This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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.” [1] (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)
Please look at the last 50 contributions of Martinphi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be back on his campaign no remove qualifiers whenever " psychic", " mediumship" or " parapsychology" is mentioned. Two illustrative examples of things he's done in the last 48 hours:
Looking at his contributions over the last few days, it seems clear to me that Martinphi is back on his a campaign to remove verifiable caveats associated with parapsychology, psychic powers, and mediumship from across this encyclopedia. This is the type of disruption he was sanctioned for by arbcom. However, I need to get some outside opinions as to whether this is enforcement-caliber problems.
Please look through his contributions (especially those which contain the two edit summaries I outline above) and see if you see a problem. The history between him and myself makes it difficult for me to intervene directly.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, these are WTAs or the equivalent. In a properly framed article, the reader will have ample opportunity to understand the the subject is controversial or discredited, without our having to use such weasel words. I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed. Perhaps my edit summaries should read "remove weasel wording," and then point the the ArbCom. See also, this, as it talks about framing. As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a request for clarification on the Three layer cake point:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [4]
I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link ( Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [5], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [6], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG ( talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Another round of regular " Vedic" quantum quackery for a change. This edit should make clear what is going on. It may be worth to keep on the lookout for the "reference" given,
-- dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, but this editor is adding loads of OR (including a map he created himself, [7] "Known Emigration of Abraham's Children to Katura". Can someone take a look particularly at Xerxes I of Persia which he has heavily edited. I'm removing some of his OR but I expect he'll put it back. Is the map something that can go to AfD as OR? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
it is a good sign to see him openly stating where he is coming from, self-identifying as a SDA pastor. We should encourage him to contribute to SDA topics and refrain from using SDA sources for historical topics. -- dab (𒁳) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this. The guy is fringe, his books are self-published through his foundation (and at least one has been used as a reference elsewhere). I found this comment about him on a web forum " the modern pyramidologist Moustafa Gadalla, not really a scientist or historian but possessor of a B.S. in civil engineering from the Cairo University. He is author of the Pyramid Handbook. Gadalla's claims are wild in the extreme, the essence of which is that all of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 4 were in reality great energy collectors that attracted a mythical space gas called orgone to create an even more mythical substance called psi-org energy." Ah, now I didn't know this, evidently the bluehouse effect drastically increases when you laminate a pyramid. [9]. Fantastic! Doug Weller ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Several articles concerning the history of Slovenia have seen a lot of disruptive editing in the last few days. The problem involves fringe theories and improper, non-academic sources. The articles are putting forward a disputed claim according to which a Slovenian state existed in the Alps in 595 AD and that this was the same entity as the medieval Dutchy of Carantania. The idea has been taken from a non-academic historian Jožko Šavli.
The actual background is roughly as follows: when describing the fights between Slavs and Bavarians in 590s (595 AD being the year when Slavic-Avar army defeated the Franks), the Lombard historian Paulus Diaconus refers to the area populated by Slavs as "provincia Sclaborum" (for more on this see: [10]. J. Šavli claims that "provincia Sclaborum" means "the state of Slovenes" and that this was the same entity as the later Carantania, which in fact is a myth since Carantania is not mentioned in historical sources prior to 660 AD.
The affected articles are:
I have reverted many of the edits in the last few days, on the grounds that they involved distorting historical data, as indicated in the edit summaries, but believe somebody with administrator's rights should intervene here. Please note that the issue has been put on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before: [11].
In my opinion, particularly the article on Carantania should be kept on administrator's watchlists as the issue is a popular topic of Slovene nationalism. Regards, Jalen ( talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don´t agree with you Jalen, pease read [ [12]], and you can see that your opinion is discussed there. You can disagree with Dr. Jožko Šavli, but I´ll not allow you to offend him. And please stop reverting my editions without answering in the discussion page first.-- Marcos G. Tusar ( talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
See for yourself. I've reverted for now, but... Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Could this user be a sockpuppet of User:VedicScience. They both like to reveal the "truth" to "uneducated" editors. Gizza Discuss © 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
clearly not the same user, but clearly one with a similar set of symptoms. -- dab (𒁳) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Won't the Constantinian shift article be considered conspiracy theory or fringe theory? LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now I would agree. The problem is that I thought what you just defined the article as, is what makes it into a fringe article. Specifically via the Jimmy Wales criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Just asking. It is a shame that the group pushing the idea make terrible mistakes in their handling of historical figures and events. LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the Proto-orthodox Christianity theory, too another conspiracy theory or fringe theory? One to counter the ante-nicene term as it is used by academia? LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The type of Christianity that ultimately became predominant was neither Judaic nor Gnostic. It developed out of Pauline, Johannine, and related forms of Christianity and consisted primarily of Gentiles. [...] Scholars call this type of early Christianity "Proto-Orthodoxy" or "early Catholicism," because it was the forerunner of the types of Christianity that developed later, known as Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
The theory and in specific Bart Ehrman's use of it are often discussed as a conspiracy theory. [13] Google it for fun. You know that wikipedian editors use the term in the wikipedia article Early Christianity. This rather then the more common term ante-nicene. Also note there still is no ante-nicene article per se, while there is a Proto Orthodox one. that is alittle uneven. LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Another "ethnic" mess. Note that we get ethnic mysticism mixed with valuable (as in difficult to find) bona fide information in broken English here. Lots of patience and good judgement is needed. Still, the epic " history" added since July is quite clearly mostly bogus. See also this note on my talkpage. -- dab (𒁳) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
when I was getting my bearings in this topic back in July (it came to my attention via Mastorava before--after) I found that most encyclopedic sources mention the existence of the Erzya and Moksha but without any further differentiation between them. I.e., we have no quotable sources at present to justify two separate Erzya people and Moksha people articles, even though it is undisputed that they are two real subgroups of the Mordvins. The problem appears to be that some diaspora Mordvins have come to object to the term "Mordvin", but it is difficult to make any sense of this since the contributions are mostly in English so broken as to be near-incomprehensible. -- dab (𒁳) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the dubious material to Talk:Mordvins/workpage. It may contain valid facts, but we cannot keep the live article in such a state until somebody manages to sift through this. Also take a look at the huge amount of text at Talk:Mordvins. Somebody appears to be using Wikipedia as a dumping ground. It will be difficult to handle this, since these are obviously contributions in good faith, and there seems to be a significant language barrier that will make it difficult to explain to the user what we are trying to do at WP. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please dab do not remove sourced facts from that article Mordvins in the future like you did with the last edit [14]. Feel free to remove anything that has not been sourced, I'll get to the History part ASAP and clean it up according to published secondary sources.-- Termer ( talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What about say Martin Bernal's (who listed as a American classical scholars) Black Athena and Afrocentrism? LoveMonkey ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Paul I mean like what
Mary Lefkowitz and
Zahi Hawass have to say about them. What about it? Is there something wrong with Leftowitz and Hawass' work?
Black Athena has been discredited and is listed as psuedo-history so is wikipedia saying something different about that now?
LoveMonkey (
talk) 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating. That looks to be an excellent event but I wonder why Bernal is still allowed to dissiminate as he has been discredited. I wonder how he will address this [16]. It is a shame that he teaches a conspiracy theory that the Greeks are liars and thieves. What a shameful thing. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
OK Itsmejudith then are these subjects fringe or not and if they are why are they not noted as such? If the subjects are not then why are other articles which show the same characteristics treated as fringe? Now don't dodge and dont defend political correctness.
LoveMonkey (
talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No you interrupted. You just dodged too. Just answer my questions. Your the one requesting immediancy. LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
User KVDP ( talk · contribs) is making some changes to the alternative medicine page that I think require a review. They are also creating new articles (such as "Healing therapy") which they are then adding to the lead of the alt med article. A few more eyes on this would be great. Verbal chat 12:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I have long shunned taking a closer look at this article. Now I have, and I see there's practically everything wrong with it that can be wrong with a non-stub article. Apparently it has been a paradise for unchecked Afrocentrist rambling for a long time. Anyway, this is unacceptable. This is an article about a continent and should get top priority. So, before we invest more time in petty disputes over Macedonia, Indian antiquity, the nationhood or race of Egyptians, we should see our way to fixing this shameful state of affairs. It is bad enough that the real Africa is neglected by the rest of the world, there is no need to duplicate the trend on-wiki... -- dab (𒁳) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Where's the fringe? Agreed the articles need work, but this is the fringe theories noticeboard. Better discussed elsewhere methinks. Vsmith ( talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) intends to take the pseudo-science tag off this, saying "Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category.". Doug Weller ( talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
At Pseudoskepticism (almost a POV coatrack for anti-pseudoscience), I just saw this little gem: [19]. Looks like Reddi ( talk · contribs) is branching out from his normal stomping grounds [20]. NJGW ( talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This BLP was reduced to a stub about two years ago and has stayed fairly constant since then. The subject has proposed a so-called "Einstein-Cartan-Evans" theory, which has been rejected by the physics community. An editorial by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft dismissed articles published in Foundations of Physics Letters by Evans. Evans himself tried to blank his own BLP (as User:Carrot18, revealed in an edit summary). According to his blog, he has contacted wikipedia to demand changes to his BLP: this might explain the recent actions of User:Nihonjoe and User:Daniel. Since the article only survived an AfD because of the notoriety of the subject's claims in fringe science, I am posting this alert here. Personally, I would be happy to see the BLP deleted. Apart from the claims, the subject does not appear to be notable. Mathsci ( talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that ritual abuse-torture is a fringe theory, essentially an extension of the satanic ritual abuse/ false memory syndrome moral panic but sans satan. All four sources are from the same two authors. I've consistently been of the opinion that it should be a redirect to the SRA page, and that it's undue weight to give it a separate page with support only coming from two scholars who are probably closer to advocates. Any opinion from the noticeboard? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
After shifting the ballgame from a discussion of whether individual authors were good enough, self-ref now is asking for references from an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science', quoting the ArbCom decision, and has moved the discussion from Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory (but without mentioning the earlier discussion there). Is his claim that the ArbCom decision requires that sort of reference rather than the usual reliable sources (which he seemed to be looking for until I gave him quite a few). Doug Weller ( talk) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this (and the bottom section of the talk page). Was I wrong in tagging the article? And should it even exist, don't we already have several articles covering the same topic? The same editor had added a huge amount to Promised Land which I stubified and probably needs merging. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this in an attempt to create a stub at indigenism. The claim of the existence of a specifically "Celtic anarchism" appears to rely entirely on reference to http://celticanarchy.org/ -- ah yes, and 18 subscribers at some mailing list. -- dab (𒁳) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have come to think that Carl Jung founded a cult rather than a school of psychology. This was the view developed by Richard Noll in the two books he wrote about Jung, but Noll is not really mentioned in the Jung article. In fact, it seems to me, the article reads more like a promotional piece for Jungian psychology than like an encyclopedia entry. But, perhaps, I am being unfair. I would be interested in reading the views of others. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Slovenian indigenism, see diff. See also Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history. -- dab (𒁳) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone seen, or been treated to, this warning yet?
