This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Wikipedia:Scientific standards
I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.
Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.
See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed with a number of notorious troublespots without any obvious connection apparently sorting themselves out. Satanic ritual abuse seems to reach a safe haven of common sense. Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been sane for two days. No vandalism to History of Armenia topics for ages. History of Hinduism solidifies into something that is actually readable and mostly accurate. No "Türkic" nationalist activity at Turkic alphabets since July. Hell, even currently hot topics like Kosovo and 2008 South Ossetia war are completely under control. Might this mean that ... sanity finally prevails? The beginning of a golden age of Wikipedia where the trolls don't even bother to try? I am particularly impressed with the impact of Moreschi ( talk · contribs). He has managed something I never did, he uses the block button heavy-handedly and fixes content at the same time. This is the Wikipedia I signed up for! I know there are disturbing trends, both the admin community and the arbcom showing a capability for bad judgement unimaginable in the old days, but these successes really make things look bright. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Re RfA, I'd have to agree - I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need more AIV patrollers. We need people who can understand and effectively intervene in thorny conflicts in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's basic principles. The problem is that we see a ton of candidates who are good people, decent editors, nice folks, but just haven't demonstrated any conflict-resolution skills. They're essentially a black box - will they avoid conflicts altogether? Will they turn out to be the next Newyorkbrad? Or, more likely, will they react unpredictably and possibly harmfully when things hit the fan? But I find it quite hard, still, to oppose a nice, well-meaning candidate solely on the grounds that they haven't been in any conflicts. MastCell Talk 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has appeared in the last few weeks, and seems to have an agenda and style of editing (esp WP:SYNTH) similar to former user Rokus01, though I don't think they are identical. S/he has been altering the Neanderthal article and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, in addition to others on IE topics, generally seeming to push the view that Europeans are partly descended from Neanderthals and that IE is paleolithic. Some edits are downright bizarre, such as the addition of an image of medieval glass-blowing and a caption about Slovene words for pipes to an article about an alleged Neanderthal flute ( [1]). The Neanderthal page has been semi-protected because of the frustration that his editing style and manner of discussion has produced, but is now clearly slanted in favour of the Neanderthal-HomSap interbreeding theory, which is even presented as undisputed fact at points. Other edits may be similarly slanted. Paul B ( talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article uses almost exclusively self-published websites to offer a slew of conspiracy theories about chemtrails. I'm not even sure that this is an encyclopedic topic: I couldn't find a single secondary independent source that acknowledged the notability of this particular fringe theory. We need some people to look it over, cull out the stuff that is referenced solely to looney-toons webpages, and try to make an article that actually tells people about the social significance of this conspiracy theory (if there is any). Whew! ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Reddi. I just cut out a bit of unattributed quotation (referenced, but no indication it was a quote) from an 1890s book which I didn't think was helpful, and some fractured English about Thales replacing it with the original stuff, he's replaced both (I did note that the English was bad, maybe it's me that can't read?). I'm not sure about do to about some ancient speculation from the 1890s but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in the articles that have nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. (Cross-posted to WT:MED) MastCell Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve the homeopathy page by looking at problems that have been raised and then finding what the consensus for dealing with it is (no change, small change, big change, etc). The first issue I've proposed is keeping quackery in the lead. Here is my summary: Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead. Now I agree that it should be included in the article, as it's verifiable, a common opinion, and from a reliable source. However, for the lead I feel that the term pseudoscience is enough. I would suggest keeping the sentence in the lead up to the semicolon (replaced with a full stop), and integrating the remainder into the body of the article. Perhaps into the "Research on medical effectiveness" section or the 20th century section. This is something I've suggested before but which has been overtaken (usually) by discussions as to whether homeopathy works, so please lets keep his on topic: quackery removed from the lead, put somewhere else. Note that currently quackery doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.
Please come and join the conversation or suggest other topics or fixes. All the best. Verbal chat 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the article and talk page? I got involved because the talk page was being badly messed around, with an IP editor (who was OTT I think in criticising Michell) and others were deleting each other's edits, warnings were being put on the talk page instead of user pages, etc. I've now gotten a bit more involved and have been told that my edits on the talk page indicate I don't understand OR, that I'm using it as a chat page, etc. The main problems seem to be the balance of the article a couple of editors who both don't understand referencing, OR, etc -- and it would be nice to get better balance in the article, but the problem there seems to be although Michell is very popular among New Age adherents he's largely ignored (except maybe for his book on Shakespeare) in other quarters. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
this used to be a problem, back in November, but hopefully not now it has been brought up here on this noticeboard. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest [2] as an alternative to the old version Moreschi pointed at? It has a bit of puffery, but also a substantial amount of useful information. I think the puffery could easily be removed if SageMab was not constantly interfering. Looie496 ( talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked DougWeller to stop following me around. What about this article is puffery? Be specific please. I do think that Looie is working to improve this article. I think a lot of the other edits are done by people who do not understand NPOV and who have no love of the author's subject matter. Paul, do not assume what I want. It shows no good faith. A lack of serious negative critics over an authors 40+ year wrting career does not make other commentary about his work "puffery", a biased term. I have seen picking at this article rather than constuctive edits that added new material. I am not a "fan" of any subject on Wikipedia. I do care about facts and how they are edited. I would like to request a stop of the "ganging up". The article, not a major piece, is being chatted to death on the discussion page. SageMab ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And where Looie in the above quote, or any place else, have you been accused of "Having love for John Michell's subject matter..."? Read my comment carefully and do not accuse me of pov-pushing for an author. Uncivil and untrue. It's not like anyone is accusing you as being part of a cabal. SageMab ( talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the true spirit of Jimbo Wales behind the original WP:CIVIL policy, but I almost never see it invoked other than as a last resort of problem editors thrown into the fray after it has become clear they have no case. We need to make clear that while comments like "your mother smells of elderberry" may be incivil, dry statements to the effect of "you are wrong" are not ( WP:SPADE). -- dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
related trouble at Radical Traditionalism. Yes, this is a little walled garden. -- dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Doing some RC patrol, I came across this article on a female professional wrestler, and was bemused to see that it's written with the point of view that all those competitions are actually real. Now of course that's nonsense -- I wonder whether this happens in other wrestling-related articles, and whether anybody cares? To be honest, I'm not sure that I even care. Looie496 ( talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's part of the issue raised at Wikipedia:RSN#David_Cymet.2C_Pi.C5.82sudski_and_anti-semitism. In order to centralize a discussion - which is related to FRINGE - I'd like to ask for some editors to comment on it at the RSN. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This fellow, who is a UFO researcher, came up on the BLP noticeboard, but in my opinion the article belongs here. The article is not only fully credulous of fringe views, it is structured as little more than a long sequence of quotes, mostly in italics. Wow. Looie496 ( talk) 00:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While taking a look at this Theosophical Society related article, I noticed that in the last few months it has evolved from this [3] stub to a much larger article that now seems to have a major problem with WP:SYNTH. I have been considering just reverting the article back to the earlier version, but suppose that would result in an edit war. Any suggestions? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am more concerned with things like this:
“M brings orders to form a Society—a secret Society like the Rosicrucian Lodge. He promises to help.”[3] This quote from Blavatsky’s private Scrapbook shows that Master Morya (or M) was deeply involved in the theosophical work from the very beginning. Moreover, contrary to the assertion of the French Muslim scholar, Rene Guenon,[4] there is considerable evidence to suggest that Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters for at least two decades before her public theosophical work began in America. [4]
which is clearly drawing conclusions from primary sources. It is also advocating the teaching, not just describing it. Of course, there may be copyright violations too, but that is a fairly easy problem to fix. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fringe theory what
In Soviet Ukraine this policy had a dramatic effect on the Ukrainian ethnic population and its culture as 86% of the population lived in rural settings. The forceful introduction of the policy of Collectivization was one of the main causes of the Holodomor.
Article was created as copy-paste from Holodomor and now from main article removed significant and important chapters under “brand” “Deleted duplicates from Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. In fact this chapters has nothing or little relation to historical event Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR. While in general it’s another article in fringe theory about “Ukrainian Holocaust” (see other Language link which referred to Holodomor”, List of Books and articles [5] and External links [6] – note the first ref in list.
Actually it’s thory widely popular because of “
One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.”
(From p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30. Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996. See also Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund: Media Tryck, Lund University, 2006).)
May be would be good to limit effort by group of editors to exploit WP as soapbox per
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.
Thanks Jo0doe ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What the editor is perhaps trying to say is that this is part of the "Holodomor" walled garden, which is a politically and historically fraught topic, apparently, and in which most of WP's articles are sourced to extremely doubtful sources and consist largely of massive SYN violations. I was unfamiliar with the question, though not with the collectivization-related Soviet famine of 1932-33, before I discovered the worst article in Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in the details of what underlies this fringe-pushing, they can email me. I don't want to start a firefight on this noticeboard. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The fascinating published opinion that there are etymological connections between medieval Hungarian legends and ancient Sumerian myths has unfortunately run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge", who wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about. On the flimsiest of grounds they have decided to damn the memory of these theories to non-existence. [7]. This obviously has to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That's quite a lot of myth and "alternate theories". Moreschi ( talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this conversation and before I read any further what has been written I must give some perspective. The Hungarian prehistory article started out originally as a POV fork. All of the content originally was a translation of Istvan Kisztely's fringe theories with some stuff thrown in by "scholar" Fred Hamori. Since that time I and several other editors have attempted to bring the article back into mainstream without starting edit wars. A lot of work was done to get better material from reputable sources incorporated into the article. It is still has a long way to go though. Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases that the article is "fringe" and start chopping up everything without this perspective, it rankles feathers. I won't defend the article because it still needs a lot of improvement, but it does absolutely no good when I see Folantin remove the Historiography section. What are you trying to do? Make it even more fringe so you can delete it? -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Other alternate theories" section should be definitely checked for notability. There are fringe theories about any topic, but not all are notable. bogdan ( talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're still puzzling, read this Talk:Hungarian_prehistory/Archive_2#A_New_Proposal. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now this is just genius! See talk page for a few highlights. I think "the manly avoidance of slobber or of risible tints" has to be my all-time favourite line on Wikipedia. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sborsody, your editing experience would probably improve if you made a minimal effort to follow what other people are talking about. We need to harness the "crowdsourcing power of Wikipedia", indeed. This is done by pooling material on one topic in one place, not by scattering article namespace with random clutter under unlikely titles. Make sure that the people we want to edit an article will find the proper article and start working on it directly. What we want to avoid is deflating the "croudsourcing" by having everyone compile their crappy stub under a separate title and leave it to rot. -- dab (𒁳) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Another merry round of various eccentricities at Paleolithic Continuity Theory,one of my favourite WP:FRINGE test cases. This time, a confused anon with broken English is joined by the latest offensive by my old pal and Neanderthal aficionado Rokus01 ( talk · contribs). -- dab (𒁳) 11:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a dispute at Bates method, beginning here but summed up in a thread below, about what sources are acceptable to cite for the opinions of Bates method proponents. An editor argues that certain websites being cited are not themselves notable, thus any reference to them violates WP:UNDUE. While I don't quite see how UNDUE says that, I do see the basic point that a random personal website is normally not something that should be referenced. Now, for practical purposes, I would say that the sources in question are more than just random personal websites, but perhaps what I call "practical purposes" don't matter here. I looked at WP:FRINGE to see if it addressed what individual fringe sources can be cited in an article about the fringe theory. While WP:PARITY comes somewhat close, it doesn't seem to have an answer for this type of situation. Is this just something that has to be approached with common sense? PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is one specific example. Now, if an independent, third-party source could be found for this, I'd be perfectly okay with deleting the current self-published source. But even without an independent source, this is still a relevant point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this article, and it seems it could do with some help. The lead is too short, and the first two sections are titled "In Christianity" and "In homeopathy". Eventually there is a very poorly written "Skeptical point of view section (apart from one good, but unsourced, part). All of this is without references. I'm about to tag this article, but I'm busy for the next few days so might not have much chance to fix it. I know you guys love this, so I thought I should post it here. Thanks Verbal chat 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
These 3 articles have had heavy chunks of Heyerdahl stuff added to them recently. We've got WP:UNDUE issues and maybe POV ones and sources. No mention for some reason of Heyerdahl's arguments for people bringing culture from the ANE to South America. :-) Doug Weller ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This perennially problematic article could use more attention. Let me direct your attention to a recent issue that's cropped up: recently, the article Acharya S was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)). Acharya S is a proponent of a version of the Jesus myth, but previous consensus was that she didn't belong in the article because she was not a particularly notable advocate of the theory. After her article was deleted, a large section devoted to her popped up in Jesus myth hypothesis. The editor who inserted it acknowledges that Acharya S fails WP:BIO, but cites WP:FRINGE as a reason why she can be included in Jesus myth hypothesis despite a lack of reliable sources or any indication that she's a prominent writer on this topic. Perhaps it's just me, but this looks like a circumvention of the AfD result. More input would be appreciated at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Acharya_S. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The scope of the article is just fine, and conforms to how it's treated in academic works that deal with the subject. The Josephus section that Malcolm refers to is in a section of the article that I think should be removed entirely. The article really ought to follow a chronological format, dealing with Jesus myth authors individually, rather than synthesizing them into a single position (as the article does now). So if, say, Arthur Drews said something about Josephus, his position could be detailed in his section.
