Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:FTN
WP:FT/N

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.

If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the No original research notice board.

Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Indeed, Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to pseudoscience. Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."

When acting on articles and issues raised here please be mindful of the December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as fringe, questionable and pseudo- science in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The ruling set forth the following guidance:

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Contents


[edit] Three users persistently deleting EL to Skeptic's Dictionary

User:Jack-A-Roe, User:PetraSchelm and User:SqueakBox have together removed a link to Skeptic's Dictionary from Hystero-epilepsy 5 times. They have justified this by characterizing the link as self-published, link-cruft, questionable, non-expert, and a profit-generating ad revenue scrape site. Given Jack-A-Roe's history of civil POV warring, however, I suspect the link is actually being removed because it tangentially mentions "repressed memory" therapists in a negative light, and itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder. A third opinion would be nice. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.... "itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder." - since you've studied my contribs, you didn't notice that I've never edited Dissociative Identity Disorder? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe we reverted you mostly to discourage you from pointless wikistalking and harassment of Jack, which is the only reason you keep inserting the link. Meanwhile, it is a crap EL for that article, which is in its early stub stage of development. It's an ad-heavy for profit link, and the useful information in it should come from cited sources and be used as inline refs. "Hystero-epilepsy" is not a pseudoscience or a fringe theory--no one believes in it; it was just part of the history of science. In Charcot's time, people thought epilepsy was a neuroses with no physical basis; but that doesn't mean they weren't studying it with scientific methods. We don't go backwards in history and label every hypothesis that turned out to be wrong "pseudoscience," pseudoscience refers to current beliefs with no scientific basis/contradicted by science now. I don't see Charcot advocating hystero-epilepsy on TV, do you? (He's been dead for a hundred plus years...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say hystero-epilepsy was pseudoscientific or fringe. I posted this here because most watchers are bound to be familiar with Skepdic, and because the link was probably removed to further the fringe POV of "repressed memory" advocates. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, really--the link was removed to discourage you from wikistalking Jack (to a stub article you never edited before, and have contributed nothing to except edit warring over an inconsequential external link no one cares about). The link is crap, but the issue is that we don't want you to follow Jack or anyone else around purposely to harass them.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You checked my contributions, saw an edit and then caused disruption not because you actually cared but because you wanted to wear me down? That sounds like wikistalking. My occasional perusal of Jack's contributions to ensure he isn't pushing his POV on the trauma articles, on the other hand, is not. See Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Except Jack doesn't pov-push on trauma articles, the only person who has accused him of that is you (and uh, weren't you blocked for pedophile pov-pushing?). What you've done is followed him to a stub article that says zip about trauma or anything else, because it's practically empty, and edit-warred to insert an ad-heavy EL that doesn't belong, because it implies that an early development in the research on epilepsy and hysteria--conducted by the man whom Freud referenced heavily--is pseudoscience. The Skepdic's dictionary is a fine EL for the Dianetics article, but not for the psychoanalysis article, for example. Jack's interest in the article appears to stem from his interest in Iatrogenesis, where he is collaborating with other editors to improve that article and its subarticles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sort of surprising that AnotherSolipsist appeared on that very obscure article to revert my change, when he's not edited that article or anything related to it previously. I wondered about that; then decided not to worry about it unless it continued to happen.

Putting that curiousity aside, regarding the use of the Skeptic's Dictionary website as an external link: there are two issues about that. It's not a reliable source, it's not a book, it's a self-published website. There is also a book by that title, that includes a subset of the website content - the book was published by a third party, increasing its reliability. I don't know if hystero-epilepsy is in the book or not - if it were, that would add reliability and encourage its use as an in-line footnote. The website is self-published and represents the author's biased views (he does not claim otherwise in his about-himself section on the site). This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard because various editors have wanted to use it in various articles; while there has not been a definitive decision, doubt was expressed about its reliability and the general agreement was that if the site is used as an inline citation, the opinions of Carroll should be attributed and not generalized. So, if it were used as an inline reference, it could be phrased "According to Tom Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary... etc". That approach is from the RS noticeboard recommendation.

In this situation though, as an external link, it's even less appropriate, because it does not meet the qualifications for what should be linked - external links are used only for websites that include information that can't be included directly in Wikipedia for various reasons, such as official websites of organizations that are the topic of the articles, or websites with extensive resources on a topic that go far beyond the level of detail Wikipedia can provide. For more on that see WP:EL . But those qualifications doesn't apply in this situation - it's a one-page article on a self-published website. If any of the information there is valid and usable - there is no reason to advertise his website as an external link when the info can be paraphrased and carefully used with attribution and an in-line footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the EL from skepdic should be deleted as per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The skepdic site states: "who assume even before meeting their patients that they have probably been sexually abused." This statement is unsourced, incredibly misleading and shows the extreme bias of the author. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
So Jack-A-Roe know this all along? There seems to be two things going on. One looks like an attempt to keep an article POV (in fact maybe two or more articles if the impression I get from a quick persual of some editors' contributions) and another to stop people from using at least two skeptical sites. I also see the word 'tertiary' being used as an excuse to remove external links, despite the fact that WP guidelines make it clear you can use tertiary works.#REDIRECT Insert text
I forgot to add that PetraSchelm is the third editor here (see discussion two above this one).--Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "An attempt to keep an article POV"? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on Wikipedia. Did you even read the article? Here it is, all five sentences:

Hystero-epilepsy is an alleged disease "discovered" by 19th-century French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot.[1] It is considered a famous example of iatrogenic artifact, or a disease created by doctors. The disease was considered a combination of hysteria and epilepsy. Charcot housed his "hystero-epilepsy" patients in the same ward as patients with epilepsy, because both were considered "episodic" diseases. At the time, both hysteria and epilepsy were believed to be neuroses; and diseases caused by the conversion of psychological distress into physical distress. Symptoms included "convulsions, contortions, fainting, and transient impairment of consciousness." Joseph Babinski convinced Charcot that he was inducing the symptoms in his patients because of his treatment regimen. [2] I'm sorry--where exactly is the POV in this five sentence article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller, sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "Jack-A-Roe know this all along?" - I don't mean that as as tactic, I actually don't understand, so I can't reply to your question.
As far as Skeptic's Dictionary, someone has already re-inserted it in that article, and I'm not removing it again at this point. I don't think it belongs there, but I also don't think it's all that important. What I do think is important is the use of Skeptic's Dictionary in general, throughout Wikipedia. It's linked on around 550 pages, including maybe 200 or so articles. So it's used a lot.
I have nothing against skepticism; many may not believe this, but I take a skeptical approach to science. I want to see evidence, not magic. But I don't find Skeptic's Dictionary to be a reliable source because it's just a collection of one person's opinions. On some topics, maybe his opinions are worthy of citations, but on many topics, he's not an expert, he's just writing his opinions.
This is not something I'm making up - he states it himself in the intro to his website: "The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." Not only that, but he considers topics like the one we're discussing to be "occult" or "pseudoscience". Well, the little article that we're discussing, hystero-epilepsy, is not either of those, it's simply history. It's the story of some mistakes that were made by someone who thought what they were doing was science at the time, a long time ago. I'm skeptical about hystero-epilepsy, I don't think it exists as a disease. But I don't think we need Carroll's opinion piece to reference the article - there are scientific and history sources available that are much better.
So... I hope that clarifies it. I'm not fighting a battle to keep one external link out of one of the smallest most obscure articles in the encyclopedia. I just don't think it's a good external link, according to the external links guideline. Apparently some other editors agree with me about that, and apparently some don't. That's Wikipedia in action. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

we should avoid having full blown debates on this page that aren't directly addressing the question of "fringe theories". This is a question of WP:EL. External links are selected on a pragmatic basis, with a view to their utility to the readers. We do not require watertight WP:RS quality for them. As Jack-A-Roe says, this is wiki business as usual, to be addressed on article talkpages. I would encourage everyone to post links to such debates on this noticeboard, but to avoid replicating the full debate here. dab (𒁳) 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack-a-roe, when I said you knew it all along all I meant was that it might have helped if you had said that immediately. If you have better sources, great. But I really don't want to hear complaints that it is a tertiary source (textbooks are tertiary sources, Wikipedia guidelines say tertiary sources are ok) or that it is ad supported. And as you know, we've been through the 'it's a personal website' bit, none of those make it fail WP:EL. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I didn't write anything about it being a tertiary source, someone else wrote that, and I don't see that as an issue in this situation. I consider the link inappropriate based on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. And as dab noted, this is not a WP:FRINGE question so it doesn't belong on this noticeboard. For completeness though, I'll note that so far only two editors voiced support for keeping the link and four editors stated their support for its removal. I suggest that if there is any further discussion of this it be done on the article talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly see nothing in this link that violates the EL policy. J*Lambton T/C 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Nilotic peoples

huge {{essay-entry}}. impinges on the race of Ancient Egyptians and Aryan cans of worms. Meanwhile, "pharaonist" trolling continues at Egyptians. I don't have the heart for this right now. Ah, yes, and there is also Genetics of the Ancient World. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged Origin of the Nilotic peoples for cleanup and will redirectify it to Race of Ancient Egyptians if the cleanup doesn't happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirected. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
wasn't that a bit harsh? There was a lot of content... dab (𒁳) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There was. The topic is valid, that's not the problem. Not all of it was bad stuff, but the whole thing was WP:SYN. A slimmed-down version stripped of the synthesis would be fine - just no one seemed very interested in writing that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've been reverted. Discussion continues on talk page. This is fine, except that I'm slightly worried that the author isn't admitting there's any kind of a problem. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

Or, perhaps the most god-awful article on a fringe topic on Wikipedia.

The lead contains one sentence of weak criticism. It then has 20 sections of pure praise and promotion. There's then a criticism section, containing the weakest claims ever. When it actually stooped to make a brief hard criticism, [1] they... synthed data from extreme fringe journals and used this OR to rebut it.

Poor Emily Rosa, notable in her own right as the youngest researcher to be published in a major peer-review journal, is, of course, left out.

In short, an article that bends over backwards in order to avoid making any relevant criticism. HELP! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cut 7kb of cruft from this 40kb article. Much is still left to do. Antelantalk 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First impression is that there are far too many weak sources cited. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed there, but not quite sure what to do about that, short of a complete resourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Removal of "sourced" information is not vandalism. Feel free to reduce some of the weakly-sourced puffery. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy (spirituality)

This is an article that has recently been completely rewritten by one editor. There seem to be some problems with it, including that it mostly discusses energy healing, a subject not necessarily indicated by its name and introduction. I would appreciate it if some editors would take a look at it; because, perhaps, my uneasiness about it is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

this is quite bad. Should at best be a disambiguation page. Essentially touts "energy medicine". dab (𒁳) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reversion to this version of 16 March: [2]. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That version is still highly problematic given the amount of OR in the listing of supposedly related concepts from all over the globe and all historical periods. Surely there must be some serious research somewhere into the development of these New Age ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"The aura of wellness: Subtle-energy healing and new age religion," available on JSTOR, may be useful. It's an overview of the history and beliefs of energy healers, written from a skeptical perspective. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What's there now is New Age, but spiritual energy isn't a New Age concept. Prana and Qi (among others) date way back, centuries back. I too suggest taking the article to the version (hopefully there's a version in there somewhere) where it actually talked about spirituality instead of this pseudo-medicine stuff that's there now. Spiritual energy isn't about health, it's about enlightenment. Eg. the purpose of yoga is to direct prana through nadis to activate chakras, each of which is supposed to then give you new spiritual insight. It's been adopted as "exercise", but it's a form of meditation. Sure, there's supposed to be some health benefits to it, but that's not the goal of the practice. It shouldn't be framed as medicine, especially since mainstream medicine rejects it. To the religious practitioners it doesn't matter if it's scientifically relevant because the goals are spiritual, and that's how it should be framed. What's in the article now confuses all of that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Prana and Qi (among others)" have their own articles. The article is pure WP:SYN. Unless an identifiable concept of "spiritual energy" can be referenced to some RS, I suggest this page should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to Energy (disambiguation). You cannot google "energy" and then cobble together the results into a single article. "Energy" is too common a word for that. dab (𒁳) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is crap. What I was saying is that it's a notable concept that the article doesn't do justice. I think a disambig page would be a good way to fix it. That'd be preferable to a redirect to Energy (disambiguation), which doesn't really have anything related to the topic (hence why it's linked off that page). Alternatively, there are identifiable concepts of spiritual energy that can be described in an article without synthesis, and without the New Age spin. Google Scholar has quite a few sources on the topic [3]. Presumably there's enough reliable sources there to write about it. I'd either find someone to rewrite it completely as an article about the concept in spirituality, or disambig it with links to the various notable cultural forms of "spiritual energy". In Eastern mysticism there's plenty to work with. Note that I'm talking spirituality here, not medicine. Not necessarily mutually exclusive views, but definitely different views of the topic. The former isn't fringe where the latter is. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Obviously, it may be useful to synthesise common alt-med ideas - provided others have done so first. Someone mentioned a JSTOR article, I'll check that later, and see if we can make a coherent page out of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking the suggestion of Itsmejudith, I have been looking through some of the earliest versions of the article. Of the one I have so far looked at this one [4] seems the most balanced and neutral. Perhaps going back to this version would be a good new start for the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

what we need is not "Energy (spirituality)" but "Energy (one specific school of thought)". Viz., it needs further disambiguation. On what grounds do we distinguish "Energy (spiritual)" from "Energy (psychological)"? What kind of "spirituality"? New Age? Christian? Spiritist? This will not make any sense. The present version, and even the dated version linked by Malcolm, appears to take for granted we are talking about New Age pop-spirituality. If so --- fine, but move it to Energy (New Age) if that's what it's going to be about. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, I note de-wiki has de:Energie (Esoterik). That would make sense. The German page is also essentially a list of individual concepts in esotericism. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A fundamental problem with the article is that it links; the words "energy" and "spiritual". In many core New Age teachings (such as Theosophy and the books of Alice Bailey), energy at the level the article talks about is not spiritual at all, but just a slightly higher aspect of the physical body. It might be called subtle energy, but not spiritual -- which in Theosophical Society literature refers to much higher levels. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why the article talks about New Age in the first place. "spiritual energy" is a perfectly valid topic in lots of religions and philosophical systems, and there is no reason why the article should lose itself in esotericist blogcruft (WP:WEIGHT). --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

case in point, actus is also "spiritual energy" (energeia), but far from being a topic of soft-headed esotericist blather, it is a perfectly respectable topic in philosophy. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've fixed it according to my gist above. Let's see how it fares. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a change in relation to acupuncture, still unsourced unfortunately, that takes into account that not everyone sees it in terms of spiritual energy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Traditional_Chinese_medicine

