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.
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. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Centre for Intelligent Design‎

Centre for Intelligent Design‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Anupam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to wish to see all scientific criticism of this organisation's views, all mention of its fundamentalist ties, and all mention of the UK government's prohibition of teaching ID (all of which is sourced to mainstream newspaper articles specifically on the topic of the Centre) expunged. Further oversight may be fruitful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This case has currently been referred to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for review. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 08:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, it is premature to attempt "Formal mediation" before an attempt is made to resolve it on a noticeboard such as this one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You should provide examples. I haved looked through recent edits and saw that Anupam removed, "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution promoted by intelligent design advocates are invalid."[1] That statement is taken from a comment in a Guardian article.[2] The way it was presented was POV. It would be better to write that the Centre was criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth. Any criticism must be specific to the Centre rather than ID in general. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Centre was not explicitly "criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth" in the Guardian article. We had a science educator saying that these would be bad things, but did not explicitly say that C4ID had "asked" for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anupam is an SPA. His edits at Atheism over the last few months have been solely to insert information that shows that atheists are somehow inferior to religious people, or that secular nations are inferior to religious nations. I think TFD makes a good general point, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. WP:FRINGE states that, Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. I think that applies here. The entry contains statements about intelligent design and as such the current level of acceptance of that theory should be stated in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor is continuing to be a real headache at Atheism and at Irreligion ... consistently pushing an anti-secular pro-religious agenda. I'm unsure of where to turn for help. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put those two articles on my watchlist, though I expect they may both be minefields. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Griswaldo has perceived an agenda rather than assume good faith, which saddens me as a longstanding editor here. I have kindly explained my insertions well on talk pages and have provided several sources for my insertions, while User:Griswaldo has provided none in favor of synthesizing information to fit his point of view. User:Griswaldo has removed much content from articles despite being referenced by reputable organisations such as the Pew Research Center. As a result of his actions, he was given a warning by an administrator who was going to block him on the spot for his actions. Rather than trusting in either of our words, however, I encourage all of you to actually examine the issues at the talk page of the Irreligion article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes please do have a look. Anupam is trying to add information that is not actually about the topics of the entries. For instance, at Irreligion he keeps trying to add a reference to recent research by Robert Putnam. The sources is a very short piece from Religious News Service and is hosted on the Pew website. Putnam's research looks at the correlation between levels of civic participation and levels of participation in a moral community. Where the source refers to "secular" individuals it is not refering to the "irreligious" at all, but to those who are at the lowest levels of participation in a moral community. It simply doesn't relate to irreligion, but instead to things like church attendance.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will explain the situation here and respond to User:Griswaldo's concern's above. With regards to the Harvard University study by Prof. Robert Putnam, the respected sources state that the dichotomy is between religious individuals and nonreligious individuals. I will demonstrate this through the titles and quotes of the sources:

Pew Research Center The title of this reference is "Religious people make better citizens, study says." The following quote is taken from the article:

“ The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. ”

USA Today The title of this reference is "Religious citizens more involved -- and more scarce?" The following quote is taken from the article:

“ The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones. ”

It is evident that these sources do discuss nonreligious individuals. Not only the Pew Research Center, but also USA Today states that "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones." I have not made any interpretation or synthesis of information but have rather, presented the information in both references, which openly present a dichotomy between religious and nonreligious individuals. I have only simply repeated this original quote, which is given in both the Pew Research Center and USA Today articles. User:Griswaldo has unfairly characterized me of pushing a position despite the fact that I have simply repeated the same quote given in both references. User:Griswaldo is confusing the premise with supporting examples. The article clearly states that:

“ The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it's the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism. Putnam calls them "supercharged friends" and the more people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is: if someone from your "moral community" asks you to volunteer for a cause, it's really hard to say no. "Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league," Putnam said. The effect is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don't have any friends there look more like secularists than fellow believers when it comes to civic participation. "It's not faith that accounts for this," Putnam said. "It's faith communities." ”

The premise of the article discusses the behaviour of religious and nonreligious individuals, which is given in the first two quotes from the Pew Research Center and USA Today. As the references mention, church/mosque/temple attendance may be the reason for this behaviour, but it is not the finding of the study. The issue should not be with me here, but with USA Today and the Pew Research Center. As a result the information should be restored to the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

