Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Have a look at the discussion page for history of the problems. Problem started with the question, whether a separate article is usefull at, as the term Zero-point field isn't nearly unused in physics (there's zero-point energy, vacuum energy and vacuum expectation value. But the most recent problem is the handling of B.G. Sidharth's theories, see the diffs. --Pjacobi 23:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a debacle over largely anonymous claims that this Italian family descends from the Julii, the family of Julius Caesar. The page was protected and radically scaled-down to remove the elaborate hoax. Now there's some attrition warfare on the talk page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this version is one massive exercise in puffery. It's a virtual NPOV-free zone. Will have a look at talk. Moreschi ^Talk 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, now much improved.DGG (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

an anon editor, now Winai Zhaa (talk · contribs), has secret knowledge of unpublished versions of the text and wants to impress on us that our discussion of the published versions are "misinforming the public". dab (𒁳) 09:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

A possible nut, but maybe with some interesting stuff to add to the various ancient text articles? But needs to host the original research somewhere it can be looked at by others, for sure. Good Luck! --Rocksanddirt 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed with Dbachmann and Rocksanddirt. Hardly encyclopedic material at the moment, this is very minority stuff. Moreschi ^Talk 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A minority of one (unpublished wikipedia editor) is minority indeed! Abecedare 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether recent edits to Vedanga Jyotisha by Winai Zhaa (talk · contribs) qualify as fringe, or only POV OR. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject, take a look. Abecedare 09:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha is a textbook case of WP:FRINGE. As long as he doesn't comply with WP:CITE and at least cites something, he should just be rolled back. dab (𒁳) 10:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I just saw what he did to Vedanga Jyotisha now. This user is impermeable to friendly explanations. Somebody should adopt him and hold his hand while he edits, or we'll need to impose a community ban, but things cannot continue like this. He does have some knowledge on the topic to be sure, but he seems to have no inkling of what we mean by NOR or NPOV (not to mention wikification or encyclopedic style, but let that pass), even after he was pointed to the relevant pages repeatedly. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why it happens that each time people start discussing Shakespeare, the discussion ends up by being hijacked by those folks who believe the plays were written by Marlowe, Bacon, Queen Elizabeth, etc.? The fate of humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare is instructive in this respect. To quote Bishonen's summary of the situation in Wikipedia: "Smatprt seems to be a tireless pest at William Shakespeare, where he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible. His intentions are no doubt good, but his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome".[1] Although the issue is not urgent, this activity is disturbing and needs to be investigated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I was not trying to make the case, I was trying to make sure all mention of the topic wasn't deleted from the page, or as one administrator called it "whitewashing the authorship issue". The problem with Bishonen (mentioned above) and a few complaining editors, is that he would like to see the topic censored from the page in whole, as well as the topic itself banished from Wikipedia. That is what I am trying to make sure does not happenSmatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

since there is a full article dedicated to this, there is really no excuse to refer to this by more than a brief sentence in the main William Shakespeare article. dab (𒁳) 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly what is on the main article page. The longer sections were deleted long ago. The problem is the editors from the WS page are now trying to delete properly sourced material from the Authorship page. Felsommerfeld, for example, has added absolutely nothing to the page, but has attempted mass deletions of referenced material at least 7 times. Smatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a complaint about Smatprt's violations here on the Administrator's Noticeboard with contributions from many aggrieved editors. [[2]] (Felsommerfeld 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

It should be noted that this complaint appeared after I filed an administrative incident report [3] against Felsommerfeld for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the mainstream editors of the Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: [4] and here: [5]. Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: [6] and here: [7] and here: [8] Thanks for considering this info. Smatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

let's not duplicate the debate here. The issue is getting attention, so this noticeboard has fulfilled its purpose. dab (𒁳) 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

please note:

• don't duplicate debates here. use this noticeboard to point us to the debate (usually the article's talkpage)
• Shakespearean authorship question is a fringe topic. there's nothing wrong with debating fringe theories in articles dedicated to fringe theories. The problem with Smatprt seems to be that he prefers one flavour of fringe over another, that's a matter of WP:OWN, not WP:FRINGE (since the entire article is fringy). dab (𒁳) 07:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Allais effect. —Steven G. Johnson 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well....the talk page has a bunch of random stuff. The article is just OK. Other than Allais himself, no one seems to have a crack pot theory for the observations, only poor expirementation. Maybe try to focus the article on either more broadly on the whole idea of gravitational/eclipse related anomolies or more tightly on just Allais? Perhaps also remind editors of be careful of WP:COI. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article either. Why does it have all these tags? Don't slap tags on articles without making clear what the problem is. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you read the comments in the last section of the talk page? The article's summary of the literature is grossly misleading. (In one case stating the exact opposite of what the published papers conclude.) —Steven G. Johnson 14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

scientific fact: Amazons were Turks! "you can watch sometimes PBS about this research and accept the Chinese history records". The situation seems under control so far, but chime in if you like. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't going to be long before the Pan-Turanian mystic nationalists made their first appearance here. --Folantin 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

where have you been the past year? Just look at the history of Scythians or Turkic alphabets. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By "here", I meant this noticeboard. --Folantin 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Two proponents of technical analysis are POV-pushing and tag-teaming removing NPOV tags such that a single editor cannot hope to achieve balance on the page. THF 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I gladly welcome the involvement of an administrator regarding the Technical analysis article and talk page. THF has made no specific suggestions or edits, nor has he challenged the article's references. Numerous other reliable sources were offered on the talk page in reply to his NPOV tags; the evidence there will speak for itself. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article seems mostly OK. The problem with these types of finnancial analyses is that they consciously leave out variables that one knows one should evaluate to make the best decisions. An article that is phrased positively, while still conveying the fact that there is substantial valid critisism of it doesn't seem to violate the WP:NPOV as harshly as indicated on the talk page by THF. That said, I'm sure individual sections could be cleaned up and made tighter and reduce POV. I would caution all editors to be careful of WP:OWN and WP:COI both in edits to the article and discussions on the talk page. And figure out a way to archive some of the talk page, it's enormous. --Rocksanddirt 23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rocksanddirt. This is a topic with which I have some passing familiarity but no personal stake (I'm not a financial advisor, etc). After reviewing the article's talk page, if anything it is THF who is engaging in the POV-pushing that he accuses others of doing. Technical analysis has both well-reputed adherents and well-reputed skeptics. Although the article could use a bit of polishing, on the whole it reflects both sides well. Raymond Arritt 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A purported perpetual motion machine. A cursory read of the articel makes it sound as though someone's trying to give possibility of actual use (IE. Violation of some principle of physics) under the guise of NPOV. Can't tell for sure though. 68.39.174.238 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Page was garbage, and it was a recreation which has been deleted twice before (first by the famous RickK in 2005). I speedy deleted it for this reason. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cell. Also see the German wikipedia which deleted the same topic a month ago as a fraud.[9] Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

78.62.22.250 (talk · contribs) goes around articles on Indo-European languages, touting the Paleolithic Continuity Theory as the latest scientific breakthrough. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have every reason to think this is a sock of the permabanned User:Ttturbo. The edit history of Red Army is revealing. One of Ttturbo's earliest edits in Wikipedia was this one. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is him, I have blocked the IP for 1 month Alex Bakharev 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A user has started debate based on his interpretation of Bible Verse. Essentially, the editor argue that "Amen" is actually a reference to "[Amon-Ra]]" (Egyptian Sun God). He has provided no evidence other than his interpretation, and started an RFC on the matter. Pats Sox Princess 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A clear case of fringe original research. Best just to ignore this editor. By the looks of things he or she has yet to change the article itself. --Folantin 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the RFC be de-listed then? Pats Sox Princess 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and de-listed them myself. Let the guy sue me if he wants. Pats Sox Princess 06:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's worth wasting anybody's time on this. --Folantin 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone with a proper academic background please take a look at this article. During the last few days it has been the subject of a whitewash that introduced a bunch of details from Red Rain studies. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a serious case. Panspermia is not all-out crackpottery, but clearly fringe science which mostly appeals to occultists and New Agers. The article needs serious work towards making this clear. de:Panspermie has a solid account. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Doyee5 (talk · contribs) also added the "Protoi-Domain hypothesis" to the Red rain in Kerala article once the article Proto-Domain seemed to be heading for deletion (see AFD). Most of the content is sourced to this arxiv preprint, which was submitted in 2003. Is it safe to assume that if it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal for in four years, it should not be treated as a credible scientific source on wikipedia ? Abecedare 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact a published paper in 2006 in "Astrophysics and Space Science abstract, though it is not quite the same. This is a perfectly reputable peer-reviewed journal. for a comment on it see New Scientist, where the editor of the journal goes to an extraordinary degree of distancing himself from it, saying in effect that it was accepted by his coeditor, who has since died. Note that I think the hypothesis is total nonsense, but this is a major mainstream journal. It is anyway not unusual in astrophysics and physics for speculative or even substantial papers to be deposited in arxiv and not further published--some very major work in mathematics for example, has been published that way. Between Springer & New Scientist I dont think it can be omitted as irresponsible or minute fringe. (I commented in the deletion discussion that there is after all the precedent of prions, which do not contain nucleic acid. Frankly, I didnt believe in them either for years, but the Nobel Prize committee disagreed with me.) DGG (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links DGG! I'll read the papers and try to incorporate their content into the Red rain of Kerala article. 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "fifth Veda"? Are efforts to cover up the existence of the Fifth Veda part of a sinister conspiracy? You be the judge. Buddhipriya 04:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is the Pranava Veda that is hidden like the formulas for constructing the atomic bomb. Also as explained in this edit summary, "Pranava Veda is a seperate Veda that's passed on for generations and is only alive among very few and they will not share the same. So the Veda was never known...." Abecedare 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the procedure to construct an atomic bomb is well known. You could build a workable gun device using common machine tools. Getting the fissile material is the hard part. (Sorry for the pedantry; just couldn't help myself.) Raymond Arritt 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic...Yes, the bomb is one of those hidden in plain sight kind of esoteric secrets. It is learned in lower division university physics, but still it is a secret. Perhaps that is what the originator of the statement ment? --Rocksanddirt 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

no, there is no "fifth Veda" in any meaninful sense. Delete on sight. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget a fifth veda, there isnt even a 'fourth' veda, technically. According to one school of thought, the Atharva/Aatharvana veda is only what Atharva Rishi put together from the the other three Vedas. Sarvagnya 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic seems to be resolved now? The item is mentioned in the article, and some discussion on the talk page about ways to clarify the nature/depth of the 5th veda fringe. --Rocksanddirt 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I created Fifth Veda. I must admit, I was not aware that already the Chandogya Upanishad had such a reference. dab (𒁳) 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Panchama Veda is fine. It surely does exist as a concept, but the idea of a canonical 5th veda (which is what the Pranava Veda seems to claim) is still fringe, if not a hoax. So you need not actually strike off your prev comment. Sarvagnya 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, I could have inserted "canonical". But then the Bhakti movement has its own canon. It's simply an unrelated topic, a body of literature written 2000 years later than the Vedas proper. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ralphyde, seems to be editing the RSI page to include information about a one Dr. John E. Sarno, who has a book. He cites the book as evidence of the doctor's work. I don't believe his intentions are bad, he claims the book helped his wife, but it is a fringe theory, without much mainstream evidence.

I think the idea of Tension myositis syndrome is an ideal example of a fringe theory and it's impact on the Repetitive Strain Injury page should therefore be reduced from what it is now. As a side note, people have been working hard lately to reduce the lack of NPOV to the John E. Sarno page, and it's kinda interesting to see the debate there. Kaddar 01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into details, Sarno is Director of the Outpatient Department at the Rusk Institute at NYU, which is as central an establishment position as there is. He may or may not be right in this, but there is no way he can be dismissed as "one Dr. Sarno, who has written a book." (I've no particular editing involvement or concern here, just pointing this out for any who may not realize, as the previous comment seemed to imply otherwise.) DGG (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Complicated one, since Sarno himself is notable and the tension-myositis syndrome probably is as well. I'll just say that tension myositis syndrome is chock full of unencyclopedic material, WP:OR, and WP:SYN (e.g. "TMS, rather, is a distraction pain syndrome of sorts, a very painful strategy for staying sane in a crazy-making world.") As to mainstream evidence, there is basically nothing on MEDLINE for "tension myositis syndrome" (I didn't try other combinations). MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, User: Bremskraft has been quite active in their campaign to discredit articles that don't meet some personal level of social consciousness or at least it certainly seems that way. As a member of the Discrimination WP project I first came into contact reverting edits to our template and then (perhaps foolishly) helping user see that the articles in question needed improvement not the template. I'm posting on this board for assistance or advice as to what makes sense. This user has apparently also taken an aggressive and non-cooperative approach on other articles so my hope is to see them gently veered back into the community spirit as I do feel their insight and editing could be of use but right now is borderline abusive. My talk page comments as well as another editors were simply deleted [10] and my biggest concern presently is 1. Where to start cleaning up the tag riddled article Masculism and 2. how to encourage this potentially valuable editor to be more constructive than tag-happy? All help appreciated. Benjiboi 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cringe! I agree in spirit with the taggers but the execution is horrible. Someone with more patience than I needs to take a look. ←Ben^B4

I've done some clean-up but would still appreciate other eyes on this. Benjiboi 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is actually wider than just Masculism. she did a similar thing at Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [11]which - which was correctly reverted by User:Sdedeo [12]. She was also editorializing in Christina Hoff Sommers - when I reverted explaining that her edit was not neutral, she simply reverted me [13]. Bremskraft has made some positive edits but I too am concerned there's an agenda here. I also agree with Benjiboi's assessment of her manner (see Talk:Feminism#Counter_Movements_.2F_Men.27s_Rights)--Cailil ^talk 00:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

exported from Swastika, apparently in a cleanup effort at the main article, and since then graced with an "OR" tag. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... the article contains a large list of references... the problem is that we don't have inline citations to show which statements go with which sources... and what might be OR or not. A clean up of this is clearly needed. The extent of the references makes me think that it probably does qualify for an article under WP:FRINGE ... It is at least noted by the mainstream. But until we know which parts go with which sources we can not know for sure. Blueboar 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this a copy-and-paste extraction from Swastika, meaning that we don't have any way to reach the original editors? (Doh!) I'm seeing plenty of in-text un-linked citations, in square brackets. ←Ben^B4 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Crap, it's a big copyvio. http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html and http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/sw/swpi.html ←Ben^B4 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it needs to be deleted, and a warning posted, without delay. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the infringing portions. There's no way to figure out a warning without searching through Swastika's history before the cut-and-paste. Don't worry about the images as they are all ancient stuff long out of copyright. ←Ben^B4 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it turns out that the author of the apparent violations was the one who inserted them, and he has agreed to place a copyright release on the source page. As for the fringe theory content, I can't agree that there is any because the archaeological images displayed on the page and author's source text clearly show swastikas. ←Ben^B4 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, sorry -- the author of this is the author of that website (WP:COI). I am not disputing the validity of the article topic itself: After all, even Carl Sagan has suggested it, and Sagan is about as emphatically anti-fringe as you can be. The point is that the author of this website more or less uses Wikipedia as a mirror. His theory is completely fringy, or for purposes of Wikipedia, WP:SYN. Of course there are archaeological artefacts displaying swastika motifs. But the claim that this has anything to do with coments, and with bird feet, is completely pulled out of thin air. If Korbes' ideas are supposed to be repeated in WP's voice, there would need to be academic reviews of his book. dab (𒁳) 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been adding material to feminism related pages. Their additions claim that feminists are nazis and that profeminist men are like KKK auxiliaries.[14] [15] [16] The material itself is unsourced original research. This user has avoided detection because of their infrequent use of wikipedia - they have made aprox 150 of these edits since August 2006. They were warned for breaches of NPOV with a level 4 template in april 07[17] and I warned them again last night (Auguest 4th 2007). I put a post at WP:AN when they made edits back in July but it got no attention [18]. A full report page is here detailing the history and extent of this problem - has anyone any further advice on what to do?--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here. Blatant WP:OR should just be reverted. The discussion about "fringiness" begins only once sources are cited. dab (𒁳) 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to look anyway--Cailil ^talk 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it notable enough to have an article? Chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). GRBerry 12:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

it seems to me that it is one of those fringe economic/sociology theories that we ought to include, sure it's mostly crap, but most things are until we decide they are the way the world works. see Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. --Rocksanddirt 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Discussion ought to be centralized in the AFD, which was the point of the second sentence. GRBerry 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did give my two cents over there as well....just wanted to make a note here so you wern't ignored. --Rocksanddirt 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sure, commenting here for the benefit of others watching this noticeboard is appreciated. It's just the actual debate (say, with people advocating the theory) that should take place on the article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Socionomics#improper_synthesis - Is it improper synthesis and WP:OR to cite Freud, Mackay, and others who wrote decades before "socionomics" was created in the article? THF 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article does not cite a third party that makes these connections... I would say "yes, it is SYN and OR" (and have said it at the AfD) Blueboar 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article are not a reason to delete. Fix the OR, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Rocksanddirt 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well... it can be a factor along with other issues... and since it is already up at AfD, that is for AfD to determine. but I think we can agree that if it survives, then the Synth and OR do need to be fixed. Blueboar 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A recent discussion about a particular article (here) has raised an interesting question: when does listing of an atrocities committed during a given military operation (by one or both sides) cross the border between being relevant to the article and being unduly weighted, fringe skewing of the subject? The issue is particularly evident when mainstream sources, discussing the given military op, devote at best few % to those issues - but it my experience, on Wikipedia, the proportion is often higher, as certain editors list every grievance, no matter how tiny or how reliable its source, with the effect that an article ends up with close to half of its content devoted to listing such atrocities (in an attempt to show how "morally evil" a given side was). As one can see from this diff, the disputed edit adds several long paras to the article, increasing its size from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 words (20%). It repeats the claims of Soviet and Polish propaganda ("Soviet propaganda claimed that"... "The Poles denied that"...); uses foreign-language newspapers mentioning claims not found in mainstream literature, and dwells in detail on even such common wartime actions as building and brides destruction or (sic!) "cutting telegraph wires", portraying them as purposeful vandalism. It is my belief that such atrocities, committed by both sides, often alleged, and referenced with many dubious sources (diaries, newspapers), should be only shortly and in a neutral way described in the main article about the military op - particularly in this case, when a dedicated article (Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War) exists and can accept all content cut from the main article. Comments appreciated. PS. There is an AfD proposal to delete Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War and merge it into the main article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, taking a look. Block me if nothing more from me on this in the next 36 hours :) Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a recurring theme that leads to unnecessary detail and unbalanced articles. Trying to correct it often leads to confrontation. Sadly, it's often hard to tell whether such a resulting article is balanced or not -- maybe the other side didn't do anything similar; maybe they did. I recommend waiting a couple of weeks before trying to trim the excessive material. ←Ben^B4 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole issue of what constitutes a reliable source for "North-Eastern European" articles needs sorting out properly. Maybe it would cut down some of the interminable edit-warring and POV-pushing to which many of them seem subject. --Folantin 12:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha (talk · contribs) is giving grief to the editors at Talk:Precession (astronomy) again (c.f. #Surya_Siddhanta above). dab (𒁳) 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like Vinay Jha has at least a part of a point. Just because the editor comes across as something of a nutter, doesn't mean there's no value to the contribution. Evaluate the arguement and proposed text, not the editor. --Rocksanddirt 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

