Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Battle of Saragarhi is a persuasive essay written to convince the reader that a last-stand siege involving 21 Sikh troopers is the most important battle in history, and possibly the greatest single event ever. The casualty figures given fail the laugh test (229 attackers killed per defender in a half-day battle with bolt action rifles), and many vital claims are unsourced or poorly sourced. The entire article may trace to a 1987 book by non-academics, filtered through various Indian Army fan-sites and self-published blogs. The sole clearly legitimate source is a Daily Telegraph article, but I seriously wonder whether it was written based on this Wikipedia article or some other unreliable source! Worst of all, the article is laced with nationalist hagiography and even racialist claims about the inherent ferocity of the Sikhs. There is also a smallish walled-garden of articles including Saragarhi Day and Havildar Ishar Singh which just replicate the main article, as well as some references in other, "normal" articles like Sikh which may need cleanup. There appears to be at least one editor threatening a revert war if anyone so much as questions this piece, so I'd appreciate some wider community input. <eleland/talkedits> 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve it a little bit. The 1:229 ratio is hard to believe, I admit, but this does seem to have been a freak incident, and we'll have to accept that's what the sources given state. dab (𒁳) 09:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and check a couple contemporary newspapers. Vanished user ^talk 10:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

based on this, it appears the Thermopylae comparison is flawed after all. The 4,800 dead Afghans were the entire casualties of that day, presumably not only due to the 21 heroes at Saragarhi. There was notably a relief party of 93 led by Haughton, and who knows what else. Assuming 93+21 instead of just 21 already results in a ratio of 1:88 instead of 1:476. The calculation in any case appears to be WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that the 4,800 figure refers to the entire campaign rather than the one battle. While it's true that the Telegraph piece quotes the 4,800 figure, many of the Internet sources have it around 200-450. And it's not entirely clear that the Telegraph was referring to the one battle, rather than the whole war. Obviously, one group is way off.

It's interesting that the 1911 Britannica article on the campaign makes no mention whatsoever of this battle, though. An oft-quoted anecdote has the British Parliament rising in standing ovation at hearing the news; surely the Hansard would record it? <eleland/talkedits> 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a professional army, particularly if it's defending a narrow area, can cause a massive amount of damage on an attacking unprofessional one. You see this sort of thing in accounts of Thermopylae and Plataea - Spartan society was almost totally militarized - and also in many of the battles of Wellington's Indian campaigns. Agincourt might be another relevant example. Just a note. Moreschi ^Talk 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, "massive damage" meaning perhaps a ratio of kills of the order of 1:20, but hardly 1:200, not with bolt action rifles and bayonets. If they'd had machine guns or cannons, that would be a different story altogether. But seeing that we have an account emphasizing that a particular defender killed 20, I find it hard to believe that he was below his fellow defenders' average by a factor of 10. Either way, this article is in desperate need of reliable sources. The "Thermopylae effect" says you can immobilize a huge force, simply because it isn't possible for the large majority of attackers to even make contact with the defenders for reasons of space. It doesn't mean you can kill them all. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources actually say the guy who killed 20 was locked in a high tower sniping at the Afghans, who couldn't break in and ultimately just burned the tower to the ground. The article had him charging into a crowd of Afghans with a sword, which doesn't make any sense. It's like an American action movie where the huge crowd of bad guys all charge one or two at a time, I guess? <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, the article on jenkem looks like it needs attention for both WP:FRINGE issues and reliable sources. This has a strong whiff (pardon the pun) of an urban legend. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is part real, part urban legend, part internet meme, part OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! type article. Jenkem is real and confirmed by the BBC and Children of Africa reliable/verifiable sources. That is where the real part ends, period. Internet meme and urban legend comes into play with the flux64 part. The OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! part comes in when the media start using it as a "moral panic incitement" type article which takes a relatively minor and obscure "high" and turns it into the next drug of choice for teens. This article contains all three parts. I think the proposed split it a good one (real from the Internet Meme/OMG! PANIC! part). spryde | talk 14:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I was bold and did the split. spryde | talk 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been tagged with {{Totally disputed}} for a year because it omits theories that the Spanish police were behind the bottom. In looking into this closer it turns out large chunks of the article have been in hidden comments since a February edit war. At a quick glance it appears to have been a "if my unsourced conspiracy text is not allowed then no unsourced text is allowed" sort of edit war. This is turning out to be more involved problem than I first thought it to be.--BirgitteSB 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the hidden stuff. Granted, it's not sourced, but that could be so easily fixed with an hour or so rootling around in newspaper archives. Appears reasonable material - certainly, without it, the article is horribly disjointed, whackily spaced, and annoyingly shite. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

against Royalists in the Vendee region of Western France.

At the time of writing, the current version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocides_in_history&oldid=169877240 , while lengthy (WP: UNDUE), accurately portrays such views as "unconventional" and "minority". However, a couple of users have been waging an edit war to try and keep the claims of Secher and Chanu on an equal footing with that of the prevailing consensus amongst the relevant academic establishment. Please see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history - Ledenierhomme 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define "genocide". IIRC the French Revolutionary government did carry out "populicide" (a description used at the time) with a campaign of systematic mass murder in the Vendée. The article seems to suffer the usual confusion about the term "genocide", i.e. is it a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire race or ethnic group (in which case the clear-cut examples are the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish Holocaust and Rwanda 1994) or organised killings of a specific enemy group on a mass-scale which would constitute a "crime against humanity"? If the latter, then I think the Vendée massacres - in which over 100,000 people were killed, many by particularly nasty methods such as the noyades - qualify as "genocidal". I've certainly seen that adjective used by historians. I'd have to refresh my memory. But judging by the rest of the article, this isn't the only POV problem there. --Folantin 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the UN 1948 description of genoicide. "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group". The "acts" are then listed, and can be summarised as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, starving to death, sterilization, and forcible population transfer of the group's children. Not sure how helpful that is, but that seems to be the legal definition. Moreschi ^Talk 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it all comes down to whether the nobility and upper classes count as a national, ethnic, or religious group. But it all seems rather quibbling about terminology to me. Vanished user ^talk 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I think that it all comes down to whether the nobility and upper classes count as a national, ethnic, or religious group". Eh? Most of the victims of the Vendée massacres were Catholic peasants (there was a religious dimension to these events). It was the biggest atrocity of the Revolution and its biggest irony: the revolutionaries ended up slaughtering the very people they claimed to represent (an irony repeated many times since, of course). Here's what General Westermann, one of those responsible for the Vendée campaign, said: "The Vendée is no more...I have buried it in the woods and marshes of Savenay... According to your orders, I have trampled their children beneath our horses' feet; I have massacred their women so they will no longer give birth to brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated them all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop...Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment" (Quoted by Norman Davies, A History of Europe, p.705). It's still a highly contentious topic, but in recent years it's been given more attention by historians. A lot of people died - maybe ten times more than were executed by guillotine. It does crop up in discussions about the definition and history of genocide (e.g. here [1]). But your second sentence is correct and there are many other things on that page to quibble with. This is one of those articles that's probably always destined to be a POV magnet and a battleground. --Folantin 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never actually studied the period, so presumed it referred to the more famous massacres. Vanished user ^talk 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sack of Nineveh probably involved "genocide". The point is that the term is an anachronism. I do think we should avoid applying the term for pre-20th century events, or failing that, at least for pre-19th century ones. The French Revolution may be something like a borderline case, insofar as it marks the beginning of "political modernity", but I would recommend that if in doubt, avoid the term. It's a bit like "terrorism". It attracts trolling without yielding any sort of benefit. This is, incidentially, a question of terminology, not of "fringe theories" as such. Even "massacre" is preferable, that term being in use since the 16th century. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's a question of terminology. Gracchus Babeuf's contemporary term populicide has never really caught on. Ironically, people at the time would be more likely to refer to the Vendée as an act of terrorism. I'm not planning to get involved because this type of page just has too many problems to be worth the effort. Still, not as bad as "Allegations of apartheid". --Folantin 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In an ideal world this is probably something we should actually delete, because despite the fact that there might be a half-decent article here somewhere in the very distant future, in practice, on a project like Wikipedia, that ain't going to happen - too many opportunities for a good fight. At the least, the sections on pre-20th century alleged "genoicides" should be vastly slimmed down per Dbachmann's reasoning and the focus put on universally acknowledged 20th-century genoicides (the Holocaust, Armenia), along with other 20th-century incidences of what some scholars have called genoicide, but which are disputed by others. Moreschi ^Talk 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with that sentiment, and recall that either on this page or on a similar "we suffered most" page there was a table, with tons of references, including the Holocaust, the Ukranian famine, and what not, but leading it off at the top was (to paraphrase) the simple words: Genocide-Flood; Perpetrator-God; Victims-All but eight. It was referenced to Genesis, and had stayed in for a while. I couldn't make up my mind if it was subversive or not. Relata refero 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A long section has been added to this article asserting a single, but sourced opinion that this incident wasn't actually an accident but an internal rebellion by US Air Force officers to preempt a possible nuclear strike on Iran. My concerns are whether the sources meet the notability guidelines, and if they do, whether the section is too long and gives undue weight to the theory and if it's written neutrally. Thank-you in advance for any perpective you might provide on the issue. Cla68 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether the conspiracy has merit or not is one thing, however the conspiracy takes up about half of the article and isn't properly formatted to begin with which to my eyes is undue weight considering the sources use the tested trial of "noted critics" and then linking to that on persons articles repeatedly as an indicator of a unified view other than one mans. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious violation of WP:UNDUE, this sort of stuff is made to be nuked. The military deliberately sending their own nukes off into the sunset just to say "fuck you" to the politicians...amusing, but no. Silly fringe stuff that can't be properly sourced, get rid of it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are precisely two sources claim any linkage, both carrying bylines of what appear to be fairly crusader-y investigative reporters. If not completely non-notable, the theory deserves at best a paragraphg, not the long involved discussion it gets now. Relata refero 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel people who testified before congress, counterterrorism experts, NSA analysts and investigative journalists are expert sources.

"Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately."

For some reason investigative journalists who have won major awards exposing military/intelligence coverups, intelligence experts and military officials are not qualified to discuss issues of military, intelligence or coverups. You all are holding me to an absurd level of 'evidence'.

If my sources are too partisan I can understand why the article was deleted (luckily I saved it since I figured it would be deleted for being controversial). But I posted citations from the New Yorker, counterterrorism experts, military officials, NSA analyists, people who have testified before congress and award winning investigative journalists with decades of experience.

Here are my source on topics of military, intelligence and investigative journalism.

Wayne Madsen - NSA analyst and ex-Navy intelligence officer who has testified before congress written for the Village Voice and Wired who has worked with congressman Bob Barr on privacy legislation.

Dave Lindorff - investigative journalist who has won a project censored award for exposing information on reinstatement of the draft, 30 years of experience in journalism, written for publications like the Nation and Counterpunch

Larry C. Johnson - counterterrorism expert and ex-CIA member

Dana Priest - Pulitzer prize winning intelligence and military expert for the Washington Post with over 20 years of experience. She won the prize for exposing information on secret US prisons.

Salon magazine

The New Yorker magazine

The Times (UK) magazine

these are reliable sources for military, intelligence or investigative journalism. What am I supposed to do? What more evidence do I need? Legitimate magazines, award winning journalists who expose intelligence/military coverups, intelligence officials and military officials are adequate sources for intelligence/military coverups.

As far as the fringe theory claim, there is merit there, I will grant that. Some of my sources do express a political bias. Is there any way to express this information (which I feel is important) while explaining that there may be a polticial bias to it? To claim that an encyclopedia entry that is 'only' based on pulitzer prize winning journalists, award winning investigative journalists, intelligence/military experts and well known magazines as unreliable is extremely false at best.

Dana Priest and Dave Lindorff have both won major awards for uncovering controversial facts involving intelligence and military actions. Lindorff for info on the draft, Priest for info on secret prisons.

Who is better at exposing controversial military/intelligence issues than award winning journalists who have won awards for doing that exact thing?

I feel these are prominent adherents. But due to the UNDUE issue I can see the controversy, no matter what the evidence. Should a new article be created that is solely devoted to this subject?

I do get the impression that there are a real mess of articles dealing with fringe theories. Maybe we could try to create a nominal Project for the purpose of dealing with these theories, something along the lines of the Rational Skepticism project. It would at least give the chance of creating an article list which could be monitored for changes. John Carter 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know....every subject has its fringe. I tend to think a notice board where folks check up on stuff and report stuff that seems odd is a more workable solution. but that's my original research and sythesis....;) --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on the downside, every single encyclopedic subject would probably be of interest to such a group. On the upside, the idea is inherently neutral. It's not an anti-fringe project, just a project that watches the fringe (which could well be inclusive of members of the fringe). Antelan ^talk 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there already is one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views. I'm going to create an articles page for that project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles and list all those articles which are listed on this page right now. Then, we can at least use the recent changes function which I'll add to the project page to keep updated on these articles. John Carter 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

there is also WikiProject Rational Skepticism -- sort of the same goal approached from the other end. While the Alternative Views seems to have the intention of pushing coverage of Fringe views as far as policy will allow, the Rational Skepticism one is trying to cut the crap and fix articles that tout fringe topics. I ask you, which is more needed in the real world? Do we have to worry more that a fringe topic will unduly remain unreported, or do we have to worry more that fringe topics will be unduly over-reported and given more credibility than they deserve? The answer is at Wikipedia:Sword-skeleton theory. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but the RS already had a separate article list. Trust me, I've worked on it. Having said that, I wouldn't mind perhaps seeing the Alternative Views project discuss whether it should or should not change its stated scope. And, at least for myself, I joined the project not so much to push fringe theories, but to try to find if there would be any way to perhaps create a place where content regarding fringe theories could be placed so as to not receive undue weight elsewhere, like in an article about a given book, for instance. Personally, I'd love to see the AV project changed to being the effective project equivalent of the noticeboard here, or maybe merged into another, similar project. But I don't think that right now the project has enough members with that inclination for it to be successful. John Carter 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

so, do you think there would be a point in merging RS and AV? This noticeboard could then be part of the resulting "Due Weight" project. We can also keep things as they are, but we need to prominently crosslink projects with overlapping scopes. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging might be difficult, and probably would be down the line a bit. There is now, however, a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Due weight for the creation of a "parent" project for the various projects related to fringe theories and undue weight considerations. Certainly, in time the various child projects could be merged in if the parent is viable. John Carter 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a fellow who keeps adding a POV-pushing coatrack about how awful Dawkins is. Never mind that the claims of deception were made by at least three people so far. Vanished user ^talk 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe someone could add more facts about the deception? such as the registration of the website prior to requests for interviews? The movie sounds dreadful, imo. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of attempts to remove criticism from the lead. So far, they've tried to remove the bit about no molecules remaining in many common homeopathic dilutions, and set out Hahnemann's thoughts as if he was right. I'm off to class. Vanished user ^talk 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any difference between having no criticism and being all criticism? In the first paragraph alone there were four instances of "Homeopaths contend......". Is this article about homeopathy or should it be retitled critcisms of homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with David D. The LEAD should summarize the subject. The criticism should be included in the main text of the article. Whig 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. It should stand as a mini-article such that one could read it and know the important outlines of the subject. The lead uses NPOV just like the rest of the article. There is no policy that says we revert to sympathetic point of view in the lead, while using NPOV elsewhere.

Therefore, if a subject has very notable criticism, the outline of that criticism must be in the lead. We do not believe in content forks on wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that criticims must be outlined in the lead. The fact that there is criticism should certaily be part of the lead, and I would agree that if that criticism can be summarized in one or two sentence in the lead we can and should do so. But I don't think it is a "must" to outline it in the lead. Blueboar 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On most subjects, there is no need for criticism in the lead because the criticisms are not a weighty part of the topic. Say, something like Calvin and Hobbes. Other subjects are almost defined by the reliably-sourced criticism about them, say Iraq War. (These are not perfect articles, but they were just some examples that cam to mind.) Homeopathy is the latter, and omitting all criticism from the lead would run afoul of NPOV. It must be included for this topic. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "briefly describing notable controversies" is appropriate and in fact necessary in a good lead (per WP:LEAD). You can't accurately and neutrally summarize homeopathy without mentioning the fact that it's widely considered to be scientifically unfounded. I think David's point was simply that the lead may be going too far overboard and being solely critical. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. I agree with all the criticisms. I am very cynical about homeopathy and all alternative medicine in general. However, I still see the current lead as over-the-top criticism and unbalanced in this sense. It's a common flaw I see in many controversial articles in wikipedia. There is no good reason to rebutt each and every claim in the following sentence. There is no good reason to use a phrase like "Homeopaths contend..." so often. It's incredibly tedious to read such repetition, it's also tedious to have the description of homoepathy broken up by continual rebuttals. Are we really so insecure that we cannot allow the opening paragraph to explain the principles of homeopathy in a flowing and interesting narrative? David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David D. and would point out that there are editors who seem to need all articles with either unproven or out right pseudoscience to be nothing but criticism, and resist all attempts make readable, verified, neutral articles. --Rocksanddirt 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand his point, I also agree. "Contend...contend...contend..." is a style that we don't even employ in articles recounting controversial religious experiences. It's very negative in tone, although the substance is essentially good. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree especially with David D. I wonder how generally it is considered pseudoscience, given that the mainstream sources which criticize it also say that it is widely used. The lead needs to have criticism, but needs to have a neutral tone. For example, more than one sentence stating categorically that it is in conflict with scientific knowledge is overkill. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of "contend" was an amicable solution to the previous use of "claim". A number of statements in the lead left the impression that they were proven fact, when that wasn't the case. Since an NPOV article and lead can't state untruths without some type of qualifier, or unproven claims as if they are facts, this was the best term that editors from both sides could agree upon, and, IIRC, that solution was proposed by a pro-homeopathy editor. It was a consensus solution and I would suggest that David D. read the earlier discussion on the talk page and then respect the consensus that ended an edit war. We don't need to start that edit war again.

Otherwise, the use of straw man arguments like "nothing but criticism" and "solely critical" are not helpful to a serious discussion, since that is certainly not the case. The salient points describing basic homeopathic theory and practice are told clearly in the lead and the criticisms likewise. That makes it an NPOV lead that sums up the whole article. The constant push for an article that tells about homeopathy only from the POV of homeopaths, while relegating criticisms to a small part of the article, is a plea for violation of weight and NPOV. Articles at Wikipedia are significantly different than articles on other websites. Here we tell "the whole story" about a subject, including opposing POV and controversies.

Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences" certainly applies here:

• If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing. Attempts to cover-up criticisms, keep them out of articles, whitewash the subject, etc. only end up causing the criticisms to be better sourced and strengthened. Right now this article covers the subject pretty well, but if necessary the appropriate weight that the scientific POV deserves could be improved. -- Fyslee / talk 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. COI applies only where editing is not NPOV. Now, "Contend" is not a WP:WTA- though I intend to add it, as it is much like "Insist, maintain, protest" and is un-necessary because "argue" does just as well. But there is no reason for using it where "say" works just as well. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of words to avoid, at least, should be easy to resolve. I've taken a shot at it. We can say that "homeopaths believe x and y" without making a judgement about whether x and y are true or scientifically valid. Instead of a somewhat tortured construction about how homeopaths "contend" the process works, we can just say that homeopathy "proposes to treat imbalances in a vital source". As to the proper amount of criticism to include in the lead, I have no opinion at this juncture. MastCell ^Talk 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your change was good. Adam is currently making a lot of the changes, more or less, that he tried to block me for a week for making. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

People can change their minds if the argument is based on solid ground. A willingness to change an opinion is a good thing so let's see this progression in a positive light. David D. (Talk) 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A handful of IPs and new users appear to be POV-pushing to ensure that an issue regarding Yahoo's involvement in a company that enables shark finning gets added to the Yahoo! article's controversy section. Some seems to be POV original research - other parts of it might be ok. Just could use a third party review to ensure it is not too "fringe". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like they're giving undue weight to the issue (a short paragraph at the end of a long section of controversy) and the sources seem to be reliable and independent enough. No comment on the users including the material - highly motivated editors may yet be productive ones, and if there are conduct issues, they can be addressed. Just my 2 metasyntactic currency subdivisions. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually did some cleanup to get it to its current state. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Harald88 continues to insist that certain extremely fringe publications that are only cited by the authors get included at tired light which was a proposal made by Fritz Zwicky o so many years ago and now has been consigned to the dustbin of history. As it is, these references look very much to me like soapboxing. I'm not sure if Harald is associated with Marmet, Masreliez , or Accardi, but he seems to be peculiarly convinced that their papers have relevance to physics beyond the astrophysics community where these cranks have received little to no recognition for their ideas. I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter as I cannot seem to get Harald to understand that these references do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Tired light. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 (talk · contribs) believes the Nordwestblock (viz., the Netherlands) is the "cradle of civilization", the origin of the "Nordic race", or something to that effect. He is quite difficult to figure out, since most of his contribution are intelligent and based on academic sources, but presented subtly out of context to appear to establish claims they do not in fact make. This needs close attention and judicious involvement, something I am not capable of doing right now, both due to RL tasks, and due to frustration over being painted a "rouge admin" over my efforts to combat the national mysticist fringe. Moreschi's Plague: WP is very badly equipped to deal with these things, and even shows signs of auto-immunity, with confused T-cells having at the few active ones instead of recognizing the infection. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That thing reads like an essay. I'll try to at least text edit the essay-ness down, but I won't have time for a while. I've got to do my IRL original research that I get paid for....--Rocksanddirt 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some time ATM, and am willing to help Rokus01 get the article into shape. I think it's best to have him involved in the process rather than going over his head with reverts and commando-type edits. Of course, anyone with more experience and clout can jump in at any time if they see it as necessary. Just give us some time to work through the material and get it into something resembling an encyclopedia entry. Aryaman (☼) 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the first part discussion on the appropriate text style certainly needs to include Roksus01, whether some of the factual/verifiablity issues can be worked on with his input seems an open question. --Rocksanddirt 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. I am assuming good faith on his part, as well as his ability to accept views contrary to his own - especially on matters pertaining to policy. I often see experienced editors slap a few references to policy in a discussion thread just prior to going gung-ho with the undo-button without taking the time to explain what a particular policy is supposed to mean in the specific context. And this regularly leads to all kinds of trouble that no one needs to waste their time on. I think a combination of strict adherence to policy with clear explanations of the requirements those policies entail with regards to the actual article would go a long way towards diffusing potentially nasty situations. But, you're right. Time will tell in this particular case. Aryaman (☼) 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's now written an entirely new page on what is apparently a fringe theory called the Broad Homeland hypothesis and attempted to rewrite Indo-European languages to push it (the Kurgan hypothesis article and its references make it clear its the predominant theory in this area). I cleaned up the latter, leaving the section he added but putting it in a more appropriate place; I'm not even sure it deserves its own section. Others please keep an eye on this. - Merzbow (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't abuse WP:Fringe in order to give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain point of view. The Kurgan hypothesis has its own article. To a language topic like Indo-European languages an extensive promotion of an archeological theory is hopelessly off-topic, since the extensive special Kurgan section (a subsection already exists in the same article!) does not even give insight into the linguistic matters addressed in the article. Try to be helpful in the proper application of WP policy. My WP:UNDUE correction to Indo-European languages does not have anything to do with boosting another archeological view, just to correct fanatism on the Kurgan theory within an article about linguistics. Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

this is getting worse. close supervision is necessary. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, your censorship of scholarly views is getting worse. Please restrain from WP:OR to damage the reputation of scholars and motivated editors in order to impose the Kurgan model on every "soundbite" instead.Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this: I never discussed unscientific approaches and un-academic theories being labeled "fringe", still the fanatism displayed by Dab to rout or contradict scholarly views is turning counter productive. This is a long term mutual issue. It is wrong to call something "fringe" for no other reason that it appears to contradict some kind of loosely defined "mainstream" opinion - especially when this "mainstream opinion" coincides with the personal point of view of a rogue administrator. Scholars are a minority by definition, so abusing the word "mainstream" for promoting popular views will compromise the quality of WP as a source of neutral information. Fighting the presentation of multiple scholarly views will only achieve the opposite of what WP:Fringe its really intended for. In reality exclusive attention to some conservative views advocates the violation of WP:NPOV. Note, it can't be neutral to push alternative scholarly views out altogether. The POV intention of some would-be "fringe-figthers" becomes obvious when they reject to discuss WP:UNDUE information that serve their views, and deem anything else "not allowed". Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More of a neutrality than a "fringe theory" issue, but since the topic is an author on "Fortean phenomena" I still think it's appropriate to be listed here. A fresh account with apparent insider knowledge on the author with a tendency towards {{fansite}} (and WP:CRYSTAL[2]). More eyes (and opinions) appreciated. dab (𒁳) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

now even progressed to sock fun. dab (𒁳) 22:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Could use more eyes, especially from editors who reside in the physical world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

/me watches Astrology article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm part of the astrology project, so I have reason to watch the article. My exact place of residence is probably open to question on that basis though. If you've got specific concerns regarding reliability or other matters, leave them with me on my talk page and I'll either try to verify the reliability of the sources or bring the phrasing back down to real world levels. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check the activity on Immanuel Velikovsky where a User:Icebear1946 seems intent on spamming for a particular fringe website of limited notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see Ages in Chaos for an article similarly fringe-y. Relata refero (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone still believe in Velikovsky? I know Stephen Jay Gould talked about him, but I always presumed he was now only of historical interest. Vanished user ^talk 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at the things people are willing to believe in. (Or maybe not.) Anyway, I gave Icebear1946 a spam4im warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I had never guessed the depths of human credulity, naiveté, and outright stupidity before I started editing Wikipedia. If nothing else, the project is a real eye-opener in this respect. dab (𒁳) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked now. As with many of my admin actions, the refrain to "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" is going through my head. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they will learn when those involved in science education in various ways at various levels start doing a better job of it (& I'm one of them, so I include myself)-- and one aspect of that is maintaining quality here, which is a very large part of why I and you and the rest of us at this noticeboard are here. However, even if someone goes away stubbornly persistent, receiving him politely here can have a delayed effect.--I've seen it sometimes. The first step in converting someone taking them seriously, not ridiculing them. Anyone can ridicule, but only the people with the correct knowledge can present truly convincing arguments. Agreed, this guy made it pretty hard, and I think we've been as patient about it as possible. But I do not like to see subsequent gloating. Like Arritt, what I feel is a sad regret. DGG (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He's back. The history tab is a mess, and if he's avoided 3RR, I'd be surprised. Relata refero (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at WP:ANI#Please show this user the door where User:ScienceApologist has asked for a community ban. Relata refero (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is trash and because of the controversial nature, those who are seemingly radicals have made the article very subjective and opinionated. It needs some serious work and then needs to become protected. Cobrapete (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is trash. The claim that usage of the term is "hotly contested" certainly needs qualification. It seems to hark back to early 1990s, when the term may actually have been "hotly contested". By some people. Who were widely thought fools even then. I feel the article is largely beating dead horses. The allegation that "'political correctness' is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit progressive social change" is hilarious, even though it is "referenced" to three sources (of course not giving a single page number). Not really about fringe theories, just your regular awful article. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked in to it. There are some POV issues with the article (but this seems to be the case with most articles) and the sources all need to be checked, but I don't understand why this is posted here? The ideas in the article about political correctness aren't "fringe theories" as much as they are opinions that need proper attribution. This board isn't the right place for this issue. futurebird (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it too. Seems like a reasonably informative article that is more into defining the term and its history/usage than pushing a POV. Incidentally, it's the *usage* of the term, not the term itself that the article says is contested. One persons calls something PC that's another deeply held person's dogma. All three follow ups agree your complaint doesn't belong here. Best wishes, Keith Henson (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. Of course, there is no clear line between "mere" WP:UNDUE and full-fledged WP:FRINGE. I have a feeling the concept is relevant to discussions of pseudo-scholarship because sometimes proponents will play the "PC card" to dodge criticism. I get this a lot, just look at my talkpage ("no, there is no scholarly support for your idea of 'indigenous Aryans'" -- "you horrible racist, what a politically incorrect evil imperialist thing to say!"-- I guess it's a special kind of appeal to motive that was allowed to thrive in the USA in particular). My latest talkpage section is almost a textbook case. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic. futurebird (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the topic isn't "fringe theories on Wikipedia"? I can assure you, if you patrol the relevant troll magnets for a few months, you'll share my experiences. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a fringe theory or not so I'm hoping that someone can help me out. The theory is the idea that "early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Makah" and people who subscribe to "animist religions" have "have lacked a concept of humanity and have placed non human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans." --this sounds dubious to me as I don't know how any group of people could have had no concept of "humanity" -- There are sources given from some pro-animal rights people. But, what do anthropologists an sociologists have to say about this idea? See the criticism section. futurebird (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. This is complete nonsense. Off the top of my head, serious discussions on the topic of totemism can be found in Burkert's Homo Necans and Tolkien's On Fairy Stories. The part about "lacked a concept of humanity" should be removed asap as blatant nonsense. The point the paragraph seems to be trying to make is that there is, in fact, a fundamental identification of human and animal nature in tribal mythologies, totemism, etc., but that isn't because these "savages" somehow cannot distinguish humans from animals, or place animals on "equal footing" with humans -- what would be the point of identifying with an animal if you cannot tell the difference between yourself and an animal? The opposite applies. Just like people do not identify with gods because they cannot tell the difference, but rather because they do perceive a large difference, and see qualities they aspire to. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that the statement in question is not made in Wikipedia's voice, but is rather attributed to p. 138 of "Ideas That Changed the World" by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. This changes everything of course. Since I have no idea what is actually on this page, I cannot tell if the article gives an adequate paraphrase. The basic gist of the statement is sensible, and I suspect that there is a possibility that the "lacked a concept of humanity" is to be blamed on a Wikipedia editor, not on Fernandez-Armesto. This would deserve some verification. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I'm just hoping that someone can take a look to see if it is what he says. Also, if that is what this guy says, I imagine he's in the minority among people who study and write about such things and that should be made clear. futurebird (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also agreed. The phrasing strikes me as incredibly dubious and POV, although if it's a quote or accurate paraphrase from a source it probably could be included if it's the best such available statement. I could agree that it seems certain societies did not place as great an emphasis on the "separateness" of humanity, but rather considered it one of many possibly equivalent "animals" or parts of nature, which that statment could be seen as trying to imply. I'd change the text myself if I could verify the source didn't say that, or if I found a source which said it better, but am unfortunately probably tied up with other things for a while. I will try to check the libraries here for the book, though. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

looking into Fernandez-Armesto, I find it very likely he is being misquoted. I'll add a {{dubious}} to the paraphrase until it can be substantiated by a verbatim quote. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem (yet), but a truly beautiful example of textbook crackpottery I've just come across, listed here for those enjoying this sort of thing :)

Talk:Assyria-Germany_connection#Austrian_Chronicle

dab (𒁳) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk · contribs)

Keep an eye on this one, he looks rather funny, and quacks like a sock. Vanished user ^talk 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for the length of this posting. This case involves systematic and clever use of system-gaming tactics; you might call it a "stealth POV push". The fringe theories are couched in reasonable language and falsely attributed to credible people; generally the sources invovled are scientific papers which can't be accessed without access to a good research library. I suspect that if I had this access, I could be even more thorough; as it is, Google has enough evidence to expose what's going on here.

User:Biaothanatoi has embarked on an extensive rewrite of this article to conform with his interpretations of WP:NPOV and other policies. In some cases, this has entailed a welcome removal of overly prejudicual language or unencyclopedic presentation of information. However, these edits have also departed severely from WP:NPOV, and often involved original synthesis of source materials. In some cases, statements have been sourced to documents which simply do not make them, violating WP:V in the worst way.

Most seriously, he appears to have cribbed incredible claims from a paranoid-delusional SRA activist, then falsely attributed them to credible sources without having ever read these sources. To avoid making this a user conduct issue I have forked off that part to the article talk page.

Eleland, if you have reason to believe that the information provided in the article was false, then please demonstrate where and make the corrections accordingly. At the moment, you are engaging in purely ad hominen attacks and failing to engage constructively with the article to the benefit of the reader. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the first edits was an addition of information on the Jordan, Minnesota affair. While correctly noting that this case fell apart, the new version of events heavily distorts the issues. It leaves the reader to believe that a probable Satanic conspiracy escaped notice because of mistakes by the prosecutor, and was swept under the rug by state and federal authorities.

I have not made this claim regarding the Minnesota case, nor do I believe this to be the case. Please engage in this debate in good faith. At the moment, you seem to be attributing a range of beliefs and opinions to me that I have never indicated that I hold. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the first edits was an addition of information on the Jordan, Minnesota affair. While correctly noting that this case fell apart, the new version of events heavily distorts the issues. It leaves the reader to believe that a probable Satanic conspiracy escaped notice because of mistakes by the prosecutor, and was swept under the rug by state and federal authorities. In fact, the Supreme Court of the US later noted that "The injustice [children's] erroneous testimony can produce is evidenced by the tragic Scott County investigations of 1983-1984, which disrupted the lives of many (as far as we know) innocent people in the small town of Jordan, Minnesota. ... There is no doubt that some sexual abuse took place in Jordan; but there is no reason to believe it was as widespread as charged."

The State Attorney General's report notes that several individuals made false confessions under duress, or falsely incriminated others; one individual was found to be a serial child abuser (although no Satanic or ritual elements were substantiated) and another, a minor, was found to have assaulted his own siblings. It concluded that "The tragedy of Scott County goes beyond the inability to successfully prosecute individuals who may have committed child sexual abuse. Equally tragic is the possibility that some were unjustly accused and forced to endure long separations from their families...the City of Jordan should also be listed among the victims of the so-called sex-ring cases. Over sixty of its citizens were either charged with or suspected of abusing over one hundred children. State/federal investigators simply do not believe that accusations of such wide-spread abuse were accurate."

I feel that all the information you have provided here would be a valuable addition to the article. Why don’t you post it to the article, rather then claim that it's ommission is evidence of my nefarious agenda? --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The next major section rewrite erased an account of the McMartin Beach fiasco based on the majority understanding. Its keystone was an archaeological investigation financed by "true believer" parents, which alleged strong evidence of backfilled tunnels. The archaeoligical investigation ordered by the prosecution, which found no evidence of tunnels, was not mentioned, and it was added in argumentative style that "The significance and accuracy of these findings have been contested in psychological journals but have yet to be refuted by an archaeologist." Apparently it takes an archaeologist to conclude that it would be rather difficult to covertly backfill hundreds of cubic metres of tunnels under a crime scene.

The archeological excavations were undertaken by an UCLA archeologist, and tunnels were found in the configuration disclosed by the children. Dirt taken from the filled tunnels included lolly wrappings with used-by-dates from twenty years after the preschool was built.

To date, we know that an archeological excavation found tunnels under the McMartin preschool, that the tunnels matched the disclosures of the children, and that the tunnels had been backfilled at some point. I fail to see why this information should be withheld from the reader.

Unless you have proof that Dr Gary Stickel (the archeologist), Prof. Roland Summit and the parents of the complainant children engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to fabricate the tunnel findings, then it is clear to me that the tunnel findings are relevant to this article, and that they may be of interest to the reader.

Your argument otherwise presumes an elaborate conspiracy of which you have no proof, which seems like a 'fringe theory' all of your own. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority understanding of McMartin, which you can find in any media account or on law prof Douglas Linder's Famous Trials website, was painted as "an advertising campaign", "launched and paid for" by "attorneys for the defendants". Aside from various primary sources which are cherry-picked tendentiously, the sole source was an oral presentation by one Roland Summit, M.D., whom User:Biaothanatoi describes as "a world-renowned expert on child abuse" and "[one] of the best-known names in child abuse research of the last thirty years." Summit is actually known for serving as a star expert witness for the McMarten prosecution, and for inventing something called "Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome", which the SRA movement seized on as their silver bullet, but which he has since distanced himself from. Biaothanatoi also made much of his belief that the previous, skeptical sources, Paul and Shirley Eberle, are "pro-incest advocates" and "child pornographers"; in fact, they published a hippie sex magazine in 1970s LA which was subject to obsessive police investigation, resulting in no charges. Anyway, the Eberle's conclusions are substantially identical to the conclusions of most other sources, so even if their reliability were in tatters, it would not legitimize the rewrite.

I've provided two sources which quoted the LAPD and a trial judge affirming that the Eberles were engaged in the child sex trade in the 1970s. The fact that you continue to uphold their reputations in the face of this information, whilst slandering respected academics like David Finkelhor and Roland Summit, is deeply concerning, and your pejoraive references to an “SRA movement” and the “invention” of the CAAS shows your own profound bias and POV, Eleland. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another edit removed the information that the SRA panic basically faded out through the 1990s, and removed a vital 1992 FBI report which basically trashed the concept of SRA in detail.

Lanning’s FBI report (which it is clear that you've never read) stated that ritual child sexual abuse does take place in what he calls ‘multi-dimensional child sex rings’, but that there was no evidence for a ‘Satanic conspiracy’ of any kind. I happen to agree with him. The only reason that the link to his report was removed was because his report doesn’t support the statement that was being attributed to him, and the report is over 15 years old now and of questionable relevance to the debate today. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In place, was a cobbling together of some selective data amid unsourced, prejudicial original-synthesis. "The most comprehensive survey on the subject" was cited, which "found that, among 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association who responded to a poll, one third of psychologists had encountered at least one client with a history of “ritualistic or religion-related” abuse, and over 90% believed their clients." I haven't obtained the full copy of this study, but right in the abstract it is noted that, "the purported evidence for the allegations ... is questionable. Most clients who allege ritual abuse are diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, two increasingly popular, but controversial, diagnoses." The first paragraph goes on to call SRA "shocking and baffling claims" including "human sacrifice [and] cannibalism" - detail that, elsewhere, the same editor removed as "designed to construe all allegations of ritual abuse as improbable".

