Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Weeding a reincarnation walled garden

I've done the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Past Lives (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Souls

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the existence of these articles. The books have marginally passable notability. However it's disturbing that the articles appear to go out of their way to omit any mention of the majority scientific view on their subject. The majority viewpoints are readily available, sometimes right from the horse's mouth: "Dr. Tucker acknowledges that no known scientific phenomenon could explain how such people might recall a previous life. "It conflicts so much with the over-arching materialist view of the world that the scientific community, by and large, just dismisses it or ignores it," he said."National Post article, archived - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely intractable area that we could use more credulous editors on. Reincarnation research has been protected for two months while reincarnation has caused so much strife as to scare away a number of neutral editors. It is staggering that there is such a large and organized community of editors who will support the notion that there is a large body of scientific evidence for reincarnation. The quote mining, the ignoring of mainstream sources, the appeal to credentials, and the conspiracy theorizing is breathtaking. At the same time, it has become almost impossible to figure out what is legitimate to write about and what is not. I like User:DGG's suggestions at those AfDs of merging book articles under the authors, but it looks like we've got enough true-believers committed to keeping this walled garden walled that it will take more than just myself to be effective. If people think I should back-off for a bit, I'd be willing to, but judging by how much back-and-forth there is at Talk:Reincarnation and Talk:Reincarnation research, I'm not sure what the right approach is. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support merging them to the authors. It's unlikely that any of these titles are going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant their expansion from stubs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic telepathy

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, and realised it should have been here. What I posted was:

Hi. Could I have some help dealing with an anon editor over at synthetic telepathy. The article is currently filled with fringe conspiracy theories about mind control, all of which is original research because, apparently, the real sources are classified information. GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added it to my watchlist and will await developments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently I don't understand the technology behind intercepting fluctuations in the human magnetic field. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a potentially serious science article, but has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists who think that synthetic telepathy can be used for mind control and that governments have already conducted secret experiments confirming this as confirmed by the fact that they are legislating against its use. That's just one argument that's going on. The anon is intractable and it's getting into edit war mode. Please could someone help? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar problem some time ago with an article called Telepathy and War. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Views from another editor would be appreciated because my edits are being quickly reverted.

GDallimore is quite correct. After a little reading I see that the topic of the article is entirely serious and worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Unfortunately, the topic also invites speculation about thought reading and mind control, and the article has been entirely diverted from what should be in an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources like "io9.com" appear to treat the subject satirically and are likely not reliable sources for a serious encyclopedia article. No time at the moment, but first thing I'd do is clean out those. PS: I wonder if your IP might be a sock of Frei Hans? He was certainly dedicated to getting the same brand of paranoia into WP. -LuckyLouie (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To add to Johnuniq's comments, some of the sources are marginalized in favor of the military aspects, when some of the topics should be mentioned. *shrug* Keep the IP discussing things, remove bad material and if they hit 3RR, warn then report. Ravensfire (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There weren't many people editing the article, so getting to 3RR was tricky without hitting 3RR myself. Thanks for the help, people. GDallimore (Talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent an hour cleaning up the article. Further observation reveals that "synthetic telepathy" is a term popular with mind-control conspiracy theorists [1]. If no significant coverage by academic sources can be found for the subject, I recommend the article be deleted or merged with brain computer interface. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any significant coverage from serious sources that didn't already exist at brain-computer interface or mind control, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and commented on AFD. The IP, as would be expected, isn't too happy. May end up needing some salt here. Alas, we're all meatpuppets! Wait - I think it's just THEM using synthetic telepathy to control our thoughts and actions. But how did I break free? This needs to be revea ... <end carrier> Ravensfire (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you page protect an AfD discussion? The IP has a number of rotating addresses, and has just posted links to his own hate site ranting about how he's been mistreated at this article and some general abuse directed at editors involved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need. This will run its course soon enough. Anyone who claims his ideas are being suppressed is best ignored. GDallimore (Talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to agree wth you, when ---it happened!. Yikes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Amerigine afd

I've nominated this page for what I think are fairly obvious reasons. Comments are invited. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A request for a redirect has just popped up for this article:[2] Deconstructhis (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus Dynasty