well, he has written a book which derives the orbital constants of invisible planets from the Surya Siddhanta. I do believe he knows this text intimately, but what are we going to do about this? There are certainly a few usable factoids in his lengthy posts, but it would be much more efficient to research these independently than to recover them from his presentation. dab (𒁳) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

not just that, but it seems that some of the other references referred to wern't his OR stuff. It seems that Vinay Jha is trying to learn how to do it, we should try to help is my point. --Rocksanddirt 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make a fuzz as long as the guy confines his activities to talk space. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

you are right, Vinay Jha is making good progress. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

nope. He's back to pages of rambling without a single source (except for those he "debunks"), now at Talk:Rigveda. Please help impressing the non-negotiability of WP:RS on this editor. He has also taken to "shopping for admins" at various talkpages, accusing me of "abuse" (by which he means, adherence to WP policy). dab (𒁳) 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's banned now, appearantly for legal threats. and I thought he'd been on the path to wiki-righteousness....oh well. --Rocksanddirt 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No specific concerns but it looks like it needs attention Nil Einne 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I added a ref from the Mayoclinic.com website ([19]). The sourcing, both pro and con, is pretty awful, but that's all that's out there. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really a question of keeping the original research to a minimum on both sides of the story. take a gander at the talk page for some lovely hyperbole as well. --Rocksanddirt 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of the giant table that correlates blood type with personality would go a long way, in my opinion. It gives me a headache and a feeling of despair for the future of mankind every time I see it. MastCell ^Talk 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't using "4" to mean "for" imply a 20 point reduction in presumed IQ? Raymond Arritt 03:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumed IQ of the target market, yes. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to take a look at this. It seems to be a fringe theory of questionable notability. It's also a bit spammish, seeing as how it prominently displays links to this one kooky-looking website. None of the other sources cited seem to have anything to do with this. Deranged bulbasaur 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

jesus, that's hopefully a speedy. If this has any notability at all, there could be a "pseudomathematics" article at Threshold Mathematics. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is completely a speedy. Very spammy essay. Moreschi ^Talk 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would someone mind looking at the at this edit and advise whether or not it involves pushing of fringe science by the Centre for Disease Control Atlanta (CDC) in their recently published findings (see citations and link), as editor Orangemarlin keeps reverting and stating here on 10th Aug and here on 16th Aug on this pretext and refuses to discuss further despite numerous requests to do so. Jagra 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like more of a case of getting just the important and referenced information into an already way to long and detailed article. Perhaps the whole thing would be better broken up into some smaller chunks with just the barest summary and a link to a full discussion of each portion of the article? Just a thought. --Rocksanddirt 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All agree too long, agree with your suggestion but no consensus on multiple pages yet, read. In the meantime important discoveries still need to be included and cited, so can only get on with edits, which ever page they end up on. So need opinion on CDC and fringe science accusation Jagra 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is published by the CDC, I think that fringe or not, it's verifiable enough to be included. It may need to be hightlighted as new, unproven theories or something like that, and one needs to be careful of trying to extend what the reports say to sythesize more information out them, but I think they are notable enough to include. --Rocksanddirt 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly published by the CDC, its written by a team of researchers at the CDC and published in a Pharmacogenomics a very good peer-reviewed journal. That would seem to count as a RS by any standard. the cocept that the CDC is fringe is exactly upside down--it essentially defines what is not fringe within its field.DGG (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rocksandirt and DGG, thats what I would have thought, if not before, then with CDC endorsment it is now mainstream, as an emerging science Jagra 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:House of Munsö. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The page on Facilitated communication seems to me to be in a very credulous state. --Wfaxon 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Except for no references in the introduction, seems like a well referenced (if a bit detailed) article. I find most theories and practices around people (especially children) with difficulties to have a large dose of unscientific work in them, but this article doesn't seem to have problems (no comment on the actual content) --Rocksanddirt 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Our regular Vinay Jha (talk · contribs) is at it again, this time at Indian astronomy, [20]. Could somebody look into it? I am tired of him. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Jeezus. That's astounding. --Rocksanddirt 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Left him a final warning to stop POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, he's not so bad now that he's trying to use sources, he just doesn't get that he should add them for other people as well, I think. In addition, he and dab have an inability to be civil to one another. To be fair, the first two paragraphs of that article wern't really written by him, and they are a full OR summary of the topic. I left him a reminder and some advice on just staying away from dab. --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What I object to with Vinay Jha, is that Dab has decided he's a complete quack and won't listen to any of his edits, concerns, or suggestions. He may have a differing view point than others here, but he's trying to back it up. I would like folks to quit reverting him out of hand, please. --Rocksanddirt 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

what can I say? He is a complete quack. Sorry to be blunt, but that's how it is. I'm not blindly reverting him, but de facto, all of his edits are untenable. Yes he is making an effort. That's what distinguishes a quack from a troll. As I said, I am tired of him. If you like, you can follow him around and clean up his edits: if you do that, there may be some salvageable material we can keep. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not going to. not only do I not know much about the subjects he's interested in, they put me to sleep. --Rocksanddirt 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, I've found a good edit of his:[21]. That's perfectly commendable: rejoice, VJ made a valid edit! the problem is still that his signal to noise ratio is at about one valid single-line edit per about 80k of cross-posted rambling and complaining on talkpages. Not exactly what we are looking for, but maybe he'll do another good edit next week. dab (𒁳) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyes also on Max Müller, please. I think the history is indicative. Hornplease 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's time to open a thread on WP:CSN. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

maybe not quite. I must admit he is improving. "Improving" in this case meaning: he has moved from "turning articles into surreal landscapes with a bulldozer" to "vitriolic grumbling about being misunderstood with the occasional pedantic but well-sourced edit". If he can keep it up, we won't need to pursue further action. dab (𒁳) 09:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I (and several others) have had a very long and bitter correspondence with 2 or 3 people who seem to have hijacked this page to promote their own glorious fantasies of Jat history which seem to be based on some notion that they are "pure Aryan" and are superior to other people. They will stoop at nothing to promote their supremacist points of view including personal abuse and vilification, outright lies, the use of pseudo-scientific "evidence", providing false "quotes" and "references", threats, etc., etc., etc. (Much of this sorry saga can be followed in the Talk pages and their archives if anyone is interested in checking it out) I have gradually managed to get rid of some of the most extreme and ridiculous claims but it seems to be impossible that we will ever get a balanced article on the Jat people unless something is done to curb the excesses of these fanatics. Anything any of you can do to help bring some sanity to this page would be most welcome John Hill 04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I don't have time right now to dive into it....but at the very least it should be cut into many articles and the summary page waaaaaaaaaaaaay shorter. No comment on the fringe stuff just yet, though there is a lot that is fringish sounding that may have decent sourcing. The disputed section though....off the top I'd say cut into it's own article. --Rocksanddirt 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

wow. obviously an article with an epic history of the same ilk as Rajput. No easy task. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord, what a mess. I had no idea this was going on. Thanks for letting us know. Rajput is a fair comparison, and I shudder when I recall that. Hornplease 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected the article for a week due to edit warring, blocked a single-purpose account created solely to edit-war - but this is not easy to sort out. What a mess! I'll continue to monitor for poor conduct, but there's not much I can do as regards the content. Moreschi ^Talk 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

we need as many eyes as possible on this article, and we'll need to slowly press the article into acceptable shape by clamping down on misbehaving parties and strictly enforcing policy. It's another "Indian issue", and I daresay we know the shape of these by now. dab (𒁳) 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a very determined editor pushing fringe theories about the Ebionites being directly related to the Essenes, John the Baptist, and religious vegetarianism. There is also an element of synthesis, imho, that goes beyond simply citing fringe sources. An RFC has been requested, but we are still waiting for someone to show up. Can you provide some perspective before we have a melt-down? The discussion Historical revisionism: Essenes and Christians, Religious vegetarianism redux, Essenism section is getting a bit over-heated. Ovadyah 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your comments at Requests for comment from Ft/N so they are not lost among the internal edit-warring. Thanks. Ovadyah 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites has been nominated for FAR. The factual accuracy of the Essenism section is disputed. Please help restore the article to feature quality. Ovadyah 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) is going around creating articles on UFOs and the Vedas. So far, Vaimanika Shastra and Shivkar Bapuji Talpade. I have fixed these, but I cannot spend more time babysitting this user: more eyeballs are needed. thanks, dab (𒁳) 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

UFOs? --Rocksanddirt 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vimanas. Powered by mercury vortex engines. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the current version of the pages doesn't present a fair picture of the fringiness of the content BalanceRestored is adding. Look at the original versions: Vaimanika Shastra and Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and the discussion on the respective talk pages, where BalanceRestored has challenged Dab to present "verifiable peer review" sources to justify his (i.e. Dab's) edits!

Oh, and BalanceRestored (who, self-admittedly, is a Physics graduate) added links to these pages on Vedic space-ships on Aerospace engineering and Aeronautics :-) Abecedare 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

he isn't a "self-admitted physics graduate", thankfully. He said he was a "physics student", so we are free to assume he's in his first and only semester :) dab (𒁳) 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalk him if you will, but please dont hound him. Clearly, some good has 'emerged' out of his fringe. Sarvagnya 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

if by "emerged" we mean "dab wrote it", then yes :o) dab (𒁳) 19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sufficiently advanced naivete is indistinguishable from trolling. rudra 05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I share Dbachmann's concerns that material added by BalanceRestored is not appropriate for a reliable encyclopaedia and should be speedily removed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did very badly in physics, but the topic of Vedic UFOs sounds quite engaging. I will have to take a look at this. Buddhipriya 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was directed here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am not sure that this is really the right place; the immediate problem is not so much fringe ideas in the main space, but disruption and personal remarks being made in the talk space.

JimJast (talk · contribs) is a long time editor, with an unusual perspective on physics. Jim claims to be simply following the theories of Einstein, and considers that his ideas have failed to be published because of a collective psychological block in the whole modern physics community, and that modern cosmology is riddled with pseudoscience. He is currently pursuing a PhD in physics at Warsaw University. Other physicists on Wikipedia believe that Jim's work is fatally flawed, and in complete conflict with relativity, Einstein, and all evidence. Jim confidently asserts that no-one has ever found an error in his work; others might say that Jim has never recognized the errors in his work.

Jim is repeatedly disruptive of the physics pages, with attempts to insert his ideas; apparently thinking they need no other citation than his own claims to be applying Einstein, or relativity. The annoyance is low-level, as Jim works alone. He is mostly pretty genial, but completely beyond any attempts at reason, as far as I can see.

The immediate issue for this report is personal remarks and irrelevant distractions in the talk page of Tired light, after one of Jim's edits in the main page was reverted. Jim's contribution was at 08:39, 24 August 2007; I reverted it four minutes later, at 08:43, 24 August 2007.

Jim has been warned of the inappropriateness of his subsequent personal remarks and disruption in the talk page by two, possibly three editors. See the exchange at Talk:Tired light#Are we under attack by theists?; warnings by Fram (talk · contribs) and Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) (me). Basis of the warning confirmed by RE (talk · contribs). I have also requested on Jim's talk page that he refrain from the personal speculations about me on the article talk page, and placed a warning that on-going disruption would mean I'd hand the problem over to someone else. That's what I'm doing now. See User_talk:JimJast#On irrelevant personal material in article talk pages + on Einstein's Tired Light. (The "Einstein's Tired light" is a characteristic addition by Jim, claiming that Einstein supports his particular Tired light notion.)

Viewing his contributions to the main namespace shows a long pattern of similar edits, on and off over the last three years, nearly always reverted fairly promptly by the next passing physicist. There has never been a major problem with fringe ideas in the main space; Jim is a loner. It's a long term thing. Jim used to mark almost all his edits "minor"; he seems to have given that up recently. Contributions in the Wikipedia space show the deletion of several articles he has written, and speedy redelete when he recreated. That was several months ago now. Reasoning with Jim is a bit like slamming a revolving door, so I am placing it here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: a passing editor has just removed the latest talk page continuation stuff that came after my request to stop, at 15:58, 27 August 2007. It's better this was done by a third party... thanks SCZenz. Others can look at this if they like, but the immediate problem is probably dealt with. I hope. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question would be is there any possiblity that his fringe realitivity could be notable enough for it's own article? or does it all seem to be just his own original research, and he's just losing patience with being (quite properly) reverted all the time? --Rocksanddirt 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there was any recognition of it at all in any reliable source, I'd have no objection. It might be quite interesting. Or screamingly funny. But as far as I know, Jim has no supporters for his ideas, and no publications other than his own web site. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

do you think there is any chance he'll understand the no original research goal of the encyclopedia? I hate not being able to help people get their wild ideas out there, but there has to be some thing there. *sigh* --Rocksanddirt 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A major part of his claim is that he is doing nothing except presenting Einstein's relativity. He consistently describes his additions as returning to Einsteinian gravity, or Einsteinian tired light, or something like that. His own user talk page currently presents a Short seminar on Einstein's physics for BB opponents (just a high school level). He describes any disagreement as being a refusal to listen to Einstein, or other famous physicists like Lev Landau and Richard Feynman. His edit comments often do the same thing.

That Landau and Feynman explicitly describe precisely the ideas he wants to dismiss as modern pseudoscience is not something he seems able to grasp. I've taken this up with Jim in my own user space, at User_talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests and warnings by different editors, JimJast continues to misuse Talk:Tired light as a page to discuss his ideas and complain about mainstream BigBang defenders and so on. He seems at first glance to have dropped the uncivility and mild personal attacks, but the main disruption continues[22]. Is it getting time for a topic ban or should we be a bit more patient? Fram 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be a bit more patient since when school starts around October 1, Jim won't have any more time to write and the whole problem disappears. You'll be back to your old dispute whether gravitation is attraction (mediated by gravitons, as BB folks think) or inertial force (resulting from metric of spacetime, as Einstein thought). And of course Einstein, being dead, loses.

In the meantime you may just revert whatever Jim writes, to discourage him from writing those silly and OR things about Einstein being right and BB folks and gravitons being wrong. Jim 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation WHINSEC/WHISC/SOA/'school of assasins', etc....

There is an ongoing edit war between wikipedians and original researchers at this article, to put it as neutrally as possible. One of the parties involved has a conflict of interest and has stated an intent to "start a war" (quote) over the article.

The article has a lot of editing traffic and is apparently controversial enough for the US Army to pay people to edit as there have been edits traced to FT Benning. 67.49.8.228 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

doesn't seem to be a question of WP:FRINGE, just of WP:V and WP:NPOV. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Pedophilia over how to characterize studies which dispute the mainstream position that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Fireplace 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

seeing that pais means "boy", and discounting female pedophiles as near non-existent, It is rather obvious that pedophilia is in fact a subset of homosexuality. I fail to see how it can be "mainstream" to say that this qualifies as "no link". Attraction to pre-pubescent females is properly known as corophilia, but the term appears to be avoided in English because it is too close to coprophilia, and terms like "Lolita syndrome" are preferred instead. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

whoah, looking at Talk:Pedophilia#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia it transpires that MoritzB is the one citing academic publications, such as [23], and is reverted on no other grounds that the studies he quotes are denounced as "anti-gay pov-pushing". It doesn't work like that. If MoritzB quotes studies to the effect that "the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles [than among non-pedophiles]", you are to cite other studies that say it isn't so, and not remove his references as "anti-gay". WP isn't a lobbying platform, neither pro nor anti-gay. If studies find that pedophilia tends to imply homosexuality, we will quote them, without of course making the fallacious inversion that homosexuality tends to imply pedophilia. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you are saying that "pedophillia" refers to an attraction to boys but not girls? I always thought it was used for both. Could that confusion (in the statistics) be part of the problem? ←Ben^B4 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

παις can be either gender in Classical Greek. "Paedophilia" in English is commonly used for sexual attraction to children, both boys and girls. --Folantin 11:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I withdraw that. It was beside the point anyway. The discussion on talk is about whether to include a study on the preference of boys vs. girls among child molesters. It is one thing to cite such studies. It is quite another (WP:SYN) to conclude form this stuff like "all gays are potential child molesters". The way forward is to present such studies neutrally and in context. As it happens, there appears to be an "anti-anti-gay" patrol (with good reason, too, for all I can tell), which perceive the mere mention of such studies as "attempted gay bashing". They should remove the spin, but removing the entire discussion is throwing out the child with the bath water (so to speak). dab (𒁳) 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your say, dab. One thing - why is the information relevant to pedophilia but not to homosexuality? I tried to help it stay in homosexuality but it was consistently wiped out based upon the spurious claim that it is 'fringe' or 'get consensus' mob-behavior. Mentioning the correlation isn't exactly 'fringe' - perhaps certain users are drawing their own conclusions from what they see, and don't like it, so remove the studied correlation itself as fringe. I tried to balance it based upon their concerns, but eventually it was taken out by people who misinterpreted it as 'gay-bashing', and I don't feel like edit warring. This is unfortunate, as this issue is probably one that our readers would like to see clarified in the Wikipedia article, in case they heard the common rumors linking homosexuality to pedophilia. The Behnam 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that should be noted here is that MoritzB is not the only user who's cited sources: see Talk:Pedophilia#Mainstream_scientific_view_on_supposed_link_between_homosexuality_and_pedophilia. That section notes that several experts have criticized Blanchard's study (that's MoritzB's source). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

right. If Blanchard has been criticised, why cannot people just cite the criticism? Is the Blanchard study really "fringe"? I'm no expert, but I see no evidence of that. All that Blanchard's study says is that a certain fraction of pedophiles prefer boys, and that this fraction is higher than the average percentage of gays in society. That's it. Now this can be abused for anti-gay progaganda, and we don't want that, but it is not, in itself, anti-gay. This also answers Behnam: this is a study on pedophiles, not on homosexuals. MoritzB quoted other studies that say incidence of pedophilia is about twice as high among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. I don't know if the study is reliable, because the "anti-anti-gay vigilance" on Wikipedia have campaigned to remove the reference rather than citing criticism. Now look, it is still true in any case that "no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults". Why? Because only 10% of child molesters are also homosexuals. From the pov of the victim, your chances are 90% that your molester is a hetero. Since there are only about 5% homosexuals in society at large, that might calculate to a 100% higher incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals. See what you can do with statistics? "no evidence that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals" and "homosexuals are twice as likely to be child molesters" are both true statements according to these statistics, they are just given different spins. The anti-anti-gay brigade would do well to combat the spin, and not bona fide discussion of academic studies. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As discussed on that article's talk page, the Kievan Expedition of 1018 is mentioned in various academic works. It appears that a 1900s Russian encyclopedia and 1999 Russian book make a claim that doesn't seem to be repeated in any other sources (that the Kievan population rose against the Polish garrison). Are those two sources enough to warrant a mention of that in the article? Or would they be too fringe/undue weight to justify such a mention? Please consider crossposting your replies to talk section linked above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of the claim. extrodinary claims need extrordinary references. --Rocksanddirt 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim is simple: that there was some uprising. I do believe its an extraordinary claim, and as such needs something more then obsolete encyclopedia and one foreign language book.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As the original author of the page, I assure you that this issue has nothing to do with fringe theories. There are serious POV-concerns, but they don't belong to this noticeboard. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As the author of the version featuring reliable inline citations, I do think that more comments from neutral editors on the issue would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know enough of your editing practices and "reliable inline citations" to refrain from meddling with pages that read like propagandist leaflets. "Neutral editors" may familiarize themselves with Piotr's idea of reliable sources by reading this section. It provides important insights into the situation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus. This board is for crackpot stuff, not to solve the article's POV problems referenced to academic sources you happen to not like. --Irpen 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1900s encyclopedia an a book by an unknown author and publisher (you still have not provided us with any details on them) is not academic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not place the fact or non-fact of a historical uprising under the heading of "Fringe" theory. And I certainly don't believe it rises to the extraordinary level. That said, it does sound like the source being discussed is on the lesser end of the reliability scale. If the majority of standard works on the history of Kiev do not mention the uprising, I am not sure it really merrits inclusion. Blueboar 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, how sure are you it is not mentioned elsewhere? Is there any academic discussion? Do those two works cite any actual primary source? Secondary works uninformed by sources are not as reliable as those that are. DGG (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a protracted dispute with Ludovicapipa over OR and SYN on multiple pages (Fernando Collor de Mello, Zélia Cardoso de Mello and Plano Collor) over the benefits of an economic plan in Brazil in the early 90s called "Plano Collor". This plan, which attempted to combat hyperinflation, is generally regarded as a failure (easily backed up quantitatively by looking at the inflation rates here--The plan began in 1990, and as the inflation rates show, hyperinflation initially dropped only to come back until the next plan, (Plano Real), killed inflation on its inception in 1994).

