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!

Energy (esotericism) again

The article is having problems with editors who want to add material about biomagnetic fields without acknowledging that all the evidence indicates these fields are many orders of magnitude too weak for human senses to detect. We're seeing the classic signs of a fringe theory on the talk page: "Mainstream academics & publications have become the high priests of wiki-religion" --Mbilitatu (talk · contribs); "How long will the world be flat and truth be held back?" --stevenwagner (talk · contribs); etc. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

A new article has been created for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a web site notorious for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that undue weight is being given to these fringe theories in order to promote in order to push a POV. Anything negative about this group is being removed and only positive things are being mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT means undue weight within an article, not undue weight within Wikipedia. However, since the article is about the group itself, it is only natural that it should describe its views. I think it all hinges on the group's notability; if it is non-notable, then the content is best merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. GregorB (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The mentions of it seem to be of the 'Richard Gage, who founded A&E, said...'. I've just changed some wording in the membership section changing 'supporters' to something like (can't recall exact word) 'people who have signed their petition'. The article says very very little about the organisation, mainly discussing Gage and his views. Who are the leaders (I am assuming that there are some, but who are they?)? What makes it an organisation? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point - although it is quite legitimate for an article about an organization to describe its views, it still looks a bit like WP:COATRACK. Again, if the organization is not notable (and I'm not arguing either way here), its views can still be legitimately described at 9/11 conspiracy theories. GregorB (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Reuters report (not a press release) and a TV news item from Telecinco, a major Spanish television company, that report exclusively about the organization have been deleted from the article, stating "English sources please!" or something similar. Also, per WP:N, there do not even need to be any detailed or exclusive articles about a subject, if it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources, as it clearly is. Page views do not decide whether a site is notable, but if a site, like this one, has more than 100 views per day, it's an indication that a decision on a merge or deletion should be well thought through.  Cs32en  19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple trivial mentions of the type I've described do not meet our notabiity guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to keep this article as I think these guys are hilarious, but they just don't meet the notability bar, etc. It may not say detailed but it does say significant coverage - not just mentions. For example, the Slate piece is not "significant" coverage (it's barely coverage, just a mention to make a side point.) Verbal chat 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to make the assertion that something would be not notable, if you remove pertinent reliable sources from the article. 14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:

• Spanish national TV company Telecinco: "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. Nov. 8, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")
• German national TV station ZDF: Röckerath, Christoph. "Das Geheimnis des dritten Turms". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. Retrieved May 25, 2009. Ist World Trade Center 7 wirklich die "Smoking Gun" des 11. September, der Beweis, das etwas "faul" ist, wie es der prominente Architekt Richard Gage [...] formulierte? (Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
• Press agency Reuters: Reuters (Nov. 8, 2008). "Arquitectos estadounidenses piden a Obama que reabra la investigación sobre el 11-S". Retrieved May 27, 2009. Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help) (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
• National Post, a major Canadian newspaper: Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
• La Stampa, a major Italian newspaper: Molinari, Maurizio (July 6, 2009). "Il crollo della Torre Sette? «Fu solo colpa delle fiamme»". La Stampa. Retrieved May 26, 2009. La teoria di Gage è che il video del crollo è «la pistola fumante dell'11 settembre» ovvero la prova incontrovertibile che qualcosa è stato nascosto al pubblico. (Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.")  Cs32en  09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Redshift

There is currently some disagreement on the talkpage regarding how bogus and superseded theories should be treated. Editors with well-developed thoughts concerning WP:PROMINENCE as applies to science articles would be appreciated. This was apparently discussed several times prior to my tenure at that article. The major points of view appear to be: it does no harm to devote a few words to mentioning alternatives; interested readers should be exposed to more than the hegemonic homodoxy; and the article is about the observation of redshift and its three causes.
For those of you paying far too much attention to the drama boards, this particular flare-up begins with this revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to inform the reader about the fact that the theory is considered outdated by the scientific community, and to describe the theorie, so that a reader who is unfamiliar with the technical term for a theory knows what we are talking about. If the theory is not considered outdated by a significant minority in the scientific community, or if it's notable otherwise (e.g., because it is mentioned in reliable sources or used in outdated textbooks that are still being used), it should be described in more detail, and presented with appropriate contextual information.  Cs32en  10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans

This fringe theory still has its defenders. Some eyes on avoiding giving undue weight to the MRH would be good, and cleaning the article up generally. Ta. Fences and windows (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A subject cannot be given "undue weight" in its own article. WP:NPOV still applies, though. GregorB (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Akh, yeah. I mean that it is in danger of being uncritically supported by cherry-picking of evidence. Fences and windows (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

the "undue weight" is between presenting this as a historical, obsolete hypothesis, and a current minority opinion. Similarly, phlogiston should predominantly be presented as obsolete, and discussing current-day defenders of phlogiston at any length would indeed violate WP:DUE even if it is the article dedicated to phlogiston. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started clean-up, still needs a lot of work. Fences and windows (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some help on improving this article would be welcome, there's a persistent IP editor defending the multiregional hypothesis. Fences and windows (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is inflate fallacy to call research model "fringe theory" when scientists publish in it framework in the most prestigious journals. I have slight idea who is relay behind yours nicks/thesis and you may think vice versa. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young (author)

On Robert Young (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's an extremely enthusiastic new account. I believe they mean well, but I think there are serious, serious issues with basic policy like WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. I've tried to address these on the talk page, but am entering a phase of both limited patience and limited on-wiki time. So if anyone else would like to take a look, more eyes would probably be useful. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that when a user's first two edits serve merely to bluelink their user and talk pages, trouble almost invariably follows. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I would like to note my first edit was to blue link my user page. Someone else blued my talk with a welcome. It's the people who seem to know the ins and outs of editing already (like they can use tags) which raises my eyebrows a little, then again I had been editing WP for a little while before I started my account too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifaka (talk • contribs)

As Tobias Fünke once said: "Dammit! I blued myself too early!" MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Berber World

New article making some rather bold, unreferenced claims. For starters, I'm not even sure "Berber world" is a specific scholarly term requiring its own article, although I'm sure you can find it in textbooks, just as I'm sure you can find references to "Chinese world", "Eskimo world" and so on. In other words, this seems little more than a content fork of the (admittedly inadequate) Berbers article. "Berber World" goes on to make some mindblowing unsubstantiated claims, including "Unlike in some other cultures, the Berber identity is not based on race or language" , and - mostly notably - "This makes everyone who lives in the Berber World a Berber, even if he or she does not speak Berber or is form a different race or religion." In other words, everybody who lives in North-West Africa is really a Berber, whether they're aware of it or not. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The author seems to be from Holland (IP, books ref to Dutch google books search [OMG!] and the simultaneously created articles on nl, fr, arabic wikis). However the correct geographical term seems to be the Maghreb, which has its own article already. The IP has tried to insert Berber World in place of Maghreb in Berber people. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I thought it was the name of a carpet store. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there are 1,280 hits for "Berber world" on google compared with 168,000 hits for "Barbie world". I have not tried google scholar. Mathsci (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect to Berber people. It was nothing more than a content fork. --Folantin (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This move wasn't too popular with Mr Anonymous [1]. --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrazine sulfate

I am curious about the new article hydrazine sulfate. It seems to be well written and has seemingly reliable references, but when I look at the external links at the bottom and search on Google, I see that hydrazine sulfate seems to fit a particular brand of conspiracy theory: that there is an inexpensive, readily available cure for cancer but the evil drug companies and the FDA are conspiring to prevent the public from learning the truth about it. So I'm concerned that a story may have been crafted that doesn't quite fit the evidence. Can others please take a look? (cross posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) ChemNerd (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, alarm bells justified. Hydrazine sulfate has been promoted by Dr. Joseph Gold, founder and director of the private Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, for about forty years now. The main editor on this article has been Judytaylorgold (talk · contribs) (new, single-purpose account). The U.S. National Cancer Institute and the British Columbia Cancer Agency have published fact sheets which are pretty clear that it is not a "cure" for cancer, although it may help in cancer-related anorexia and cachexia. WP:MEDRS would suggest that we prefer these secondary sources over the primary sources currently used. The claims in the article that the NCI deliberately breached the Declaration of Helsinki so as to mess up its clinical trials are ludicrous, and merely serve to illustrate the paranoia of their author. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrazine sulfate is probably a substance that is notable enough to have its own article (see here). I don't know whether it plays or can play any role in cancer treatment, but from my knowledge of chemistry, there are very like a number of other applications, so that any discussion of the cancer treatment issue (we a writing about fictitious therapies and hoaxes, of course, if they are notable) should, in my opinion, receive far less weight in the article. Wikipedians with some background in chemistry should be able to write something about this substance rather quickly.  Cs32en  13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the article to deal with the randomised controlled trials that found no evidence of efficacy. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Morgellons