Does this source count as a fringe theory source or not. The article as is mentions a positive review, but other reviews which can be found cited at Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA are rather pronouncedly less favorable. There are three other reviews mentioned there which I haven't myself yet gotten, but I would welcome any information about them which can be found, as well as any opinions on the fringe/non-fringe status of the work in question. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is either a minority scholarly opinion or perhaps beyond the academic pale in fringe and/or populist writing. The best way to get consensus about its status is to seek out more reviews in scholarly journals. If it wasn't reviewed much in the academic press then that points towards fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the source is fringe, simply because the author holds a respectable academic position, but it's certainly not mainstream either, and the article shouldn't present it as such. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a lot closer to fringe than real scholarship... and definitely pop history if not outright fringe. I would place it in the same category as as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"... a fun read but don't take it seriously. The author's theory is built upon suppositions, which are then used in later chapters as if they were proven fact to support further suppositions, which are then used in further chapters as if they were proven fact to... well you get the idea. The book itself is notable because it made the best seller list (which tells you a lot about marketing and nothing about scholarship)... but it is definitely NOT a reliable source for anything but a statement about the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviews I've read characterize many of this book's conclusions and themes as "speculative" and/or misinformed (as with his earlier characterizations of the East Talpiot tomb, which he continues to push). Even respectable academics can veer into fringe territory, either to liven-up a stale field or from other motives. As you noted on the discussion page, it would be WP:Undue to use this source to turn the article into a platform advancing this author's PoV, which seems to be highly controversial in the academic community. I cannot see using this book to back up anything other than a minority view, and then only if there are other, backup citations which make this a "minority" of more than just one author. If and when this author's conclusions become the majority view, the article can be changed to reflect that. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Catastrophic Geology

The newly-created article Catastrophic Geology could probably use an overhaul. At present, it implies that plate tectonics is a form of Catastrophism. Gabbe (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the article has been deleted since Gabbe posted this (as it is now red-linked)... that said, we should also take a look at Catastrophism#Catastrophic Geology. It seems to have the same problem... and at minimum is very confusing and disjointed. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... we do seem to have a persistent POV pusher at the page. I tried cleaning it up, but was reverted. More eyes are needed. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sebastiano venturi and iodine / iodolipids

Most edits by Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to aim to make his own research about iodine, lipids and evolution feature as prominently as possible in Wikipedia. There are some indications that the whole thing may be fringe science, such as a low number of Google hits for "iodolipids", and most content about this topic being associated with Venturi himself. My question to editors of a more scientific bent is, is there a fringe science / WP:UNDUE problem with these edits, apart from the obvious WP:COI problem?  Sandstein  10:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Would anyone care to take a look at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus? It's mostly a collection of fringe speculations, given that Columbus is widely recognized to have been Italian (or Genoese, if one prefers). In particular, an anon editor has been pushing changes to the Portuguese section that could use some outside review. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Origins of Celtic

A user called Jembana is currently rampaging around the pages on Tartessian, Lusitanian and anything related zealously advocating the Atlantic Celtic origins theory of Koch as if they are established fact (this is the idea that the Celts originate with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not with the Hallstatt culture) I've tried being nice about it, as have a couple of other users, but it's looking as if there's a fanatic at work. Can someone have a word with this user and/or would it be a good idea to create an article discussing this theory in more detail, to which much of this stuff can be moved? Paul S (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Celts originate with the Atlantic Bronze Age"? No scholar who isn't steeped in nationalist chauvinism to their eyebrows would consider this seriously for more than five minutes. But apparently Wales is not so different from Bulgaria or Armenia when it comes to state-sponsored nationalism brewed at universities. I suggest this should be treated on a par with reports of Neolithic Pyramids in Bulgaria. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No nation is immune to crankery of this kind. A long, hard, edit warring slog lies ahead as the above mentioned user cuts and pastes big sections from his favourite authors in support of the fringe theory. He just can't seem to "get it"... Paul S (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cunliffe is an advocate of this, however. Or at least he was at one time. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he advocated the idea that Celtic was introduced into Britain via this route, but I'm not so sure he advocated overthrowing the Hallstatt model completely, nor the reading of Tartessian as Celtic. Paul S (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship

There is a little edit war going on at Pseudoscholarship. Editors who frequent this board may be able to help sort out what kind of page/article this is, and what the definition of "pseudoscholarship" should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is courtesy of our pedant demographic who have their faces glued to the letter of our guidelines. I have given up negotiating with this type a long time ago as they do not much damage in proportion to the nerve required to have a coherent conversation with them. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Race articles