Ludovica has admitted that she is trying to paint a positive picture of Collor's administration (here- "Meu "goal" é mostrar que o legado dele é altamente positivo. ", "My goal is to show his legacy is highly positive") and that her position is in the minority, if not outright fringe (same link, "centenas de outros links só falam mal dele" - "hundreds of other links only speak ill of him"). If one looks at the articles in question (including Fernando Collor de Mello which is fully-protected), one's quick to notice it's an NPOV/WP:PEACOCK nightmare.

She has also used sources selectively: quoting Bresser Pereira (former finance minister in the government prior to Collor) saying that Collor's reforms were "brave", when Bresser himself wrote an entire paper saying how the Plano Collor was doomed to failure before it even began (here).

original research includes the use of selected or misleading information from the references, remove and discuss. I the user is the problem, then some of the other disupute remedies are likely to be needed. one can be positive about the collor administration, while still being truthful. He tried, it didnt' work that's more than other leaders in south america have done.

 --Rocksanddirt 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One example: in Plano Collor, she constantly revert edits which remove the reference to "end of hyperinflation", though the inflation indicators clearly contradict that.

So, the issue at hand is: How to incorporate her POV into the article without turning it into a propaganda piece. The slippery slope is: Should we focus on facts, or incorporate opinion? If the latter is the answer, I'm afraid these articles will turn into an infinite "he-said, she-said", where it'll one be one "According to Professor X, but according to Professor Y" after another. Personally, I'm a big believer in "show, don't tell", so I'd rather scrub the articles down for NPOV and remove all opinion.

(Note: Just for some context on the user in question, Ludovicapipa has already been blocked for 1 year in the Portuguese Wikipedia under the username "Filomeninha" for personal attacks. She has tried to add the same content to the EN wikipedia as she did there. And she has already engaged in a prolonged OR/SYN dispute with me on 1964 Brazilian coup d'état which she withdrew from. I don't know at which point this becomes an administrative issue, but I'm still trying to deal with it editorially (?).)--Dali-Llama 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no words to comment this. You are bringing issues from another WP to this one. I didn´t withdraw from "1964" article I finished my contributions, since you rewrote the whole artcile. You deleted all my PREVIOUS EDITIONS, not only mine but the other editor as well, Ptah. As I also said all latin aamercian coups happened BECAUSE of a communist threat (Cuba, China, Soviet Union which set going guerillas in latin america). You found hundreds of problems with two small citatiosn I provided and left it in the end of the text, only translated and don´t allow me to write a paragrapgh --because everytime I write a paragrapgh you say Iam trying to draw a conclusion. And you don´t prove this whatsoever.Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, you´re saying that I have to respond whithin 24 hours otherwise you will block accordign to some rule 3rr. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand wikipedia. Read WP:3RR--Dali-Llama 15:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

His justification is that I didn´t provide a justification to revert Zelia!!! Good God, This page Iam writing on, wasn´t the place where all citations were made?? Didn´t I cite PND, Plan Collor, didn´t you agree? Ludovicapipa ^yes? 11:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don´t you also say wht you´ve just wrote on the talk page: you said Plano Collor is one thing and PND (Plano Nacional de Desetatização) is another thing. Well, this link says quite the contrary: it says PND is a part, one the most important steps to make Plna Collor work! You deleted, reverted and justified all this trying to make Plano Collor differ from PND --when PND is part of Plano Collor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plano_Collor#.27.27.27YOU_LOOSE_AGAIN.27.27.27.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided two different sources, peer-reviewed academic papers (here and here), including one by a former minister of finance, that clearly state that the historical understanding of the Collor Plan is that of being a fiscal-monetary component of a larger package of reforms. You cited a random website written for schoolchildren. Which source do you trust more? In any case, I'd like the community's perspective on Ludovica's general POV goal. (and this not a competition where one "wins" and "loses"--which I'm sure others here will agree with).--Dali-Llama 18:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It´s NOT (not at all!!) written by children --it´s one of the most trusted sources whithin the portuguese language. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it was written for children, not by children. I'll let the other editors decide which is more reliable.--Dali-Llama 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See this? it´s LAW, PND was a prt, major STEP of Plna Collor (see the top of the page)

http://www.soleis.adv.br/desindexacaocollor.htm

When PND started whthin the Plan Collor. Yr link provides an almost academic study that try to offer a new view of Plan Collor. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"PND --The BEAM of Plan Collor" (read the citation)

Is this written for children???

http://www.cpdoc.fgv.br/dhbb/verbetes_htm/1418_2.asp

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Citation

Ainda em outubro, o governo deu início à execução do Programa Nacional de Desestatização, com a privatização da Usiminas. A política :de privatização, um dos pilares do Plano Collor, fora objeto de contestações desde o seu anúncio. Na comemoração do Dia do Trabalho :realizada em 1º de maio de 1990, em Volta Redonda (RJ), entidades sindicais e representantes de partidos de oposição (PDT, PT, PCB, :Partido Socialista Brasileiro - PSB) haviam protestado contra a recessão, o desemprego e a intenção do governo de vender a Companhia :Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN), sediada naquela cidade.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, since we might have two contradicting sources. But this seems like generally minor issue when I'm trying to address your overall POV.--Dali-Llama 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This source from "CPDOC.FGV.BR" is written for children? Well, then one of Brazil´s MOST TRUSTED AND RESPECT UNIVERSITIES OF ALL TIMES...You used this source on "1964 Brazilian coup" article. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you´re RIGHT! Iam trying to edit all these articles providing trusted and renowned sources (hundreds of them). THe source you provided above and yr "dialogue" shows how far you are from yr own goal. The link is not written for children. Collor was reelected to Senate (winning against the one you cited he lost from years before, so now he won from him(Lessa) and you didn´t mention it!); "communist threat" is not a "historical context" on "1964 Brazilian coup" article (it´s the reason (locally and around the world) for all latin american coups and you diminished the importance of it on the article setting it aside, on the end); whithn a few minutes you revert, delete, witut discuss, ask...

My GOAL is to provide trusted sources and history, and facts. That´s my goal. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the goal you had here. And when you tried to push that goal on the PT wikipedia and got rejected, you resorted to personal attacks (as you did here) and were blocked.--Dali-Llama 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This thread is more an ordinary content dispute or NPOV issue than a fringe theory as such. As such it belongs on the article talk pages or maybe WP:ANI. Raymond Arritt 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The sourced information keeps getting way out of hand. Take the first footnote which appears to be used through the entire article. I think there are to many assumptions happening here which aren't elaborated within any article. Apparently the fuel cell is now a machine of perpetual motion? Could someone please help find a proper source for this? I've read through the patents and they appear to contradict most of the information which is not properly sourced throughout this article. --FR Soliloquy 06:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A second or third source, or even the transcript of the trial would be helpful. The description of what is the Myer Water Fuel Cell is (as described in the article) falls under the definition of a perpetual motion/free energy machine. As such, only the controversy surrounding it is notable enough for a wikipedia entry, the remainder should be redirected to the perpetual motion machine page. --Rocksanddirt 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see the relevant source that says this is a perpetual motion machine? Can you or someone perhaps point me to a relevant or notable source? Otherwise, I will have to assume that it's some sort of quak theory someone is adding! Thank you? --FR Soliloquy 08:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The first source (Sunday Times article repost) notes that Meyer claimed the car could run forever without adding "fuel," since it generated enough power to recharge its own batteries. That's a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. --Reuben 01:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The current page on ESP states that: "The scientific field which investigates psi phenomena such as ESP is called parapsychology". Is that true? Is parapsychology a scientific field? The creator not only insists it is, but that some kind of arbitartion has happened and it was decided he was right. The article further insists that ESP hasn't been measured by science. But if parapsychology is a science, hasn't it measured it? Further the page says The term implies sources of information currently unexplained by science. Doesn't this imply that ESP exists and that it has not yet been discovered by science? Isn't that chrystal ball gazing? The page is very unbalanced - but the guy who seems to be in charge doesn't quite see the world in the same way as most. How do you avoid edit wars without leaving completely unsubstantiated claims on an information site? I see there have been many attempts to discuss creating a more balanced article in the discussion archives of this topic. But the most stubburn win in the end it seems. You only have to look at the quality of the page to see that. Anyone who read it would have to go away thinking that ESP has been scientifically proven. How do we deal with such stubbornness?

For example, this sort of stuff, in response to a request for evidence: "There is no controversy that there is evidence: the skeptics don't dispute that studies come out positive. It is whether the positive results really indicate psi that is in question. To say that there is evidence is not to say that there is proof. But no one questions whether evidence exists, only whether it is proof of psi. For example, note that skeptics often complain that the evidence is anecdotal. Well, if there weren't any evidence, they wouldn't be able to say this." I mean where do you start? And it's all like this. None of this or anything else that is argued is supported by any evidence. I'm not a scientist but it seems to me that you can't just make things up. And greet every reasonable objection or request for evidence as proof of you being shut down. They call sciencists small-minded for not accepting their theories, yet they call themselves scientists. I mean, what do the scientists out there say? Is parapsychology a science? How do we stop these zealots taking up so much time and space? I have read in the discussions many heroic efforts by editors dealing patiently and kindly with these people. But, one look at ESP - and you can see who's winning. Debbyo 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

well....anecdotal evidence can be just fine, but you have to be careful to separate the observation from the interpretation. Most geology (my field) is based on anecdotal evidence, really, we don't mostly see the magma cooling into granite for example. The larger issue with ecyclopedic articles is going to be reliable sources and original research. focus on those two items and you might make some headway, I'd give on the question of "science" v pseudoscience, because as a professional, it's all pseudoscience. --Rocksanddirt 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed using anecdotal evidence to support an analytical, interpretive, conclusionary or synthetic statement is a form of Original Research, and doing so violates WP:NOR... anecdotal evidence can be used, but should be used with extreme caution. Blueboar 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the key question is whether, if a RS reports someone's personal experience, can we use it as quoted by the RS, even though rationally speaking it hasn't the least evidentiary value? If we can, presumably every report of a flying saucer published in a mainstream book, or even cited adversely by a debunker, could be added to an article. DGG (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... under WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE we can... but under WP:NOR we can not make any interpretive, analytical or conclusionary statements from them. So, you can say: A farmer in East Nowheresville, Iowa claimed: "The aliens came down and asked me to take me to my leader... but I didn't know who my leader was!"<ref>Nutjob, I.M.A. PhD, Aliens in Iowa, reliable publishing co., New York, 2007</ref>... but you should not add something like: which proves the existance of UFOs. That would be OR. Blueboar 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can interested editors please take a look at this article, and specifically to the issue raised here and comment ? Abecedare 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

this article does indeed seem to require attention. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, left a comment suggesting that the salvageable content be merged to elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is an issue for this noticeboard or for WP:RSN. As the article about Slavic mythology makes clear, our limited knowledge of the subject is based on a handful of extracts from disparate medieval sources. This reality is out of sync with the nature of Slavic nationalism, which mandates the existence of an elaborate pantheon with a number of gods and goddesses on the par with Greek and Roman mythology. As a result, some deities (such as Lel or Lada) are added and removed from the fictitious pantheon as time wears on.

One such example is Berehynia, a Slavic water sprite whose existence was ignored in academia several decades ago. You may find the background in the appropriate section of Slavic fairies, which is based on Boris Rybakov's highly authoritative monograph on Slavic mythology. The Slavic neo-pagans have recently magnified this barely attested sprite into a great goddess, described in the Ukrainian Wikipedia as "Mother of All Life", "Goddess of Nature and Kindness", etc. (мати всього живого, первісне божество-захисник людини, богиня родючості, природи та добра). This interpretation has been recently reinforced by the erection of a Berehynia statue on the Independance Square in Kiev. This statue represents an idealized girl (in fact, the sculptor's daughter) symbolizing Ukraine and is a reference point for modern Ukrainian nationalism.

Perhaps not suprisingly, an editor from Ukrainian Wikipedia started to insert in the lead of the article claims that Berehynia was a "pagan goddess" rather than an obscure spirit.[24] When asked to substantiate this newly popular claim, he linked our page to a farrago of Ukrainian/Russian websites disconnected from anything resembling academia (one of them is actually based on the notion of Aratta as the urheimat of Ukrainians). When I attempted to remove this utterly confused fringecruft, he proceeded to revert warring and started to involve other Ukrainian editors into the conflict. [25] [26] [27] [28] I request the community to investigate the claims of neo-pagans and nationalists and protect the page from editing, if need be. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most constructive approach will be to step back from making any mention of nationalism and concentrate the discussion on finding reliable academic sources. Emphasis should be on Wikipedia principles, rather than the motivation of editors. I realise this may not be much help Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I would second the above request for community to get involved. I don't even believe this article belongs to this section, but as long as it does, I would welcome others to have a look. I presented several sources, from scientists, encyclopedias and research articles. Girla refused to acknowledge any of them, citing the name of one of the four (!) source called Arrata. It does not espouse any new paganist beliefs, there is no proof of that. And even if it did there are 3 more scientific sources, which he out of lack of imagination labelled "nationalist", even though there are English, Russian and Ukrainian language sources.

By copiously citing the Uk wiki article on the subject, he also failed to notice, that exactly the same information is reflected in the Russian wiki, where Ghirla is an active editor [29]. Indeed, there is a diversion of opinions on the subject, but instead of attempting to present it as such User:Ghirla engaged in sterile edit warring without even bothering to offer any other edits other than wholesale page reverts. This is the editor who was banned only last week for edit warring [30]. In my view this is not a matter of fringe theories but rather a bad case of WP:BATTLE, where the editor refuses to listen to anyone else but himself. I welcome other people to study this issue. --Hillock65 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. all this doesn't even enter the debate. The question is, are any academic sources cited making Berehynia a "Slavic goddess"? If not, just remove the claims as unsubstantiated, never mind the content of uk- and/or ru-wiki. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No one claimed either of encyclopedias as sources! Where is this claim coming from is beyond me. Here is the citation from the English language source of Valparaiso University, Indiana: "It also examines how a cult figure, known variously as the great goddess, domestic madonna, hearth mother and today as the nation's mother, and widely portrayed in the media as such, can be transformed into an instrument of women's subjugation." Let's not be hasty and make superficial conclusions. --Hillock65 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you are misunderstanding our comments. Dab and I both say that talking about what other wikipedias are doing is irrelevant to this article. Stick to the good sources you have, put inline references to page numbers in those sources (where applicable). Ghirlandjo has issues with sources sometimes, so be solid with your use of them. --Rocksanddirt 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I am still at a loss why the relevancy of other wiki was brought up in the first place. It has never been an issue. Other wikipedias are not sources per WP:V, period. I supplied all the sources, none of them to other wikipedias, and all of them from credible academic articles. I reflected the different views on the subject as cited in the references. --Hillock65 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. as I commented on the talk page, it seemed a good article to me, just in need of some inline referencing (footnotes) of the specifics. --Rocksanddirt 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is undisputed that Berehynia passes as "great goddess" etc. in Ukrainian nationalism today. This is a product of Romanticism. The point is that this isn't based on any older (medieval) tradition, and that the older references to Berehynias make them Vila-like fairy creatures. Then the national romanticists came along and turned Berehynia (now singular) into a "goddess". This is just a matter of getting chronology right, nobody wants to prevent Slavic neopagans from considering Berehynia a "Slavic goddess". The entire point is that we need to make clear that this is a modern invention. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like she was a minor water spirit who's been "promoted" in more recent times. --Folantin 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it "looks like" then please support it by valid sources as has been mentioned above. That includes statements of being a product of "Romanticism" and "neopaganism" as per WP:SOURCE. I will highlight it so it will be easier for some to understand: Which sources in particular support the above two claims. Please be specific. --Hillock65 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

you are turning the case on its head. It is you who claims that there is a hypothesis that B. was a pre-Christian Slavic goddess, hence it is your job to back this up by academic references. So far, all you have done is showing us 1990s neopagan references, consequently the article now states the idea originates in 1990s neopaganism. If you have academic references, put them on the table already. If not, I suggest you just drop this now. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes indeed!!! It is I who supported my claims by reference to a scientist from a Kyiv Mohyla Academy. I never mentioned she was connected to neo-pagans. It was you who added that! You! Please check who added the neopaganism claim here. How about doing me the same courtesy and supplying your claims of neopaganism with sources? And while you are at at it, how about some sources to support allegations of romantic nationalism as well. What is so unusual abut that request?! I am astounded that I have to repeat that request so many times. It is as simple as that you make the claim - support it by source. Period. Don't blame me for what i didn't do. --Hillock65 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lozko may well be a scientist, but since this is not a scientific topic, we are citing her in her capacity as neopagan leader, not as a chemist or geologist or whatever her field may be. Lozko happens to be the chairman of the main neopagan organization of the Ukraine, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL [31] You are perfectly aware of this, since, I take it, you read Ukrainian, and you presented Lozko's article as evidence. That's like presenting a papal bull and then acting outraged as people classify it as from the Roman Catholic viewpoint. Now please stop wasting my time with this. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize, I honestly didn't know she was the leader of neopagan organization in Ukraine. I don't live there, I only found her article. Well, since, sources support that I have nothing else to say. Again, my apologies. --Hillock65 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

no problem. If she has published the hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal, we will still quote her, regardless of whether she calls herself "supreme witch" in private. The problem is that so far, no such sources have been brought forward. dab (𒁳) 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

and I apologize for accusing you of bad faith. I readily accept that you were not aware of the context. dab (𒁳) 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My Ukrainian isn't too hot, to put it mildly, but from reading the Lozko page linked to at the bottom of the article, there isn't a lot about Berehynia in the primary sources from the Middle Ages and the name mostly appears there in the plural (Ім'я Берегині у формі множини згадується і в писемних христи­янських джерелах XI—XV ст.). Even Lozko seems to admit there's a difference between what she (or they) originally stood for and what she means today ( відома сьогодні як Богиня на­родної пам'яті - which, I'm guessing, means something like "seen today as a/the goddess of national memory"). So she's clearly been promoted from minor spirit to major goddess in more recent times, whether due to Romanticism, nationalism, neo-paganism or a combination of all three. --Folantin 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume this is a case of romantic "deity reconstruction" along the lines of Eostre. The difference being that for Eostre, we have a big-time 19th century academic forwarding the hypothesis, while for Berehynia, we have a bunch of online essays. I would be ever so glad if we could come up with some actual scholarship, so we could state that thbe Berehynias "have been hypothesized in 19th century scholarship to continue an earlier single mother goddess" or similar. If Lozko cites no such academic precedents of her hypothesis, however, I don't know where we should get them. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this on Talk:Berehynia. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to mention the nationalist movement if there's evidence it exists. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have gone through a period of removing all criticism. The current article is completely and totally credulous, with any criticism being played-down or outright dismissed. E.g. phrases like "the feet only can influence but is not always the primary factor in causing an illness". It also had a whole unsourced section that was basically advertising. I removed that, of course. Help? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Will monitor, to say the least. The content Adam removed here was clearly thinly-disguised POV-pushing/spam dressed to look like encyclopedic info. I still don't think this article is satisfactory: the first sentence still reads like something of an apologia pro sua vita. Moreschi ^Talk 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, but removing those sections at least made a start at fixing an outright horrible article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. I've tried to make a start at removing all the unsupported advertising, etc. It's still a mess, but at least it makes some attempt at reflecting the [lack of] evidence for a fringe medical therapy, instead of boldly asserting "facts" about nerves and Qi and such that have no basis in any reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Moosh88 (talk · contribs) is the latest incarnation of fringy nationalist Armenian revisionism on Wikipedia. More eyes are appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have not we seen those arguments aired many times before? Sockpuppets are expected to be indef blocked, aren't they? --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

no, this isn't a sockpuppet, but a separate editor with similar convictions. His edits are far more reasonable than those of Ararat Arev. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, he is getting more unreasonable now he is running into opposition. I still don't think it's a sock, just another kid that stumbled upon armenianhighland.com (of which Ararat arev (talk · contribs) was the author). dab (𒁳) 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is actually pretty good, but there's one section that seems to synthesise information to tone down the fringiness of the material.