I cited the research findings of Bottoms et. Al. accurately, Eleland. They chose to interpret their research findings in a certain way, but other academics have seen their research findings in a different light - see Noblitt and Perskin and their book "Cult and Ritual Abuse". Both Noblitt and Perskin document their clinical experience with patients disclosing a history of ritual abuse, and it may be of interest to you. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A book by Finkelhor and Williams was quoted, which found "270 substantiated cases of sexual abuse in daycare centres throughout America, of which 17% involved multiple perpetrators and 13% involved ritualistic elements". I found a hostile review of the book, which alleged that "Even if the case fell apart, was rejected by the police or prosecutors, or failed to bring a single conviction, the case was nonetheless a "substantiated" case as long as anyone still believed. 'If at least one of the local investigating agencies had decided that abuse had occurred ... then we considered the case substantiated.'" After a crude well-poisoning attack, on the basis that the review was published in a journal run by someone who three years later made comments which could have been interpreted as flattering towards paedophiles, and a boast that the book "contains a full chapter on the methodology of the study" (something already discussed in the linked review), I asked about the accuracy of the review and was told to go read the book myself.

You’ve never actually read the book that you profess to despise, Eleland, a fact that you readily admit.

The author is still one of the leading experts on child abuse in the States, and you are attempting to discredit his work on the basis of a single hostile review from an unknown GP published twenty years ago by an organisation founded by a pro-paedophile activist. Talk about poisoning the well. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At one point, I noted a weasel-worded "view needing attribution", and proceeded to replace it with a quote from Mary de Young, a prominent (skeptical) researcher into the phenomenon. It was rapidly removed it, on the grounds that some other skeptics used some other terminology. I argued that "the skeptical view is, in fact, also the mainstream view. I'm aware of the burgeoning network of websites, message boards, and activist groups insisting that academia and the media got it all wrong, that SRA is really a widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe, etc. But this is a fringe theory which needs to be treated as such." I received no substantive response.

Your definition of “SRA” as a “widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe” is only one definition – and there are many others evident in the literature on SRA which take a much more balanced view. Claiming that everyone who believes in SRA believes in a global Satanic conspiracy is pejorative, unfounded, and directly contradicted by the literature.

I provided extensive citations of skeptics who disagree with de Young on attributing SRA to “moral panic”, and who instead believe that SRA is attributable to psychotherapeutic malpratice or even organic factors such as neurological disruption. You may agree with de Young's conclusions, but many skeptics do not, and treating de Young as ‘representative’ of the skeptical position simply because you like her (and can access her article via Google) is POV to me. It is better that the article reflect the diversity of skeptical positions on SRA. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The next edit implied that ritual abusers were being let off because trial rules required children to sit in chairs directly facing their tormentors, and that "the convictions of Cheryl and Violet Amirault for offences relating to ritual child sexual abuse were successfully appealed on the basis that two complainant children, aged 5 and 8, were permitted to angle their chairs away from the defendants." A Boston Herald article is cited. It is not mentioned that the issue of seating arrangements was a narrow legal tactic, and the real issues as reported in the media were "frenzied interrogations, the mad pleadings of interviewers exhorting children to tell, of the process by which small children were schooled in details of torments and sexual assaults supposedly inflicted on them in secret rooms-matters, the record of these interviews reveals, that the children clearly knew nothing about." (Wall Street Journal editorial).

The issue of seating arrangements is not a ‘narrow legal tactic’ – today it is a basic feature of child sexual assault trial reform. This would be clear to you if you were at all familiar at all with the legal literature on child sexual assault and legal reforms over the last twenty years. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was also added that the McMartin case, mentioned above and widely regarded as a bizzare witch-hunt, caused authorities to "recognise the vulnerable and intimidated nature of complainant children in the justice system", a serious inversion of the record. As San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The McMartin preschool case in the mid-1980s was a kind of reverse watershed, she said. That case, in which hundreds of children made increasingly bizarre claims of abuse against the family owners and employers of a preschool in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), eventually fell apart ... [as a result] medical and legal professionals afterward embraced a more disciplined, cautious approach toward investigating sexual abuse."

That is a quote from ONE journalist, and there are quotes from court reporters at the time who sat in on the trial and commented on the fact that, for instance, young children were on the stand for up to two weeks, and that this was extremely distressing to them.

Today, such an ordeal would be considered to be a serious breach of the court’s duty of care to a child, which is why several states no longer permit children to be cross-examined in such a fashion.

In reviewing the conduct of a child sexual assault trial from twenty years ago, it is worthwile reflecting on the harms sustained by young children in hostile and rigorous cross-examination on sexual matters by adult defence lawyers. Such harms have been extensively documented in the research literature and they are now well recognised by the justice system.

I do not understand what value would be added to this article by withholding mention of the distress of the children in trial, as noted by court reporters at the time. It is verifiable information in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing went on to add that "In the 1980's, children and adults with a life history of ritualistic abuse were presenting to healthcare providers with uncanny alterations to their consciousness, memories and identities," treating highly contested claims as objective fact, and sourcing it to an article by an M.D. However, the good doctor in fact stated that, "In the last ten years there have been increasing numbers of reports of ritual cult abuse in children and in adults, remarkably similar in detail ... Unfortunately there is still a dearth of both scientifically controlled studies or good investigative journalism." He went on to add his personal experience of some severely abused patients who responded poorly to treatment, speculating gently that satanic ritual abuse might offer some insight, but adding, "To be perfectly frank, many of us still have a great deal of difficulty accepting the reality of satanic cults...for us to believe that satanic, organized, ritual abuse does not occur, someone is going to have to offer us an explanation that is at least as credible as the eye witness accounts of our adult patients and the child patients of our colleagues...despite the fact that we have no evidence other than the walking evidence of our damaged patients, we do find it possible now to believe that they COULD exist. And to properly investigate this phenomenon we have to get it out of the realm of belief and into the realm of possibility while looking for proof."

It was also added that "Criticisms of MPD (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder) have largely died away following numerous research studies and meta-analyses confirming the construct validity of the diagnosis". Yet, the source is a paper which appears (abstract) to discuss the issue as an active controversy (title: "Three controversies about dissociative identity disorder").

Again, I don't believe that all of the edits involved are awful, and I wouldn't mind an expansion of POV's from the Satanic ritual abuse movement as long as they are attributed and balanced. But overall, the recent editing has been extremely damaging. <eleland/talkedits> 14:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the article appears to be in excellent hands with you, Eleland. --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've done wonderful work to date, Eleland. If you should want any specific help, however, I can try to do what I can. Please contact me directly if you have any specific concerns and or any specific requests for assistance, and I'll at least do what I can. John Carter 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Other issues apart, actually, I would say this article is more than a little US-centric. Do we really need all the case studies from all the different states? We've had plenty of allegations of SRA in Europe, for the most part largely later proved to be false, or at least wildly exaggerated. This seems under-explored. Moreschi ^Talk 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement above "Most seriously, he appears to have cribbed incredible claims from a paranoid-delusional SRA activist, then falsely attributed them to credible sources without having ever read these sources." is made without proof or evidence. Furthermore, the actual factual accuracy of the SRA website has never been questioned or debated. The recent editing has added some needed balance to the article. In the actual SRA field, there are numerous peer reviewed articles citing the existence of SRA. This removes the belief of SRA from the category of a fringe theory. Abuse truth 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid making this a user conduct issue I have forked off that part to the article talk page. The gist of it is, Biothanatoi cited exactly the same articles in exactly the same format, letter-for-letter (almost byte-for-byte, except that she fixed the punctuation and used "smart quotes" in places.) <eleland/talkedits> 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Eleland has yet to contradict any of the information that I have added to the article. In a number of cases he indicates that information I have provided is accurate, but that including it in the article is POV - an unreasonable argument. His objections rest on a set of assumptions about who I am and why I am making the changes - assumptions for which he has no evidence other then his pejorative stereotypes about the "SRA industry" which he denounces above. His arguments are based on ad hominen attacks on me, my credibility, and my motivations, and they are therefore without substance.

The changes to this article have been made on the basis of my literature review which I have conducted over this year for my doctoral thesis, and they were drawn from three years of extensive research into both media and academic coverage of organised abuse over the last thirty years. I am currently sitting next to an entire filing cabinet of indexed journal articles on ritual abuse, organised abuse, and research into child pornography and child prostituiton, and a bookshelf of the same - written by both 'believers' and 'skeptics' alike.

In contrast, Eleland's criticisms are based on whatever he can access via Google, and on this basis he attempts to dismiss world-renowned experts that he is unfamiliar with and books he has never read. He accuses me of 'cherry-picking' when I've systematically read the popular and academic literature - a fact clear to anyone who reviews the many citations I've added to the SRA article - and he simply jumps onto webpages that support his pejorative opinions about the existence of an "SRA industry" etc.

Eleland, if you have new information about SRA that you'd like to add (for instance, the qutoes from the Minnesota case above) then please add them to the article. They are interesting and useful to the reader. Your opinions about me, and your conspiracy theories about an "SRA industry", are clearly biased and POV, and best left to yourself. In the future, I'd advise you to engage in debate on the SRA page in good faith and refrain from making presumptions about other editors simply because they disgree with you. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it is well known that SRA is mostly in the hysterical imagination of religionists. There may be genuine cases, but in the spirit of "extraordinary claims need extraordinarily strong evidence", the burden of establishing cases of "real SRA" lies entirely on whoever wants to make the claim. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing W is certainly enlightening, for I had no idea that people actually, seriously, still believed the claims. given that no clear physical evidence has every been found, that many of the accounts were blatantly fabulous, and that much research has shown the total susceptibility of children and adults to the interviewing tactics used, the possibility of their being real is best treated as a fringe position, not as something that has to be disproved. Not that child sex abuse isn't real--I know personally of hideous instances--but that the net result of the self-sustainng frenzy has made true prosecutions much more difficult. Well, there is nothing so absurd that people wont believe it in denial of evidence, so we have to cover that possibility too. Perhaps in a paragraph. DGG (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's just like 16th century sorcery. Of course "folk magic" was practiced, like everywhere else, but the witch scare was produced by the witch-hunters, not by witches. Nevertheless, I can believe that the very witch-hunt in some people inspired the belief that they were in fact part of a wider satanic underground movement. Which of course again fuelled the zeal of the hunters. The same happened with RSA in the 1980s to 1990s. What is really to be discussed is a classic case of mass hysteria. The article currently hides this basic circumstance behind babbling about "prevalence". Of course there were lots of "victims", just like there were lots of "victims" during the witch craze, and there are even a handful of bona fide perpretators, like the crazy grandparents from the Southern US showcased by the article. But that's beside the point. The article should make absolutely clear that it is about a mass hysteria that has now passed its peak before it descends into discussing anecdotes of grandma from hell. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous credible books and peer reviewed articles proving the existence of SRA. There are also many court cases with convictions for SRA. For the article to be accurate, these need to be presented.Abuse truth 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In his criticisms, Eleland uses the term "SRA industry" - a phrase which refers to a supposed network of professionals who inflate SRA claims in order to make money. Eleland clearly believes in a conspiracy of people who work together to fabricate outrageous allegations of child abuse for their own financial benefit. His hostile attitude towards myself, and others who do not discount allegations of SRA, suggests that he feels that I may be a member of this conspiracy.

I'm confused as to why Eleland's own conspiratorial beliefs are not an issue on this page, given it's focus. Eleland's beliefs meet all the criteria for a 'fringe theory'. The notion of an "SRA industry" was originally espoused by pro-incest advocate Dr Ralph Underwager and his wife Hollida Wakefield in their book "Return of the Furies", and expanded upon in the book "Victims of Memory" by Mark Pendergrast, who was accused by both his daughters of sexually abusing them. All of these authors are members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, an activist group of people accused of sexual abuse who promote a psychological syndrome ("False Memory Syndrome" that has been rejected by the psychological community on the basis that it has no construct validity.

In contrast to Eleland's conspiratorial beliefs, I don't believe in any conspiracy. I believe that some groups of people band together to abuse children, and some of these groups practice ritualistic torture and other sadomasochistic practices. This has been found to be true in numerous courts of law, police investigations and child protection investigations, and the harms of this form of abuse has been established in numerous research studies. I don't believe that these groups are part of an evil Satanic network (etc) but I understand that some (not all, but some) traumatised survivors feel otherwise - and some religious counsellors are inclined to believe this as well.

It seems that I am being held accountable for a 'fringe theory' that I don't beleive in. Meanwhile, Eleland has made it clear that he holds to a 'fringe theory' of his own - a conspiracy theory that attributes a nefarious agenda to anybody, such as me, that disagrees with him on this issue. I ask that editors here consider the false attributions that have been made to me (e.g. beliefs that I don't hold and never have) and consider instead the conspiratorial and extremist beliefs that Eleland is openly espousing. --Biaothanatoi 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in "evil Satanic network[s]", but I'd like a clarification. Did you post on Melbourne Indymedia under the user name Biaothanatoi that "an organised paedophile ring in Melbourne" which "must include cops, corporate & govt types", "is acting internationally ... and has particular reach within the intelligence sector", and is "not simply an organized criminal organization [but] at its heart ... is a cult"? If so, when did you drop these beliefs, and what changed your mind? Are you active on a Canadian conspiracy website, where you have made the same claims, as well as made reference to your editing of Wikipedia and the SRA article in particular, and described ritual murders and psychological brainwashing in such detail that even your fellow conspiracy theorists were skeptical? I didn't want to bring this stuff up, because Wikipedia editors are judged on their editing, but if you're going to misrepresent your own beliefs I'm gonna call you on it. <eleland/talkedits> 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles you referred to are from a few years ago, and, yes, my opinion has changed over that period. At the time, I was trying to understand what was happening to a friend of mine, who was disclosing ongoing abuse by an organised group of men who had abused her as a child. I would later be confronted with material evidence of this abuse. My friends disclosures regarding her childhood abuse were corroborated by an investigative journalist (Gary Hughes) who published a number of articles in The Age in 2004 regarding apparent improprieties in police investigations of organised abuse, and a psychologist who was in contact with other women in the area alleging the same form of abuse, by the same people, in the same manner.

Unfortunately, much of the available material online is fairly conspiracy-minded, and that was my starting point. Over time, I was able to access and read the academic and research material on organised abuse and ritualistic abuse, hence my more balanced and informed opinion now.

I hope this clarifies your concerns that I am lying or misrepresenting my opinions here. That is not the case. --Biaothanatoi 06:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The McMartin Tunnels appear to be more hysteria Vanished user ^talk 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[3] Proof of the existence of tunnels -

The Dark Tunnels of McMartin Dr. Roland C. Summit Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) Spring 1994 The pattern of tunnels conformed to the architecture of the overlying building but had absolutely no purpose or conformity to expected trenching for foundations or utilities. In fact, the profile of the shallow trench dug to accommodate the waste pipe leading across the main tunnel (Joanie's reach-up- and-touch pipe) was clearly distinguishable as mechanically dug, showing the sharp angulation characteristic of a backhoe, whereas the tunnels had a rounded floor contour and shovel marks, showing that they had been dug by hand, presumably under the pre-existing concrete. The stainless steel pipe clamps joining an angle of the pipe where it crossed through the tunnel space had a different quality from clamps elsewhere which had remained buried since installation. The other clamps were corroded from years of soil contact, while those crossing the tunnel looked shiny and new.

[4] PAIDIKA INTERVIEW: HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD AND RALPH UNDERWAGER Part I Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will. --Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika, a European pro-pedophile publication.

[5] Messing With Our Minds (5/98) Written by HUSAYN AL-KURDI A quiet but brutal war is being waged on the victims of child abuse, including sexual and even ritual abuse. The battlefields include academia, the courts, professional groups, and society in general. In some cases, the aggressors are the same people accused of perpetuating the violence. They've banded together, forming networks and support groups, most notably the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), which discounts recollections of abuse recovered in later years, making survivors look like complainers and trauma therapists sound like quacks....Ralph Underwager, an early member of the group's (FMSF) professional advisory board, let the pedophile agenda slip when he told British reporters that, according to so-called "scientific evidence," 60 percent of all women who were molested as children believed the experience was "good for them." Both he and another advisory board member, Holida Wakefield, have publicly described pedophilia as a positive lifestyle choice.Abuse truth 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh. You're about to be labeled a pedophile apologist; IPT is associated with Ralph Underwager, who once made comments in a Dutch pedophile magazine which were interpreted as pro-pedophile. According to Biaothanatoi, this makes anyone remotely associated with him, anyone who uses the same terminology as him, or anyone who takes their coffee the same way as him a pedo. Including you and me. <eleland/talkedits> 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke. I have never called you a 'pedo' or insinuated that anybody associated with the IPT is a 'pedo'. And for Adam's information, Underwager claimed that paedophilia should be decriminalised, that sex with young boys was "loving and intimimate", and that 60% of women who had been sexually abused enjoyed it. If you want more information, you can find it on the SRA discussion page. I've posted the sources there. --Biaothanatoi 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It has come to my attention that Eleland was the initial author of the Satanic Ritual Abuse page, which may go some way to explaining his zealous defence of the material. Eleland, I've answered your questions above in some detail. Perhaps you could answer mine.

Eleland, do you believe that there exists a network of people (the "SRA industry") who have conspired to fabricate outrageous allegations of sexual abuse in order to trap innocent people?

This is the conspiracy theory advanced by child pornographers, Paul and Shirley Eberle, in their book "The Abuse of Innocence", whom Eleland quoted in his original article, and he has since gone on to defend the Eberles despite the fact that their activities in the child sex trade have been noted by both the LAPD and a trial judge.

The theory of the Eberles (and, apparently, Eleland) that allegations of SRA are mostly, or wholly, the fabrication of a secret conspiracy of people who seek financial and professional benefit from trapping innocent people in allegations of sexual abuse is a conspiratorial 'fringe theory' by any definition. There is no evidence to support such a theory and it is a belief directly attributable to two authors who believed in 'benign paedophilia' and who have distributed pictures of children having sex with adults.

Please, Eleland, I've let you know what I think and why. Why don't you do us the same courtesy? --Biaothanatoi 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh, where has Eleland ever supported a claim that there is a "conspiracy" fabricating SRA evidence? A mass hysteria or moral panic isn't the same as a conspiracy. How is saying that claims that there is a Satanic conspiracy are deluded equivalent to postulating that there is a counter-conspiracy? There is no bleeding conspiracy. The long and short of it is that the USA is full of uneducated hysterical religionists. No conspiracy required to account for that. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, can you tell me where I've used the term "SRA industry"? I can't find it anywhere on the SRA article talk page, and you've used it six times here but I haven't used it once. I have mentioned an SRA movement and SRA "true believers", but this is my own insight, and I didn't need the Eberles or anyone else to tell me about it. By the way, I of course do not claim any special rights or ownership over the SRA article, and you'll notice that I've hardly edited at all in the last several months.

Anyway, the idea that there's a "secret conspiracy" invovled is laughable. Clearly, those who believe in SRA want to tell everyone they can about it. Their conferences are open to the public and their literature is widely distributed. While a few people like Roland Summit may profit from their books, speaking tours, etc, I'm sure that they sincerely and genuinely believe everything they are saying. (The same applies to people like Underwager who used to turn a handsome profit as an expert witness for the defense in child abuse cases.) Indeed, even in the cases where people have lied or fabricated evidence to convict alleged SR-abusers (such as the McMartin parents who attempted to plant "sacrificed" turtle corpses on the crime scene), I'm sure they only did it because they were convinced that the abuse was real, but needed a little extra help to be proven in court.