...By all the gods!!!! Several... HUNDRED articles on one bit of alt-med? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; it's not exactly "alternative" anymore, and has thousands of years of history behind it. I don't really see the issue with having a large number of articles on various components and practices for it. However, some one of them need to be more critically weighted — they read like advertising briefs. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Has it ever been alternative? The herbal preparations need to be pulled into a subcategory; there should definitely be an article on each one commonly used. Perhaps also the practitioners and advocates. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
it's alternative now. It used to be just "medicine" in the Middle Ages. "one bit of alt-med" isn't quite fair, this is a rather huge topic, and can well be treated in a scholarly manner, just like Alchemy, Renaissance magic, Scholasticism or Neoplatonism, or indeed any historical branch of scholarship. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In general, the problem isn't the topic itself, which is perfectly valid and serious. It's the tons of New Age blarney it tends to attract. Cut that from the articles and leave the serious historical detail, which can doubtless be well-sourced. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And while you're at it, the Augean Stables haven't had a good top-to-bottom cleaning in a while... :) MastCell Talk 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the subarticles of Zang-fu viscera can be folded back into the main article. Not too bad otherwise, actually. Cf. Category:Ayurveda. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New Age Movement

Brand new template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This could serve as a useful reference tool. For instance one article now included in the template is the José Argüelles article, which has two references (one of them to an apparently self published site), among other problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at goddess worship, which I've already deprived of some off-the-wall claims about Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've often thought that upholding minimum standards before an article gets to be on a template would be a good way to uphold quality. What standards might depend on the template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Age

I hesitate to bring this up, because it is such a big article, but it is an important article that is a complete mess. Major sections of it are completely unsourced. The most completely unsourced sections are the introduction and exactly those sections that try to explain what New Age means and its origin. The article includes under the name a large collection of unrelated movements, and individuals, that have nothing in common but the name New Age.

Has anyone taken a look at it, and have some ideas about what how it could be improved? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I have! But we appear to be having a little trouble discussing the matter. I'd have thought you'd have mentioned you were doing this. Redheylin (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin, you might want to consider trying, at minimum, to refine your communication skills [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aids denialism

I got this edit passed to me for review. The edit removed almost the entire section "Points of contention" from this revision.

The edit summary states "None of this anything beyond fringe theories" but reading the text it looks incorrect. In fact this seems crucial material for the article - a summary of the fringe theories and their mainstream objections/concerns, presented in a well balanced manner, and all seemingly cited.

Can others take a look, see if this is being removed as a misunderstanding of FRINGE/WEIGHT, or if in fact it is that? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Other eyes would be most welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems the text is being discussed on its talk page. Removed text is at Talk:AIDS denialism/points. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of an ongoing talk page discussion and dispute which is being forum-shopped all over God's green earth. But on the upside, more eyes are good. MastCell Talk 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus myth hypothesis

Well, here we go again. There's a constant, low-intensity fight at this article about whether it's a fringe theory or not. The article has several statements from prominent scholars stating that the idea is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, but this doesn't convince everybody.

There's an RFC. Partipation from those interested in questions of fringe theories welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fringe. This has been long established. The pov-pushers are ill advised atheists who somehow believe that assuming Jesus was a historical character must be a religionist position. I say doh. By that logic, we must all be Muslims, since hardly anyone doubts that Muhammad was a historical character. And Raelists. Because Rael is not only historical but alive and kicking. This is boring. We have established that this is a pseudo-scholarly fringe theory about a year ago. Pursuing this editing conflict simply amounts to sulking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but saying so doesn't stop people from keeping the fight going. It would be nice to find a way to solve the problem... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. This is certainly a very fringe theory, no one with any common sense would disagree with that. Soo...do what we usually do with people who try to push crank nonsense highly minority positions. Reverts and then blocks. If it's different people each time, just reverts. Putting a noisy hidden notice at the top of the article sometimes also helps. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not as fringe as you seem to think. There is, for instance, George Albert Wells, who appears to be a serious scholar; and, just to give one other example, Hyam Maccoby (who does not really say anything about Jesus, but presents an argument that the entire story was formulated by Paul). It would not take long (for anyone seriously trying) to find other scholars with their doubts about Jesus, and the issue remains controversial, and not settled. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr Albert Wells does indeed look to be a serious scholar - of German. He's probably not the best source for this subject. The other chap is a) Jewish and b) not saying that Jesus is a mythical construction anyway. Doubts about Jesus and the Gospel stories do not equate to saying that the whole thing is fiction. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is an illustration of one of the problems; despite ample evidence provided that this is a fringe theory, editors are constantly overstating the degree to which the JM theory is accepted (or even discussed) in academia. George Albert Wells was a serious scholar, but of German, not of religious studies. For him to write about the New Testament is a bit like a scholar who works on Joyce to start writing about Aristotle. The Joyce scholar might have interesting things to say about Aristotle, but they wouldn't necessarily be indicative of what scholars of ancient philosophy say about Aristotle. And in this case, we have statements from New Testament scholars that say that Wells is outside the mainstream (to put it mildly).
And Hyam Maccoby, at least according to his Wikipedia article, has nothing to do with the JM theory; he didn't question that there was a historical Jesus, and in fact believed "that a fairly accurate historical account of the life of Jesus could be reconstructed from them [the Gospels]..."
Anyway, most of the problems with the article are taking place on the talk page; the pace of editing on the actual article is fairly slow. If a wider range of editors would come to the talk page, that might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Maccoby's version amounts to support for the Jesus myth hypothesis because he position is that the Jesus described in Christian scripture did not exist, because that was a creation of Paul. In fact his article links to the Jesus myth hypothesis article. (Your view on Wells is interesting...but, taken all around, I suppose it is just as well that you have also ruled out listening to Norm Chomsky's views on anything but linguistics.) In any case, I think that this issue is genuinely disputed by serious scholars, and that it should not be an issue on this noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
it is exactly a case for this noticeboard: it is a fringe theory with enough notability for its own article, but care must be taken to avoid a mis-representation of its credibility. dab (𒁳) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Andries could make a better argument than that. You have decided its fringe, so it is. Good thinking, Dbachmann. Its not as though they are talking about flying saucer landings, or taking out ads announcing the arrival of Maitreya at Heathrow. Rather, there are serious scholars who disagree on this subject, but you are going to call it fringe anyhow.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, so it is a "under-achieving scholarly hypothesis". Look, the discussion of this is elsewhere, in the talk archives. Don't expect me to repeat the entire debate here. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you seem to have started editing the article only recently, so perhaps you're unfamiliar with the subject, but the Jesus myth hypothesis is specifically the argument that there was no historical Jesus. Maccoby believed that there was a historical Jesus, and that the Gospels could be used to reconstruct his biography. Ergo, he is not a advocate of the JM theory.

Chomsky's political views are a good analogy here, actually. Even if you like Chomsky's ideas, you'd have to agree that in the context of U.S. politics, where only a fairly narrow range of ideas are "mainstream," that Chomsky is considered to be outside the mainstream. An article about him would have to note that. Similarly, Jesus myth hypothesis must note that the theory is rarely discussed within the academic fields of religious studies and ancient history (and we have copious citations that say exactly this). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

this is purely subjective now, but I happen to find Chomsky's politics marginally more palatable than his linguistics... dab (𒁳) 07:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
on topic, though, we have a full article on the historicity of Jesus, and another on mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. It is perfectly mainstream to say Jesus was a historical wandering rabbi who subsequently accreted some mythemes. It is possible to discuss reasonable doubts on Jesus' historicity. All this doesn't make you a "Jesus-myther". The JMT specifically posits that the gospels are an artificial re-casting of the mythology of mystery religions. It was an interesting idea, back in the 1880s, but I daresay mainstream scholarship has moved beyond that now. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys really don't get it. The problem is not that there are different points of view, or who is right in this issue. The problem is the dismissive know-it-all attitude I am seeing from some editors here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is precisely what we see here, a tendency for this topic to generate both aggresive and defensive argumentativeness with little or no interest in the actual history of these ideas. I was involved in this page a while back, but virtually gave up because of the endless arguments. It has been proposed agasin and again that the best way to approach this topic would be to go through the history of it - from Bauer, through Drws et al, with the context of their arguments and of later writers. This has been repeatedly blocked by the need of partisans to either list or refute arguments for non-historicity: that and the fruitless, repetitive point-making disruption of nmany editors in succession - currently user:BruceGrubb who is covering the page (and the historicity of Jesus) page with the same arguments repeated over and over. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
in a word, a perfectly standard problem of WP:FRINGE (WP:DUE). I honestly think it is you, Malcolm, who "does not get" this. We are not saying the theory is "false", we are saying nobody outside a small circle of aficionados thinks it has any merit. The "dismissive attitude" is out there, in the real world, and Wikipedia merely reflects this status quo, as it should. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that experienced contributors here seem to be falling out over the status of this hypothesis. We should easily be able to distinguish between pseudoscience/pseudohistory on the one hand and minority academic positions on the other. For me, this falls clearly into the second category. The criterion is, has it been seriously considered in academic circles. It has, even if we have to go back to Bauer to find the discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, Itsmejudith, it just me. You will not be loosing anyone important. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Itsmejudith makes a good point--in the late 19th century/early 20th century, the JMT was part of academic discussion, such that Schweitzer discussed the nonhistoricity argument in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. In Wikipedia terms, it wasn't a fringe theory at that time. But what we're arguing about is its status at the present time, and we have ample quotes from scholars in the relevant fields that say that the theory is regarded as refuted, and that it isn't something biblical scholars concern themselves with. (We even have a complaint from a proponent of the theory that academia doesn't take the idea seriously!) I would shy away from the labels "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory"--but neither would I call it a "minority academic position", at least not after the 1950s or so. "Fringe theory" properly describes the current status of the JMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the history of a particular article, and I am talking about the attitude of some editors on this noticeboard. But the problem certainly is spread thought Wikipedia, because many editors are working on articles in which they are psychologically invested in their own POV. This is a problem that can not be eliminated, but but needs recognition because, if editors feel justified in blowing away the 'opposition', an effort to achieve neutrality much more difficult. This does not refer to those who take your position, or my position, but applies all around and is the reason that know-it-all attitudes are so destructive to the process of writing articles. (Of course I have absolutly no expectation of change, but rather expect a continuing of dismissive attitudes and edit wars.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. No one here is "psychologically invested" in this topic at all: none of us are rabid Bible-belters who understand absolute truth in terms of Christ walking on water. We're simply interested in making sure that fringe theories do not get undue weight on Wikipedia, in terms of recognition of their academic status (and also making sure they're not unduly marginalised). If this involves calling out fringe theories as fringe theories, so be it. That hardly amounts to "dismissive attitudes". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion has become circular, I will end my participation at this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the division between "minority" and "fringe" is a sliding scale. This is something to be established in detail in the article itself. For the purposes of this noticeboard, it is sufficient to note that the article has a history of attempts to inflate the theory's notability. That's really it. This has nothing to do with "know-it-all" or "dismissive" attitudes, but is simple practical wisdom born from experience of how these things work on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The "fringiness" comes about when editors try to present minority views as if they were predominant. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have read up now on how it is no longer even considered today. I'm probably reading too much about 19th century ideas than is good for me. I'll have to think about what you say about a "sliding scale" Dieter. It does seem to me that there is a world of difference between an academic ploughing a lonely furrow and a freelance writer with an idea for a bestseller. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, there is - if the academic is a specialist in the relevant field. In this case, he wasn't, and this happens quite a lot - academics stepping outside their speciality to write entertaining but not-always-reliable stuff. Chomsky on US politics being the classic example. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
to Judith - yes, and along that "world of difference" the scale slides. Beginning with the question, what is an academic. A tenured professor (a professor tenured where, at Drew University...?) Sombeody with a PhD (such as Koenraad Elst?)? Or some bona fide professor emeritus who is getting a bit funny somewhat eccentric (like the later Marija Gimbutas, or Mario Alinei)? There are a lot of people with an academic background who lose their marbles and start publishing fringecruft. Their flavour of fringecruft will still be more intelligent than your average creationist blog, but the question is not only, has the chap seen a university from the inside, but also, was this publication ever peer reviewed. If so, when and to what effect? These things are really the point of this noticeboard. We don't need a task force to establish the credibility of someone like David Fasold. Things become difficult in cases such as this when there was some academic debate in the 1800s on an idea long passed out of academic discourse, but still pushed in ideological fringe publications. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I see the Academy as a fence-erecting entity. We need to find where the fences have been erected before we can ascertain which side of the fence a particular source is. In some places the fences are higher than others. It will be said that in some places the fences have long broken down but I'm not sure. So long as peer-reviewing is a possibility and the academic publishing houses are on the lookout for scholarly studies of odd nooks and crannies of knowledge, then I think there is in principle a possibility of establishing whether a publication has been generated from academic practice or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
definitely. If a publication has been published academically and peer-reviewed, it is not for Wikipedia to second-guess its "academicity" -- WP:RS is the only reference point that separates us from complete intellectual relativism (anything has been published somewhere, so saying "it has been suggested" is essentially true of anything). Of course, if a peer-reviewed publication did get abysmal peer-reviews, it should only be cited along with that caveat. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the latest gambit seems to be that committed Christians are unreliable sources. See [6]. This article still requires attention. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuz Asaf