About Irreligion article - Not sure how this un-comprehensive - narrowly focused study merits inclusion in an article that deals with a concept as a whole (meaning world wide). Perhaps there is an American article that this would be more appropriate in. It would need some balance in its approach however - as there are many "American focused studies" that would contradict this statements. Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Moxy, thank you for your comments. In my opinion as well, placing the information in the article on Irreligion in the United States does seem to be a good idea. Also, I agree that if we are to place the information in the main article, we should add some balance, such as a clause that states "In the United States" or a similar phrase. I would appreciate if you could also address my previous comment above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

Issues raised at WP:RSN but needs attention (including all the honorifics probably). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Marrs

I'm currently in an edit war over a number of JFK related articles with a user who wishes to extensively cite conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs, who writes on a wide number of conspiracy topics promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, psychic powers, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Illyrians and Illyria

Atdheu110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP that's likely him [3] are single-mindedly pushing the familiar "Illyrians=Albanians" POV [4] on that and several articles [5] [6]. Discussion with user seems pointless [7] ("According to me..."). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical articles discussed in the latest Association for Skeptical Enquiry newsletter

The Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry discusses Levitation (paranormal), and other articles, our policy on sources, problems editing fringe articles, etc. advising skeptics not to edit Wikipedia. A pdf file can be found at [8]. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that this noticeboard goes unmentioned. Some of what Buckner says is, I'm afraid, true. Somewhere along the line the project is going to have to make commitments to cut off editing much more quickly in defending articles against cranks; it can't be that neutral without allowing the processes Buckner describes to gain the upper hand. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Doug, you are seriously deserved mention in the article as one the top fighters. Its true though the lack of motivation in fighting psudeo science is certainly an issue. We need more tools and admistrators willing to impose sanctions in the topic area when civil point of view pushing breaks out! I dont have time to argue with white nationalists who spend 12 hours a day inserting their crap on here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That article was so good it almost convinced. Who is the former ArbCom member who they say had an economic interest in NLP and who did he/she ban? Has this been sorted out since?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Never believe anything you read in the Skeptical Enquiry newsletter ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

[9]? Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear as if this editor is still editing Wikipedia articles. Their last 50 edits - spanning 2 years - are all to user talk pages.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless a former member of ArbCom. He also created History of neuro-linguistic programming. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think that that particular part of the article is probably garbled. They might conceivably be thinking of Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but that's just a guess. Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It appears I looked at the wrong page history. I have struck thru my above comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that though the article accurately expressed a basic problem with fringe pages, it was seriously garbled and a bit alarmist. It quoted selling prices for an adminship ($1000?) and an article ($200?) as though this was an established practice, and ended on a sour "don't bother editing" note. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me note that I just placed a pointer to that article on Jimbo's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those megabyte threads on his talk page that goes nowhere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note lets make this entire thing a productive discussion... What can we do to reform the Fringe topic area to cut out these problems? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors of this board may interest themselves in the following discussion regarding truth in our policy on WP:V.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The fringe topic area is less the problem than individual editors with in it. Both 'true believers' and 'skeptics'. If we who frequent this board keep at the nitty gritty of it and keep our personal feelings about both 'true believers' and 'skeptics' mostly to ourselves we can get articles that are not crap. This topic area always runs into problems when we veer away from en.wikipedia's 5 pillars, and when we personalize the issues. I think the author of that piece didn't mention this board as it is working to make the problem better, and doesn't fit into the overall theme of 'wikipedia is evil and full of cranks'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree it seems its deliberate assault on us in the topic area by Banned user. According to WP:OUTING we cant say his user name and two mentions of such have been oversighted just today. Go on Google (S)he is quite proud of the ruckus. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't care who. There are more than a few people who feel that way, I'd imagine. There have been lots of users banned for their own behavior and inability to play well with others. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia review: [12]. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New and possibly fringe articles

• Periannan Senapathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parallel Genome Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both are recent creations by User:Rahulr7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who appears to be a WP:SPA on the topic. Both are cited purely to (generally related-party) unreliable sources (PR releases, Nature Preceding articles, blogs, etc), and I cannot find much in the way of substantive coverage in mainstream sources (this 25yo New Scientist article was the best I could find). I thought I'd post them here for comment, prior to AfDing them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

afd'd Periannan. lots of edits after requests for reliable sources, none found. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Measuring rod