A moral panic, as Dbachmann has rightly stated, is not the same as a conspiracy. If anything, it's the opposite of a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves a tight-knit group of people secretly following a conscious, rational plan. A moral panic involves a large number of people publicly buying into an irrational hysteria. A conspiracy is entered into for some profit or gain; the vast majority of those involved in the SRA scare have suffered greatly because of it.

And stop talking about Underwager and the Eberles. You've ridden that hobby horse into the ground. We heard you the first twelve times, now please get off your soapbox. <eleland/talkedits> 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You used the phrase "SRA industry" in the original draft of the SRA article, now deleted. If you want me to answer to a few articles I wrote two years ago, then surely you can do the same. It's clear that you have read the Eberles (after all, you cited them) and been deeply influenced by their argument, despite their history and repution. I'll stop mentioning that history when you stop defending them and their crackpot conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Ralph Underwager's publications through his institute-of-one "Institute of Psychological Therapies" continue to be quoted at me by editors who are ignorant of his history and reputation. I would be thrilled to not have to mention his revolting beliefs about sex with children one more time, if only Wikipedia editors didn't rely on him so heavily.

As for Summitt, he has never published a book on ritual abuse - his research is more broadly focused on the psychological adaptations that children make in abusive environments. His beliefs about SRA are far more informed and balanced then you bother to give him credit for - but then again, you insult him without knowing who he is, or bothering to read his work. Since neither Summitt nor I dismiss allegations of SRA out of hand, you presume that we must be members of a hysterical "SRA industry", and you attack us accordingly.

I look forward to the day when you are able to engage in this discussion in good faith, and focus on the material in the article rather then attacking the person who made the changes. --Biaothanatoi 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

it has become clear that Biaothanatoi ("violent deaths"?) is here to advocate a conspiracy theory. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

no. eleland looks fairly overzealous throughout this whole affair. maybe we should obsessively google his name until we find some old message board posts and see what they say. So far all I'm seeing is a focus on character attack from eleland, and a focus on research and attempted research by biaothanatoi. 66.220.110.83 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm stunned by this interchange and how poorly it casts wikipedia. First, I know next to nothing about SRA and am of the popular opinion that it is probably largely a cultural fabrication. However, the attacks on Biaothanatoi are absurd. First, the meaning of his handle is a moot point. Second, he has made clear time and again that he is not advancing a conspiracy theory, rather the opposite in my opinion. So what gives? The guy is clearly trying to add another angle on a controversial topic and he is using reputable sources to do so. Furthermore, he has offered transparency here about the fact that his own views have evolved over time and with better research. Yet opponents here are using pretty dubious sources themselves. For example, the link which proves the McMartin Tunnels are "hysteria" is from an organization founded by someone, Ralph Underwager who, at the very least, has a well-documented checkered past that casts doubt on his intentions and more importantly represents the attempt of a psychologist to disprove an archaeological report. What in the world are people so afraid of here? I seriously do not get it. I'm not even making changes to the page, so please don't call me a conspiracy theorist, etc. But this back and forth speaks for itself. Why in the world is the WP community so resistant to any form of information which credibly argues for the existence of Repressed Memory and/or organized crime related to child sexual abuse? Clearly there are activists on both sides here, but come on, what gives? West world 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

how does any of this "cast wikipedia poorly"? This is just an editing dispute like any other. Did you somehow imagine that neutral articles write themselves magically, without friction? This is the hairy process that leads to a smooth article. The internet is a madhouse. Look what happened to Usenet. The WP community is "resistant", that is, skeptical, with good reason. Needless to say, "pro-hysteria" sources need to be met with the same skepticism, but it seems perfectly clear that the "hysteria" characterization has mainstream support, and that the "Satanist conspiracy" people are trying hand-waving tactics to somehow present the case as less clear than it is. "Skepticism" does not include second-guessing an author's private motivations based on his biography. In extends exclusively to questions of WP:RS, i.e. the respectability of the publication in question, and its critical reception. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But with all due respect, are you actually suggesting that "mainstream support" is analogous to good information? There is mainstream support for alot of junk science. And I am not guessing the author in question's motivations based on his "biography," I am doing so based on published interviews and oft-cited examples of his writing that checker his professional past. Further, to believe in the existence of Sadistic Ritual Abuse based on reputable evidence is not, by any stretch, equivalent to believing in a Satanist Conspiracy. West world 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

that's nonsense. Wikipedia is built to reflect academic mainstream, we simply have no other measure. Inasmuch as you can cite "reputable evidence", you're fine. If you cannot cite "reputable evidence", too bad, it's not for Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat neutral party here, I humbly request that someone for the love of Wikipedia go and attach the User iD to the unidentified statements. I simply cannot make sense of this argument. Are they all one user, if so whom and can somebody please get thru to this user that he/she needs to use four tildas to date and time-stamp their comments? Heavens to betsy, just trying to figure out who is saying what is giving me a headache. now - my credentials are as an Anthropologist and, coincidentally, an Archeologist, who has an interest inNew Religious Movements and the entire history of the SRA issue. I take a dim view of people who stand solid on absoultes sides that either none of it took place or it all took place. Child molestation is a complex issue with varying causes and hallmarks. McMartin is important for a number of reasons but I can't even begin to answer questions raised here or in the article when I can't tell who is leaving unsigned comments. This page is too active to go thru all all the edits to see. ThanksLiPollis 11:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

LiPollis, I see no unsigned posts here. You may be confused by Biaothanatoi cutting apart Eleand's long initial posting, which is indeed frowned upon precisely because it confuses people. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's initial post was very long, and he raised numerous points. Responding comprehensively to all his attacks required me to cut his post.

Eleland's conduct here is similar to his behaviour on the SRA page. He has made wide-ranging and general criticisms of me, and my changes to the article, but these criticisms have not been designed to develop the quality of the SRA article. Instead, he has consistently tried to "prove" that I am the conspiracy theorist that he has presumed me to be since he first engaged me in dialogue.

You have engaged in similar conduct throughout this discussion. Rather then presume good faith and worked collaboratively, you have raised the spectre of numerous WP etiquette violations in order to characterise me as a person deserving of ad hominem attack.

Thankfully, the article now has the attention of some even-handed editors who have been able to move beyond the edit-wars sparked by yourself and Eleland. --Biaothanatoi 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

what gives? I just pointed out LiPollis may have been confused by you, I didn't attack you for it, let alone allege bad faith or "characterise" you in any way. Calm down. Thankfully, the article now has the attention of some even-handed editors -- coming from you, I admit this sounds scary. More attention will need to be directed towards this. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The thesis of my original posting, clearly expressed, was that the extensive rewrites of the article improved some aspects, but also departed severely from WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, and elevated minority and fringe viewpoints to the status of facts. That's an assertion about the nature of your contributions, not an ad hominem attack of any kind. Mind you, your assertions about my conduct have been hostile and wholly unsupported by evidence or logic; you've accused me of "slandering respected academics like David Finkelhor and Roland Summit", failing to read source material which I cite, promulgating "pejorative stereotypes about the 'SRA industry'" and "conspiracy theories", mocked me for lacking access to a university library, and repeatedly implied bad faith. All this after I clearly demonstrated that you had copy-pasted text from a mentally ill SRA activist, almost certainly without ever having read the sources which you cited (you've still never indicated whether you did). If you feel that my conduct is problematic, I would be more than willing to participate in any form of dispute resolution which you might suggest. (I think you've already entertained the idea?) <eleland/talkedits> 12:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This reads like someone's pet theory. The only Google hit for this term which doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia mirror, is the link given in External links - and that site is offline/unavailable. What is available in the Google cache from that site reads like Original Research. --Versageek 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "mandibular decubitus syndrome" gets zero PubMed hits - a sure sign that it is not a real, recognized disease entity. The only source is a promotional one. I've PRODded it as I think this is an uncontroversial deletion for lack of notability. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it - if you looked into it a bit, you found out that it was largely meaningless. The entire second paragraph was talking about spontaneous swallowing of saliva, in as obtruse and complicated manner as possible. Vanished user ^talk 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bkobres has for some time now been trying to insert material in this and other articles relating to his personal theory that swastikas originated as representations of bird tracks or bird-gods. While it's perfectly reasonable to state that bird tracks may be represented in swastika-like forms (a "swastika" is a rather loose concept), Bob is now pushing a mini-essay in the lead, footnoted to keyword searches in Google Books which add any book that links the terms "swastika" and "bird" in a way that seems to support his theory. I think this is a clear case of WP:SYN and of Undue Weight. Comments on the talk page would be welcome. I have cut and pasted his mini-essay to the Talk:Swastika page. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bkobres is an old regular. See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Comets_and_the_swastika_motif. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:NPOV, where if it's of such a small view it may even be excluded? --FR Soliloquy 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum is a POV-pushing mess, Potassium dichromate has a homeopathic section that seems to serve no purpose other than to make homeopathy look that tiny bit more respectable. I don't feel up to dealing with them. Vanished user ^talk 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the section in the potassium article, left a comment on the talk. The other article certainly needs some fixing up but I'm not the man to deal with it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I was going to say that perhaps the POV here has to deal with removing the information. Mind you the citation could be better formated per WP:CITE but I really think the information concerning Homeopathy has it's place within that article. --FR Soliloquy 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: I think I missed the issue here because Moreschi move the information on Oscillococcinum? Meuh! I don't know anymore. --FR Soliloquy 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it was removed, heavily reworked for neutrality, then readded. The Oscillococcinum mess remains a mess. Vanished user ^talk 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyneutron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuno experiment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell

These articles are currently under an AfD initiated by me. I consider them to be essentially original research and a soapbox promotion for ideas that have not received enough recognition for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Please comment. ScienceApologist 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

the question is purely notability and reliable sources in my view. The fringyness is less important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning that he seems to be back. Creationist troll who got blocked, but was then unblocked by now absent admin User:B, who was going to monitor him, except he then promptly disappeared. Keep an eye out. Vanished user ^talk 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on WP:ANI#User:Profg ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, weren't there CoI problems with him? Vanished user ^talk 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this highly suspect walled garden, Category:Traditionalism. What I can make of it so far is that there is a valid topic, Traditionalist School, surrounding some sort of occultist-neofascist-ethnocentric ideology. From that article, stuff spills over to

• Radical Traditionalism
• Perennial philosophy
• Sophia Perennis
• Study of Traditionalism
• Paleoconservatism (Category:Paleoconservatism!)
• Paleoconservative worldview
• Perennial psychology
• Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

Apart from the familiar inflating of a minor topic across half a dozen articles, we get the problem of hijacking the term "Traditionalism" in the sense of this specific occultist/neo-nazi concept. I am trying to figure this one out, but I would welcome judicious input. This may or may not be related to the Integral thought stuff we have discussed earlier. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is. Check out the history of Perennial psychology, which I've just redirected. Looked to be a blurb for the views of Ken Wilber, where I redirected it to. No prizes for guessing what Ken Wilber is all about. Integral thought. Here we go again...Moreschi ^Talk 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the mention of Wilber on that article is what made me suspect a connection. He remains however unmentioned on Perennial philosophy. I am not sure of the status of Paleoconservatism - this may be a valid topic that just fell victim to the "spillover". But the existence of a full Paleoconservative worldview besides Paleoconservatism seems to betray that the same inflationary "spillover" tactics are at work in this topic as well. What a mess. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I suppose Paleoconservatism is a valid topic of US politics, as a 1990s to 2000s counter-movement to neoconservatism within conservative discourse. WP coverage still appears frightfully inflated and contorted. Some insight may be gained from the conservapedia article. But this seems largely unrelated to the real "fringe" problems of Category:Traditionalism. dab (𒁳) 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Upton. Also, check out the language and "thoughts" expressed while comparing Sophia Perennis and Integral thought. It's the same concept of cross-cultural mish-mash of "universal truths". I agree that Paleoconservatism looks more valid than not, but the rest...blimey. Moreschi ^Talk 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rougely deleted Sophia Perennis. If you want a laugh I'll email you the deleted content. Serious trash, needs rewriting completely from scratch, if at all. Moreschi ^Talk 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I think you are overdoing it with the speedy-deletions. Remember, you can just blank articles, no admin buttons involved. I would see nothing wrong with blanking the article, but keeping the edit history available, and turning it into a disambig page along the lines of

Sophia Perennis may refer to

• perennial philosophy
• sanatana dharma
• Sophia Perennis Books[6]

dab (𒁳) 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True, a disambig would also work. Then again, is the publishing house notable? And speaking of publishing houses, what about World Wisdom? The awards list is impressive, but then all the awards are from independent publishing associations. Do we not require something a little more mainstream? Moreschi ^Talk 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the general shape of this now, and have mostly fixed it. Traditionalist School was horribly dishonest about the situation. I've now provided the general framework, but the topic of course still needs much work. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put Tyr (journal) up for deletion, for clear failure to meet WP:BK. It turns out that Tyr is a vehicle of Michael Moynihan (journalist) presenting neo-fascism without the "fascism" stigma, and "Radical Traditionalism" is Moynihan's private term for his ideology. This doesn't seem to pass any sort of notability threshold at present, and it can all safely be discussed within the Michael Moynihan (journalist) article. Once this stuff appears on the radar of any notable reviewer, it can be delegated to Neo-völkisch movements. dab (𒁳) 08:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of the following fringe theory has been ongoing for quite some time, but in recent weeks, a few users have been shamelessly promoting a completely baseless and racist theory about Bosniaks (The users are User talk:83.67.3.166, User talk:83.67.73.117, and User:NeutralBosnian. All three are most likely the same editor, due to the same edit patters, same writing style, similar IP addresses). The very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with it. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs.

The fringe theory that keep getting inserted suggests ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language". Basically, these editors are trying to "prove" that Bosniaks are not Slav, but are in fact the descendants of the Illyrians. People who support this view make outrageous claims, such as "Bosniaks can't be Slavs, because Serbs look like Gypsies, but Bosniaks look like Scandinavians"; this is not only completely untrue, but extremely racist/xenophobic. After the war in BiH, Bosniaks reasserted themselves as a nation; something which we can all be proud of. But, the bad side of this is, there are some people with extremist views out there who try and differentiate themselves from Serbs so much (because of all the residual hate after the war) that they resort to making such stupid claims as this. The baseless "Illyrian theory" has no support from mainstream academia, and is not even covered by mainstream academia even as a pseudoscience, as it so erroneous.

It's a fact that all peoples of the Balkans have some traces of Illyrian blood in them, but to suggest that Bosniaks are the direct descendants when they have as much Illyrian as Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people is laughable. Furthermore, ethnicity is not all about genetics anyway - it is mainly about culture and language; and Bosniaks share culture, heritage and language with the other South Slavs for the simple fact that they are Slavs.

There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Wikipedia, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. So I am requesting one or more admins step in and stop the promotion of such ridiculous fringe theories. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. We've had the Albanians, the Macedonians, the Armenians and the Assyrians, and now the Bosniaks? Is there some sort of infantility force field hovering over the region? "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Scandinavian" is rather funny in fact. How about we just settle for "100% organic"? It will be less controversial, and just about as informative. dab (𒁳) 09:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians are "organic"? Are they "free range" as well? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, organic free range Bosniaks. Personally, I think we need to resurrect Tito as a zombie and have him police Wikipedia articles on the former Yugoslavia. "You are all one people! Your brains all taste the same!" :-) <eleland/talkedits> 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't pay as much interest in Balkan matters as I used to, but isn't this a claim by most Albanians and many right wing Croats? I'm fairly sure Noel Malcolm made this claim about the Kosovan Albanians. There must be other Balkan groups that make these claims. Could it be an idea to set up a page on claims of Illyrian ancestry and point everyone who makes the claim about their particular nationality on to the page. They may counterbalance each other. (Oh and hello Blueboar, you lurk on this board as well). JASpencer (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if creating that page would help at all. I think doing so would probably cause even more additions about this "theory" on other pages. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a notable fringe theory then it could be added to Illyrians#Later claims. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm is someone Bosniaks often quote when regarding their history. In his book "Bosnia A Short History", Malcolm clearly states that Bosniaks were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. Not Illyrians, or Aryans, or any other anachronistic claim. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. (I vaguely remember that) Noel Malcolm made the claim that Kosovan Albanians were originally Illyrians. I really have to dig out that book. On another note I am just starting John Julius Norwich's book on Venice where he reports the idea that the Venetians were descended from the Illyrians and in another place writes that the Latin speakers on the Adriatic coast (who bacame part of the Italian speaking culture on the Adriatic coast) were descendants of the Illyrians. So two more claims! (Good book, if you're not too worried about the Illyrian blood line). JASpencer (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo daawwwwggzz, what's happening? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the re-interpretation of history in this article to be a conspiracy thierory:

"The Seagraves and other historians have claimed that United States military intelligence operatives located much of the loot; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War"

The Seagraves book contends that:

Shortly after the Japanese surrender of the Philippine Islands, U.S. Forces found thousands of tons of gold bullion the Japanese forces hid on the Islands. The gold bullion came about from the looting/plundering of Southeast Asia pre-WWII and during WWII.

The then President of the United States (Truman), General Douglas MacArthur, OSS (now CIA) officials and other high-ranking Military Officers decided to keep the gold bullion, and not return it to the countries to which it came, unlike the “Nazi Gold” found in Europe that was returned to the rightful owners.

The several billion dollars worth of gold was eventually used to fund the Cold War and other CIA covert operations. Every President and every CIA Head has known about this secret funding and source of gold bullion since the end of WWII.

See: Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold (2003, Seagraves, Verso pub.)

This conspiracy theory is based around an urban legend created in the Philippines. I think the accusation cast against the American Government, United States Military is unjustified and the book used to source this information is a questionable source. The Yamashita's gold article is controversial (at best), and the edit warring continues Jim (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

after looking at the article, the talk page, and these comments....I think I agree with profmarginalia, this is an underdeveloped draft article. I'll try and do something to put some structure to it, then those with more subject knowledge can expand fill it in. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for "checking us out"...I liked the sections and placement you did, right off the bat. Unfortunately, it was edited and heading back to confusion straight away. “The Greater East Asia War looting and the post-war cover-up” is kind of confusing…I’ve never heard of The Greater East Asia War and the Treasure section got canned, too. :::sigh::: Jim (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, Rocksanddirt...but, the article has again digressed into a book report, hosted on Wikipedia. Jim (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One of those annoyingly circular discussions has started there, to the point of a full page protection:

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"ARRRGH!"

Please help. Vanished user ^talk 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC) [Crossposted to WP:ANI]

Not much anyone can do while it's protected. Current version seems OK. Pleased to help when it becomes possible and if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Itsmejudith.

