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:

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

Ebionites

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

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

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

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

Franco-Mongol alliance

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

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

I have tried an RfC[1]. But again, because it's such an obscure topic, it's difficult to get many other editors commenting. I have also suggested Mediation, but PHG has declined,[2] saying he doesn't want to spend his time arguing. We've managed to narrow down a couple issues to specific points where a couple other editors have agreed with a course of action, but then PHG argues that "3 against 1" (him being the one) still isn't a consensus, and so he continues to edit war (see: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minoan women

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

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

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

Historicity of Rama

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok, googling around I find some 500 pages on "historical Ram(a)" (compare "flood geology" with 50,000 hits). It transpires that S.R. Rao (an archaeologist known to be carried away with antiquity frenzy and fantastical claims) has voiced his opinion on the matter.[3] google books gives some 60 hits. It appears that a better case for discussion of the topic could be made than the "two goverment employees" one. If somebody wants to write this article, do go ahead. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

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

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

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

The current discussion at AfD [4] seems to be tending towards considering it a reasonable way to deal with the subject in the spirit of NPOV. (I agree with that).DGG (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent systematic push of fringe theories at Satanic ritual abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Proof of the existence of tunnels -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armenia

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

National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights

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

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

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

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

Radionics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AZF

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

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

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

Quantum biology

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

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

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

Homeopathy

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

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

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

Soul symbol

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

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

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

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

Theories on the origin of Croats

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

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

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

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

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

Shivambu Kalpa Vidhi

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

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

Geopathic theory and Alex Chiu

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

Shakespeare's collaborations

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

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

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

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

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

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

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

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

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

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

Human chemistry

Resolved

 – Deleted, thankfully, together with its companion human molecule. Sanity prevails! 131.111.8.99 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

131.111.8.98 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Homeoprophylaxis

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

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

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

"protoscience"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cat:Pseudoscience writers

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

Talk:Homeopathy#Molecules

To quote a bit:

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

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

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

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

Arsenicum album

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

Quantum biology and Homeopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinmoy Article

Article Chinmoy is subject to information suppression, and reads like a press release or advertisement for the now deceased figure and his organization, and associated fringe theories, not an encylopedia article. Attempts by various, more skeptical or neutral editors to put a POV tag to warn readers that there is an NPOV controversy, or that the article reads like an advertisement, and any critical, controversial or skeptical information, for example, questions about whether claimed but improbable record weight lifts were accurately reported [8], or even factual information about controversies, such as [9], are systematically removed by User Fencingchamp. [10] User Fencingchamp also seems to distort the relative weights of the body of scholarly research and opinion regarding the validity of critical testimony of disillusioned followers and critics as proving such testimony is vilification, [11], when there is no such consensus on the issue[12] and no justification for totally eliminating the controversy section.--Dseer 03:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Arzap Drogue Stones

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

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

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, TM, etc

This [13] and related articles are another example where article ownership and POV editing is obvious and criticism is lacking. The articles assert fringe theories like TM-Sidhi program, including yogic flying, Maharishi Effect, Maharishi Vedic Science, Invincible Defense [14], as well as controversial medical claims, with undue weight. --Dseer 06:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Christos Papachristopoulos

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

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

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

Human, Human evolution and Dysgenics

Auno3 (talk · contribs) (who signs as Gold Nitrate) has been trying to push material on miscegenation and dysgenics into a number of articles, including Human[15], Human evolution[16], Societal collapse[17] and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth[18]. Not to mention racist POV edits to dysgenics, black people and others. Some more eyes on these articles and edits would be appreciated, as would any suggestions on how the articles on dysgenics, societal collapse etc, can be cleaned up. – ornis⚙ 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intergral theory, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human thermochemistry

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

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

Monica Pignotti in Thought Field Therapy Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armenia