The paragraph in question reads (as of time of posting:

Although extensive searches are underway for other environmental causes,[46] evidence for them is anecdotal and has not been confirmed by reliable studies.[3] Examples of claimed causes include gastrointestinal or immune system abnormalities, allergies, and the exposure of children to drugs, infection, certain foods,[47] heavy metals, and vaccines. Although there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism, and there is no convincing evidence that the vaccine preservative thiomersal helps cause autism, parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and parental concern has led to a decreasing uptake of childhood immunizations and the increasing likelihood of measles outbreaks.[48][49] such as the measles cases in Britain during summer 2007.[50]

"Although extensive searches are underway for other environmental causes," links to a report ([32]) that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fringe theories being mentioned in the rest of the paragraph, and the second half of that sentence, "evidence for them is anecdotal and has not been confirmed by reliable studies" refers to completely different things. However, there is extreme resistance to accuracy in this section, for some reason, with all attempted changes being reverted to keep that study in that context, connected to things it does not mention. This is misrepresentation of the evidence.

There are other problems with this - It's not just that there's "anecdotal evidence that hasn't been confirmed". Let's go through these.

• "gastrointestinal or immune system abnormalities" This was the major claim of Andrew Wakefield, now undergoing prosecution for accepting money from lawyers involved in vaccine cases and creating fraudulent evidence. None of the cites mention this, so I can only speculate.
• "allergies" - None of the cites mentions this, that I can find.
• "exposure of children to drugs" - Meaningless statement. There's thousands, if not millions of drugs.
• "infection" - Wakefield again, I think, again, no cites.
• "certain foods" - Cite given is not about causes of autism, but about changing the diets of already autistic children in an attempt to help them after the fact.
• "heavy metals" - Crank theorists, notably chelationists. No evidence, all published research is against it except for some studies in non-peer-reviewed fringe journals, like "Medical Hypotheses".
• "vaccines" - Link disproven. This and the previous one are notable as there are some large parental groups claiming these, and notable cranks like the Geiers making up therapies they offer to the children. But they are NOT science
• "there is no convincing evidence that the vaccine preservative thiomersal helps cause autism" Vastly understates the case: thimerosol was removed in vaccines in America in 2002. The rates of autism in the under-5s have not changed since then. Other cites: [33][34]

Copied to Talk:Autism Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Editors there are cautious, but sensible. I just get worried when we're the third item on google. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write "cautious and sensible". :-) Also, Autism is currently #1 on Google; sponsored links don't count. Eubulides 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough =) But it is third on Google UK: Two links for www.nas.org.uk/ come first. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

just discovered this little gem, has been with us since July 2006... dab (𒁳) 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol...Ok, I've rougely deleted this per CSD RAI. No sources whatsoever, all original research and POV-pushing. I'll email copies of the deleted revisions to anyone interested. Moreschi ^Talk 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

wasn't some of this sort of thing User:Vinay_Jha's issue? --Rocksanddirt 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

he's innocent this time. In fact, he is doing much better these days, one editor at last where patience is rewarded. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe we can encourage him to help this article? since he at least knows the subject. --Rocksanddirt 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, no. You may have no idea how much of a beloved cottage industry this subject is. The (now mercifully deleted) article is quite tame compared to what's available out there, itching to find a home on WP. Like this, or this. "Help" is definitely not wanted, methinks. rudra 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the proper title for the topic is (was) Hindutva pseudoscience. This was deleted (out of process, but without justification for "speedying"). I keep a copy here for further reference. This should properly be merged into Hindutva#Propaganda, but that's of course an uphill battle. Together with material such as Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology, Rigveda#Vedantic_and_Hindu_reformist_views, Vimana#In_pseudoscience_and_UFOlogy and Indigenous Aryans (India), we do have the material for a comprehensive article on a topic of fringe scholarship. But I agree that the title "Hindutva pseudoscience" was an unhappy choice and acted as a troll magnet. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If Vinay (or anyone else) wants to have a go at this article, they're perfectly welcome. I'll email off copies of the deleted content upon request, but I doubt anyone will find anything useful, and certainly nothing in the way of sources they could use (there were none). No: if someone is going to recreate this, it will need to be a completely fresh start IMO. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the capitalised title is in violation of MoS anyway. dab (𒁳) 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, I didn't realize it had been deleted, never mind. --Rocksanddirt 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is all of two sentences Hemodrosis, also called hematidrosis, is an extremely rare medical condition that causes one to bleed through the pores. This is believed to be what Jesus suffered from in the garden because He knew of his upcoming crucifixion.[citation needed] I found it going through unreferenced articles and do not know what to do with it. The google links I looked at all mentioned the crucifixion and I did not see any purely medical references. --BirgitteSB 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted it as nonsense. --Rocksanddirt 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

a long term Sorgenkind, Race and Ancient Egypt (since September 2005), now in two incarnations, Population history of Ancient Egypt and Race and ancient Egypt (controversies) (properly Afrocentrist Egyptology, currently protected). Pure FRINGE (even the question of the "blackness" of Egyptians is flawed), but aggressively pushed by a number of editors for months on end, and nobody can really be bothered enough to set the record straight. Any takers? See also Afrocentrism#Afrocentrism_and_academiaAfrocentrism#Afrocentrism_and_academia. This is, of course, an exclusively African-American topic (viz., US-centric). dab (𒁳) 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While the "Black Egypt" theory is indeed Fringe, it has achieved enough notariety in mainstream media to be within the "acceptable" range for Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE states: In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. (emphisis mine).

Thus, this is really a more of question of Weight than a question of Fringe. The theory should be mentioned and attribited to those who hold it... but care should be taken to not give it more weight than it deserves. Blueboar 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't have the article (or I'd put it on afd). The article should rather (a) reside at Afrocentrist Egyptology, (b) identify the movement clearly for what it is ("African American" self-esteem therapy, not Egyptology), and (c) categorize it accordingly, in Category:African-American topics, Category:Pseudoarchaeology, Category:Education in the United States, etc. The topic is bullseye on WP:FRINGE, namely: an allegedly scholarly "alternative view" that isn't, in fact, held in academia, or even coherent. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

for the record, "Black Egypt" is just as poinless as "White Egypt". The question may have had some currency in 19th century scientific racism, but in current terminology, it is a blatant anachronism to try and decide whether Egyptians were "black" or "white". They might be considered "white" (or "Hispanic"??) if they applied for US citizenship today, but to apply Race and ethnicity in the United States Census to Bronze Age populations is obviously nonsense. Ancient Egyptians were racially ... Egyptian, that's really all that can be said about it. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Population history of ancient Egypt is all that bad; it quotes Latif Aboul-Ela as saying "We cannot say by any means we are black or white. We are Egyptians." The title isn't good, and Race and ancient Egypt is a POV-fork; or perhaps the other way around. I also think Dbachmann is overstating things when he says this is "exclusively" an African-American topic; the notion that the Egyptians were black is spread throughout American popular culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

well, good or bad, it was speedied as a content fork. It was that, of course, but for once a content fork in an attempt to clean up the mess created by the fringy forces at the main article. But this won't do of course. We'll need to clean up the main article, not fork it. dab (𒁳) 10:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I honestly believe that Dab is spreading his/her own propaganda which is apparent in his redirecting of the page title (from Race and ancient Egypt (controversies), to Afrocentrist Egyptology)and participation in a former page for POV-fork Population history of Ancient Egypt. It is a widely known fact that Egyptology far and wide doesn't cover aspects of "race" and for that to even be addressed in a biological context, one must refer to anthropologists in order to assess its validity and how it may have pertained to the ancient Egyptians. Secondly, on the talk page in question I don't recall too many people subscribing to the idea of "race' and "black" as an expression of this race, which was reflected in the ancient population in question. But I do recall studies cited therein supporting the biological Africanity and relatedness to other Africans. Definitely by mostly all definitions, "white people" are not related to Africans so indeed, that seems much more of a fringe concern imo. However, "race" within its self may be described in such a way, but I'd have doubts about that as well. In any event, the inclusion is fruitless and pov-driven I suspect based partly on what I laid out above, which is why there is a lot of overstating in the presentation.Taharqa 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

how is it "propaganda" to insist that purportedly Egyptological topics are informed by academic Egyptology? I am really not interested in concepts like "biological Africanity" (wth?), and consequently have no opinion on it. I am, however, intersted in Egyptology, and insist that this stuff has nothing to do with it. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course white people "by mostly all definitions" are related to Africans. The more relevant question is whether ancient Egyptians were more closely related to all other Africans than they were to anyone outside Africa: the answer is certainly no.Proabivouac 06:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely unsourced alternative medical article claiming to be 93% effective.--BirgitteSB 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted: Google knows it not, and it quacks like nonsense and walks like nonsense. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate the assistance of some other editors, to battle what I regard as some fringe theories and original research being promoted by PHG (talk · contribs). Unfortunately this is a fairly obscure topic about the time period of 1250-1310 or so during the Crusades. Part of the problem is that because it's so obscure, there are really only two editors that understand the subject matter enough (and have the time and interest) to be editing the article, myself and PHG. Others who may understand it, may pop in briefly and participate at the talkpage, but aren't really editing the article. So PHG and I are basically at an impasse.  :/ To describe the situation in a nutshell:

• PHG says that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance, and that that is how the article should be focused, towards the "fact" that there was an alliance. I say that there were many attempts at an alliance (and I have pointed at quotes from multiple sources to affirm this), but that there was never really a full alliance. PHG refuses to acknowledge my sources, or twists what I quote, to try and make it sound like it says something different. I feel that PHG is violating WP:UNDUE, and that the article would be better titled as "Crusader-Mongol relations", but I'm willing to accept an article title of "Franco-Mongol alliance", provided that the article text makes it clear that it was mostly a series of fruitless attempts.
• PHG says that the Mongols were in control of Jerusalem in 1300. I strongly disagree with this, and feel it's a blatant violation of WP:NOR, trying to create a "novel historical interpretation".
• PHG wants to make extensive use of primary source quotes in the article. I disagree, and say that we should only use the most important quotes. But when I remove them, he just re-adds them. He is also now trying to argue that medieval historians are "secondary sources".  :/

I have tried an RfC[35]. But again, because it's such an obscure topic, it's difficult to get many other editors commenting. I have also suggested Mediation, but PHG has declined,[36] saying he doesn't want to spend his time arguing. We've managed to narrow down a couple issues to specific points where a couple other editors have agreed with a course of action, but then PHG argues that "3 against 1" (him being the one) still isn't a consensus, and so he continues to edit war (see: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence)

A 3RR block isn't an option, because he and I are the only ones really editing (so in order for him to violate 3RR, I'd have to violate 3RR, and I don't want to do that). Also, looking at his contribs: PHG (talk · contribs), this is the only thing he's doing, is camping on this article, for weeks now. In fact, I often have to wait until he's asleep if I want to edit the article, otherwise he's reverting me within minutes.  :/ Please, I need help here, and any assistance would be appreciated. --Elonka 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

... Really... I think this is just a matter of Elonka being unable to lose an argument. She has been attacking this article from the beginning, and now has a hardtime backing from her initial position. There seems to be a lot of ego at work here.

Actually, I have said repeatedly that I am totally willing to incorporate her POV that the alliance was only an "attempt". It is just that she has been denying steneously the other point of view, according to which there was indeed an alliance (and supported by tens of reputable sources). I am only advocating a balanced approach to both scholarly theories, encapsulated in a sentence such as "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance, ...".

Lastly, Elonka seems to have quite a few failures regarding the History of the Middle East. She insists that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were not Frank states. Just nonsense, for those who know a minimum about ancient history in those parts.

This is just an overblown argument by someone who cannot recognize that she was exposed on a subject she imagines she knows everything about (she is quite vain about having brought the Templars article to FA, and likes to pose as the expert on the matter). No big deal really. PHG 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I repeat, additional opinions (especially anyone who actually wants to help edit the article to break the edit-war deadlocks) would be greatly appreciated. To sweeten the pot, I could mention that some of our disputes are directly related to Armenia. For example "Were Armenians Franks"? And, Were the Armenians allies of the Mongols, or vassals of the Mongols? --Elonka 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help. I'm neutral cuz I know nothing about it. Ha! WAS 4.250 06:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Were Armenians Franks?" No, they were Armenians. "Were the Armenians allies of the Mongols or vassals of the Mongols?" Depends which Armenians. The Armenians of the Kingdom of Cilicia were allies of the Mongols until the latter converted to Islam. Source: Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times Volume One (Macmillan, 1997). --Folantin 08:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While Antioch and Tripoli were indeed Frankish states ("Frank" being a common term used around the Byzantine and Arab world for "Western Christian" ie the Crusaders) Armenia was not. Blueboar 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I could use some advice. PHG is continuing to escalate, and seems determined to make a case that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem in 1300. No one else is agreeing with him at the talk page. We've got multiple archives of threads, just within the last month. We've done an RfC at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, yet he has continued to edit war. We've asked for help from WikiProjects, we've posted about this here at WP:FTN, and offered mediation (which he rejected). Now he is further escalating and making pages like Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. I moved it to "Mongol raids into Palestine", and then he went and made another page, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem (I went ahead and changed it into a redirect to point at the "Mongol raids" article). He has also ignored requests to just disengage from the topic and move to something else. In my opinion, PHG is now in violation of WP:POINT, but I'll freely admit that I'm actively involved in editing this topic, so would like some non-involved advice here. What should the next step be? Take it to ANI, file a User Conduct RfC? Or just walk away for a couple weeks and then come back and try to clean things up? Any advice appreciated, Elonka 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. I really don't think our discussions are escalating, quite the contrary. You are just loosing support from other editors, and it has been repeatedly shown that you delete and abuse references to fit your point of view. May I kindly suggest you stick with specifics rather than make general accusations? I really wonder what should be the problem with an article title such as Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, when that article precisely discusses the question of whether the Mongols captured Jerusalem or not. And I would advise that you stop complaining about your fellow editors just because their opinions differ from yours. Best regards. PHG 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the discussions at ANI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, I think you need to rethink that "losing support" claim. --Elonka 08:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for that discussion indeed (off-subject here), but on the Franco-Mongol alliance, I think it is clear indeed that you are loosing the argument. Best regards. PHG 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty awful article - it's basically a long series of quotes with the mainstream position distorted and all mainstream evidence absent. I've put it up for AfD, but you know AfD: "Oh, we MUST! keep it! Google scholar found a couple non-notable books that mention the fellow in passing!" Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

awful title, awfully contorted definition of article scope. This should be Global warming conspiracy theory, Global warming controversy, and at best at a list of global warming sceptics, which should be a true list, not an argument disguised as a list. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading about this article (like an Afd or something) a while back and it was then really list of global warming sceptics with a brief phrase or reference to their position. --Rocksanddirt 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The current discussion at AfD [37] seems to be tending towards considering it a reasonable way to deal with the subject in the spirit of NPOV. (I agree with that).DGG (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if the mainstream position was represented better in the introduction, in such a way as to show why the quotes are disagreed with, and if the inclusion criteria were fixed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yuck. That article is surely just a POV fork of global warming controversy, an excuse to quote the few skeptics without covering the mainstream. A collection of quotes plus half the argument? What kind of an article is that? Surely Wikipedia has policies against that kind of thing? Cruftbane 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the various fringe/nonmainstream global warming skeptics are notable enough many of them for their own articles, it is to have appropriate weight that they are all jammed into one. It can be (and was at one point) a decent article/list. --Rocksanddirt 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

the Armenian patriot trolls are at it again, have a look at 75.51.160.183 (talk · contribs), Martiros Kavoukjian, Mitanni, Moosh88 (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Benjamin P. Holder is asserting that NCDHR is an intisemittic and anti-hindu organisation that denies the holocost. The organisation has just received the Rafto Prize for it's human rights work. There is no mention of any of mr Holder's accusations in any mainstream media covering the organisation or award. Inge 10:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. As User:Benjamin P. Holder's negative information about the group seems to be referenced to something reliable, you might add a note about the Rafto Prize that is also referenced to a reliable source to help balance out the article. Right now it's mostly a question of tone, rather than anything terrible about the facts presented. --Rocksanddirt 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

after a bit of review. it sucks. please work on this article. and please leave the POV tag, likely someone needs to read the off line references and check that they say what is reported. --Rocksanddirt 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

this isn't a "fringe theory" it is the usual bickering and smearing in Indian "communalism". You call us fascists, so we'll call you fascists back. Facts have nothing to do with this at all. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Alternative Hypothesis" section (which alleges one big government cover-up) of AZF is completely unsourced, and frankly reads like one big WP:POVPUSH. This isn't an article I've been involved in editing, just one I stumbled upon, so I'm giving you guys the heads-up. shoy 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Duly cut, no sources == no section. Specially not one as conspiracyfied as that, I'm afraid. Moreschi ^Talk 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing needs better sourcing. --Rocksanddirt 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Radionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs serious work, it contains several sentences which parse as nonsense, some very poor sources and a lot of uncritical text. Radionics was founded by "the dean of gadget quacks" (according to the American Medical Association) and appears to lack any credible basis in fact. Cruftbane 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

well....it's chopped down now somewhat. Still needs more references to both real research/investigation (even pure crap stuff) and more and better skepticism than quackwatch. --Rocksanddirt 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Good heavens, this was awful. Unattended pseudoscience articles tend to go that way, so it seems. Still needs a lot more cleanup, including less adulation and proper critical assessment from reliable, mainstream sources that have actually investigated this...topic. Moreschi ^Talk 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um, yes, it is a bit nasty, isn't it? Better for being smaller, I think. The real problem is that the idea is so obviously barking that most people don't seem to take it seriously enough to bother debunking it - I can't find any substantial sources other than loony websites and snake oil salesmen. Perhaps it should be merged and redirected somewhere where it will get more attention? Cruftbane 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• It almost sounds like a candidate for AfD. If we can't find independent reliable sources discussing the subject, what can we say, beyond repeating the claims of its proponents? Yet even those, as the article stands, are unsourced. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• no, I think there's plenty of notability, just needs a better article. --Rocksanddirt 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris Fishbein's usually good for this warmed-up turn-of-the-century quackery, if you can find him in a library. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is now in good hands, & sources are being found; but I'm watching it too. My take is that it is certainly notable and the users of WP have a right to expect an objective article, which will make the nature of it clear enough. DGG (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be worth adding this to your watchlists: An editor came along and turned it into a pure nonsense article where she just made up stuff about quantum mechanics supporting alternate medicine woo. I deleted the page as nonsense, but it was pointed out that a perfectly good page hid there before the nonsense, so I restored the edits pre-nonsense. (Restoring th eones after nonsense by a known tag-team edit warrior seemed to be asking for trouble). Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

don't forget the talk page....--Rocksanddirt 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have my eye on that article & will keep in touch. I made some further modifications--the pre-nonsense version wasn't all that great either. I've made some comments on the talk page there. I am very reluctant to not AGF from the editors there. DGG (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of problems with POV-pushing in recent edits, and it looks like more are coming. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pro-Homeopaths are hardly a problem at this point. There seem to be two opposite factions disputing this article and I seem to be stuck in the middle. There are Pro-Homeopathic editors who believe that the article is anti-homeopathy POV and there are anti-homeopathic editors who believe the article is pro-homeopathy POV. My hunch is that most of these people likely haven't actually read the article, or they want the article to outright say "Homeopathy is bunk" or "Homeopathy works". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was talking mainly about the recent edit war, but you are rather getting the worst of it, aren't you? Still, I don't think we've quite reached the level of balance called for by WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. It is, however, a lot closer than it was before you started. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another strange little article I am not sure what to do with.--BirgitteSB 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted it as totally unreferenced and no context, but with no prejudice against later re-creation. DS 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you sure seem to have an eye for the strange little articles Birgitte. --Rocksanddirt 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is the secret--BirgitteSB 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Promotes drinking of urine and also for topical application. I wouldn't be surprised if the text in question does say these things. But this is at the least undue weight towards a fringe view already expounded at Urine therapy.--BirgitteSB 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted this. Sorry, but it was not an article, but a collection of quotes from various sources, used to host some external links. Well, I piss on that and flush it away. Danny 20:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