This new article was being used as a vehicle for Egyptian measurements being used to build megalithic monuments, can others please keep an eye on it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Egyptology is weak point but I thinks its correct for the most part as is; though I can see it going down hill fast. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see some one more knowledgeable is raising points on the talk page The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed that this be merged into ruler as historical material - seems like the right move to me. feel free to comment over at talk:ruler#Merge discussion. --Ludwigs2 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [now at ANI]

At WP:ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter (talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC) UH I am posting to Ani sinc its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality claims another victim

This time it is the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptizes in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps it has become the case that every outing of a historical figure by a queer theorist is notable, but the article spends almost half its length on this extra-textual speculation and doesn't even mention that this is traditionally claimed as the origin of Ethiopian Christianity. So assistance on this would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise also bringing this up on the Oriental Orthodoxy Project Page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Megalithic Yard

This was a redirect to Pseudoscientific metrology. The redirect has been removed and it now is asserting its existence as fact, worse than that as based on an Egyptian measurement based on what I don't believe to be a reliable source. It says "A Megalithic Yard is the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 2 by 1 Remens..... Objective studies by statisticians have now established it as a fully accepted unit of measurement." - one of the sources for this last sentence says, on the page cited, "Ihc some ideas can be applied to Thorn's concept o£ the prehistoric unit of length, the 'megalithic yard'; to accept it says Heggie (1981 , 39) one must find out how well a 'quantum hypothesis' (the idea that a certain unit of length exists) fits a random set of data and then see whether the same unit fits the set of diameters of stone circles better. If it docs the prehistoric 'yard' is acceptable. The alternative practical scientific test of this hypothesis is to look for measuring rods of the right length on archaeological sites, and for historical evidence of the use of the same or a similar unit elsewhere (MacKie 1977a, 53)." and then on p.263 "Professor Thorn's geometric designs and megalithic yard are, in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence available. ..." Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Same editor as Measuring rod by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also need some referencing on Alexander Thom. And not by a skeptic, or so we are ordered in the edit summaries. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

This case has been brought up for RfC/U here where it's about to die for lack of a second certifier. However, there are several Wikipedians who have had similar problems with the same editor WLRoss (talk · contribs) over a period of several years on 9/11 related articles. And they have endorsed the discussion of the behavior of WLRoss without being able to certify it.

The fact that RfC/U is about to die for lack of a second will be understood by WLRoss to be an official endorsement of his behavior by the Wikipedia community. This result must be avoided. The number of people who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and POV-pusher is significant. Perhaps the RfC/U is the wrong venue and I should have started here.

Essentially, in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations there are two opinions:

1. The grand jury ruled properly by not indicting anyone for child prostitution and kidnapping, and declaring it was all a "carefully crafted hoax." The principal accuser, Alisha Owen, was appropriately found guilty on eight counts of perjury for making these false accusations. The chief investigator, Gary Caradori, died in an aircraft accident when the small plane he was piloting broke up in mid-air.
2. The grand jury proceedings and the perjury trial of Alisha Owen were rigged. The accused really did run an elaborate child prostitution ring reaching from Omaha to Washington DC, and sacrificed child prostitutes in satanic rituals. The chief investigator, Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. Dozens, if not hundreds of people ranging from the grand jury to the trial court judge and prosecutor have participated in the cover-up and not one of them has leaked in all these years.

I think #1 is the majority opinion, and #2 is a minority/fringe opinion per WP:FRINGE. The only official government body that has not adopted or endorsed #1 is the "Franklin Committee" of five Ohio state legislators, who also refused to endorse #2. They just said that some more investigating should have been done. Opinion #2 is, however, embraced enthusiastically by known conspiracy theorists and political extremists such as Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

The article's Talk page and its Archive 2, and the aforementioned RfC/U provide sufficient discussion although more discussion here may be chosen as appropriate. But my suggestion is that WLRoss should receive a topic ban from all articles where a conspiracy theory has been alleged, specifically including all 9/11 related articles and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. The length of the topic ban should be determined by the community but I suggest one year. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that this falls within the remit of the fringe theories noticeboard, and even if it did, making suggestions as to how it should be dealt with (i.e. advocating topic bans etc) might possibly be seen as canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get a decision here from the community on whether #2 is a fringe theory, a minority opinion, or as WLRoss claims, simply "one of several significant opinions." Then if it isn't the third of these, and he continues to push it like a bulldozer, I'lll seek sanctions against him at WP:ANI. Fair enough, Andy? But the remit of WP:FTN specifically states that this is the venue to "Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories." And in my opinion, that's what is happening here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You have framed the two opinions incorrectly, further tainting the second opinion by linking it to Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin--I agree that these three do support fringe theories, and I have advocated removal of their mention in the article; it is you who have insisted that they remain, even that LaRouche be highlighted in the lede, despite objections by ALL the other current editors.