I've noticed a lot of strange activity on articles devoted to obsolete racial categories. user: JoseREMY is adding weird stuff to the Nordic race article, which is now in a bad way [3]. User:STUTTGART is creating or altering a number of articles on obscure racial categories which are presented as though their existence is accepted scientific fact:

• Oriental race (which apparently comprises Arabs)
• Balkans-Caucasian race
• Pontid race
• Northcaucasian race

Some of these should probably be redirected and others rewritten. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. His cites (when he provides them) are usually a pair of Russian webpages, and the English source I've spotted is Carlton Coon(!), and doesn't even say what he claims it does. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, these categories are not quite as obsolete as you would suppose in Soviet, and even post-Soviet Russian, academia. I think this recent activity was some sort of spill over from Russian Wikipedia. But I cannot judge just how serious Russian anthropology is about this. These categories are evidently just labels. It is never either "scientific" or "unscientific" to just put label on things or categories. The WP:FRINGE question arises only in relation to claims of the ontology (historical reality, uniqueness, truth etc.) of such categories that may or may not be made. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pseudoscholarship

This discussion may interest you. Eugene (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This pertains to the section "#Pseudoscholarship" above. Just WP:POINT in my book. The disambiguation page did its job. Along come the hair-splitters from Christ-myth and the Wikiproject Disambiguation wikiguideline-scholasticists, and suddenly there is a problem. Sheesh. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brittonicisms in English

What we have here is a "fringe theory" in the best sense of the term, respectable scholarly minority view, for a change, but nevertheless the article suffers from WP:FRINGE/WP:DUE issues. Content should be no means bulldozed but tweaked for proper perspective. The problem is that the article addresses items from the whole scale of "consensus status", from mainstream to very fringy. The mainstream part concerns a number of undisputed substrate influences of Welsh on English. The "respectable minority view", or perhaps WP:RECENTISM concerns an apparently "emerging" view that Welsh substrate is significantly responsible for the transition from Old to Middle English. If this view has any credibility, it should be given proper coverage at Middle English creole hypothesis (and history of the English language). Finally, the "very fringy" material concerns the views of Theo Vennemann that English via Celtic 'transitively' experienced a Semitic substrate. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbyism

You may remember a fringe theory that was floating around a while back about "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" (supposedly a condition that Muslims are susceptible to). An article on that subject was deleted some time ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome. A similar fringe theory, "Jihobbyism", appears to have emerged in certain quarters and has duly been "documented" - with a plethora of blogs being used as primary sources - at Jihobbyist. Editors with an interest may wish to see the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I find these terms hilarious and would be unhappy to see deletion. Surely they can be merged into Jihad? --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend we add the term "jihobbits", obviously used to refer to Tolkien fans who make the ideological switch to engaging in Islamic holy war? ClovisPt (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbitism would then perhaps refer to the recruitment of people with dwarfism as suicide bombers :oP --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unchurched Belt

This term popped up in Religion in the United States, where in discussion the claim was made that this is one person's phrase and not in wide use. Please take a look if you would. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

John G. Wollaston

Alleged political conspiracy theorist. Someone more interested in this kind of stuff might want to take a look at it. Does seem dubious re notability. Misarxist (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable to me. I took the Amazon links out, as we don't want an article that spams his books. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible fringe walled garden in molecular bio

Both Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA and Pseudo amino acid composition seem to be based on the primary sources of just a few authors. The articles are a mess anyway so could clearly do with some help if they are actually notable. Verbal chat 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory redux