P.S. A quick read through the lengthy discussions at Talk:Quackwatch reveals that Vanished user's depiction of events there is a vast misrepresentation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody here forgot what it means to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Please refactor. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not an accurate depiction. —Whig (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me by not using the same uncivil language. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a blocked user RAmesbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is trying to promote quite a lot of fringe views. I saw him first at the clairvoyance article, but today I received this notice:

== Leadbeater and Besant ==

You might want to have a look at what happened to the Charles Webster Leadbeater article as well. Ditto for this on the Annie Besant article. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone really needs to go through this user's contributions and see what kind of nonsense he has been inserting into Wikipedia. I'm passing this information on here as I don't think I'll have time to fully investigate the matter. Cheers.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

well...I don't understand DVdm's concerns with the Annie Besant article. The changes made only fairly minor changes to text that if anything clarified Mrs. Besant's beliefs/affiliations. The article has some larger sourcing and formatting issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles at Category:Golden Dawn need attention. Some of these are clearly notable (such as the main Golden Dawn page), while others are of dubious notability: Lesser ritual of the pentagram, The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, Tattva vision, The Middle Pillar, the articles within Category:Rosicrucian organizations, etc. Those that are notable suffer from the expected NPOV problems. Fireplace (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, one of its three founders was a Theosophist (and all three of them were Freemasons). So, these articles are related to the ones listed in the section above, #Walled gardens of woo, therefore that discussion applies to these articles as well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the recent past (August 2007 or so) there was also some ownership issues with some of these articles, I don't recall exaclty what happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

another frightening case of unchecked article metastasis. Most of the articles linked from this template set off all sorts of bullshit alerts. It is already unclear what the difference in scope is between Kambojas and Language and ethnicity of Kambojas. The articles completely conflate hypotheses on a historical people and lengthy expositions of the Kambojas in the Mahabharata and Puranas.

• Kamboja Kingdom / Kamboja ("Kamboja is one of the western kingdoms in the epic Mahabharata. Western kingdoms were cold countries and people used blankets")
• Kamboja Location ("there is no unanimity on the location of Kamboja")
• Republican Kambojas ("there are several ancient literary and inscriptional references which testify that the ancient Kambojas were a republican people")
• Alexander's Conflict with the Kambojas / Ancient India and Central Asia
• Kamboj in Muslim and British Era
• Migration of Kambojas ("References to Kambojas abound in ancient literature, and this may have been just the expansion of an Indo-Iranian tribe")
  • Kamboja colonists of Sri Lanka
• Kamboja (name)
  • Kambojas and Kambodia
  • Epic Kamboja, Iranian Kambujiya
• Kambojas in Indian Literature / Kambojas in Indian Traditions
  • Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas
  • Kambojas of Panini
  • Kambojas and Manusmriti
  • Kambojas in Kautiliya's Arthashastra
• Brahmanism of the ancient Kambojas

the prospect of even the most superficial cleanup job on this mess is mind-boggling... This entire ... feat seems to be the work of an anonymous editor in Sacramento, CA (69.19.150.106 (talk · contribs), 66.81.184.230 (talk · contribs), 69.19.150.106 (talk · contribs), 66.81.185.8 (talk · contribs), 69.19.204.237 (talk · contribs), 66.81.185.55 (talk · contribs) etc.) in 2005-2006. In late 2006 apparently moving to New Jersey (24.23.18.136 (talk · contribs), 76.105.50.27 (talk · contribs)). It appears likely that these are all identical with Sze cavalry01 (talk · contribs) who showed similarly single-minded obsession with "Kambojas" in the same period. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Not knowing anything about Indian history or culture, it's hard to assess how much of this is bs vs merely rambling. Perhaps this should be cross-posted at WP:INDIA where they might have more background knowledge. Fireplace (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. A lot of work went into this, and there is value buried in there, but it should be reduced to about a tenth in length and number of articles... There is also a fair amount of fringecruft in there, e.g. the claim that Kamboja is Sumerian Aratta (to name just the most obvious). dab (𒁳) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mahabharata is considered one of the great epics in Hindu - and, I think, Buddhist - tradition. So, covering aspects of it, particularly ones expanded by later authors, is reasonable. However, these articles are so badly written so as to border on patent nonsense, e.g. "Pāṇini (पाणिन) was an ancient Sanskrit grammarian born in Shalātura, modern Lahur of North-West Frontier province of Pakistan. The place is situated at a distance of four miles from Ohind near Attock on the right bank of Indus River in the ancient Kambojan/Gandharan territory." - What?! Vanished user ^talk 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kambojas of Panini is easy to deal with - We have Panini, so it can safely be deleted as patent nonsense. So... badly written. Vanished user ^talk 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

most of it is, of course, appallingly badly written. But the articles are an excellent database of literature snippets. It's a gargantuan task to morph them into something readable (which I am not holding my breath for our detractors "sitting back" to enjoy the "neanderthal mentality" to get their hands dirty with), so I don't recommend deletion. Much material is copy-pasted over half a dozen near-identical articles. the "Kambojas according to $TEXT" articles can rather just be redirected to Kambojas in Indian literature. Even that is largely overlapping with Kambojas. The first step must be to produce something readable at the main Kambojas article and see where it goes from there. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

btw, Adam, "Kambojas in Panini" is a valid topic, although it is fully summed up here:

• Panini 4.1.168-175 notes Kamboja as one of the fifteen prominent Kshatriya Janapadas in north-west.
• Ganapatha 2.1.72 attestes that both the Kambojas and the Yavanas had short hair (Kamboja.mundah Yavana.mundah. "shaved-headed like Kambojas, shaved-headed like Yavanas").

that's it. The remainder was coatracking about Kambojas in general. In fact, if you don't mind, I take the liberty of undeleting the article and redirecting it. I appreciate its content is pure gibberish to the uninitiated, but it does contain some valid factoids that may be deciphered by those with a Paninaean background :) dab (𒁳) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough =) But it's a wee bit difficult when two sentences are the only good part of the article. I'm passingly familiar with parts of the Mahabhatarata, so I know that Kshatriya is some type of warrior or noble - can't recall the details - so I can see how that part's relevant. But it's going to be a nightmare. Vanished user ^talk 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know :) I have now converted at least the lead at Kambojas into something human-readable, so that non-experts can guess at the scope of the topic. I've also re-arranged the ToC into something half sensible, but I haven't attacked the actual content yet. This whole thing is essentially a giant case of WP:SYN / WP:UNDUE, but at least our anonymous has left useful references to literature, so that this can be fixed, given enough time... dab (𒁳) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

to illustrate the insane inflation of notability in this flurry of articles,

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the Kambojas get some 400 hits on google scholar and google books each, and a full 20 hits on jstor.org. Britannica has no dedicated article, but mentions them in passing under "Pre-Mauryan states". A good and detailed Kambojas article will certainly do Wikipedia credit, but the current Category:Kambojas is simply insane in the light of this. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BIG influx of woos here. "Homeopathy is mainstream! Hahnemann was a wonderful and caring physician, how dare you criticise him! Why are we saying Pasteur is now considered mainstream?! LIES!" Vanished user ^talk 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A series of bombings occurred across Russia in 1999, during the Second Chechen war. 300 people were killed and the official investigation found two Chechen militants to be responsible: Amir Khattab and Abu Umar. Later on Chechens went on to commit further acts of terrorism -- most notably the Beslan massacre and the Moscow theater hostage crisis.

Various anti-Putin partisans have since come forward to accuse the Putin government of perpetrating the bombing via the FSB agency in order to gain popularity for the Chechen war. The only notable person among these partisans is the recently deceased former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko who was employed by former oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the man who appointed Putin to power.

Litvinenko has little credibility: he also claimed that Vladimir Putin is a pedophile and that the FSB has tapes of him having sex with underage boys. His employer, Berezovsky, has been publicly campaigning against Putin ever since Putin exiled him from Russia.

The one piece of evidence this conspiracy theory hangs upon is an incident in which the FSB was implicated via a mobile phone to bags of powder being placed under an apartment. The connection to the FSB is so complicated and long-winded that I'll paste it here:

On the evening of September 22, 1999, an alert resident of an apartment building in the town of Ryazan noticed strangers moving heavy sugar sacks into the basement from a car. Militsiya (the local police) were called to the site and all residents were evacuated. The first test of the powder from the sacks showed the presence of an explosive. All roads from the town were brought under heavy surveillance but no leads were found. A telephone service employee tapped into long-distance phone conversations managed to detect a conversation in which an out-of-town person suggested to take care and to watch for patrols. That person's number was found to belong to an FSB office in Moscow.

Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti declared that the incident was a training exercise forty-eight hours later.[2] The original chemical test was declared inaccurate due to contamination of the analysis apparatus from a previous test. The public inquiry committee could not come to a complete conclusion on this and other incidents due to incoherent answers from federal bodies. The General Prosecutor's office has closed the criminal investigation of the Ryazan incident in April 2000.

And the sacks didn't even contain explosives:

To remove the controversy, three 3 kg samples were taken from the sacks in question and blown up at the testing area; in all cases no explosion followed. During the additional investigation ordered by the General Prosecutor's Office, an explosives examination was made which showd that "the sacks contained sucrose — disaccharide based on glucopyranose and fructofuranose. No traces of tertiary explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX, PETN, nitroglycerin, tetryl, picric acid) were found in the examined substance. Investigation of clocks, elements of power supply, shell, bulb and wires showd that although these items constituted a single electronic block, it wasn't capable of giving voltage when alarm of the timer was triggered and isn't a blasting device".al bodies. The General Prosecutor's office has closed the criminal investigation of the Ryazan incident in April 2000.

To me this seems like a particularly ill-founded conspiracy theory, but it's been given an enormous amount of attention and undue weight on wikipedia. It seems it may be a case of systemic bias against the Russian government; people seem to be very credulous when it comes to claims of conspiracies by foreign as opposed to Western governments. Compare, for example, how the 9/11 conspiracy theories are dealt with. The whole thing reeks of WP:OR as well.

Amaliq (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, blimey, I can see a whole host of problems lining up here. This really is the sort of thing the English Wikipedia does not do well. Best solution might be to delete the article altogether as more trouble than it's worth, but I can see that's an obvious non-starter.

I'll state right upfront my biases here. I'm a UK citizen, born and bred, who keeps up to date with my country's political scene. Putin is not terribly popular over here (nor, I think, in the States) for a number of reasons, one of which is probably the murder of Litvinenko, who everyone seems quite sure was bumped off on Kremlin orders (I think so too, but that's irrelevant). The theory is that he was got rid because of his role in propagating this "conspiracy theory" (for want of a better word) over here. A book was published on this subject after Litvinenko was killed, written in part, AFAICR, by Litvinenko and his co-workers. It was quite extensively reviewed in the UK press. Now, again AFAICR, most people seemed to think the book had a point but weren't entirely convinced. That was the reaction in the UK - I can well imagine the reaction in Russia, and don't need to be told.

The real problem here is not necessarily systemic bias - it's the fact that Wikipedia is just too damn well up-to-date. In a normal encyclopaedia, with a "30-year rule", this recent event would not get coverage until it was possible for historians to have assessed the situation and for academic consensus to have formed. At the moment all we really have to go on as regards sourcing is the different point of two opposing camps of journalists. This sucks, mais c'est la vie.

My general take on this one is this - the article should lean towards the official Russian government viewpoint (per Wikipedia:Undue weight), as this is probably more mainstream than not. However, the "conspiracy theory" viewpoint is highly notable (has received significant press attention etc) and not to be sneered at, and it should be represented fairly and at some length. Hope this will help. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with Moreschi here, the assessment of "majority" or "minority" views must be based on reliable sources. This is certainly a majority view that Litvinenko was killed by the Kremlin's agents. With regard to apartment bombings, the involvement of FSB was described in several books published by David Satter, Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alex Goldfarb, Vladimir Pribylovsky and numerous TV interviews and articles. Hence there are multiple reliable primary and secondary sources claiming the involvemnt of FSB to be true. So, I would like to see an equally impressive list of reliable English language sources (so a reader can check) that claim the opposite. There are no such in my knowledge.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Moreschi says, this is politics , not history. But there is no main-stream view in this sort of politics. We can't lean towards anything. Ordinary NPOV will deal with it. We report on the supporters and opponents of the theory, and the reader will judge--and eventually history. DGG (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean "lean" in the sense of "give space to", not advocate for. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should simply folow NPOV, as always. It means: (a) to describe the factual side of the events - what had actually happened, and (b) to represent all existing views on the remaining controversies per sources. I have made a few edits in this article to reflect that. You are welcome to look at my edits and make corrections if needed. But I still do not think it should be categorized as a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone taken a look at this article? Looks extremely suspect to me - unverified claims, theories presented as facts, original research, weasel words, logic errors, unreliable sources, biased point of view... Socrates2008 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, by definition it appears to be an article on conspiracy theories. Similar to the Masonic consipracy theories article being discussed on WP:RS/N, some of the stuff in there is going to be pretty flaky. While the article's too long and there's a bit of OR-synth, there appear to be a reasonable number of references for the claims themselves. (Naturally, as in all such articles, the otherwise impressive list of references is padded with reliable sources that don't actually deal with the specific subject.) Relata refero (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you know Relata refero-it's not about the amount of the sources but about their reliability-which is very low in this specific case. For example, citing Yuval Aviv as a reliable source is quite far from being natural or standing in academic standards as his writing is widely considered, by experts, to be unreliable.--Gilisa (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know Aviv's reputation, which was discussed widely even outside Israel at the time of the Spielberg movie, and I would doubt that he counts as anything close to a mainstream view for extensive inclusion in the main article on PA103. However, I imagine that he counts as a reliable source for "alternative theories", since his received a certain amount of publicity, and he was Pan Am's official investigator. Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is a relevant extract from Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103:

"This article contains citations that do not support the statements, lacks citations for (disputed) facts, cites unreliable sources, presents conjecture as fact, has logic errors, contains weasel words, and does not present a balanced view of the subject matter. In short, a very dubious article for an encyclopedia. Socrates2008 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"A pretty damning critique, Socrates2008! I agree with some of what you say but do not accept much of it, including the dubiety point. Here's a little bit of the history:

• two years ago, Pan Am Flight 103 had become an article of unwieldy length;
• three sections were split from the main article: Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103;
• the "alternative theories" section was moved verbatim to this new article along with the very few inline supporting references at the time. Although most statements in this section had originally been sourced (to a book, newspaper article) in the parent article, it was not obvious (to me who did most of the transfer) which statement related to which source; and,
• as the new article was expanded, inline references were of course added.

From a brief look at your tags, it seems that the following The Scotsman article provides many of the required citations: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184&id=1014782007 But if he didn't do it, who did? The other theories. (Incidentally, this Scotsman piece is quoted above as an example of media citing this Wikipedia article as a source!).Phase4 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

I find it very odd that Socrates2008 did not include this "fringe theory" notion in the catalogue of complaints about the article. If the convicted Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi succeeds in his upcoming second appeal and has the Lockerbie bombing conviction overturned, I believe that this "alternative theories" article is going to be required reading for UK and US government investigators, who will then have to find the real saboteurs of Pan Am Flight 103.Phase4 (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article now has 62 inline references to primary sources and all the tags added by Socrates2008 have been removed.Phase4 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata refero, you wrote: " I do know Aviv's reputation, which was discussed widely even outside Israel at the time of the Spielberg movie ". I, however, didn't said nothing about Israel in connection with Aviv's reputation, and since it might be that I didn't understand your answer well-i.e. if their is any story behind this issue -please explain me so I would understand your meaning better and we can take the discussion further. Nonetheless, I did knew that his reputation was discussed outside Israel and any why, I think that there is a difference between well known source and a well established source-meaning reliable one, and Aviv's reputation should be mentioned any where he is cited as an authority--Gilisa (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, Aviv's Israeli, and is best known within Israel. He was noted outside Israel at the time his book was published, but was only really talked about when Munich came out. That is what I meant, and this is the second time I have to remind you that hypersensitivity in bold italics is never helpful for the atmosphere here. (I do know - and the WP article on him agrees - that he is considered less reliable within Israel than he is outside.) In any case, regardless of the geographical specifics, he is a valid source for an article on alternative theories, since he discussed one of the major ones, as Pan Am's chosen investigator. If you wish to claim that instead he is a primary source, and so should be used with caution, that's another matter. Relata refero (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To say the true, conspiracy theories like this one are always to suffer from being unreliable- so it doesn't really matter who you are sourcing to support them. Any why, regarding M. Aviv, as he was the official investigator of Pan Am I assume that to consider him as a primary source, or something close to that, wouldn't be too exaggerated and so, yes, he should be used with caution. About the italics, why do you think that I was hypersensitive? it had no special meaning, just to distinguish between what you wrote and what I did and to make it notable so you could refer to it, it really should rise no commotion.--Gilisa (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My initial suspicions above have proved to be correct - this article has been shown to be the original research of conspiracy theorist Patrick Haseldine under the alias Phase4. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes "original research" doesn't seem to really be "research", but "making thing up"! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is now a protracted fight at cold fusion over references with a 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs). This person is Jed Rothwell, the librarian for LENR-CANR.org who has devoted his time over the last few days to making sure that cold fusion is "properly" advocated on Wikipedia, in particular by trying to include vanity press books that he has helped to write/translate/publish. I have reported his particular conflict of interest here and left a warning on his talkpage, but more pairs of eyes would be appreciated. There seems to be a concerted effort by pro-cold fusion advocates to get the article to state something along the lines of "cold fusion exists". We need to make sure that Wikipedia does not accomodate such POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist but have some basic scientific literacy and by now am reasonably familiar with WP policies. I'll have a look. I'm not really sure (yet) that cold fusion is a fringe theory, more a marginal area of research. But as I don't have a strong POV on the question myself I'll try to ensure that the article is as NPOV as possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that since the above was posted cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion have been semi-protected to prevent Rothwell from flaming. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are a number of related arguments whihc have been skewed to reflect the tiny minority pro cold fusion view, including pathological science, Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Steven E Jones, Timeline of cold fusion, Georeactor and 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion, which I have nominated for deletion as not obviously being significant other than as an object of hatred and loathing for the pro-LENR camp. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's been a report in the UK newspaper "The Telegraph" suggesting links between artificial light and some forms of cancer. The report says that shift working at night may be 'offically labled' as a probable carcinogen. Here's the telegraph report, and Google has plenty more. I mention this on this notice board because it's the kind of thing that's easy for people to skew, and because there are links to "electric power lines cause cancer". Dan Beale-Cocks 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you go ahead and create the wikipedia article. Likely it is going to end up notable enough for an article, we might as well try to make it coherant and referenced. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that "artifical light" is the culprit per se, but there is a growing body of literature on night shift work leading to a higher incidence of cancer, possibly because of dysregulation of the Circadian rhythm. Certainly there are enough good sources for an article, and better to head it off with good sourcing now than wait for the inevitable mess. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add the material to existing articles such as ones on shift work and on cancer in the first instance? Telegraph is generally considered a reliable newspaper and it presumably is reporting on a published research report. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph's reporting of scientific issues often is dodgy. Better to get closer to the source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Citing a corollation such as this in for a group that is clearly physiologically fighting their circadian cloak is just bad science. You could as easily say eating meals at night is the cause of cancer. I'm sure the article in the primary literature is much more guarded with their conclusions. David D. (Talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The prompt for the article is this call for information from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. They are interested only in the health effects if any of environmental artificial light (street lights), not indoor lighting. The shift working and cancer issue is pretty much separate, despite the juxtaposition in the Telegraph report. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr132.htm that cites the original study and gives a link to the study.

"A potential mechanism for a relation between shift work and breast cancer risk would be via an effect of altered light exposure at night on levels of melatonin or other hormones that might affect cancer risk; this mechanism has not been established, however."