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- El on ka 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I had this warning placed on my talk page after that wonderful administrator, El on ka, blocked me for 24 hrs for 3RR, although I had not violated 3RR. (Not that I deny sometimes using an agressive approach to editing, and to having POed a fair number of administrators by explaining at length why I thought they happened to be wrong about something or other.) My assumption is that if I continue to edit the type of article that is discussed on this page, I may soon be returned to permanent wiki-exile. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
this will not do. These "restrictions" clearly do not allow admins to jump out of the woodwork and block editors engaged in some conflict out of the blue. First of all, users need to be repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Being involved in a dispute on its own doesn't qualify as such, disputes being very much a standard vehicle of article progress. Secondly, the restriction clearly states the admin needs to warn before blocking. I.e., the admin needs to say "stand down or I block you", and only if the editor then does again what they were just warned against will it be permissible to block them. I might also note, with Nihonjoe that we don't need any arcom restrictions to block users repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, this is what WP:BLOCK stated all along. The mountain (arbcom) has yet again given birth to a mouse. Restating policy is not going to miraculously impart good judgement to admins who have none. Elonka going around issuing bogus 3RR blocks and pouncing on people involved in perfectly bona fide disputes is a sad case of an admin acting far out of line. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Another star chamber wiki-trial, in which the "editor" (me) was not informed of the proceedings.
The main problem, leaving aside from the problematic secret wiki-trial, is the complete misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make in my discussion with Elonka. The problem I see is that blocking users when no user has complained, and when the editing process is in fact making progress despite some abrasiveness, frequently is more disruptive to the editing of the article than the abrasiveness or possible violations of 3RR. I was not complaining about my block (a minor personal annoyance), but using that block as an example to explain the actual problem: the general problem of disruptive administrative intrusion in the process. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FT2 wrote: "Unfortunately, policies and norms on blocking do not support your view."
FT2, you still don't get it. What I was talking about is a reconsideration of policies and norms on blocking, because they are often more disruptive to the editing process than some abrasivness (ie incivility), or possible incidents of 3RR. I would not have brought what was just a personal complaint to this noticeboard. capisce? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Bioacoustics therapy. by mixing material from Bioacoustics with extreme fringe material about using frewquency analysis of the voice to diagnose disease, throwing in some fringe self-published internet "journals", and such, this article attempts to put the science of Bioacoustics, and extreme fringe on the same basis, by switching between them a few times a paragraph and thus using descriptions of the science to bolster the fringe. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the prod on this article because this is known pseudo-science; see [49]. Someone more interested in this topic (or pseudo-medicine in general) may want to further balance the article. VG ☎ 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Assyrian" nightmare shows signs of being revived, this time by "Assyrianist" Suryoyo othuroyo ( talk · contribs) (possibly a sock) vs. "Aramaeanist" The TriZ ( talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac ( talk · contribs) (as usual, most of the involved accounts make clear even in their username that they're just here to edit-war), also featuring some spectacular admin failure. This has all been thoroughly discussed, to and past the point of nausea. It's all at Names of Syriac Christians. This should mostly be a matter of trying to enforce basic policy with editors who Do Not Want to Get It. I don't have time for this atm. -- dab (𒁳) 10:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Should I be offended by this? It is you who are making disprutive and controversial changes without anything to back it up with. Also, maybe you should mention user:Am6212 and user:Trippss(possible sockpuppets). And the admin failure? Are you kidding me? It is you who have made major admin failures since the beginning of this "war", since you're not familiarized with the subject and still making controversial changes without seeking consensus with neither of the "both sides". Maybe it is YOU who should "familiarize yourself with the history of the debate and seek consensus on talkpages.", [50]. The TriZ ( talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
"in this sad excuse for a "debate" between teenage nationalists, and actively tried to get it on a construcive level"
Yes, that was indeed very constructive. To proving my point, let ous analyze your recent edits. You redirect the page Syriacs to Syriac (disambiguation)( [51]) which you redirect to Syria (disambiguation)( [52]) in which you redirect Syriac people and Syriac ethnic group to Syriac/Assyrian ( [53] & [54]) which if course, you have redirected to Assyrian people [55]. This is the way you contribute. And you haven't been contributing to the debate constructively in a positive way, I can dig out diffs from where "both sides" clerly show their unsatisfaction with your involvement (because of that you're making edits that only aggravates the situation).
Recent? Where have you been the last halfyear? After that user:EliasAlucard been blocked, the two sides has in a better way co-operated with eachother which have resulted in a much better balance and a more objective picture of reality. Lately though, users like user:Am6212, user:Trippss and user:Suryoyo othuroyo have been starting edit-wars without discussing and ruining months of work and co-operation from both sides (also the absence of user:Chaldean has probably played a part). The TriZ ( talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit harsh on Dab in my previous statement, and I apologize for that. But these users, user:Am6212, user:Trippss & user:Suryoyo othuroyo, have not been contributing in a positive way to the Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean articles, which are the only articles they've been edited. The TriZ ( talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am just being negative about it, but it seems to me this article has a major problem with original research, in the form of synthesis. It lists as examples of the Great White Brotherhood
all brought together under the same heading, without any reliable source cited to support that implied claim. (Might as well have included the Tzadikim too.)
It seems to me that this article should be limited to the Theosophocal related groups that actually used the term Great White Brotherhood. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
An anon-IP/new user is objecting to the term "conspiracy" being used in the Chemtrail conspiracy theory page by repeatedly removing it. Should be an easy problem to solve, unlike others that often turn up here :) Verbal chat 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor Pierre Carbonnelle. Relates to cold fusion and therefore also to this noticeboard. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is 45k in length, and barely mentions its status as a highly speculative idea with little following or interest among the cosmological community. It may take people with a solid grounding in astronomy and cosmology to make this a neutral article without undue weight, so I am bringing it up here. I did remove material from this article that was copied into Twin Quasar, but don't have the inclination to jump into the MECO article myself. Tim Shuba ( talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This article ( Phaistos Disc decipherment claims) includes quite a few decipherment claims, many of which are fringe theories and which have been published only on personal websites or vanity press. A notability check for each of these claims is definitely needed. bogdan ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
since there is no commonly accepted decipherment, all these alleged decipherments fall under WP:FRINGE (which doesn't automatically mean pseudoscholarship, just fringe scholarship), and standards for inclusion should be lowered appropriately. Of course we still shouldn't include random personal websites, but self-published books and similar should be ok. -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the "scientific" viws represented really typical, or is there cherrypicking going on? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is in bad shape and has POV problems. I did some editing of it a couple of days ago, which all got reverted this morning by and editor who seems to have a dislike of other editors working on the article [56]. Attention from some additional editors might help with getting a more balanced article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the problem with this article brings up once again the problem discussed above [ [57]]. I have a choice between leaving a very problematic article with fringe problems alone, or I can revert unwarranted and unexplained changes, and see if the other editor, becomes willing to talk about the problems before Elonka, or some other administrator pops out of the woodwork and blocks me for giving a POV pushing editor a hard time. (You know, this situation really sucks...and I am not entirely sure WP is worth this sort of agrivation.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the article consists of unsourced speculation by an editor - query if it should be pared down to a stub, deleted, or merged with Edgar Cayce.... LeContexte ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a fringe writer with a lot of hype on the page. I've raised an AfD but in the fiction and arts category, which I think was wrong as it purports to be history (why can't we have a clear AfD category for history and archaeology, by the way?). What category should it be in? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at this [59] and see if you don't think there is something fishy going on. I keep coming across sections on this tiny little faith. There seems to be a huge push to promote it, but they are smart about it. Just insert it wherever there is any relevance at all. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we just need a little perspective here... At least we are discussing a real religion. Wikipedia gives extensive treatment to less than real religions. Hiberniantears ( talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, Judaism is extremely notable not in terms of number of adherents, but because it has been around for some 2500 years, and has indirectly spawned the two religions now dominant, viz. Christianity and Islam. Bahai has few adherents and is a new religious movement. Of course it deserves its own article, but you can not assume that it is worth mentioning in any article not directly addressing Bahai topics. This is a matter of WP:DUE: inclusion of Bahai factoids into non-Bahai topics needs a justification every time. -- dab (𒁳) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that, if based on nothing else, the difficult situation of Bahais in Iran [65] justifies cutting them plenty of slack in the WP articles. It does not seem to be the only such case either, because the followers of the Dalai Lama get attention on WP way beyond what is justified by their numbers. Have a heart, guys. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL- I'll bet that is the very first time "have a heart" or similar sentiments have come to this noticeboard. I don't have anything against them, of course, but I've seen so much mention in the most strange places. But I really very much doubt that inserting them in all sorts of articles is doing them any good. If you want to do some good, put a "religious persecutions" box on all the religions articles, separated into nations- list the faiths being persecuted in the various nations.
Ludwigs, their doctrines are quite different from other faiths. So that's funny. But I know nothing about them really. I never heard of them before all the mentions in WP, and that's significant: I just don't think they are that notable. Jews would not be either, if they didn't have such a huge place in world history. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to become mindful that the Baha'i Faith is an actively growing religion - in the top two for the last 35+ years according to Christian associated statistics - see Major religious groups#Trends in adherence - and as such is active on many issues on many levels. We have representation at the UN - Bahá'í International Community and participated in a number of global forums. Baha'is have many associated projects some of which are detailed per country in a growing list of articles Category:Bahá'í Faith by country and there has been in the news coverage and governmental actions in America and Europe especially in a variety of ways often associated with the situation the Baha'is are in in Iran and Egypt - see Persecution of Bahá'ís. None of this is meant to dismiss the issue of undue weight. It is however to share some ways in which there is, indeed, weight to be noted. As for comparison with other groups, consider and please be reminded that groups like Mormons are already members of Christianity. People seem to pretty casually mix denominations and independent religions. I would also note some articles order the headings alphabetically and some not. Therefore in some of these places they are alphabetically first and others not. Smkolins ( talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
guys, this has gone way off track. Nobody here has (or should have) anything against Bahai, or for Bahai for that matter. The problem is that Bahai factoids are often, systematically, added to articles in violation of WP:DUE. We are here to fix it. That's all. As pointed out here, hyperbole helps nobody, least of all the reputation of the faith whose representation is being pushed unduly. What exacltly is "due" is a matter of case by case discussion, on article talkpages. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continues here. Vesal ( talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some amazing nonsense and self-publicity here. Not sure what to do about it. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone please have a look at astrosociology. It managed to survive an AfD rather tenuously two years ago. I'd vote delete again, since the article fails to establish any significant scientific notability of the subject, but I thought I would bring it up here first. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can some people have a look at this and see what they think? It's not very good, but it's probably salvageable. While we're at it, Ayurveda needs a cleanup again. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I just came accross the Expanding Earth theory article today... some of you may be familiar with the idea since it seems like an old one, but I noticed that there are several problems. Most importantly it is named a theory, though I don't see any indication that it is any more than an out-dated hypothesis, and the terms "fringe" or "pseudoscience" appear nowhere in the article. I worked on the lead some, but I wouldn't want to make any huge changes without some other eyes on the article as well. Suggestions for moving forward? NJGW ( talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing is badly written, and does not have a neutral tone in the lead. I tried to rewrite it, but got reverted. The most important thing about it is what it says, obviously. The second most important thing is what people say about it. See what you think of this diff [68] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Chiropractic#General_comments_and_observations. That pretty much sums up the problem. Apparently people are using "consensus" to try to feet-drag, drive-by-revert, tag-team, etc. We need neutral, outside parties who are willing to wield clue-sticks in defense of Wikipedia policies and guidelines other than WP:CON. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is problematic. I believe that the topic is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, but the current article is full of cruft and lacks inline references. I can't see any way of improving it without hacking out major portions, and I wonder what others think. Looie496 ( talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.
Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 05:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance! Jwri7474 ( talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure it's right, and it seems to have worked, too. He needed editors used to dealing with fringe stuff. And please do not recommend edit warring. What Looie496 is advocating is against both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy and the best parts of its culture. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really competent in this area, but an edit summary like clarify that scholars regard all this as nonsense always catches my eye. Any opinions?— Kww( talk) 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a REALLY BIG problem with WP:OWN at cold fusion. I am the only editor there who has not drunk the Kool Aid, it seems. Outside eyes would really help. I have made some removal of obviously POVPUSHING material in the lead and in the "evidence for cold fusion" sections, but we really need to clean house there. These SPAs are dedicated and coordinated by NET and other outside websites to drive the Wikipedia article on cold fusion into a state where it is unrecognizable as reliable, verifaible, or neutral.
PLEASE HELP!
ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I watched the film The Philadelphia Experiment (which wasn't as bad as I was expecting), and in trying to find out who some of the actors were I came across the page " Philadelphia Experiment" which seems badly in need of a reality check... For example, not sourced and in the lead: "It is said, though not proven, that the ship was dismantled and the crew placed in an insane asylum to keep these events secret." At least it says "not proven" :) Verbal chat 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a question up at WT:NOR, so I noticed a long post commenting on a desire to change the policy. I didn't read it closely (and I didn't see any obvious problems) but then I saw that the same editor is canvassing the likes of Reddi ( talk · contribs) [70] (an occasional "friend" of this board). If that's the kind of people being contacted (I didn't recognize the others), then people here might be interested in watching how the discussion plays out. NJGW ( talk) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems designed to push the view that all research refuting claims that aspartame as it's usually used is dangerous, are funded by the sugar substitute industry and thus corrupt, plus other language designed to push the theory. I think it's been like that for years. I tend to avoid these sort of articles due to the unpleasant rows involved, but thought I'd bring it here for your attention. Sticky Parkin 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Werner Gitt's biography has been edited to suggest his pseudoscientific ideas on information theory are well founded.
Since I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia I could use some help here.
The matter at hand concerns the following articles:
Alois Hitler
Maria Schicklgruber
Salomon Mayer von Rothschild
In all three articles, a tiny-minority view as referenced in WP:UNDUE was given inordinate weight and very likely should not be included at all (also per WP:UNDUE).
I removed the inappropriate text in the first two articles and left one paragraph in the third.
Two editors then challenged my actions and reverted my edits: User:Joyson Noel and User:MichaelCPrice. The first editor immediately barked at me, "Dont ever delete sourced info again" (see the edit history of Salomon Mayer von Rothschild), the second is also incivil and telling me "DO NOT REMOVE" and "You are not listening" ( Talk:Alois Hitler).
I don't mind the incivility so much, but the fact is that yesterday I spent more than three hours in the library looking up sources and writing a detailed explanation, with numerous citations, why the "Rothschild as Hitler's grandfather" claim is a tiny-minority view that does not merit inclusion. Earlier, I also offered as a compromise proposal to let stand one paragraph (equipped with proper qualifications) on the claim.
Since then, User:MichaelCPrice has claimed that just because he called the information notable it must be included in the Article. User:Joyson Noel has been quiet since yesterday but neither has he indicated his agreement to the changes made by me.
Since I am unable to visit Wikipedia daily or monitor these articles on a regular basis, I am asking anyone who wants to help to please add them to your watchlist. Feel free also to let me know what else I could do and how I could improve my handling of such matters in the future. Thanks.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)For the sceptical: see Talk:Alois Hitler for an exhaustive discussion, with numerous citations, of why the Rothschild idea is a fringe, tiny-minority view.
IP vandals have jumped on Alois Hitler and Maria Schicklgruber. If an admin is reading here, could you grant me rollback so that I can rollback the damage, or perform the rollback yourself? Thanks.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting proposal being discussed on WP:AN of relevance to people here. Yours, Verbal chat 12:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been repeated attempts to add unverified and unverifiable crap (ahem) to this article. It's not out of hand but could use a little more watching. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There's an account known as Water Ionizer Research ( talk · contribs) who is charitably adding neutral, accurate information to the water ionizer article and valiantly defending it from the horrible editors who would sully the page with the suggestion that claims water ionizers can cure cancer are ridiculous quackery.
Just kidding, there's a slow-burning edit war on the page, much of it centering in an external link that calls water ionization claims bunk [71]. Looks like classic fringe - extreme claims, minimal proof, gross over-reaching of what research exists, and lots of promotion and spamlinks continually inserted. Anyone have any expertise? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on "Seth's" (that is, Jane Roberts's) Lumania claims it as an "ancient mythological civilization". This strikes me as grossly misleading (especially since the article tends to be written "in world", as it were), but I thought I'd bring it up here first before mauling it and identifying it as pseudo-history. Mangoe ( talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. |
Could some of you have a look at this page. This is a self-published book which is purported to have received one review in a scientific journal (not verified, see talk page), and for which I have found one review in a newspaper [72]. There are some 24 Google hits for it [73], so its notability can be questioned as well. In general, it reads to me like more fringe science than anything else, proposing a new diagnosis and so on. It is not extremely outlandish, but it does look all dubious to me, and certainly hasn't received much attention in mainstream or scientifc publications. Fram ( talk) 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: it also is heavily spammed in Concept of death and adjustment. Even if not fringe, the attention it receives there is certainly removable per WP:UNDUE (and WP:COI). Fram ( talk) 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner ( talk · contribs) and Mikedelsol ( talk · contribs) wish to use this source, from The American Thinker, in Dreams from My Father, to include the claim that the book was ghostwritten by William Ayers. I think that a) The American Thinker is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim this extraordinary, and b) the claim is a fringe theory, and one not sufficiently noted in mainstream sources to be included in the article. Editors who are familiar with fringe theories in political contexts are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been further developments on this front. The Times of London has reported that a Republican congressman ( Chris Cannon) and his brother-in-law offered to pay an Oxford don $10,000 to "prove" that Ayers wrote Obama's book. The don declined, and later ran an analysis himself, which led him to the conclusion "...I feel totally confident that it is false." The story of the congressman's involvement has also been covered in The Salt Lake Tribune. My feeling is that these sources are reliable enough to merit a brief mention in the article, but other folks at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Fringe think that it's still best left out. Any opinions are welcome. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this one during routine article cleanup. I'm honestly not sure if it's a fringe theory or not, but it certainly looks like it could be. I don't really know anything about the topic, and it's enough of a mess right now that I wouldn't even know how to start improving it. hbent ( talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Lots of scholarly sources so definitely not fringe. Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's been some edit warring at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Elonka has already gone after SA for it (many of you may know this already for having his page watched). Some of the ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects will be familiar to those who watch this board regularly.
NJGW (
talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Usual fringe suspects" means people that have come up on this board before. I thought that would be obvious. NJGW ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Needs an eye on it, but I'm travelling right now. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Update A user is making what I believe are fallacious arguments on this page. Any help appreciated as he thinks my dismissal of his list of complaints isn't good enough. (tongue in cheek: Apparently the article isn't neutral as the only sources against chemtrtails are either governmental (gasp) or skeptical (by definition...?)) Verbal chat 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's been a lot of rewrites and additions to this recently, and many of them seem to encourage fringe theories to be described credulously. I think that the last week's changes need some review. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at this? I'm totally flummoxed on how to deal with it. I came to it recently because of spam like references, including one supposedly published by "the Harvard Business School Press." Just to be sure: astrology has as much place in finance as it does in computer science.
Any help, rewording, etc. appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem as it presents itself to any sane observer: Some Syriac Christians think they are "Aramaeans" and reject the name "Assyrians", while others think they are "Assyrians" and reject the name "Aramaeans". Both endorse the name "Syriacs". This means we get lots of WP:CFORKs on the same group, one copy under "Aramaean-Syriac", the other under "Assyrian", and we get a lot of edit wars by both factions claiming the term "Syriac", which recently has meant piping "Syriac $ISSUE" to "Aramean-Syriac $ISSUE". This is a pure naming issue, the group discussed being the exact same. These kids have the bad taste to go and create a fork of Assyrian genocide at Syriac genocide just to make a WP:POINT.
The proper way to treat this as a bona fide dispute would be {{ move}} discussions based on actual sources. Instead, we get a fork orgy by angry young men spewing vitriol at one another and any bystander. As if this wasn't bad enough, we now also have textbook "clueless admins" stepping in in weird ways, refusing to grok even as much of the issue as summarized right above (look at the history of Aramaean-Syriac people and this diff).