Could people come back to this again? It seems to me to be veering back into original synthesis. I dipped my toe in the water a while ago, but have been put off by the volume of blather on the talk page. I think I can identify at least 3 quite separate things going on. 1) Bruno Bauer and others - very old, completely superseded scholarship, to be treated as history of ideas. 2) Freke & Gandy - recent fringy writing that theologians have dismissed in contemptuous terms. 3) Hitchens and Dawkins - turning the tables and demanding positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. No logical link between these, but is that just me? Anyone else have a view? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is poor WP:SYN. "Christ myth theory" has been used to mean "the hypothesis that Jesus, the man, did not exist" since about 1910 by a number theologians and New Testament scholars. The editors of Christ myth theory are crafting an essay about authors who claim to have proven this. They have a number of authors who make the case that he may not have existed because the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is dubious, and that he need not have existed because all the Christian traditions could have arisen out of traditions current in 1st c. Roman empire. But I don't think one of those authors claims to prove the CMT: that he did not exist. It's useful as a time-sink, though. While this perpetually unstable article exists, Eugene's ability to smear this[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] kind of filth around Wikipedia is reduced. Anthony (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your view of the synthesis chimes to a certain extent with my impression. I don't have, and don't particularly want to have, a view on the behaviour of editors on the page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Anthony's characterization is at odds with my experience. After all, there are writers who think they have proved that Jesus didn't exist. This is an absurd claim to make, but the article is about a fringe theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to have your comment Akhilleus. I do see that there is a consensus of scholars - in theology and biblical studies - saying that CMT is fringe. But surely they are mainly writing about the material in my category 2, books by late 20th and early 21st century popular writers, perhaps also to theologians whose views they regard as constituting a small minority. Perhaps we ought to distinguish "weak" CMT and "strong" CMT. Strong CMT would include suggestions that it is proved that Jesus didn't exist, or that it is possible to identify how he was constructed in myth. Yes, that has been argued, and yes it is fringe, and labelled as such in scathing tones by mainstream scholars (in theology and biblical studies). Weak CMT would include all attempts to argue that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak. I don't see that as being necessarily fringe at all. Especially not when it is espoused by someone like Richard Dawkins, a well qualified scholar in his own field, scourge of pseudoscholarship in all its forms. Still at the back of my mind is whether we need this article at all. Couldn't it all be covered in Historicity of Jesus? We don't want to give too much space to pseudoscholarship or get involved in its debunking. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, merging the article into historicity of Jesus has been proposed from time to time, but it since the CMT is a fringe theory, it would merit no more than a paragraph or two in an article covering mainstream theories. Even though the CMT is a fringe theory, it's a notable one and has received significant academic coverage, so I think it merits a standalone article.

On your proposal to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" forms, I don't think that's the way to go. There are a lot of scholars who say that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak, such that we can't have any certainty about what he was really like (e.g. Rudolf Bultmann), but that doesn't mean that they're in any way advocates of the CMT. On the other hand, there are some people such as Robert M. Price who say that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak, and therefore it's more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus, and it's this last step that means he should be included in an article about the CMT. He also refers extensively to Wells, Doherty and other advocates of the theory, making it clear where his intellectual sympathies are.

On the distinction between old academic writing and current popular writing, I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the CMT—it's first proposed in academic writing in the 19th century, and at the time is a shocking and dangerous idea, in the early 20th century causes a huge public uproar, and then is rejected by academia and becomes fairly obscure. The last few decades it's been the province of outsiders to biblical scholarship—G.A. Wells is an academic, but in German literature; Robert M. Price has a Ph.D. in New Testament, but teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary; other writers are self-educated in various ways. The CMT seems to be gaining in popularity, so that in the last few years a number of popular and scholarly refutations have been published.

As for Hitchens and Dawkins, I don't know enough about what they say to comment usefully, except that smart people can still make mistakes. If you don't know much about the New Testament, I think the CMT looks plausible on its face. But once you start finding out more about the New Testament and the history of early Christianity, that's when the claims of the CMT start looking ridiculous. Perhaps Hitchens and Dawkins haven't bothered to look past the surface, because I think both men only mention the theory in passing (and therefore, it's somewhat doubtful that they should be mentioned in the article at all). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That helps me to clarify where you stand. The paragraph recently added on "atheist polemic" was what made me anxious again about the article, and it's good to know that you don't think it particularly appropriate either. My distinction between "strong" and "weak" was mainly to make sense of it all in my own mind. The distinction between the old academic and current popular writing, on the other hand, is an important one to make in the article. Half the problem that we have about poor representations of fringe theories stems from a lack of understanding of how scholarship moves on by rejecting what went before. I also have a nagging concern that the mainstream of scholarship is being equated with the mainstream of theological scholarship. While theology is obviously highly relevant here, the views of historians and comparative mythologists would also be useful to know - I doubt whether they have expressed them much though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

I know this is getting tiresome, but editor Smatprt is trying to insert the Shakespeare authorship question into the historical revisionism article as an example. The article itself contradicts this interpretation. The discussion can be read here.