You have been invited to participate in our ongoing discussion of the disputed sections of the article, based on sourcing that you yourself accept, yet you have consistently declined participation, most recently insisting that it is a waste of your time. After experiencing continual reverts of very thoughtful editing, we attempted to limit our discussion to specific sections of the article--the lede, for example, where we were close to consensus--so that we might make some progress. Without participating in such targeted discussions AT ALL, you wrote the following:

I have no trouble at all with discussion. I have trouble with completely pointless and unproductive discussions; my time is valuable and if I'm going to waste it, I'd much rather be playing a computer game than arguing with the two of you over your latest WP:FRINGE violation. It appears that WLRoss has a long and colorful history of POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory, and unfortunately, presenting his behavior in an RfC may be the most productive way to finally resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no possible way to characterize our targeted discussion of two specific points in the lede (the party affiliation of Lawrence King, and whether or not to include LaRouche) as "POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory."

You seem to have unlimited time to invest in a search and destroy mission to unfairly eliminate your chief adversary, WLRoss, first through a now-failed RfC/U (which you threatened me with also) and now by seeking sanctions against him at WP:ANI. For now you have successfully distracted all of us from further development of the article, because we have needed to mount a defense against your unwarranted attacks. And you have asserted ownership of the article, constantly reverting to the version you prefer in violation of WP:OWN.

My time is limited today and tomorrow; even penning this short response has made me late for a scheduled appointment. Come the weekend I will reframe the dispute as I, and I am sure others, see it. No one--neither WLRoss, myself, or the other involved editors--are "pushing fringe/minority theory." You, however, are relentlessly pushing your own point of view, and you have amply demonstrated your unwillingness to participate in discussion, despite our every attempt to engage you. Your constant, wholesale, sterile reverts constitute disruptive editing at its worst. More later. Apostle12 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This notification as well as the Rfc should hopefully be indication to WLRoss that there are multiple editors in various arenas that have had issues with some of his focus. My perspective on WLRoss is in regards to 911 related articles where his editing overall seems to try to enhance, lets say, the skeptical or fringe viewpoint. I have never bothered to see where else WLRoss has been editing, so to find out that he has been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911 indicates to me that WLRoss has a pretty sleptical nature...that in itself is fine...where it isn't fine is where this skeptical nature leads one to try and manipulate articles to jive with that trait...especially when it begins to violate NPOV policy and in particular the section regarding due weight. Apostle12, I have looked over the editing history of the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations as well as some of the talkpage history and I don't see that your rebuttal is supported by the facts.--MONGO 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If MONGO has not "bothered to see where else" I have been editing, how can he claim I have "been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911"? A look at my editing history will show my original involvement with the Franklin article was in a RFC to determine a name for the article. My next involvement was seeing the article turn up in my watchlist three months ago indicating deletion of material. I believe this is the only article containing "conspiracy" claims, apart from 911, that I have edited since joining Wikipedia. Claiming that Apostle12's rebuttal is not supported is unbelievable and I'm beginning to wonder if his involvement here is due to a personal animosity towards me.

