timeline is because those areas were often unstable and there were therefore more changes. I have moved the article and changed the name. Natty4bumpo ( talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is obvious to the most casual reader that the article is overwhelmingly Celticist in orientation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the title refects that fact. Leaving aside Canlann specifically, there are numerous dates that are portrayed as fact, when facts are anything but certain. Paul B ( talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Annales Cambriae is a primary source, therefore you can't use it directly. I very much doubt whether scholarly consensus is quite so confident about giving a specific date for the Battle of Camlann. There is a huge POV problem with this list. I have no idea why certain events have been selected and others omitted. The 19th and 20th centuries are almost wholly taken up with Irish affairs. I mean, this is supposed to be a "Political Timeline of the British Isles" and there is no mention of the 1832 Reform Act, to take just one glaring omission. -- Folantin ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines for article titles are pretty clear, 'Pretanic Isles' is not a normal name for the British Isles during the last two thousand years or so. But I now see it's been renamed, so the POV etc problems are what's left. I have only intermittent access for a few days so shall leave it to others right now. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, thanks for the 1832 Reform Act ref. Had I known such a thing existed, I would have included it. Natty4bumpo ( talk) 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was just one example. "Had I known such a thing existed..." Well, then you're perhaps not the ideal person to be compiling a "Political Timeline of the British Isles". -- Folantin ( talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Missed the comment about religious articles -- they are considered to be non-factual anyway, and are written as clearly sourced from religious texts, eg 'Moses was a Biblical religious leader'. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I advise changing the title to "Political history of Great Britain and Ireland". British isles is seen as objectionable by many Irish people; see British Isles naming dispute. Looie496 ( talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496: Scots would object to being so completely identified with the Union that their separate existence as a country ceases to have its own identity, while the Unionists in Northeast Ulster would object to being lumped in with Ireland. That's why I originally titled the article "Political timeline of the Pretanic Isle". However, the Isles are predominantly known as the "British Isles", so even though I know that giving the name "Pretanic Isles" is more objective than giving the name of the dominant political identity, "British", I have to accept that.

Folantin, I don't know everything about the history of the British Isles. Frankly, I doubt anyone does. I could track down every article you have posted and critique them for information they lack and accuse you of "not the ideal person to be compiling" said article, but let's not get into that kind of thing, OK? Your most recent comment borders on the ad hominem.

Doug, many articles on related subjects (for example, History of Palestine) but not about specifically religious matters treat the Bible (for example) as if it were hard fact. That Ecyclopedia Britannica does that also is no excuse. Natty4bumpo ( talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem, it's valid criticism. Seriously, you cannot have a "Political Timeline of the British Isles" which goes into great detail about Irish politics in the 19th and 20th centuries and omits virtually everything about England, Scotland and Wales. I mean, we also have absolutely nothing happening between 1660 and 1685, a period of masive political activity in England when the major parties, the Tories and the Whigs, first emerged. It lacks proper referencing too. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, your comment was clearly meant in a pejorative sense, so it's ad hominem. As for the Tories and Whigs, in the 17th century those were insults, not the names of political parties. Neither was truly organized as a political party in the modern sense of the term, and, in truth, neither of those names are official even today. Truthfully, neither the Whigs nor the Tories of the 17th century has organization continuity with the parties which use those nicknames. However, you are correct about the dates of organization of those parties being lacking, so I shall take care of that forthwith. Natty4bumpo ( talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I said "when they first emerged". This is just the tip of the iceberg. The article looks like a "Timeline of Irish History" (or even "A Timeline of Northern Irish History") with a few token mentions of everywhere else. Personally, I would never attempt a "Political Timeline of the British Isles". The subject is too vast, it would take ages to reference properly and there are too many potential problems with NPOV. -- Folantin ( talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I added entries, which I should have done initially were the task of putting up what I did at first so overwhelming in the number of links I had to make, spelling and punctuation I had to check and sychronize with that on Wikipedia. The entries for those parties, as well as the Labour and Social Democratic Parties, are in the years they officially adopted the names Liberal and Conservative.