Some IPs and SPAs keep adding non-(MED)RS speculation to this article. Can people please have a look at the recent history. The article could do with a general review too. Verbal chat 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like quite a good approach to a fringe theory from a quick read through, presenting the idea well while making the mainstream view crystal clear. Fences and windows (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While the lead does indeed make it clear that the mainstream view is that Morgellons is bunk, there is very little discussion in the main article about that mainstream view. That needs to be fixed. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was left with the impression that it was pretty balanced, without screaming PSEUDOSCIENCE AND DELUSION, but I'll give it another look. Fences and windows (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is more IP/sockpuppet POV pushing shenanigans going on in this article. More eyes please. SPI filed here. Verbal chat 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan race

Anyone interested in bringing this article into the 21st century? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

gah! speedily merge into The Races of Europe, I'd suggest. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

also found Corded-Nordics. An associated account is Cyrus111 (talk · contribs). The off-wiki website relevant to this is (once again) Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. The background of this "Nordish race" thing is Richard McCulloch and white nationalism in the US, see here for some history. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also related is this anonymous IP account from Sweden [2]. I've seen this article linked and then unlinked on various pages on my watchlist but I've never thought to look at it until now. --Folantin (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that both the Cyrus111 account and the anon have also edited Racism in Sweden, it seems likely they are operated by the same user. I also note that the Aryan article has severely deteriorated recently (I just did a deep revert). We need to stay on the lookout for such racial nonsense, this will keep coming up indefinitely. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This has the makings of an amusing FTN case. I think we are looking at a Middle Easterner living in Sweden who feels alienated by Swedish xenophobia and is out to prove that he is more "Nordic" than those "Upper Paleolithic" cavemen peopling Scandinavia :) --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (2) & Conspiracy theory

An anon IP is adding unreferenced info to this article, removing referenced material, and introducing POV, and editwarring their changes. Could we please have more eyes on this article. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up. See also Talk:Conspiracy theory & his/her attempt to change the lead, and their comment on Talk:September 11 attacks that the article "constitutes treason against whole humanity". The editor wants us to consider all suggestions that something is a conspiracy theory as libel - and tried to change the lead to our article to say that conspiracy theory is libel. IP editor is suggesting they are a new account. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion

As usual, more eyes are needed at Cold fusion, yet again, as fringe books and patents that slipped through the oh-so-reliable USPTO are sources for all kinds of crazy claims (4 body fusion at room temperature!) Hipocrite (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have nominated Abd's essay for deletion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing. User:Coppertwig has also edited this essay, tailor-made to justify fringe POV-pushing. Various editors were invited to discuss the content on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pray, how does one "discuss" with Abd? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so people know... MfD was a SNOW KEEP (correct in my opinion). Editors may rant all they wish on their user pages. The important thing is to remember that it is mearly a user page and not an accepted "Essay" ... it should never be used to justify anything in article discussions. We should probably keep tabs on it, and make sure that it does not quietly change its status while no one is looking. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Law of Social Cycle

Is this group of articles including but not limited to Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, PROUT in any way fringe? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. I also took a minute to chase down the claims made about Johan Galtung and it seems pretty clear that he really has nothing to do with this (on top of being quite a controversial character himself). It's rather blatantly fringey, and borderline at best in notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

a classic Walled Garden, all surrounding some guru of limited notability. Ths should all be redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. --dab (𒁳) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mount Ararat