...Awful, awful, awful articles. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty fringe to me. Now sources--BirgitteSB 18:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Shakespeare did do collaborative stuff. Pericles and Henry VIII are collaborations, everyone seems pretty certain about that. Act 3 Scene 5 of Macbeth is likely Middleton, that's ok (and verifiable), as may well be the whole character of Hecate whenever she pops in. I don't think there's actually too much wrong here in principle, and I'll look into the stuff I'm not sure about. Whether the topic merits a separate article is another question. IMO, probably yes.Moreschi ^Talk 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a pretty sensible article to me and reflects the scholarship I've read on the subject. Nothing crazy like Guy Fawkes collaborating on Hamlet or whatever.--Folantin 18:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am mainly worried about the way it is forked out from any competing opinions.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism can be worked in, as can references. At the moment this seems fairly reasonable stuff - not drastically Analytical, not overly Unitarian. A good start to improve from, IMO, even there is a little bits and bobs that might be a touch dodge. Moreschi ^Talk 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

this is material I exiled from Amazons a while ago, slapping it with {{unreferenced}}. It has just been sitting there since then. If anybody can be bothered, it could do with some straightening, pruning and de-fringification. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I handed this an article to a friend of mine who knows about this sort of thing , asking her to separate out the wheat from the plentiful chaff. Hopefully she'll get back to me before long. Moreschi ^Talk 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after we had a chat I've deleted. It's just basically a high-school essay, consisting largely of original synthesis, referenced to random stuff of the internet. It's also heavily pushing a POV, and the basis for much of what it says is pretty dubious anyway, apparently. Given the total absence of any proper peer-reviewed scholarly refs, I've deleted this without prejudice to future recreation. Moreschi ^Talk 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

without comment -- see for yourselves. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh - looks like fertile ground for original research to be sure, not just some fringe scholarship. If the iranian section could be cut down by 2/3's and some of the others beefed up or referenced to other wikipedia articles (should they exist) that would help the balance a lot. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

if the hilarious "Iranian" section would be cut down, there would be nothing left of this article, and it could safely redirect to Croats#Origins. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh blimey, if the Iranians are involved it can't be long before the Turkic chauvinists arrive claiming the Croats are really Azeris. --Folantin 08:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am creating a Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups so at least there is a way to keep track of these articles. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a POV-fork of the main homeopathy article; at best, a remnant of the recent homeopathy rewrite and consolidation that didn't get redirected, at worst, garbage.

I've put it up for AFD. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy seems to be a particularly problematic area, I guess for obvious reasons. Time to watchlist some stuff...Moreschi ^Talk 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Interested folks may care to comment at the deletion proposal for Category:Pseudoscience writers, currently in progress here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, "proto-science" refers to historical science, prior to the Age of Enlightenment, such as Hellenistic astrology, Alchemy, and perhaps Aristotle, etc. On Wikipedia, the term seems to have morphed into an euphemism for pseudoscience, a field of study that appears to conform to the initial phase of the scientific method, with information gathering and formulation of a hypothesis, but involves speculation that is either not yet experimentally falsifiable or not yet verified or accepted So, we are presented with "proto-sciences" like (List of protosciences, Category:Protoscience, what links here)

• Quantum brain dynamics
• Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime
• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness
• Transpersonal psychology
• Binaural beats
• Neurocardiology
• Socionics
• Ten Sephirot
• Gaia philosophy

together with perfectly mainstream notions like Abiogenesis, Grand unification theory or M-theory and perfectly established fields like psychoanalysis or oneirology. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm, should we involve the various projects that deal with these issues (pseudocienc, rational skeptics, history-ish) to work out what this word should mean for wikipedia? I agree with your initial understanding that it means historical or even pre-historical scientific thought. --Rocksanddirt 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

my beef is not so much with the Kuhn definition, but with the fact that it offers itself as a free-for-all: every pseudoscience will claim that it is "emerging" and will "eventually" gain the status of "real science". Anything labelled as "protoscience" will have to state clearly who so labelled it and in what context. Electromagnetic theories of consciousness is obviously pseudoscience, pure and simple, but apparently proponents have thought of forestalling the identification as such by claiming it as "protoscience". I suppose it will be enough to just remove all unsourced "protoscience" claims. Category:Protoscience should probably go as well. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As I too understand it, it means the early stage of something that developed into a science--and thus can obviously not used for any contemporary theory. There might be a real use for it to describe such subjects as Alchemy or astrology, but in practice we should avoid it here as a classification for all the reasons given DGG (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put the category on cfd. dab (𒁳) 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote a bit:

"Nobody knows what matter is or what happens when something is diluted. Hahnemann and his followers believed he had hit upon a genuine new discovery about matter in solution. Who is really to deny this?"

And the whole talk page is starting to devolve into this OR and speculation, with demands that the page be changed to fit their views. Please help! Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's gotten worse... Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring that is rediculous. The article is not that bad. Individual sections need to be tightened up, and the talk page needs some serious effort for clarity, but it's not that bad on the whole. Everyone of the regular editors does need to keep working on being cool, and not edit warring, and keeping personal attacts to a minimum. Verifiability, not truth. --Rocksanddirt 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the Talk:Ebionites page regarding the nature of the relationship of this generally little-known group with other groups in the area during the time of its existence. In fact, the discussion seems so hard to resolve that it was recently referred for mediation, which was rejected when one party refused to accept mediation. Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to say conclusively that one of the proposals being made there qualifies as a fringe theory, although based on what I do know that seems a very real possibility. If anyone here knows anything about this subject (which probably means you know more than at least I do about it), I would welcome any assistance in verifying one way or another exactly how widely accepted certain current theories regarding this group are. Thank you. John Carter 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

John, you may be well served to get a third opinion from experienced editors who may be interested in the subject (e.g., Briangotts, Beit Or, or Wetman). --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

well....generally, that article has a whole lot of potential for original research. It seems that the regulars are trying (mostly), but still....lots of caution to both use sources, and use only what they say. --Rocksanddirt 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had a peek at the talk page of this article, & it appears that this dispute has resolved itself. Would it be proper to close & archive this section? -- llywrch 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite resolved. User:Sadi Carnot did not receive the indefinite block he deserves for it.Kww 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What an awful lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Was nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, but was closed after a day or so as a non-admin closure; the closer invoked WP:SNOW although only 4 editors expressed opinions... 131.111.8.104 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, nonsense or not, it's got reliable sources, and doesn't look like to much original research (at first glance). So, mostly edit for weight and pov. It's not as bad as others. --Rocksanddirt 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Metaphor gone out of control. Still there is enough in the article that's good to be worth saving. We can probably rearrange some of the text and point out the pseudoscience where it crops up. ScienceApologist 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Metaphor gone out of control" is just about right. With all due respect, there's so much in this article that is presented as science ("chemistry") whereas it is absolutely not:

• "In science, human chemistry is the study of reactions between individuals" -- is there really such a science? Is there really a scientific discipline that studies reactions between individuals on the same level as chemistry studies reactions between molecules?
• "...who are viewed as 'human molecules' or chemical species and with the energy, entropy, and work that quantify these processes" -- the idea that precise, well-defined scientific concepts such as 'molecule', 'energy', 'entropy', 'work' etc. can apply to human beings and their relationships is just ridiculous, and denigrates both human relationships and science.
• "In modern human chemistry, people are viewed as chemical species, or specifically 'human molecules'" -- is there such a thing as 'human chemistry'? Are humans really viewed as 'chemical species', or 'human molecules'? Is there such a discipline, taught and studied at universities, with works published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. etc. etc? The idea is scientifically absurd.
• Do "bond energy, bond length, enthalpy of formation, Gibbs free energy, etc." have anything to say about human relationships?

And that's just from the lead. There's much more of this awfulness going on in the main body of the article... really, Time Cube is like a healthy whiff of common sense in comparison...

Summarizing, the whole thing is pseudoscience of the most awful, and most obvious kind. And it really says a lot of the quality of this so-called encyclopedia when one has to defend common sense in this way, instead of the proponents of these pseudo-scientific ideas having to defend their absurd views...

131.111.8.98 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be bold and start culling it. See what happens. ScienceApologist 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyes needed, possibly a deletion candidate. this is a recent creation, motivated by the Ramsethu hubbub in progress in Indian politics at the moment. The alleged "hypothesis" is forwarded by Saroj Bala, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Amritsar, Punjab. No scholar would consider taking this (viz., extrapolating information on a Stone Age biography from a 300 BC narrative) seriously for five seconds. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and merged it to Rama#Historicity. This section probably needs to be cleaned out as unnotable too, perhaps leaving a footnote, or a brief mention at Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful here, though - we give article space to rather cranky Christian concepts like Flood geology. Just because it's stupid doesn't mean it's necessarily unencyclopaedic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If there's enough notable fluff to hold an article, maybe it's best to keep them that way? I'm undecided on this case. --Rocksanddirt 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

um, we should avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Granted, we keep stuff based on notability, not credibility. Flood geology is clearly crap, but admittedly notable crap. Historicity of Rama so far is argued on the basis on a completely naive and untenable "hypothesis" touted by two government employees with no academic background whatsoever. The thing that does have notability is the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project and related political frolicking, which is duly given its own article. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but it's worth checking it is non-notable crap. Still, we seem to have the notable part covered, as you say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, googling around I find some 500 pages on "historical Ram(a)" (compare "flood geology" with 50,000 hits). It transpires that S.R. Rao (an archaeologist known to be carried away with antiquity frenzy and fantastical claims) has voiced his opinion on the matter.[38] google books gives some 60 hits. It appears that a better case for discussion of the topic could be made than the "two goverment employees" one. If somebody wants to write this article, do go ahead. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this your research DAB, but I see 2,240,000 hits for History Rama, Also, on the pretext of moving the article, the article was moved to Rama, and then the section was deleted. Again, I do not see a WP:CON here for that's agreeing this deletion, still the article is surprisingly deleted?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

and I get 1.5 million hits for Rama Jesus. That's great, we need an article Rama is Jesus asap. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arsenicum album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some work, I think. It is essentially an uncritical restatement of the homeopaths' version. Cruftbane 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong attempts to restore the deleted revision of Quantum biology, with all its "Quantum mechanics supports Alternate medicine" charm. Homeopathy has also been attacked by the nutters at WP:TIMETRACE, which sounds like a reasonable project, until you see what the members actually do. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

... dab (𒁳) 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

how odd. --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the edit histories and contributions of several of the members of TIMETRACE, I have strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. I'm considering filing a SSP report. This is a shame, because TIMETRACE could be a valuable project, and it has two good admins as its members (neither of whom, I should add, have been involved in this malfeasance). Skinwalker 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

of course the project qua project isn't to blame. Editors can opt for indulging in meatpuppetry with or without signing up at a Wikiproject. I imagine the homeopathic project members simply contacted Daoken via email, and he complied with their request, and now 'protests too much' realizing that the pattern has been spotted. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the TIMETRACE project itself isn't to blame. The situation at Homeopathy over the last few weeks has left me a little paranoid - I'll assume good faith for now with respect to this group. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

checking on the use of the groups taggings, a quite substantial number of articles have been tagged for improvement and actually improved. DGG (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Chinmoy is subject to information suppression, and reads like a press release or advertisement for the now deceased figure and his organization, and associated fringe theories, not an encylopedia article. Attempts by various, more skeptical or neutral editors to put a POV tag to warn readers that there is an NPOV controversy, or that the article reads like an advertisement, and any critical, controversial or skeptical information, for example, questions about whether claimed but improbable record weight lifts were accurately reported [39], or even factual information about controversies, such as [40], are systematically removed by User Fencingchamp. [41] User Fencingchamp also seems to distort the relative weights of the body of scholarly research and opinion regarding the validity of critical testimony of disillusioned followers and critics as proving such testimony is vilification, [42], when there is no such consensus on the issue[43] and no justification for totally eliminating the controversy section.--Dseer 03:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This might also get more attention at the conflict of interst notice board. At a quick look, there is lots of self reference (i.e., reference using the subjects writings) and that is not good for the verifiability of a biography. In addition, as the subject is only recently deceased, criticism needs to have reliable sources to back it up. --Rocksanddirt 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I found this what appears to be the prefered version of the article? --Rocksanddirt 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Either version had the same fatal flaws. The article is in much better shape as a result of your intervention. It can be hard to prove COI. Any such article that gives undue and uncritical weight to self-published sources and suspect claims seemed to fit in the fringe category.--Dseer 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article (together with associated walled garden, apparently) presenting wild speculations of some Christian fundamentalist hobby "archaeologists" about alleged archaeological remains of Noah's Arc as if they were serious scholarship. Not sure if I'll have the stamina to clean this up myself, need help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

dear baby Japheth...--dab (𒁳) 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek journalist pushing his own theory of the Insensé on Wikipedia. Also at Albert Camus (apparently when Camus used the word insensé he wasn't referring to the existentialist Theory of the Absurd but to his own synaesthesia. You learn something new every day). --Folantin 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OT: That's why we read wikipedia! simplifies the new thing....--Rocksanddirt 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition it's been Afd'd. --Rocksanddirt 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Auno3 (talk · contribs) (who signs as Gold Nitrate) has been trying to push material on miscegenation and dysgenics into a number of articles, including Human[44], Human evolution[45], Societal collapse[46] and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth[47]. Not to mention racist POV edits to dysgenics, black people and others. Some more eyes on these articles and edits would be appreciated, as would any suggestions on how the articles on dysgenics, societal collapse etc, can be cleaned up. – ornis⚙ 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, Auno3 has abused multiple accounts before - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd) - so people should watch out for newly-registered accounts popping up to edit-war for his opinions. Tim Vickers 03:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. I'd be surprised if anyone thought I acted wrongly, except, perhaps, for not just indef-blocking. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck second chances. Indef block. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, but as Tim has pointed out, it's very unlikely that this the last we'll hear from him. – ornis⚙ 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log that was already his third chance. Multiple 3RR violations, POV pushing against clear consensus on multiple articles, sock abuse and blatant racism. I think your indef block was entirely justified. Tim Vickers 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye. We'll have to see what can be done about the socks tomorrow, of course. Why do we put up with some of these people for as long as we do? What do we think, "Oh, sure, he's editing a Biography of a Living Person to say she's a race traitor today... and also a while ago... but MAYBE he'll see the light and start making productive, non-racist edits later"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles involved are important articles, and this user has repeatedly indicated by her/his editing actions that s/he is not interested in complying with even the most basic Wikipedia policies. There are more important things to do than constantly monitor these articles for the kind of nonsense this user is injecting. Please resolve the issue with an indef block until such time as this user sees her/his way clear to participating in a constructive way, at which time the user may ask for reinstatement and attempt to demonstrate a willingness to contribute in accordance with the editorial and behavioral policies. ... Kenosis 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how important this is but....should we link this discussion to a WP:AN/I to endorse/review a community ban of a sock abusing, pov warrior? I have no probs endorsing a C-ban --Rocksanddirt 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_block. – ornis⚙ 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

God, I hope I never have to do that many IP-blocks by hand again. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be one helps who puts who helps put the kibosh on presenting important material that may change our entire way of thinking, but I'm reasonably sure there are some policies around here relevant to this new article. See also this afd, and for those who can view the deleted contributions of User:Ny2292000 probably a whole lot more. A speedy deletion of the article and images would be fine, as would a block of the WP:SPA, but I thought I'd mention it here as it's likely to come up again sometime in the future. Tim Shuba 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For bonus points, it's a copyviol of http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/2.pdf and a re-creation of the linked AfD. Expect the link to turn red rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(chuckle) - speedied. --dab (𒁳) 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum... Now recreated. Tim Shuba 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone again -- lost in the FS boundary layer no doubt. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a law, stating that it is unlikely a given author has landed a major breakthrough in theoretical physics if he is beaten by the complexities of Wikipedia procedures as he is trying to write an article on his discoveries. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could people watching this noticeboard please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadi Carnot? Thanks. Carcharoth 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

already did. --Rocksanddirt 04:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This [48] and related articles are another example where article ownership and POV editing is obvious and criticism is lacking. The articles assert fringe theories like TM-Sidhi program, including yogic flying, Maharishi Effect, Maharishi Vedic Science, Invincible Defense [49], as well as controversial medical claims, with undue weight. --Dseer 06:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, this needs an effort. TM related articles are vastly inflated and spinned, they should probably be shortened, put in perspective and partly merged with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