Neutral and sourced description of popular religious belief mixed up with recent non-notable speculative stuff. I don't know how to start to disentangle, would appreciate further eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess, isn't it? Suzanne Olsson's book is self-published, that should go (with the Matlock references too, another unreliable source), and the 'Hindu epics' stuff is all OR. I'll do that.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. This seems to be an issue for Hindu nationalists, who say this is a Muslim attempt to usurp Kashmir (this chap supposedly having visited Kashmir bringing Semitic beliefs, as opposed to Indian Aryan ones). What's more, it's also a magnet for odd theories about Christ's life, which may well be of dubious notability. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'm following it correctly, it's really a co-opted version of an Ahmadiyya theory about Jesus, and therefore should be properly attached there, with the other material noted as fringey. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. The idea that Jesus went to India is associated with the Ahmadiyya but also predates them. I'm not sure how closely the figure of Yuz Asaf is always associated with Jesus or his supposed visit to India. There does seem to be a notable traditional religious cult independent of the more recent Ahmadiyya views that are linked to nationalistic claims around Kashmir. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson - User:Kashmir2 is struggling with the concept of self-published books right now and has added to the page. I tried to explain policy, she now says on my talk page "In the places where Olsson books are cited they comply with these guidelines and should remain."--Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And now I've been accused of protecting the page (I'm no admin and the page wasn't protected), allowing self-published fiction books to remain in the article (I removed them and Suzanne Olsson, who had complained about them, restored them), etc. I don't think there is much hope for it although if Mangoe is right, we can merge it. Doug Weller (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for intervening and sorry it has got you into this clash. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly of the most bizarre clashes I've been in, with at least one editor (I'm pretty sure you are right about sockpuppets) getting confused about who has done which edit and accusing me of blocking a page. Still, it's a better article now and that is what counts. --Doug Weller (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea's been around for a long time, as a folk belief among Ladakhi Buddhists, as Ahmadiyya tradition, and as random speculation from otherwise acceptable scholars. We had better get this article in order before the movie that this Guardian article anticipates comes out. I note the article quotes Dr. Hassnain, who appears to be a scholar of Buddhism...--Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goddess movement

A movement of 1970s to 1980s US second wave feminism. we have:

That's not so bad, but tends to attract rather far out opinion pieces. I've removed what seemed to fall under WP:SNOW here and here, and I suppose some of these articles should be merged to allow a discussion of the topic in context, most likely Thealogy belongs merged into Goddess movement. I am not sure whether Goddess worship should be merged into Goddess. All of this isn't at all terrible, it's just a little walled garden in need of cleanup. I am not disputing the topic's notability at all. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Goddess worship is evolving at the moment (under the direction of a single editor) into a general article. I'm thinking merging it into goddess is increasingly a good idea. The problem would appear to be settling upon good terms. We really need someone who knows this stuff well, even someone from the movement(s), to help straighten this stuff out. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, merge Goddess worship and Goddess. Perhaps Thealogy could go in Feminist theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:majeston

I have been removing some links from articles that clearly fail as reliable sources, plus some trivia, etc. These are Nephilim (role-playing game), Nephilim, Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Lemuria (continent) and Mu (lost continent) user:Majeston, who is upset with me because of edits on the Urantia article, is following me around (maybe, maybe he just watches them all) and reverting my edits with no reason given. He is also removing requests for citations, eg on the Maya society article. I've just noticed he also reverted an edit of mine at Paper folding which he has never edited, so maybe he is following me around. Any advice as to what to do? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK -- if he persists, you should just drop a note at WP:ANI. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I haven't had this problem before. He's a problem as he doesn't care about guidlines or policy.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
these editors tend to be the least of our problems, since they get themselves blocked within a day or two. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
He's kept under the wire. Ironic though, his prose is almost unreadable, he's made the article more unreadable with every edit he does. I've raised it at WP:ANI where he's responded asking that the editors who reverted him to be blocked. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit too many pederasty articles, perhaps...

A sort of idiosyncratic definition is being used, and then widely extrapolated. Considerable overlap between articles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pederasty

[edit] Science and the Bible

A little situation with a Biblical literalist who seems to insist that because the Hebrew Bible is the inspired word of God, there is no way "incorrect cosmology" like the notion of a flat Earth can figure in the text.

interestingly, they stop short of claiming knowledge of a spherical earth was directly "inspired" by God, but rather resort to speculations that theories of a spherical Earth may already have emerged by perfectly natural means in 26th century BC Egypt, citing a website debunking scriptural foreknowledge [8]. I would be interested in this claim of Old Kingdom notions of a spherical earth, but that would be for History of astronomy since it has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible.

I note we also have Biblical cosmology. dab (𒁳) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

degenerating into an edit war now. I'm off this for the moment. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a look. We do seem to have rather a lot of articles circling around this topic. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, let's see. We have:

dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam and science is tagged for a number of issues although it does have some good content and sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's better than Inventions in the Islamic world. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the whole series needs to be viewed as one. I suggested on Talk: Muslim Agricultural Revolution that it be split into Agriculture in the Islamic Golden Age and [[Industry in the Islamic Golden Age]. No responses yet, but much of Inventions in the Islamic World could be fitted into an Industry page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic science doesn't parallel Science and the Bible. "The Bible" here is the Hebrew Bible, for the most part compiled in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. Islamic science otoh is medieval science and should be contrasted with Science in Medieval Western Europe, not with Iron Age proto-science. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, DAB seems determined to misrepresent my personal opinion in this continually dismissive manner, instead of addressing the need to qualify two fringe biblical literarlists went against the mainstream belief of their time, showing that the common mainstream was not to extreme literalism but to understanding metaphors, idioms, visions, and prophecy. However, I guess it's easier to mislabel me than to address my problem with the article. Fortunately, a cooler head prevailed and the problem was fixed with a qualifier that other scholars of that time did not agree with those two fringe scholars, and the source DAB kept removing was replaced in the article by another editor. Then, of course, came DAB's insult to my intelligence, but I guess he just didn't care for the taste of the grapes today. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact parallel is Qur'an and science, to which I've added a few decent references. That article discusses the makers of various claims and their political and theological significance rather than listing the arguments for them. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

even that isn't an "exact parallel", since the Quran is decidedly post-Hellenistic while the Pentateuch is decidedly pre-Hellenistic. Different era altogether. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant that an approach that focuses on the theological discussion of "scientific" components of the book in question is the way to go, rather than any direct comparison of scientific content. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to say that there were exact parallels, only that if we are watching one group of articles for creep towards fundamentalism then we might as well watch the other group too. There are some knowledgeable Muslim editors who have put in some work on articles around science and Islam but there is still some way to go. I find it very useful to take articles in groups, as you did in your original post dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
you are right, Qur'an and science is problematic in the same way. Dear me. Should probably be split or moved or merged. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about that, see above. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
well, the scope of the article should be made clear either way. It can be a bona fide discussion of "what can we learn about the development of science and technology in a particular era and region from this text", or it can be a discussion of pious claims of miracular foreknowledge, but not both at the same time. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
True. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Dysgenics (people)

Sory to bring this up again, but there is an AfD currently going on that might interest people concerned with fringe theories. Dysgenics (people) has been named for AfD and wider input would be appreciated. Being an involved party to the debate myself, I can't say more than I've just said, but invite others who might be interested to drop by the article and express their opinion on the AfD if they so wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Huuurrgggh, more "race and intelligence" warring. I predict painful arbitration in the not-so-distant future if this doesn't get straightened soonish. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

This article could do with some eyes. Apart from a WP:LAME slow edit war whether Jerusalem is in "Israel" or "Palestine" (which should perhaps be addressed by removing all flag icons from the article...), we get constant additions of various neolithic sites, most persistently an anonymous user, presumably of Bulgarian origin, who keeps adding archaeological sites in Bulgaria. Obviously, the list isn't intended as a "list of neolithic sites", but evidence of continuous habitation would need to be presented. That's often disputed, but we would require at least some evidence that it is even disputed. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Continuously inhabited? Thebes in Greece was famously destroyed in 335 BC by Alexander the Great (with the exception of Pindar's house, according to legend). Looking at the 1911 Britannica, it seems the city was rebuilt on a much smaller scale in 315. So that's 20 years with nobody home (except, maybe, at the Pindar residence). --Folantin (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, I think the idea is "with continuous traces of habitation", viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end. Obviously all these cities must have been destroyed and rebuilt several times over. It's just a matter of WP:CITE, for our purposes, we are just listing attributed "claims of continuous habitation". dab (𒁳) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

in this context, let me also point to

all of them tagged for merge or cleanup for ages now. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think the idea is 'with continuous traces of habitation', viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end." That definition's A bit too sophist-icated for my liking. These are the kind of lists that Wikipedia is bad at doing anyway. --Folantin (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. But "oldest continuously inhabited city" is still a meme in the real world (a bit like oldest tree), and we have to deal with it somehow. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey Mountain

We need a third opinion at Talk:Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) that involves a fringe theory. I do not feel the article is currently pushing the theory, and is appropriately neutral and proportionate to weight, but another editor does not even want it mentioned at all, even though it seems to meet the standards of RS in multiple publications. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The hypothisis that the carvings on Turkey Mountain might be ancient Punic script takes up more than two thirds of the article... so Undue Weight is indeed an issue. It is clearly a Fringe Theory (proposed by people who are not archeologists or lingusts). The real question is whether their theory has been commented upon by someone in the mainstream (in this case, those who are archeologists or linguists). This does not seem to be the case. It looks like another situation where the mainstream has not bothered to comment, because the theory is not considered worthy of being commented upon.
I think the fact that there are carvings on the hill is minorly noteworthy... and worth a sentence or two in the article... but speculation as to what these carvings might mean should be omitted as being Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the hill itself notable enough for an entry? Is there anything to say about it other than these carvings? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a very nice local park, dirt bike racing takes place there.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the "see also" section there, note all of those topics have their own articles, so I am now planning to get all this stuff out of that page, and move it to a new page at Turkey Mountain inscriptions, see the talk page I linked above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it, but this still seems to be a Fringe topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How can it be NPOV if no one has paid any serious attention to it? --Doug Weller (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Blueboar: Of course I know it's a "fringe topic", that's why I listed it here (I think the same thing may have even been listed here before). It reads much like the articles discussed as examples on the main project page (WP:FRINGE), showing how articles specifically about fringe hypotheses should be written in order not to be pushing the hypotheses unduly. I don't think it's the case here at all that the fringe hypothesis is being "pushed", so it seems to already meet the standards outlined on that page, and does not seem to violate the guidelines there on what a fringe article should NOT be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, at the moment it does violate the guideline... "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."
I do not see any discussion of such referencing... the article does say that Fell's theories are discounted by most experts, but that is the extent of it... there is no discussion of what these experts say in relation to Turkey Mountain, or why they discount Fell's hypothisis.
That said... I think the article is borderline at the moment... with some work it might actually meet the inclusion requirements laid out in WP:FRINGE... but at the moment it does not. I have left additional comments at the article talk page. I think this should be hammered out there and brought back here if it does not improve. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional Comment: Based upon Til's comments on the talk page, it looks as if the basic requirement can be met... it has been discussed in multiple sources. So it looks as if these inscriptions are notable enough for an article. But the article still needs a lot of work... if nothing else, it needs to include discussion about what those disparaging mainstream sources say. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

I need some help at Talk:Parapsychology. There is very clear consensus in the academic community that this subject is pseudoscience, but there are a lot of supporters of this subject that are arguing vociferously that such a statement about this consensus is not sourced (despite there being about 1/2 dozen sources which explicitly state this) and arguable. I need help both with sourcing and with fighting POV-pushers. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain that further please? The article passed a Featured Article Candidacy - FWIW - with a prominent statement in the lead of that version that there's no acceptable evidence for it and that its fringe. Further, I see that one of the major editors says

The sources we used when writing the article were carefully selected. Most references to parapsychological journals were dumped in favor of mainstream academic journals like the Psychological Bulletin. When something was pulled from a journal such as The Journal of Parapsychology, it was typically the skeptical view such as that of Ray Hyman. It's difficult to imagine you actually examined the sources when you say we cited third-rate journals written by a parapsychologist, because the combination of parapsychologists in parapsychology journals covers uncontroversial statements, historical statements, critical statements, or fully attributed views of the parapsychologists themselves. There's no flat facts cited to any parapsychologist in this article (or at least there were none when I reviewed it last). The parapsychology journals are treated not as third-party peer reviewed, but as primary sources, and treated correctly as primary sources through attributed statements. You refer to WP:PARITY, but that's the exact concept used here. It's also hard to imagine that you reviewed the sources when you say "no institutional affiliation". Every parapsychologist sourced had academic affiliations. Not that it matters, of course, because they were treated as if they had no affiliations at all.

That seems reasonable, so I'm having trouble identifying the exact problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a basic issue that the article is positioning itself as more academic than possible: a false-ediface of the type that is almost unreasonable. The very fact that one of the editors tried to get it listed under the science category at our list of featured articles is one of the problems here. What started was a basic point: if we have half-a-dozen sources of respected academics and scientists calling parapsychology a pseudoscience, we should just say that. Other editors are hoping to promote WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution in an attempt to make it look like only a minority of scientists think it is pseudoscience. We all know this isn't the case. Not to mention that Neal and Martin act like they own the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
BS, per usual. The entire article denigrates parapsychology, so it's hard to call it a particular attribution. The number of sourced critics far outweigh the proponents, and the proponents are severly treated as lesser academics in the process. The whole article is a model of WP:FRINGE in practice, placing majority views in the majority and minority views in the minority. Never is a majority view treated as the only view about a topic, as what you're suggesting, especially when sources show that as demonstrably false. Further, if you have a complaint about an editor trying to include it as science in a list (wasn't me), complain about that editor, not about the article itself. If you have a problem with me saying your edits are poor quality, don't call it ownership, demonstrate that they're quality. Like I said, BS, and misrepresentation. That article has gone through GA, FA, and a whole bunch of editor reviews, so if you think all of the sudden it's fundamentally flawed because someone disagreed with you about one line... you're putting way too much weight on your personal views. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As one of the editors who disagrees with ScienceApologist, allow me to point out where he's misrepresenting the issue. The issue isn't that it doesn't belong in there. No one disagrees with presenting the view that it's pseudoscience. The statement has always been in there and no one said it wasn't sourced. ScienceApologist wants to present it as a flat fact, that the view is a fact and not an opinion, despite mainstream academic sources that disagree with the view. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please. At this point, people are clamboring for reinstating a number of problems with the lead including reinstating such fatuous claims as there have been a number of "meta-analytical studies that have generated significant controversy". Just plain outlandish statements tending to prop up the "legitimacy" of this non-subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And I'm not one of them, so how's that a reason to come over here and misrepresent what the the dispute is? If you have a legitimate complaint, be legit about it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For you poor souls who don't want to read the whole talk page, ScienceApologist himself presented sources, for instance the following:

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 20 (1): 182-192 JAN 2008: Samuel T Moulton

Where the abstract says:

Abstract: Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi.