There has been a concerted effort in this article (and to a far lesser extent at related articles such as Mountains of Ararat‎ & Noah's Ark) to grossly overstate (without any WP:Verifiability) the historical Armenian relationship to this mountain. It may surprise some of you that "Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark". I didn't know that Noah and his immediate family were Armenians. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have now backed off their wild claims ([3][4]). Some continued watchlisting of this article may still be useful however, in case they resurface. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to soon -- they're now claiming that Mt Ararat is in Armenia (complete with redlinks to ARMENIA and the purported province therein -- [5]). Shades of the mountain coming to Mohamed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It was in historical Armenia, but now it's in Turkey. Same goes for Lake Van, which has been visited by the same guy. --Folantin (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

but there is no reason for confused patriots to point this out to us, seeing that Wikpedia has been aware of the fact all along. Mount Ararat has been within the sovereign kingdom of Armenia for about 30 years, in the period of 95 to 66 BCE, and arguably from 54 to 428 AD as part of Armenia as a Persian client state. Noah has nothing to do with it. Of course by the same logic of insisting that the historically maximal size of your country is the "natural" one, Mount Ararat is also "in Turkey", "in Iran", "in Greece" and "in Italy". You have to be a nationalist to appreciate the beauty of such truths. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll excuse me, but I have to be off to combat the appalling Italian pov that the Valtellina is anything but an eternal, integral and inalienable part of the Helvetic Confederation. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the House of Habsburg started out in Habsburg, Switzerland, doesn't that make the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Spain and the Low Countries Swiss? >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

probably also half of South America. And Florida, site of the Wikimedia servers. Say what, just ask my permission before you edit articles from now on, ok? :oP --dab (𒁳) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been in rather more Armenian polities than Dab suggests, but since about 1923 its location has been the Republic of Turkey, so that's where Wikipedia puts it. The article already details the significance of the mountain for Armenians. Claims like ""Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark" have got to go. --Folantin (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Forget the discussion. Who's been adding this according to WHOIS? An IP from Richardson, Texas. It's none other than our old permabanned friend and sock puppet general Mr Ararat Arev himself. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young again

I'd like to ask again for some outside eyes on Robert Young (author). There is a rather enthusiastic single-purpose account there who I believe means well but... Anyhow, the issue as I see it is simple: the article is used to promote Young's views on live blood analysis, pleomorphism (the kind where human blood cells turn into bacteria and viruses), and an alkaline diet, among other things. Sources are Young's books and alt-med websites. Any material which is a) independently sourced, b) reliably sourced, or c) reflects the mainstream view on these topics is removed because it doesn't mention Young by name. I think this is totally inappropriate, but maybe I'm wrong. Outside eyes would help move things forward. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is now a request for comment concerning this issue. Please review the preceding talk sections and offer your arguments. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Building biology

Poor, uncited fringe article. Anyone know anything about the subject? Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the article prominently refers to the German term Baubiologie, I've had a look at the German article. It seems that the German term "Baubiologie" includes both aspects related to scientific research that is undisputed and aspects related to research that is considered controversial, such as the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health.

The English article seems to give those controversial aspects more weight than the German article. In particular, the German article says that, as the term "building biologist" is not protected by law, some adherents of para-science would call themselves building biologists. The English article does not make such a statement, and also does not indicate which aspects are controversial and which are not. It also contains a sentence in the lead that seems to be an inaccurate representation of the thinking of building biologists ("Practitioners consider the living environment as an organism [...]"). I do not know whether building biologist have any particular views about buildings or are maybe just working in a particular field related to buildings.

The German Association of Building Biologists [6] is cooperating with German communities and offers publications on topics like air quality, mold, pollutants, radioactivity, and electromagnetic radiation.

From my survey of the evidence, I'd say that the article is not a fringe article, but that the aspects of the article that deal with issues related to fringe science should be more clearly identified as controversial or fringe, and the aspects of building biology that are non-controversial should receive more weight. There are number of other issues related to the style and content of the article that should be improved.  Cs32en  06:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Should I put a WP:Translation template on it? Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "building biology" in English means the same thing as "Baubiologie" in German. I would assume that there is a similar field of expertise in the English speaking world, but I don't know whether this is being called "building biology". Maybe "building health" is a possible term (see, for example, this website, no endorsement of the website implied here). Simply translating the article might lead to significant confusion with regard to the specific terms that the article should explain. It's probably better to start with pertinent English language sources, so I'd rather use {{Refimprove}} and {{dubious}}.  Cs32en  09:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{refimprove}} and some inline tags. If editors there reinsert the unsourced material or remove the tags, we should consider AfD, so that the involved editors (hopefully) come up with material properly supported by independent reliable sources.  Cs32en  11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