Note the word "potential" i.e. they have no idea. The actual report (linked PDF at above url) is even more cautious:

"Overall, the evidence for an association of breast cancer risk with shift work is appreciable but not definitive, and it remains unclear whether any association is casual or a consequence of confounding".

So, given they are not even sure if shift work is a carcinogen, how could they possibly label artificial light as the cause? Sounds like handwaving to me. The light connection they are trying to make appears to be due to a hypothesis presented in 1987 (Stevens RG. Electric power use and breast cancer: a hypothesis. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:556-61.) and another study (Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1557-62.) but this might be an example of conformation bias. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, lists night work as a "probable cause" of cancer since December 5, 2007.^[1][2]"

FYI: quote from Shift work --Hordaland (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paranormalterms (edit | [[Talk:template:Infobox Paranormalterms|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes fields for "definition" and "signature" (argument "characteristics") both of whihc are, when used in article space, used to present the information as defined by believers. In any case this should be in the lead of the article. I think those parameters need to go, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The documentation of the infobox specifies it should only be used when the material is verifiable and notable. It seems well within policy.

By the way, in checking this out, I found an extended discussion of the same infobox in the archive of this page from just a couple months ago, at this link. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, paranormal believers think it is verifiable. They think that it's perfectly reasonable to state the definition, but per WP:NPOV to state that something is defined as, say, the ability to manipulate fire, is a serious problem, because it's only defined as that by proponents, most people define it as a load of codswallop. Reading that debate, the primary proponent of using the infoboxes was an editor who is a proponent of paranormal concepts. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply the debate was completely decided, I linked it just to note that this has come up before and provide continuity.

Regarding verifiability, there is a difference between saying a particular psychic ability is verifiable, and saying that the description of the ability is verifiable in literature about paranormal phenomena. If the phenomena is presented as science, then it would not be verifiable and no NPOV. But in these infoboxes, the information is presented only as a set of terminology used by people who believe in that stuff, and in that sense, it is verifiable. (I'm not a believer by the way, just looking at this as a policy issue).

Here are some ArbCom comments that turned up in the prior Fringe debate I found interesting:

• adequate framing
• cultural artifacts
• effective tag

Based on the ArbCom comments, it seems that adding the words "paranormal" and/or "parapsychology" to the main title of the infobox would fulfill the requirement of effective tagging, indicating that the terminology in the infobox is not "science".

I've made the edit to the template to add the "effective tagging" for "adequate framing". Please take a look and see if you agree this is a good solution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with these, especially after Jack-A-Roe's edit. I noticed at Psychic surgery someone added a "Status" field that reports the mainstream scientific view of the subject (poorly implemented in that article, but the idea is sound). Maybe that should be added to the template and implemented across the board. Fireplace (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Feh, I only just noticed: the person making virtually all arguments in favour of the template last time round is also the creator of the template and a long-time promoter of undue weight in fringe subjects. I think there is a big problem legitimising the in-universe definitions in this way, when they are always in the lead already. It means the in-universe definition is presented twice, once without the context of the fact that science considers it twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1) This is not the appropriate board for this discussion, it should be happening on the PRoject Paranormal board as the template belongs to the project. For a start, this board should be used for "fringe science" and related hypothesis, whereas most of the entries that this is used for are popular culture, not science.

2) That particular template is also used in Ufology and debunking, which aren't appropriately framed under the modified heading.

3) The suggested title is WAY too loooooooong. If you have a small screen or are browsing on a mobile device it takes up too much space.

I'm recoding the template to make the title "completely variable". The user simply has to put the most appropriate framing word in place. It's much neater, You can add cryptozoology, Ufology, Parapsychology, whatever you feel is most appropriate. - perfectblue (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution to me. I had added the "paranormal" heading based on the title of the template page, I didn't realize it was used for so many things. I have no problem with the variable usage idea at all. It does seem like a good idea though to make sure there is a context heading, for "effective tagging" per the arbcom finding. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't "belong" to anyone other than Wikipedia, and taking it to the place where most True Believers are to be found may not be the best way to ensure WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When I thought that the infobox was only used for paranormal-related topics, adding that heading as "effective tagging" seemed like a good solution.

But if the same infobox is used for Ufology, debunking in general, or other similar topics, then the specific heading doesn't work. If we insist on keep it that way, new infoboxes can easily be made specifically for each of the topics anyway, so that solution won't work.

According to arbcom, these kinds of topics are "cultural artifacts" and not science, and that matches what perfectblue wrote also.

I suggest leaving the infobox as a general-use paranormal template, while strengthening the documentation of the template to make the heading parameter at the top of the infobox a "required" parameter, to identify the topic covered by the infobox. As long as it's clear that it's not a science topic, then it would not be a problem with WP:FRINGE. For example, "Ufology" is not science, it's popular culture, and if presented that way is not a Fringe problem.

One more thing, as I've mentioned in other discussions on this page, and on the talk page here, if a debate on a particular topic starts to extend on this page, then either it should be moved to the talk page of the incident where the fringe question is happening, or the editors on that article should be informed so they can participate, by a post on that talk page. That would be the fair and transparent way to proceed. We don't need that if we can and perfectblue can agree to the required-heading parameter documentation change as a solution, but it we continue the discussion further, this report should be either announced on the template talk page and the debate moved there, or the people there invited to participate here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe is correct, half of Project Paranormal deals with culture and not science. In many cases there's very little that even pretends to approach science, and in those cases it's often somebody trying to make something sound scientific rather than an actual scientific hypothesis. Much of it is about urban legends, modern mythology and hoaxes. I propose that in order for something to be really applicable on this board it has to have notable support or controversy as a scientific hypothesis. With real true scientists supporting it, but as a minority. This would mean, for example, that Earthquake prediction experiments could be counted, but that campfire ghost stories wouldn't. - perfectblue (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the heading being user completely definable. It will allow a user to frame the topic as required while providing the template with the flexibility that it needs. - perfectblue (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is any one here familiar enough with the German medical Journal ‘Fortschr. Med.’ to say whether it is considered a mainstream medical publication unlikely to publish fringe science papers? The accusation was made here having discovered and had reversed the vandalism to my posting above I now propose to address the allegations. Jagra (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. It's Fortschritte der Medizin, and seems to do some work on CAM, but how fringy, I don't know. Edzard Ernst has published in it, so it's probably not awful. However, one study can never stand as the final word on a scientific subject anyway. Vanished user ^talk 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ernst certainly seems mainstream, and CAM in Europe is more mainstream. So I guess I am looking for a more definative answer, anyone there read German that could give an opinion on the actual paper I have no way of checking the German paper PMID 7713467 it has an English abstract that reads well and I also posted a paper PMID 16813460 that gives a short review in the full text and more details of the type of trial in English, that also reads well. So is the reveiw an accurate description of the primary paper, and is the journal considered mainstream ? Jagra (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been some POV-pushing in the following articles.

• Debt-based monetary system - This article was proposed for AfD, but kept on the belief that it would be improved. [7] That never happened. Many citations were added [8], but this did nothing to improve the quality of the article. As of now, a pov-pushing mob involving Karmaisking (talk · contribs) (identified as a puppeteer) [9], Sm8900 (talk · contribs), and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) needs to be dealt with in order to get vandalism removed. Except for Karmaisking, they seem to be editing in good faith, but they are not making constructive edits and have the ridiculous expectation that we include unreliable sources and "discuss" whether to remove Karma's POV pushing.
• Debt money - See the AfD discussion on this one.
• Debt-free money - There's a deletion tag on the front that's been there uncontested for nearly five days. One more day and this article should be gone, but do please keep an eye on it, regardless.

All three of these articles were primarily maintained by Karmaisking's gang of sockpuppets as POV forks of other articles on monetary theory. They attempt to push the fringe theory (often tied in with the New World Order conspiracy theory) that central banks under fractional-reserve steal wealth from the public, based upon the heterodox economics of the Austrian school. Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a heavy barrow is being pushed up a steep hill. It is likely that one article on this could be supported as per the general support for articles on "notable quackery" but it's not clear to me which article should stand. AfDs are in process, but should not impede a clueful merge and redirect. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this can all be consolidated into a section of the New World Order page. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This theory is often associated with the anti-semitic Rothschild family conspiracy and the NWO, but not always. Some adhere to banking conspiracy theories without believing in the NWO or anti-semitism, though they're all political extremists and fringe economists. See Austrian economics. Some radical Marxist Anarchists also believe in such theories. I initially supported deleting the article because it was clearly a POV fork, but since the term is somewhat widely-used [10], I think that fixing the article or redirecting it to fractional-reserve banking would make more sense. Zenwhat (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's currently an edit war going on between me and Sm8900 (talk · contribs) between the original version [11] and my revision [12]. Since the article was created by Karma as a POV fork of fractional-reserve banking, I'm going to keep reverting per WP:IAR and since the 3RR doesn't apply to bad-faith edits, such as vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is at a standstill, primarily because of a dispute between editors as to whether NPOV requires us to state in the lead that the movie misrepresents science, or whether we have to give this as an attribution to the handful of scientists that noticed the movie. The group that favors the former believes the latter gives undue weight to the theories presented in the movie, while the latter group believes the former gives undue weight to science. Comments at the talk page] welcome.Kww (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather depressing revision history, that. One sees all the usual names in one big tangled edit-war. Yuck. Speaking for myself, I really can't see the big bother. There is this massive "controversy" section. If the film is a bit cranky and silly, any intelligent reader can work it out for themselves from the rest of the article. I simply don't see the need for a big edit-war over the lede. Philosophus's compromise wording actually looks quite nice. Either way, I think the crucial thing is not to assume our readers are idiots. As a general rule, they aren't. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

still, if WP:FRINGE means anything at all, the article needs to state up front that the movie is occultist pseudoscience. Of course our intelligent readers can work this out also by reading between the lines, but that's hardly what is envisaged by our guidelines. In my book, editors who are trying to obfuscate the movie's status by a campaign of hand-waving and weasling are acting disruptively and are obstructing straightforward encyclopedic discussion. It is absolutely non-negotiable that Ramtha's School of Enlightenment be mentioned in the intro. It isn't acceptable to expect readers to read the entire article before it is revealed who is actually behind this. The phrasing "John Gorenfeld reports that three directors are devotees of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment and JZ Knight/Ramtha" is disingenious: since it is compeltely undisputed that these directors are in fact Ramtha devotees, it is irrelevant who is "reporting" this, and the article needs to state it as a fact unless and until a counter-position can be quoted. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, true enough. The actual Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article itself is, oddly, much more honest and upfront as to what's really going on here. I don't see a need to bring the whole scientific-consensus arguments into the lead, however - there's the "controversies" section for that, and we can work it out for ourselves, anyway. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kww got it wrong: the controversy is whether a scientific consensus can be included when the film was hardly noticed by science at all. Yeah, we know that if there were a scientific consensus on Bleep, it would be negative. But that's OR.

As far as the Ramtha thing, this is correct, but must be phrased neutrally as a mere fact- nothing like "which is known to be a quack cult" or some such. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the theories espoused in the film are so fringe as to not merit a scientific consensus, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE have much to say on the matter. Antelan ^talk 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. And in the article on QM, I'm sure they are not given much WEIGHT. You need to put your knowledge of WP rules into the context of the encyclopedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - so long as the What the Bleep Do We Know article is perfectly clear that the movie is only notable for its pop culture relevance, and not any of its purported science, this isn't a problem. However, Martinphi, you updated the lead of the article to label the scientists in the movie "experts" (a misuse of the term as applied to these controversial figures, IMHO). By highlighting the scientific relevance of the movie, you have make WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE germane to the article. So the choice, as I see it, is to select one of the following:

1. modify the article to make it clear that the movie is a pop culture phenomenon, largely avoiding Wikipedia's FRINGE/UNDUE rules by assiduously keeping away from the "science" of the movie, or
2. accept the film as an explanation of science from a fringe viewpoint that has little to no mainstream acceptance, applying Wikipedia's FRINGE/UNDUE policies appropriately.

Which choice is better for this article? Antelan ^talk 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First: I did not originally add the word "experts."

Second: an expert is someone who has letters after his name, not someone we respect. Ever hear of complimentary medicine? It should be called insult medicine, because it basically says we don't believe the experts.

Third: the policies you cite are relative to the subject of the article. In an article on QM, we give no weight to Bleep ideas. In bleep, we give minority weight to mainstream sources, merely making sure that the reader knows that the mainstream thinks this is pseudoscience. In other words, we discuss the topic of the article in the article on the topic, not primarily what the mainstream thinks of it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your numbered points:

1. You reverted my removal of the term. I.e., you added the term "experts."
2. God help us if "letters after his name" is how experts are defined. Hell, by that definition, I'll soon be as much of an expert as Benjamin Carson.
3. I think this point shows a gross conceptual error on your part. Giving "minority weight to mainstream sources" is supported by policy... how? Antelan ^talk 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Martin, in response, edited WP:FRINGE to try to get included a phrase that in articles devoted to dealing with minority POVs, the minority POV may be the largest part of the article and still not violate WP:WEIGHT. While true in some sense, this idea is easily misinterpreted to mean "minority weight to mainstream sources" which is an idea Martin has been advocating for some time. I removed the offending sentence. I hope Martin doesn't make a habit of editing policy/guidelines to justify his opinions about Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In an article about occultism, the article is expected to be about occultism. As long as the views of those who think it nonsense is adequately expressed, it is perfectly reasonable for most of the article to adopt an occultist perspective--that is the very subject. The content of this film is outright occultism, prepared by occultists, and normally that would pose no problems. The problem is that the particular point of the film is to make claims that their views are supported by science. Obviously, no scientist agrees, and the range of opinions varies mainly in the strength to which it is expressed. Why be concerned with what view is predominant? A equal emphasis on the actual science will be enough to convince anyone rational, and no amount of emphasis will convince the others. DGG (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan asked me to clarify. I mean primarily the relevant amount of space devoted to the debunking. I do not consider it necessary to waste much effort on scientific views of subjects which clearly have nothing at all to do with science. If a book of subject says it is dealing with psychic phenomena, it says enough. It's like trying to add a full analysis of why the Bible is scientifically unreliable to every article on anything from the Bible. I also mean that it is only fair to present a theory, however weird, in sufficient and uninterrupted detail to let it show itself to whatever advantage it has. FRINGE is not a license to attack in the name of objectivity. DGG (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where DGG and I diverge. I think that it is not unreasonable to take every claim about observable reality that is contrary to science (no matter how small) and point out, plainly, that it is contrary to science. This needn't be huge, just enough to make sure that the reader is aware. In the case of this article, there are definitely points made in the movie that are contradicted by scientific fact. Plainly stating this and referencing a standard text on the subject, for example, should be sufficient. We don't need to make a big deal about it, we just need to make sure that editors who want to see such statements included are not scared off by editors who want to preserve a sympathetic point-of-view in the article. Note that this is not Wikinfo. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SciencApologist. It's not appropriate for most of the article to adopt an occultist (sympathetic) point of view. It should all be NPOV. And since the film does not present itself as occultism, but rather pretends the mantle of science, if should be neutrally covered using a scientific perspective. It's therefore very important (lead worthy) to note that even some of the fringe-y scientists involved in the film repudiated it as a radical misinterpretation of physics, along with virtually all scientists commenting on it. If the film actually presented itself as occultism, I would agree with DGG, but it does not. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right to the extent that the article is about science rather than a movie review. But first, some of the science was good, as acknowledged by the Physics Today source. And second, we already do that, and in the lead, to the extent that the sources cover it. We say "Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight. Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented."

This should give the reader a very good handle on things. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the good science had no evident connection to the conclusions being drawn from it. I have seen this before; what they are doing is analogy not deductive reasoning. The movie claims to present a scientific argument, but that claims fails to stand up to any kind of academic scrutiny, plausible though it may sound. I suspect that the veneer of respectability is the main reason it is considered problematic - if they removed the pretence of support from mainstream quantum physics it would just be another presentation of wacky new age beliefs. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a tame (mostly civil) war going on for a couple of years on the Talk page for Polyphasic sleep. I hope this is an appropriate place to ask for someone uninvolved to take a look. I've written (most of) the lead paragraph and put the IMO whacky stuff under the heading "Intentional polyphasic sleep", and I've just written a long comment at the bottom of the Talk page. So far no one has removed the lead paragraph nor that heading, so we're being pretty polite about it. But some of us are never going to believe that the "online polyphasic sleeping community", referencing primarily involved bloggers, belongs in an encyclopedia. They admit that there's no research on their system, and blame the scientists for not doing something about that. Related pages: Uberman's sleep schedule and Everyman sleep schedule.

This has been a one-sided presentation. Comments welcome. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That links section was out of control. I removed a bunch of stuff. futurebird (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Background: Just an FYI, if a few people could watchlist this page it would be VASTLY appreciated. A consensus is forming to downgrade the article to semi-protection after being fully protected for a very long time. Previously, literal hordes of random IP users had aggressively and completely uncivilly edit warred and flamed each other, alternately vandalizing the page, and getting into gross POV battles, while the then-handful of logged in users could only ask for protection. At one point, it was something like 100+ edits in two hours, until Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) locked it down.

Why I'm posting here: In the slow consensus building on Talk after, not one single IP editor chimed in that I can recall, at all. Finally, the only real consensus matter left was whether or not to call Waterboarding an act of torture or not. Since everyone seemed to just repeat and advocate their personal views, which wasn't of any use to us, I posted a section here asking for people to list all sources on either side of the fence--is it, or isn't it torture? The consensus based on the presented sources was 100% incontrovertable. The world considers waterboarding an act of torture. That section for sources opposing this notion sat empty for nearly two weeks. Today, we have two sources from two pundits, opinion columns both. One says its not torture. The other says it's up the American legislature to decide (which, of course, it isn't, except for the purposes of US law).

Based on this, please read this section. In an odd situation, the supposed view of the current United States government (supposed, since they won't really comment either way) is "believed" to be that waterboarding is not torture. Many of us therefore have a firm belief that the idea, based on sources and verifiable facts, that waterboarding is not torture needs to be limited in the article, per WP:WEIGHT, and because it is a WP:FRINGE view held by few authorities on torture, related law, and experts that have actually spoken up. Please watchlist this article, in case anyone tries to advocate or advance unreasonable fringe or wild views on this article. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To add a bit more to what Lawrence says. The talk pages are long and involved and may be hard to get through. The gist of the issue is this: A good number of sources describe waterboarding as torture. A smaller number say it is not torture. (A poll by CNN shows that there is disagreement in the US population with a ratio of 1:2, with the majority believing it is torture). There are three positions being advanced:

1.The article should firmly say that Waterboarding is Torture

2.The article should avoid connecting waterboarding with Torture.

3.The article should mention its connection with torture but also that this connection is disputed.