So he's fighting a losing battle here, as his own sources contradict him. Even James Randi objects to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd appreciate seeing a direct citation that says where James Randi "objects" to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. Since James Randi's whole approach seems to be dedicated to settling the question whether parapsychology (along with other approaches to the paranormal) is or is not pseudoscience, and his hypothesis seems to be that it will be settled in the direction of pseudoscience, (he's got a million dollars riding on that bet, after all) it seems simply perverse to insist that he "objects" to calling parapyschology pseudoscience. My guess would be more that since he doesn't have training in the sciences, he doesn't have an understanding of the distinction scientists make between science and pseudoscience, and he simply doesn't use the word, at least I can't find it in a quick search of his writings. But if you do have a citation showing that he does in fact "object" to the use of the word pseudoscience, it would be helpful to me to see that quote, thanks.
As to whether parapsychology is generally considered among scientists to be pseudoscience, I think the preponderance of the evidence (meaning in wiki terms the prepoponderance of expert opinion as reflected in reliable sources) would be found to agree with Science Apologist, and certainly my personal observations in academic circles support Science Apologist on this point. But of course my word on the subject isn't useful, so just out of curiosity I idly opened the book that happened to be sitting at my elbow, which my son brought me several weeks ago and which I'm reading for my own interest, not in conjunction with anything I'm doing or looking at in Wikipedia. It is "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The Six Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking" by Thomas Kida, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts. It is an excellent readable and accurate summary of the research in the area (I can say this since I know this literature well) and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the ways we fool ourselves into thinking things that aren't so. At any rate, in the chapter on Pseudoscience, Kida writes, "One of the foremost examples of pseudoscience is parapsychology." and then he goes on for a couple of pages to explain why parapsychology qualifies as pseudoscience. If this reference would be helpful to editors working on the article, they are welcome to it.
As to the citation above that describes parapsychology as "the scientific investigation of ...paranormal mental phenomena" that seems like quote mining (is that the right term for this?) because the abstract as a whole suggests that parapsychology has yet to produce any evidence to back up its claims, and they consider their results the strongest evidence yet against the claims made by parapsychology. If this is the best you can come up with in support of the idea that parapsychology is "scientific" then I'd say that's not very convincing, and to give it undue weight would be to bias the article. Someone said, though I can't find it here (maybe it's on the article talk page) that parapsychology has to be considered science because it uses the methods of science. No, it could only be called science if it produced replicable findings and theories that can reliably predict outcomes. Something that has the appearance, or takes on the trappings, of science without producing the results of science, is the textbook definition of pseudoscience.Woonpton (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is/was written as if "parapsychology" is a field of investigation, not a set of assertions. If so, I don't see how any of that is relevant. What matters is whether reliable sources claim that that field largely follows scientific methods. (If they do, it is not surprising if all the results are negative, surely?) -Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In this way, the article is highly misleading. Something becomes a "science" when a null hypothesis is rejected. Since there are no reliable experiments which reject such a null hypothesis, we can clearly say that parapsychology is not a science. People studying under the umbrella of "parapsychology" may do perfectly good scientific experiments, but their practice is not a "science" per se. The "scientific study" of a subject is not necessarily a "science" in the mean sense. The question then becomes, is parapsychology a pseudoscience? Generally, if people involved in the ideology believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary that a null hypothesis has been rejected, they are generally practioners of a pseudoscience. Every reliable source on the subject of parapsychology agrees that both a) there exists only strong evidence for null hypotheses to not be rejected and b) most advocates of parapsychology believe otherwise. Therefore, parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We have sources which indicate as much (at least four reliable ones). We should simply plainly point it out to the reader and let it go. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
SA, this appears internally contradictory. If there are no reliable experiments which reject the null, then how is the next sentence "in spite of the evidence to the contrary, that a null hypothesis has been rejected". Utterly confusing. In any case, if the majority of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals choose to call this "scientific" any pseudoscience label beyond what existed in the FA-draft lead doesnt appear appropriate. Four citations isn't really a lot - pretty fringe itself. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
At some point, when a topic is marginalized, we have to ask whether the noise that gets into "mainstream" journals is supposed to be more heavily weighted than the majority opinion out in the wastelands of pop-culture. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
arguing over that single word seems to have been continuous since I've been at WP, and its gotten totally boring except to the parties caught up in the argument. If one calls it pseudoscience, it still makes a little more claim to scientific method than most of the even less likely pseudoscience; call it science, it's still considerably less rigorous than almost anything else that has any right to the term. So just include one quote each from the best place that says it is, and that says it isnt, and then describe the field, and people will call it what they like. WP is not obliged to decide, we can just call it a field of study. Arguments over labelling are about the worst thing to spend time over. DGG (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the dispute wasn't over whether it should be included, or even whether it is a prominent opinion, or even whether it is the majority opinion. It's always been there as a prominent view. The dispute centered around whether it was the sole opinion and ScienceApologist wanting to word it as the consensus, regardless of multiple notable examples to the contrary including publication in mainstream journals, current Master's of Science level courses at reputable universities, many of the principle detractors saying "failed, deprecated, or useless science" over "pseudoscience", many many sources saying "scientific study of the paranormal", and a recent third-party neutral Nature article (Feb. 2007) examining exactly whether it was science or not and presenting three different reputable views from science on the topic. Clearly it is not the consensus that it is pseudoscience. The consensus is that it is "fringe science" failing to produce anything conclusive, worthwhile, or compelling enough to be accepted by mainstream science. That's what the majority of neutral, third-party sources say (not skeptical sources and not parapsychology sources). The dispute, at least from my perspective, is whether fair is fair, or whether as soon as the skeptical consensus is that the topic is pseudoscience then the topic is taken through the ringer. Anyone who reads the article can see that parapsychology is not presented in a positive way, is fully denigrated, without going overboard (and yet still more critical than Britannica, Encarta, or even James Randi's own encyclopedia [9] or the Skeptic's Dictionary [10] -- neither of which contain the word "pseudoscience" and in fact say "science"). The dispute is over when is enough enough, if not FA status. After two plus years of working on the article, I personally say enough is enough, at least for me. In fact *gasp* I'm turning this off and going outside : ) Dunno when I'll be back, so have fun. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
<Rant from Davkal snipped> 76.76.15.167 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
<Feeding of banned user snipped>--Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The same three editors (including one who is banned, but posts using an IP) seem to exist solely to defend Parapsychology with persistent, lengthy and elaborate arguments (such as above). Ironically, these editors claim to have no special interest in Parapsychology -- yet they edit only Parapsychology and related articles! 66.30.77.62 (talk)
Log in, why don't you. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As one of the "same three editors", you can check my contribs and see that it's not the only topic I edit. It's the only topic I've ever contributed to substantially that has reached Featured Article status. I'd like to keep it there out of personal pride, rather than watch it slide into presenting poor quality material or extreme views, ie. become like all the other crappy articles out there. I write long replies because I like writing and get carried away, and also because no one seems to check sources anymore and edit from their personal viewpoint. Sometimes it takes more than a sentence to present a source-based response. I don't have a conflict of interest, if that's what you're suggesting. My personally identifiable information is on my user page for anyone that's interested. I'm transparently a nobody. I certainly don't hide behind an IP to attack an editor personally. What you have in me is an editor who actually gave a shit about a Wikipedia article, took the time to read everything he could about it and write a decent article, only to be slammed for giving a shit in the end. Welcome to Wikipedia. But it doesn't matter ultimately because as I said above, enough is enough and I retire from that article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting point

I want to point out a beautiful red herring that gets a lot of paranormal true believers all worked up. The claim that "scientific investigation" is somehow indicative of a subject being a science.

"Scientific investigation" is a methodology, but in order for the subject to be a "science" there has to be something beyond a null hypothesis that has positive results. This is what separates science from non-science. Saying that some subject or another involves "scientific investigation" is not the same thing as saying that subject is "a science".

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I imagine in this case several specific hypotheses are tested, with uniformly negative results. So not a "a null hypothesis that has positive results." (In any case, the idea that a science consists of more than that would be absolutely crushing for, among others, most fields of financial economics.) Besides, Popperian falsifiability is so 1970s. Whatever, this is completely irrelevant. If the majority of reliable sources describe this completely pointless field as "scientific", that's what we go with. --07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I found the Jessica Utts paper in Statistical Science quite interesting. She acknowledges that parapsychologists as people are basically searching for confirmation, while maintaining that the processes aren't largely flawed. Indeed, she says that the attacks on parapsychology have sometimes "called into question the very foundations of probability and statistical inference." I do hope that's not what you're doing here. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Utts is a frequentist who suffers from the problems that those who ideologically reject Bayesian statistics. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian pyramids

Someone keeps deleting a section of this, see[11].--Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

that should be rollback-able. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. I have rollback, yes, but I worry about WP:3RR. They've stopped anyway(more or less, now tried to remove 'so-called' from the article).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
what I mean is, this is anonymous vandalism, and should be dealt with by rollback, and if necessary semiprotection. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishnaism

Further information: List of titles and names of Krishna
Further information: Krishnology

Let me state up front that the topic of Krishnaism is valid and encyclopedic. But, with the recent WP:KRISHNA project, the objective seems to be to "own" as many articles as possible, never mind how stubby, never mind WP:CFORK.

Find sources: Krishnaism – news, books, scholar

It appears that "Krishnaism" is the term for Gaudiya Vaishnavism when discussed in comparison with Christianity in particular. It gets around a hundred hits on google scholar, and its notability as a standalone term (with what definition?) seems somewhat questionable. The Krishnaism article doesn't establish anything else, but is content to replicate selected material from Krishna, Bhakti movement, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am really in doubt whether this is the way to go. Wikidas (talk · contribs) also enjoys to create as many stubs on "aspects of Krishna" as he can, armed with a quote from Klaus Klostermaier's 2005 Survey of Hinduism, and generally displaying considerable belligerence (criticism of his approach apparenty amounts to an insult to his religion on principle). Thus, we get Bala Krishna, Vasudeva Krishna and Radha Krishna, Govinda, liberally sprinkled with {{underconstruction}} tags.

I am certainly glad to see an effort towards a good coverage of "Krishnaism", but it seems some editorial assistance at least is needed here. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC) See also:

Find sources: Krsnaism – news, books, scholar

Wikidās-ॐ 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's another 60 hits. As I said, the term is valid. This is a good overview. The Krishnaism page still needs to be cleaned up to make clear its scope. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion should be moved from this board as this particular board is not for this purpose. Project talk page WT:Krishna provides such space. Goals and scope of the project are clearly discussed and outlined there. Also issue of the name of the project is being discussed there. Just like a last time with you and me, you keep puting it here, instead as an appropriate place.

Once again - Scope is defined by the link below and the discussion that happened on WikiProjects board and is kept for record on the project talk page.

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography Clearly This discussion is moved to an appropriate place: Wikidās-ॐ 13:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


ok, I recognize that Krishnaism can be a valid sub-article of Vaishnavism and Krishna, and a WP:SS summary article of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Sri Vaishnavism, Shuddhadvaita and possibly other articles. It also clearly needs some sort of supervision and a cleanup effort towards a clean presentation of its scope. I don't know why you keep linking to your "bibliography" page, Wikidas, since nobody ever disputed that there are books on Krishna. The appropriate place for this discussion would be Talk:Krishnaism, this section is just to draw attention to the problem for the benefit of potentially interested editors. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Dab, at least you admit that this discussion should not have been placed at this board. In fact to consider putting it here is a form of Fringe theory.
Maybe when your block expires you can reconsider. This board is not for all and everything and has a specific purpose and clearly this discussion does not fit in it. There is nothing more to discuss on it.Wikidās-ॐ 08:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive fringe theories in talk page discussion

Hi, i really wasnt sure how to do this, i wanted to avoid some of the more viewed notice boards to avoid the usual drama. There is an editer "CadenS" who is promoting a fringe theory on talk pages that is actually quite offensive. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world". I have listed just ten examples below, there are many many more edits like this by the user. He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality?

If this is the wrong place for this report i apologise and would appreciate it if you could redirect me. Cheers. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

well, as long as it's just talkpages, this falls under WP:TALK (Wikipedia is not a forum), but it's not "dangerous" as in "harmful to the project". --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So would there be somewhere better to take this, i mean he cant do this forever and expect to get way with it, firstly its disrespectful to homosexual editers, secondly hes making unfounded person attacks. I understand that theres probably nothing you guys can do about it, it just seems that hes protected by the fact that hes keeping most of it to the talk pages. Im stumped, this shouldnt be allowed to continue though. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a soapbox, advocacy of any political views on talk pages is inappropriate, whether they're fringe or not. But it seems to me there are more serious policy violations in the edits you point out. Calling another user "heterophobic" or starting a comment "You must be BLIND to not see..." is fairly clearly a personal attack (see that page for guidance on responding). The information that the user claims to have received from a school district employee includes unverifiable and contentious material about living and recently deceased people, a should be removed from talk pages per this policy. EALacey (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ill go and clean up the talk page(s), per BLP. Regarding the personal attacks etc, should this be moved to another noticed board. The editer that received the "Heterphobic" comment was quite upset and contacted me about it outside of wikipedia, thus i got involved and looked through his edit history. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is the appropriate forum for this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Bingo, cheers folks. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell him to try out Conservapedia, assuming he's not there already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

telling a user "you must be blind" in the context of a dispute isn't a personal attack, be reasonable. I agree that homophobic rants have no place on Wikipedia, but that's already by virtue of being rants (WP:SOAP). This isn't urgent. Warn the user to get his act together, and if he persists, block him. There is really no need to compile a legalistic case from varied guidelines: if the user clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, well, he has no business editing. Jesus, I am really tired of "Wikiquette alerts" and people giving me grief over WP:CIVIL because I told them they are wrong. Which results in nice venomous messages such as this one, chastising me for reacting with sarcasm in the face of a user who exploded in ungrammatical rants over my using the term "Transcaucasian highland". I wish all the Wikiquette and CIVIL vigilantes would remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, this means we should block people who are here for homophobic ranting. But it also means that our serious contributors shouldn't be expected to keep smiling and babysit confused single-topic accounts.