This article on a virtual organization devoted to pseudoscience and connected with self-publicist Ruggero Santilli has been recently created. My own view is that it should be changed into a redirect to the Santilli article. It is one of the worst pseudoscience articles I have seen and I think seems to have been posted by one of those involved in this virtual organization. One of the other people mentioned is Myron Evans whose BLP has been deleted at his request. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the creator Webmaster6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also created a speedily deleted article about another non-existent organisation The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, improperly removed the prod template and the template requesting reliable secondary sources. Franceso Fucilla has certainly edited the article and the talk page as 86.155.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because his characteristic rants can be seen there. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Now listed for deletion here. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an amusing and not totally unconnected video. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria

Did the Muslims destroy the Library? This article was recently edited to make it seem so. The edit is based on this source. The classic study of this issue is Butler's Arab Conquest. Kauffner (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

A new editor is adding a section to this article which I believe is undue and not reliably sourced. More eyes please. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Improving edits (MoS edits, removal of puffery) are being blindly reverted, in my opinion. Citation requests and POV tags are also being removed in the edit warring. I'd really like more editors to take a look. The problem at the moment centres on one section giving undue weight to one case published in one book. Verbal chat 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

This new article is very problematic -- it isn't really about telepathy, it is a highly paranoid and pov-pushing view of the purported dangers of certain lines of neuroscience research. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess of OR, n-nPOV pushing, and conspiracy theories. A lot of it isn't sourced and the sources aren't supporting the conclusions being drawn. Cut out the unsourced stuff and there isn't anything coherent left worthy of an article. The article's subject isn't coherent and it attempts to prove that telepathic mind controlling technologies exist and are a imminent threat and will create an "Orwellian nightmare" based on the fact that scientists and the government are researching and trying to develop technologies to interpret brain waves and brain-computer interfaces. The article goes so far as to recommend adjustment of privacy laws. It reads like an argumentative paper instead of an encyclopedia article. I would nominate it for deletion. Sifaka ^talk 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an AFD candidate to me...--nemonoman (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is currently listed for deletion here. Sifaka ^talk 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am the author of the article. I can see that it has generated some small controversy within days of entry. New advances in science and technology that push the limits of human perception often do. The article is well documented with references to reports that have been recently published by reliable sources. The US army has itself been providing reliable publications with information about this research into computer assisted 'telepathy' that it says it has been funding since at least the year 2000. Articles in Science and Technology magazine Wired, and in a number of other trusted publications as referenced in the article, show beyond doubt that the US military has indeed been funding research into 'telepathic' applications for brain-computer interfacing. This article might once have existed on the fringes - as reports that electricity could be captured to light private houses might once have seemed unbelievable when most people still used candles.

I welcome advice from experienced Wikipedian writers in the fields of science and technology. If any scientists involved in Wikipedia feel there are ways the article might be improved I would really appreciate their feedback. I am aware that it is a relatively new field that could have developed out of or been accompanied by earlier experiments into the power of the mind and cybernetics. Would this article be better appended to an existing article? Or should it be considered a separate research topic, deserving of a page of its own rather than being tacked on to another related topic. Personally I consider the research to be composed of a number of branches of science and research including software, wireless hardware systems, neuroscience and psychology. Because of the number of sciences and ideas the topic encompasses I feel the topic is best addressed on a separate page - otherwise one could spend time endlessly appending and updating other related pages with references to the subject.

Would the article stand better in the minds of its critics if it was renamed - and if so, what might be some suggested new names for a new branch of science that the military is funding and does itself consider to be a form of computer assisted 'telepathy' (that it has stated it plans to use on the battlefield)? I found the existing title to be simple and eye catching, summing up the topic and its current application as imagined by Pentagon funders. But, if a title such as 'Computer-assisted Telepathy' is found more acceptable then so be it. The research does exist, and Wikipedia should cover it if Wikipedia wants to be considered a contemporary encyclopedia encompassing newly reported advances in science and technology. Frei Hans (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been nominated for deletion. Please do not post any further replies here until the deletion debate has concluded. The appropriate discussion page is located here. Papa November (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu Rayhan Biruni

Was Abu Rayhan Biruni Khwarezmian or Persian? Didn't he speak Khwarezmian language, but wrote books in Arabic and Persian languages instead of own language? Is there contradiction? MassaGetae(talk) 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit User:Massagetae/Khwarezmian_people if anyone know about Khwarezmians or Chorasmians since there is no article for them. MassaGetae(talk) 08:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Khwarezm is just the name of a city. The Khwarezmian language was the dialect of that city. We're not going to postulate the existence of a Bostonian people based on the [[[Boston accent]]. Just like Sogdians redirects to Sogdiana, so Khwarezmians should redirect to Khwarezm. Ethnically, these people all form part of the larger Saka group.