Generally, people who believe position #1 should prevail, strongly reject both option 2 and option 3 and believe that WP:Fringe should prevail above WP:ASF despite the fact that ASF is a policy and fringe is a guideline. There also seems to be a rejection of the principle that consensus can change and that per WP:CON consensus on an individual talk page really cannot violate fundamental policies. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note there is further discussion on this topic below in this section #Waterboarding (2). It might be better to note your comments there; whatever you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this article about an alleged Nazi antigravity experiment for deletion. If sufficent notability could be asserted (I'm doubting this for the moment), a sober rewrite would be a fine alternative. Note that the article started quite opposite to its current state, but the reference on which that version rested is a dead link now. --Pjacobi (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair amount of stoners putting forth original research. [13] [14] [15] The "cannabis resources" template is extremely questionable. At the very least, anything on that template without a citation (especially the "strains") should be deleted. Zenwhat (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• And the various articles on bongs, which are massive screeds of OR and HOWTO, should probably be merged. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some fringe theories are being added at Cydonia Mensae. I've reverted it twice. Bubba73 (talk), 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg is a scientist who claims that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS. Needless to say, this view is universally rejected by the scientific community. We already give an undue amount of weight to his fringe views on Wikipedia (see Duesberg hypothesis, Peter Duesberg, and AIDS reappraisal). Recently, Eye.earth (talk · contribs) has been adding references to Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus, published by a small conspiracy-driven publishing house, across several articles. On Paul Gann, Duesberg's book is being used to refute the cause of death given by, among others, the New York Times ([16]). The same user is rewriting parts of our article on AZT in an impenetrable fashion, citing Duesberg's book as a source ([17]). Can I ask for some outside views and/or eyes, as this is clearly not a reliable source nor particuarly WP:WEIGHTy, yet is being used across several articles to contradict reliable sources or support questionable scientific pronouncements? MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) and ask themn to declare i an unreliable source. Then you can simply revert additions that are only justified by it. Vanished user ^talk 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I ought to know because I (informally) study riots, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if this article is giving undue weight to the idea that this riot was "started by communists." Some of the sources cited seem really old (old sources on race-related topics tend to be problematic) --and not that great (a badly scanned pdf of something put out by a Cleveland church? ) Can someone stop by and share their thoughts on the quality of the sources? The communist theory should be mentioned, I'm asking about how much weight we should give it? futurebird (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out there are major problems with the content of the article. I've tried to fix what I can, but I could really use some help. futurebird (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously need help with this one. I can just start hacking away at it and removing most the "it was communists" stuff and hope I'm being fair about it, but I really would like some outside input on the quality of these sources first. I'll admit I have an view about this matter, and it is based on fact, but I don't want to act alone. So, I know it's tedious but could someone kindly stop by and see what you think of the sources that suggest that the riot was "communist" in origin. Thanks. futurebird (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about whether the existing content regarding Freemasonry may be strongly biased in favor of one particular form of Freemasonry at Talk:Freemasonry#Systemic Bias?. Any party who has any interest in the subject is certainly more than welcome to express opinions there. Thank you. Also, there is a matter of some weight regarding this and all such societies which, by definition, keep their information confidential. How reliable, if at all, can sources from outside an organization, or sources who have since left the organization for some purpose or other, be seen as being? This is particularly important if the only other extant sources are the organizations themselves, or their adherents. Any input on that matter would be welcome as well. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ask, but a lot of this RfC is dealing with actions taken back before this noticeboard was created, when battling fringe theories could be an even more lonely and thankless job. So I'd appreciate commentary on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden Vanished user ^talk 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ascended_Master_Teachings Category:Theosophy. Check out such lovely pages as Master Jesus, Secret Chiefs, HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, "I AM" Activity and many, many more! Vanished user ^talk 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

what's the issue? it's nutjob philosophy. are there references to regular philosophical works? Are there issues with notability or excess fringe pov weight? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability, POV, and a great deal of describing fringe beliefs as standard, or even true. Vanished user ^talk 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky did have an influence in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, extending as far as a small part in the development of black religious-political organizations such as the Nation of Islam. But this is going overboard. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I wouldn't object to a few articles, but this is beyond excessive. Fringe theories have a habit of multiplying to hundreds of articles, which are impossible to maintain. Vanished user ^talk 08:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, crap. This is one massive walled garden and there's plenty of notability issues to be sorted out. We've also got excess weight/POV-issues - see here for a (now thankfully deleted) example. I suspect it's redirect-and-prod time again. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Yes, pruning pseudo-philosophy has been one of the major accomplishments of this noticeboard. (Back in Integral thought land I just deleted about two pages of self-published criticism from Ken Wilber's article.) Fireplace (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This from the Los Angeles Times (The mighty I Am; cult led by Guy Ballard Los Angeles Magazine April 1, 1997):

Guy Ballard founded the I Am cult in southern California in the 1930s, claiming to be a reincarnation of St Germain and George Washington, among others. Ballard died in 1939 and his wife and son were indicted for fraud the following year.

On a blistering evening in August 1935, a bizarre rite took placeat the Shrine Auditorium. A crowd of nearly 6,000 gazed upon a brightly lit stage flanked by large paintings of Jesus and St. Germain. Onthe stage, a man who called himself Godfre Ray King read messages hesaid had been passed down from divine entities. Written in "living letters of Light" only King and his wife, "Lotus," could see, the words expressed love for the devoted audience members and hatred for their numerous enemies. Then Godfre and Lotus led their disciples in the chanting of decrees, sometimes beseeching their gods for "ONE MILLIONDOLLARS IN CASH! TAX-FREE!"

This service was a coming-out party of sorts for the Los Angeles-based I Am movement, which may have been one of the kookiest cults inAmerican history. Southern California historian Carey McWilliams described the group as "a witch's cauldron of the inconceivable, the incredible and the fantastic."

"Godfre Ray King" was the two-bit alias of Guy Ballard, who claimed religion had found him in 1930 during a hike on Mount Shasta when a young man offered him a cup filled with a strange, creamy liquid--"a much more refreshing drink than springwater," Ballard recalled. Theyoung man then transmogrified into St. Germain: eighteenth-century French politician, adviser to Louis XV and leader of the Ascended Masters, an elite group that included Jesus, Hercules and the God of the Swiss Alps, among others.

Thank heavon Master Jesus for reliable sources. Fireplace (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This Los Angeles Magazine article was an opinion piece with grossly inaccurate information. To call this a "reliable source" is simply incorrect, and to use it as a source of accurate information on the beliefs of this religious organization to single-handedly rewrite the "I AM" Activity article into a POV piece is wrong. Arion (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some redirects, rewritten "I AM" Activity, and left a proposal to redirect/merge everything else at Talk:Ascended Master Teachings#Time for an overhaul, in case anyone here wants to comment. Fireplace (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little merging and deletion, but this is a huge article set... Vanished user ^talk 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's been resistance from the followers of this movement. I suspect this will end up at AFD. Fireplace (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a follower of any of these movements, but after checking out some of the pages, I don't think it's a walled garden. There are inbound links and some of them are plenty notable. Theosophy , its founders, and its many spinoffs for example, had a significant effect on Western society in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and several notable authors and poets were members or followers (ie, WB Yeats as one prominent example).

Also, they're not exactly WP:FRINGE theories, in the sense of needing a noticeboard report - they are not scientific, or pseudoscientific, or being used in that way. They're religious or philosophical systems, and many books have been published about them, making them notable. I'm not saying at all that we should present the content of the philosophies as "truth", but if they're notable, what's the problem with having an article about them, as long as the article has references to support the notability? An example of that would be something like Flat Earth Society. No-one thinks Wikipedia is actually saying the Earth is flat, but the organization that propounds that idea has made itself notable enough to have an article, even if it gets a chuckle every time someone looks at it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "many books about them" is that if you look closely, you'll see that most of the references in these articles come from publishing houses involved with the movements. There do seem to be a few independent, reliable books talking about these things (with titles like "These also believe: A study of modern American cults and minority religious movements"), but I suspect that insofar as they are notable, they are notable for their sociological aspects and the controversies surrounding them, not for their doctrinal views. As written, all of these articles are focused almost entirely on using wikipedia as a forum for their "fringe" metaphysical views, thus raising WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues (as well as WP:N issues for the large web of articles they have created). Fireplace (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points, and if it turns out that the topics are not notable beyond self-published materials, that would be a concern. But the articles in the lists and categories above are not a monolithic whole where they are all the same. Some of them may be fringe metaphysical views as you described, but some are articles about philosophies or people who have influenced other people, had an effect on society, and do have non-self-published materials written about them. I'm not an expert on the topics, so I can't pull a bunch of references out of my hat right now. But it seems to me those are article content issues that should be discussed on the talk page of the articles, not discussed in detail here - unless we invite the people editing those articles here to participate in the discussion. If there is an article where you feel all of the references are self-published, wouldn't the usual method be to discuss your concerns on that article's talk page? I am not saying which of those articles is OK, and which may be off-track, I have not studied them enough to know the answer to that. As I understand it, the consensus process is one of the most central policies. So if decisions are made about those articles, the people working on them should be included in the process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those discussions are already occurring. See Talk:Ascended Master Teachings, Talk:"I AM" Activity, Talk:Seven rays. Fireplace (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure - there's quite a lot here that is notable - but there's also a fair chunk that's not and that's only referenced to self-published ("vanity") books. It's just a question of separating the wheat from the chaff. And, as we saw at the Count of St Germain, POV concerns are also an issue. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The desire to censor that which appears "nutty" or "fringe" or not "notable" in one's own subjective judgement has no place in a general reference encyclopedia. If you do not want to read about various religious movements, philosophies, scientific theories, social and cultural developments, then don't. Imposing your standards on others by wanting to exclude that information, if it is not to your liking, is known as censorship. Arion (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The free interchange of information is how advancement in science and humanity in general occurs. Censorship has never led to progress. Just look at the "dark age" of Europe when the "all-powerful" church decided that it would control what people said or thought, all in the name of superstitions that it proclaimed to be the whole "truth" and all that it disapproved of to be "heresy".

Look at what censorship did in Nazi Germany where mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals occurred and no one even knew until much later how extensive it had been. Look at Iran today where homosexuals are being widely executed and the government censorship merely parrots the line that "there are no homosexuals in Iran"!

Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be.

After the "thought police" go after the new religious movements of the last 150 years, what will be next? Excising all the "irrational beliefs" and superstitions in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.? However about removing all articles based on various world mythologies and the individual figures in those mythologies? Where will the censorship end? Arion (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that we've established that the people wanting to keep Wikipedia a reliable, verifiable, neutral, referenced source are censors who are leading us to the dark ages, Nazi Germany, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, I'd like to point out that you both seem to think Wikipedia is something that it is not, namely it is not a free repository of information. If you don't like the constraints that Wikipedia has on sourcing, notability, or inclusion, then you are free to start your own wiki. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I happen to be a Wikipedia editor who is absolutely committed to keeping Wikipedia a reliable, verifiable, neutral, referenced encyclopedia. However censorship is not, and was never intended to be, a role for Wikipedia editors to engage in.

• There appear to be individuals on Wikipedia that have no hesitation to use labels like "fringe" and "pseudoscience" in order to discredit anything they disagree with or do not understand, and to go so far as to censor and delete that information.

• This is no different than the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the large Buddhist statues, since they disagreed with that religion.

• This is no different than Christianity, not so long ago, labeling those who disagreed with the mainstream religious superstitions to be "heretics" and deserving of being eliminated by any and all means. Arion (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what absolute nonsense. I keep hearing accusations of "censorship" when the entire debate surrounds WP:NOTE. Wikipedia doesn't carry your nephew's garage band -- "censorship"? The one policy you fail to list as being "absolutely committed" to is notability, perhaps you should give that some thought. Nobody suggested Ascended Master Teachings for deletion, alright? Everybody here is fully prepared to carry articles on fringy nutcases just as long as they meet basic notability criteria. This doesn't mean we accept the inflating of fringe pseudo-philosophies into a whole compendium. For some reason, Blavatskian "Theosophy" is vastly and unduly over-represented on Wikipedia. The comparison with Taliban vandalism or Christian inquisition is so far out of line that you are really just establishing your complete failure to understand this debate. Perhaps you should re-read WP:FRINGE, slowly and deliberately. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding censorship, see the first observation by Antandrus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I wrote about censorship attempts is in response to specific actions that were undertaken yesterday. Two editors discovered a way to eliminate articles they did not like by placing "redirect" tags on them. This was an attempt to make articles that each unilaterally decided he did not want to appear in Wikipedia, to - in effect - no longer exist on Wikipedia. I do not believe this is a sign of the greatest respect for fellow editors. The issue is not a "merge debate", since the action on this and another article were taken WITHOUT DEBATE. It was only after I personally reverted the redirects, with a comment that redirects should not be done without discussion or consensus, that comments began.

To make this very clear, unilaterally creating a redirect on an article to another article that does not have the same content, results in that article no longer able to be accessed. This happened to the "Djwal Khul" article and the "Guy Ballard" article. These articles, until I reverted the redirects, were suddenly unavailable. If I had not had them on my watchlist, I would not have known how to undo these unilateral actions.

Using the "notability" WP:N argument can be a convenient way of eliminating articles that one happens to not like. The "notability" principle was and is intended to prevent some local group, for example a neighborhood Baptist congregation, from creating a Wikipedia article and portraying themselves as having national or international scope. If a scholar, researcher, or author has written about the subject of an article, then it is notable and can have an article in Wikipedia.

I have observed an unusual amount of derision and negativity directed against articles related to the "Ascended Master Teachings" and "Theosophy" - an example of this is the title of this section ("Walled gardens of woo"). Before considering how to eliminate these few articles on subjects that many people consider spiritually significant to their lives, how about first considering the elimination of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles on comic book characters from Marvel Comics and DC Comics - for example: List_of_DC_Comics_characters. How about considering the eliminating the hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)? Arion (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with healthy mergism, especially in fringe topics. This has nothing to do with like or dislike, the burden of establishing notability lies with those who want to keep the article separate. No, "notability" is not sufficiently established if there is a citation of some academic paper. Otherwise, we'll end up with one article per every paper ever published. Yes, healthy mergism also applies to comics characters. Pointing to a perceived attitude of laxness in another field is the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy and doesn't help. But I take it you have not really been involved in comic strip topics recently? There have been positive outcries over the strict notability policing in 2007. How about comics books enthusiasts point to the Theosophy clutter budding on WP in order to bolster their position? That would be as fallacious as the inverse. Aburesz, there can be bona fide debate over merging or not merging. So far, with your ranting about Taliban censorship, "elimination", allegations of bad faith etc., you haven't even begun to participate in such a debate. You should reconsider and try an approach more based on factual, down-to-earth argument than hysteria, now. If you do that, people might be inclined to respect your position and seek a compromise. As long as you keep ranting about censorship, you won't have much of an effect. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you avoid personal attacks using such language as "ranting" and "hysteria". You conveniently responded to my pointing out the hundreds of individual comic book character articles on Wikipedia, but ignored the more to the point examples of the HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)? If these can be justified in having their own articles - and they are justified (just look at any other encyclopedia which also lists individual entries) - then a dozen entries on Theosophical and Ascended Master saints are also justified. Arion (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to highlight a pattern of behavior, in addition to comparing us to Hitler and the Taliban, this user has already been blocked twice for 3RR, and once for this: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aburesz (2nd nomination) (subsequently unblocked). Fireplace (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, two points regarding his last comment: Many, if not most, Catholic Saints are notable outside of sainthood. Edward the Confessor for instance. Also, due to several thousand years of literary tradition, many of the Hindu gods are notable in their own right. However, Theosophy is a funny case: It's massive reinterpretation of notable figures done in a very few books, by a very few (if not, in some cases, one) authors. There's a religion of homeless children in Florida that claims, among other things, the Virgin Mary killed Jesus and went insane, and then became Bloody Mary. Fascinating stuff, but that doesn't change that it's a fringe interpretation, and probably not notable enough to be mentioned in Jesus or Virgin Mary, or to have all the aspects covered in separate articles. Vanished user ^talk 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Distorting what I wrote does not change what I wrote. I wrote about the dangerous potential effects that censorship has demonstrated in totalitarian regimes, and the beauty of Wikipedia is the FREE ACCESS to reliably sourced information.

The effort by Fireplace to discredit me is not helpful to this discussion, to say the least. Arion (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither accusations of censorship nor displays of TYPOGRAPHICAL EXUBERANCE will help your case. Please make your points in a framework relevant to Wikipedia policy, and engage constructively with other editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the last 132 years, hundreds of books have been written about "Theosophy" and the "Ascended Master Teachings", in various languages and by many publishers. These have described their religious / philosophical theories, their "saints" and adepts, and the social phenomena of the 19th and 20th century organizations that developed from the foundations of the writings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Alice Bailey, Guy Ballard, and various others. Arion (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

this is still beside the point. Nobody suggested the Theosophy article should be deleted. Try to debate on topic and avoid pointless tangents. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That Theosophy is important and merits and article (or a few) isn't disputed. The question is whether every minute aspect of Theosophy and related topics should be in its own article. A small number of strong articles would be preferable to a large number of stubby and fragmentary articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First for context - My approach is as a rational skeptic. I am not a follower of these beliefs, and I've never edited those articles. My comments here are the result of reading this discussion, checking some of the articles, and reviewing the relevant guideline and policy pages. I have no agenda for the articles, but I do have an agenda for fairness and the core policies.

• These articles are not a WP:walled garden. One can follow links from many articles not directly related to these, on a variety of topics, and in just a few clicks be in the midst of the most esoteric articles on Theosophy, various unusual religions, and Western Hermetic traditions in general. Examples of articles that link to these in just a few steps include: Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, links on the pages of such notable people as Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (I'm not implying these people all followed those beliefs, this is just to show that the articles reported in this notice are not a walled garden, they are part of the interconnected encyclopedia).

• Another series of religion articles has been listed below in the section titled #Golden Dawn. Those articles are related to the ones in this section, so this discussion applies to them as well.

• The title of this section, Walled gardens of woo is insulting to the people who believe in those religions and to the editors working on the listed articles . Many religions have precepts that may appear as "woo" to non-believers, but that doesn't mean they should be made fun of on a Wikipedia noticeboard.

• Editors working on articles should be informed when there is a discussion of those articles on this noticeboard. If discussion is also started on the article talk pages of the affected articles, or if various tags are placed, such as notability, POV, etc - a link to the report here should be made part of the record in the talk page discussion of the article - especially if there is any chance that the article may be nominated for deletion. We should respect the work of our fellow contributors enough to at least mention to them that their work has been reported on a noticeboard.

• WP:FRINGE does not apply to religious philosophy. It's purpose is to protect science, politics and history articles from viewpoints that have no realistic mainstream support. The words "religion" and "philosophy" do not even appear in the guideline.

...Even major religions have elements that sound like fringe theories. Should we have sections in the scientific article about Death on Resurrection or Reincarnation? Those would be "fringe theories" and could not be supported in a scientific context. But as religious beliefs, those are are appropriate for separate articles. Similarly, a story like Feeding the multitude, which works fine as a theological article about one story in the Bible, would be a fringe idea if it were used in an article about solving the world's hunger problem.

We also have articles about Christian fringe ideas, like Necedah Shrine, or Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena in which the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich is described, among many other clearly non-mainstream expressions. Should those articles be reported here?

Are minority religious beliefs to be treated as "fringe theories" and excluded from Wikipedia? I don't think anyone is trying to do that, but it could be an unintended result.