Of course, as far as I can see, the mainstream position is that Josephus gives us some evidence for Jesus' historicity. Of course, we have Josephus on Jesus to report what the scholarly consensus is; Jesus myth hypothesis is a different animal. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the introduction contains this sentence: "A related hypothesis is that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE."
That certainly allows the latitude for using sources such as Hyam Maccoby in the article, but Akhilleus' gate keeping activities have blocked it. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye out. The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers who are engaging in attempts to paint the fact that refractive errors are attributed to anatomy rather than physiology as simply a "point of view". Please help combat their tendentiousness. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to MastCell, the reason that there are so many references to Bates' writings is that, when an independent source cites him, the article often references both the independent source and Bates. The detail, however, does not go significantly beyond what is found in the independent sources. If you read the Gardner and Marg works referenced in the article, you'll see they cite Bates extensively.
In regard to the characterization that the article "seems to downplay the strong and well-sourced verdict from experts in the field that this approach is not scientifically well-founded or effective", I've pointed out on the talk page that if you see it that way, then the solution first and foremost is to add more material from independent sources. Certainly there are criticisms which have not yet been incorporated into the article, although many have been. PSWG1920 ( talk) 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Phrases like "The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers" and "a conglomeration of redlinked accounts sharing an agenda" are clear and unwarranted breaches of WP:AGF, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop. I don't doubt the sincerity of those I disagree with, and I expect the same respect in return. On a more posiive note, I agree with MastCell's "a simple stub stating that the Bates Method claims X, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology says Y would be an improvement". What I'd really like to see is that same content somewhat fleshed out. Something like "Bates proposed a method (describe it) which still has supporters who write books on it (mention them). Eye-care professionals see the movement as totally mistaken (give reasons)". What I dislike are suggestions that the pro-Bates school are liars and/or crooks and/or idiots, and exaggerated claims about the anti-Bates evidence. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Old Earth creationism is a notable subject....or of it is just original research? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently been rescued from an AfD, but is still in need of great help (balance, sourcing, and facts mainly). Has anyone heard of this thing before? Care to lend a hand? Verbal chat 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Some super unnotable crackpot sect with its own little walled garden in Category:Nation of Gods and Earths. -- dab (𒁳) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Lawrencekhoo is saying above but I'll add a few things here. First of all, the critique of the use of mathematics is not fringe per se. I thoroughly disagree with that critique but it isn't fringe. Second, ideas such as free banking have been thoroughly debunked and abandonded so no, not all of Hayek's ideas are now mainstream. As I said on ANI, the Austrian school has not so much been absorbed as debunked as largely politically motivated ideas. The only thing left is the critique of the use of mathematics that has been absorbed into mathematical economics by acknowledging that no model is better than its assumptions (very roughly said but you get the idea). These critics are found outside the Austrian school as well. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we concentrate this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Input_requested_regarding_Austrian_School. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of difficulty discussing the Mind Science article with its author, Gary Deines ( User:Garydino). I am concerned that the article subject cannot be appropriately covered in Wikipedia, but can't seem to effectively communicate my points to him. He and I are the only ones who have worked on the page, and I'd appreciate some outside perspective or input, especially from those who may have experience with these sorts of issues. Dancter ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've finally taken the trouble to understand what's going on there. The upshot is, the Shah of Persia presented a copy of this thing to the UN in 1971, and unsuspecting U Thant found much diplomatic praise for it, to the effect of it being "the first charter of human rights". Now, in July, there was some newspaper coverage of Assyrologists saying that, with all due respect, it's just a regular Iron Age propaganda piece. The patriotic Iranian blogosphere, when it was just about done crying bloody murder over 300 (film), was pleased at the opportunity, and we are now seeing the repercussions at our Cyrus cylinder article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I should add that the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph aren't exactly helping things by being rather less than scholarly. So the debate immediately derails into an apology of Cyrus the Great and nitpicking about various details of his reign rather than a discussion of the artefact. Yes, Cyrus is a special figure. No, this doesn't make him the inventor of "human rights". The cylinder is extremely notable as the first document recovered archaeologically that seemed to confirm a story in the Old Testament. So, Cyrus sent home the Jews, and may be bragging about this in his cylinder, among other points in which he beats his nemesis in terms of piety. The "human rights" discussion is still a fabrication of 1971 UN diplomacy and not a serious discussion of the historical events. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization of what I did. As I already explained to ChrisO, just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean that it merits an inclusion in the lead of an article. Other editors on that page can also cheery-pick a source saying "Cyrus was awesome blah blah bah" and put it in the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summery of the article in a NPOV fashion, not a place to quote cherry-picked sources. Otherwise, Max Mallowan could be quoted under the relevant section. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, folks. It looks much better now. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The attempt to rename this continues. Google Books and Google Scholar make it obvious that 'Ram's Bridge' is hardly ever used in the academic literature, which uses 'Adam's Bridge'. Ram's Bridge now redirects to Adam's Bridge but several other articles have been changed - [21]. I sympathise with the editors but WP guidelines seem pretty clear on this. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Which links to a sockpuppet I think we have on Archaeoastronomy - see my edit on the talk page at the bottom of this section. [22]. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I maintain that if she's not notable enough for her own article, why should she be included in another article? is a fallacy. In fact, many biography AfDs can reasonably be addressed by redirection. For example, we used to have a bio article at Eric Goldman. It turned out that this fellow is notable just for predicting "Wikipedia will fail". Thus, while the biography article fails WP:NOTE, it is perfectly due to mention Goldman briefly in Criticism of Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 12:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It had no clinical tests, there's no scientific evidence it works and it got quite a bit of criticism from the mainstream medical scientific community.
The article claims that "Some dietitians, physicians, and nutritional scientists claim the theory lacks scientific evidence.", but shouldn't it say that this is the consensus in medicine, that it's just quackery and be added to Category:Pseudoscience?
bogdan ( talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent example of a notable fringe theory. One thing we need to be careful about in that article is not to rely too heavily on the primary sources which define the blood type diet. Rather we should focus on secondary sources who establish the notability and actually speak to the blood type diet. News articles about it may be helpful as they'll probably try to get a counterpoint from a medical professional. Any excessive attempts at describing exactly how the blood type diet works should be aggressively resisted as a violation of soapboxing. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do about this article, if anything. Agni Yoga is notable, and the article is well written and fairly accurate; but it relies almost entirely on primary sources (the series of Agni Yoga books), and the tone of the article is rather devotional and (perhaps) promotional. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to take a look at Ron Brown (U.S. politician) and the text that's being added regarding conspiracy theories about his death and the Clintons. There seem to be violations of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BLP (libeling the Clintons), and probably others. I don't have much experience with dealing with Wikipedia disputes, and the article doesn't seem to have many people watching it. I'd appreciate any suggestions or help to avoid either an edit war or allowing a Wikipedia article to degenerate into an extension of whatreallyhappened.com. — KCinDC ( talk) 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your classic "ethnic origins" case. Nothing very urgent. -- dab (𒁳) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if editors could keep an eye on Thebuddah ( talk · contribs) and his recent contributions to Black Stone. He's repeatedly pasting in an unsourced personal essay which, if I understand Dbachmann correctly, is a fringe Hindu nationalist viewpoint that asserts that the Ka'aba in Mecca was originally a Hindu temple. I've advised the editor about Wikipedia's content policies, but the message doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience and User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots (sub "Hindutva vs. science"). Western media has been so preoccupied with Islamism and Christian fundamentalism that it has gone all but unnoticed that the most far out completely irrational type of religious fundamentalism thrives within Hinduism. That's because it hardly affects anyone outside India, excepting sideshows such as the mind-boggling California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Btw., the fully developed article languishes in my userspace because of a spectacular admin misjudgement (on a bunch of pov-warriors forming "rough consensus") back in April 2007. I didn't have the heart to take this up again since. -- dab (𒁳) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, to be fair, in terms of violence, we shouldn't judge too lightly. The Hindu nationalists are world champions in bizarre weirdness in terms of ideology, but the "communal violence" is a depressing spiral where the Muslims give as good as they get. I strongly recommend we keep the fringy "antiquity frenzy" and the actual "communal violence" cleanly separated. I also find that Tripping Nambiar has done some useful work recently, and hasn't been focussing on "fringy" topics recently (execpting the odd revert at Mitanni, a topic of which he has no clue or interest whatsoever other than that it loosely touches upon an "ancient Indo-Aryans" theme) -- dab (𒁳) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
well, the patterns get repetitive and quite easy to catch after a while. The Kambojas series is suspicious by its sheer obvious obsessiveness (the group gets about two lines in all of EB). That's enough to tag the articles with warning boxes, but of course the detailed cleanup is difficult. The Sakaldwipiya article is a good showpiece of how it can be done after all. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → WP:ANIarchive#Review of the unblock of Dark Tea |
Is there anyone who feels up to straightening this out? A mish-mash of out-dated stuff, minor sources used to make major claims, etc. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So Dark Tea ( talk · contribs) is at it again. I've been trying to fix this very article a year ago, and ran into all sorts of strange racialist agendas. This may be a matter of administrative action rather than content editing. -- dab (𒁳) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Some updates: I've blocked Dark Tea for 3 months as a precursor to an indef should problems persist, as his latest edits show he is clearly not getting it. I'm also trying to sort out Historical definitions of races in India: I've deleted a lot here (see workpage) not all of which was bad, so I will put some back in once I've trimmed it and cleaned it up. Moreschi ( talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done a deep rv at Eurasian (mixed ancestry). Among other things, this removed utterly encyclopedic information on the dating preferences of Eurasians. The page could still do with significant fixing, though. Moreschi ( talk) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should the theory that Buddhism is more than 1 religion be regarded as a tiny minority view? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any kind of Buddhism self-identifies as a "religion" in the first place, since "religion" is a thorougly western (actually, Roman) concept. -- dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Claims - with frequent italicised emphasis that this project was great! That it proves psychics are real... and ignores all criticism. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Debate over whether Richard Noone is fringe or not. He's the guy that predicted a planetary lineup in 2000 and Antarctica under 3 miles of ice (which I said on the talk page but my edit was deleted). I thought the IP was new, but it turns out to be an editor without an account who calls himself at times Thanos5150. See the recent history of the article and also the talk page (you need to look at the history to see my deleted comment - I'm not sure what to do about that). Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know the thoughts of other editors concerning this edit [24]. My own view is that the paragraph of the introduction is only describing New Thought belief, and that it should not need the added health warning label as a disclaimer; and, if the paragraph is not sufficiently neutral, it should be changed to make it neutral without the health disclaimer. I understand that New Thought views on health problems are fringe ideas, but it seems best to use reliable sources to supply balance. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a quote to the article in which William James discusses New Thought, and which he takes seriously. I think that alone should establish it as a "serious topic in the history of ideas". Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Even highly respected philosophers frequently advocated things that would now (or even then) be considered problematic. For instance Zeno of Citium, the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy (about 300 BC) in his first book, the Republic advocated "the equality of the sexes, co-ed public exercise and training, and a version of “free love” wherein those wishing to have sex will simply satisfy their desires wherever they happen to be at the moment, even in public." [25]. At the time all of it was controversial, and the last part may be controversial even now. (NB: I am not equating New Thought with Stoicism.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Another "Indian caste" topic that only an Indian mind could possibly worry about: We have this extremely WP:LAME edit war atr Kshatriya about where to list the Khatri [26]. Naturally, neither side has anything resembling a quotable source to show. At the Khatri article, the best "reference" backing up the apparently (gods know why) controversial claim that "the Khatri are Kshatriyas" is some random url. I intend this just as a follow-up for the people who have been following the earlier caste stuff further up on this board. -- dab (𒁳) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Alfred de Grazia was largely written by the subject of the article. I've begun the process of culling a lot of the stuff that is either not strictly verifiable, not neutral, redundant, or simply not sourceable. I need to find some independent sources on the guy and need to figure out exactly how to cover his "quantavolution" self-published fringe theory. Can someone explain what exactly makes him notable other than his professorship?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, the Kaaba-is-a-Hindu-Temple guy. Did you know that new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace? Presently a bunch of redlink-accounts are dying to inform us of the fact. -- dab (𒁳) 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the Harvey Milk article in a sandbox, using the best available sources. These include Randy Shilts' comprehensive biography The Mayor of Castro Street, the Oscar-winning documentary derived from it titled The Times of Harvey Milk, five encyclopedia entries (that reference Shilts' book), two books about the Dan White trial, and Bay-area newspapers from 1973 to 1978. I had it in mind to do for several months, but Mosedschurte ( talk · contribs)'s involvement in the article inspired its completion. Mosedschurte has been inserting information about Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple in its own subsection starting in May and it had been contested ever since. The full section was trimmed down but remained problematic with Benjiboi ( talk · contribs) and Mosedschurte in an edit war with Benjiboi filing an RfC to resolve the issue which disturbingly had some {{ SPA}} !votes. Benjiboi then sought other eyes at ANI which resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease Mosedschurte's concerns. Despite these steps and calls for NPOV and RS the disputed content was continually re-inserted by Mosedschurte. Before I jumped in, I wanted to read as much as I could about Milk to make sure the information is actually not notable in his life. While it is true that Milk was tangentially involved with the Peoples Temple (stipulated in the expanded article under the section titled "Race for state assembly"), it is not true that his involvement is notable in his life, nor is it notable in light of the experiences of San Francisco and state politicians at the time. Most politicians in Northern California were working in some way with Jones and the Temple. None of the sources available for Milk discuss his involvement in the Peoples Temple or with Jim Jones at any length. They mention it only in passing.
Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked. Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life. At best, this weights the article, creating an event that really had no importance taking into account what people knew about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple; it also calls into question why a single cause of Milk's is highlighted when Milk attended hundreds of meetings in the city, and wrote hundreds of letters for his constituents. At worst, it suggests that Milk was aware of Jones' criminal activities, condoned them, and used his political office to further Jones' cause. That is unacceptable. The information, however, has again been added to Milk's article and Mosedschurte continues to argue that the Jonestown suicides were notable, making that information the reason it is in Milk's article.
Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative—where he appeared on television and public forums across California for months, and his passing ordinances that got him press coverage across the country. Quite simply, that is ridiculous. I also asked SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) and Slp1 ( talk · contribs) to chime in on the talk page. Their comments are available there.
I am not convinced Mosedschurte is familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding notability, original research, synthesizing information, and fringe theories despite links provided for him. Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones". He has been unable or unwilling to provide passages in books he's been claiming to use, and details of the number of times Milk spoke at rallies at the Peoples Temple, dates - particularly in light of Jones' investigation, and even the nature of the investigation's charges. Mosedschurte is reverting sound edits that reflect the best of the encyclopedia in favor of the promotion of this non-event in Milk's life. I think enough time and energy has been spent on this. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is not a single Bellefountaine source left. The one cite to one article he wrote was deleted long ago.
Bellefountaine was an author who was interviewing former Temple members and examining documents to work on a book about the Peoples Temple and a preliminary article of his was posted parts on the San Diego State Jonestown Institute site. A cite to one such article was included before. He since died before finishing the book.
After one editor accused Bellefountaine of being a questionable source, the source was simply deleted. It is no longer cited at all. Re-raising his name is an attempt to fabricate a "fringe" theory regaring the entirely noncontroversial facts that remain.
No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."
Rather, what is very briefly stated is only that Milk attended the Temple while it was under investigation and wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and attacking the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.
That is why there was only one sentence in the entire 77,000 byte Milk article on the subject.
This is again another ridiculous charge, and the sort of sniping I've been attempting to steer clear of during the entire time despite you're continued reliance upon it.
And it's flatly inaccurate. Not that this is relevant at all, but I have purchased several books, hundreds of newspaper articles and, as an aside, also possess many documents, audiotapes and videotapes on the subject. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not even remotely the size of the of the Briggs initiative, which has an entire multiparagraph section.
Rather, the 3 Milk lines being disputed here -- what this entire "Fringe Theory" complaint is about -- consist entirely of the following buried at the bottom of the Supervisor subsection:
Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other local politicians, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919893-1,00.html "Another Day of Death."] ''Time Magazine''. 11 December 1978.</ref><ref>Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. ''Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People'', Dutton, 1982, ISBN 0-525-24136-1, page 327</ref><ref name="vandecarr">VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit.", The Advocate, November 25, 2003</ref>
Milk also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter praising Temple leader Jim Jones and questioning the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.<ref>Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect", Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68</ref><ref name="milk_let">Milk, Harvey [http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown/milk.jpg ''Letter Addressed to President Jimmy Carter, Dated February 19, 1978'']</ref>
No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."
In addition, this topic was the subject of a Request for Comment long ago, when there was a subsection on Milk's involvement (now there is merely a tiny 3 line text in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection) and others stated that the material should stay.
As it is, it is a tiny 3 line mention of sourced NPOV encyclopedically phrased text in a huge 77,000 byte article on Milk. Mosedschurte ( talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Itsmejudith: I agree generally with that, but I would add that what remains now is already a severely cut down version of the prior material in order to comport with an editor's prior complaints.
In fact, it used to be it's own multipart subsection.
The tiny part that remains is what would be of note to Milk. Much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers. Such meetings and letters are notable. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is simply false. Or worse.
I have made absolutely no "connection" other than precisely what is stated by journalists and authors. I have simply cited them.
In fact, only a tiny part of the interaction remains in the article as is. 3 lines.
The only part are the meetings post-investigation and President Carter letter. This is primarily notable because of the notariety and activities of the group. As stated, much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.
Even though they do not take up large parts of his life, such meetings and letters to the President attacking that group's opponents are very clearly notable.
As it is, it has already been cut down to just a 3 line mention in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is, again, a broad based -- and frankly false in so many parts -- attack on me rather than the subject.
In fact, every time I directly address the vaguely asserted NPOV and UNDUE concerns, you switch the topic to me personally. For whatever reason, the Milk article appears to generate emotional responses from some editors.
Getting back to the topic, the only
WP:Undue and
WP:NPOV arguments I've heard are:
(1)The post-investigation activity is not in Randy Shilts biography, which is entirely irreleavant; and
(2)That a significant part of Milk's life was not involved with the Peoples Temple, and no one has ever stated that such was the case. Rather, a 3 line mention is made of him speaking at the Temple after investigations and writing President Carter praising Jones and attacking the leader of those trying to extricate relatives from Jonestown. That is all that is stated.
These are short but rather notable events given the notariety and activities of the group. That is all they have purported to be.
These notable events are concisely summarized in an entirely NPOV fashion with proper sources in a tiny 3 line section buried at the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection of a 77,000 byte article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: "There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV."
There aren't any specific NPOV, OR or UNDUE concerns I've heard except for the above.
And, as I have explained going directly through the issues, the tiny summary is presented in a very concise NPOV fashion in the "Supervisor" subsection.
I've stated this probably 5 times now on the Milk talk page, but the ONLY thing the Raven cite is left supporting in the small remaining text is that Milk attended a single meeting, the July 31 meeting.
Another source, VanDeCarr, which is cited, states that Milk last spoke at the Temple on October of 1978. This is what is stated:
Milk spoke at a service for the last time in October 1978. He had been enthusiastically received at Peoples Temple several times before, and he always sent glowing thank-yon notes to Jones afterward. After one visit, Milk wrote, "Rev. Jim, It may Lake me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something deal" today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours mad energy, placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave." (VanDeCarr)
Regarding the one meeting for which Raven is still cited for this particular text, this is precisely what the book states. Here is quote from pages 327-8: "Lavish expresssions of solidarity marked a July 31 rally designed to unify Temple members and their supporters." The book then goes into an extended quote of Jones speaking via telephone over speakers from Guyana, to which he had just fled. It then states "When Jones finished, State Assemblyman Art Agnos, who was visiting for the first time, turned to county supervisor Harvey Milk, 'Harvey, that guy is really wild.' Milk smiled, 'Yeah, he's different all right.'"
They are already in the article because I added them back after deletion. They were deleted a few days ago again, and I re-added them, this time NOT in their own section, but in a smaller 3 line piece of text in the "Supervisor" subsection. Mosedschurte ( talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed "Undue Weight" at length above. Given the notariety of the group -- largest loss of U.S. civilian life pre-9-11 -- and their activities, the meetings and speeches at their meetings and letter the U.S. President praising them and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown were themselves notable. No one has really attempted to make an argument to contrary.
In fact, to take just one far less notable example, look at the Dennis Wilson bio article. There is an entire 23 line section devoted to just his picking up hitchhikers that belonged to Manson's family and friendly relations with the group well before any crimes were committed (in fact, Wilson turned away from Manson's group), which obviously pales in comparison in terms of notoriety to the Peoples Temple. There isn't even an instance of Wilson supporting the group to officials or attacking its opponents.
Or, as the other even better hypothetical parallel, if Rudy Giulliani (or a NYC City Councilman), for example, attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.
And keep in mind that this is a sourced 3-line mention in the 77,000 byte Milk article. And, yes, I know that size alone does not determine Undue Weight, and I am only pointing this out to further demonstrate that the size itself here is not an issue.
The "synthesis" concerns simply don't exist here where no conclusion is at all reached. WP:Synthesis states "an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." The 3 lines of text simply state undisputed events that occurred without conclusion.
There is no "original research" in the Milk article as far as I know. Mosedschurte ( talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: "I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist."
This is simply false and the sniping really needs to stop.
The sources as discussed above, by the way, say EXACTLY what the text in the article states (note that the new explanatory language, including the "well fuck him" quote was included by moni):
Note that:While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other politicians in Northern California, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple, including while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919893-1,00.html "Another Day of Death."] ''Time Magazine''. 11 December 1978.</ref><ref>Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. ''Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People'', Dutton, 1982, ISBN 0-525-24136-1, page 327</ref><ref name="vandecarr">VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit.", The Advocate, November 25, 2003</ref><ref group=note>Milk's relationship with the Temple was similar to other politcians' in Northern California. According to ''The San Francisco Examiner'', Jones and his parishioners were a "potent political force", helping to elect Moscone (who appointed him to the Housing Authority), District Attoney Jose Frietas, and Sheriff Richard Hongisto.(Jacobs, John [November 20, 1978]. "S.F.'s Leaders Recall Jones the Politician" ''The San Francisco Examiner'', p. C.)</ref>
Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=3B4lTTZE58oC&pg=PA68&dq=Coleman,+Loren,+%22letter+to+President%22&sig=ACfU3U2pDXFozbRMvUJuOcd_hpUBUKnJdg Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect"], Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68</ref>
, he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. When Milk learned Jones was backing both him and Art Agnos in 1976, he told friend Michael Wong, "Well fuck him. I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays."<ref>Shilts, p. 139.</ref>
(1) Moni's new language is included (including the "well fuck him" quote moni added)
(2) Moni's note is included
(3) The source containing the actual image of Milk's letter is gone
Mosedschurte (
talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. In fact, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote word-for-word in the article now.
Trust me, I have zero problem with you or Milk or me saying " fuck", or including the quote. In fact, I included the same quote in the Political_alliances_of_Peoples_Temple article long ago. I would have added it myself, along with Milk's other quote calling the Temple "dangerous", but there was already yelping of "undue weight" concerns I was fearful to add any additional text at all.