If you will notice, there is very little about Ireland between Late Antiquity and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms period, and nothing much again from then until the 19th century. I will most likely add more--I've seen few Wikipedia articles where that is either not the case or it is not needed--about the other countries, such as the Reform Act and the parties, later, and by that I mean in the next few weeks.

On the other end of the time spectrum, yes, there's a lot about Ireland in the 20th century entries, and about Northeast Ulster in the second half of the 20th century, but during those periods, the "Irish question" dominated much of the news. Ask any schoolchild in London in the 1980's whether he or she was more worried during that time about nuclear annihilation or IRA bombs; I got the answer to that question from a friend who grew up in East End. Natty4bumpo ( talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think your perspective might be a little skewed. Entry for 1979: "Adam Busby founds the Scottish National Liberation Army". I think the election of Margaret Thatcher in the same year had rather more impact on the politics of the British Isles. -- Folantin ( talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a lot of stuff missing, such as most of the English kings and the Black Death, but since this article is only two days old, perhaps it would be reasonable to assume good faith about that. (There are certainly some pov issues, though.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Looie496, but Moreschi has already slated the article for deletion. Chuck Hamilton ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A political timeline of the British Isles would probably be way too long to be much use. Personally, I think a timeline of the history Insular Celtic peoples is more likely to be of interest. We have to decide which subject it is really about. Natty Bumppo's explanations for his choices are really very unconvincing. Paul B ( talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Natty, please stick with one signature for the purpose of this discussion. Paul B ( talk) 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Hamilton is my name; Natty Bumppo, you'll notice I misspelled it Nattybumpo, is a character in a book. I've been been meaning to switch for a while, but just to make it clear to everyone, Chuck Hamilton = Natty4bumpo.

That's actually a good suggestion about the name, as long as no one gets upset about including the Bretons. Of course, purist Celticists might get their nose bent out of joint over the inclusion of material about the English and the Normans. Don't get me wrong; I like the idea but I just pointing out that no decision is going to be without controversy. Chuck Hamilton ( talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone interested in commenting: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_timeline_of_the_British_Isles. Chuck Hamilton ( talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No article should treat the Bible as though it is a factual work of history. If any do, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug; I've got your user Talk page bookmarked. I'm not going out on a hunt, but the next time I'm using Wikipedia as a source when I'm arguing Middle Eastern politics and see it, I'll point it out. Chuck Hamilton ( talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

this should just become a timeline of the British Isles. Perhaps split. The "Celticist" bias can be smoothed out by a merger with timeline of British history. I don't think we should delete material that is suffering from blatant bias. Nine times out of ten, it can be usefully integrated with existing material. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with a timeline of Insular Celtic history if somebody's into building that. dab (𒁳) 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In all it's wonder and glory, satanic ritual abuse is a much changed page from a year ago. What does the fringe theories noticeboard think, is it too far slanted towards skepticism, and are there any suggestions? There is ongoing debate on the talk page that it is too skeptical and there is not enough credence given to the "believer" side, that undue weight is given to the skeptical sources. Are there any suggestions or insights onto this? WLU ( talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For more weight to be given to the "believer" side in the context of the article, it would first have to be demonstrated that such a being as Satan does exist, a "God" to for that matter. Of course, the existence or nonexistence of Satan doesn't necessarily have anything to to with "Satanic ritual abuse", but evidence for the existence of that is roughly same in amount. Chuck Hamilton ( talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some actual evidence of the existence of satanic ritual abuse in reliable secondary sources might be nice as well..... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. WLU ( talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, this is nonsense. You don't need to prove the "existence of Satan" to establish the existence of Satanism any more than you need to prove the existence of God to establish the existence of Christianity. The point is that "Satanic Ritual Abuse" is a conspiracy theory, or a "moral panic", with next to no footing in reality. Therefore, the article will, for better or worse, need to be about the moral panic. -- dab (𒁳) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I'd also like to ask anyone who is really interested to comment on the much more lengthy discussion at NPOV. To avoid any implication of forum shopping it would help clarify the page much more were these comments ventured in a single location (i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Discussion of NPOV issues on Satanic Ritual Abuse talk. Thanks, WLU ( talk) 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two things I'd like the folks at this noticeboard to know about this article. First, it was recently semiprotected, because an IP editor was revert-warring a number of hostile tags onto the article. Second, it really does have most of the problems the IP was pointing out, albeit in a misguided way. It has not a single inline reference and reads like an advertisement for this (new age?) mind-body discipline. It treats all of the claims of its advocates as some kind of undisputed, absolute facts. Help, please, from folks with experience NPOVing this kind of article. Just be aware that there was recent admin action there. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been merged by Dieter with Gerda Alexander. Eutony itself is now a redirect. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no objections to that either. I just checked the article before it got redirected - ZOMG, that was awful. I loved the "precociously". Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 09:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the precociously in the merged version for your enjoyment :) I had never heard of Eutony. The only interwiki worth mentioning is de:Eutonie, which dates to May 2008. I guess we can keep an article on Alexander and her school, but one article is definitely enough, and it does need third party sources if it is to be rid of its warning tags. -- dab (𒁳) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