TM advocates responded to RFC and tags by pruning article somewhat. However after 3 days they arbitrarily removed the RFC tag as well as other tags. 3 days is insufficient time to obtain comments from other editors, IMO, and TM sidhi program with fringe theories is still featured. Suggestions? --Dseer 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The family of pages at Category:Integral theory, Category:Integral thought, Category:Ken Wilber, and Category:Sri Aurobindo go into great technical detail about the beliefs and biographies surrounding fringe New Age-y theories with little or no coverage in mainstream, independent sources. (For example: "Zimmerman is the only scholar to take space alien phenomenology seriously.") I've recently prodded a bunch of them, but I expect those to be contested by the authors. Fireplace 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

there is an entire {{Integral theory}} series for chrissakes! is nobody patrolling these topics at all? Instead of prodding them, I suggest you radically {{merge}} them into some single central article (in this case Integral thought). It is arguable that we can keep a single article on a barely notable idea, but it is out of the question that we should allow it to grow metastases in dozens of articles about "integral $WHATEVER". --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dbachmann: vicious redirection, mixed in with a few deletes, looks to be the answer here. I'll start tomorrow. The phrase "walled garden" suddenly soars to the fence of the teeth...Moreschi ^Talk 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. See here for a list of articles I've prodded already. Most are New Age cruft. See here for my notice on their main talk page of the notability problems. A LexisNexis search of all major newspapers this material returned some substantial coverage of Auroville (a futuristic hippie commune in South India -- the locus of this movement) and occasional discussion of Sri Aurobindo, their leader. But, I found no substantial coverage of the content of the belief system itself. Fireplace 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've turned some of your prods into redirects: many of the titles are perfectly valid as redirects to their respective proponents, we just want to avoid dealing with a half-dozen articles all discussing the ideas of a single unnotable thinker or minor organization. Also, go easy on prodding material directly connected to Sri Aurobindo: this guy may be a total nutcase, but he is nevertheless of appreciable notability to Hindu revivalism, and as such does probably deserve a category of trivia articles (compare Category:Tolkien, which is likewise filled with every snippet of interest to fandom) dab (𒁳) 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the redirects so far. Regarding Sri Aurobindo, I tend to disagree that we need a web of articles detailing the technical details of his beliefs. As I said above, I've found evidence that he is mildly notable qua leader of a small group of people, but haven't found any reliable sources discussion the content of his beliefs at all. (As for Tolkein, I'd be happy merging articles like this one, and I think WP policy would support that.) So, for articles like Delight (Sri Aurobindo), I would redirect into Sri Aurobindo or, if there's too much disagreement, take the whole lot of them to AfD. Fireplace 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, which has a section saying that the book was right and genius because Einstein and Plate tectonics are wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also created Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo as a useful merge target. I think our problem articles are those in Category:Integral thought and Category:Integral theory, because these categories are WP:SYN in themselves. Category:Sri Aurobindo is not a problem, since its articles are clearly attributed to a specific esoteric school. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the redirections, mixed in with one or two deletes. {{Integral thought}} exists as well: I've got a nasty feeling this walled garden is quite a bit bigger than I'd initially thought. The complete picture needs to be looked at here to get the full scale of the problem. Moreschi ^Talk 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm maintaining a list of potentially problematic articles/templates/categories here. Fireplace 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

as the prods are being removed, I think we will be dealing with them at AfD. Similarly, at least one of the merges resulted in the inclusion of the entire extremely borderline content into the main article. I would suggest trying to remove the least notable of the individual books first, slowly. Doing things like this too fast has not worked well in the past. DGG (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A coatrack for Tesla-POV pushing. ScienceApologist 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

without even looking, what's it a coatrack of? --Rocksanddirt 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Zero point energy theories of Tesla. ScienceApologist 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy (2nd nomination). Please comment. ScienceApologist 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A fringe theory regarding the earliest mention of the name Armenia and Armenian people in history is currently circulated in Wikipedia by some Armenian editors. Recently the main article of Armenia itself has unfortunately been a target. Basically the majority of modern scholars assert the view that the earliest mention of the name Armenia/Armenians was in the 6th century BC aproximately around the same time by Greeks and Persians. Hecataeus of Miletus and the Behistun Inscriptions of Darius I. Scholars who say that these are unequivocally the first known instances the name Armenia has been mentioned include Dennis R. Papazian (Professor of History, The University of Michigan)[50], Mark Chahin (author of the peer reviewed Kingdom of Armenia [51]), James B Minahan (Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States [52]), Elizabeth Redgate (The Armenians [53]),Richard G. Hovannisian, PROFESSOR EMERITUS Ph.D., UCLA, 1966 Armenian Educational Foundation Professor of Modern Armenian History ([54]) etc. Despite this the following line has been added to the main Armenia article: "Another view marks Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as "the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian". It is supported by a ciation from Thomas J Samuelian (a linguist who has nothing to do with history) who is referring to Artak Movsisyan as his source, a historian from Armenia with no published work outside of Armenia with incredibly far fetched theories. This attempt basically pushes back the first mention of Armenia 17 centuries back from what most scholars agree with. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise James Russell, chapter on "The Formation of the Armenian Nation" in Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, pbk ed. 2004) Volume 1, p.19: "The first historical reference to the Armenians appears in the rock-cut inscription of 518 BC of the Achaemenian Persian king Darius I at Behistun..." In the next chapter ("The Emergence of Armenia"), p.38, Nina Garsoïan refers to the "most famous and important" inscription (at Behistun) "where the name 'Armina' is recorded for the first time." --Folantin 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

this isn't a concent dispute, it's just an administrative task of keeping the angy young patriots in check. Last year, it was the Hindutvavadis, now it's the Armenian national mysticists, they'll grow tired just like all their predecessors. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

godblessamerica don't people have a better use for thier time? Those patriots would be better off building roads, and increasing the spoken language of armenia if they are so concerned. The real fringe theory stuff is hard enough for me to keep a grip on. --Rocksanddirt 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

hm, the problem is, of course, that these people aren't in India / Armenia. They are US and Swedish expatriates. Patriotism always grows more burning and more ideal at a distance. --dab (𒁳) 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Samuelain is a respected scolar, "Mr Samuelian is the author of a number of books, articles, reviews, and translations in the field of Armenian language, literature, and history, including a recent English translation of St. Gregory of Narek’s Book of Prayers: Speaking with God from the Depths of the Heart (www.stgregoryofnarek.am), a two-volume Course in Modern Western Armenian, Dictionary of Armenian in Transliteration. He has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and St. Nersess Seminary. Mr. Samuelian holds his J.D. from Harvard and his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania" [55]. His Armenological researches and works used by [56] (a research for ICHD), [57] (Gomidas Institute journal), [58], [59], [60] (Oxford journal), [61], [62]. Samuelian wrote: "Others cite Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian. These inscriptions refer to Sumerian battles with the Armani [21]". The ref. #21 didn't mark Artak Movsisyan (Im not sure but as I know Artak Movsisyan's books are related to Aratta, not Naram Suen: surely this Naram Suen version existed before him, pls read the source its online, to not falsify what sources are used), it marks an Armenian academian (Ishkhanian, On the Origin..., 1989, p. 46, and Bnik hayeren barer, 1989, p. 56) and a foreign scolar (B. Hrozny, Naram-Sim et ses ennemis: un Texte Hittite, 56-75). Dr. Anzhela Teryan also marks: "*"The king of Akkad Naram-Sin used the Armani state name for the state in Armenian highland (2500s BC)". (in Armenian) Anzhela Teryan (PhD on historiography, senior researcher of State Museum of Yerevan), "The cult of Ar god in Armenia", Yerevan, Aghvank, 1995, p. 29." Have you any quotations from the scolars marked by you? If yes, and if they are really a majority, why to not just call this other view "a minority view" and stop to call them "idiotic" etc. have you any reviews criticizing them? if no, whats the problem? Andranikpasha 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no problem. On Armenia (name) we clearly state that the toponym may be attested in Bronze Age sources, Samuelian is perfectly right. What we do need to review, and what may be appropriate for this board, are articles of very dubitable notability, such as Anzhela Teryan, Martiros Kavoukjian, George Goyan or Hayk Hakobyan. --dab (𒁳) 06:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a very detailed book that deals with fringe theories popular in Transcaucasia, and which has a separate chapter on Armenia (same as other countries of the region). It is called Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395. It is very helpful in understanding the issues in question. Grandmaster 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, see antiquity frenzy, Armenian nationalism. You have no idea of the crap I regularly clean out from places like Hurrian language or Subartu. Not just Armenian, also Kurdish and Syriac -- it appears that everybody from the region who doesn't identify as Arab or Turkish has abandoned all reason in touting their antiquity. Unnecessarily, since it is undisputed that Turks and Arabs are intrusive to the area, but there is still a slight difference between 1000 BC and 2000 BC (about a thousand years, I'd say). --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it :) There are many articles like that. Grandmaster 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Reddi/Dynamic Theory of Gravity. Thanks ScienceApologist 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My sixth (seventh?) sense detects a certain odor sorry I mean aura emanating from this, which is already being flatteringly summarized elsewhere. Perhaps it's merely promotion, so common in Wikipedia. Anyway, I fear that although I'd be able to Google, etc., this week; I shan't have time to take a major role in arguing with the contributor. -- Hoary 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

from that article: " Secondary sources are also becoming available, resulting from the website’s encouragement" . I think an AfD is in order. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but the author seems energetic and articulate and will no doubt rise to the article's defense. So a bulletproof AfD proposal. Sorry, I'll lack the time in the near future. -- Hoary 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

prod was removed. this belongs on afd as an OR essay. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There might be an article there....there are at least some reliable references used, just needs more and the sales pitch on the method removed. I did a wee bit. --Rocksanddirt 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

sources are cited, but what are the sources for the method itself? it's as if the author developed the method as he goes along (WP:SYN). dab (𒁳) 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there was an article there....just that their might be....but the text still needs de-essayfication, or to be afd'd. --Rocksanddirt 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

before we de-essayify it, I'd like to see a concise lead saying "the PM is a method developed by Mr. X in 200Y (ISBN xxx), so we'll at least know who this is an advert for. There is no point in de-essayifying it as long as we cannot pinpoint what or who it is even about. dab (𒁳) 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article a bit longer, and you'll agree that there's nothing to this. Still, readers' participation (one way or another, of course) in the almost completely ignored AfD would be welcome. -- Hoary 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello all,

There's something of a low-key edit-war going on at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus regarding the inclusion (or not) of a theory by Joseph Schechtman, a "historian" who has been discredited for grossly misquoting sources by the Author Erskine Childers (UN) (much in the same way Joan Peters who, interestingly enough, quotes Schechtman excessively, was unmasked by Norman Finkelstein). This was later acknowledged by the historian Stephen Glazer (Glazer, Steven. (Summer 1980) The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Published by Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4.) and not refuted since.

The "theory" presented is called the Fear Psychosis Theory, which implies that Palestinians were so obsessed with there own atrocities towards Jews, that they developed a Psychosis (yep, you read that correctly, a mental disorder) that the same cruelty would be bestowed upon them in retaliation. The text used in the article is

“

Schechtman, argues in his book The Arab Refugee Problem that a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis, namely Arab fear of attack, reprisal and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this to purely to the perspective of the refugees. He expounds this theory as follows: Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine ... had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. [...] [T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight (The Arab Refugee Problem, Joseph B. Schectman, Philosophical Library, New York (1952), p. 5-6.)

”

This, in my opinion, qualifies as a fringe theory and should be removed. The most pertinent arguments are:

• The attribution of a mental disorder to an entire population as a "cause" for their exodus during a war.
• The claim "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is provably false.
• The theory is not supported by other authors.
• Joseph Schechtman, according to his own Wikipedia entry, was the chairman of the Association of American Zionists-Revisionists, which later became part of the WZO, on whose executive committee he served until 1970, thus hardly an impartial commentator.

Schechtman's defenders in this article point out that while no other authors support his theory, he is nevertheless quoted. This is true, but in most cases he is quoted for other things (Morris, for instance, quotes him only for his analogies to the Muslim-Hindu transfer in 1947-8), to rip him to pieces (e.g. Glazer, Childers or Finkelstein).

This dispute regarding Schechtman has been going on for a while and seems to be headed towards a WP:RFAR. It would be nice to get some "professional" opinions here before it lands there.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 06:18

P.S. You can follow the talk-page discussion here.

the question seems to be Proportional weight. As people will have seen the material--the theory, whatever its validity, has fairly widespread circulation-- there should be some mention of it. Give a sentence or two, and then the refutation. WP is not concerned with demonstrating the truth of the matter, just the views. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more fringy than that. No notability apparent, at all. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is about as far-fetched as the Hungarian-Sumer theory.--Berig 15:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stumbled on this with suspicion in the past, and now, in the light of this review, it is clear that this article falls within the scope of this noticeboard. Extensive reviewing and rewriting needed. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Though not an expert, i have read through the review here--it was carried out in 2004--do you know if there are any later publications? I note in the WP article the section of "writing cites an article in Science "Andrew Lawler, Ancient Writing or Modern Fakery?, Science 3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 588 - 589.", I have a copy, which I can send to anyone interested. from that and this, it seems obvious that this entire article needs to be rewritten in an altogether different manner. DGG (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

it's difficult to judge. Apparently important discoveries were made, but the excavators in their enthusiasm of having found an "ancient civilization" in the middle of the "Iranian homeland" went completely cranky for joy and began presenting fantastic dates and far-out claims. I imagine this topic is tied up in Iranian national mysticism, and we'll have to be aware of this when evaluating sources. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An image, Image:Evp1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Thank you. ScienceApologist 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ScienceApologist 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Thought Field Therapy article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Field_Therapy , someone who goes by the name of Boodlesthecat added a reference of a Letter to the Editor I wrote stating an opinion supportive of TFT when it was obvious that this was an outdated reference and that I have publicly retracted my views on TFT. I tried to point this out to Boodlesthecat and delete this, but Boodlesthecat reverted it and accused me of "suppressing" information. I then actually wrote to the journal being referenced (Traumatology) and wrote a retraction for the particular letter that was cited and then put that into the article. In the Traumatology retraction I stated that Boodlesthecat putting this in, in the first place was misleading and really tangential to the topic of hand, which was to cite published articles on TFT, not bring in letters to the editor. No reputable encyclopedia would put in letters to the editor where enthusiastic supporters were merely stating opinions (as was the case with the retracted letter I had previously written). Please note that in addition to the Traumatology retraction I just put in after this incident, there was also an earlier article I had published in 2005 where I explicitly stated agreement with the review by Hooke in question so there really was no good reason for Boodlesthecat to be citing this outdated reference that misrepresents my present views. I would like to have this removed. Another point in terms of the quality of the article, is that an enthusiastic opinion from a TFT devotee (which I was at the time I wrote that retracted letter) is tangential and having to then put in the fact I retracted the letter really makes the article appear very poorly written. If people really wanted to add "balance" they could have cited and quoted from Roger Callahan's response article to the review in question, rather than a letter to the editor from an enthusiastic TFT devotee merely stating an opinion that was late retracted. I will be writing about this incident in an article I have been invited to write for an APA publication, by the way. --MonicaPignotti 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) copied from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard--BirgitteSB 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

for anything other than the opinion of an expert in a particular field, a letter to the editor of a newspaper, magazine, or academic journal is not a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

well...i dived in for a bit....the article is at least referenced to relable sources for many things. The issues are garden variety unreliable studies and arguement about what constitutes "science". Mostly needs the ref's to be updated to wiki normal, and likely some of them weeded out. --Rocksanddirt 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Letters to the editor retracting a peer-reviewed published study are as notable as the original. In academic practice, they are always supposed to be cited together--and in medicine, PubMed goes to elaborate trouble to ensure they are not accidentally overlooked. this is the standard mechanism for correcting scientific error. In the case of letters from other scientists raising critical points with the work, these too are noteworthy and appropriate to quote; they are not printed without editorial thought, and almost always represent soundly based criticism from reputable workers. it would be ironic indeed if our rigid rules for reliable sources prevented the use of exactly the mechanism which the scientific literature has evolved for ensuring its own reliability!

They do not rank along with letters to the editor of a newspaper. (though I point out that letters to major news sources are selected, edited, and screened, not printed as whatever comes into the office. ) DGG (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though this case is a bit different. The letter that was ref'd was just a comment on an article/subject. At the time, it seems debateable if the commentor should be considered an expert. Now, she certainly is an expert, and has peer reviewed reports in the same (and other journals) that supercede the comment she made previously (that she'd like not in the article), that doesn't really fit the article anyway (it's not a reliable source of information on the subject, just an opinion and this article has plenty of that). --Rocksanddirt 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

... has been unprotected. Sane input and more eyes please. The effort invested in muddying this issue is staggering. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not controversies or fringe beliefs about the race of the ancient Egyptians deserves any mention at all. Dbachmann seems to be under the opinion that in the discussion of the Race of the ancient Egyptians, fringe theories and controversies need to be totally ignored. This doesn't coincide with WP:Weight or WP:Fringe. Any incidents or beliefs that are notable (have garnered enough media attention or mentions) are relevant to the topic and need to be discussed in a neutral manner, not simply ignored and removed from the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

no. it is undisputed they "deserve mention", i.e. in a brief "Afrocentrism" paragraph linking to a discussion of that topic. This is exactly what WP:FRINGE is talking about. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Characterizations of race in an academic context are lately considered to be deviant if not downright ignorant. The paper bag tests of old are no longer relevant to a society which recognizes that there is more genetic differences within so-called "races" than between them. What a good article on the subject would do, therefore, is characterize the entire subject as superannuated and basically irrelevant to modern scholarship. ScienceApologist 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What percent of the discussion (in general) about the race of the Ancient Egyptians revolves around controversies generally concerning afrocentricism? 20%? 30%? Giving the controversies only a brief paragraph isn't sufficient as there is a lot of notable info relevant to the subject. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

but the history of how we got to 'modern scolarship' is also important. How much of the article should from the fringe of afrocentrism or the less fringe stuff is what the discussion should be, not that there shouldn't be any. i.e., the weight issue. --Rocksanddirt 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That article is one of the worse things about Wikipedia. An example of Wikialty ? Black and wooly haired Cholchians ! Wow.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's a quote from Herodotus. Saying that the article is one of the "worse" on wikipedia is totally unhelpful. If you want to improve it then please feel free to, however simply criticizing it without any actual advice won't help anyone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman: what is so difficult to understand here? If it's Egyptology, cite Egyptological WP:RS. If it's archaeogenetics, cite genetics WP:RS. "Some afrocentrists" do not qualify as either, and their opinion is not of academic interest. There are academics discussing this afrocentrism thing, but these are sociologists, not Egyptologists. This is eerily parallel to Out of India: ideologists with no academic background call "discrimination by white imperialist academia", playing the race card until Egyptologists do feel compelled to explain why they are ignoring their "contributions" (because they have no merit). Look, if this was about editors insisting on organizing the Germanic peoples article along the pros and cons of Nordicism, I don't think we would be having this debate. If you can discuss the "Race of Ancient Egyptians" by referring to peer-reviewed Egyptological literature, please do that, but sprinkling the article with afrocentrist ideology and its debunking is precisely what we do not want, and what WP:FRINGE is built to prevent. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing unreliable as a secondary source as non-notable. The afrocentric scholars aren't reliable as secondary egyptological sources, but they ARE notable and can thus be used as primary sources. This means that the afrocentric views are notable enough to include information dedicated to their views and we can use their own assertions as primary sources to source what they have said. It's also worth mentioning that not all of the sources dealing with afrocentric views are by afrocentricists but are secondary sources from news organizations, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, dude, did you read anything I wrote? Yes, Afrocentrists can be notable as primary sources, on the topic of Afrocentrism, but not Ancient Egypt. This is what I have been preaching all along. Now please go and take a good long look at WP:UNDUE. (some help, anyone?) --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, loud and clear, dbachmann, but since this particular article is on a subject outside the bounds of mainstream Egyptology and archaeogenetics, I'm a little confused as to how to apply the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE clauses judiciously. I think a case might be made for deleting the article in its entirety and merging content to another article like race pseudohistories where all the garbage about who is what race can be dumped including Nazi historionics, Noachian families, and evolutionary racial hierarchies. ScienceApologist 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An article on Racial myths sounds like a good idea to me too, particularly considering all the other groups which have such myths. This would include the ones mentioned above, the controversy about the Ainu's relation to the Japanese ethnicity, and others as well. John Carter 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, this is what I am talking about. The article has no business to be in some undefined limbo "outside the bounds of mainstream Egyptology and archaeogenetics", not on Wikipedia it doesn't. At present, it is half about serious population history, and half about the most outrageous kookery, and it doesn't distinguish the two. This will not do, cases such as this is why we have this noticeboard, and we will not be done with this article until it is clearly split into one part that is academic, and one that is fringy-but-notable. The present situation is untenable: it is designed to confuse the reader. it is designed to give an academic spin to absolute kookery by conflating valid and invalid terms in the most irresponsible manner. And this is why it needs to be cleaned up and {{split}}. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we're in agreement, dab. Let's go in and separate out the two articles. I'll start the section on the split and defer to your editing expertise for naming/content suggestions. ScienceApologist 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be both about an explanation of the evidence for the appearance of the ancient Egyptians, their genetic relations, as well as controversies surrounding the appearance of them. I think that it would be impractical to split the article into other articles because what we would end up with are a few articles that are hanging out there naked and without context and without anyone willing to work on them. The best course is not to split the article but to understand it's topic, form it in a way that it's clear, understandable and informative. As far as making articles called Racial myths or race pseudohistories, what info would they include concerning the ancient Egyptians? Perhaps the Nordic Egypt, but is that really a "myth" or just simply fringe? What about the idea that ancient Egyptians were "black"? This really isn't a myth or a pseudohistory as there is serious debate and controversy about that topic and there were indeed what most westerners would call "black" ancient Egyptians, except they just weren't ethnic Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the "black Egyptians" stuff is both pseudohistory and pseudoscience. And a lot is Fringe (although it is on the notable end of Fringe). I am not saying it all is, but a lot of it is. I see nothing wrong with labeling those theories that are pseudohistory/science as pseudo or Fringe theories as being Fringe. Blueboar 12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