I merely pointed out that you added that quote to the Wikipedia article because it was not clear on this board.
I thought the quote was both helpful (explained Milk's motives--distrusted Jones) and interesting, and I kept it in the article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Long story short, the anon insists that the source used for the lead in fringe science is itself fringe because it appears that no one cites the article used to reference the definition("Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists"). The problem is that almost all the works I can find on google scholar take a definition of fringe for granted and do not bother defining it. I have asked the anon to source their claim that this is a fringe definition, but they evade. Anyone got a better idea than ignoring this person? Discussion here. NJGW ( talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This time on Battle of Opis, an article related to Cyrus cylinder (discussed above). Larno Man ( talk · contribs) disagrees with a widely cited translation of a Babylonian text quoted in the article and the interpretations that have arisen from it, and is demanding that it must be discarded (along with said interpretations) in favour of a very new translation. I've pointed out that we can't unilaterally declare a brand new translation to be "the truth", particularly as I've been unable to find any reputable corroborations or citations of the new translation. Although it's being pushed heavily by Iranian nationalists, it comes from a respectable source; I've tried to compromise by including it as a footnote [30]. Unfortunately this hasn't satisfied Larno Man or his colleague Ariobarza ( talk · contribs), who has taken to deleting without comment material that he doesn't like, adding his own personal commentary [31] and falsifying quotations from sources [32]. Input would be appreciated... -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
they will just tell you "it is always somebody's wrong version that gets protected, son". Of course without even having looked at the case. The problem with our "new model admins" is that they firmly believe that they do not need to understand the dispute: heavens, if they did, wouldn't that make them "involved"? The article will be fine, the pov-pushers always get tired sooner or later, and swarm to the latest hotspot, and the encyclopedists can then go in and clean up after them. It will take a couple of months. It is just sad to see that "admin intervention" actually delays the process instead of facilitating it. -- dab (𒁳) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Various anonymous IP addresses are now turning up at Cyrus cylinder and are blanking sections of the article (now reverted). No doubt someone has put the word out to the nationalist grapevine. Any chance someone uninvolved could semi-protect the article? -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
See here for a couple of more examples of disruptive editing by Larno Man (for collecting them, however, I received a warning from Khoi khoi for stalking). -- Ankimai ( talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please provide additional outsider input in Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China about a possible merger. In my opinion I feel this whole article is a fringe theory, providing no evidence of exclusivity and most sources better used in a neutral article like Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Current editing base is 2 plus a very disruptive third editor, so discussions become very polarised and lead to nothing at the end, so I seek to expand the editing base so that there's a wider range of editors maintaining the article. -- antilived T | C | G 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I just came across Barry Long, which claims that he was "was an Australian spiritual teacher and writer", but which does not seem to establish his notability, and which has only primary sources. Does anyone know if he is actually notable? There are a number of books listed, but they seem to be self published. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I responded to the original enquiry on this noticeboard and have engaged with the issue a bit. I would appreciate a few more people passing by. At first I didn't think it was a fringe issue, but now I think it might be. There are reliable sources that show that the Peoples Temple canvassed links with a number of Democratic Party politicians, but the question is what weight to attach and whether it is our role to expose every single minor connection. A series of inter-related pages need checking out for POV-forking and coatracking. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just cleaned up Extraterrestrial real estate, [34] an article that has been cleanup tagged for a long time. It was suffering from lots of fringe material, linkspam and apparent self-promotion by those selling such real estate.
I suspect that the people who created the problem with this article will attempt to restore their content. Can noticeboard participants please watch the article and help make sure that it stays clean. If any tendentious editors attempt to damage the article, please find an administrator to dispense clues as needed.
If any aspect of my cleanup removed valid content, editors are welcome to restore material supported by reliable sources. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
We've got a POV pusher back trying to insert some nonsense in the construction techniques article about a fringe writer named Noone, whose material virtually only shows up on the web through our article. See my edit on Talk:Egyptian pyramid construction techniques (the guy's called me a liar also, but I don't know if it's worth taking to WP:CIVIL. He's active on both articles. I'm not around much tonight, not sure about tomorrow, so if anyone can keep an eye on them and explain to him why the Noone stuff is too insignificant for Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, has repeatedly abused his rollback privleges on the disk jockey page to enforce a fringe phenomenon and defy editor consensus. Since August, the editors have debated endlessly about the importance and prevalance of topless DJing, and therefore the nessecity of a picture about it on the article. All the editors have agreed that topless female DJs have only been found with accurate citations in ONE mainstream nightclub, which has since shut down. Therefore everyone but Binksternet has agreed the picture should be removed due to irrellavance. But Binksternet has defied this near-consensus and now on some days has been going over the three-revert rule. He claims that the picture "shows how experementation is part of DJing" which is the lamest excuse I have ever heard of. he should be blocked from editing the DJ article for his repeated attempts to give undue weight to an extremly minor phenomenon. -- Ipatrol ( talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two editors who are sometimes active on this noticeboard, Orangemarlin and ScienceApologist, who I believe are edit warring on the New Thought article and trying to make unsourced changes. I would appreciate hearing the views of other editors here, who I am sure will let me know if they think I am I am mistaken. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent problems with Iranian nationalists pushing fringe theories are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man. -- ChrisO ( talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Not long ago I deleted a lot of material from this Theosophical Society related article because of, what seems to me, synthesis and original research, and lack of secondary sources. All that was just reverted, and I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look. There is no point in arguing if it turns out I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to draw a bit of attention to this article, and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovirus. Looie496 ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside input required here. I used to think this was a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism, but recent anon activity has led me to review the case, and I find that this has the typical hallmarks of pure WP:SYN.
I am not sure whether the article can stand as a topic on its own. Perhaps this will need to become a note at the Neopaganism article that "some proponents have advanced 'reconstructionism'" or similar.
These are my concerns. I haven't made up my mind and I am genuinely looking for third opinions. -- dab (𒁳) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The term was coined by Isaac Bonewits long before anyone actually embraced it as a self-description. The question isn't whether the term exists, but whether we need, or can justify, a standalone article about it. -- dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have begun the process of systematically cleaning up List of UFO sightings. I could use some help. We need to rely on good sources to do this clean-up. I have already removed all the website citations to youtube videos, enthusiast organizations, and conspiracy theories. That leaves a vast majority of the "sightings" without a reliable source reference. We will eventually have to go through and remove the "News of the Weird" citations as well: just because it was a slow news-day doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on your UFO sighting. Once we've confirmed with the best sources, we can remove the sightings that do not have mainstream, independent, third-party coverage.
Please help.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nepaheshgar ( talk · contribs) has jumped right back in where CreazySuit ( talk · contribs) left off on Battle of Opis, making exactly the same ridiculous arguments (latest translation is the most authoritative, the author is "superior" to any other authors, the author of another translation can't have translated it herself because her personal web page doesn't say she reads ancient Akkadian). See my comments at Talk:Battle of Opis#A plea for sanity. Is anyone going to help out on this article or is it going to be abandoned to POV-pushers and original research nonsense? -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this article is more occult apologetics than an encyclopedic article. Comments criticizing the article go back to 2006 and include describing the article is merely a dump of a research paper, and that it overstates magic in the everyday life of the Greco-Roman world. There is at least one bastardized quote in the article, a number of citations that are misrepresented (Dodds calls Empedocles a shaman, not a "poet, magus, teacher, and scientist". In fact, the word magus is not used at all in Dodds' book The Greeks and the Irrational.), and there is an extensive Resource list (without in-line citations) used to bolster the article, much of which seems to not be panning out as being used in the article's creation. There is an inordinate amount of time spent attempting to persuade the reader in accepting why practices should be considered magic, and historical figures magicians. Additionally, the article is littered with original research. -- 151.201.149.209 ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
a "dump of a research paper" would imply WP:OR, but I don't really think it is that bad. It is a difficult and opaque subject, and could definitely do with expert attention, We could apply inline tags to mark the issues raised, but in general I suppose it is natural that the article has magic as its focus without necessarily "overstating" magic. If we saw such a focus on magic in, say, Hellenistic religion, the matter might be different, but this article is, after all, ostensibly dedicated to disucssing magic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As I have tried to delve into the cited sources, and validate quotes and citations, it has become glaringly obvious that this article is, at the very least, a synopsis of the chapter Magic from Georg Luck's book Arcana Mundi. It makes many of the exact same statements, references the exact same sources (which became obvious the original contributor of the article did not read), and in some places seem to walk a very thin line on what could be called plagiarism. Please see my recent comments on the talk page. How does this get handled? -- 151.201.149.209 ( talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So we went from "fringe" to {{ onesource}}. Since Luck (1985) is academically published, I do suppose it is permissible as a source, and it is good practice to start out an article on an academic topic by summarizing the gist of a dedicated monograph. It still remains, however, to avoid copyright violation, and to allow for the presentation of other viewpoints, especially from more recent publication since the source used is already aged more than 20 years. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see [36]. You need to look at all the article edits made by the SPA IP editor, not just the most recent, to get a full picture. And - this IP editor's first edit was the 27th, fast learning curve? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Nature published today an article about the origins of AIDS and so I looked at what Wikipedia says about this subject.
AIDS origin lists two hypotheses as subsections: Cameroon chimpanzees hypothesis and Oral polio vaccine hypothesis. The later is "generally rejected by the scientific community" and yet, it holds much more space within the article. Isn't this against the Wikipedia:Undue policy? bogdan ( talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to add a section to balance the "Ship that Never Sank" section in Titanic alternative theories and am meeting some opposition. Would someone be willing to look at my proposed draft in Talk: Titanic alternative theories (Section 5.1.1) and give their opinions as to whether the level of detail I include is appropriate? Thanks. Mgy401 1912 ( talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has sources, but seems to synthesize a number of primary sources that have little in common into an article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has no real sources, and may contain nothing but original research. It is difficult to know what to do with it because, if I started to delete problematic and unsourced material there would probably be nothing left aside from the Gershom Sholem quote. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There are profound differences between religious Jewish Kabbalists and academic historians of Kabbalah (not to mention Hermetic Qabalah). To many of the religious students to Kabbalah, any publicly available information on Kabbalah is a source of worry, and Kabbalah Ma'asit is considered far too dangerous for any person but the most saintly:
Does any of this sound dangerous? Yet countless times I have heard from people and scholars that this area of study is both deadly and dangerous. Sometimes these scholars bring evidence from scattered souces in the practical tradition of Kabbalah. Again, we turn to Rabbi Moshe Miller in the introduction to his new translation of the Zohar: “The practical tradition of Kabbalah involves techniques aimed specifically at altering natural states or events – techniques such as the incantation of Divine Names…. However, Kabbalah ma’asit [practical Kabbalah] is meant to be employed by only the most saintly and responsible of individuals and for no other purpose than the benefit of man or implementation of G-d’s plan in creation.” Rabbi Miller goes on to point out a very important fact: “Even in the era of the great kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the holy Ari (mid 16th century), there are indications of these techniques being abused by unfit practitioners [as they are today]. The holy Ari himself admonished his disciples to avoid [in fact he forbid it] the practical arts of Kabbalah, as he deemed such practice unsafe so long as the state of ritual purity necessary for service in the Holy Temple remains unattainable.” [39] (This site is the site of a very religious publisher, and after sundown today it may be unavailable until sundown tomorrow.)
Interestingly, it is frequently the people least qualified who think they are most qualified. In any case, having spoken to many religious Kabbalists, I can assure you that they consider even the best academic historians of Kabbalah to be mistaken in the extreme in their views of Kabbalah. In a way the differences remind me of the comment by Walt Disney that "first we do it and then the critics tell us what we have done." Artists, like Kabbalists, tend to think the academics who analyze their work are unqualified to understand, and the academics tend to think the artists do not really understand their own work. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, the weight tends to go to those scholars who are academically notable, and the standard for inclusion in articles is verifiability not truth. I suppose nothing else is possible under the circumstances...but it is not difficult to see the limitations. However, in the case of Kabbalah, there are highly notable religious scholars (frequently rabbis), and their views do need to be included. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Wikipedia:Scientific standards
I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.
Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.