essentially a WP:SYN-fork of Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that there is no literature on "African Empires". A term that is in de-facto use is "West African empires", referring to the medieval Sahelian kingdoms and their successor states. The term "African Empires" does occur [65], and apparently has some currency in Afrocentrist literature, referring to some sort of imaginary pre-colonial Pan-African "golden age". The term consequently appears in publications such as African Philosophy in Search of Identity, A History of Native American and African Relations (viz., Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories), African Glory: The Story of Vanished Negro Civilizations, Cafundo: My People, My Folk, My Senzala, My Roots, An Introduction to Pan African Studies etc. Not sure whether "African Empires" as a notion in Afrocentrism has sufficient notability for a standalone article or whether it should just be merged back into Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that it is undisputed, of course, that there have been empires in Africa. It's just that this doesn't make for a topic any more than Eurasian empires. -- dab (𒁳) 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but why was this listed on the "FRINGE" booard? I don't quite follow the reasoning there. Blockinblox ( talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would assume dab listed it because he feels African Empires article if full of pseudo-historical fringe theories that are rejected by the maintream, and he would like us to take a look. Blueboar ( talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said, the term comes up in pseudohistorical literature (Pan-Africanism, Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and the like), and unlike "Sahelian empires", "Islamic empires", "Colonial empires" etc. is not a grouping current in serious historical literature. In other words, fringe literature. Which isn't even cited in the article. The article at present has no sources talking of "African empires". But if you wanted to add sources, you'd be left with fringe literature. I found a single source (Vansina 1962) discussing Sub-Saharan African kingdoms as a topic, which I took as sufficient to justify kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that even Vansina (1962) doesn't discuss "Pan-African" kingdoms, but excludes North Africa from the discussion. As it stands, even Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa may be criticized on grounds of {{ onesource}}, since it seems arbitrary to compare the Sahelian kingdoms to those of Zimbabwe. Treating North African and Southern African "Empires" as a single encylopedic topic is like pushing an article on the Chinese, Hunnic, Indian and Roman empires. They all existed. They're all on the same landmass. We don't have any reference suggesting they should be grouped. I might add that I have just fixed European empire on the same grounds. Colonial empires is a valid grouping, but listing the Roman and the British empires as "European empires" is original synthesis (as you might list the Austrian empire and the Ashanti empire under empires beginning with A). dab (𒁳) 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being slightly over critical here, dab. I think there is a ligitimate case for having broad overview, history articles on "Empires on X Continent"... discussing the rise and fall of various empires within that geographic area. The key is to accurately reflect the historical consensus about which empires had an impact on (or even contact with) others, and which did not. In other words, I don't think the article topic or title is OR. Nor do I think it FRINGE... but I can see how the article might end up being a FRINGE magnet, given the amount of pseudo-history that has been generated about African history. In other, other words: Keep the article, but watch it very closely. Blueboar ( talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The following link ( http://books.google.com/books?id=rd1CzDFXErEC&pg=PA44&dq=African+Empires&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U1vK5iswmSEP_e50JLcBWv103FakA#PPA45,M1) is to a book that discusses African empires (check pages 43, 44, 49). It is published by Princeton University PRess (hardly a bastion of Afrocentric thought) and authored by Jeffrey Ira Herbst (not an afrocentrist as far as I know). What really sucks is that if black scholars or black publishers put out the exact same book it would be written off as Afrocentric. Apparently the only people qualified to talk about African history are white people or predominantly white institutions. That's really pretty sad. I created the African empires page for the convenience of all wiki users. I really regret that this kind of debate even has to take place. What happened to good faith? Scott Free ( talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