Historical revisionism is an accepted scholarly process, not a denial of the academic consensus. The Shakespeare authorship question is already listed as an example in the Pseudohistory article (which Smatprt resisted) and the Fringe theory article (which he fought to include), both of which are valid classifications. There is also a subcategory of historical revisionism, Historical revisionism (negationism), which denies historical reality, not reinterprets it, and in which the Shakespeare authorship question qualifies to be included. I have not added it there because there is a further sub-category, negationism, which the article concentrates on and the examples given are so repugnant that I fear its very presence would violate NPOV. (Anti-Stratfordism is a relatively benign fantasy compared to the examples on that page, even though its methodology is identical.)

I have stated that if he produced a reliable source stating that the SAQ was an example of historical revisionism that I would cease to oppose its inclusion. Since according to the definition given in the article, historical revisionism is a part of the academic field of history, a source from the academic field of history that specifically states that the SAQ is an example of revisionism is what is called for. So far all he has come up with is an attempt to extend a comment by James Shapiro to encompass the entire topic of anti-Stratfordism, a newspaper comment about "revisionist scholars," (whatever they are), and a cite that contradicts his assertion that the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism.

Needless to say, I would like for this dispute to be settled so that I might spend my time more productively. The issue was discussed to death at ScienceApologist's talk page (a discussion which started out as a complaint from Smatprt that he was being harrassed), and I thought it was settled when ScienceApologist opined that "It seems reasonable to me to keep SAQ off of the negationism page, but it seems reasonable to put it on the pseudohistory page. I don't think it really belongs on the Historical Revisionism page because it isn't usually considered to be that way.", but Smatprt came back today with the above-mentioned refs.

I would also add that these incessant attempts to promote the Shakespeare authorship question by inserting a mention of the topic in every possible article grows wearisome beyond belief, and if anybody has some advice on how this problem could be solved I would very much appreciate it. Of course, I do realise that withdrawal from editing Wikipedia is always an option, but I would like to continue to contribute if I can avoid these long and tedious content disputes. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I too am growing tired of this endless game. Users Tom Reedy and Nishidani have drawn out and exaggerated this issue to no end. To read this summary one would think that I and a cabal of renegade editors have been inserting the Shakespeare Authorship Question into an endless and growing mass of wikipedia articles. The truth is another matter. Out of the thousands of Shakespeare related articles, I am aware of a handful of articles that (prior to Tom's recent deletion spree) actually had a line or two that included a reference to the authorship question. Given the amount of attention the issue has received in print, and the number and variety of notable adherents, that the issue is mentioned in a small group of related articles is hardly surprising, and certainly not evidence of some sinister far-reaching plan.

In regards to THIS latest salvo, much of which was already discussed here [14], here are several references that support the view that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is an example of Historical Revisionism, which is defined at the Fringe theory article as "novel re-interpretations of history".

• Shapiro (Contested Will, Simon and Shuster), makes the connection that searching for topical allusions within the plays has turned into revisionist history - "What began with a disguised author's hidden life blossomed into far-reaching and revisionist history: 'the inner story in the plays,' Donnelly writes, makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent... In the end, finding a disguised signature or an embedded autobiography or even rewriting world history wasn't enough...'.
• Albany Times, clearly labeled SAQ researchers as "revisionist scholars" - "In the 1950s, revisionist scholars favored playwright Christopher Marlowe as the true Bard of Avon."
• Warren Hope and Kim Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy (MacFarland and Company): "This history of the subject is quite different. It is written from the point of view that there is an authorship question, that it is important, and that the right answer has already been found and broadcast among us"; "In short, this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view"

• Newsweek Magazine: "Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays."

• New York Times article on Moliere authorship debate: "Statisticians like Labbé think they have found the ultimate tool to determine authorship, and they use it to aggrandize their position in the field." In [Forestier's] eyes, a strictly scientific approach to authorship is dangerously revisionist, because it omits the textual analysis."

According to the article, "historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change."

Now can we please inject a dose of common sense? The definition above applies to the Shakespeare Authorship Question to a "t".

• The "event" (obviously) is the writing of the plays and poems. Did Shakespeare of Stratford write them? Did he write them alone or as part of a group? Was he just a front man for a group or some other writer?