a cleaned up population history of Ancient Egypt would contain a discussion of the racial or phenotypical aspects of AE populations, within the scope of what can be sourced to academic literature. It would however not go into ideological issues of "Black pride", unscholarly polemics, and the topic of Afrocentrism. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a split of this article. I agree with Wikidudeman. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 10:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you "oppose". That's apparently because you are unfamiliar with what Wikipedia even is. I do not find debate fruitful if one side refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia policies. As long as the afrocentrist editors refuse to submit to policy and address the article's issues with honesty, I have no interest in further debate. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the title "Population history of ancient Egypt" would work. The article is supposed to be about the controversy surrounding the supposed race or ethnicity or "color" of the ancient indigenous Egyptians, not the population history of Egypt. The article needs to elaborate on the afrocentric controversies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, there is no such controversy outside afrocentrist propaganda. Feel free to develop a separate Afrocentrist Egyptology article (sheesh, I've been advocating that for weeks). But stop pretending this has anything to do with academia. Bottom line, do one article on Afrocentrist Egyptology, focussing on whatever this is worth, and one about population history of Ancient Egypt, reflecting academic debate on the topic. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Otherwise, why was Frank Snowden discussing what classical sources say about the Egyptians' skin color and appearance? Isn't that an academic source? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one academic source does not mean that the general discussion is an academic one. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, some academics, like Cornel West, take positions which can occasionally be classified as being based on or substantially influenced by racial issues. Departments of "African American Studies" and the like further substantiate this thinking. Simply being an academic does not disqualify one from being part of a group or movement which extends beyond academia into the broader popular culture. In fact, I've always gotten the impression that "newer" social movements and schools of thought tend to be the breeding ground for many of the more publicly noted academic writers, and that the two are often fundamentally related. John Carter 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't agree with saying that Frank Snowden is a fringe source. He was writing in the '70s and '80s, and his work has been established as an authoritative source on race in the ancient world. [63] If the "controversy" we're referring to is the question "were the ancient Egyptians black?" (or, "Was Cleopatra black?") then most of the discussion is outside academia. But the questions about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, their self-perception, their genetic relationship(s) to other populations, how they were perceived by other ethnic/national groups like the Israelites/Jews, Greeks, and Romans, are all questions that are dealt with in academic sources. Right now, I'm having trouble even figuring out what's under dispute, in part, I suppose, because the things that some people are saying doesn't match my impression of the scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling, based on what one of the editors said above, that the subject of the article is not intended to be what the ancient Egyptians actually were in terms of color/racial identity/whatever, but the controversy that exists today about the subject. If that is the case, then I think that it should probably be made a completely separate article, as most of what it would be discussing is at best peripherally related to the actual discussion of the color/... of the ancient Egyptians per se. And, unfortunately, having worked with a lot of religion articles here, good academics often are among the better sources for goofball theories. In fact, that seems to be how many of the goofball theories start. That isn't meant to impugn the character, integrity, or reliability of these individuals overall, but just saying that being respectable doesn't necessary mean that all their ideas are really good ones. John Carter 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the Race of Ancient Egyptians article is supposed to be centered on the afrocentric fringe theories and pseudohistory/science stuff? That seems fair. I don't think anyone is arguing that such an article should not exist. (While many of the theories are fringe, the whole idea has certainly gained notariety, and thus these theories are notable). So what are the objections to creating Polulation history of Ancient Egypt that focuses on things from the scientific perspective? Blueboar 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If, as is said above, the article is supposed to be about the present controversy, then it would make sense to include the data about the factual "color" of the ancient Egyptians into a separate article. By conflating the two different subjects, what we are doing is implying to the average reader that the theories in the present controversy actually have any real bearing on what the color of the Egyptians actually was. There is quite a bit of content, not included in the article right now, which could and should be included in an article about the actual color of the old Egyptians. This would include such things as how different groups within populations develop over time, how separate populations develop separately and how the results of breeding between populations which had earlier been separated produce new variations, and on and on. Also, there are several facts which would probably be relevant to an article about the factual skin color/apparent racial grouping of the ancient Egyptians which are not currently included. According to Talk:Ramesses II#RED HAIR?, Ramessess II was a redhead. While this not specifically address the matter of skin color, it may well be relevant and important enough to the subject of the "color" of old Egyptians to be included, with some discussion. By trying to indicate that two separate subjects, the factual "color" of the ancient Egyptians and the current discussion of the same subject, both of which are seemingly notable enough for inclusion as separate articles, we are in fact stifling the development of the content regarding both subjects. Theories which have been put forward in enough separate sources qualify for articles on the basis of their own inherent notability, and the current controversy about this subject could certainly be thought to qualify for its own separate article. Having said that, many of these theories can be seen as not relating explicitly to the race of all ancient Egyptians, but only those specific ancient Egyptians we can produce evidence for, who may not have been what we might call "true" ancient Egpyptians. That is an entirely separate subject from what the actual color of "ancient Egyptians" was. There are also several other issues, such as whether Semites are "white" (whatever that means), which are completely irrelevant to the subject of what the actual "color" of the ancient Egyptians was but are inherently relevant to the current discussion. By attempting to shoehorn all these separate ideas and concepts into one article, I think what we are actually doing in some cases is giving those who already have preexisting biases about the subject reason to think they might be right, by trying to "hide what we don't want people to know". The best way available to us to help ensure that people will come to the most accurate conclusions about the subject is by presenting all the evidence, pro and con, for all the ideas discussed. This cannot be done in a single article. We already have several articles which discuss an existing "academic" POV, and there is no reason to think we couldn't do so here. All that is required is to state in the introduction that it is a minority POV. But, creating such articles also gives the opportunity to provide all the evidence to the contrary in a separate section, which cannot be done in a single article on the entire broader subject. WP:POV really only applies to editors pushing their own POV in an article. POVs on subjects in the "real world", if they meet notability requirements, as these do, are an entirely separate matter. John Carter 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ramses II had red hair. Does anyone not realise that there is scientific evidence that hair color changes after death? And you cannot determine "race" on that alone? BTW, that wiki article on hair color needs a lot of work. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do realize that. Please read the section of the talk page linked to above. All that I was saying was that the factual matter of the "color" of the ancient Egyptians has a number of other facts, not currently included in the article, which would not be appropriate if the article is about the modern theories of the color. And no reference to the article about hair color was made or even implied in what I said. John Carter 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All you were saying? Then state it in fewer words. I didn't read the whole thing, because of the huge clump of text. If you want someone to read that mess, then use breaks for easier reading. It's as bad as writing in all CAPS. I hope you don't write articles that way. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you believe that you are capable of responding to comments of others without reading them. Complicated subjects, as this one is, merit discussion of that complexity. In all honesty, that is more or less what this subject is. They cannot be reasonably turned into the 10 second sound bite. Manners apply here, as well. And, of course, I will follow the orders I was so politely given above. John Carter 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually quite a few reliable and notable scholars have gotten in on the discussion of the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians and what color their skin was, etc. See the sources in the actual article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FFS, Wikidudeman, then why doesn't the article discuss the work of "reliable and notable scholars" and goes for this Diop character instead? Can we decide whether this article is even supposed to be on reliable scholarship, soon? and if so, clean out all the cranks? I have no objection of a discussion of AE ethnicity, as long as only academic sources are used. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is "supposed" to be about the race (or ethnicity) of the ancient Egyptians and this includes controversy of the subject. There are both reliable figures and fringe figures who are notable as far as the subject goes and both need to be discussed. The afrocentric scholars need to be discussed, even if they are fringe simply because they are notable to the topic. No one is using them as sources of factual claims about the actual race of the ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is supposed to be a serious discussion about the race or ethnicity of ancient Egyptians (as opposed to really being about the controversy over the afrocentric theories)... then there are serious Undue Weight issues to be considered in bringing up all these frings theories. At best, the fringe stuff would rate brief paragraph saying something like: "Recently, there has been some controversy due to various theories put forward by afrocentric authors such as (insert list of authors here)" followed by a very short synopsis of why what they say is controvercial.

If, on the other hand, the article is supposed to be about the controvercy, then I could see going into more detail on what these theories say (and much less detail as to the serious accademic/historical/scientific issues). But to mix the reliable stuff with the fringe stuff gives undue weight to the fringe stuff. Blueboar 18:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the user pages of Jeeny, Wikidudeman, and Taharka, there seems to me to be the very serious possibility that these three individuals may be, knowingly or unknowingly, ascribing greater importance to a theory which they may, as individuals, place greater importance on than is necessarily merited. The fact that Wikidudeman has changed his statement about what the intended scope of this article in his comments above certainly doesn't help make me think otherwise. I don't think violations of NPOV stop becoming violations simply because a group of people support it. I'm not however necessarily saying that is the case here. Certainly, presenting all the fringe theories about a given idea in a comparatively short article does give those theories undue weight, particularly when the facts themselves in this case are given as little space as they are. On this basis, I have every reason to believe that either the removal of a good deal of the content regarding the current fringe theories needs to be removed from the article, or the article needs to be split into separate articles on the facts themselves and the current theories. Otherwise, the article will continue to give undue weight to those fringe theories. I cannot see how the range of fringe theories can be discussed in the same article as the relevant facts without also giving those facts a significantly greater amount of content than they already have. John Carter 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's time we start over from the beginning and work together to improve the article whichever way is best. If that includes splitting it into another article then that's what we'll need to do. I've started a new post on the articles talk page to get a solid consensus for the actual name of the article. Once there is a consensus for the name of the article, I will then ask everyone to briefly describe how the article should be presented ideally, including splitting it nor not splitting it. Once that is done then we can start working on the article and doing what needs to be done to improve it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Green fireballs may need some balance. Bubba73 (talk), 05:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does " Many Ufologists consider the green fireballs to be among the best documented examples of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)." (I think "many" refers to Lincoln LaPaz) or "everybody agreed they were a real phenomenon" -- that's just the lede, & it goes on similarly. Illustrated with a painting claimed to represent the object--a painting by Mrs. Lincoln LaPaz. DGG (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not awful but there are some statements that either need serious ref.s or to be removed. --Rocksanddirt 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked it yesterday before I listed it here, and it used to be a lot worse. I tried working it a couple of years ago and had no luck. Bubba73 (talk), 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Should ghost lights merge to will o' the wisp? See Talk:ghost light. ScienceApologist 00:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch#Request for Comments. Thanks. ScienceApologist 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is awful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also A Guide for the Perplexed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gracious. a complicated several paragraphs to say not very much. I tried to make it followable, at least in part. --Rocksanddirt 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note... Antireductionism probably isn't a fringe theory. It's a fairly common view among mainstream philosophers of science and philosophers doing metaphysics (in the academic, not new age, sense of 'metaphysics'). Fireplace 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But is what is here being described the same as the antireductionism used there? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses a topic better known as, and better covered at holism in science. And, yes, it's not quite a fringe theory - scientists including Ilya Prigogine and Murray Gell-Mann have advanced rigorous ideas that could fairly be described as antireductionist, and disciplines such as complexity theory are based on an antireductionist viewpoint. Still, the article itself is ugly and POV. I was especially amused by the quote about "psychiatric hubris". I suggest antireductionism be redirected to holism in science, and any usable material (it doesn't look like there's much, if any) be integrated into that article. Skinwalker 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it, but the creator reverted me. What now? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked him to come over and talk about it. I really don't see how antireductionism and holism differ, but I'm willing to listen. Skinwalker 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

they may be fundamentally the same, but biologists do use antireductionism as the concept. I think of it as much more narrow than the general concept of holism. There could be more specific documentation there. A redirect is in my opinion much too limiting, and altogether too drastic a use of BOLD. DGG (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I've heard biologists use the term, but perhaps I've never understood the distinction between it and holism. What, specifically, is the difference between the two? Cheers, Skinwalker 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for guide to the perplexed, I removed the final section which is pure speculation. Let's see if it sticks. DGG (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you arch-deletionists can explain your rationale for wishing to delete this article at this particular time. thanks Peter morrell 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We did give reasons: NPOV, unclear writing, and possible redundancy with a better article. Could you address my question instead of calling us names? What is the difference between antireductionism and holism? If they are not the same thing, then clearly there is no rationale for merging the articles - I just want to understand the distinction between the two. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have answered my question I will explain why antireductionism is different from holism. Given that you do not know the difference speaks for itself: why are you even editing this article? which brings me back to my point - why now? why merge them? what is your motivation? You are certainly both arch-deletionlists; that is not name calling, it is an observation of fact. Peter morrell 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, answer your question in my previous post[64]:

"We did give reasons: NPOV, unclear writing, and possible redundancy with a better article."

So what's the difference between the two terms? Cheers, Skinwalker 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You can carry on like this if you wish but until you answer my questions it's a no go. Read what I wrote for example and answer the specific points. Thus far you have not. Peter morrell 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine.

1. Why now? No time like the present. I poke around on this noticeboard from time to time and saw this discussion, and felt I had something to contribute.
2. Why merge them? Because, as I understood it originally, holism and antireductionism are synonyms. I have heard them used interchangeable in the context of systems dynamics and complex systems. As I saw it, this article verged on being a POV fork. I'm trying to get someone to explain the difference between the two terms to me - if they are different, then a merge is not appropriate.
3. What's my motivation? My motivations are upholding NPOV and making sure fringe topics are not given undue weight. Peter, you've made many good contributions in non-scientific articles, but your editing in areas of science and pseudoscience show a strong POV. You also seem unable to perceive this POV. You've started articles like antiscience, scientific imperialism, fragmentalism, antireductionism, and several others that are non-neutral, poorly cited, and largely represent original research and inappropriate synthesis. Experience has shown me that your edits in these areas need scrutiny.

Now, please, enlighten me as to the difference between antireductionism and holism, and I'll shut up. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for YOUR POV. If this is so then why was it Adam who made the action? however, in relation to the question, AR is really a suspicion on the part of many, esp in the social sciences, but also in portions of biology, that reductionism is too simplistic for adequately describing complex systems and processes and that it innately oversimplifies and thus distorts and misleads. Especially in ecology and weather systems for example. Such folks do not believe that reductionism inherently can generate the answers it promises: it can prove to be non-insightful. Holism by contrast believes that phenomena in general are best perceived as wholes rather than via analysis of parts. I agree these are close to each other but holism is probably the broader concept and I would say they are different precisely because both terms occur in academic discourse...which kind of justifies their separate inclusion here. Also I would say the AR article is much better than the other one which is very poorly ref'd and too generalised to be of much use. It looks like a rag bag mix of all sorts of odd stuff simply thrown together. I guess you will disagree. What attracts you to fringe theories as you like to call them? and why clean them up when embryogenesis and embryology cry out to be merged but I don't see you two banging on about that. BTW I am a zoologist by training so I disagree with your view of my understanding of what science is. If you do merge them then please merge them proper rather than deleting whole swathes of stuff. OK? cheers Peter morrell

...Peter, I'm studying zoology. How much actual training did you get? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by actual training? I completed my degree and after a couple of years went into teaching mostly environmental science and ecology plus some bio and biochemistry and a lot of fieldwork and pollution studies type stuff, very enjoyable. More recently an MPhil in history. does that suffice? how is this relevant? I think my doubting view of some aspects of science stems from teaching about nuclear power and ecology which cannot be fully understood via reductionism; you have to look at social issues, politics and economics or at complex organism interactions--the wider picture--to get a grip of them both; apart from which scepticism of science claims is a good thing and in my case that flows from my study of sociology and philosophy for my MPhil which are core aspects for understanding historical processes. The world is not as black and white as science pretends and science is largely profit-driven sadly so you cannot separate the scientific view of life from these background realities of it as an enterprise. It is very largely a belief system little different from a religion. sorry I have rambled on. Peter morrell 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the two of you want to argue on the basis of credentials, go find a more appropriate project. Keep your educational background for your user pages. We go by evidence here, not status, and we have to convince one another and reach some agreement. And, it doesnt depend on personal views. I may be myself very much of an extreme rationalist and reductionalist, but still know there's a different position. (or vice versa). I know there.

• I'm not sure about the sciences, but in mainstream academic philosophy, holism about science/physics/biology/scientific laws/etc and antireductionism about the same are generally used interchangeably.[65] However, the holism in science article is poorly written and misses a lot of the major, mainstream academic points. I'd slap both articles with a cleanup tag and hope that an expert with plenty of time comes along to tackle them. Fireplace 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Christos Papachristopoulos (AKA ChrysJazz (talk · contribs) or 77.49.178.72 (talk · contribs) is at it again, promoting his own philosophy (especially at articles related to Albert Camus). Prime examples: Nuclear Philosophy of Media and Mathemagics. An AfD established that the guy's bio was non-notable, so his philosophy definitely should not be here. Any advice on the quickest way to proceed to put a stop to all this would be greatly appreciated. --Folantin 10:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "speedy delete" as advertising, conflict of interest, and patent nonsense. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also blocked him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. This guy was never going to follow WP policy. --Folantin 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is his IP only temporarily blocked? -- Fyslee / talk 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs can be shared among a great number of users, so it's good practice not to indef block IPs except in extreme circumstances. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Fyslee / talk 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be pseudoscience, much of it devoted to promoting the views of a single editor (User:Hkhenson, in real life Keith Henson). Has been the subject of much debate in the past, including an aborted attempt at mediation. I would welcome more opinions before taking this to AfD, and possibly recommending action against the editor. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article could be nominated for AfD, perhaps some bits would eventually be merged into Stockholm syndrome, which is much more notable and seems to be the same thing.

Hkhenson is currently involved with you and I in a case at Arbcom. I suggest that any actions required against Hkhenson should be discussed at Arbcom, and that attempts to get sanctions placed elsewhere could be viewed as forum shopping. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't this amusing.