The questions about this group of articles are not about WP:FRINGE, they are based in the NPOV/N/V policies and should be addressed through the usual procedures - discussed on talk pages; references found and added if they exist; posted for an RFC; or nominated for deletion if not notable enough. Or, bring them up at WP:SKEPTICS or one of the other relevant projects.

But this noticeboard should not be used for philosophy or religion articles, it should be used to keep fringe theories from disturbing science, politics, history and similar academic topics.

If people want this noticeboard to moderate religion or philosophy articles, then I suggest that the WP:FRINGE guideline would need to be changed to set out clear parameters on those issues. As it is written now, those topics are not part of its mandate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Something as obvious as minority religious beliefs should not be treated as "fringe theories" should not have to have been stated here. Thank you for stating it!

Besides the redirecting of articles to another Wikipedia article in order to make them disappear - which has been done in the last 2 days - there has also been the sudden disappearance of an article on my watchlist, and I have not been able to recover it. I saw no discussion for deletion. It simply was deleted. Again, it is related to one of these Theosophical "minority religious beliefs"! I will be looking into this further. Arion (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe: I agree that several comments made in this thread have been uncivil. I don't agree that New Age religious movements are outside the scope of WP:FRINGE, as they make plenty of claims that are inconsistent with mainstream science. But most importantly, consensus on solutions is not achieved here -- that's not the point of a notice board (the point is to cast light on dark areas of Wikipedia). If you look around at the articles that have been highlighted here, you'll notice that the "usual procedures" you advocate are humming along nicely -- articles are being tagged, improved, discussed in the appropriate places. I've seen you posting courtesy notices directing editors to this page (which is perfectly fine) -- but this page *isn't* the place to discuss the articles, as you rightly point out. And that's not how this noticeboard has been used. Fireplace (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an RfC/A on this noticeboard if that is appropriate. Or in any case to find a way to get outside comments in a proper fashion, because I think Jack-A-Roe makes a great point here and what was done was invisible to any normal process, articles on theosophy (a major branch of hermetic religion/philosophy) seemed to just disappear from Wikipedia without prior discussion. —Whig (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this noticeboard is just a convenient place to alert interested editors of problem articles. It doesn't replace debate on article talkpages. All debate taking place here could just as well have been conducted on user talkpages or privately off-wiki. Further debate on the purpose of this noticeboard goes to the talkpage please. Redirecting or merging is not "deletion". These are simple edits which can be both made and reverted by any user. Disagreement on whether an article should be merged is a regular content dispute like any other and needs to be discussed on article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the events of the last several days, I have questions as to what is actually going on. But to call all this a "regular content dispute like any other" ignores what has been going on, even in the last hour.

I am a homeopathic physician with 27 years clinical experience. One week ago on 6 December I saw that the tone of the Homeopathy article was so POV that it was as if it was a non-encyclopedia article that would be better titled "Criticism of Homeopathy". I wrote a number of comments and suggestions on how the the article could be improved to NPOV standards.

Then in the last several days some of the anti-homeopathy editors went to my user page and checked out my "user contributions". The harrassment started as they started messing with those esoteric/Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles I had worked on - with derision and mockery, and eliminating 3 of them by "redirects" to other not identical articles (which I reverted) with no discussion or consensus. Each of these 2 editors had essentially made those articles unavailable. One of those articles was completely deleted without any discussion or consensus on a deletion. Arion (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

you essentially state your WP:COI, and re-state your failure to understand basic Wikipedia process. Redirection isn't "deletion": you can revert it, and are discussing it even now. WP:NPOV means "weighted by mainstream academic opinion". Inasmuch as your personal opinion diverges from academic mainstream, I hope you find Wikipedia articles biased against your views: that's as it should be per the very policy you cite. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy that I cite is the Wikipedia policy (and that of all general reference encyclopedias) that there should be no personal bias for or against the subject of the article. An article should be edited by Wikipedia editors in such a way that the wording does not reflect our own personal beliefs and views. Arion (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed. The emphasis is on personal. There should be bias informed by academic expertise. Aburesz, if you want to continue discussing Wikipedia core policy, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. Also note the "sympathetic point of view" policy taken by Wikinfo, which may be closer to what you are looking for. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been a researcher for the past 4 decades of the new religious movements of the 20th century, especially the ones born from the foundations of Esoteric Buddhism, "New Thought", Theosophical and Ascended Master Teachings. Our university department has especially examined the historical and social contexts of those minority religions. To exclude relevant data from Wikipedia on their beliefs, key religious "saints" known as "Ascended Masters", and the individuals who helped shape these organizations would be unthinkable. Arion (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the massive pruning of these articles down. I think, like many above, that it is, in effect, a Walled Garden. It might have a gate at each compass point, but it's still defended rigorously by a small group of editors who have some POV interest in the topic, and who apparently defend the garden with Godwin's Law, comparing any who want it pruned to Nazis and Big Brother. Fireplace's rewrites should continue, and strip out all the vanity press stuff going on in these articles, merging anything that gets to stub length back into the bigger articles. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV is the basis of WP. We do not differentiate between one religious movement and another in the way we deal with them. We do not decide which religious teachings are true, or even which religious teachings are respectable. The Theosophist movement was a religion of some slight importance now, but much more in previous years. It deserves articles on the same basis as any other religion.
  

Proportional weight is relevant. There is a vastly greater literature of the Christian Jesus than the Theosophist Ascended Jesus, and this is appropriately reflected in the number and length of the articles on each. But the major theological bases of each religion deserve articles. I commented elsewhere that theosophist sources can be used for theosophist concepts. We do not insist on having non christian views of Christian saints, of non-Jewish views of Jewish rabbis. so if we had hundreds of articles on theosophist luminaries, earthly or otherwise, it might be a cause for concern. A mere dozen or so articles? that's in proportion.
I hope nobody is absurd enough to think i am likely to have the least intellectual or emotional attachment to movements such as these. Yet i regard them as fully appropriate to an encyclopedia. There is no true or false in religion in the same way there is on some other topics--there are beliefs and opinions, but some think their beliefs rise to the level of truth confirmed far beyond the level of mere empirical evidence. Therefore we can report only what people think and say, and what they do. For the thinking and saying part, their own religion's primary sources are the Reliable sources. DGG 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help me understand how "I am activity", Secret Doctrine and Secret Chief are problematic as their own articles? All three fairly major works/ideas. The Secret Chef idea shows up all over the place in various occult teachings.  ? Sethie (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The way you establish that a subject is notable is by finding reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Do such sources exist for the articles you name? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I have noticed in many of these "notability" and "reliable sources" arguments is that there is a double standard repeatedly being applied by some. If the article references support their POV, then they argue for their inclusion. If the article references are contrary to their POV, they argue for their exclusion. That is my observation over the last 14 months of editing.

I find it absurd that anyone thinks that the way to document a religious belief from a particular religion is that you go to "outside sources". Often outside sources do not have a clue as to what those beliefs are, but they will do some sloppy quick research to see what other sloppy researchers have previously written, and then grind out an article (like the above quoted Los Angeles Magazine article) full of factual inaccuracies that other sloppy researchers will then quote from in the future for their so-called "article". Arion 3x3 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is whether a particular religious belief is notable. If no one outside the community that holds a particular belief has bothered to take notice of it, that's good evidence that the belief shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is probably better had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, where the fangs have really come out. Several editors have asked us not to debate policy or content on noticeboards, and I tend to agree. Fireplace (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read half the above, but wanted to comment on the topic suggested by the header. Minority religious beliefs can be fringe views, and this guideline can help editors decide how much weight to give a minority religious belief's viewpoint. The WP:FRINGE guideline is based on the NPOV WP:WEIGHT guideline, which calls for viewpoints to be weighted by notability in articles. A minority religion that (just as an example) believes Jesus was an alien, has no weight to place that view in the Jesus article. That doesn't mean that the view that Jesus was an alien is "wrong", just that it's not notable in weight comparison to the orthodox Christian view that (rightly) dominates the Jesus article. The intent behind WP:FRINGE may have been to protect science articles from fringe science, and protect history articles from fringe history, but it can also (by virtue of being based on WP:WEIGHT) protect mainstream religious articles from fringe religious views. Even if there's not consensus to do that, WP:WEIGHT is still in effect. Sorry if that offends anyone, but minority religious views are (by definition) minority views, and less notable. They carry the appropriate weight that they've earned, especially in how they are presented in mainstream religious articles, for example Jesus, if they are notable enough to be presented at all. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about applying WP:WEIGHT in those situations, but WP:FRINGE is not needed for that, and it's not appropriate there. WP:WEIGHT is enough on its own to address those concerns, and it does - there are several alternate views of Jesus in that article -not UFOs, but there are Buddhist, Hindu, and New Age/Theosophical paragraphs. Appropriately, they are short, since the have small weight in that topic.

But aside from that... This discussion (that you said you didn't read all of... ) was not about including unusual religions within articles about mainstream religions. This thread is discussing the idea of separate articles about topics of interest to minority religions, maybe even small ones, and that they should not be considered "fringe theories" because they are not science; they are separate philosophical topics that don't intrude on any other topics. There's no reason to delete their articles just because they are not mainstream. And that's what was shown in the AfDs that were tried - there was overwhelming support for keeping those articles.

For example, Master Jesus is a page about a belief of another religion, Theosophy, that considers Master Jesus to be an Ascended Master. It's not part of the Jesus page, so it does not intrude at all on Christianity's ideas and does not introduce any problems of WP:WEIGHT. Minority religion's beliefs should not be censored from Wikipedia as "fringe", as long as they are not inserted with too much weight into other topics, and as long as their separate topic is notable and verifiable (as was confirmed for the articles in the above thread with the AfD results). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above. However, that's pretty much WP:FRINGE in a nutshell. People interpret these guidelines in all sorts of weird ways, but WP:FRINGE is just an application of WP:WEIGHT. My comment was about how WP:FRINGE applies to fringe religious views (which it does), but that's more about fringe views in articles about orthodox religious topics rather than in stand-alone articles. Neither WP:WEIGHT nor WP:FRINGE call for deleting articles, that's WP:N. What you're describing above has nothing to do with fringe views, and is solely about whether the topic has enough notability for a stand-alone article, completely WP:N and not related to WP:FRINGE in any way. A fringe view needs a corresponding mainstream view and as a stand-alone topic there is none in the cases we're talking about here. In short, I agree.

I took the time to read through all the comments. There are so many things wrong here. "Walled gardens of woo"? Woo-woo (never understood why they called it that) is defined as

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.[18]

I understand the concerns about putting pseudoscience in context so that readers aren't misguided into thinking it is actual science, but when did Wikipedia become a vehicle or tool for promoting materialism? Who decided that material is mainstream and emotional, mystical, or spiritual beliefs that don't purport to be scientific is fringe? Wikipedia is not a tool to promote pseudoscience, but neither it is a tool for promoting scientism or atheism or general skepticism about strictly belief-related topics either. If you see an obscure term that's associated to a minor religion, and you don't know anything about it other than it's "woo-woo", leave it alone. It has nothing to do with you if your goal is just to protect science from pseudoscience. If your goal is to remove "woo-woo" from Wikipedia, that's no less pov-pushing than the pseudoscience pushers. Woo-woo (as defined above) is not automatically pseudoscience. The above rant is aimed at no one in particular, just a general irritation. I'm glad the AfDs weren't successful. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what you say is correct, but you need to take into account that as a rule, it is the woo-woo side that doesn't respect the boundary between rationalism and irrationalism. The rationalists (materialists, atheists) are merely fighting in defence, trying to keep the "quantum quacks" off their turf. It is the the woo-woo side that usually has trouble understanding WP:TRUTH, while the scientifically minded are mostly perfectly aware of the limitations of a hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to truly be "neutral" about world views, or will it adopt politically-supported conceptions of "mainstream science" as its "religion", and relentlessly persecute all other world views about the Universe as "fringe"??? I remind you again that if Wikipedia had been around a century ago, and embraced the politically-supported conceptions of "mainstream science" as they existed then, many people here would probably be agreeing that an argument for the sterilizing of non-whites is "neutrality", being backed by the "mainstream science" of 1908. "Science" today is being "sponsored" and misused just as much for political or ideological ends as 100 or even 50 years ago, and the majority of people around the world instinctively seem to know this, which is the real reason we see even today much frustration among "scientists" that so many fail to accept without question all their claims passed off as "undisputed scientific consensus" -- which "consensus" seems to still rest on the same ostracization tactics that have always been practised, rather than on the free and unfettered testing of independent hypotheses, or even acknowledgement of those who pursue these "unapproved" hypotheses. Blockinblox (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A big part of the problem when religion wants to stick its nose in science, and claim it is scientifically based, or has scientific support for its claims. As long as religion does not claim to be science or to be supported by science, etc then there is no problem.

Once religion starts to claim it is science, there is a problem. Keep the religion out of science.

As an example: Suppose that churches were required to preach how inconsistent their beliefs were with science regularly. Would that be fair? I am sure you would object to having science intrude on your religion.

Fair: (1) No science in religion, No religion in science (2) Religion in science, Science in religion

Unfair: Religion in science

The current scenario which is causing problems is the unfair one above. Religion is trying to use science to push its beliefs. It of course causes problems. The solution? One of the two fair scenarios. You pick.--Filll (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article right now seems to go a bit overboard in attempting to describe the pseudoscience of this instrument. Some help would be appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, the article is a bit rough....I don't have time to look into it today, but I'll try to check back and look again. It does appear that some folks are working on it the last few days, hopefully they'll make some headway also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is copied from Talk:Force

The link to an online copy of Maxwell's A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field points to a website run by an over-unity zero-point energy group. Admittedly, they are simply hosting a copy of Maxwell's treatise, but still... bad. I'll see if I can find a better site to link to tonight. At worst, we can remove the links altogether, since it's the book that's the reference, not the website. — BillC ^talk 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, Bill! We should also remove all the links elsewhere at Wikipedia. Here's a place to help us find them all: [19]. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess. (No flames, please.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least it says that "The possibility that spontaneous human combustion takes place is remote." Take that, Brittanica! MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

god bless america....that's quite a treatise on the subject....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was toying with the idea of running for admin and since I often participate in discussions about fringe topics, I was hoping to get some feedback on my editing. Anyone interested can participate in my RfC at User:Nealparr/RfC. Thank you in advance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact sprouts another voluminous collection of articles all of the "rejected by the vast majority of scholars" kind.

• Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories
• Olmec alternative origin speculations ("speculations" actually as part of the article title!)
• Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact -- note entries like "3500 BC - Japanese arrive at Ecuador after being blown off course" labelled with "A" for "ahistorical". Why do we need "ahistorical" list entries?? (fixed, c.f. history)
• Solutrean hypothesis
• Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (weighs 112k!)

mind, there is nothing wrong with mentioning this stuff, but we should not allow such non-issues to sprawl like that. A succinct Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact would be more than sufficient. Somehow, it appears Wikipedia is a free webhost for fringe authors after all, just as long as they stash a "rejected by almost everybody... nonetheless, alternative historians maintain their convictions" somewhere. I don't have the heart to tackle this, but it is a problem. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1939 the SS produced two prototypes of an EMG powered flying saucer called Haunebu I with a diameter of 24.95 meters and able to reach a speed of 4,800 km/h...
<eleland/talkedits> 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We meed people willing to push back against New Age psuedoscience pushers at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

quantum quackery, eh? That's soo 1980s :p dab (𒁳) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On first glance, the article in its 20:26 9 January revision looks reasonable. What exactly are the woo-woo crowd trying to push? <eleland/talkedits> 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, they're trying to argue against calling this subject pseudoscience. I've been fighting, but they're getting more tenacious. See, for example, User talk:ScienceApologist#Consciouness causes collapse. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(i) Don't take the bait. (ii) It's now on my watchlist. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems fairly straightforward to me. But I'm often wrong. : ) SA has added this sentence: "This interpretation is generally derided in the scientific community as being pseudoscience." WP:RS since says: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." It would be great if someone could find a source; otherwise, it seems in violation of the guidelines. SA gives as a source a book, but doesn't cite a page where the authors say that there's a consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Victor Stenger has written in depth on this issue, but he's not "the scientific community". It might be better to say something like, "The hypothesis is contrary to both the dominant Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum mechanics equations and the minority Many worlds interpretation. Physicist Victor Stenger states that 'quantum consciousness has about as much substance as the aether from which it is composed.'" <eleland/talkedits> 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, even the quacks can't be ignored when they call for proper interpretation of WP:V. I don't see where the source SA cited directly supports his statement. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quacks have this tendency to not read sources but rather look for direct quotes and then make proclamations about direct attribution when it is painfully obvious that any reliable source that deals with their idiocy of choice is disputing it. They won't allow summarizing statements that are the backbone of this encyclopedia because they are afraid to have the extreme marginalization of the idea presented plainly in the article. This isn't about "interpretation" of WP:V. This is about playing wordgames and hiding behind citations to avoid simple reporting of facts. If you cannot see where the citation "directly" supports the statement then you too are missing the forest for the trees. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to say that extracting "scientific community thinks it's bunk" from the cited source requires extensive interpretation and exegesis, I'm afraid that the source is inadequate, for Wikipedia's purposes, to support the statement. I've faced the same arguments you're making now from User:Biaothanatoi trying to push a conspiratorial POV on Satanic ritual abuse, I'm afraid. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no exegesis required. Just plain reading of the issue. Physics encounters consciousness. Attributing wavefunction collapse to consciousness is directly disputed in chapter 14, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't really feel like getting involved in the conversation at the talk page, but I'd like to hear from other editors if "Alternative theoretical formulations" clause of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience applies to this case, because it seems to be an idea seriously considered by some physicists, and that would make some applications of the idea pseudoscience (mysticism, etc.), but not the idea itself. Call it a "curiosity killed Schrödinger's Cat" kind of question. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this issue against the Bohm_interpretation? I don't think really the scientific community has anything to do with an article on a pure hypothesis. Science is usually about empirical findings, and must present this in order to falsify it. If they can't, the idea should go uncriticized. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this issue is not about Bohm but about frivolous scientists-metaphysicians. Martin Gardner wrote a good article on them.[20]. On the other hand, the Satanic ritual abuse article really needs a check-up by skeptical editors. In the past (I have not read it since the last year) it has been hijacked by conspiracy-theories buffs. —Cesar Tort 02:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I mean that alternative interpretations, such as Bohm, does not require a wave function collapse and thus can falsify the concept. But, yes Nealparr, this aspect pops up whenever someone tries to talk about how deep quantum physics is. Instead of trying to frame this as pseudoscience it should rather be stressed as a hypothesis. I have noticed that New Age people might take the hypothesis literally and I blame the media for this. If I understand correctly the wave of crazy theories in quantum theory is a consequence of the copenhagen interpretation having problematic consequences. These concepts, Schroedingers cat, branching universe etc, are not a direct result of empirical evidence. However they are not pseudosciences because they aren't trying to pose as hard science. Personally I feel this hypothesis is silly because it makes too many assumptions about the nature of quantum reality. And I am pretty sure some physicists have a better argument against it than me.

While I am on it, where is there a proper discussion on the term pseudoscience? It affects the policies and I can't see there is a clear consensus on what it really entails. Personally I feel it should be replaced with "not science" Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of inconsequential discussion going on right now on ScienceApologist's talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice article Caser, btw. Jives with my ranting too. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)