See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed with a number of notorious troublespots without any obvious connection apparently sorting themselves out. Satanic ritual abuse seems to reach a safe haven of common sense. Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been sane for two days. No vandalism to History of Armenia topics for ages. History of Hinduism solidifies into something that is actually readable and mostly accurate. No "Türkic" nationalist activity at Turkic alphabets since July. Hell, even currently hot topics like Kosovo and 2008 South Ossetia war are completely under control. Might this mean that ... sanity finally prevails? The beginning of a golden age of Wikipedia where the trolls don't even bother to try? I am particularly impressed with the impact of Moreschi ( talk · contribs). He has managed something I never did, he uses the block button heavy-handedly and fixes content at the same time. This is the Wikipedia I signed up for! I know there are disturbing trends, both the admin community and the arbcom showing a capability for bad judgement unimaginable in the old days, but these successes really make things look bright. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Re RfA, I'd have to agree - I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need more AIV patrollers. We need people who can understand and effectively intervene in thorny conflicts in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's basic principles. The problem is that we see a ton of candidates who are good people, decent editors, nice folks, but just haven't demonstrated any conflict-resolution skills. They're essentially a black box - will they avoid conflicts altogether? Will they turn out to be the next Newyorkbrad? Or, more likely, will they react unpredictably and possibly harmfully when things hit the fan? But I find it quite hard, still, to oppose a nice, well-meaning candidate solely on the grounds that they haven't been in any conflicts. MastCell Talk 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has appeared in the last few weeks, and seems to have an agenda and style of editing (esp WP:SYNTH) similar to former user Rokus01, though I don't think they are identical. S/he has been altering the Neanderthal article and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, in addition to others on IE topics, generally seeming to push the view that Europeans are partly descended from Neanderthals and that IE is paleolithic. Some edits are downright bizarre, such as the addition of an image of medieval glass-blowing and a caption about Slovene words for pipes to an article about an alleged Neanderthal flute ( [1]). The Neanderthal page has been semi-protected because of the frustration that his editing style and manner of discussion has produced, but is now clearly slanted in favour of the Neanderthal-HomSap interbreeding theory, which is even presented as undisputed fact at points. Other edits may be similarly slanted. Paul B ( talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article uses almost exclusively self-published websites to offer a slew of conspiracy theories about chemtrails. I'm not even sure that this is an encyclopedic topic: I couldn't find a single secondary independent source that acknowledged the notability of this particular fringe theory. We need some people to look it over, cull out the stuff that is referenced solely to looney-toons webpages, and try to make an article that actually tells people about the social significance of this conspiracy theory (if there is any). Whew! ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Reddi. I just cut out a bit of unattributed quotation (referenced, but no indication it was a quote) from an 1890s book which I didn't think was helpful, and some fractured English about Thales replacing it with the original stuff, he's replaced both (I did note that the English was bad, maybe it's me that can't read?). I'm not sure about do to about some ancient speculation from the 1890s but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in the articles that have nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. (Cross-posted to WT:MED) MastCell Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve the homeopathy page by looking at problems that have been raised and then finding what the consensus for dealing with it is (no change, small change, big change, etc). The first issue I've proposed is keeping quackery in the lead. Here is my summary: Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead. Now I agree that it should be included in the article, as it's verifiable, a common opinion, and from a reliable source. However, for the lead I feel that the term pseudoscience is enough. I would suggest keeping the sentence in the lead up to the semicolon (replaced with a full stop), and integrating the remainder into the body of the article. Perhaps into the "Research on medical effectiveness" section or the 20th century section. This is something I've suggested before but which has been overtaken (usually) by discussions as to whether homeopathy works, so please lets keep his on topic: quackery removed from the lead, put somewhere else. Note that currently quackery doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.
Please come and join the conversation or suggest other topics or fixes. All the best. Verbal chat 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the article and talk page? I got involved because the talk page was being badly messed around, with an IP editor (who was OTT I think in criticising Michell) and others were deleting each other's edits, warnings were being put on the talk page instead of user pages, etc. I've now gotten a bit more involved and have been told that my edits on the talk page indicate I don't understand OR, that I'm using it as a chat page, etc. The main problems seem to be the balance of the article a couple of editors who both don't understand referencing, OR, etc -- and it would be nice to get better balance in the article, but the problem there seems to be although Michell is very popular among New Age adherents he's largely ignored (except maybe for his book on Shakespeare) in other quarters. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
this used to be a problem, back in November, but hopefully not now it has been brought up here on this noticeboard. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest [2] as an alternative to the old version Moreschi pointed at? It has a bit of puffery, but also a substantial amount of useful information. I think the puffery could easily be removed if SageMab was not constantly interfering. Looie496 ( talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked DougWeller to stop following me around. What about this article is puffery? Be specific please. I do think that Looie is working to improve this article. I think a lot of the other edits are done by people who do not understand NPOV and who have no love of the author's subject matter. Paul, do not assume what I want. It shows no good faith. A lack of serious negative critics over an authors 40+ year wrting career does not make other commentary about his work "puffery", a biased term. I have seen picking at this article rather than constuctive edits that added new material. I am not a "fan" of any subject on Wikipedia. I do care about facts and how they are edited. I would like to request a stop of the "ganging up". The article, not a major piece, is being chatted to death on the discussion page. SageMab ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
And where Looie in the above quote, or any place else, have you been accused of "Having love for John Michell's subject matter..."? Read my comment carefully and do not accuse me of pov-pushing for an author. Uncivil and untrue. It's not like anyone is accusing you as being part of a cabal. SageMab ( talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the true spirit of Jimbo Wales behind the original WP:CIVIL policy, but I almost never see it invoked other than as a last resort of problem editors thrown into the fray after it has become clear they have no case. We need to make clear that while comments like "your mother smells of elderberry" may be incivil, dry statements to the effect of "you are wrong" are not ( WP:SPADE). -- dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
related trouble at Radical Traditionalism. Yes, this is a little walled garden. -- dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Doing some RC patrol, I came across this article on a female professional wrestler, and was bemused to see that it's written with the point of view that all those competitions are actually real. Now of course that's nonsense -- I wonder whether this happens in other wrestling-related articles, and whether anybody cares? To be honest, I'm not sure that I even care. Looie496 ( talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's part of the issue raised at Wikipedia:RSN#David_Cymet.2C_Pi.C5.82sudski_and_anti-semitism. In order to centralize a discussion - which is related to FRINGE - I'd like to ask for some editors to comment on it at the RSN. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This fellow, who is a UFO researcher, came up on the BLP noticeboard, but in my opinion the article belongs here. The article is not only fully credulous of fringe views, it is structured as little more than a long sequence of quotes, mostly in italics. Wow. Looie496 ( talk) 00:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While taking a look at this Theosophical Society related article, I noticed that in the last few months it has evolved from this [3] stub to a much larger article that now seems to have a major problem with WP:SYNTH. I have been considering just reverting the article back to the earlier version, but suppose that would result in an edit war. Any suggestions? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am more concerned with things like this:
“M brings orders to form a Society—a secret Society like the Rosicrucian Lodge. He promises to help.”[3] This quote from Blavatsky’s private Scrapbook shows that Master Morya (or M) was deeply involved in the theosophical work from the very beginning. Moreover, contrary to the assertion of the French Muslim scholar, Rene Guenon,[4] there is considerable evidence to suggest that Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters for at least two decades before her public theosophical work began in America. [4]
which is clearly drawing conclusions from primary sources. It is also advocating the teaching, not just describing it. Of course, there may be copyright violations too, but that is a fairly easy problem to fix. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fringe theory what
In Soviet Ukraine this policy had a dramatic effect on the Ukrainian ethnic population and its culture as 86% of the population lived in rural settings. The forceful introduction of the policy of Collectivization was one of the main causes of the Holodomor.
Article was created as copy-paste from Holodomor and now from main article removed significant and important chapters under “brand” “Deleted duplicates from Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. In fact this chapters has nothing or little relation to historical event Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR. While in general it’s another article in fringe theory about “Ukrainian Holocaust” (see other Language link which referred to Holodomor”, List of Books and articles [5] and External links [6] – note the first ref in list.
Actually it’s thory widely popular because of “
One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.”
(From p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30. Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996. See also Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund: Media Tryck, Lund University, 2006).)
May be would be good to limit effort by group of editors to exploit WP as soapbox per
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.
Thanks Jo0doe ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What the editor is perhaps trying to say is that this is part of the "Holodomor" walled garden, which is a politically and historically fraught topic, apparently, and in which most of WP's articles are sourced to extremely doubtful sources and consist largely of massive SYN violations. I was unfamiliar with the question, though not with the collectivization-related Soviet famine of 1932-33, before I discovered the worst article in Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in the details of what underlies this fringe-pushing, they can email me. I don't want to start a firefight on this noticeboard. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The fascinating published opinion that there are etymological connections between medieval Hungarian legends and ancient Sumerian myths has unfortunately run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge", who wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about. On the flimsiest of grounds they have decided to damn the memory of these theories to non-existence. [7]. This obviously has to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That's quite a lot of myth and "alternate theories". Moreschi ( talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this conversation and before I read any further what has been written I must give some perspective. The Hungarian prehistory article started out originally as a POV fork. All of the content originally was a translation of Istvan Kisztely's fringe theories with some stuff thrown in by "scholar" Fred Hamori. Since that time I and several other editors have attempted to bring the article back into mainstream without starting edit wars. A lot of work was done to get better material from reputable sources incorporated into the article. It is still has a long way to go though. Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases that the article is "fringe" and start chopping up everything without this perspective, it rankles feathers. I won't defend the article because it still needs a lot of improvement, but it does absolutely no good when I see Folantin remove the Historiography section. What are you trying to do? Make it even more fringe so you can delete it? -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Other alternate theories" section should be definitely checked for notability. There are fringe theories about any topic, but not all are notable. bogdan ( talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're still puzzling, read this Talk:Hungarian_prehistory/Archive_2#A_New_Proposal. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now this is just genius! See talk page for a few highlights. I think "the manly avoidance of slobber or of risible tints" has to be my all-time favourite line on Wikipedia. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sborsody, your editing experience would probably improve if you made a minimal effort to follow what other people are talking about. We need to harness the "crowdsourcing power of Wikipedia", indeed. This is done by pooling material on one topic in one place, not by scattering article namespace with random clutter under unlikely titles. Make sure that the people we want to edit an article will find the proper article and start working on it directly. What we want to avoid is deflating the "croudsourcing" by having everyone compile their crappy stub under a separate title and leave it to rot. -- dab (𒁳) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Another merry round of various eccentricities at Paleolithic Continuity Theory,one of my favourite WP:FRINGE test cases. This time, a confused anon with broken English is joined by the latest offensive by my old pal and Neanderthal aficionado Rokus01 ( talk · contribs). -- dab (𒁳) 11:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We have a dispute at Bates method, beginning here but summed up in a thread below, about what sources are acceptable to cite for the opinions of Bates method proponents. An editor argues that certain websites being cited are not themselves notable, thus any reference to them violates WP:UNDUE. While I don't quite see how UNDUE says that, I do see the basic point that a random personal website is normally not something that should be referenced. Now, for practical purposes, I would say that the sources in question are more than just random personal websites, but perhaps what I call "practical purposes" don't matter here. I looked at WP:FRINGE to see if it addressed what individual fringe sources can be cited in an article about the fringe theory. While WP:PARITY comes somewhat close, it doesn't seem to have an answer for this type of situation. Is this just something that has to be approached with common sense? PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is one specific example. Now, if an independent, third-party source could be found for this, I'd be perfectly okay with deleting the current self-published source. But even without an independent source, this is still a relevant point. PSWG1920 ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this article, and it seems it could do with some help. The lead is too short, and the first two sections are titled "In Christianity" and "In homeopathy". Eventually there is a very poorly written "Skeptical point of view section (apart from one good, but unsourced, part). All of this is without references. I'm about to tag this article, but I'm busy for the next few days so might not have much chance to fix it. I know you guys love this, so I thought I should post it here. Thanks Verbal chat 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
These 3 articles have had heavy chunks of Heyerdahl stuff added to them recently. We've got WP:UNDUE issues and maybe POV ones and sources. No mention for some reason of Heyerdahl's arguments for people bringing culture from the ANE to South America. :-) Doug Weller ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This perennially problematic article could use more attention. Let me direct your attention to a recent issue that's cropped up: recently, the article Acharya S was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)). Acharya S is a proponent of a version of the Jesus myth, but previous consensus was that she didn't belong in the article because she was not a particularly notable advocate of the theory. After her article was deleted, a large section devoted to her popped up in Jesus myth hypothesis. The editor who inserted it acknowledges that Acharya S fails WP:BIO, but cites WP:FRINGE as a reason why she can be included in Jesus myth hypothesis despite a lack of reliable sources or any indication that she's a prominent writer on this topic. Perhaps it's just me, but this looks like a circumvention of the AfD result. More input would be appreciated at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Acharya_S. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The scope of the article is just fine, and conforms to how it's treated in academic works that deal with the subject. The Josephus section that Malcolm refers to is in a section of the article that I think should be removed entirely. The article really ought to follow a chronological format, dealing with Jesus myth authors individually, rather than synthesizing them into a single position (as the article does now). So if, say, Arthur Drews said something about Josephus, his position could be detailed in his section.