Only a zero-tolerance on content forking, and reward of valid and coherent renaming requests can help in this. I have been doing this with angelic patience for a year now, but I cannot work against the "clueless admin" population as well as against the teenage patriots, and I shouldn't be required to babysit admins as well as pov-pushers. Help is appreciated. -- dab (𒁳) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
note, this problem would be on-topic on the "nationalistic feuds" noticeboard, if that was active. I take it this board is the de facto nearest thing we have. Perhaps I should cross-post the problem somewhere else? -- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
trying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people -- dab (𒁳) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article raised a few red flags with me, especially the glowing praise in the unreferenced parts. Needs verification, although I'm not saying this is necessarily a "fringe" author. -- dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just realized where I had come across this chap before -- Pagan Resurrection, which I cleaned up two years back (now made a redirect as failing WP:BK). This author seems to have written a good book on psychoactive drugs in the early 1990s, and since then has ominously lost it, and is now writing crackpot literature on confused ideas about prehistoric occultism. I have now become aware of this article because Rudgley is mentioned in a hilariously nonsensical post on Talk:Runic alphabet. -- dab (𒁳) 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been discussions here about problems with articles on ancient Persia and Babylonia (specifically Cyrus cylinder and Battle of Opis). I've been reviewing this topic area and have found numerous problems, in some cases amounting to a walled garden of bad articles. I've posted some review notes at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. Feedback would be very welcome. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea which part of Wikipedia policy is supposed to require us to even put up with blatant nationalist pov-pushing. This is simply something that does not belong here, not a matter of "debate" or "consensus". People who come here to abuse the project as a campaign platform should be duly warned, patiently pointed to policy, and if they persist, shown the door. It is difficult enough to work with people who are trying to write an encyclopedia. -- dab (𒁳) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is an article I've just come across. It seems to be very positive in its descriptions of alternative medicine terms, but I'm not sure what policies would apply here. Could probably do with some copy editing, reduction of some terms, and expansion of others with scientific information. There are a lot of things like "therapy x cures y by principle z" which I'm not sure should be said in wikipedia's voice. More eyes, attention, etc. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor made a category " Category:whole medical systems" which is what he says they're called by the NCCAM which some of the alt med category follows. I would appreciate your views on the talk pages as to whether it should be called Category:Alternative medical systems or should be renamed Category:Whole medical systems. I've asked at any wikiprojects that might be interested too. Sticky Parkin 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on over at the Placebo page as to whether the effect exists or not (because a review calls it a "subjective" not "objective" effect). One administrator has been making accusations of biase (I'm in the pay of BigSugar, perhaps?) and tried to change the lead to imply the effect doesn't exist. This could do with some review by experts please. Many thanks, Verbal chat 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this read more like an advertisement than a proper article to you? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
A user keeps replacing the NPOV tag on this article because in his opinion it isn't neutral because the article is written from the point of view of chemtrails being a conspiracy theory, thus failing NPOV. They also think all scientific or governmental sources are inherently biased, hence failing RS. They now seem to edit around only this topic, but I refrain from calling them an SPA because prior to this current interest they edited the Loose change and other "9/11 Truther" articles. I think some explanation and enforcement of policy is required on this page, and I would also support it being moved under the PS arbitration. Pleas help FTN, you're our only hope... Verbal chat 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
We are supposed to be neutral, not ignorant/indifferent. There is a difference. Neutrality (philosophy)#What neutrality is not is an interesting couple of paragraphs for those who think otherwise to consider. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am one of the editors working on the John Wilkes Booth article, and I've encountered some criticism (read: one editor) who feels that including the numerous books and documentaries (detailing the 100+ year old conspiracy theories that JWB escaped being shot outside a farmhouse) should be purged as fringe theories. I was wondering if I could get some guidance from editors here as to how to proceed. I want to be fair, but the other editor in question is dancing the knife edge of civility and I think more opinions other than his/hers (or mine, for that matter) should come into play. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Both of these articles need reviewing. The first seems to be in a dire state and should probably be proposed for deletion. The second appears more reasonable, but does contain discussion and references to the notorious M. S. El Naschie. All help is appreciated, Verbal chat 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The universe isn't a fractal. It has a measured power-spectrum that is does not have fractal dimension. This is actually mentioned at Plasma cosmology. However, the question of whether the universe had fractal dimension was of interest for about 5 to 10 years in the 1990s. The fractal cosmology article, as written, was extremely problematic, however, so I redirected it wholesale to nonstandard cosmology. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
While bouncing around these articles I found Scale relativity which I promptly nominated for deletion as a violation of our WP:FRINGE guideline. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have resurrected the article Fractal cosmology, and taken note of the many reviewer notes placed by Verbal. I have left comments on his user page, and that of ScienceApologist, which I hope will foster a mutually satisfying resolution of this matter. Being the prime author of the Fractal cosmology entry, I would obviously like to see it remain intact, but I welcome commentary, and I'd rather see the article improved or corrected, than have WikiPedia do without it. It seems like a hot topic with growing weight of evidence behind it, from my view. Perhaps my outlook on the subject is somewhat insular, but the same could be said of its critics.
Is Fractal Cosmology really Fringe science? Has the mainstream actually ruled out the possibility the universe is a fractal or displays fractality? Or is the real question, "In what range of scale do structures in the universe appear to be fractal?" Let's get some more opinions, at least.
Regards,
JonathanD ( talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If people could chip in over at the Fractal cosmology talk page with suggestions for internal and external links, or generally how to improve the article, I'd only be too please. People are focusing on editors rather than editing at the moment. Much obliged, Verbal chat
We now have List of alleged UFO-related entities and List of UFO-related entities, both up for deletion, but just in case, perhaps you should take a look and opine for yourselves. Mangoe ( talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the text of Weekly World News is mostly OK (I didn't read all of it, as it is rather long), but the lead is abominable. Is it possible that someone could provide something that vaguely resembles an encyclopedic opening? Mangoe ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is very long and in need of a big clean up. It is currently very biased in tone and lacks reliable references for notability outside of the work of one man. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Given recent edits to Sniffex, it might make sense to add this article to your watchlists. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This surname Ortega is extremely common among Spanish speakers throughout the world. The article Ortega explains the etymology of the surname (from Latin urtica), with examples from other Romance languages. The article Ortega (genealogy) was created as a Wikipedia:Fork by a contributor who believes that all Ortegas derive from one family line. The genealogical information looks erroneous. It is not sourced well. Considering the etymology of the name and examples in other Romance languagues (including Italian, Mario Ortica, etc.) the claim that all the Spanish examples derive from one line seems quite unbelievable. The Spanish surname derives from a nickname apparently common among Romance peoples, from Vulgar Latin-speaking people who nicknamed people after the urtica. Later this nickname became a surname. However the claim that all the Spanish Ortegas come from one line seems ridiculous. Ortega (genealogy) is fringe. A is putting the smack down ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is even a place in Aragon, Spain called Asín. I will check the etymology of that place name eventually. A is putting the smack down ( talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I sympathize with Alex -- it is bad enough that we have very few editors with philological expertise, but too often they are also jumped upon by the ever-increasing "clueless admin" population in the best " Randy in Boise" tradition. We really need to be doing something about this. Such as, impressing on new admins that they are to protect the editors with expertise. Wikipedia isn't a schoolyard where every kid has the same right to play. Admins need to learn that they should to kick out Randy in Boise -- yes, even if he is honestly convinced the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons -- in order to take weight off our valuable experts. -- dab (𒁳) 09:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've looked into it. It appears that the name Ortega can be traced to two Aragonese lineages of lower nobility, with two different coats of arms. Apparently they are attested from the 16th or 17th century. The 10th century stuff appears to be due to a lady Ortega Ramírez (given name), illegitimate daughter of king Ramiro II of León (r. 931-951) [80]. This medieval lady Ortega as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to do with the surname. Also, the "Fortunate" etymology pushed by the anon is due to Mexican eccentric Gutierre Tibón, which means we can cite it as a curiosity, but it certainly doesn't have any philological credibility. -- dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
ultimately, there were (or are) lots of villages called Ortega in Spain. Anyone from one of these villages could be named de Ortega in the Early Modern period. The two lines of infanzones are just the only ones who had a coat of arms. I don't think this has anything to do with Basques. Ortega vs. Ortiga is just a spelling variant, hardly even "dialectal". In the 16th to 17th century, such spelling variants were the rule, not the exception. -- dab (𒁳) 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
--discussion on the Asin toponym continues at Talk:Asín. -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be getting to the root of the matter as the anon edits Gutierre Tibón ( diff). -- dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
anon is now revert-warring at Gutierre Tibón. -- dab (𒁳) 11:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"self-described alien contactee, author, and radio host. " I've just cut out a bit of OR but that was before I started to look at the article more closely. What are our policies on such detailed information about his radio show episodes? I love the begging bowl link in the 2nd paragraph, which clearly has to go but I've left to show how bad this article is. Can anyone find any information about 'Historicity Productions'? It looks self-published. He's been on the Jerry Springer show and Sirius radio and Howard Stern so I'm thinking that he has sufficient notability, so it's just a matter of cleaning up the article. dougweller ( talk) 11:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
See the recent history [83] and User talk:Dawoudk. It may well be that he is an architect, but his own web site descrbes his father differently than he is doing now. At least he has responded to me and I'm happy to accept that he is an architect. He clearly has a COI problem and I'm not sure how best to handle it. Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. Talk about terrible. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a WALLED GARDEN! Check out Regression Therapy, Michael Newton (hypnotist), Journey of Souls, Destiny of Souls, Roger Woolger, Ian Lawton, and Andy Tomlinson.
The original state of this page was terrible. It still needs work. Verbal chat 14:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous: a good nominee for one of the worst on all of Wikipedia. I tagged it with all the appropriate tags and started fixing problems, but I don't have the time to go through all of this. Beware, the article owner is a might prickly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Our article on covert incest is currently a travesty of unreliable sources. The concept is treated as though it were a notable theory in psychology, but it contains only three citations to studies published in actual peer reviewed journals. [86] merely observes the existence of the concept, but does not assert it. [87] describes a supposed symptom of "covert incest" while critiquing the characterization. And of course [88] doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all, but only the views of a critic of "covert incest". It appears that the existence, and supposed harmful effects of "covert incest" have only been asserted in pop-psychology literature not subject to peer review, which the article cites extensively. While these books are reliable sources as to the views of "covert incest" proponents, they hardly support the claim that "Covert, emotional or psychic incest is an alleged type of psychological abuse" with which the article on covert incest begins. Thus, if described at all, "covert incest" should be treated as a linguistic or cultural phenomenon -- or perhaps even a notable pseudoscientific concept -- not as a serious theory in psychology. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Continuing on the UFO theme, I introduce USOs (or my preferred name, underwater-UFOs). This article seems a bit too credulous, and could do with a review. Verbal chat 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Colon cleansing appears to be a fringe topic. There are at least six sources that state quite clearly in my opinion that the topic is fringe, including one peer reviewed journal. Antoniolus ( talk · contribs) believes it is not quackery, and has dedicated long blocks of text on talk:colon cleansing and my talk page. I believe consensus is clear that this is fringe and the page is not WP:NPOV but rather adequately demonstrates the mainstream position is colon cleansing is quackery. I'm getting frustrated and no substantive sources have been provided to demonstrate that there is any reason to give the concept any credibility or soften the wording to imply that mainstream medicine simply hasn't made up its mind yet. I see it as civil POV pushing at this point. Am I wrong? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Article is a South Asian fringecruft magnet once again. It looks for all the world as if the Dravidian crackpots and the Aryan crackpots had a bet going as to who can behave more out-of-touch with reason or factuality. -- dab (𒁳) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The 3rd century BCE fringecruft is not properly referenced. Fake references provided for tamil and dravidian. Indo-Aryan loanwords attested in Mitanni documents, as mentioned in article and appropriately referenced. Hence reverted to pre-Dbachmann position. Kris ( talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
any help with this? At least we have a Dravidianist and a Sanskritist going at one another's throat, so that I am not incurring the full wrath of either in reverting this stuff, but we finally need to find a way to keep recurring nonsense like this off the 'pedia. I have had this conversation about four times now, and it doesn't get any more interesting to rehash it yet another time. -- dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like someone to take a second look at these - it's my impression that he is trying to suggest that some obsolete racial ideas are still to be taken seriously, eg removing the word 'alleged' in the article Alpine race. Before I go any further in reverting these edits I'd like a second opinion, thanks. dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fwiiw, the Alpine race isn't an "alleged race", since the problem lies with the "race" more than with the "Alpine". You may as soon say it is "an alleged population group native to the Alps". It is, much rather, a historical notion, i.e. an obsolete concept of scientific racism. Obsolete concepts aren't "allegations". Ramdrake is right that the concept of race is very much alive today, even the US, home of political correctness, classifies its population by race in the official census. What is "out of fashion" is scientific racism. I don't think the "clinally rather than discretely" catches it: this is doing injustice to historical scholarship. Nobody ever assumed races would be completely discrete. Human genetics does show clusters which could be dubbed "races" according to one scheme or another, if the term wasn't so discredited as a scientific term. This is a problem of terminology more than one of substance. That's not to say I defend edits such as this one. "out of fashion" here is just used as a cheap euphemism for "obsolete". WP:DUE says we should label "obsolete" with confidence whatever current academic mainstream considers "out of fashion", without any innuendo to the effect that it might come back into fashion... -- dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has just been started here, that many editors here would probably like to comment on. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:42, 18 November 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. |
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.” [1] (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)
Please look at the last 50 contributions of Martinphi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be back on his campaign no remove qualifiers whenever " psychic", " mediumship" or " parapsychology" is mentioned. Two illustrative examples of things he's done in the last 48 hours:
Looking at his contributions over the last few days, it seems clear to me that Martinphi is back on his a campaign to remove verifiable caveats associated with parapsychology, psychic powers, and mediumship from across this encyclopedia. This is the type of disruption he was sanctioned for by arbcom. However, I need to get some outside opinions as to whether this is enforcement-caliber problems.