• This "event", in the eyes of authorship revisionists, has been interpreted incorrectly by the majority of scholars. These authorship doubters reinterpret orthodox views and question the motivations and decision-making processes of orthodox scholars.

The article also states: "Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo."

• The sections in bold accurately describe current authorship studies going on at Brunel University and Concordia University, where the university-sanctioned Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre recently opened.

Lastly, attempts to equate the authorship debate with Holocaust Denial are simply repugnant. Smatprt (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt has epitomised the anti-Stratfordian methodology in his defence: pick out a few characteristics that support his thesis while ignoring the broader context. For example, he ignores the opinion of historians Deborah Lipstadt, Michael Shermer, and Alex Grobman in the article, who make a distinction between revisionism and denial. Revisionism is an accepted scholarly process; denial of the historical record--which anti-Stratfordism requires--is not revisionism, it is denialism, which has a shallow resemblance to revisionism, which Smatprt demonstrates above.

From the article on denialism:

• "It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists can engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence" This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "To do this they employ "distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents' positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic." This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as 'the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.'" This fits the SAQ to a "T".
• "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite." SAQ proponents do.
• "They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible." SAQ proponents do.

No one is claiming that Holocaust denial and the SAQ are morally equivalent, and trotting out that as a defence is yet another tactic anti-Stratfordians typically use to rationalise their demand for "equal time" with the scholarly consensus.

It is amazing to me that this debate is even necessary on Wikipedia, a place where the search and dissemination of knowledge is supposed to be the highest goal. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inject a note of commonsense? Professors at Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge dismiss this fringe fantasy as extraterritorial to Shakespearean scholarship, and generally classify it as a form of lunacy, cultivated by amateurs without any background in scholarship. You google round, and find, of the 20,000 teachers and professors in the USA that a couple of minor figures teach the subject. Ergo, it is not fringe, but a minority viewpoint. Ergo, though there are no academic sources qualifying in terms of WP:RS for the point of view, you ask us to bend the rules on that, to allow minority press material, or vanity press imprints, into wikipedia, .

Your most recent strategy is to try and use the historical revisionism page to create a precedent you can then use to wedge this crap into all pages on Shakespeare. If the wikipedia community, which is yawning or indifferent, lets this pass, then the SAQ fantasy, which has no serious academic recognition, passes as a minority view within academia (see the lead), which it is not.

Googling for connections ('revisionism'+SAQ) and coming up with stuff by journalists from the Albany Times to tweak the arguments you keep recycling all over the place, does not constitute a valid method. Hope and Holsten? Hope writes popular bios of Hollywood actors: Holsten teaches in high school, when last heard of. The lead of historical revisionism says the subject must be treated by historians as a challenge by academics to an academic controversy. This is not the case here, since the SAQ is not regarded by the relevant academic communities (Elizabethan history/Shakespearean scholarship as anything more than a bizarre fixation by rank outsiders.