On the content side, I meekly submit that Wikipedia could do with a little bit of moderate homophobia criticism of the homosexual agenda. "LBGT" topics have a very strong lobby on Wikipedia, and this often results in rather surreal presence of "homosexuality" links. The Ancient Greek topics are littered with them. Yes, the ancient Greeks practiced "ephebophilia". No, this doesn't mean the fact needs to be featured prominently in every article on Ancient Greece. Links to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies are found in the most unlikely places. I mean, ok, so Viktor Rydberg once had a male lover. He was also a philologist, a poet and a scholar. How does he qualify as a subject of "LBGT studies" any more than your average boring married-with-children biography qualifies for "hetero sexology studies"? I am saying, I can muster a degree of understanding for the people rolling their eyes at "gay Wikipedia". I have issues with the very concept of "LBGT" categorization. How is it WP:NPOV to treat female (L) and male (G) homosexuality implicitly as "the same topic" as bisexuality (B) and "transgender" (T)? "LBGT" is a political term that deserves its own Wikipedia article, but which shouldn't be used for categorization any more than, say "ACF" should be used to categorize "Anarchists, Capitalists and Fascists", or "SPR" should be used for "Satanists, Pagans and Roman Catholics". dab (𒁳) 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in practice convenient to work on these topics together, & this does not necessarily represent an agenda. I notice that every group/tendency/school/direction/POV in wikipedia tends to feel that it is the persecuted minority here. The left think the right dominate, and vice versa; the atheists the christians, etc etc. In truth, there are individual articles dominated by one POV or another which need to see the general light of day. OWN is the curse of all community content projects, and needs continual attention. DGG (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The LGBTers are often over-eager to claim historical figures for their cause on the flimsiest of pretexts. On the other hand, we currently have someone arguing there is no evidence that Marcel Proust was homosexual (!). File under: "I thought I'd seen it all". --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SRA, again

Further information: Satanic ritual abuse

It seems everyone but the most die-hard SRA apologists have lost interest in this and the information establishing that this is to 99% a topic of "anti-cult" moral panic is being unconspicuously shoved out of the article... dab (𒁳) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not this again. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we now have an article on SRA that runs around 1800 words without ever using the phrases "false memory," "iatrogenic," "witch hunt," "hypnosis," or even "recovered memory" (outside of the references section.) And now the Witchfinders-General have moved on to chip away at the last dismissive vestiges of mainstream criticism remaining in that piece. Welcome to Wikipedia, folks... <eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree with some of the analyses above. There are peer reviewed articles citing evidence of SRA and mainstream news articles documenting SRA convictions, like the recent Hammond, LA case. The idea of SRA as a moral panic is only cited in a minority of the scientific literature on the topic.
Interestingly, numerous skeptical sources are listed in the article. The skepticism section is very large and the evidence section is well balanced. Several of the phrases above that have not been included in the article have been removed by editors skeptical of the existence of SRA, because the references did not discuss SRA specifically, This is especially true of the DID/Iatrogenesis debate.
User dab above recently stated on the SRA talk page "However, I think the article isn't terrible." I would concur with this statement. The page does need more reliable sources, like peer reviewed journal articles and well balanced and well sourced mainstream news articles, but the article already has a large number of references with nearly every statement connected directly to a reference. Those interested in making the article a better one are more than welcome to add reliable sources to it or make specific suggestions on the talk page as to how it can be improved. ResearchEditor (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Code

Just happened across this mess. Seems not to be actively edited at the moment, was once an FA, but hardly meets NPOV, RS, or NOR in its present state. An excerpt:

"The traditional view of the codes further asserts that the "information" encoded in the Torah cannot be used to predict the future, and that at best the codes provide evidence of an all-knowing creator whose knowledge of the Universe and all of its possibilities spans both space and time. In this view, (from an information theoretical viewpoint) the letter-sequence of the Torah is to the Universe as the DNA sequence is to the human body, useful for understanding how the universe works on a macro scale, and illustrative of the "Grand Design" which encompasses all possible events, but nonetheless utterly unreliable for prediction of what specific combinations of micro-scale events will occur to create the 'reality' of human history.

The traditional view conflicts with the more recent and highly sensationalized views suggesting that the Codes may be valuable as tools of prediction. These views of the codes first emerged in popular culture with the book The Bible Code by journalist Michael Drosnin, which suggests that the codes can be analyzed by computer to provide warnings for the future.

The traditional view can be compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics in which, at the quantum level, the very act of measuring an information system in a state of quantum uncertainty can cause that system to "collapse" into a certain state around the potentiality that the observer was looking for. According to this view, the very act of searching the code for one possible future outcome, such as an assassination, hence "measuring" the event that may happen in the future, can cause the event itself to happen. In that same paradoxical way that Schrödinger's cat is said to be both dead and alive, and neither dead nor alive until the measurement is made."

Words fail. Woonpton (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, the first two paragraphs seem a fair summary, to be sourced if possible, but i think a good common-sense description of the different meanings. The third one is OR interpretation; possibly someone may actually have said it in a notable book on the topic. When describing nonsense fairly, it will inevitably sound like nonsense. DGG (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. Yes, of course the first two paragraphs are fine without the third, but I included them in the excerpt to show the context for the third paragraph. And if someone did actually say it in a "reliable" source (topics are notable, sources are not notable; sources are either reliable or not reliable) I agree that it could be presented as such, as long as it was a fair summary of the source and properly attributed to the source, and as long as it wasn't given undue weight beyond the prominence of the view in reliable sources. But as it stands, it is not attributed and looks like OR, especially since the editor who inserted the material also inserted similar quantum mystical OR into several different articles during his short career here, and because there was no mention of this interpretation of the Bible codes before he showed up to edit the page. My best guess is that the material came, not from any reliable source on Bible Codes, but from the editor's own understanding of and advocacy for this particular misinterpretation and overapplication of quantum physics. I could be wrong, and if so of course someone is welcome to reinsert the material with proper attribution and proper weight. Woonpton (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rupert Sheldrake

The article on Rupert Sheldrake, whose parapsychological work is frequently described as pseudoscience (and which has been flagged for some time for relying mainly on Sheldrake's own writings/website), has just had a considerable amount of new, and favourable, material on his second book, The Presence of the Past, added. We've also got an editor who appears to be attempting to claim a respectable profile for him. A small amount has been added to the (separate) 'Criticism' section, but I don't think it balances out. I'm not sufficiently familiar with this particular scientific 'fringe' to be able to do too much about it (I work mostly in the area of Creationism). The article on his claims of Morphic fields, and those on Mae-Wan Ho & William McDougall (psychologist), who he cites as support might also bear looking at. HrafnTalkStalk 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet's Mill

A 1969 book claiming that "the precession of the axis was discovered long before the accepted date of the Greek discovery, and that this was discovered by an ancient (perhaps around 4000 BCE) civilization of unsuspected sophistication". Now the Hamlet's Mill article duly puts this in perspective as fringy nonsense, but interestingly the book finds stout defenders at Talk:Viktor Rydberg, for the somewhat contorted rationale that Hamlet's Mill endorses some of Rydberg's speculations, and if you can show that Hamlet's Mill has some academic credibility, you have also shown that Rydberg isn't completely discredited. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When proponents claim their fringe practice is Mainstream: Naturopathic medicine

See Talk:Naturopathic_medicine#Is_naturopathic_medicine_CAM.3F. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, but that's a few SPA's... MastCell Talk 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can ckind of appreciate the siuation: In some states, N.Ds are trying to become the modern Osteopaths, and have succeeded to some extent. In others, any person can become an N.D. just by saying he's one. The first group is probably right to object to being lumped in with the second, but I don't quite see what can be done, without dignifying a lot off unqualified quacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's true - there's definitely a two-tier system, with a handful of rigorous, respectable N.D. programs and a large number of fly-by-night operations. Still, don't see what bearing that has on naturopathy's status as a complementary and alternative modality... MastCell Talk 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really. But appreciating why they're making these arguments might help us direct their efforts into improving the article by encouraging them to find high-quality sources making the distinctions, and showing how mainstream medicine views the high-end N.Ds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And that is the key... we should focus on what mainstream medical sources say about it. 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Happening at Talk:Chiropractic too. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

much less justification there. DGG (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia book in Crucifixion article

Someone's added a reference to the Urantia book in the Crucifixion article. I removed it and they got very shirty with me on my talk page, accusing me of being personally motivated and saying they'd take it up with the 'appropriate persons'. They put it back. Am I out of line thinking it is inappropriate there? And, anyone else noticing IP editors adding Velikovsky stuff to Egyptology articles? 2 additions (at least) yesterday from different IP addresses.--Doug Weller (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The The Urantia Book is obviously not a quotable source for any sort of historical discussion. Making mention of it outside articles that clearly deal with New Age topics is completely WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

USER:Majeston (Majeston is the name of the Urantian Chief of reflectivity, etc) is once again calling other editors vandals and marking his edits of articles (but not talk pages) as minor.[12], [13] He's undoing attempts to remove text he added to various articles promoting the Urantia Book. I have explained to him in detail that he should not mark edits as minor unless they are, and asked him to stop calling other editors vandals, but he doesn't seem to care. He complains on my talk page that editors are trying to prevent the truth from being known, so...--Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And now I am accused of stalking: [14] and [15].--Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And this [16] -- SA and I have not been in touch at all over Urantia, we are not any sort of team.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"a tag team of Urantia stalkers forming" -- that I call a self-fulfilling prophecy :) first misbehave, and then act surprised when "the cabal" clamps down on you. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help Requested

Hello,

I mentioned a traditional story, which I do not claim is true, that has several sources from 1893, 1931, and 1957. The story appears to have come down through three seperate groups of people, the Jesuits, Washington's slaves and their descendants and through one line of Washington's relations.

I have only mentioned this story under Leonard Neales article because he is the main person the story focuses on. The existance of this story has been proved. It has also been proved to go back to over one hundred years ago, and if you search the internet the story persists and is still of interest. Since the story has been proven to exist for over a century even though it is not taken as truth by many people and since I do not assert that this traditional story is true I feel that it does not fall under an exceptional claim or a fringe theory.

The story is that in the night during George Washington's death a friend of his a Jesuit priest named Leonard Neale was called for over the river. He spends some time with the dying president and when he returns to his lodgings across the river in Maryland he intimates that Washington was given the last rites and died a Catholic. Some of Washington's slaves cried that he was taken by "the Scarlet Lady" of Rome. A first cousin three times removed reported that her grandmother passed down that Washington had a death-bed conversion.

I'd like to keep mention of this traditional story and have tried to work out compromises with one editor who is bent on removing it even though I allowed him to remove information from the story that he did not like, I made no complaints when he added the proviso that many of Washington's biographys make no mention of this story and I have answered all his requests for sources and details and explanations. But he still wants to remove it now claiming it is an exceptional claim.

If some other editors could take an unbiased look at the mention of this story and the sources and help resolve this situation I'd be very grateful. Dwain (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the sources present in Leonard Neale are inadequate. An account based upon a "third cousin once removed" is the very stuff of unfounded rumor. Is it discussed in any of the standard bios of GW? What sources have you? The article on Neale is otherwise entirely based on the old Catholic encyclopedia, which does not mention it. Are there newer sources for him? The entire article needs rewriting to more modern standards. TI'd like to see a transcript of the claimed article from the Register. Place it on the talk page. For all we know, it's an unsourced letter to the editor-- on what authority does it make the report> I'm doubt it would be enough in any case. Further , based on what you give on the talk p., the account from the Woodstock letters does not even confirm the account in the article--just that Neale paid a visit. I'd like a transcript of that part also. The dictum about extraordinary claims is right to the mark here--even to prove the existence of the rumor needs better sources. DGG (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a first cousin three times removed. Not a Third cousin once removed. In fact, the source that Heckman obtained is quite amazing. The woman's grandmother was alive when Washington was. What my grandmother told me about events that happened fifty years ago was not "unfounded rumor." The sources that I have in my possession are all copyrighted. The Mother of God, the extensive article in Information magazine and The National Catholic Register are all available to people with a little searching. The NCR article was an article and not some unsourced letter to the editor. It's interesting how you "doubt it would be enough" (NCR) even though you haven't seen the source? Wow! Sources on George Washington that do not mention the Leonard Neale story are not evidence against the story. Not mentioning something does not mean that it didn't happen. Your suggestion that there is not enough evidence to "prove the existence" of the story is just plain ridiculous. Dwain (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a very tiresome tradition of attributing deathbed conversions to famous, respected figures (especially famous atheists like Darwin or Marx.) Perhaps this rumour / oral tradition is worthy of a brief mention, but I think a full paragraph is a little bit much. Pare it down to something like, "According to a Jesuit oral tradition Neale baptized Washington on his deathbed,[1][2][3] but this is contradicted by eyewitnesses present.[5][6]"
As the other editor involved in this dispute, I could live with this last suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, except it is not just a Jesuit oral tradition the story came down through Washington relatives and Washington's slaves. Dwain (talk)

This issue was taken up by this board two months ago, involving the same editors; here's the discussion in the archives. Woonpton (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan's Ancient Underwater "Pyramid" Mystifies Scholars

Further information: Yonaguni

a lot of suggestive prancing around about yet another ancient sunken civilization. I've removed the worst bits (terraforming...), but closer inspection this seems to be all due to the ravings of one Masaaki Kimura who "argues that Yonaguni is the site of a city at least 5,000 years old which sunk 2,000 years ago". dab (𒁳) 11:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC Graham Hancock might have been involved in this too (or is there another "underwater pyramid"?). --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean "Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay". dab (𒁳) 11:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hancock dived at Yonaguni over 100 times he says, so he's pretty involved. There is another Japanese scholar, Teruaki Ishii, who has also been involved (unfortunately Hancock calls him "Terukai Ishii" in hiS article on his web site which doesn't help when you are searching the web). Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] While we're at it: Architectonic