Please look through his contributions (especially those which contain the two edit summaries I outline above) and see if you see a problem. The history between him and myself makes it difficult for me to intervene directly.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, these are WTAs or the equivalent. In a properly framed article, the reader will have ample opportunity to understand the the subject is controversial or discredited, without our having to use such weasel words. I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed. Perhaps my edit summaries should read "remove weasel wording," and then point the the ArbCom. See also, this, as it talks about framing. As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a request for clarification on the Three layer cake point:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [4]
I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link ( Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [5], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [6], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG ( talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Another round of regular " Vedic" quantum quackery for a change. This edit should make clear what is going on. It may be worth to keep on the lookout for the "reference" given,
-- dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, but this editor is adding loads of OR (including a map he created himself, [7] "Known Emigration of Abraham's Children to Katura". Can someone take a look particularly at Xerxes I of Persia which he has heavily edited. I'm removing some of his OR but I expect he'll put it back. Is the map something that can go to AfD as OR? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
it is a good sign to see him openly stating where he is coming from, self-identifying as a SDA pastor. We should encourage him to contribute to SDA topics and refrain from using SDA sources for historical topics. -- dab (𒁳) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this. The guy is fringe, his books are self-published through his foundation (and at least one has been used as a reference elsewhere). I found this comment about him on a web forum " the modern pyramidologist Moustafa Gadalla, not really a scientist or historian but possessor of a B.S. in civil engineering from the Cairo University. He is author of the Pyramid Handbook. Gadalla's claims are wild in the extreme, the essence of which is that all of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 4 were in reality great energy collectors that attracted a mythical space gas called orgone to create an even more mythical substance called psi-org energy." Ah, now I didn't know this, evidently the bluehouse effect drastically increases when you laminate a pyramid. [9]. Fantastic! Doug Weller ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Several articles concerning the history of Slovenia have seen a lot of disruptive editing in the last few days. The problem involves fringe theories and improper, non-academic sources. The articles are putting forward a disputed claim according to which a Slovenian state existed in the Alps in 595 AD and that this was the same entity as the medieval Dutchy of Carantania. The idea has been taken from a non-academic historian Jožko Šavli.
The actual background is roughly as follows: when describing the fights between Slavs and Bavarians in 590s (595 AD being the year when Slavic-Avar army defeated the Franks), the Lombard historian Paulus Diaconus refers to the area populated by Slavs as "provincia Sclaborum" (for more on this see: [10]. J. Šavli claims that "provincia Sclaborum" means "the state of Slovenes" and that this was the same entity as the later Carantania, which in fact is a myth since Carantania is not mentioned in historical sources prior to 660 AD.
The affected articles are:
I have reverted many of the edits in the last few days, on the grounds that they involved distorting historical data, as indicated in the edit summaries, but believe somebody with administrator's rights should intervene here. Please note that the issue has been put on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before: [11].
In my opinion, particularly the article on Carantania should be kept on administrator's watchlists as the issue is a popular topic of Slovene nationalism. Regards, Jalen ( talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don´t agree with you Jalen, pease read [ [12]], and you can see that your opinion is discussed there. You can disagree with Dr. Jožko Šavli, but I´ll not allow you to offend him. And please stop reverting my editions without answering in the discussion page first.-- Marcos G. Tusar ( talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
See for yourself. I've reverted for now, but... Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Could this user be a sockpuppet of User:VedicScience. They both like to reveal the "truth" to "uneducated" editors. Gizza Discuss © 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
clearly not the same user, but clearly one with a similar set of symptoms. -- dab (𒁳) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Won't the Constantinian shift article be considered conspiracy theory or fringe theory? LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now I would agree. The problem is that I thought what you just defined the article as, is what makes it into a fringe article. Specifically via the Jimmy Wales criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Just asking. It is a shame that the group pushing the idea make terrible mistakes in their handling of historical figures and events. LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the Proto-orthodox Christianity theory, too another conspiracy theory or fringe theory? One to counter the ante-nicene term as it is used by academia? LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The type of Christianity that ultimately became predominant was neither Judaic nor Gnostic. It developed out of Pauline, Johannine, and related forms of Christianity and consisted primarily of Gentiles. [...] Scholars call this type of early Christianity "Proto-Orthodoxy" or "early Catholicism," because it was the forerunner of the types of Christianity that developed later, known as Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
The theory and in specific Bart Ehrman's use of it are often discussed as a conspiracy theory. [13] Google it for fun. You know that wikipedian editors use the term in the wikipedia article Early Christianity. This rather then the more common term ante-nicene. Also note there still is no ante-nicene article per se, while there is a Proto Orthodox one. that is alittle uneven. LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Another "ethnic" mess. Note that we get ethnic mysticism mixed with valuable (as in difficult to find) bona fide information in broken English here. Lots of patience and good judgement is needed. Still, the epic " history" added since July is quite clearly mostly bogus. See also this note on my talkpage. -- dab (𒁳) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
when I was getting my bearings in this topic back in July (it came to my attention via Mastorava before--after) I found that most encyclopedic sources mention the existence of the Erzya and Moksha but without any further differentiation between them. I.e., we have no quotable sources at present to justify two separate Erzya people and Moksha people articles, even though it is undisputed that they are two real subgroups of the Mordvins. The problem appears to be that some diaspora Mordvins have come to object to the term "Mordvin", but it is difficult to make any sense of this since the contributions are mostly in English so broken as to be near-incomprehensible. -- dab (𒁳) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the dubious material to Talk:Mordvins/workpage. It may contain valid facts, but we cannot keep the live article in such a state until somebody manages to sift through this. Also take a look at the huge amount of text at Talk:Mordvins. Somebody appears to be using Wikipedia as a dumping ground. It will be difficult to handle this, since these are obviously contributions in good faith, and there seems to be a significant language barrier that will make it difficult to explain to the user what we are trying to do at WP. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please dab do not remove sourced facts from that article Mordvins in the future like you did with the last edit [14]. Feel free to remove anything that has not been sourced, I'll get to the History part ASAP and clean it up according to published secondary sources.-- Termer ( talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What about say Martin Bernal's (who listed as a American classical scholars) Black Athena and Afrocentrism? LoveMonkey ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Paul I mean like what
Mary Lefkowitz and
Zahi Hawass have to say about them. What about it? Is there something wrong with Leftowitz and Hawass' work?
Black Athena has been discredited and is listed as psuedo-history so is wikipedia saying something different about that now?
LoveMonkey (
talk) 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating. That looks to be an excellent event but I wonder why Bernal is still allowed to dissiminate as he has been discredited. I wonder how he will address this [16]. It is a shame that he teaches a conspiracy theory that the Greeks are liars and thieves. What a shameful thing. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
OK Itsmejudith then are these subjects fringe or not and if they are why are they not noted as such? If the subjects are not then why are other articles which show the same characteristics treated as fringe? Now don't dodge and dont defend political correctness.
LoveMonkey (
talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No you interrupted. You just dodged too. Just answer my questions. Your the one requesting immediancy. LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
User KVDP ( talk · contribs) is making some changes to the alternative medicine page that I think require a review. They are also creating new articles (such as "Healing therapy") which they are then adding to the lead of the alt med article. A few more eyes on this would be great. Verbal chat 12:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I have long shunned taking a closer look at this article. Now I have, and I see there's practically everything wrong with it that can be wrong with a non-stub article. Apparently it has been a paradise for unchecked Afrocentrist rambling for a long time. Anyway, this is unacceptable. This is an article about a continent and should get top priority. So, before we invest more time in petty disputes over Macedonia, Indian antiquity, the nationhood or race of Egyptians, we should see our way to fixing this shameful state of affairs. It is bad enough that the real Africa is neglected by the rest of the world, there is no need to duplicate the trend on-wiki... -- dab (𒁳) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Where's the fringe? Agreed the articles need work, but this is the fringe theories noticeboard. Better discussed elsewhere methinks. Vsmith ( talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) intends to take the pseudo-science tag off this, saying "Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category.". Doug Weller ( talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
At Pseudoskepticism (almost a POV coatrack for anti-pseudoscience), I just saw this little gem: [19]. Looks like Reddi ( talk · contribs) is branching out from his normal stomping grounds [20]. NJGW ( talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This BLP was reduced to a stub about two years ago and has stayed fairly constant since then. The subject has proposed a so-called "Einstein-Cartan-Evans" theory, which has been rejected by the physics community. An editorial by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft dismissed articles published in Foundations of Physics Letters by Evans. Evans himself tried to blank his own BLP (as User:Carrot18, revealed in an edit summary). According to his blog, he has contacted wikipedia to demand changes to his BLP: this might explain the recent actions of User:Nihonjoe and User:Daniel. Since the article only survived an AfD because of the notoriety of the subject's claims in fringe science, I am posting this alert here. Personally, I would be happy to see the BLP deleted. Apart from the claims, the subject does not appear to be notable. Mathsci ( talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that ritual abuse-torture is a fringe theory, essentially an extension of the satanic ritual abuse/ false memory syndrome moral panic but sans satan. All four sources are from the same two authors. I've consistently been of the opinion that it should be a redirect to the SRA page, and that it's undue weight to give it a separate page with support only coming from two scholars who are probably closer to advocates. Any opinion from the noticeboard? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
After shifting the ballgame from a discussion of whether individual authors were good enough, self-ref now is asking for references from an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science', quoting the ArbCom decision, and has moved the discussion from Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory (but without mentioning the earlier discussion there). Is his claim that the ArbCom decision requires that sort of reference rather than the usual reliable sources (which he seemed to be looking for until I gave him quite a few). Doug Weller ( talk) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this (and the bottom section of the talk page). Was I wrong in tagging the article? And should it even exist, don't we already have several articles covering the same topic? The same editor had added a huge amount to Promised Land which I stubified and probably needs merging. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this in an attempt to create a stub at indigenism. The claim of the existence of a specifically "Celtic anarchism" appears to rely entirely on reference to http://celticanarchy.org/ -- ah yes, and 18 subscribers at some mailing list. -- dab (𒁳) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have come to think that Carl Jung founded a cult rather than a school of psychology. This was the view developed by Richard Noll in the two books he wrote about Jung, but Noll is not really mentioned in the Jung article. In fact, it seems to me, the article reads more like a promotional piece for Jungian psychology than like an encyclopedia entry. But, perhaps, I am being unfair. I would be interested in reading the views of others. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Slovenian indigenism, see diff. See also Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history. -- dab (𒁳) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone seen, or been treated to, this warning yet?