The bickering over the "ethnicity" of medieval Islamic scholars is very popular among Wikipedia's assorted Middle Eastern nationalist editors. You can spot past battlefields by the ridiculous amount of footnotes ("Alberuni was a Persian^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} scholar") These disputes reflect modern nationalisms and are an anachronism in the articles' contexts in most cases. This is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and if I was calling the shots, the proper approach would just be to ban nationalist pov-warriors after one warning. This would save us countless man-hours lost babysitting the ever-recurring predictable nationalist bickerning. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are Encyclopedias devoted to this topic like Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam. One just has to put bias aside and follow principles like WP:RS, WP:weight ..etc. and avoid nation building concepts for local consumption. Even Britannica has resolved it to an extent.

My two cents. Biruni states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". Now that is his own description of his own people. There is no anachronism here. Actual Arabic here:

و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس

Yes technically his language would be Old Iranian Chorasmian but Persian in the wider sense means Iranic/Iranian. The people of Khwarizm were Zoroastrian Iranians (and this was still many if not most if the people during the time of Biruni) and saw themselves as Biruni states: "branch of the Persian tree". Biruni is also explicit that his native language is Chorasmain. Persian in general here means Iranic speaking and in general, Greeks/Arabs/Turks used Persian (Tat/Tajik) in the sense of wider Iranian peoples. The narrower meaning for just speakers of a branch of Iranian language is a more recent phenomenon and a sort of anachronism for ancient articles. So if we are worried about anachronism, then it does not apply to this case at all. Biruni is explicitly clear about his native language (Chorasmian) and identity: "branch of the Persian tree".

The ethnicity stuff in Middle East is not too difficult. There are in general three categories for Medieval Muslim scientists: Iranic (Persian and includes Soghdian/Khwarizmian and etc.), Arabic and Turkic. The places things overlap are places that have been Arabicized and Turkicized. Basically areas such as Caucasus, Iraq, Iranian Azerbaijan(for example Tabriz was not Turkic speaking until the Safavids), and Central Asia (major urban centers were slowly Turkified like Tashkand after Mongol invasions). Scientists and historians have now a very good idea when these linguistic shifts occured for the most part (see Central Asia or old Azari language for Azerbaijan or Shirwan for the Caucusus). For example at the time of Biruni, there was no Uzbeks in the area and this is made more obvious by Biruni saying: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree" and he provides sample of his own native (according to his own word native) language which is the Chorasmian language. Yet I saw a book that calls him Uzbek but obviously this is not correct. Once in a while a scientist is diputed and we give alternative viewpoints. Some ethnonyms are more recent like Uzbek or Azeri (and prior to this Turkic should be used before 14th-16 century since actual developlment of these languages are after 14th-16h century and sometimes the ethnonym is more recent. Afghan (for someone just born in Afghanistan) is fine from 1750 (circa) when the country was decared but before that it mean Pashtun. But in general Arabic, Turkic and Persian(Iranian/Iranic) have been used and when a small conflict might arise, one just follows policies of WP:RS, WP:weight, WP:NPOV and etc. So to make it clear for anyone interested in that era, there are basically three categories of scientists with Muslim background from these areas (Middle East, Central Asia, Caucusus): Iranic(Persian/Iranian), Arabic, Turkic(also Turkish is used). Encyclopedia Iranica and Islam (and Britannica) have it defined for many of these scientists. Once in a while we get clarity for example Turkic/Turkish->Oghuz or Kypchak or Uighyur or etc. Or Iranic/Persian->Soghdian, Khwarizmi, Old Azari. Hope that helps. It should be noted that modern people who call themselves Khwarizmi are not related in the ethno-linguistic sense to the old Chorasmians [7][8]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilizing mission