The "pyramid" structures are referred to as architectonic, but if you'll look at that article (and especially its talk page), you'll see a complete mess. I am pretty sure that the Yonaguni structures aren't so described to say that they are like Mies van de Rohe's buildings, though. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

no source whatsoever was cited -- I've made it a disambig page. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Enderlin and Muhammad al-Durrah

Ongoing concerns relating to conspiracy theories that the former (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the latter (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. The conspiracy theories are a distinctly minority POV that have been promoted mainly by a handful of activists and bloggers. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial brought against one such activist, so there are significant and active BLP issues in this case. Some new/IP/single-purpose editors have sought to give them undue weight, state them as fact or to claim that the French courts have supported them (they didn't). A discussion is currently taking place on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah; it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could provide an opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this needs some more eyes. The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up here. Essentially, our Israeli (some regulars, some SPAs) are trying to say this boy's death was faked by the French journalist in order to inflame public opinion against Israeli (something apparently not libellous, but certainly very fringy). This is being counteracted by our Arab editors, with a good deal more reason. No one actually knows, nor can know, who did fire the fatal bullets: first the IDF said it was them, then concluded it might have been the Palestinians. However, the dispute isn't over this...it's over whether the boy actually died at all. It's all a bit of a mess. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, Moreschi. It's not really a case of Israeli vs Arab editors, though - I'm certainly not an Arab and I'm pretty sure that the SPA editors aren't Israelis. The root of the problem is that some editors have a very strongly held personal opinion of what happened (see [17] for a case in point) and are trying to edit-war that view into the article, regardless of NPOV and other fundamental policies. I've been trying to advise them of why NPOV doesn't allow that but frankly they don't seem to be listening. We're basically dealing with 9/11-style "truthers" here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Worst of both worlds. What fun :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Julia1987 (talk · contribs) was previously Southkept (talk · contribs)...that is, linking back to the recent CAMERA drama. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a SPA is absolutely false and I am not sure what ChrisO has to gain by reiterating this, unless it is to prejudice the reader. Moreschi and others might do well to check out some of my contributions for themselves. The edit in question is in the lead, in which ChrisO asserts that the use of the word "reported" or "reportedly" to refer to the killing constitutes undue weight. According to ChrisO the use of the word "reported" puts undue weight on the possibility that Muhammad was killed at all, ie that it was a "staged event." And indeed we have no body, no DNA, no autopsy, no blood, no bullets, and a film that shows the boy moving after Enderlin has told the world that he is dead, killed by Israeli bullets. Since the verdict, a number of reputable newspapers including Ha'aretz staff, Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal on line, Toronto Star, etc etc have said there is enough evidence to consider this a hoax or staged. Why is it then unreasonable to call the killing a "reported" killing? The charge that anyone is demanding that the article be written to insist that the boy is alive is false; but why under the circumstances must we insist he is dead? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." (cf. WP:RS) On top of that, only a tiny minority of sources even mention the conspiracy theory, let alone give it any support (hence WP:UNDUE applies). I've already explained this repeatedly, but you and the other conspiracy theorists are not paying any attention. Quite simply, you want the article to state a fringe view, in which you have a strong personal belief, as fact. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO, first of all, you need to stop calling those who disagree with you “conspiracy theorist” or “9/11 truthers”. Right now. There will be no more of it. You will either treat all editors with respect and civility, or we’’ll take it up at AN/I. I mean it – this has to stop.
Now, it seems that it is you who has not been paying attention. You indeed asserted repeatedly that the other POV has only been published in Op-eds. This is simply false, and you have been shown evidence to the contrary. Norway’s newspaper of record ran a [18], news article, not an Op-ed, which said “this video is probably a bluff”. Germany’s public radio station, Deutschlandradio, ran an interview with Esther Schapira , a researcher and producer of the documentary film who researched the incident. The interviewer describes the incident as “alleged murder”, and the interviewee said that in order to declare the child dead, we need to actually see a body. Germany's ARD TV station ran a news segment, not an Op-Ed which says the video "allegedly shows that Mohamed Al-Durah was seriously wounded" - wounded mind you! not even allegdely killed. It further says that while the court could not decide what is the real truth, it is clear that there is "no evidence of murder in front of the camera". Even Ha’aretz, Israel’s left leaning newspaper of record ran a news article, not an op-ed , with the headline “Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged” . There are many, many more, which you continue to ignore. This is not a fringe theory, but, as the recent French court ruled, a thesis which can’t be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I could use the term "people who believe in a tiny-minority POV conspiracy theory and want to state it as fact in Wikipedia" but that's just awkward; "conspiracy theorists" works just fine. As for 9/11 truthers, the unfortunate fact is that conspiracy theorists of all stripes exhibit some very common pathologies. See Conspiracy theory#Study of conspiracism for some background. You see the same sort of thing with 9/11 truthers, Moon landing deniers, some UFOlogists, Kennedy assassination theorists and so on. Of course, one key symptom is that conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists and object strongly to it...
Consider this a final warning. The next time you call me, or anyone else, a "9/11 truther" or a "conspiracy theorist" , I'll take it up at AN/I.Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to get into detailed discussions about the sourcing, but the bottom line is that (1) most of the small number of reliable sources that have actually stated the conspiracy theory as fact are indeed newspaper op-eds; (2) the slightly larger, but still proportionately small, number of sources that discuss the conspiracy theory do not endorse it but attribute it to others, as does the Aftenposten newspaper article you mention; (3) the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not mention the conspiracy theory at all. That is the root of the issue and that is what our resident conspiracy theorists are so consistently ignoring, even when called out on it. The French verdict (which you misrepresent) does not change that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the place to get into detailed discussions about the sourcing, seeing as you continue to misrepresent them. Aftenposten does not attribute the theory to anyone - it says the video is likely a hoax. Same goes for the other sources presented. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources published since the disputed rushes were made public cast a very serious doubt as to the veracity of the claim that the boy was killed. And a French court has now ruled that what you describe as a 'conspiracy theory' is a thesis that can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know, I just looked through the reports, and it seems the French court merely said that claiming that the video was a hoax was acceptable commentary, and not libel. (Something like calling those who believe it is a hoax conspiracy theorists.) Of the "news" articles you link above to disprove ChrisO's point, most are irrelevant, Ha'aretz isnt opening, and "Var denne videoen en bløff?" isnt really reporting the videoen was a bløff, its reporting on the people making the claims.... I mean, come on, what part of "Nå hevder flere mediekritikere at videoen er en bløff" is difficult to understand? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The court said it was "acceptable commentary" after looking at all or most of the available evidence that held it was a libel. Had the evidence upheld the France 2 version of events, the defamation suit would have been affirmed. The verdict then, finds the evidence supports the hoax theory. It did not claim it proves the theory, but it does support it. Your interpretation of the verdict is far too narrow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The verdict did not "support" any theory, but that's beside the point. Please confine discussion of the specifics to the relevant page. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. "Is not libellous" is not synonymous with "is true". That is very easy to understand. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite. The case was not about whether Karsenty's conspiracy theory was true, it was about whether Karsenty had committed a "press offence" (a term of art in French law) in promoting it. The law in question enables a defendant to evade a conviction for defamation if it can be proven that (a) the matter is of genuine public concern, (b) the publisher has acted in good faith and (c) he has made at least a basic attempt to verify the defamatory material. Truth doesn't enter into it - not only is truth not an absolute defence, but courts are apparently specifically forbidden from investigating the truth of defamatory statements. So claims that the court in this case did endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory are basically self-serving bunk. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation ongoing - eyes requested

An informal mediation on the above has now begun on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, with the help of Elonka. It would be helpful if editors with experience of dealing with fringe theories (and their proponents) could participate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven_M._Greer

I'm not very familiar with this noticeboard or how it works, so I'll just mention that I think it would be a good idea for editors here to take a look at Wikipedia:Ani#Steven_M._Greer and the related article where it looks like three single-purpose accounts are pushing a fringe theory --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is deliberately misleading. It is the user 131.215.220.163 (talk) who is pushing his agenda and ignores all attempts to discuss the matter further. He attempts to shut everybody up who disagrees with him. 131.215.220.163 (talk) who operates in the 131.215.. IP-Range removes content mostly without a proper reason or with the summary "rv BS" . He cries wolf first because he doesn't want to be caught red handed. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to using Wikipedia, so when I posted edits to the Steven Greer page that gave short summaries of his stated work, intent and objectives, I was lacking in the proper protocol as far as assigning (what are obviously) highly controversial ideas as "claims". User 131.215.220.163 (IP as of recent edits) stated his concerns as such, and my subsequent edits indeed made clear these were "claims" by Dr. Greer. In addition, I have attempted to correct (relatively) minor facts, such as location of trainings, items included in costs, etc., as well as some additional brief explanatory remarks to give the reader a snapshot sense of the meanings of some of the terms used (CE5, etc.). Of course, one could rely solely on the references and external links to pursue these further, but my understanding is that Wikipedia is a valid place to at least note such brief explanations. While the above-stated user (131.215.220.163) has every right to disagree with the viability of the ideas of Dr. Greer (and indeed they do defy the current "known" laws of physics, but the same was once thought about breaking the sound barrier in air travel, and many other scientific breakthroughs too numerous to mention), given that these technologies and concepts are core to the STATED purpose of The Orion Project (one of the main organizations at the core of this editing dispute), it is not only fair but appropriate to define the organization on these pages thus, as long as the claims are presented as just that—CLAIMS. Whether one thinks it is nonsense is immaterial insofar as it is accurate to the stated goals of said organization. User 131.215.220.163 can discuss in other arenas the plausibility of such ideas, but no one is presenting them here as fact, simply as ideas being pursued by Greer's associates and gathered inventors. What is more disturbing is the lack of friendly, respectful dialogue in this matter, from both sides. User netfreeOm has been rather short at times too, but I am most concerned with the inflammatory remarks that I and this other user (netfreedOm) have received from user 131.215.220.163. Using language like "bullshit", "nonsense", "Dr. Greer's apologist" and other prejudicial remarks are neither appropriate nor fair, nor do they engender any mutual respect—besides seemingly violating the stated protocols of Wikipedia's guidelines. My only "single-purpose" here is to add fair and balanced edits to Dr. Greer's page, in a way that is indicative of his work and ideas, without promoting one side or the other. The revert edits by 131.215.220.163 have consistently only retained comments of skepticism, debunking, outright inaccurate factoids, and a generally negative tone overall. It seems to me a fair approach is to include the public skepticism, and also allow the equally valid positive takes on his work. I agree with user netfreedOm that user 131.215.220.163 has shown absolutely no tolerance for any views or pursuits that HE or SHE considers nonsense. This intransigent attitude should hold no sway in this public arena, where the reader should be presented a balanced overview of any given individual's profile, and be allowed to decide for themselves. Dancingeyes (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At minimum this section [19] of the article seems to contain blatant advertising, as well as links to sites that are purely promotional. I am really not sure how to deal with such a problem. (If it were the whole article I would nominate it for deletion.) Also, I see nothing in the article that establishes notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dancingeyes (talk). The two above users show no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter or to reach consensus. Our arguments or questions falling on deaf ears and - as the latest edit from Malcolm Schosha (talk) shows - they would rather like to see Greer's page deleted then impoved. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. I have already refered to a written statement of an administrator that the information regarding The Orion Project can be added as long as the editor cleary distinguises facts from claims with which Dancingeyes (talk) complied. I-netfreedOm (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article can be edited while the AfD is in process (usually five days), so if you can establish notability and remove the blatant advertising, there is nothing to worry about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe invades mainstream article

Cancer#Complementary_and_alternative This falls over itself to cast Complementary and alternative treatments in as good of a light as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Mostly, it's just misinformed, particularly about paclitaxel and ATRA and their supposedly "alternative" origins. MastCell Talk 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Articles

I was going to clean up abduction phenomenon. Then I discovered ufology, and its child articles like List of alleged UFO-related extraterrestrials and List of alleged UFO-related locations. Then I gave up and cried for a bit. There are serious fringe issues with all these articles. Jack Sarfatti, for example, is glowingly referenced for a "repulsive anti-gravity field 'dark energy'" mode of transport in ufology. David Icke is given equal billing with slightly more respectable individuals such as Carl Sagan. Not only that, the writing style often switches between in-universe batshittiness (c.f. Ufology#Atmosphere_beast_hypothesis) and promising yet undercited sobriety ((Ufology#Psychology). I don't even know where to start - disentangling the fringe, skeptical, and folklore/psychology aspects would be an obvious goal - so I bring it here for assistance. Skinwalker (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a glance over the ufology article shows there is a serious problem. I requested citations, added a weasel tag, and tried to trim some pov. More eyes definitely needed on this. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The David Icke article has one of my very favorite sections in all Wikipedia [21], especially the first paragraph. Icke has a big following, he really is notable, and the article does not seem badly done either...even if it comes as very bad news about what people will respond to. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that the UFO (And other Paranormal Articles) are being edited to fit a Skeptical Point of view, when all that is needed to improve the articles is a little Grammar editing and to make the article neutral. I have seen several articles that seem in my opinion to have been edited to make them line up with a Skeptical World View. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
An NPOV is required. If the subject is scientific or claims to be scientific or technology oriented, then the NPOV is a scientific point of view. Science is by its very nature skeptical. I'd think that in every topic, editors should have some degree of skepticism - isn't that why we require reliable sources? But if its science, then there has to be skepticism. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow Chronology

David Rohl's "New Chronology" has its own article now. I have serious doubts this deserves a standalone article. It appears to have no credibility whatsoever and would probably belong as a section or paragraph in Rohl's own article. dab (𒁳) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport Tablets

Can someone please look at Talk:Davenport Tablets and tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick or of the IP editor simply doesn't understand what Wikipedia (or 'this group' as he says) wants in the way of reliable sources? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's clueless. NEARA is obviously not a scholarly group. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole-Earth decompression dynamics

Please take a look at Whole-Earth decompression dynamics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole-Earth decompression dynamics The article promotes the speculations of J. Marvin Herndon and is referenced essentially solely to his work. No valid reliable secondary sources have been produced on the afd discussion. Subject needs more eyes and input. Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Croats