Phoenix and Winslow has yet to provide any diffs that support that I have promoted conspiracy theory in this article and I believe he will never be able to do so as I have never added anything to the article implying that children were sacrificed in satanic rituals or that Caradori was murdered as he is implying. I also have not edited that the jury was rigged despite evidence (signed affadavits from jurors and other parties) supporting that it was compromised. A perusal of Phoenix and Winslow's edits will show that he is objecting to including all the Grand Juries findings (because to do so would require including mention of what else they investigated), some of the Franklin Committees findings, the Franklin Committees brief, mention that Caradori died and basically anything that may cast the slightest doubt on the Grand Jury. He has even insisted that the text say that the Grand Jury threw out all of the allegations despite the jury finding that some were proven and reccommending that some of the accused be charged. It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow is aggresively supporting the inclusion of fringe theories despite efforts by editors, including myself, to minimise mention to avoid the implication that the Franklin Committee endorses them. Phoenix and Winslow states that the article is only about the Grand Jury findings and that everything else is WP:UNDUE. Phoenix and Winslow also insists that all edits have 100% consensus with the exception of deletion for WP:UNDUE which in effect gives him ownership of the article and is the source of the dispute. Phoenix and Winslow has been invited to participate in consensus building many times by several editors yet continually declines which is not constructive. Phoenix and Winslow appears to have a battleground mentality which is shown clearly in the first two paragraphs of his opening statement. He brings up my 911 editing despite me having no significant involvement in those articles for almost two years and he considers partisan support that he has personally canvassed as "significant" proof that I should be banned. The fact that Phoenix and Winslow failed to find a second certifier for the RFC should be a sign that my editing was not the root problem with the article. Wayne (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely refuting all the inaccuracies presented by Apostle12 and WLRoss would take an enormous amount of time and words. I have already linked the article, its Talk page, and the RfC/U which was well supported by a half dozen editors, but only one certifier where two are required. At the RfC/U plenty of diffs are provided. As a subtle POV-pusher with many years of experience, WLRoss has been careful to avoid creating more than one certifier for RfC/U, and has skillfully stopped at a point just short of what he believes would alert the Wikipedia community to his agenda. Nevertheless, the pattern is clear. He steadily and relentlessly — give him an inch, he'll ask for another — increases the amount of space and weight devoted to details that support fringe theories, and seeks to introduce sources that are not reliable so that he can add even more of such details, even though they're unreliably sourced. He removes material that tends to undercut the credibility of fringe theories or support the majority opinion, and demands rock solid sourcing for it.

• WLRoss added material about Caradori telling some other person that he suspected his plane would be sabotaged, and demanded rock solid sourcing for the official NTSB finding that the plane crash was an accident, so his claim that he has not "[implied] that Caradori was murdered" is false. If he chooses to deny it, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• WLRoss seeks to remove any mention of Lyndon LaRouche, Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley from the lede, reduce any mention of them in the body of the article, and remove the entirely appropriate description of them as conspiracy theorists. The logical inference, in light of his other behavior, is that he believes association with these gentlemen and properly identifying them would discredit the fringe theory he seeks to promote. So his claim that he has never "promoted conspiracy theory in this article" is false; removing any indication that it is, in fact, conspiracy theory is a form of promotion. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• WLRoss has repeatedly added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors, claiming that the jury "was compromised." So his claim that he has never "edited that the jury was rigged" is false. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• The "partisan support" that I have allegedly "canvassed" consists of editors whom I have noticed in the edit histories as having dealt with him in the past. I did not notice any position for or against him. To completely destroy any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation, for several hours I was careful to notify only those editors who spoke out supporting him at RfC/U. Only after Apostle12 had posted (at substantial length) in his defense here did I notify anyone else.

Along the trail, such bedrock Wikipedia policies as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and of course WP:FRINGE lay broken. His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN [13] even though WLRoss simply "[couldn't] see that happening."[14] I ask only that anyone reviewing this take all of the facts into account before deciding what to do about all of this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tedious and is wasting not only my time but that of other editors. If Phoenix and Winslow was supported by " a half dozen editors" why could he not find a second certifier for the RFC/U? Phoenix and Winslow has linked the article and its Talk page as proof? Please provide diffs for my edits only without including those that were the reversion of everyones edits to an earlier page as you did for the RFC. Concerning your specific claims:

• The reference to my editing 911 articles is a straw man argument. I have made only three edits to 911 articles over the past 18 months. The "several Wikipedians" Phoenix and Winslow claims had similar problems is false as I have had disputes with only one of those named (three years ago) and three of those named dont even edit 911 articles so cant have any experience with my behaviour.
• I did not add any material about Caradori. I actually deleted some of the existing material about him, for example, I deleted that the plane crash was unexplained and also deleted mention of the sabotage and death threats against him.
• Phoenix and Winslow claiming to read my mind (which he calls a "logical inference") is not evidence of anything. I gave my reasoning for not mentioning LaRouche in the lead and was supported by four editors. Phoenix and Winslow was the only editor opposing and due his continual reverting of its removal the edit is currently under discussion in Talk. Rather than reduce mention of LaRouche in the article body I expanded it by adding a sentence. I only mentioned in Talk that the mention may be too detailed. Is Phoenix and Winslow seriously claiming that removing conspiracy theory from an article is a form of conspiracy theory promotion?
• I have not "added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors" to the article. I mentioned in Talk that the affadavits existed, Quote:Claims of a some form of "coverup" are supported by affidavits from reliable sources (including jurors from the Grand Jury).. If Phoenix and Winslow has any interest he could easily find photocopies of those affidavits.
• Phoenix and Winslow claims to have canvassed editors who have dealt with me in the past stating I did not notice any position for or against him. Is it then merely coincidence that he only canvassed those who opposed me and neglected to canvass those who supported me? Claiming that by now including in this new noticeboard those who supported me, destroy[s] any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation is rather transparent and a bit too late to mitigate his original canvassing of editors he could count on to support him.
• I ask only that anyone reviewing this actually read the edit diffs instead of taking Phoenix and Winslow's word on my editing.
• Edit conflict; I just noticed that Phoenix and Winslow has added, Quote:His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN. In the first place I rarely used that source in the article (I'm not even sure if I actually did use it) and only argued that the author was reliable. There was originally no consensus (I believe it was 4 for yes and 3 for no) at the RSN on whether the publisher, which is used in many other articles, was a reliable source after which Phoenix and Winslow canvassed for more editors to comment. The result was five more votes for unreliable. I also point out that the diff Phoenix and Winslow posted proving I did not accept the RSN was written by me eight days before the RSN concluded. Wayne (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As it may be confusing to uninvolved editors as to what Phoenix and Winslow considers WP:UNDUE that supports conspiracy theories, this diff shows the disputed text that Phoenix and Winslow deleted which initiated his filing of the earlier WP:RFC and this WP:FTB. Wayne (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss or Wayne...it does appear he is trying to keep the innuendo at bay, whereby you're trying to add to it. This is the same pattern you have attempted on 911 articles....as I explained earlier, but will rephrase now, it was a revelation to me that fringe issues for you extended beyond the scope of 911 articles.--MONGO 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a matter of interpretation - from my reading, mostly WLRoss was providing greater context, while P&W was removing that. It doesn't necessarily look like a fringe theories problem. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Greater context in the sense of innuendo and fringe theories...yes, that is what WLRoss was trying to add.--MONGO 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused - which specific changes do you have a problem with? From what I can tell, the additions being disputed are sourced as well as other material in the article and often seem to be part of the Grand Jury findings. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that the details which WLRoss and Apostle12 always seek to add tend to support WP:FRINGE theory. See my first post on this thread. Two theories are presented. Notice how Theory #1 sounds like a fringe theory, and notice how Apostle12 and WLRoss consistently add more and more and more material that tends to support the fringe theory. MONGO has had extensive previous experience with WLRoss on articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and has confirmed that this is the modus operandi of WLRoss: subtle POV-pushing in favor of a fringe theory, also known as a conspiracy theory, in violation of WP:FRINGE.

One detail of the fringe theory claims that the chief investigator, Gary Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. WLRoss and Apostle12 have consistently introduced material tending to support this ludicrous sabotage claim, and exclude material showing that the National Transportation Safety Board explicitly found that the plane crash was an accident. For example, Apostle12 added material reporting that Caradori told someone he thought his private plane might be sabotaged. It doesn't prove anything, but it tends to support the WP:FRINGE theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow is going too far. I have requested he post diffs to prove his claims regarding my editing yet he repeats the claims without providing them. I already posted that I have never added Caradori material to the article and I provided these two diffs showing that I deleted the sabotage and "murder" implications. The Transportation Board finding was only deleted (inadvertantly) when I reverted the page to an earlier version (three days older) in an attempt to stop the edit war, that page version also had no mention of sabotage or murder. Can he explain how adding the Grand Jury finding supports a fringe theory. Can he explain how naming the Webbs supports a fringe theory, especially when it was the Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board's investigation of the Webb case that was the primary reason that the Grand Jury was eventually called with the Webbs being one of the few people actually determined to be guilty by the Grand Jury. Note:Phoenix and Winslow not only wants mention of the Webbs excluded but the text changed to state that the Grand Jury threw out ALL the allegations. As Jarred Webb was subsequently charged on the basis of those allegations as were several others, this is obviously untrue. This dispute has nothing to do with numbered theories, it is just Phoenix and Winslow's way to put a spin on what are NPOV and non fringe edits that he doesn't like. I've already detailed my unrelated 911 editing yet Phoenix and Winslow continues to bring it up out of context. MONGO may have "extensive previous experience" with me but that is primarily in content disputes with me that he often loses. I stand by my record, most of my 911 edits are still in the articles despite my not being active in 911 articles for almost two years. I expect an apology for his false claims regrding my editing, his behaviour in this noticeboard, overall attitude in the previous dismissed noticeboard and yes...for his undisguised claims of page ownership. Phoenix and Winslow is the only editor of the four editing the article that is arguing for exclusion of those edits, he asserts that every edit must have his approval or go to mediation, this is clearly WP:OWN and inappropriate, it is time for an admin to bring this waste of time to an end. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rothschild family