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- El on ka 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I had this warning placed on my talk page after that wonderful administrator, El on ka, blocked me for 24 hrs for 3RR, although I had not violated 3RR. (Not that I deny sometimes using an agressive approach to editing, and to having POed a fair number of administrators by explaining at length why I thought they happened to be wrong about something or other.) My assumption is that if I continue to edit the type of article that is discussed on this page, I may soon be returned to permanent wiki-exile. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
this will not do. These "restrictions" clearly do not allow admins to jump out of the woodwork and block editors engaged in some conflict out of the blue. First of all, users need to be repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Being involved in a dispute on its own doesn't qualify as such, disputes being very much a standard vehicle of article progress. Secondly, the restriction clearly states the admin needs to warn before blocking. I.e., the admin needs to say "stand down or I block you", and only if the editor then does again what they were just warned against will it be permissible to block them. I might also note, with Nihonjoe that we don't need any arcom restrictions to block users repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, this is what WP:BLOCK stated all along. The mountain (arbcom) has yet again given birth to a mouse. Restating policy is not going to miraculously impart good judgement to admins who have none. Elonka going around issuing bogus 3RR blocks and pouncing on people involved in perfectly bona fide disputes is a sad case of an admin acting far out of line. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Another star chamber wiki-trial, in which the "editor" (me) was not informed of the proceedings.
The main problem, leaving aside from the problematic secret wiki-trial, is the complete misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make in my discussion with Elonka. The problem I see is that blocking users when no user has complained, and when the editing process is in fact making progress despite some abrasiveness, frequently is more disruptive to the editing of the article than the abrasiveness or possible violations of 3RR. I was not complaining about my block (a minor personal annoyance), but using that block as an example to explain the actual problem: the general problem of disruptive administrative intrusion in the process. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FT2 wrote: "Unfortunately, policies and norms on blocking do not support your view."
FT2, you still don't get it. What I was talking about is a reconsideration of policies and norms on blocking, because they are often more disruptive to the editing process than some abrasivness (ie incivility), or possible incidents of 3RR. I would not have brought what was just a personal complaint to this noticeboard. capisce? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Bioacoustics therapy. by mixing material from Bioacoustics with extreme fringe material about using frewquency analysis of the voice to diagnose disease, throwing in some fringe self-published internet "journals", and such, this article attempts to put the science of Bioacoustics, and extreme fringe on the same basis, by switching between them a few times a paragraph and thus using descriptions of the science to bolster the fringe. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the prod on this article because this is known pseudo-science; see [49]. Someone more interested in this topic (or pseudo-medicine in general) may want to further balance the article. VG ☎ 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Assyrian" nightmare shows signs of being revived, this time by "Assyrianist" Suryoyo othuroyo ( talk · contribs) (possibly a sock) vs. "Aramaeanist" The TriZ ( talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac ( talk · contribs) (as usual, most of the involved accounts make clear even in their username that they're just here to edit-war), also featuring some spectacular admin failure. This has all been thoroughly discussed, to and past the point of nausea. It's all at Names of Syriac Christians. This should mostly be a matter of trying to enforce basic policy with editors who Do Not Want to Get It. I don't have time for this atm. -- dab (𒁳) 10:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Should I be offended by this? It is you who are making disprutive and controversial changes without anything to back it up with. Also, maybe you should mention user:Am6212 and user:Trippss(possible sockpuppets). And the admin failure? Are you kidding me? It is you who have made major admin failures since the beginning of this "war", since you're not familiarized with the subject and still making controversial changes without seeking consensus with neither of the "both sides". Maybe it is YOU who should "familiarize yourself with the history of the debate and seek consensus on talkpages.", [50]. The TriZ ( talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
"in this sad excuse for a "debate" between teenage nationalists, and actively tried to get it on a construcive level"
Yes, that was indeed very constructive. To proving my point, let ous analyze your recent edits. You redirect the page Syriacs to Syriac (disambiguation)( [51]) which you redirect to Syria (disambiguation)( [52]) in which you redirect Syriac people and Syriac ethnic group to Syriac/Assyrian ( [53] & [54]) which if course, you have redirected to Assyrian people [55]. This is the way you contribute. And you haven't been contributing to the debate constructively in a positive way, I can dig out diffs from where "both sides" clerly show their unsatisfaction with your involvement (because of that you're making edits that only aggravates the situation).
Recent? Where have you been the last halfyear? After that user:EliasAlucard been blocked, the two sides has in a better way co-operated with eachother which have resulted in a much better balance and a more objective picture of reality. Lately though, users like user:Am6212, user:Trippss and user:Suryoyo othuroyo have been starting edit-wars without discussing and ruining months of work and co-operation from both sides (also the absence of user:Chaldean has probably played a part). The TriZ ( talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit harsh on Dab in my previous statement, and I apologize for that. But these users, user:Am6212, user:Trippss & user:Suryoyo othuroyo, have not been contributing in a positive way to the Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean articles, which are the only articles they've been edited. The TriZ ( talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am just being negative about it, but it seems to me this article has a major problem with original research, in the form of synthesis. It lists as examples of the Great White Brotherhood
all brought together under the same heading, without any reliable source cited to support that implied claim. (Might as well have included the Tzadikim too.)
It seems to me that this article should be limited to the Theosophocal related groups that actually used the term Great White Brotherhood. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
An anon-IP/new user is objecting to the term "conspiracy" being used in the Chemtrail conspiracy theory page by repeatedly removing it. Should be an easy problem to solve, unlike others that often turn up here :) Verbal chat 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor Pierre Carbonnelle. Relates to cold fusion and therefore also to this noticeboard. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is 45k in length, and barely mentions its status as a highly speculative idea with little following or interest among the cosmological community. It may take people with a solid grounding in astronomy and cosmology to make this a neutral article without undue weight, so I am bringing it up here. I did remove material from this article that was copied into Twin Quasar, but don't have the inclination to jump into the MECO article myself. Tim Shuba ( talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This article ( Phaistos Disc decipherment claims) includes quite a few decipherment claims, many of which are fringe theories and which have been published only on personal websites or vanity press. A notability check for each of these claims is definitely needed. bogdan ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
since there is no commonly accepted decipherment, all these alleged decipherments fall under WP:FRINGE (which doesn't automatically mean pseudoscholarship, just fringe scholarship), and standards for inclusion should be lowered appropriately. Of course we still shouldn't include random personal websites, but self-published books and similar should be ok. -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the "scientific" viws represented really typical, or is there cherrypicking going on? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is in bad shape and has POV problems. I did some editing of it a couple of days ago, which all got reverted this morning by and editor who seems to have a dislike of other editors working on the article [56]. Attention from some additional editors might help with getting a more balanced article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the problem with this article brings up once again the problem discussed above [ [57]]. I have a choice between leaving a very problematic article with fringe problems alone, or I can revert unwarranted and unexplained changes, and see if the other editor, becomes willing to talk about the problems before Elonka, or some other administrator pops out of the woodwork and blocks me for giving a POV pushing editor a hard time. (You know, this situation really sucks...and I am not entirely sure WP is worth this sort of agrivation.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the article consists of unsourced speculation by an editor - query if it should be pared down to a stub, deleted, or merged with Edgar Cayce.... LeContexte ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a fringe writer with a lot of hype on the page. I've raised an AfD but in the fiction and arts category, which I think was wrong as it purports to be history (why can't we have a clear AfD category for history and archaeology, by the way?). What category should it be in? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at this [59] and see if you don't think there is something fishy going on. I keep coming across sections on this tiny little faith. There seems to be a huge push to promote it, but they are smart about it. Just insert it wherever there is any relevance at all. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we just need a little perspective here... At least we are discussing a real religion. Wikipedia gives extensive treatment to less than real religions. Hiberniantears ( talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, Judaism is extremely notable not in terms of number of adherents, but because it has been around for some 2500 years, and has indirectly spawned the two religions now dominant, viz. Christianity and Islam. Bahai has few adherents and is a new religious movement. Of course it deserves its own article, but you can not assume that it is worth mentioning in any article not directly addressing Bahai topics. This is a matter of WP:DUE: inclusion of Bahai factoids into non-Bahai topics needs a justification every time. -- dab (𒁳) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that, if based on nothing else, the difficult situation of Bahais in Iran [65] justifies cutting them plenty of slack in the WP articles. It does not seem to be the only such case either, because the followers of the Dalai Lama get attention on WP way beyond what is justified by their numbers. Have a heart, guys. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL- I'll bet that is the very first time "have a heart" or similar sentiments have come to this noticeboard. I don't have anything against them, of course, but I've seen so much mention in the most strange places. But I really very much doubt that inserting them in all sorts of articles is doing them any good. If you want to do some good, put a "religious persecutions" box on all the religions articles, separated into nations- list the faiths being persecuted in the various nations.
Ludwigs, their doctrines are quite different from other faiths. So that's funny. But I know nothing about them really. I never heard of them before all the mentions in WP, and that's significant: I just don't think they are that notable. Jews would not be either, if they didn't have such a huge place in world history. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to become mindful that the Baha'i Faith is an actively growing religion - in the top two for the last 35+ years according to Christian associated statistics - see Major religious groups#Trends in adherence - and as such is active on many issues on many levels. We have representation at the UN - Bahá'í International Community and participated in a number of global forums. Baha'is have many associated projects some of which are detailed per country in a growing list of articles Category:Bahá'í Faith by country and there has been in the news coverage and governmental actions in America and Europe especially in a variety of ways often associated with the situation the Baha'is are in in Iran and Egypt - see Persecution of Bahá'ís. None of this is meant to dismiss the issue of undue weight. It is however to share some ways in which there is, indeed, weight to be noted. As for comparison with other groups, consider and please be reminded that groups like Mormons are already members of Christianity. People seem to pretty casually mix denominations and independent religions. I would also note some articles order the headings alphabetically and some not. Therefore in some of these places they are alphabetically first and others not. Smkolins ( talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
guys, this has gone way off track. Nobody here has (or should have) anything against Bahai, or for Bahai for that matter. The problem is that Bahai factoids are often, systematically, added to articles in violation of WP:DUE. We are here to fix it. That's all. As pointed out here, hyperbole helps nobody, least of all the reputation of the faith whose representation is being pushed unduly. What exacltly is "due" is a matter of case by case discussion, on article talkpages. -- dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continues here. Vesal ( talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some amazing nonsense and self-publicity here. Not sure what to do about it. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone please have a look at astrosociology. It managed to survive an AfD rather tenuously two years ago. I'd vote delete again, since the article fails to establish any significant scientific notability of the subject, but I thought I would bring it up here first. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can some people have a look at this and see what they think? It's not very good, but it's probably salvageable. While we're at it, Ayurveda needs a cleanup again. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I just came accross the Expanding Earth theory article today... some of you may be familiar with the idea since it seems like an old one, but I noticed that there are several problems. Most importantly it is named a theory, though I don't see any indication that it is any more than an out-dated hypothesis, and the terms "fringe" or "pseudoscience" appear nowhere in the article. I worked on the lead some, but I wouldn't want to make any huge changes without some other eyes on the article as well. Suggestions for moving forward? NJGW ( talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing is badly written, and does not have a neutral tone in the lead. I tried to rewrite it, but got reverted. The most important thing about it is what it says, obviously. The second most important thing is what people say about it. See what you think of this diff [68] —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Chiropractic#General_comments_and_observations. That pretty much sums up the problem. Apparently people are using "consensus" to try to feet-drag, drive-by-revert, tag-team, etc. We need neutral, outside parties who are willing to wield clue-sticks in defense of Wikipedia policies and guidelines other than WP:CON. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is problematic. I believe that the topic is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, but the current article is full of cruft and lacks inline references. I can't see any way of improving it without hacking out major portions, and I wonder what others think. Looie496 ( talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.
Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?
Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 ( talk) 05:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance! Jwri7474 ( talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure it's right, and it seems to have worked, too. He needed editors used to dealing with fringe stuff. And please do not recommend edit warring. What Looie496 is advocating is against both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy and the best parts of its culture. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really competent in this area, but an edit summary like clarify that scholars regard all this as nonsense always catches my eye. Any opinions?— Kww( talk) 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a REALLY BIG problem with WP:OWN at cold fusion. I am the only editor there who has not drunk the Kool Aid, it seems. Outside eyes would really help. I have made some removal of obviously POVPUSHING material in the lead and in the "evidence for cold fusion" sections, but we really need to clean house there. These SPAs are dedicated and coordinated by NET and other outside websites to drive the Wikipedia article on cold fusion into a state where it is unrecognizable as reliable, verifaible, or neutral.
PLEASE HELP!
ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I watched the film The Philadelphia Experiment (which wasn't as bad as I was expecting), and in trying to find out who some of the actors were I came across the page " Philadelphia Experiment" which seems badly in need of a reality check... For example, not sourced and in the lead: "It is said, though not proven, that the ship was dismantled and the crew placed in an insane asylum to keep these events secret." At least it says "not proven" :) Verbal chat 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a question up at WT:NOR, so I noticed a long post commenting on a desire to change the policy. I didn't read it closely (and I didn't see any obvious problems) but then I saw that the same editor is canvassing the likes of Reddi ( talk · contribs) [70] (an occasional "friend" of this board). If that's the kind of people being contacted (I didn't recognize the others), then people here might be interested in watching how the discussion plays out. NJGW ( talk) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems designed to push the view that all research refuting claims that aspartame as it's usually used is dangerous, are funded by the sugar substitute industry and thus corrupt, plus other language designed to push the theory. I think it's been like that for years. I tend to avoid these sort of articles due to the unpleasant rows involved, but thought I'd bring it here for your attention. Sticky Parkin 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Werner Gitt's biography has been edited to suggest his pseudoscientific ideas on information theory are well founded.
Since I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia I could use some help here.
The matter at hand concerns the following articles:
Alois Hitler
Maria Schicklgruber
Salomon Mayer von Rothschild
In all three articles, a tiny-minority view as referenced in WP:UNDUE was given inordinate weight and very likely should not be included at all (also per WP:UNDUE).
I removed the inappropriate text in the first two articles and left one paragraph in the third.
Two editors then challenged my actions and reverted my edits: User:Joyson Noel and User:MichaelCPrice. The first editor immediately barked at me, "Dont ever delete sourced info again" (see the edit history of Salomon Mayer von Rothschild), the second is also incivil and telling me "DO NOT REMOVE" and "You are not listening" ( Talk:Alois Hitler).
I don't mind the incivility so much, but the fact is that yesterday I spent more than three hours in the library looking up sources and writing a detailed explanation, with numerous citations, why the "Rothschild as Hitler's grandfather" claim is a tiny-minority view that does not merit inclusion. Earlier, I also offered as a compromise proposal to let stand one paragraph (equipped with proper qualifications) on the claim.
Since then, User:MichaelCPrice has claimed that just because he called the information notable it must be included in the Article. User:Joyson Noel has been quiet since yesterday but neither has he indicated his agreement to the changes made by me.
Since I am unable to visit Wikipedia daily or monitor these articles on a regular basis, I am asking anyone who wants to help to please add them to your watchlist. Feel free also to let me know what else I could do and how I could improve my handling of such matters in the future. Thanks.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)For the sceptical: see Talk:Alois Hitler for an exhaustive discussion, with numerous citations, of why the Rothschild idea is a fringe, tiny-minority view.
IP vandals have jumped on Alois Hitler and Maria Schicklgruber. If an admin is reading here, could you grant me rollback so that I can rollback the damage, or perform the rollback yourself? Thanks.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting proposal being discussed on WP:AN of relevance to people here. Yours, Verbal chat 12:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been repeated attempts to add unverified and unverifiable crap (ahem) to this article. It's not out of hand but could use a little more watching. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There's an account known as Water Ionizer Research ( talk · contribs) who is charitably adding neutral, accurate information to the water ionizer article and valiantly defending it from the horrible editors who would sully the page with the suggestion that claims water ionizers can cure cancer are ridiculous quackery.
Just kidding, there's a slow-burning edit war on the page, much of it centering in an external link that calls water ionization claims bunk [71]. Looks like classic fringe - extreme claims, minimal proof, gross over-reaching of what research exists, and lots of promotion and spamlinks continually inserted. Anyone have any expertise? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on "Seth's" (that is, Jane Roberts's) Lumania claims it as an "ancient mythological civilization". This strikes me as grossly misleading (especially since the article tends to be written "in world", as it were), but I thought I'd bring it up here first before mauling it and identifying it as pseudo-history. Mangoe ( talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. |
Could some of you have a look at this page. This is a self-published book which is purported to have received one review in a scientific journal (not verified, see talk page), and for which I have found one review in a newspaper [72]. There are some 24 Google hits for it [73], so its notability can be questioned as well. In general, it reads to me like more fringe science than anything else, proposing a new diagnosis and so on. It is not extremely outlandish, but it does look all dubious to me, and certainly hasn't received much attention in mainstream or scientifc publications. Fram ( talk) 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: it also is heavily spammed in Concept of death and adjustment. Even if not fringe, the attention it receives there is certainly removable per WP:UNDUE (and WP:COI). Fram ( talk) 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner ( talk · contribs) and Mikedelsol ( talk · contribs) wish to use this source, from The American Thinker, in Dreams from My Father, to include the claim that the book was ghostwritten by William Ayers. I think that a) The American Thinker is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim this extraordinary, and b) the claim is a fringe theory, and one not sufficiently noted in mainstream sources to be included in the article. Editors who are familiar with fringe theories in political contexts are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been further developments on this front. The Times of London has reported that a Republican congressman ( Chris Cannon) and his brother-in-law offered to pay an Oxford don $10,000 to "prove" that Ayers wrote Obama's book. The don declined, and later ran an analysis himself, which led him to the conclusion "...I feel totally confident that it is false." The story of the congressman's involvement has also been covered in The Salt Lake Tribune. My feeling is that these sources are reliable enough to merit a brief mention in the article, but other folks at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Fringe think that it's still best left out. Any opinions are welcome. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I ran across this one during routine article cleanup. I'm honestly not sure if it's a fringe theory or not, but it certainly looks like it could be. I don't really know anything about the topic, and it's enough of a mess right now that I wouldn't even know how to start improving it. hbent ( talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Lots of scholarly sources so definitely not fringe. Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's been some edit warring at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Elonka has already gone after SA for it (many of you may know this already for having his page watched). Some of the ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects will be familiar to those who watch this board regularly.
NJGW (
talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Usual fringe suspects" means people that have come up on this board before. I thought that would be obvious. NJGW ( talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Needs an eye on it, but I'm travelling right now. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Update A user is making what I believe are fallacious arguments on this page. Any help appreciated as he thinks my dismissal of his list of complaints isn't good enough. (tongue in cheek: Apparently the article isn't neutral as the only sources against chemtrtails are either governmental (gasp) or skeptical (by definition...?)) Verbal chat 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's been a lot of rewrites and additions to this recently, and many of them seem to encourage fringe theories to be described credulously. I think that the last week's changes need some review. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at this? I'm totally flummoxed on how to deal with it. I came to it recently because of spam like references, including one supposedly published by "the Harvard Business School Press." Just to be sure: astrology has as much place in finance as it does in computer science.
Any help, rewording, etc. appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem as it presents itself to any sane observer: Some Syriac Christians think they are "Aramaeans" and reject the name "Assyrians", while others think they are "Assyrians" and reject the name "Aramaeans". Both endorse the name "Syriacs". This means we get lots of WP:CFORKs on the same group, one copy under "Aramaean-Syriac", the other under "Assyrian", and we get a lot of edit wars by both factions claiming the term "Syriac", which recently has meant piping "Syriac $ISSUE" to "Aramean-Syriac $ISSUE". This is a pure naming issue, the group discussed being the exact same. These kids have the bad taste to go and create a fork of Assyrian genocide at Syriac genocide just to make a WP:POINT.
The proper way to treat this as a bona fide dispute would be {{ move}} discussions based on actual sources. Instead, we get a fork orgy by angry young men spewing vitriol at one another and any bystander. As if this wasn't bad enough, we now also have textbook "clueless admins" stepping in in weird ways, refusing to grok even as much of the issue as summarized right above (look at the history of Aramaean-Syriac people and this diff).