the only occurrence of the string "African empires" in the publication you link to occurs in the context "the African empires in the western and central Soudan, such as Mali and Kanem-Bornu" -- i.e. we are again looking at the trans-Saharan / Sahelian empires, not "African empires". I am not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about grouping empires by continent, but it is clearly not a good idea. -- dab (𒁳) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply daft to assume that late medieval Sahel states are kingdoms but are not empires. I'm not sure even where to begin with this frankly ignorant (in it's proper meaning) statement. The West African grasslands and Sahel tended to produce larger political units than the forest zone from at least 1000 CE. These states moved from clan based Fula or Maure entities to caste based states like the Wolof or Bambara states, to much larger entities like Songhai, Mali and the later Fula jihad states. These last two categories are clearly (and commonly) better identified in English as "empires" or "conquest states" than "kingdoms". Kingdoms by definition, if not Eurasian practice, are a single hierarchy authority system, based on family secession. West African states tended to be either based on the model of contraputual authority (where a conquest caste or group retains political authority and a pre-existing group retains religious authority) OR a system of caste, clan, or territorially based electors to whom the ruler answers and by whom he is chosen. Neither of these seems to be best described as "kingship" (and most serious works of the last 40+ years reflect this). Of course if you'd been at all familiar with the historical literature, you'd know this. As you don't, you probably should not be making substantial changes in articles on this topic. T L Miles ( talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

you are shooting down strawmen. Of course the Sahelian kingdoms can be consideredd empires, that's completely beside the point. The question is, why should the Sahelian empires be grouped with the Egyptian Empire, the Ethiopian Empire, various Caliphates and Great Zimbabwe? I would be perfectly happy with an article on West African empires, although that would probably be merged with Sahelian kingdoms. In other words, Sahelian kingdoms is our article on West African empires. -- dab (𒁳) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Linus Pauling's most famous pseudoscience still has people who are die-hard committed to this idea. We need some extra eyes at Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. There are actually people arguing that orthomolecular medicine is not generally considered a pseudoscience. That's news to me. In the last class I taught about pseudoscience, we devoted an entire week to the subject! ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it may be generally considered pseudoscience. But at Wikipedia we need to verify this with sources. Currently, the only source provided - to my knowledge - is an unpublished opinion-piece written 13 years ago. Per WP:PSCI, we need a more authoritative source before we label Orthomolecular medicine a pseudoscience. If it truly is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, then producing such a source shouldn't be a problem. I've done some searching myself, but to no avail. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Levine, don't confuse WP:PSCI with sourcing. WP:PSCI says nothing about "authoritative sources". ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you have sources please cite them, if you don't then you can't rely on anecdotal claims about courses that may or may not ever have happened and which would amount to nothing either way. 92.48.74.9 ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always relies on sourcing, so reliable sources are alway a consideration. Now then, if we are to say that Orthomolecular medicine is generally considered pseudoscience (which ScienceApologist asserts above) then we must look at what WP:PSCI says about this:

"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

So all I am asking is: How do we know that the scientific community generally considers Orthomolecular medicine to be a pseudoscience? Well, how do we know anything on Wikipedia? The answer, we verify with reliable sources. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, no source has been presented to verify that Orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience other than one 13 year old, unpublished opinion piece. Again, if Orthomolecular medicine truly is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community, then producing such a source shouldn't be a problem. Please provide such a source. Again, I don't know anything about Orthomolecular medicine and thus I have no opinion on whether or not it is considered pseudoscience. I just want to make sure that if we are going to label it as such, we follow the guidelines of WP:PSCI. This matter would be cleared up in my eyes if a reliable source was produced which shows that the scientific community generally considered Orthomolecular medicine to be a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable source already. You want to up the ante and demand something called an "authoritative sources". As we've reiterated many times here and at WT:FRINGE, since the scientific community tends to ignore the bastard children of pseudoscience, having one source from a scientist is generally good enough... ESPECIALLY if there are no sources from scientists who disagree with that source. The issue here is one of pseudoscientific POV-pushers incredulity about extremely credible sources. When an academic describes an idea as "pseudoscience" and the rest of the scientific community is silent, the DEFAULT position is to accept that as a pretty good indication of being generally considered pseudoscience. If you take the arbcom's final example of psychoanalysis, there are academics which label it pseudoscience but there are also academics which disagree with that label. Therein lies the rub. Since there are no academics disputing the charge that orthomolecular claptrap is pseudoscience and there exists a source which clearly categorizes it as such, we're done. No need for your game playing. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please redact your incivilities above. I have told you before that calling a person a POV-pusher is always uncivil. And I don't appreciate your lack of good faith with your last sentence. Second, in order to make sure that we are on the same page and talking about the same source, please provide the source here which you think is reliable enough to label this entire concept a "pseudoscience". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An unpublished source from some guy with a PhD in psychology, which spends only 2-3 sentences on OMM, is not a reliable source. The argument that the scientific community ignores OMM is false, since there are publications on it. OMM requires a good source, since it was founded by a Nobel Laureate and run by people with MDs and PhDs. 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed ( talk • contribs)

Lord help us, they're storming the castle. Man the balustrades and ready the hot oil vats! ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that people who want to be scientists after they grow up and finish their studies, can so easily ignore scientific data and commentary of the most current and authoritative references on subjects when it violates their preconceptions that are based on utterly unreliable works from authors with well known biases & misrepresentation that have largely kept everyones' heads down throughout the country with ongoing attacks, legal chicanery and campaigns of denunciation & intimidation.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd take higher doses of those vitamins. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One issue with fringe theories is that there is a significant dearth of discussion in conventionally reliable sources; though it's a bit or-ish, if an subject is only published in a non-peer-reviewed, non-mainstream, non-academic, non-pubmed-indexed journal (or journals), that strongly suggests pseudoscience. I can't permalink to it, but pubmed shows 226 results for "orthomolecular". (chemotherapy shows 1.6 million, scurvy has 1900, rickets 9000; google scholar shows 3000, 2 000 000, 44000 and 77 700 for rickets). That's a considerable drop-off, but not as much as I would expect, which leads me to think that perhaps mainstream interest in OMM is increasing and mainstream comments and/or criticisms will start appearing. Google books is also of limited use - [66]. Unfortunately there's just not much mainstream attention, which is suggestive but not diagnostic. WLU ( talk) 22:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This article points to skepticism from mainstream medicine, but also difficulty in outright rejection. It looks like orthomolecular medicine is trying to struggle out of the ghetto, but hasn't made it out yet. WLU ( talk) 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you try a pubmed search on "orthomolecular", you will see that the story is basically the opposite: the treatment started out above the ghetto, but fell into it. Linus Pauling coined the term in 1967-68, and the first papers were published in extremely reputable journals, such as Science, PNAS, Oncology, etc. About 5 years later the first solid experimental results started coming in, and they were unremittingly negative: one experiment after another failed to show any positive effect. The result was that the mainstream medical community considered the hypothesis to be discredited, and after that, the only people who pushed it were fringe practitioners. By now, the term "orthomolecular medicine" has been fringe for so long that there is hardly any control over who uses it or what they use it to mean. Looie496 ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't "solid" experiments, they were mainstream accepted experiments, that bought the errors, lies and misrepresentions back then. Post 2000, this has begun to change. Hemila (PhD Biochem, MD, PhD PH, Cochrane author) has shown how egregiously wrong most all of the test interpretations and reporting of the 1940-1990s tests were, on vitamin C and respiratory illnesses. Mainstream medicine claims to having "tested" orthomolecular medicine protocols are usually patently false, they did not, and now with an interenet connection one can often see for themselves (what do we call those that don't check?). Likewise Levine at NIH (papers 2001-2007) has shown the mainstream cancer opinion against Pauling was founded on intrinsically flawed tests. The "control" here is recognizing official or well known OMM sources, not some misbranded little smuck trying to pass off "counterfeit goods" as also happens in medicine and pharmaceuticals. The other fly in the "mainstream" ointment is that individuals can often test OMM protocols with reversible *biochemical* results. (reversible - when the extra OMM chemistry stops going in so may the benefit for things that depend on ongoing maintenance, with chemical measurements to boot)