Theories on the origin of Croats is still around, duplicating the same material at Croats. This seems to be part of attempts to say that modern-day Croats are not the descendants of the Slavs who migrated into the area, but are, instead, the descendants of the indigenous inhabitants of the area. Which might be fringy. This has probably been up on this noticeboard before, but it would be nice to get it finally cleared up. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

redirected for now. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP editor removing rational skepticism templates

Take a look at his edits: [22] including what he's done to ScienceApologists page. He's not a newbie, that's for sure. Doug Weller (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I started reverting the template deletions, but I think you should post about this on AN/I. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Davkal (talk · contribs) on a proxy. I've blocked the IP for 1 year. Revert away. MastCell Talk 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being blamed for all sorts of general mayhem - I am the only person to have claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks after all - but I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand back and let you accuse me of being the kind of person who would use the word "ya'll".[23] Kindly strike through your scandalous attack sir! Davvvkal (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The core of this problem, as I see it, is that WikiProject Rational Skepticism is not like other WikiProjects, which limit themselves with articles dealing with particular topics (e.g. Physics, Astronomy, History, Religion,...) but devotes itself to applying the methodological approach of rational skepticism to "improve the quality of" a wide range of articles. This comes close to an organized program to push a particular point of view in what are really unrelated articles. It would be as if WikiProject Christianity were to place its template on unrelated pages (say scientific or historical ones) with the agenda of improving the quality of those articles from a Christian perspective.
I would recommend a review of the nature and scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism and a revision of its template so that it limits its scope to articles explicitly on the philosophical / methodological topic of rational skepticism. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing which articles they were expanding to that were out of their remit. Ufology and the like seem to be prime candidates for the project. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not the only problem project, unfortunately. The paranormal and LBGT projects, among others, seem to try to own particles too. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
at least, the drive to insist on "rational scepticism" is in accord with basic Wikipedia guidelines. We want academic mainstream. Academic mainstream is bound to the scientific method, which includes rational scepticism. Thus, the project is (or should be) merely an effort to defend encyclopedicity in articles prone to deterioration, much like this noticeboard here. The same cannot be said of Wikiprojects sworn to a "pro gay" or a "pro paranormal" agenda. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I see the point of the argument, but as a historian of science I don't equate rational skepticism with the scientific method; it is only one of several such methods. Philosophically, I question the notion that there is one single scientific method that applies in all fields, at all times, and in all cultures and have further problems of whether that "scientific method" is appropriate for discussions of non-scientific disciplines. If this were merely a defense of verifiability I would have no problem with it. When it slides over into a defense of a particular methodological point of view, it comes close to challenging NPOV. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with SteveMcCluskey here. I think in many cases the banners are placed based on the article being about matters which skeptics think require a degree of sceptical input, but there are also, generally, more directly-related projects relative to the subject as well. Maybe this could be one of the few projects which would be best served by limiting the presence of its banner, and just adding any articles about specific matters editors are sceptical about to the project's watchlist? John Carter (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes on Exopolitics

I'm not sure that this is the proper forum for my issue, but I could use some eyes on the above article. It came to my attention while I was reviewing the edit history of Phalanxpursos (talk · contribs), who had taken to leaving talk page posts connecting 9/11 with Nazi Germany. My attempts to clean up this article, accompanied by explanation of my edits on the talk page, have been reverted. I don't want to break 3RR, but I don't see how statements like Two-way communications Radio contact with Aliens has been established in 1929, the Majestic 12 (MJ-12) is an Ultra Top Secret Research and Development Intelligence Operation of Extraterrestrial contact can be stated as fact, even when they are sourced to a Geocities page. I've attempted to communicate with the user directly, with no response. Any assistance would be appreciated. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a pass at that piece of junk article many months ago. It's just a dumping ground for UFO fancruft and patent nonsense. Maybe just AfD or redirect to Ufology, as the term really has no independent notability, there are no reliable sources about "Exopolitics" specifically, and proponents keep using original research to link in anything they want to ramble about. <eleland/talkedits> 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at it just now, we have an article on the author, it is based on a self-published book, so I've AfD'd it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Project

I think this article would benefit from the attention of some editors who watch this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kalki

Please consider if poorly sourced neo-Nazi views HAVE to be kept on a Hinduism mythology article of major importance to that religion.

I was referred here by an experienced editor from whom I asked for help who told me that this clearly is a case of a Fringe Theory being given undue weight and should be brought up here. Kalki is the awaited 10th avatar of Vishnu of orthodox Hinduism as described in the Garuda Purana. For a long time User:Ghostexorcist has insisted on maintaining inclusion of a fringe theory by a French neo-Nazi writer named Savitri Devi (1905-1982) who fused Naziism and Hinduism and said that Adolf Hitler was the Kalki avatar of Hinduism. There are no Hindus that believe this that I am aware of. It has been pointed out to Ghostexorcist that this is undue weight and he was pointed to the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, [24] (see edit summary box) but he says to exclude this would be a "personal slant" and he is being impartial to keep it. "I don't own this page at all, I'm just protecting it from people who try to slant the page towards their own point of view." [25] He also insists on keeping another Nazi from Argentina Alejandro Biondini (no article and no English language citation) listed on the Kalki page. His reference is in Italian and placed within-text (http://pnt.libreopinion.com/) even though he has been twice questioned by User:Hoverfish about this kind of referencing.

In addition there is no clear citation that the Nazi writer Savitri Devi actually said Hitler was Kalki specifically. The reference given is this link: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/SavitriDevi.html which says nothing about Kalki. However, even if a citation for this could be produced, this is certainly undue weight to an extremely fringe view that no one that I am aware of holds. Suggestions to have another article with people who have been said to be Kalki have been rejected as unworkable. [26] It has also been pointed out to Ghostexorcist that his section title "Modern variations of the Kalki prophesy" makes no sense in a Hindu context. Kalki is from old Hindu scriptures and "modern variations" would really not be the Hindu prophesy at all. Also no other version of the prophesy is given under this heading.

Ghostexorcist's history of reverting any changes. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Note that all attempts to discuss with Ghostexorcist are simply followed by a lecture from him. Please consider if poorly sourced neo-Nazi views HAVE to be kept on a Hinduism mythology article of major importance to that religion. Vedantahindu (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Savitri Devi is pretty notable, and I see no reason not to mention her, within reason. It is true that the Kalki prophecy is medieval in origin, but that shouldn't prevent the article from presenting notable influence on modern culture (not pop culture trivia). Compare King Arthur: also a medieval legend in origin, but with significant impact on modern culture. Of course Savitri Devi shouldn't be given undue weight, but in the diff you link to, Ghostexorcist is merely insisting on a rather limited mention in the article body. Nothing UNDUE at all in my view. Compare the (much more developed) Jesus article, which likewise finds the space to link to esoteric nonsense like Master Jesus in a brief paragraph. Pragmatic weighing of relative notability paired with a willingness to compromise is the key in such questions. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not the issue I'm raising here on this Fringe Theory noticeboard. The view that Hitler was the Hindu Kalki is a notable fringe theory that no one holds like the hollow Earth. I quote Wikpedia founder Jimmy Wales here from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
It is a notable fringe view. Notability is not what this noticeboard is about. But Fringe Theories. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the inclusion of fringe theories is judged on their notability. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it not then at least be added that this view is not held by Hindus and is not part of Hindu teaching in India? Also the name of the article is Modern Versions. Where are these versions? He names a person who held a view. Also, what about this Argentinian with no article and an Italian language reference? Certainly that is not notable. I don't think that you understand that Ghostexorcist will not allow any change at all. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec's later) Tend to agree with Dbachmann here. I would require a specific citation which specifically states what is being said in the article, and seek to ensure that the individual theory is not given too much weight, but there is nothing at all irregular about having content reflecting how the subject of any article has achieved notability outside of its primary area, and, in fact, wikipedia tends to support inclusion of such material. Evidently, the writer of the book tends to believe the idea, unless it can be proven to be one that was just made up for the purposes of publicity, and that probably is enough. I also tend to think that some editors may have been a bit too vigorous in removing some content. Specifically, I see a picture of the cover of Gore Vidal's Kalki (novel) in the article, but no explicit reference to the book in the text itself, and I believe that at least a clear reference in the text to that book is very definitely appropriate. Regarding the point that it should say Hindus don't believe that, I don't think that's necessary. I think most would assume that if the article doesn't say Hindus do believe it, then it would be understood that they dont. I've dealt with Ghostexorcist in the past, and have no reason to believe that he would not listen to reason, if he were treated with it himself. While I do think it would help if the content regarding the main subject were improved, but that doesn't mean that the other content shouldn't be included as well. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The book was actually mentioned in the article, but it has repeatedly been deleted from the page. I can't remember if it was done by Vedantahindu or if it was by another editor. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: if it really freaks you out/the article is being overloaded with crufty stuff, create a separate List of modern claims to be Kalki, or something similar, and link it from the main article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you read in the discussion where Ghostexorcist says such a page will be deleted immediately by an admin. Also, it is not so much freaky as unverfied trivia. His reference for the French writer (when you read it) does not say that she wrote he was Kalki. Nor does the article on her. His reference for the Argentina man is in Italian. These have been brought up to him. So these have to stay because Ghostexorcist says they are true with no English reference? Vedantahindu (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is about a mythological topic. By the nature of mythology, this makes it very different from paranormal/homeopathic claims and the like. It doesn't make sense to ask if it is "true" that Kalki "is" an avatar of Vishnu, that's just the myth. The Kalki myth is a feature of Puranic Hinduism. Savitri Devi ostensibly isn't part the Puranic canon: this is why she is mentioned in the "modern" section. I don't think it is necessary to point out that mainstream Hindus have nothing to do with her any more than it would be necessary to point out that Geoffrey of Monmouth never endorsed the Excalibur movie. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's customary to alert an editor that they are being included in a discussion on a wikiproject such as this. I never received such a notice. Anyway, despite what Vedantahindu believes (and assumes), I did not write the Kalki page. I reverted their complete deletion of the Kalki claiment section because the only reason they gave was that it was "racist" (see here). However, despite the false maligning of my character, I'm glad to see the issue has been resolved on the Kalki page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hitler-as-Kalki meme is fairly common among esoteric Hitlerists such as Miguel Serrano and others. It has an entire chapter in Black Sun, the canonical work on neo-Nazi ideology. It inspired a novel by Gore Vidal. Certainly encyclopaedic. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe placing this material to the List of people who have been considered avatars will help to solve it? It will give a context to it (of course current reference is not very clear for this subject). Wikidās ॐ 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Savitri Devi is notable. Her theory is discussed in some detail in Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess on pp.124-5, and he talks about Claudio Mutti's and Miguel Serrano's recapitulations of the idea on p.218 and p.221. The currently much longer section in the article about Muhammad, however is poorly sourced. This seems to come from one "Ved Prakash Upaddhay", who looks to be a Muslim convert, but I can't be sure. His book also seems to claim that Muhammad was also predicted in Buddhist scriptures and is cited in the Maitreya article. This seems to be a feature of Muslim apologetics [32]. It's difficult to be clear how notable these sources are. Paul B (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "Many religious scholars claim that Muhammad completed all the prophecies of the Kalki avatar." is not a reasonable summary, when many = one book which probably discusses it, but we'd need a quotation to see in what context + one person, publication or even web site unspecified. DGG (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of life

A lot of quantum blather at Meaning_of_life#Scientific_questions_about_the_mind. Other "scientific" bits in this article also need some sceptical review. dab (𒁳) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walam Olum

Could someone take a look at this and see what they think of the recent edit? I've just had a real set to with this editor on the Cahokia Mounds (see the talk page, he called an editor of a scholarly book fringe & racist, and the book "entirely about petty arguments and opinions" despite its getting rave reviews in scholarly journals -- all because the book suggests some people were buried alive), and I'd rather not go through that again. Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More changes since. This and Davenport Tablets are hotting up a bit. Both articles need a lot of work in any case - citations, restructuring, etc. But it is more difficult when there is an editor saying that the scholarly works he doesn't like aren't reliable. Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam's Bridge

There seems to be some kind of effort to promote this chain of limestone shoals as actually being an ancient megastructure, built no doubt by the same hyper-advanced Hindu civilization that built an enormous civilzation in the Gulf of Cambay. Or, alternatively, the shoals are clearly Allah's handiwork. Um, yeah. Textbook case of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. <eleland/talkedits> 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very dubious, but apparently a significant POV among Hindu fundamentalists. I've worked on the article before, so I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said on this has already been said back in October. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done there, thanks. I remember when all this NASA nonsense first started. Doug Weller (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orgone

Reich's theory was regarded as pseudoscience when it was published and has been labeled as such ever sense. There is a ton of psychobabble and other issues with the article but I am trying to move one step at a time. I am just trying to get the fact that this is pseudoscience into the lead. I have collected way more references than are needed yet a single user is constantly reverting.I have attempted a RFC but that doesn't seem to be working out. I am not sure where best to post this so I am trying here. I don't think it is at the stage yet that requires formal mediation but maybe it is close. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

you've come to the right place. Category:Orgone Science and Technology is highly dubious as a category name, too. --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
While I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there, you're both so far over WP:3RR that it's not even funny. The RfC is the way to go - seek outside input, because if either or both of you keep reverting it'll end up in a block. I suspect experienced editors will tend to agree with you on the content issue. MastCell Talk 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, re: Dbachman's comment, I agree: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_11#Category:Orgone_Science_and_Technology. ::MastCell Talk 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am here to stop the edit war, the threats really aren't needed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They're not threats, really. You've hit about 8RR, and you could both justifiably have been blocked for egregious edit-warring, which is disruptive in and of itself without respect to who's "right". I chose to warn you both instead, because I think you'll be able to work it out. MastCell Talk 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A statement. I am currently engaged on improving articles relating to medical and biological thought in the early 20thC. I have worked substantially on Hans Driesch, Teleology, Vitalism, Alexander Gurwitsch, Morphogenetic field, Biophoton, Hans Spemann, Paul Alfred Weiss, Wilhelm Roux, Theory of recapitulation, Ross Granville Harrison, Harold Saxton Burr, L-field.