Only a zero-tolerance on content forking, and reward of valid and coherent renaming requests can help in this. I have been doing this with angelic patience for a year now, but I cannot work against the "clueless admin" population as well as against the teenage patriots, and I shouldn't be required to babysit admins as well as pov-pushers. Help is appreciated. -- dab (𒁳) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
note, this problem would be on-topic on the "nationalistic feuds" noticeboard, if that was active. I take it this board is the de facto nearest thing we have. Perhaps I should cross-post the problem somewhere else? -- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
trying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people -- dab (𒁳) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article raised a few red flags with me, especially the glowing praise in the unreferenced parts. Needs verification, although I'm not saying this is necessarily a "fringe" author. -- dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just realized where I had come across this chap before -- Pagan Resurrection, which I cleaned up two years back (now made a redirect as failing WP:BK). This author seems to have written a good book on psychoactive drugs in the early 1990s, and since then has ominously lost it, and is now writing crackpot literature on confused ideas about prehistoric occultism. I have now become aware of this article because Rudgley is mentioned in a hilariously nonsensical post on Talk:Runic alphabet. -- dab (𒁳) 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been discussions here about problems with articles on ancient Persia and Babylonia (specifically Cyrus cylinder and Battle of Opis). I've been reviewing this topic area and have found numerous problems, in some cases amounting to a walled garden of bad articles. I've posted some review notes at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. Feedback would be very welcome. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea which part of Wikipedia policy is supposed to require us to even put up with blatant nationalist pov-pushing. This is simply something that does not belong here, not a matter of "debate" or "consensus". People who come here to abuse the project as a campaign platform should be duly warned, patiently pointed to policy, and if they persist, shown the door. It is difficult enough to work with people who are trying to write an encyclopedia. -- dab (𒁳) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is an article I've just come across. It seems to be very positive in its descriptions of alternative medicine terms, but I'm not sure what policies would apply here. Could probably do with some copy editing, reduction of some terms, and expansion of others with scientific information. There are a lot of things like "therapy x cures y by principle z" which I'm not sure should be said in wikipedia's voice. More eyes, attention, etc. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor made a category " Category:whole medical systems" which is what he says they're called by the NCCAM which some of the alt med category follows. I would appreciate your views on the talk pages as to whether it should be called Category:Alternative medical systems or should be renamed Category:Whole medical systems. I've asked at any wikiprojects that might be interested too. Sticky Parkin 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on over at the Placebo page as to whether the effect exists or not (because a review calls it a "subjective" not "objective" effect). One administrator has been making accusations of biase (I'm in the pay of BigSugar, perhaps?) and tried to change the lead to imply the effect doesn't exist. This could do with some review by experts please. Many thanks, Verbal chat 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this read more like an advertisement than a proper article to you? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
A user keeps replacing the NPOV tag on this article because in his opinion it isn't neutral because the article is written from the point of view of chemtrails being a conspiracy theory, thus failing NPOV. They also think all scientific or governmental sources are inherently biased, hence failing RS. They now seem to edit around only this topic, but I refrain from calling them an SPA because prior to this current interest they edited the Loose change and other "9/11 Truther" articles. I think some explanation and enforcement of policy is required on this page, and I would also support it being moved under the PS arbitration. Pleas help FTN, you're our only hope... Verbal chat 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
We are supposed to be neutral, not ignorant/indifferent. There is a difference. Neutrality (philosophy)#What neutrality is not is an interesting couple of paragraphs for those who think otherwise to consider. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am one of the editors working on the John Wilkes Booth article, and I've encountered some criticism (read: one editor) who feels that including the numerous books and documentaries (detailing the 100+ year old conspiracy theories that JWB escaped being shot outside a farmhouse) should be purged as fringe theories. I was wondering if I could get some guidance from editors here as to how to proceed. I want to be fair, but the other editor in question is dancing the knife edge of civility and I think more opinions other than his/hers (or mine, for that matter) should come into play. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Both of these articles need reviewing. The first seems to be in a dire state and should probably be proposed for deletion. The second appears more reasonable, but does contain discussion and references to the notorious M. S. El Naschie. All help is appreciated, Verbal chat 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The universe isn't a fractal. It has a measured power-spectrum that is does not have fractal dimension. This is actually mentioned at Plasma cosmology. However, the question of whether the universe had fractal dimension was of interest for about 5 to 10 years in the 1990s. The fractal cosmology article, as written, was extremely problematic, however, so I redirected it wholesale to nonstandard cosmology. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
While bouncing around these articles I found Scale relativity which I promptly nominated for deletion as a violation of our WP:FRINGE guideline. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have resurrected the article Fractal cosmology, and taken note of the many reviewer notes placed by Verbal. I have left comments on his user page, and that of ScienceApologist, which I hope will foster a mutually satisfying resolution of this matter. Being the prime author of the Fractal cosmology entry, I would obviously like to see it remain intact, but I welcome commentary, and I'd rather see the article improved or corrected, than have WikiPedia do without it. It seems like a hot topic with growing weight of evidence behind it, from my view. Perhaps my outlook on the subject is somewhat insular, but the same could be said of its critics.
Is Fractal Cosmology really Fringe science? Has the mainstream actually ruled out the possibility the universe is a fractal or displays fractality? Or is the real question, "In what range of scale do structures in the universe appear to be fractal?" Let's get some more opinions, at least.
Regards,
JonathanD ( talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If people could chip in over at the Fractal cosmology talk page with suggestions for internal and external links, or generally how to improve the article, I'd only be too please. People are focusing on editors rather than editing at the moment. Much obliged, Verbal chat
We now have List of alleged UFO-related entities and List of UFO-related entities, both up for deletion, but just in case, perhaps you should take a look and opine for yourselves. Mangoe ( talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the text of Weekly World News is mostly OK (I didn't read all of it, as it is rather long), but the lead is abominable. Is it possible that someone could provide something that vaguely resembles an encyclopedic opening? Mangoe ( talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is very long and in need of a big clean up. It is currently very biased in tone and lacks reliable references for notability outside of the work of one man. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Given recent edits to Sniffex, it might make sense to add this article to your watchlists. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This surname Ortega is extremely common among Spanish speakers throughout the world. The article Ortega explains the etymology of the surname (from Latin urtica), with examples from other Romance languages. The article Ortega (genealogy) was created as a Wikipedia:Fork by a contributor who believes that all Ortegas derive from one family line. The genealogical information looks erroneous. It is not sourced well. Considering the etymology of the name and examples in other Romance languagues (including Italian, Mario Ortica, etc.) the claim that all the Spanish examples derive from one line seems quite unbelievable. The Spanish surname derives from a nickname apparently common among Romance peoples, from Vulgar Latin-speaking people who nicknamed people after the urtica. Later this nickname became a surname. However the claim that all the Spanish Ortegas come from one line seems ridiculous. Ortega (genealogy) is fringe. A is putting the smack down ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is even a place in Aragon, Spain called Asín. I will check the etymology of that place name eventually. A is putting the smack down ( talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I sympathize with Alex -- it is bad enough that we have very few editors with philological expertise, but too often they are also jumped upon by the ever-increasing "clueless admin" population in the best " Randy in Boise" tradition. We really need to be doing something about this. Such as, impressing on new admins that they are to protect the editors with expertise. Wikipedia isn't a schoolyard where every kid has the same right to play. Admins need to learn that they should to kick out Randy in Boise -- yes, even if he is honestly convinced the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons -- in order to take weight off our valuable experts. -- dab (𒁳) 09:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've looked into it. It appears that the name Ortega can be traced to two Aragonese lineages of lower nobility, with two different coats of arms. Apparently they are attested from the 16th or 17th century. The 10th century stuff appears to be due to a lady Ortega Ramírez (given name), illegitimate daughter of king Ramiro II of León (r. 931-951) [80]. This medieval lady Ortega as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to do with the surname. Also, the "Fortunate" etymology pushed by the anon is due to Mexican eccentric Gutierre Tibón, which means we can cite it as a curiosity, but it certainly doesn't have any philological credibility. -- dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
ultimately, there were (or are) lots of villages called Ortega in Spain. Anyone from one of these villages could be named de Ortega in the Early Modern period. The two lines of infanzones are just the only ones who had a coat of arms. I don't think this has anything to do with Basques. Ortega vs. Ortiga is just a spelling variant, hardly even "dialectal". In the 16th to 17th century, such spelling variants were the rule, not the exception. -- dab (𒁳) 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
--discussion on the Asin toponym continues at Talk:Asín. -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be getting to the root of the matter as the anon edits Gutierre Tibón ( diff). -- dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
anon is now revert-warring at Gutierre Tibón. -- dab (𒁳) 11:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"self-described alien contactee, author, and radio host. " I've just cut out a bit of OR but that was before I started to look at the article more closely. What are our policies on such detailed information about his radio show episodes? I love the begging bowl link in the 2nd paragraph, which clearly has to go but I've left to show how bad this article is. Can anyone find any information about 'Historicity Productions'? It looks self-published. He's been on the Jerry Springer show and Sirius radio and Howard Stern so I'm thinking that he has sufficient notability, so it's just a matter of cleaning up the article. dougweller ( talk) 11:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
See the recent history [83] and User talk:Dawoudk. It may well be that he is an architect, but his own web site descrbes his father differently than he is doing now. At least he has responded to me and I'm happy to accept that he is an architect. He clearly has a COI problem and I'm not sure how best to handle it. Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. Talk about terrible. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a WALLED GARDEN! Check out Regression Therapy, Michael Newton (hypnotist), Journey of Souls, Destiny of Souls, Roger Woolger, Ian Lawton, and Andy Tomlinson.
The original state of this page was terrible. It still needs work. Verbal chat 14:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous: a good nominee for one of the worst on all of Wikipedia. I tagged it with all the appropriate tags and started fixing problems, but I don't have the time to go through all of this. Beware, the article owner is a might prickly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Our article on covert incest is currently a travesty of unreliable sources. The concept is treated as though it were a notable theory in psychology, but it contains only three citations to studies published in actual peer reviewed journals. [86] merely observes the existence of the concept, but does not assert it. [87] describes a supposed symptom of "covert incest" while critiquing the characterization. And of course [88] doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all, but only the views of a critic of "covert incest". It appears that the existence, and supposed harmful effects of "covert incest" have only been asserted in pop-psychology literature not subject to peer review, which the article cites extensively. While these books are reliable sources as to the views of "covert incest" proponents, they hardly support the claim that "Covert, emotional or psychic incest is an alleged type of psychological abuse" with which the article on covert incest begins. Thus, if described at all, "covert incest" should be treated as a linguistic or cultural phenomenon -- or perhaps even a notable pseudoscientific concept -- not as a serious theory in psychology. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Continuing on the UFO theme, I introduce USOs (or my preferred name, underwater-UFOs). This article seems a bit too credulous, and could do with a review. Verbal chat 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Colon cleansing appears to be a fringe topic. There are at least six sources that state quite clearly in my opinion that the topic is fringe, including one peer reviewed journal. Antoniolus ( talk · contribs) believes it is not quackery, and has dedicated long blocks of text on talk:colon cleansing and my talk page. I believe consensus is clear that this is fringe and the page is not WP:NPOV but rather adequately demonstrates the mainstream position is colon cleansing is quackery. I'm getting frustrated and no substantive sources have been provided to demonstrate that there is any reason to give the concept any credibility or soften the wording to imply that mainstream medicine simply hasn't made up its mind yet. I see it as civil POV pushing at this point. Am I wrong? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Article is a South Asian fringecruft magnet once again. It looks for all the world as if the Dravidian crackpots and the Aryan crackpots had a bet going as to who can behave more out-of-touch with reason or factuality. -- dab (𒁳) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The 3rd century BCE fringecruft is not properly referenced. Fake references provided for tamil and dravidian. Indo-Aryan loanwords attested in Mitanni documents, as mentioned in article and appropriately referenced. Hence reverted to pre-Dbachmann position. Kris ( talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
any help with this? At least we have a Dravidianist and a Sanskritist going at one another's throat, so that I am not incurring the full wrath of either in reverting this stuff, but we finally need to find a way to keep recurring nonsense like this off the 'pedia. I have had this conversation about four times now, and it doesn't get any more interesting to rehash it yet another time. -- dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like someone to take a second look at these - it's my impression that he is trying to suggest that some obsolete racial ideas are still to be taken seriously, eg removing the word 'alleged' in the article Alpine race. Before I go any further in reverting these edits I'd like a second opinion, thanks. dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fwiiw, the Alpine race isn't an "alleged race", since the problem lies with the "race" more than with the "Alpine". You may as soon say it is "an alleged population group native to the Alps". It is, much rather, a historical notion, i.e. an obsolete concept of scientific racism. Obsolete concepts aren't "allegations". Ramdrake is right that the concept of race is very much alive today, even the US, home of political correctness, classifies its population by race in the official census. What is "out of fashion" is scientific racism. I don't think the "clinally rather than discretely" catches it: this is doing injustice to historical scholarship. Nobody ever assumed races would be completely discrete. Human genetics does show clusters which could be dubbed "races" according to one scheme or another, if the term wasn't so discredited as a scientific term. This is a problem of terminology more than one of substance. That's not to say I defend edits such as this one. "out of fashion" here is just used as a cheap euphemism for "obsolete". WP:DUE says we should label "obsolete" with confidence whatever current academic mainstream considers "out of fashion", without any innuendo to the effect that it might come back into fashion... -- dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
An RfC has just been started here, that many editors here would probably like to comment on. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)