A fringe theory regarding the earliest mention of the name Armenia and Armenian people in history is currently circulated in Wikipedia by some Armenian editors. Recently the main article of Armenia itself has unfortunately been a target. Basically the majority of modern scholars assert the view that the earliest mention of the name Armenia/Armenians was in the 6th century BC aproximately around the same time by Greeks and Persians. Hecataeus of Miletus and the Behistun Inscriptions of Darius I. Scholars who say that these are unequivocally the first known instances the name Armenia has been mentioned include Dennis R. Papazian (Professor of History, The University of Michigan)[19], Mark Chahin (author of the peer reviewed Kingdom of Armenia [20]), James B Minahan (Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States [21]), Elizabeth Redgate (The Armenians [22]),Richard G. Hovannisian, PROFESSOR EMERITUS Ph.D., UCLA, 1966 Armenian Educational Foundation Professor of Modern Armenian History ([23]) etc. Despite this the following line has been added to the main Armenia article: "Another view marks Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as "the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian". It is supported by a ciation from Thomas J Samuelian (a linguist who has nothing to do with history) who is referring to Artak Movsisyan as his source, a historian from Armenia with no published work outside of Armenia with incredibly far fetched theories. This attempt basically pushes back the first mention of Armenia 17 centuries back from what most scholars agree with. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Samuelain is a respected scolar, "Mr Samuelian is the author of a number of books, articles, reviews, and translations in the field of Armenian language, literature, and history, including a recent English translation of St. Gregory of Narek’s Book of Prayers: Speaking with God from the Depths of the Heart (www.stgregoryofnarek.am), a two-volume Course in Modern Western Armenian, Dictionary of Armenian in Transliteration. He has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and St. Nersess Seminary. Mr. Samuelian holds his J.D. from Harvard and his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania" [24]. His Armenological researches and works used by [25] (a research for ICHD), [26] (Gomidas Institute journal), [27], [28], [29] (Oxford journal), [30], [31]. Samuelian wrote: "Others cite Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian. These inscriptions refer to Sumerian battles with the Armani [21]". The ref. #21 didnt mark Artak Movsisyan (Im not sure but as I know Artak Movsisyan's books are related to Aratta, not Naram Suen: surely this Naram Suen version existed before him, pls read the source its online, to not falsify what sources are used), it marks an Armenian academian (Ishkhanian, On the Origin..., 1989, p. 46, and Bnik hayeren barer, 1989, p. 56) and a foreign scolar (B. Hrozny, Naram-Sim et ses ennemis: un Texte Hittite, 56-75). Dr. Anzhela Teryan also marks: "*"The king of Akkad Naram-Sin used the Armani state name for the state in Armenian highland (2500s BC)". (in Armenian) Anzhela Teryan (PhD on historiography, senior researcher of State Museum of Yerevan), "The cult of Ar god in Armenia", Yerevan, Aghvank, 1995, p. 29." Have you any quotations from the scolars marked by you? If yes, and if they are really a majority, why to not just call this other view "a minority view" and stop to call them "idiotic" etc. have you any reviews criticizing them? if no, whats the problem? Andranikpasha 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Proprioceptive Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Reddi coatracks

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

Race of Ancient Egyptians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I wouldn't agree with saying that Frank Snowden is a fringe source. He was writing in the '70s and '80s, and his work has been established as an authoritative source on race in the ancient world. [32] If the "controversy" we're referring to is the question "were the ancient Egyptians black?" (or, "Was Cleopatra black?") then most of the discussion is outside academia. But the questions about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, their self-perception, their genetic relationship(s) to other populations, how they were perceived by other ethnic/national groups like the Israelites/Jews, Greeks, and Romans, are all questions that are dealt with in academic sources. Right now, I'm having trouble even figuring out what's under dispute, in part, I suppose, because the things that some people are saying doesn't match my impression of the scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schechtman's "Fear Psychosis Theory" in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello all,

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

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

“ Schechtman, argues in his book The Arab Refugee Problem that a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis, namely Arab fear of attack, reprisal and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this to purely to the perspective of the refugees. He expounds this theory as follows:

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assyria-Germany connection

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

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

Jiroft civilization

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

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

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

Image:Evp1.png listed for deletion

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

Green fireballs

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

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

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

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

Antireductionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge discussion

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

Request for comment

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

Promoter of fringe theories at it again

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

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

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

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

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