I see that no one actually renders an outside opinion on this, except Reedy and myself. You are a one-man show, with some concealed sympathisers from the de Verean fold ready to hop in, apparently on request, to revert in your favour. But none of them will stand up and argue the points on talk pages. We have said and repeated the objections, and you still persist in tweaking. The wikipedian community shows no interest either way. But there is something hugely odd in the fact that only you are pushing this eccentricity here, and on every page concerned directly or marginally with Shakespeare. If you have some serious support in academic literature show it. If the tagteamers who keep popping up to bolster your position by revert really believe what you say, they should get off their lazy buts and join you in arguing the case, instead of mechanically reverting in your favour with little more than a dull edit summary to justify their partisan ideological support.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an outside opinion. It's in a list of short paragraphs of examples. It doesn't really add much to the list, so it could go. On the other hand it doesn't do too much harm either if and only if it is rewritten to remove detail and presented as an idea that had its heyday in the past. One of the Just William stories lampooned it well. Nishidani - I think of you as a literary scholar - spelling - "get off their lazy butts", not "buts" - I'm shocked. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, eerh.'Even Nomer hods', well no, that gambit implies I've a Tamburlanesque image of my self-inflated ego. Then, well, uh . .litratcha scholars ah . .these days haven't that much of a good press as paragons of orthographical rectitude. So, rather than being a, what them Latin fellers called a lapsus calamity I think that writen 'buts' for 'butts' just shows what a poor bunch of amnesiacal slopheads some of us, some of me, are. But of course, my dear, from a psycho-anal-itical perspective, I could put that all arse-about, and play the Jane-Austinesque prudery gambit about using a slangy Americanism for the posterior, asserting the confusion deftly disguised my fastidious anglophone distaste by a delicate strategy of allusive misprision. Yes, that sounds better..'Butt, the truth of the matter is that it was just a hidden pun, alluding to the holocaust denialism+SAQ analogy as in my edit today on this, where, you will duly note that I was thinking of Arthur Butz! Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that this belongs in the Historical revisionism article. I was unaware of this dispute until now, and have only just read the article. All the other examples given are of legitimate historical disputes. Many, many more could be given. They are instances of established scholarship being challenged by new thinking by legitimate scholars which might (or might not) overturn conventional readings of events. In some cases the 'revisions' are really rather minor (were the English greatly outnumbered at Agincourt or only slightly outnumbered?). Some are more important. There are any number of similar areas of historical dispute that might be included (look at the recent fracas about the revisionist model of Celtic origins over at Celts). But SAQ is not historical revisionism of this type at all. It is purely a fringe conspiracy theory. So I wholly disagree with Judith's claim that "it doesn't do much harm". It does a great deal of harm. To include it would be to set a precedent that would admit any fringe theory to the article. The article should provide useful examples to the reader, ones that help him/her to understand how legitimate historical revisionism occurs and what it is. It's not a dumping ground for potted summaries of quirky theories. There is a wider question here of Smatprt's evangelistic editing, which is almost wholly dedicated to sticking Oxfordianist propaganda anywhere and everywhere regardless of its relevance. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In Shakespeare studies, a legitimate example of historical revisionism would be the current near-consensus that Shakespeare collaborated instead of being a lone genius, which was the scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. Shapiro talks about how uncomfortable he was with the idea, but that stylometric studies of the type chronicled by Brian Vickers and other evidence has convinced many scholars that Shakespeare's compositional methods must be rethought. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt. It should be in the article. I studied the SAQ in both school and in college, and I didn't even know it wasn't well known until this whole thing started, as I'll explain in a moment, I used it as an example of a well known piece of Historical Revisionism in an essay. In school, we did Lear for the Leaving Cert (I'm Irish), and our teacher (who, to be fair, was a sub doing a BA in UCD) spent 2 days on the SAQ. Then in college, in first year, we were doing Midsummer Night and Winter's Tale and our lecturer, Pat Burke, an extremely knowledgable Shakesperean did a lecture on it, as he did in second year in relation to Hamlet and, I think, Antony and Cleopatra. Then, during my MA I did an essay on Historical Revisionism as it related to nineteenth century Irish fiction. Now, granted, this is a million mles from Shakespeare, but I did mention the SAQ in the first or second paragraph as a well known example of historical revisionism. The essay was corrected by Margaret Kelleher if you want to look her up, and she had nothing but good things to say. So, the moral of the tale is this. To call it a fringe conspiracy theory is just wrong - it's being taught in schools and universities. At least the ones I went to anyway. Although said schools and universities may not be reliable sources of course!! That is all. Bertaut (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is well-known then why has Smatprt found no reliable sources describing it as such? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum economy

Is it fringe? Is it notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It screams {{vanity}}, doesn't it. However intelligent the concept may or may not be, this is a neologism from some recent book being touted on Wikipedia and as such we should have very little patience with it. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is based on a single paper by Anatoly Kondratenk lodged in an economics journal or two (and possibly later printed by a Russian distributor as a monograph). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a (very) small number of people who have tried to apply quantum physics to economic modeling, aside from this fellow Anatoly Kondratenk: see quantum economy. This looks more like an application of buzzwords and hazily understood concepts than a serious attempt at understanding the economic system through analogy with subatomic physics. Intellectual validity aside, I have doubts whether any of this is notable; there certainly shouldn't be two poorly written articles about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

we should probably reduce it to a brief mention at quantum quackery. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenians

Minor re-eruption of Armenian teenage mutant nationalism at the usual places, Mitanni, Urartu, etc. It will pass I am sure, but you might help making it go away more quickly by taking an interest. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

eek. This has even spread to to Akhenaten [15]. I've no doubt the Armeno-Aryans will crop up elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

and lo, and edit war instantly ensues [16]. Paul B (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Armeno-Aryan is not a Nationalist Union etc etc.. Its a linguistic term, see the Indo-European related searches on the family tree, to see where it says Armeno-Aryan[17]. the Akhenaten page info was since since September 2009, and it was obviously approved by Dougweller <-- who works in Egypt related pages, and Armeno-Aryan with RS's was there. 75.51.173.254 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on Akhenaten is not a place for 1,444 characters of utterly irrelevant blather about "Armeno-Aryans". In any case the Mitanni were not "Armeno-Aryan". You might reasonably call them Hurrian or Indo-Aryan, but it's best to just call them "Mitanni", since the classification of their language or etrhnicity is of no relevance to this particular article. Paul B (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not even Indo-Aryan, it was always put Indo-Iranian, which is before Indo-Aryan, and before that is the ancestors to both Armenians and Indo-Iranians, in that linguistic term (Armeno-Aryan) [18] that Dbachmann keeps thinking is about a Nationalist Union called Armenian Aryans. Look at the sources provided in about Mitanni and do google search in Mitanni you see Armenians coming up in the search results. There are none-Armenian RS's besides Petrie, Henry Hall, Michael Cohen, Colin Renfrew etc etc, which mention of the Mitanni names are not Indo-Aryan, but the subgroup Armeno-Aryan, ancestors of both Indo-Iranian and Armenian. Arta- <---prefix which both Armenian and Iranian kings used and even Armenian "Artashesian" dynasty with the same "prefix" not loanword, that is com,ing from the subgroup before those days of the later kings of Persia and Armenia. Do your further researches to find out, Hbuchmann from the 19th century German linguists saw the links with Indo-Iranians, because of Mitanni names, and also Henry Hall Egyptolostis, and George Rawlinson 75.51.173.254 (talk)

What was "always put Indo-Iranian"? Whether or not some "Armeno-Aryan" grouping can be postulated before "Indo-Iranian" has no relevance. By that logic we should call them the "Indo-European Mitanni" and refer to Akhenaten as the leader of the "Afro-Asiatic Egyptians". However that would be both misleading (since Hurrian gets written out) and completely silly, since their relation to Akhenaten was not determined by their liguistic history. In any case, you must be Araratrev. No-one else writes like this. So you should be reverted instantly. However, I have to go to bed. Paul B (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a source for you do another search on Hurrian in google[19] you get this [20] <-- Indo-European elements in Hurrian, which we see example in Mitanni. This is where Armenians originated with the Indo-Iranians in the Armenian Highlands. Herodotus is the only source they base on, which he doesnt even say what they think he is saying. George Rawlinson in 19th century mentions about Herodotus comments[21], and says Indo-Europeans went westward from Armenia to Phrygia, Phrygia to Europe, not the other way around. Also, in the Hittites page new search has been made, and there were no major Indo-European (Aryan) invasions in the 1200's BC Iron Age in the Anatolia/Armenian Highlands. So we are native and originated along with the Indo-Iranians. The Eusibius quote was provided by a User:CodexSinatex <-- dont know spelling its in Mitanni edit history in 2005 he put the quote of "Armenians invaded the Syrians" at the time of Abraham, referring to descendants of Aram, (the name Armenia is derived from Aram) originated in that region, Aram-Naharin's region, (that is Mitanni) in the Armenian Highland also known in Greek as Anatolia. Those last parts of the quote put by CodexSinatrex in 2005 which mentioned that the Armenians originated in the region of Mitanni (Aram-Naharin), was removed by Dbachmann or some other IP users/vandals, who whenever they see a quote related to Armenian during this time, is automatically nationalism. CodexSinatrex is not even an Armenian user, and did not even think of any Armenian nationalistic info to put there, but found yet another RS, by Eusibius. 75.51.173.254 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I happened to catch this appeal to an edit I made in 2005... There were looser restrictions on synth at the time, in fact because those was Pre-Siegenthaler incident days... I wouldn't have added such a thing to Mitanni now, because it doesn't mention Mitanni at all - and even at the time I noted how tangential it was ('for what it's worth')... I kind of regret it now, 5 years later, seeing as my little OR in 2005 seems to have opened up a slight can of worms today! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now reverted this twice from the Akhenaten article. It certainly doesn't belong there. Dougweller (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this Ararat arev again, or someone else? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed it was Ararat arev, and Paul thought so also. Dougweller (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)