I am particularly interested in how Theosophical thought was influenced by and influenced thinking at that time, so have also contributed to articles such as Energy (esotericism), Astral Body and so forth, usually in a bid to introduce historicism and secondary sources.

However I note that a few such pages, such as this orgone, are included in some kind of gospel of pseudoscience, and hence are under persistent edit-attack. Wiki requires a solid reference for a consensus of pseudoscience. This has been requested by me time and again. I have introduced into the lede all kinds of compromises (Journalists call this pseudoscience, vitalism is considered superseded etc) and all have been removed, citations and tags discarded to be replaced with identical improperly-sourced "pseudoscience" statements by a string of different editors. I have several times explained the need for a proper historically-aware overview, but my interlocutors simply do not know anything about the history of biology and psychology. Since there has been no constructive discussion or editing from the other side, and since all editors represent the same dogmatic POV, all repetitive unsourced edits, having been removed to the talk page, are now being reverted without notice since this cadre is clearly intent upon damaging the prospect of any coherent user-understanding of this aspect of 20thC thought. Redheylin (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

excellent, with a pragmatic approach like that, I am sure a fruitful compromise will be possible. Vitalism is only pseudoscience when it pretends to be science. In its spiritual or philosophical aspects it is not, of course, pseudoscience, since it doesn't even attempt to make scientific claims. I agree this needs to be taken into account. dab (𒁳) 06:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The article as currently written has significant problems, but maybe it's just a work in progress. For example, the article says things like: "Some recent research has, however, supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone." This is both untrue, at least as far as I understand the term "research", and unsourced. The reason that orgone energy got such a bad name, as a pseudoscience, is that Reich marketed it as the cure for just about everything, absent any actual evidence. Eventually the FDA shut him down as a purveyor of fraudulent medical devices marketed with false claims. Of course, the FDA somewhat overzealously destroyed Reich's devices and burned his books, which feeds into the conspiracist or civil libertarian mindsets. Anyhow, some of this probably belongs in the orgone article. Incidentally, there's an interesting picture of an orgone accumulator on the FDA website ([33]), which I believe should be public domain and might be useful for the article. MastCell Talk 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
dab - vitalism is a name given to a biological approach that, from two to one centuries ago, set us free from divine preformationism - creationism. Vitalists include Galvani, Berzelius, Mesmer, Goethe, Reichenbach, Wallace, Haeckel, Driesch, Spemann, as well as, explicitly or implicitly, most psychological theorists, including clinical psycho-analyists. All of these people are "pretending to be science" so it's hard to see what you mean.
Perhaps you may believe that the approach has been superseded in many respects by the grand biological synthesis - that it has been effectively so from 1945, particularly since 1953? That's a valid standpoint, assuming you are a black-box Skinnerian. That's not a consensus though. And even in biology it remains to be seen exactly how much will be explained by molecular signalling and ionic channelling - whether we will end up ticking all the boxes in the systems analysis. There's still a mind-body problem, so there's still room for fringe vitalists today in serious biology. Basically, if Jung can say it, why can't Sheldrake? Or, at least in 1950, if Gurwitsch could say it, why not Reich?
There's no room for rip-off artists though. That, for instance, is why I just asked for ionized bracelets to be deleted. But this obsession with pinning the label "pseudoscience" shows me one thing - that the labeller does not have the knowledge and ability to insert a chronologically-aware rebuttal that draws upon specified trials and reliable popular scientific writers of the Gould variety. It is mostly some kind of religious war-cry. It shows no respect for style but often seems to seek to disrupt understanding. It is generally uncivil and inarticulate. It is a pain in the arse. Desist, please. Just take one thing, maybe, come to grips, do a proper job. Less of the gang-disruption and answer invitations please.
"Some recent research has, however, supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone." The reference is to de Meo's work, mentioned below. Has someone removed yet another reference? It's vandalism, isn't it? If you can find any peer-review, I'd be very happy. Or we can put "Reich is disliked by many wiki editors"?? How about "Reich neglected his pet hamster and failed to return library books?" Seriously, I do not think your claims about "marketing" stand up, but why do we not just put the FDA in the lede??? It does seem to be the only study that took place in Reich's lifetime. Personally, if Einstein thought Reich was on the level but a crap physicist, that's the line I take too. Redheylin (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In 1953 Irving Langmuir dubbed Gurwitsch's ideas pathological science. However his daughter, Anna, continued his work and, shortly after his death, contributed papers that supported some aspects of her father's work on "mitogenetic" rays. This is from Alexander Gurwitsch. And you know what else I put? You guys really need to refute this claim that some American guy thought he knew it all, but some Russian guy was right all along. It's demeaning. Fools!!!!!!!!!! Reich is but my sockpuppet. INSIDIOUS ideas have been worked into the entire account of 20C life sciences! How comes nobody round here KNOWS anything? Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS BWHAHAHA!! or words to that effect. Come on guys, get on the case, before a doctor comes. Redheylin (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone medically classed as putative vital energy.

In contrast, putative energy fields (also called biofields) have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. Therapies involving putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy. This vital energy or life force is known under different names in different cultures, such as qi.., and elsewhere as prana, etheric energy, fohat, orgone, odic force, mana, and homeopathic resonance.3 Vital energy is believed to flow throughout the material human body, but it has not been unequivocally measured by means of conventional instrumentation. Nonetheless, therapists claim that they can work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm

"Vitalists include Galvani, Berzelius, Mesmer, Goethe, Reichenbach, Wallace, Haeckel, Driesch, Spemann, as well as, explicitly or implicitly, most psychological theorists, including clinical psycho-analyists. All of these people are "pretending to be science" so it's hard to see what you mean."
yes, I see, my optimism was premature. You indiscriminately link to 18th to 20th century authors. I am keenly aware of the distinction of pseudoscience and obsolete scientific theories. So Newton was an alchemist. Does that make alchemy "science"? No, at best proto-science, since its study in the 17th century may have been serious, but there has been progress in the history of science, and anyone advocating it today would be a fraud. Your claim of authors being vitalists "implicitly" is problematic. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to discriminate on historical grounds citing sources. Libido, for example, is implicit vitalism. Redheylin (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Libido is implicit vitalism"? You appear to be trying to blur the distinction of Energy (psychological) and Energy (esotericism). I'm happy to review your WP:RS, of course. You may also be trying to generalize the notion of "vitalism" to the truism that "life has self-organizing properties". Here is one quote: "Carl Gustav Jung’s position [...] involves an energetic and vitalistic extension of Freud’s libido theory".[34]. This would go to a discussion of how Jungian psychology reconciles materialism and "vitalism", at the same point establishing that libido is by no means "vitalistic" from the outset. It may be. through the filter of an esotericist's view of Jung's views. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(Superseded vitalism) - I invite you to discriminate on historical grounds citing sources. "You appear to be trying to blur the distinction of Energy (psychological) and Energy (esotericism)" I invite you to draw a distinction, citing sources. (Newton's alchemy) Please, if you think it worthwhile, explain an instance of a modern-day alchemical claim that would be pseudoscientific - for example, is the use of Arabic terminology like alcohol and alkali to be deprecated?. Please quote the pay-site reference above in full. The self-organising properties of life are fundamental to vitalism in Embryology - see my bios of Driesch Spemann and Weiss. Redheylin (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This would go to a discussion of how Jungian psychology reconciles materialism and "vitalism", - yes it would. You need to visit all these arguments in full before passing judgment on Reich, who was trying to do exactly that. Redheylin (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not passing judgement on Reich, I am judging your behaviour on Wikipedia.[35] I don't pretend to know whether a beneficial therapeutical method can be derived from Reich's ideas. Be that as it may, the notion of orgone as "a massless, omnipresent medium for electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena, a Luminiferous aether from which all matter arises" and stuff like the "cloudbuster" are obviously textbook pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You will understand that your failure to discuss, and your continuing edits unrelated to the discussion, accompanied by changes of name, will tend to cause other editors to doubt your good faith, and that we cannot very well write "dbachmann says it is obvious". Since you say you are "judging my behaviour", apparently simply because I question your unsupported POV, I think we will have to go to arbitration. Redheylin (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it will, or should be, accepted for arbitration. Editors on the page have not given the RfC a chance yet. You need many more uninvolved editors on board. There are plenty of people around who do not know anything about Reich or vitalism but do know about sourcing and writing a neutral article. If you don't succeed in attracting them to this article then the next step would be mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea in what way I am supposed to "fail to discuss" the matter, much less "change my name", or what my "pov" may be. I have the impression this is a weak attempt at wikilawyering. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Itsyoujudith. I have not heard from you since I invited your comments after you joined dbachmann in the gang-destruction of another related page. I was sorry not to hear from you. I take it that you do not, then, include yourself among editors who know nothing? - as a matter of fact, though, we have rather a lot of that kind of editor already. Do you happen to know anybody who DOES know anything? By the way, I did mean the entire process, beginning with informal mediation. As you so rightly remark, a notice was applied and I immediately ceased to edit - but destructive edits continued from the others represented on this page - would you care to pass an opinion on that? Redheylin (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea in what way I am supposed to "fail to discuss" the matter Please just answer the points, continue the dialogue, support your views, provide the requested citations. Particulary, discuss changes as advertised - do not make changes unannounced to one part of a page while ostensibly discussing another. Redheylin (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redheylin. Sorry if I didn't follow through on an intervention. I haven't been editing much recently. If you want to know my state of knowledge on these issues, I would assess it as being in the top 99% of the population, but that is far from making me an expert. I had previously heard of Reich but knew more about his Mass Psychology of Fascism than about the orgone concept. I try to help out on many pages that I am not at all an expert on but nevertheless I can improve the encyclopedia. That's why I contribute to the Wikification wikiproject and would encourage you to join in. I don't engage in mass destruction of pages. I frequently come across dab's work; sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, always I learn from the exchanges. I was interested in what you said about history of ideas, but don't want to follow it into an edit war. Some editors seem to be turning the encyclopedia into a war on pseudoscience, but that is not my particular vice. My approach is to try to find a resolution through a search for the most reliable possible sources.Itsmejudith (talk)
Thanks for your courteous and quick response. I accept your estimation of your own account, and your good faith shines forth. I have to say, I think your actions in respect of that other page were ill-advised, and that they were indeed undertaken as part of a group, not one of whom added anything of worth, took notice of the talk-page or added tags. I left your changes for one week and then reverted them when you did not appear to defend them as they appeared to me, as I say, ill-advised, discourteous and over-hasty. I do not want an edit war either, I want knowledgeable editing from consensus. Anything else leads to a messy, unreadable article and, I have concluded, in some cases that is the main idea. "Pseudoscience" tags, unaccompanied by authoritative and historically-presented refutations, are polemic and should be represented as such. Top 99 per cent is already very good, so let us say no more about the past and, if everyone will kindly agree to proper sourcing, there's no need for any war.
dbachmann, I note that you have some interest in IE anthropology? Could you be so kind as to search out an authoritative derivation of the word "prana"? And how dyou fancy a quick shufti at the delightful vitalist page "Awen"?! Now THERE's pseudoscience for ya! Have you read Taliessin? Dear O dear, planets, climates, elements - he talks like a damned mediaeval!! Ah well - but you know "areith awdyl eglyr/ awen tra messur" Scuse me, quoting from memory, but this is obviously a self-aggrandising claim to a non-existent power in the interests in making a living, for gosh sakes. Let's GIT him!! Redheylin (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin, you are clearly intelligent and eloquent, but somehow you seem to insist on making a fool of yourself, or at least to show adamant determination to pose as a condescending jerk. I am not sure if you mistake someone else's edits for mine, since my entire participation in this dispute has been a single revert of your blanking of a referenced paragraph.[36]. dab (𒁳) 12:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

People who talk like that are going to feel condescended to. I mean, anybody could rise above that kind of talk even if they was falling down a lift shaft. Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get over it. Just try to behave in the future. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO progress

We finally have a group of editors committed to fixing up Unidentified flying object and related articles. Already accomplished:

  1. Removal of problematic sources (UFO enthusiast websites are not exactly reliable sources for FACTS, only for the opinions of UFO enthusiasts)
  2. Beginning the vetting process
  3. Rewritten the lead

We currently are asking whether Identified flying object should be merged. In many ways, I think much of the content at "IFO" should be given the most weight at UFO, but that's only my opinion. Things are looking up there and soon we can begin the process of tearing down the walls of this garden of woo.

Come join us.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical sensitivity

Minor fracas over at Electrical sensitivity (talk). The page is now temporarily protected, but it would be nice to have on the talk page some more editors experienced with due weight. At least one of the editors there has been pushing non-mainstream theories in a number of electricity and health related articles, and I am not going to be around this weekend if the page protection just pushes the assertions to a different article. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me here. I'd welcome as much input to the talk page as possible over the next few days. Let's improve this article together! --CaneryMBurns (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much detail is appropriate in articles concerning fringe theories?

I'm involved in editing an article in which a conspiracy theory plays a large part. Another editor is proposing to expand the article to cover a wide range of issues that have been raised by the conspiracy theorists. Given that the article is not specifically about the conspiracy theory, how much detailed exposition is appropriate in cases such as this? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor insisting a self-published book not mentioned in scholarly sources 'trumps' a book praised by other scholars

This is Walam Olum again. I don't know what to do about this editor, who (here and in other articles) misinterpets NPOV (which he is now claiming applies to a book), 'reliable sources', 'verifiability (which he thinks means if he disagrees with a statement in a book it must be verified by some other source), etc. Since Oestreicher showed that the Walam Olum is a hoax in 1994, a large number of scholars have published books and articles agreeing with him and quite a lot of work shows no one disagreeing with him. Take a look at the talk page and the edit history of the article. Despite calling me and the author NPOV, in fact he is preventing the article from being NPOV and insists that a space reporter's self-published book not cited in scholarly sources somehow 'trumps' anything else. (There's also another argument in that Oestreicher says an author named Joe Napora changed his mind, and Marburg72 claims I've misinterpreted what is a very clear statement but again refuses to explain). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, self-published sources not from an expert in the field are not reliable sources. This user is problematic, and that page appears to be compromised by weasel words, despite a valiant attempt to describe the evolution of a hoax in an encyclopedic manner. --Haemo (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)