Apparently an essay about colonialism. Not a single source cited appears to address the topic of "civilizing mission" up front. --dab (𒁳) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is basically about mission civilisatrice, right? Big topic. Most of the article is focussed on the Portuguese rather than the French Empire, which is a bit of a surprise, but it feels like a translated article. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the topic is valid in principle. The problem is that the article is an essay rather than an encyclopedic discussion poperly referenced and integrated into our larger coverage of Colonialism. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It started off as a stubby article about French colonialism, then a Portuguese editor added a paragraph about the Portguese Empire last December. Since then, it's become more essayistic and Portuguese. Perhaps it should really be two articles under the respective French and Portuguese versions of "civilizing mission" (cf. White Man's Burden). Mission civilisatrice would be a big article on its own. --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The White Man's Burden is an article about a poem. Of course the gist of the poem expresses the concept of 'civilizing mission'. I think the article should be about the concept. The history of French or Portuguese colonial history should be discussed in articles dedicated to these particulars.

but I recognize that here we have an article on an important concept that has been lying neglected and needs attention. Probably nothing "fringy" here though, just bad editing to be cleaned up. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not really my area (the bit I know comes from reading about Indochinese history) but somebody could do a good job here one day. After all, the concept of Manifest Destiny (not exactly the same thing, but not a million miles away either) has a big article dedicated to it. --Folantin (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is definitely not a "Fringe Theory"... it is a justification for colonization that was common at various times in history, but is out dated and dismissed by the modern world (which tends to be dismissive of any justification for colonization). I would suggest subbing the article and undergoing an extensive re-write... and don't just focus on recent eras of colonization... The idea that colonizing powers had a duty to bring "civilization" to the "uncivilized" goes back at least to Ancient Rome (and probably earlier). Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think we should have a specific article on the French late 19th century/early 20th century concept of mission civilisatrice (or mission civilatrice) under that heading. The French belief in this idea was stronger than, say, the British. --Folantin (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to say the two countries had different interpretations of the concept and different ways of implimenting the idea... but not that the French had a stronger belief in it. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ham, son of Noah

edit war over the perennial 'Kemet' issue in which the "truth" that Kemet means 'land of the blacks' is being insisted upon by edit warring without discussion on page. Dispute also seems to be affecting Hannibal, since one of the same editors is insisting on removing an image of a too-European looking bust of great man. See also Black (hieroglyphic 'km'). Paul B (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable I guess I’m the "other editor" being talked about. 1st I haven’t partaking in any edit war concerning the article Ham. In the past 2 days I have only made 2 edits so I do not know why this editor is saying I am involved in HIS edit war, I am also not sure why the editor is bringing up the dispute with Hannibal and claiming that it is over a “an image of a too-European looking bust of great man” When there was never once a question about the European-ness of the image or a queston about race for that matter. As you will see for yourselves the whole dispute was over the SOURCES attached to the image. The original dispute was with me and other editor and this one came in making claims of race.. The claims made about me and the topics really puzzle me. He also called me an Afro-centric. Which I still do not understand why. This editor seems to have a fixation with race topics. As you see for yourself race was not an issue in either articles. not by anyone other than this editor himself TruHeir (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are absolutely impeccable, so there has to be another reason for your irrational persistance with your claims. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, mention of Black (hieroglyphic 'km') brings to mind Mmcannis (talk · contribs), a well-meaning editor from Arizona enthusiastic about the Ancient Near East, but the numerous articles and categories they created are simply bad beyond description. This will need to be tackled at some point.

The "land of the blacks" meme defended by Caliborn (talk · contribs) is of course a non-starter. The only place where this can be duly discussed is Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 1 In response to what you put on the talk page. What you are saying is utterly meaningless. Screaming afrocentrism at the top of your lungs can’t help you. In the bible Ham (meaning black or burnt) was Noah’s son who moved into Africa. The Bible refers to Egyptians as a descendant of ham and Egypt "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27 I do not see the made up afro centric story about this. This is what the bible says and you say the bible is not a reliable source.

If the bible is not a reliable source then this Article shouldn't been here altogether, if you want to talk about Egyptology then take it up on an article about Egyptology. Since this is an Article about a person from the Bible, the bible is the only thing to stand by.