First to respond to Jehochman, the evolved capture bonding psychological mechanism is distinct from its symptom "Stockholm syndrome" the same way "fever" is distinct from the combination of diseases and physiological mechanisms that cause fevers.

I can't respond to Physchim62's accusation of an "aborted attempt at mediation" for legal reasons outside the scope of Wikipedia, but interested parties can probably figure them out. Physchim62 *might* be taking advantage of these limits placed on my ability to speak freely imposed by a corrupt judicial system.

The current version of capture-bonding had the evolutionary psychology section restored against my wishes. I happen to be an expert (publications, Google "keith henson" "capture-bonding") in this area who is being driven away from the Wikipedia by topic clueless editors and admins. The current version, for reasons described at the bottom of Talk:Capture_bonding is unacceptable. I *support* AfD of capture-bonding in its current form. People who are interested can use Google instead. Within the first page are pointers to several decent explanations.

Physchim62 has a lot of nerve going after after me for "pseudoscience" after supporting Sadi Carnot (reverting a ban). Sadi is perhaps the most impressive pseudoscience attack against Wikipedia on record. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop and other places such as Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts You might be interested in this transplanted from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot/Evidence#Physchim62_is_being_uncivil_among_other_thing

Physchim62, could you describe what Xerox sales or management techniques have in common with what the SLA did to Patty Hearst to induce capture-bonding? (". . . blindfolded, imprisoned in a narrow closet, and physically and sexually abused.") To the best of my knowledge there are none, but I have not been a customer of Xerox for a long time. Keith Henson 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually! Both depend on controlling the social interactions of the individual concerned. Only an explanation of this type will explain all of the phenomena which people try to associate with "capture-bonding". Physchim62 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62's Reply to Hkhenson

"Yes Keith, I consider your views to be pseudoscience and your actions in forcing them on Wikipedia, to the exclusion of other points of view, to be disruptive."

I happen to be an engineer by training rather than a scientist, but "pseudoscience" is an extremely serious charge Physchim62 is bringing against me. Unlike the situation with crackpot scientists, large number of people can die if engineers believe in pseudoscience.

I resent Physchim62 sticking me in the same bin as Sadi Carnot. On the subject of evolutionary psychology, I believe my views are essentially congruent with those of the major researchers in the field.

Or is Physchim62 claiming evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience?

Is Physchim62 qualified to judge my views? If not, has he asked a qualified person to judge them? (I don't think Physchim62 did much of a job judging Sadi Carnot's obvious pseudoscience.)

As for "forcing them on Wikipedia, to the exclusion of other points of view" that is another very serious accusation, the kind of accusation that leads to arbitration rulings. Is Physchim62 ready to provide evidence?

This isn't distracting from the discussion about dealing with reoccurring Sadi Carnot cases because admins who enable and reward such behavior (as Physchim62 did in capture-bonding) are a significant part of the problem.

After due consideration, Physchim62 are you certain you don't want to retract these accusation? Keith Henson 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Is there any source that's not by Keith Henson that uses the term "capture bonding"? I mean a reliable source, not [wisegeek.com]. The sources that are by Keith Henson are published in sources like The Human Nature Review, which appears not to be peer reviewed. This article looks like a bunch of self-promoting pseudoscience to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check, that was one of my reactions. I have decided to take this article to AfD, and so maybe further discussion can be placed HERE. Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments anyone can make on my proposal here would be most appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In Gibbs paradox, Lin Shukun has been adding massive amounts of material which references his own works. He seems to be applying information theory to thermodynamics. Given that Lin Shukun is self-published by the same publishing house that publishes Libb Thims (a.k.a. User:Sadi Carnot and User:Wavesmikey), and the historic misapplication of information theory to things like evolution, I'm skeptical. Will someone please check this out?Kww 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a constant problem. It describes a theory, or group of theories, that Jesus was not a historical person. This theory has absolutely no respect within modern academia, and is therefore a fringe theory. It had some scholarly impact in the early 20th century and it's currently espoused by several popular authors ("popular" meaning "non-academic" in this context), so it's notable enough for its own article. However, from time to time editors pop up and insist that it's not a fringe theory, despite the quotes in the article illustrating the low regard for the idea within academia. Input from outside parties would be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My general take is not to argue the fringe/pseudoscience definition with folks but focus on keeping the article as clear and unambiguous as possible. If it is not clear from the article that this is an early 20th century fringe theory, the article needs work. --Rocksanddirt 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed. this is another example of an article that only ever attracts attention from people enthusiastic about the topic. Hence the usual self-balancing effects do not come into play. I have had a hell of a time of even getting the point across that Christ as myth is a perfectly valid topic in itself completely unrelated to the historicity question. It simply isn't very enjoyable to discuss with people on a level where you need to point out that "mythology" isn't the antithesis of "historicity" and that it is perfectly unsurprising that a mythology attaches itself to historical characters (Charlemagne isn't unhistorical just because there are folk tales about him). Of course the whole edifice of "there is mythology -- hence Jesus cannot be historical" collapses as soon as you get this point across, so people are bound to make a great effort at Not Getting It. Ceterum censeo: the exact same mechanism is at play at Race of Ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism. It is a disgrace that Wikipedia allows articles like that to state blatant bullshit for months on end just because the conspiracy theorists play dumb and keep playing the race card. Can people please put these articles on their watchlists and make an occasional effort at cutting down the worst bits? dab (𒁳) 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

and Category:Spiritual warfare. I have my doubts on the validity of these. Apparently pov-forks of Demonology and Exorcism, but the category strangely also has entries like Michael Harner, a New Age neo-shaman. --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "Spiritual warfare" itself is valid enough, and worthy of discussion, probably in its own article. If advertisement-style New Age mysticism is accumulating around this article, however, it needs to be kept under very close watch. Confusingly, the Spiritual Warfare article contains no mention of jihad, which I would have thought to be a relevant concept. I also think that too much space is currently being devoted to modern evangelical movements. Needs much better referencing. Moreschi ^Talk 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the term as term is certainly valid. But as far as I can see it is used in completely discrete meanings, among them synonymously with "exorcism". It this is the case, the title should be a disambiguation page, and the category should be depopulated. But I am not sure I got this correctly (and the article as it stands is little or no help). dab (𒁳) 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of paranormal infoboxes:

• Template:Infobox Paranormalplaces
• Template:Infobox Paranormalcreatures
• Template:Infobox encounters
• Template:Infobox Paranormalevents
• Template:Infobox Paranormalterms

An interesting argument was put forth by another user at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon that these boxes might be serving as a runaround for WP:NPOV because they promote "in universe" definitions and classifications. What makes a place, creature, encounter, person, event, or term "paranormal"?

I'm not sure about this and so I am posting it here for input. Do infoboxes of these sorts serve to prevent verifiable and accurate framing of encyclopedic subjects? Should perhaps these infoboxes be deleted in the interest of preserving WP:NPOV?

ScienceApologist 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around, all of the infoboxes ensure the correct framing of a page. As per the Arbcom, explicitely describing something as being part of the paranormal immediately frames the topic and tells the reader everything that they need to know before they begin reading. You simply can't mistake something with any of these infoboxes for anything other than part of the paranormal. The framing is so blunt that it hits you right between the eyes the second that you look at the page. This actually preserves WP:NPOV, with one of these infoboxes there is absolutely no mistaking the topic for anything else.

In many cases, removing the infobox would actually be EXTREME POV PUSHING. For example, if I were to remove the paranormal terminology infobox from an entry about a disputed gravity phenomona relating to spooks or UFOs (etc) and were to replace it with a physics taxonomy box about gravity, I would be making the EXPLICIT statement that the disputed gravity phenomona was an accepted part of physic, or that it was at least based on physics. Even if I were to replace it with a disputed science taxonomy box (the closest thing that there is to the paranormal terminology box at present) I would still be implying that there was scientific rationale somewhere in the process. Both of which are clearly unacceptable. Even by removing the box altogether I would still be breaching Wikiregs by committing a WP:Point violation because I'd be removing valid information about the noun or phrase in popular culture because I disagreed with the place of the topic (that the noun or phrase was describing) in the natural order. I'd also be in breach of the recent Arbcom which stated that something that exists in belief is valid so long as it is framed correctly, regardless of the topics place in science.

perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure. While not a huge fan of info boxes generally, I know that some people like them a lot. If the use of the boxes seems NPOV, or seems to create a "walled garden" atmosphere the use or text in the boxes should be examined closely, and maybe adjusted. I would rather not get rid of them altogether. --Rocksanddirt 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are actually stated as being a highly desirable inclusion for FA status. Thus removing these infoboxes would more or less deny any paranormal entry, no matter how well written and NPOV the chance to reach FA status. I personally don't see how defining a noun or phrase would create a "Walled Garden", if users dispute the contents of a box then they can just put up a Fact tag and request citable evidence that the definition is accurate. For example, the word "Ghost" is in the dictionary, therefore it is verifiable as a real and existing noun. Do people claim that it's inclusion in the dictionary is POV pushing, no, then they claim isn't valid here either.

- perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user who brought forth this interesting argument. Example: the instruction for this infobox [66] is vague and contradictory and seems based on a personal view of what's "really" paranormal:

"This infobox is for "real" terms and phenomenal only. It is only to be used whether said term/phenomona is verifiable to a notable source that is not a work of pure fiction (eg, nothing used only on Ghost Hunters and nothing that exists only in the X-files). "Real" refers only to the existence of the terminology, or to belief in the phenomona, not to the substance of what is being described."

Specific instructions for use of the Infobox appear designed to significantly bend NPOV/FRINGE policy:

"Definition: A PURE DICTIONARY DEFINITION. Avoid all words such as alleged, purported, so called etc) avoid attributions. This is a definition of the word, not a judgment on the validity of what it is describing."

- LuckyLouie 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the contradictions? Real terminology only, no words from the X-files etc, must comply with Wikiregs. Besides, most of this is actually standard practice on Wikipedia has been part of the MOS for quite a while. Please see WP:WTA for further information it tells you to avoid all pejorative language. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those are definitely problematic statements. The question is, what to do about them? I'm not sure that simply rewording those statements is a solution because the very way the infoboxes are set-up seem to encourage this kind of thinking. Even if the statements weren't as explicit, conceivably we could end up with people making such arguments just because the infoboxes are supposed to be explicitly about the "paranormal". ScienceApologist 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't twist things. A "real" term or phenomona is one that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Real it's the opposite to Fiction or neologism. As was clearly stated underneath. I've changed the wording, your argument is now void. You may delete it if you wish. If you have an issue with the wording in an infobox, then that should be met at the article level. Deleting the template because you disagree with something that a third party has written in it would be a point violation. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Being invited here by LuckyLouie, I'm concerned with this motion mainly because it does not make any sense. To remove templates related to commonly used paranormal terms and their accepted paranormal definitions would set the standard to eliminate templates for Occult topics because occult topics are not 'mainstream' enough - or templates for any number of subjects not generally related to science or the mainstream. I see no problem with Paranormal templates on paranormally framed subjects in light of accepted template practice here at Wikipedia. For an example of what the 'paranormal community' or 'world' or 'believers' or 'investigators' etc. use as paranormal terms see this [67] - if that is a concern as I've seen on the EVP talk page. --Northmeister 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument of the slippery slope does not hold water. Like most religions, many, if not most, of the subjects of the "occult" deal with beliefs that do not claim direct observable consequences. For example, the Necronomicon, while not mainstream, does not deal with observable consequences and so is immune from this criticism. We are concerned here with topics that fall under the purview of (ostensibly) observable phenomena. That's the issue with the "paranormal". The very definition of the term is an assault on the mainstream, majority understanding of what an observation is. In contrast, most of the Occult topics are attempting to access something other than that, like an unobservable and intangible human soul or spirit world. ScienceApologist 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Belief is an observable phenomona and a noun such as "Ghost" is a definable term. your argument is void. You may delete it is you wish. Also, the recent Arbcom clearly stated that notably beliefs outside of the mainstream are valid for inclusion. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the assault on the mainstream when the article is about the non-mainstream. Especially a topic science has little concern for. The boxes are guides on what the 'paranormal' field considers and don't try to convey any other meaning outside of that. --Northmeister 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This sentiment flies in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT in particular. ScienceApologist 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they do at all. Such an argument would weigh against all infoboxes related to subjects of concern. --Northmeister 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, ScienceApologist's arguments could be applied to any infoxobx or taxobox included on any controversial topic. It could also be used against any controversial category (anything mentioning homosexuality or race, for example, which amounts to censorship, which is against the Wikipedia ethos). I am also at a loss to understand how SA could object to a pure dictionary definition of a noun of phrase being included with a topic unless of course SA's issue was really with the topic and not with the definition, in which case the recent Arbcom has already struck down SA's argument (see layer cake decision) - perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your sentiment flies in the face of the recent Arbcom which stated clearly that topics which are notable but which are outside of the mainstream remain valid topics. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that doesn't like infoboxes in general. That said, these particular boxes are mostly used by WP:PARANORMAL, so if you're looking for input from the actual users of the boxes, or just another point of view, you might want to post a notice there. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned that this discussion is even happening. As the creator of 75% of these info boxes I can clearly and unequivocally state that they were created for the purpose of providing basic definitions of what a term means or how a phenomena is described (even if a phenomona isn't actually real, it's still efinable). If users have a POV issue with their content then this should be dealt with at the article level, not at the template level. All of these templates are fully citable and comply with all WP regs.

I'm afraid that the removal of these boxes would constitute a WP:Point violation and would set a very bad president as it would in essence be saying that no Paranormal entry can ever have an infobox because the presence of an infobox would be POV pushing that the paranormal was real, when in fact all the presence of an infobox does is show that the term is definable on paper.

To answer some of the above questions

• Do "infoboxes of these sorts serve to prevent verifiable and accurate framing of encyclopedic subjects" - ScienceApologist

No. As per the recent Arbcom ruling, the infoboxes clearly display the word "Paranormal" thus providing full and accurate framing. A user can in no way mistake then for a scientific taxonomy box. What they do is they provide a pure definition explaining exactly what a term actually means and in what context it is being used.

Let me put this into context. The Paranormal terminology box was put in place to explain how a particular word or phrase should be used and in what context it is used, it also explains the origins of the word and its limitations of use. In essence, it is the purest form of encyclopedic content.

Anomalistics

Terminology
Coined by	Robert W. Wescott (1973)
Definition	The use of scientific methods to evaluate phenomona that fall outside of current understanding, with the aim of finding a rational explanation. [1]
Signature	The study of phenomena that appear to be at odds with current scientific understanding
See also	Parapsychology, Charles Fort

• "Specific instructions for use of the Infobox appear designed to significantly bend NPOV/FRINGE policy" - LuckyLouie

I have changed this, your argument is now void, you may delete it if you wish. I however hold that all paranormal content must include a pure definition. For example while ghosts might be a controversial entities with no scientific verification, the word "ghost" is quite clearly a noun with a defined meaning and definition. The infobox defines the noun, not the entity.

perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK let me get this straight, these infoboxes violate NPOV because they use the term "Paranormal"? that seems illogical, paranormal is a term comonly used within the scientific community when refering to something with no scientific confirmation. Another thing how does this present something from a "in universe" perspective? we are talking about material that is unconfirmed or unexplained not a fictional work. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this year an Arbcom actually [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Paranormal_as_an_effective_tag ruled 8-0] that introducing something as being paranormal was effective framing. It also ruled 8-0 that a lot of paranormal terminology has the status of being a cultural artifact used to describe or define something in belief or culture, rather than in science, and thus it's inclusion or use cannot be POV pushing for the scientific existence of said terminology.

The same arbcom also ruled 8-1 that the aim of an entry about the paranormal is to inform the readers about the topic and the debate surrounding it, NOT to produce an entry that reaches a scientifically valid conclusion on the topic. Therefore it is valid to include a definition and a description of the terminology used in the topic or the event which is said to have occurred in the topic. Any disputed over the nature of this description or definition should be dealt with at the article level, not the template level.

In relation to the above, I will pose the question "Have any of these infoboxes been used with fictional terms?" if so then they should be removed. Whether in universe or out of universe, these infoboxes should only be used for verifiable real world terms. For example, if it was made up fo rthe X-files and exists only within the X-files, then it shouldn't use this infobox'

I already had a dispute with perfectblue about this subject on the Crop Circle page, so I won't repeat much of what I said there. In a nutshell, I think the presence of the infobox there is a severe breach of NPOV policy, since it asserts that crop circles are a paranormal phenomenon when all the evidence we have says they are made by humans. I think this is a good example of how the concept of "framing" can be abused to give the wrong impression. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said back there, Wikipedia has two seperate types of box, the taxonomy box and the infobox. Only the taxonomy boxes assert legitimacy, infoboxes merely provide an overview of the topic in a particular context. For example, the page Batman has an infobox, but nobody would seriously consider that this POV pushed for batman being a real person. There's a superhero infobox on the superman page but nobody seriously considers this POV pushing for super heros being real, or for superpowers being real.

Besides, half of the infoboxes listed allow for it to be specifically stated that something has been debunked. If you are so concerned about this, wouldn't the logical answer be to ensure that all of them have this feature. For example, the paranormal creatures box has a status section where you can say who debunked it and when, while the paranormal terms box has one that allows you to add a custom field with debunking information in it.

Most boxes don't actually have the capacity to POV as they don't include anywhere for the POV pushing to take place. most simply contain definitions and descriptions which are all fully in compliance with the arb om by being labeled as being paranormal which tells the reader everythign that they need to know about the topic.

As for the crop circles, what, the box actually contained only basic and verifiable information that is not in dispute. For example that crop circles were made from bent or broken crops. What's POV pushing about that? It's not as if the infobox said "made by spooks and aliens" is it?

perfectblue 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes, like categories and images, are intended to provide additional context and handy links. They should not be used to represent or advance a controversial POV, and if there's a dispute, then the infobox should not be applied to that article until the dispute is resolved. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that they are not being used to represent a POV in this case. The recent arbcom (see above for links) already determined that labeling something as being paranormal doesn't imply that the paranormal actually exists. For example, it determined that you can call somebody a psychic because the term psychic is a cultural epitaph, and thus doing so is not POV pushing that the psychic person actually has psychic powers, or that psychic are real anywhere other than in popular culture.

In fact, NOT labeling something as being paranormal would be POV pushing. If I went around and swapped all of the paranormal creatures infoboxes for zoology infoboxes, that would imply that the creatures are real, as it is they are all clearly and unambiguously labeled as being otherwise.

Let's say that you used the standard wiki-alternatives. That would mean that paranormal researchers' biographical information would have to be listed using the same boxes as scientist or academics, and that debunked cryptids would have to use the same boxes as real proven creatures, and that Ufology physics would use the same boxes as real physics. That would be a million times worse and I would be the first person on this board to change them. In fact that was one of the reasons why I created some of these infoboxes in the first place, to clearly and unambiguously label certain pages and to distinguish them from all else.

I find it contrary to logic that these boxes could be accused of claiming that the paranormal is scientifically valid when they in fact do all that they can to divide them from science and to provide an alternative to the existing scientific boxes.

perfectblue 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently come across (and added to) {{autism rights movement}} and {{autism cure movement}}. They may reflect POV and may be alternate sides of the same coin; I haven't read enough of the articles to sort it all out, but on the surface, they seem to fall into the same territory as this paranormal template discussion. Almost nothing in the autism rights movement template is cited, and many of the articles are unsourced essays or POV, so I'm also wondering about the best use of templates to possibly advance POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates are for ease of use. The Autism templates above simply direct persons to other articles in the same light. Nothing wrong with them. --Northmeister 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)