Again, the "mainstream" has repeatedly had its nose rubbed in the OMM dust on "new" treatments: niacin for dyslipidemia, folic acid for birth defects, fish oil for CVD, iron-free vitamins, vitamin D, some on vitamin E in alzheimers, lipoic acid for diabetes, and coQ10 for statin damage etc. This situation tells many independent observers who may have the real quack sites.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those arguments won't fly on Wikipedia; see wp:fringe. Looie496 ( talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that ScienceApologist is a proven disruptive editor with a track record of 28! blocks [67] one Arbcom, followed by subsequent controversies around of his Arbcom sanctions. ScienceApologist has recently conceded to work with a mentor [68] Other editors who have complaints about disruptions from this user should bring it up with the mentor. MaxPont ( talk) 07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If OMM is beginning to come back to the mainstream, then eventually there will be unequivocal sources in mainstream medical journals to demonstrate this. Until then, I think it's fringe but should be treated deftly to indicate that the outright rejection is now starting to decline. Undue weight should not, however, be placed on the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and other sources which are still fringe, nor should the tentative acceptance of some of the principles be used to vindicate the idea that OMM was in fact incorrect. Until mainstream sources show up saying OMM was treated unfairly, the majority opinion should be that of rejection; OMM's rebuttals should be pointed to, possibly given in small detail, but should not dominate. WLU ( talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. We've already got the AMA saying it's not effective and a Jukes article calling it "quackery" or "food faddism" in the lead. The pseudoscience charge is just not based on a good source, and TimVickers has agreed to a compromise. As far as the evidence, OMM will often say that it is being validated by mainstream breakthroughs in nutrition. Perhaps. The original claims of high-dose niacin for schizophrenia are still unvalidated, although there is a clinical trial undergoing. Vitamin C for cancer was another big claim, and it is now being studied again. There's a lot of talk about omega-3 fatty acids helping mood disorders, but the evidence is really suggestive. Ditto for tryptophan, 5-HTP, ect. II | ( t - c) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin C for cancer is a good illustration of the difficulties here. There is strong evidence that it sometimes works, but only in doses so large that they must be given intravenously. Does that really count as "nutritional therapy"? The definition of OMM has become so loose that, although it may include some valid things, it also is applied to vast amounts of pseudoscientific cruft. Looie496 ( talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin C megadosage#Cancer for cancer is a textbook OMM therapy. Pauling coined the word, and then Pauling had the idea (based on another guy's speculation) of vitamin C for cancer. (Prior to Pauling, some other guys used intravenous vitamin C for polio and perhaps other conditions.) Also, there is certainly not strong evidence that it works. The evidence is very mixed. It apparently works in animal models (mice) with certain (human-derived) tumors, but the evidence that it works in humans is basically nonexistent. II | ( t - c) 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation opposition NEEDS HELP. In part, the issue is now that there are a lot of people trying to say that because the anti-water fluoridation activists think it is important to include unrelated facts about extremely high-concentrations of fluoride due to things OTHER THAN municipal fluoridation schemes that on Wikipedia they should similarly be allowed to soapbox their claims. We have right now two sections devoted to health affects that are IMPOSSIBLE to get with a municipal water fluoridation scheme. I'm trying to get them removed but the true believers won't let me. Will you stand up to their ownership of this article? Please. We need your help.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, I often think you get too excited about things, but that article is as bad as you describe it, and seems to be rapidly getting worse. I think any uninvolved observer who reads the lede is going to see the problem. Here is how the lede currently ends: "Sociologists used to view opposition to water fluoridation as an example of misinformation. However, contemporary critiques of this position have pointed out that this position rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge. If an analysis of scientific disagreements is included, the public opposition to fluoridation does not necessarily signify a failure of education or democracy." Looie496 ( talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I started an RfC: Talk:Water fluoridation opposition#RfC: Are sections 2 and 3 relevant to this article? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article about the fringe group The Low Level Radiation Campaign was deleted about a month ago after I prod'd it for numerous reasons. Now the Company Secretary of the LLRC, Richard Bramhall, has turned up here to request restoration. It was restored and then immediately put up as an AfD. Richard Bramhall, who has extensively edited the article, has now asked for the page to be deleted to remove the criticism (on the link above) - and this makes me edgy. I'm all for the current article to be removed, as it's awful. However, should we have replace it with an article that uses the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and their Second Event Theory as sources to accurately describe this group of fringe scientists. Maybe I'm over-reacting, as this is a very small group (and I'm not as mad as I sound), and the article will not be retained in its current state anyway. I'm just interested in what, if anything, should replace it. Thanks. Verbal chat 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could balance them with another fringe group: the good folks at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons believe that low-level radiation is good for you. In all seriousness, the question is really how notable the LLRC is. If they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources, then there should probably be an article. If the sources are iffy, then we're better off just deleting it. MastCell  ^Talk 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as some are arguing, LLRC is not notable (which is not agreed for reasons already adduced, but who cares?) then an article attacking it, as proposed by Verbal Chat, wouldn't be justified. Why would Wikipedia attack a unnotable entity? Worse, if such an article set out to "use[s] the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and the Second Event Theory", as VerbalChat suggests, it's hard to see how it would achieve any standard for balance, especially since VerbalChat thinks the sources would be "accurate". This presumably unconscious bias is representative of mistaken beliefs entertained by some of the Wikipedia editors participating in this discussion. Some of the beliefs derive from the original article, for example the apparent belief that the Second Event Theory is central to our theses; others derive from ignorance, e.g. the idea that the mainstream does not support anything we say, and the idea that lack of public awareness of our work is somehow important. On the first point, I have, on these pages, already referred to substantial and important support for the notion that there is something very badly wrong with the scientific basis of radiation protection standards. On the second, we generally speak only to informed, specialist opinion, not to the general public; ours is a highly technical subject area and addressing it to a mass market would inevitably entail the use of scare tactics. We have been accused of this, but not credibly, and many in the nuclear industry and in the radiation protection community acknowledge that we have an important message. Unfortunately the internet is populated by more rabid and more vocal opponents. A notable exception to our low profile was the 1998 – 2000 campaign against implementation of specific provisions of the 1996 Euratom Directive, which achieved considerable prominence with the public and with news media, and which fulfilled its aim in the UK if not elsewhere in the European Union.