Of course, as far as I can see, the mainstream position is that Josephus gives us some evidence for Jesus' historicity. Of course, we have Josephus on Jesus to report what the scholarly consensus is; Jesus myth hypothesis is a different animal. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the introduction contains this sentence: "A related hypothesis is that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE."
That certainly allows the latitude for using sources such as Hyam Maccoby in the article, but Akhilleus' gate keeping activities have blocked it. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye out. The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers who are engaging in attempts to paint the fact that refractive errors are attributed to anatomy rather than physiology as simply a "point of view". Please help combat their tendentiousness. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to MastCell, the reason that there are so many references to Bates' writings is that, when an independent source cites him, the article often references both the independent source and Bates. The detail, however, does not go significantly beyond what is found in the independent sources. If you read the Gardner and Marg works referenced in the article, you'll see they cite Bates extensively.
In regard to the characterization that the article "seems to downplay the strong and well-sourced verdict from experts in the field that this approach is not scientifically well-founded or effective", I've pointed out on the talk page that if you see it that way, then the solution first and foremost is to add more material from independent sources. Certainly there are criticisms which have not yet been incorporated into the article, although many have been. PSWG1920 ( talk) 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Phrases like "The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers" and "a conglomeration of redlinked accounts sharing an agenda" are clear and unwarranted breaches of WP:AGF, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop. I don't doubt the sincerity of those I disagree with, and I expect the same respect in return. On a more posiive note, I agree with MastCell's "a simple stub stating that the Bates Method claims X, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology says Y would be an improvement". What I'd really like to see is that same content somewhat fleshed out. Something like "Bates proposed a method (describe it) which still has supporters who write books on it (mention them). Eye-care professionals see the movement as totally mistaken (give reasons)". What I dislike are suggestions that the pro-Bates school are liars and/or crooks and/or idiots, and exaggerated claims about the anti-Bates evidence. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Old Earth creationism is a notable subject....or of it is just original research? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has recently been rescued from an AfD, but is still in need of great help (balance, sourcing, and facts mainly). Has anyone heard of this thing before? Care to lend a hand? Verbal chat 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Some super unnotable crackpot sect with its own little walled garden in Category:Nation of Gods and Earths. -- dab (𒁳) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Lawrencekhoo is saying above but I'll add a few things here. First of all, the critique of the use of mathematics is not fringe per se. I thoroughly disagree with that critique but it isn't fringe. Second, ideas such as free banking have been thoroughly debunked and abandonded so no, not all of Hayek's ideas are now mainstream. As I said on ANI, the Austrian school has not so much been absorbed as debunked as largely politically motivated ideas. The only thing left is the critique of the use of mathematics that has been absorbed into mathematical economics by acknowledging that no model is better than its assumptions (very roughly said but you get the idea). These critics are found outside the Austrian school as well. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we concentrate this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Input_requested_regarding_Austrian_School. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of difficulty discussing the Mind Science article with its author, Gary Deines ( User:Garydino). I am concerned that the article subject cannot be appropriately covered in Wikipedia, but can't seem to effectively communicate my points to him. He and I are the only ones who have worked on the page, and I'd appreciate some outside perspective or input, especially from those who may have experience with these sorts of issues. Dancter ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've finally taken the trouble to understand what's going on there. The upshot is, the Shah of Persia presented a copy of this thing to the UN in 1971, and unsuspecting U Thant found much diplomatic praise for it, to the effect of it being "the first charter of human rights". Now, in July, there was some newspaper coverage of Assyrologists saying that, with all due respect, it's just a regular Iron Age propaganda piece. The patriotic Iranian blogosphere, when it was just about done crying bloody murder over 300 (film), was pleased at the opportunity, and we are now seeing the repercussions at our Cyrus cylinder article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I should add that the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph aren't exactly helping things by being rather less than scholarly. So the debate immediately derails into an apology of Cyrus the Great and nitpicking about various details of his reign rather than a discussion of the artefact. Yes, Cyrus is a special figure. No, this doesn't make him the inventor of "human rights". The cylinder is extremely notable as the first document recovered archaeologically that seemed to confirm a story in the Old Testament. So, Cyrus sent home the Jews, and may be bragging about this in his cylinder, among other points in which he beats his nemesis in terms of piety. The "human rights" discussion is still a fabrication of 1971 UN diplomacy and not a serious discussion of the historical events. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization of what I did. As I already explained to ChrisO, just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean that it merits an inclusion in the lead of an article. Other editors on that page can also cheery-pick a source saying "Cyrus was awesome blah blah bah" and put it in the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summery of the article in a NPOV fashion, not a place to quote cherry-picked sources. Otherwise, Max Mallowan could be quoted under the relevant section. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, folks. It looks much better now. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The attempt to rename this continues. Google Books and Google Scholar make it obvious that 'Ram's Bridge' is hardly ever used in the academic literature, which uses 'Adam's Bridge'. Ram's Bridge now redirects to Adam's Bridge but several other articles have been changed - [21]. I sympathise with the editors but WP guidelines seem pretty clear on this. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Which links to a sockpuppet I think we have on Archaeoastronomy - see my edit on the talk page at the bottom of this section. [22]. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I maintain that if she's not notable enough for her own article, why should she be included in another article? is a fallacy. In fact, many biography AfDs can reasonably be addressed by redirection. For example, we used to have a bio article at Eric Goldman. It turned out that this fellow is notable just for predicting "Wikipedia will fail". Thus, while the biography article fails WP:NOTE, it is perfectly due to mention Goldman briefly in Criticism of Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 12:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It had no clinical tests, there's no scientific evidence it works and it got quite a bit of criticism from the mainstream medical scientific community.
The article claims that "Some dietitians, physicians, and nutritional scientists claim the theory lacks scientific evidence.", but shouldn't it say that this is the consensus in medicine, that it's just quackery and be added to Category:Pseudoscience?
bogdan ( talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent example of a notable fringe theory. One thing we need to be careful about in that article is not to rely too heavily on the primary sources which define the blood type diet. Rather we should focus on secondary sources who establish the notability and actually speak to the blood type diet. News articles about it may be helpful as they'll probably try to get a counterpoint from a medical professional. Any excessive attempts at describing exactly how the blood type diet works should be aggressively resisted as a violation of soapboxing. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do about this article, if anything. Agni Yoga is notable, and the article is well written and fairly accurate; but it relies almost entirely on primary sources (the series of Agni Yoga books), and the tone of the article is rather devotional and (perhaps) promotional. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to take a look at Ron Brown (U.S. politician) and the text that's being added regarding conspiracy theories about his death and the Clintons. There seem to be violations of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BLP (libeling the Clintons), and probably others. I don't have much experience with dealing with Wikipedia disputes, and the article doesn't seem to have many people watching it. I'd appreciate any suggestions or help to avoid either an edit war or allowing a Wikipedia article to degenerate into an extension of whatreallyhappened.com. — KCinDC ( talk) 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your classic "ethnic origins" case. Nothing very urgent. -- dab (𒁳) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if editors could keep an eye on Thebuddah ( talk · contribs) and his recent contributions to Black Stone. He's repeatedly pasting in an unsourced personal essay which, if I understand Dbachmann correctly, is a fringe Hindu nationalist viewpoint that asserts that the Ka'aba in Mecca was originally a Hindu temple. I've advised the editor about Wikipedia's content policies, but the message doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience and User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots (sub "Hindutva vs. science"). Western media has been so preoccupied with Islamism and Christian fundamentalism that it has gone all but unnoticed that the most far out completely irrational type of religious fundamentalism thrives within Hinduism. That's because it hardly affects anyone outside India, excepting sideshows such as the mind-boggling California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Btw., the fully developed article languishes in my userspace because of a spectacular admin misjudgement (on a bunch of pov-warriors forming "rough consensus") back in April 2007. I didn't have the heart to take this up again since. -- dab (𒁳) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, to be fair, in terms of violence, we shouldn't judge too lightly. The Hindu nationalists are world champions in bizarre weirdness in terms of ideology, but the "communal violence" is a depressing spiral where the Muslims give as good as they get. I strongly recommend we keep the fringy "antiquity frenzy" and the actual "communal violence" cleanly separated. I also find that Tripping Nambiar has done some useful work recently, and hasn't been focussing on "fringy" topics recently (execpting the odd revert at Mitanni, a topic of which he has no clue or interest whatsoever other than that it loosely touches upon an "ancient Indo-Aryans" theme) -- dab (𒁳) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
well, the patterns get repetitive and quite easy to catch after a while. The Kambojas series is suspicious by its sheer obvious obsessiveness (the group gets about two lines in all of EB). That's enough to tag the articles with warning boxes, but of course the detailed cleanup is difficult. The Sakaldwipiya article is a good showpiece of how it can be done after all. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → WP:ANIarchive#Review of the unblock of Dark Tea |
Is there anyone who feels up to straightening this out? A mish-mash of out-dated stuff, minor sources used to make major claims, etc. Doug Weller ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So Dark Tea ( talk · contribs) is at it again. I've been trying to fix this very article a year ago, and ran into all sorts of strange racialist agendas. This may be a matter of administrative action rather than content editing. -- dab (𒁳) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Some updates: I've blocked Dark Tea for 3 months as a precursor to an indef should problems persist, as his latest edits show he is clearly not getting it. I'm also trying to sort out Historical definitions of races in India: I've deleted a lot here (see workpage) not all of which was bad, so I will put some back in once I've trimmed it and cleaned it up. Moreschi ( talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done a deep rv at Eurasian (mixed ancestry). Among other things, this removed utterly encyclopedic information on the dating preferences of Eurasians. The page could still do with significant fixing, though. Moreschi ( talk) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should the theory that Buddhism is more than 1 religion be regarded as a tiny minority view? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any kind of Buddhism self-identifies as a "religion" in the first place, since "religion" is a thorougly western (actually, Roman) concept. -- dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Claims - with frequent italicised emphasis that this project was great! That it proves psychics are real... and ignores all criticism. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Debate over whether Richard Noone is fringe or not. He's the guy that predicted a planetary lineup in 2000 and Antarctica under 3 miles of ice (which I said on the talk page but my edit was deleted). I thought the IP was new, but it turns out to be an editor without an account who calls himself at times Thanos5150. See the recent history of the article and also the talk page (you need to look at the history to see my deleted comment - I'm not sure what to do about that). Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know the thoughts of other editors concerning this edit [24]. My own view is that the paragraph of the introduction is only describing New Thought belief, and that it should not need the added health warning label as a disclaimer; and, if the paragraph is not sufficiently neutral, it should be changed to make it neutral without the health disclaimer. I understand that New Thought views on health problems are fringe ideas, but it seems best to use reliable sources to supply balance. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a quote to the article in which William James discusses New Thought, and which he takes seriously. I think that alone should establish it as a "serious topic in the history of ideas". Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Even highly respected philosophers frequently advocated things that would now (or even then) be considered problematic. For instance Zeno of Citium, the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy (about 300 BC) in his first book, the Republic advocated "the equality of the sexes, co-ed public exercise and training, and a version of “free love” wherein those wishing to have sex will simply satisfy their desires wherever they happen to be at the moment, even in public." [25]. At the time all of it was controversial, and the last part may be controversial even now. (NB: I am not equating New Thought with Stoicism.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Another "Indian caste" topic that only an Indian mind could possibly worry about: We have this extremely WP:LAME edit war atr Kshatriya about where to list the Khatri [26]. Naturally, neither side has anything resembling a quotable source to show. At the Khatri article, the best "reference" backing up the apparently (gods know why) controversial claim that "the Khatri are Kshatriyas" is some random url. I intend this just as a follow-up for the people who have been following the earlier caste stuff further up on this board. -- dab (𒁳) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Alfred de Grazia was largely written by the subject of the article. I've begun the process of culling a lot of the stuff that is either not strictly verifiable, not neutral, redundant, or simply not sourceable. I need to find some independent sources on the guy and need to figure out exactly how to cover his "quantavolution" self-published fringe theory. Can someone explain what exactly makes him notable other than his professorship?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, the Kaaba-is-a-Hindu-Temple guy. Did you know that new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace? Presently a bunch of redlink-accounts are dying to inform us of the fact. -- dab (𒁳) 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the Harvey Milk article in a sandbox, using the best available sources. These include Randy Shilts' comprehensive biography The Mayor of Castro Street, the Oscar-winning documentary derived from it titled The Times of Harvey Milk, five encyclopedia entries (that reference Shilts' book), two books about the Dan White trial, and Bay-area newspapers from 1973 to 1978. I had it in mind to do for several months, but Mosedschurte ( talk · contribs)'s involvement in the article inspired its completion. Mosedschurte has been inserting information about Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple in its own subsection starting in May and it had been contested ever since. The full section was trimmed down but remained problematic with Benjiboi ( talk · contribs) and Mosedschurte in an edit war with Benjiboi filing an RfC to resolve the issue which disturbingly had some {{ SPA}} !votes. Benjiboi then sought other eyes at ANI which resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease Mosedschurte's concerns. Despite these steps and calls for NPOV and RS the disputed content was continually re-inserted by Mosedschurte. Before I jumped in, I wanted to read as much as I could about Milk to make sure the information is actually not notable in his life. While it is true that Milk was tangentially involved with the Peoples Temple (stipulated in the expanded article under the section titled "Race for state assembly"), it is not true that his involvement is notable in his life, nor is it notable in light of the experiences of San Francisco and state politicians at the time. Most politicians in Northern California were working in some way with Jones and the Temple. None of the sources available for Milk discuss his involvement in the Peoples Temple or with Jim Jones at any length. They mention it only in passing.
Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked. Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life. At best, this weights the article, creating an event that really had no importance taking into account what people knew about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple; it also calls into question why a single cause of Milk's is highlighted when Milk attended hundreds of meetings in the city, and wrote hundreds of letters for his constituents. At worst, it suggests that Milk was aware of Jones' criminal activities, condoned them, and used his political office to further Jones' cause. That is unacceptable. The information, however, has again been added to Milk's article and Mosedschurte continues to argue that the Jonestown suicides were notable, making that information the reason it is in Milk's article.
Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative—where he appeared on television and public forums across California for months, and his passing ordinances that got him press coverage across the country. Quite simply, that is ridiculous. I also asked SandyGeorgia ( talk · contribs) and Slp1 ( talk · contribs) to chime in on the talk page. Their comments are available there.
I am not convinced Mosedschurte is familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding notability, original research, synthesizing information, and fringe theories despite links provided for him. Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones". He has been unable or unwilling to provide passages in books he's been claiming to use, and details of the number of times Milk spoke at rallies at the Peoples Temple, dates - particularly in light of Jones' investigation, and even the nature of the investigation's charges. Mosedschurte is reverting sound edits that reflect the best of the encyclopedia in favor of the promotion of this non-event in Milk's life. I think enough time and energy has been spent on this. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is not a single Bellefountaine source left. The one cite to one article he wrote was deleted long ago.
Bellefountaine was an author who was interviewing former Temple members and examining documents to work on a book about the Peoples Temple and a preliminary article of his was posted parts on the San Diego State Jonestown Institute site. A cite to one such article was included before. He since died before finishing the book.
After one editor accused Bellefountaine of being a questionable source, the source was simply deleted. It is no longer cited at all. Re-raising his name is an attempt to fabricate a "fringe" theory regaring the entirely noncontroversial facts that remain.
No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."
Rather, what is very briefly stated is only that Milk attended the Temple while it was under investigation and wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and attacking the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.
That is why there was only one sentence in the entire 77,000 byte Milk article on the subject.
This is again another ridiculous charge, and the sort of sniping I've been attempting to steer clear of during the entire time despite you're continued reliance upon it.
And it's flatly inaccurate. Not that this is relevant at all, but I have purchased several books, hundreds of newspaper articles and, as an aside, also possess many documents, audiotapes and videotapes on the subject. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not even remotely the size of the of the Briggs initiative, which has an entire multiparagraph section.
Rather, the 3 Milk lines being disputed here -- what this entire "Fringe Theory" complaint is about -- consist entirely of the following buried at the bottom of the Supervisor subsection:
Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other local politicians, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919893-1,00.html "Another Day of Death."] ''Time Magazine''. 11 December 1978.</ref><ref>Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. ''Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People'', Dutton, 1982, ISBN 0-525-24136-1, page 327</ref><ref name="vandecarr">VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit.", The Advocate, November 25, 2003</ref>
Milk also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter praising Temple leader Jim Jones and questioning the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.<ref>Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect", Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68</ref><ref name="milk_let">Milk, Harvey [http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown/milk.jpg ''Letter Addressed to President Jimmy Carter, Dated February 19, 1978'']</ref>
No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."
In addition, this topic was the subject of a Request for Comment long ago, when there was a subsection on Milk's involvement (now there is merely a tiny 3 line text in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection) and others stated that the material should stay.
As it is, it is a tiny 3 line mention of sourced NPOV encyclopedically phrased text in a huge 77,000 byte article on Milk. Mosedschurte ( talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Itsmejudith: I agree generally with that, but I would add that what remains now is already a severely cut down version of the prior material in order to comport with an editor's prior complaints.
In fact, it used to be it's own multipart subsection.
The tiny part that remains is what would be of note to Milk. Much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers. Such meetings and letters are notable. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is simply false. Or worse.
I have made absolutely no "connection" other than precisely what is stated by journalists and authors. I have simply cited them.
In fact, only a tiny part of the interaction remains in the article as is. 3 lines.
The only part are the meetings post-investigation and President Carter letter. This is primarily notable because of the notariety and activities of the group. As stated, much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.
Even though they do not take up large parts of his life, such meetings and letters to the President attacking that group's opponents are very clearly notable.
As it is, it has already been cut down to just a 3 line mention in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection. Mosedschurte ( talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is, again, a broad based -- and frankly false in so many parts -- attack on me rather than the subject.
In fact, every time I directly address the vaguely asserted NPOV and UNDUE concerns, you switch the topic to me personally. For whatever reason, the Milk article appears to generate emotional responses from some editors.
Getting back to the topic, the only
WP:Undue and
WP:NPOV arguments I've heard are:
(1)The post-investigation activity is not in Randy Shilts biography, which is entirely irreleavant; and
(2)That a significant part of Milk's life was not involved with the Peoples Temple, and no one has ever stated that such was the case. Rather, a 3 line mention is made of him speaking at the Temple after investigations and writing President Carter praising Jones and attacking the leader of those trying to extricate relatives from Jonestown. That is all that is stated.
These are short but rather notable events given the notariety and activities of the group. That is all they have purported to be.
These notable events are concisely summarized in an entirely NPOV fashion with proper sources in a tiny 3 line section buried at the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection of a 77,000 byte article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: "There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV."
There aren't any specific NPOV, OR or UNDUE concerns I've heard except for the above.
And, as I have explained going directly through the issues, the tiny summary is presented in a very concise NPOV fashion in the "Supervisor" subsection.
I've stated this probably 5 times now on the Milk talk page, but the ONLY thing the Raven cite is left supporting in the small remaining text is that Milk attended a single meeting, the July 31 meeting.
Another source, VanDeCarr, which is cited, states that Milk last spoke at the Temple on October of 1978. This is what is stated:
Milk spoke at a service for the last time in October 1978. He had been enthusiastically received at Peoples Temple several times before, and he always sent glowing thank-yon notes to Jones afterward. After one visit, Milk wrote, "Rev. Jim, It may Lake me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something deal" today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours mad energy, placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave." (VanDeCarr)
Regarding the one meeting for which Raven is still cited for this particular text, this is precisely what the book states. Here is quote from pages 327-8: "Lavish expresssions of solidarity marked a July 31 rally designed to unify Temple members and their supporters." The book then goes into an extended quote of Jones speaking via telephone over speakers from Guyana, to which he had just fled. It then states "When Jones finished, State Assemblyman Art Agnos, who was visiting for the first time, turned to county supervisor Harvey Milk, 'Harvey, that guy is really wild.' Milk smiled, 'Yeah, he's different all right.'"
They are already in the article because I added them back after deletion. They were deleted a few days ago again, and I re-added them, this time NOT in their own section, but in a smaller 3 line piece of text in the "Supervisor" subsection. Mosedschurte ( talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed "Undue Weight" at length above. Given the notariety of the group -- largest loss of U.S. civilian life pre-9-11 -- and their activities, the meetings and speeches at their meetings and letter the U.S. President praising them and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown were themselves notable. No one has really attempted to make an argument to contrary.
In fact, to take just one far less notable example, look at the Dennis Wilson bio article. There is an entire 23 line section devoted to just his picking up hitchhikers that belonged to Manson's family and friendly relations with the group well before any crimes were committed (in fact, Wilson turned away from Manson's group), which obviously pales in comparison in terms of notoriety to the Peoples Temple. There isn't even an instance of Wilson supporting the group to officials or attacking its opponents.
Or, as the other even better hypothetical parallel, if Rudy Giulliani (or a NYC City Councilman), for example, attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.
And keep in mind that this is a sourced 3-line mention in the 77,000 byte Milk article. And, yes, I know that size alone does not determine Undue Weight, and I am only pointing this out to further demonstrate that the size itself here is not an issue.
The "synthesis" concerns simply don't exist here where no conclusion is at all reached. WP:Synthesis states "an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." The 3 lines of text simply state undisputed events that occurred without conclusion.
There is no "original research" in the Milk article as far as I know. Mosedschurte ( talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: "I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist."
This is simply false and the sniping really needs to stop.
The sources as discussed above, by the way, say EXACTLY what the text in the article states (note that the new explanatory language, including the "well fuck him" quote was included by moni):
Note that:While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other politicians in Northern California, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple, including while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919893-1,00.html "Another Day of Death."] ''Time Magazine''. 11 December 1978.</ref><ref>Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. ''Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People'', Dutton, 1982, ISBN 0-525-24136-1, page 327</ref><ref name="vandecarr">VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit.", The Advocate, November 25, 2003</ref><ref group=note>Milk's relationship with the Temple was similar to other politcians' in Northern California. According to ''The San Francisco Examiner'', Jones and his parishioners were a "potent political force", helping to elect Moscone (who appointed him to the Housing Authority), District Attoney Jose Frietas, and Sheriff Richard Hongisto.(Jacobs, John [November 20, 1978]. "S.F.'s Leaders Recall Jones the Politician" ''The San Francisco Examiner'', p. C.)</ref>
Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=3B4lTTZE58oC&pg=PA68&dq=Coleman,+Loren,+%22letter+to+President%22&sig=ACfU3U2pDXFozbRMvUJuOcd_hpUBUKnJdg Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect"], Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68</ref>
, he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. When Milk learned Jones was backing both him and Art Agnos in 1976, he told friend Michael Wong, "Well fuck him. I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays."<ref>Shilts, p. 139.</ref>
(1) Moni's new language is included (including the "well fuck him" quote moni added)
(2) Moni's note is included
(3) The source containing the actual image of Milk's letter is gone
Mosedschurte (
talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. In fact, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote word-for-word in the article now.
Trust me, I have zero problem with you or Milk or me saying " fuck", or including the quote. In fact, I included the same quote in the Political_alliances_of_Peoples_Temple article long ago. I would have added it myself, along with Milk's other quote calling the Temple "dangerous", but there was already yelping of "undue weight" concerns I was fearful to add any additional text at all.