I hope this is the right place. So, I had no clue what was special about Rothschild family when I first began reverting an IP editor who claimed the article to be one big racist conspiracy theory. Since then the article has drawn IP attention saying that it's a whitewashed piece of propaganda, and saying that there's a cabal protecting the article. Because the article seems to have a fair potential to attract extreme opinions, I'd like a few extra eyes to ensure it stays neutral. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking: Modern banking methods makes the money multiplier a very unsatisfactory economic tool

Is the following fringe?

Proposed article content

A number of highly respected central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier is a very unsatisfactory way of describing how credit is created in the real world, mainly because it ignores the influences of prices, and the way that modern central banking manages the money supply. From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. In essence central bankers gave up attempts to directly control the amount of money in the economy and instead moved to indirect methods by targeting interest rates. Additionally, although when you look at a banks balance sheet, it appears new deposits are causing loans to be created, in reality banks create credit so that new loans create new deposits in the banking system. (Howells P. Page 33) Therefore banks do not as a policy 'lend their customers money' but rather as a policy 'they lever, their balance sheet' by creating commercial bank money, while simultaneously managing the liquidity risk this creates for them. In practice, rather than lending available "excess reserves" as a customer lending policy, as described in the base money multiplier model, banks tend to lend their "excess reserves" to other financial institutions - often on an overnight basis, so that they have these deposits available earning interest, while still being available to meet customer withdrawal requests. (Howells P, Page 36) Seth B. Carpenter, a monetary policy and financial markets researcher at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Selva Demiralp concluded the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States. Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists, including for example the former chief economist of the Bank of England and current Governor, Mervyn King, and the UK's foremost central banking economist Charles Goodhart. In 2007, Goodhart said, "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post-Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this." Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities. In 1994, Mervyn King said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake' Goodhart, formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' Ten years later he said ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’ Because of these modern banking systems, banks are not truelly lending existing central bank money, but are instead creating money while managing the liabilities this creates for them by having lines of credit, and access to a highly liquid money market - at rates near to those targeted by the central bank. It is true the banks are continually getting deposits of central bank money, and they are most certainly paying out central bank money as required, but deposits do not create loans but rather demand for loans creates deposits. After a loan is demanded, and existing sources of central bank money are sought, as required, whatever additional Central bank money necessary to achieve a banking system balance, at the prevailing central bank policy rate, is supplied on demand, at a price, by the central banks (King 1994).

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is fringe or not, but I can say that it is written in essay form, and uncritically presents a particular viewpoint on the topic. It is therefore unsuitable for use as an encyclopaedia article in its present state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Juddward, if you have that in your userspace, I could try and help edit it there. Ocaasi ^c 13:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fringe? Unlikely. Minority view? Probably. Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Also, while all the statements are sourced, it is not clear whether they represent academic, or whether the way they are put together reflects anyone's opinions but the writer's. It has the appearance of advocating a specific interpretation. TFD (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For more context, User:Andrewedwardjudd originally attempted to rewrite the Fractional reserve banking article from this perspective, while every indication (even from his own sources) shows this to be a minority view. After attempting to do so, he was informed that he had a burden of proof to meet if he wanted to alter the long-standing coverage of the article so radically. I believe he has now ended those efforts, but recently seems to have a desire to fill the "alternative views" section of the article with an overwhelming amount of material about this viewpoint, even after being cautioned about WP:COATRACK#Fact_picking and WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone

I've taken this to AfD (I should be asleep). It's one of 3 articles about very minor artefacts, all created to promote the Megalithic Yard (now at DYK which is being used to promote fringe ideas). Dougweller (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)