I should like to say something about "Conflict of Interest" once again. CoI is being brandished on these pages like a banner at a demo suggesting, without elaboration or specificity, that my extensive involvement in editing the article somehow damages Wikipedia's standards. The original article was rubbish. Was anyone else coming forward to address its bias? No. I addressed it in a co-operative spirit with the clear aim of writing agnostically. It's all in the record, I believe. Can anyone identify actual material written by me which offends against balance? When I had to leave off in May 2007 the article was still not ideal but it was at least somewhat balanced, as noted by one commentator on the original deletion log in June 2008.

I asked for the article to be restored so that we could see exactly what had been deleted. Now we've seen it we think it should go. I don't see why that should make anyone "edgy". As I have already said, we want the article deleted because it will inevitably be subject to malign attention from partisans.. The evidence is there and we don't have the resources to go on (as MastCell says) " dealing with the never-ending petty shoving matches which this site generates." Richard Bramhall, LLRC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 ( talk • contribs)

Deletion doesn't mean it will be gone forever. What we're trying to ascertain here is whether your group meets notability criteria and whether something, probably a much smaller balanced article, should replace it. Also, you are free to partake in discussion, but due to your CoI you should refrain from editing the page. Instead, bring up points on the talk page. If you can provide reliable sources for your claims about the LLRC, that would be great. Note I never said 2nd event theory was central to the LLRC, and censorship should make anyone "edgy" - especially if your groups claims are true! An attack page has also not been suggested. If you are having problems logging into your account, just follow the instructions on the login page. Also, please be civil and assume good faith of others actions. You are being needlessly confrontational and combative. (PS my name here is Verbal, Chat is a link) Verbal chat 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)