I merely pointed out that you added that quote to the Wikipedia article because it was not clear on this board.
I thought the quote was both helpful (explained Milk's motives--distrusted Jones) and interesting, and I kept it in the article. Mosedschurte ( talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Long story short, the anon insists that the source used for the lead in fringe science is itself fringe because it appears that no one cites the article used to reference the definition("Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists"). The problem is that almost all the works I can find on google scholar take a definition of fringe for granted and do not bother defining it. I have asked the anon to source their claim that this is a fringe definition, but they evade. Anyone got a better idea than ignoring this person? Discussion here. NJGW ( talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This time on Battle of Opis, an article related to Cyrus cylinder (discussed above). Larno Man ( talk · contribs) disagrees with a widely cited translation of a Babylonian text quoted in the article and the interpretations that have arisen from it, and is demanding that it must be discarded (along with said interpretations) in favour of a very new translation. I've pointed out that we can't unilaterally declare a brand new translation to be "the truth", particularly as I've been unable to find any reputable corroborations or citations of the new translation. Although it's being pushed heavily by Iranian nationalists, it comes from a respectable source; I've tried to compromise by including it as a footnote [30]. Unfortunately this hasn't satisfied Larno Man or his colleague Ariobarza ( talk · contribs), who has taken to deleting without comment material that he doesn't like, adding his own personal commentary [31] and falsifying quotations from sources [32]. Input would be appreciated... -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
they will just tell you "it is always somebody's wrong version that gets protected, son". Of course without even having looked at the case. The problem with our "new model admins" is that they firmly believe that they do not need to understand the dispute: heavens, if they did, wouldn't that make them "involved"? The article will be fine, the pov-pushers always get tired sooner or later, and swarm to the latest hotspot, and the encyclopedists can then go in and clean up after them. It will take a couple of months. It is just sad to see that "admin intervention" actually delays the process instead of facilitating it. -- dab (𒁳) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Various anonymous IP addresses are now turning up at Cyrus cylinder and are blanking sections of the article (now reverted). No doubt someone has put the word out to the nationalist grapevine. Any chance someone uninvolved could semi-protect the article? -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
See here for a couple of more examples of disruptive editing by Larno Man (for collecting them, however, I received a warning from Khoi khoi for stalking). -- Ankimai ( talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please provide additional outsider input in Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China about a possible merger. In my opinion I feel this whole article is a fringe theory, providing no evidence of exclusivity and most sources better used in a neutral article like Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Current editing base is 2 plus a very disruptive third editor, so discussions become very polarised and lead to nothing at the end, so I seek to expand the editing base so that there's a wider range of editors maintaining the article. -- antilived T | C | G 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I just came across Barry Long, which claims that he was "was an Australian spiritual teacher and writer", but which does not seem to establish his notability, and which has only primary sources. Does anyone know if he is actually notable? There are a number of books listed, but they seem to be self published. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I responded to the original enquiry on this noticeboard and have engaged with the issue a bit. I would appreciate a few more people passing by. At first I didn't think it was a fringe issue, but now I think it might be. There are reliable sources that show that the Peoples Temple canvassed links with a number of Democratic Party politicians, but the question is what weight to attach and whether it is our role to expose every single minor connection. A series of inter-related pages need checking out for POV-forking and coatracking. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just cleaned up Extraterrestrial real estate, [34] an article that has been cleanup tagged for a long time. It was suffering from lots of fringe material, linkspam and apparent self-promotion by those selling such real estate.
I suspect that the people who created the problem with this article will attempt to restore their content. Can noticeboard participants please watch the article and help make sure that it stays clean. If any tendentious editors attempt to damage the article, please find an administrator to dispense clues as needed.
If any aspect of my cleanup removed valid content, editors are welcome to restore material supported by reliable sources. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
We've got a POV pusher back trying to insert some nonsense in the construction techniques article about a fringe writer named Noone, whose material virtually only shows up on the web through our article. See my edit on Talk:Egyptian pyramid construction techniques (the guy's called me a liar also, but I don't know if it's worth taking to WP:CIVIL. He's active on both articles. I'm not around much tonight, not sure about tomorrow, so if anyone can keep an eye on them and explain to him why the Noone stuff is too insignificant for Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, has repeatedly abused his rollback privleges on the disk jockey page to enforce a fringe phenomenon and defy editor consensus. Since August, the editors have debated endlessly about the importance and prevalance of topless DJing, and therefore the nessecity of a picture about it on the article. All the editors have agreed that topless female DJs have only been found with accurate citations in ONE mainstream nightclub, which has since shut down. Therefore everyone but Binksternet has agreed the picture should be removed due to irrellavance. But Binksternet has defied this near-consensus and now on some days has been going over the three-revert rule. He claims that the picture "shows how experementation is part of DJing" which is the lamest excuse I have ever heard of. he should be blocked from editing the DJ article for his repeated attempts to give undue weight to an extremly minor phenomenon. -- Ipatrol ( talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two editors who are sometimes active on this noticeboard, Orangemarlin and ScienceApologist, who I believe are edit warring on the New Thought article and trying to make unsourced changes. I would appreciate hearing the views of other editors here, who I am sure will let me know if they think I am I am mistaken. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent problems with Iranian nationalists pushing fringe theories are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man. -- ChrisO ( talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Not long ago I deleted a lot of material from this Theosophical Society related article because of, what seems to me, synthesis and original research, and lack of secondary sources. All that was just reverted, and I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look. There is no point in arguing if it turns out I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to draw a bit of attention to this article, and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovirus. Looie496 ( talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside input required here. I used to think this was a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism, but recent anon activity has led me to review the case, and I find that this has the typical hallmarks of pure WP:SYN.
I am not sure whether the article can stand as a topic on its own. Perhaps this will need to become a note at the Neopaganism article that "some proponents have advanced 'reconstructionism'" or similar.
These are my concerns. I haven't made up my mind and I am genuinely looking for third opinions. -- dab (𒁳) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The term was coined by Isaac Bonewits long before anyone actually embraced it as a self-description. The question isn't whether the term exists, but whether we need, or can justify, a standalone article about it. -- dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have begun the process of systematically cleaning up List of UFO sightings. I could use some help. We need to rely on good sources to do this clean-up. I have already removed all the website citations to youtube videos, enthusiast organizations, and conspiracy theories. That leaves a vast majority of the "sightings" without a reliable source reference. We will eventually have to go through and remove the "News of the Weird" citations as well: just because it was a slow news-day doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on your UFO sighting. Once we've confirmed with the best sources, we can remove the sightings that do not have mainstream, independent, third-party coverage.
Please help.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nepaheshgar ( talk · contribs) has jumped right back in where CreazySuit ( talk · contribs) left off on Battle of Opis, making exactly the same ridiculous arguments (latest translation is the most authoritative, the author is "superior" to any other authors, the author of another translation can't have translated it herself because her personal web page doesn't say she reads ancient Akkadian). See my comments at Talk:Battle of Opis#A plea for sanity. Is anyone going to help out on this article or is it going to be abandoned to POV-pushers and original research nonsense? -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this article is more occult apologetics than an encyclopedic article. Comments criticizing the article go back to 2006 and include describing the article is merely a dump of a research paper, and that it overstates magic in the everyday life of the Greco-Roman world. There is at least one bastardized quote in the article, a number of citations that are misrepresented (Dodds calls Empedocles a shaman, not a "poet, magus, teacher, and scientist". In fact, the word magus is not used at all in Dodds' book The Greeks and the Irrational.), and there is an extensive Resource list (without in-line citations) used to bolster the article, much of which seems to not be panning out as being used in the article's creation. There is an inordinate amount of time spent attempting to persuade the reader in accepting why practices should be considered magic, and historical figures magicians. Additionally, the article is littered with original research. -- 151.201.149.209 ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
a "dump of a research paper" would imply WP:OR, but I don't really think it is that bad. It is a difficult and opaque subject, and could definitely do with expert attention, We could apply inline tags to mark the issues raised, but in general I suppose it is natural that the article has magic as its focus without necessarily "overstating" magic. If we saw such a focus on magic in, say, Hellenistic religion, the matter might be different, but this article is, after all, ostensibly dedicated to disucssing magic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As I have tried to delve into the cited sources, and validate quotes and citations, it has become glaringly obvious that this article is, at the very least, a synopsis of the chapter Magic from Georg Luck's book Arcana Mundi. It makes many of the exact same statements, references the exact same sources (which became obvious the original contributor of the article did not read), and in some places seem to walk a very thin line on what could be called plagiarism. Please see my recent comments on the talk page. How does this get handled? -- 151.201.149.209 ( talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So we went from "fringe" to {{ onesource}}. Since Luck (1985) is academically published, I do suppose it is permissible as a source, and it is good practice to start out an article on an academic topic by summarizing the gist of a dedicated monograph. It still remains, however, to avoid copyright violation, and to allow for the presentation of other viewpoints, especially from more recent publication since the source used is already aged more than 20 years. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see [36]. You need to look at all the article edits made by the SPA IP editor, not just the most recent, to get a full picture. And - this IP editor's first edit was the 27th, fast learning curve? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Nature published today an article about the origins of AIDS and so I looked at what Wikipedia says about this subject.
AIDS origin lists two hypotheses as subsections: Cameroon chimpanzees hypothesis and Oral polio vaccine hypothesis. The later is "generally rejected by the scientific community" and yet, it holds much more space within the article. Isn't this against the Wikipedia:Undue policy? bogdan ( talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to add a section to balance the "Ship that Never Sank" section in Titanic alternative theories and am meeting some opposition. Would someone be willing to look at my proposed draft in Talk: Titanic alternative theories (Section 5.1.1) and give their opinions as to whether the level of detail I include is appropriate? Thanks. Mgy401 1912 ( talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has sources, but seems to synthesize a number of primary sources that have little in common into an article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has no real sources, and may contain nothing but original research. It is difficult to know what to do with it because, if I started to delete problematic and unsourced material there would probably be nothing left aside from the Gershom Sholem quote. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There are profound differences between religious Jewish Kabbalists and academic historians of Kabbalah (not to mention Hermetic Qabalah). To many of the religious students to Kabbalah, any publicly available information on Kabbalah is a source of worry, and Kabbalah Ma'asit is considered far too dangerous for any person but the most saintly:
Does any of this sound dangerous? Yet countless times I have heard from people and scholars that this area of study is both deadly and dangerous. Sometimes these scholars bring evidence from scattered souces in the practical tradition of Kabbalah. Again, we turn to Rabbi Moshe Miller in the introduction to his new translation of the Zohar: “The practical tradition of Kabbalah involves techniques aimed specifically at altering natural states or events – techniques such as the incantation of Divine Names…. However, Kabbalah ma’asit [practical Kabbalah] is meant to be employed by only the most saintly and responsible of individuals and for no other purpose than the benefit of man or implementation of G-d’s plan in creation.” Rabbi Miller goes on to point out a very important fact: “Even in the era of the great kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the holy Ari (mid 16th century), there are indications of these techniques being abused by unfit practitioners [as they are today]. The holy Ari himself admonished his disciples to avoid [in fact he forbid it] the practical arts of Kabbalah, as he deemed such practice unsafe so long as the state of ritual purity necessary for service in the Holy Temple remains unattainable.” [39] (This site is the site of a very religious publisher, and after sundown today it may be unavailable until sundown tomorrow.)
Interestingly, it is frequently the people least qualified who think they are most qualified. In any case, having spoken to many religious Kabbalists, I can assure you that they consider even the best academic historians of Kabbalah to be mistaken in the extreme in their views of Kabbalah. In a way the differences remind me of the comment by Walt Disney that "first we do it and then the critics tell us what we have done." Artists, like Kabbalists, tend to think the academics who analyze their work are unqualified to understand, and the academics tend to think the artists do not really understand their own work. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, the weight tends to go to those scholars who are academically notable, and the standard for inclusion in articles is verifiability not truth. I suppose nothing else is possible under the circumstances...but it is not difficult to see the limitations. However, in the case of Kabbalah, there are highly notable religious scholars (frequently rabbis), and their views do need to be included. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)