1. 2, I did not see an implication about the meaning of Black land and Land of blacks. In the edit made by TH both were listed as possible meanings, In the beginning you argued that it means black land, but the edit you made you just listed it as black. However KMT does not mean does not simply mean black, KM does. So you do not have a point. Caliborn (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As the link to the Reliable Sources board indicates, the Bible is only 'reliable' as a source to describe its content. It is not reliable as a source of information about the origins of ancient peoples, speculation about their skin pigmentation, or etymology. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not make claims of skin pigmentation. I am curious to know have any of you actually read it. And did the person who start this claim read the article at all? You all sound repetitive and are arguing about nothing because the article already states the meaning of the word. Try reading it first before you comment or editThecityone (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, it does not mention skin color or anything like that....I knew very well that the article explained black land and talked about the fertile soil etc, but see it was never about that, the article or the statement black land or Land of black/blacks. It was about him trying to call me an Afro-centric on a different matter, one which had nothing to do with race. And that edit was what he used to to say I was. This is what the editor Paul B who started these claims and "dispute" left on the other editors page about me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catiline63&diff=295202103&oldid=295128030 When that editor and I were disputing SOURCES attached to an Image

As you can see race or skin color or anything along those lines were not brought in that dispute with me an that editor, yet if you look up at what PaulB wrote above concerning it along with his claims that I was in his edit war) you can see he said it was over a too “European looking image” ….. Just as race or skin color was not mentioned in this article yet that is what he is talking about.... He is a racist and seems so fixated on race that he has to bring it up even when no one has even mentioned it. This was never about the ham article because the article is self explanatory. Anyone that reads it can see for themselves the meaning of Khem is explain. That is why I am not wasting my time on this or him TruHeir (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot, well about the page the repetitions have been removed by me because the explanations were already present and didn’t need to be added again. So the article is good to go Thecityone (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Special Investigation Group

Article editorializes in favor of a perceived government conspiracy to abuse human rights in NZ and omits any balancing coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ASIO File is another from the same author, and appears to be slanted toward some sort of conspiracy theory, with Orwell invoked on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

BOLDly I have redirected the latter. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative calorie food

This article has slight sourcing that celery needs more calories for the body to digest it than the body receives from nutrients, but then there are unreferenced calorie rich foods listed such as apples, berries, tomatoes and watermelon. I'm not even that sure about celery. I said on the talk page of the article that in a week I would remove foods lacking references. The article has been around a while. Edison (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like trivia and should be deleted. No food has negative calorie. Zero calories yes but than it is not really food. The celery bit sounds like an urban legend. [9] Seems like they are mashing number ( ie if you eat at a rate less than your basal metabolic rate than you lose weight and this they call these foods negative calorie ) This is a fad like so many others in the diet foods, all you can eat chocolate cake diet anyone?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I prodded it. If it is still in this state after 4 years, it's never going to improve. Fences and windows (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's arguable that ipecac is a negative-calorie food :-). Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic opinion on conspiracy

I having a slow-moving not unpleasant discussion at Boise homosexuality scandal with an editor who tagged the article with an NPOV template. So far, consensus is to remove the tag, but the editor in question soldiers on. His point (seen here) seems to be that the primary source used, an academic named John Gerassi see special collections page at NYU library here has offered his opinion that the motivation behind the mass arrest and jailing of gay men in Boise in 1955 was politically motivated by a corrupt city councilman and an assistant prosecuting attorney.

He is recognized as an authority as the main researcher by two other sources, Jonathan Katz, who edited Gay American History in 1974 and Eric Marcus, who edited Making Gay History in 2002. The article is about a week old, and it's about a time in U.S. history when gays were included in the national paranoia to ferret out the unsavory element in the middle of the Lavender Scare and Second red scare. No other major works have been written about this event, so Gerassi seems to be the only guy writing this. Per WP:Fringe, however, since he researched it and formed an opinion, does it not belong in the article? I appreciate your clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If WP:FRINGE prohibited the use of any source that researched a topic and formed an opinion then it'd rule out all expert opinion. What that principle and WP:UNDUE prohibit is reliance or exaggeration of minor views not accepted by other sources. I see no evidence that the weight of other expert sources reject those conclusions. The conclusion seems to be not particularly out of the ordinary. To be a conspiracy theory it'd have to be much more than the idea that some politicians are corrupt or motivated by bias. If there are reliable sources rejecting this then cite those other sources. If there are an overwhelming number of expert sources saying that theory should be dismissed out of hand, then remove it completely. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud

Has some very strange ideas she is trying to add to articles from Ochre to Adam and Eve. It may be that with guidance she can be useful. Apologies if this is the wrong board. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Judging from personal experience, this is just one of those users who are never going to get it. --Folantin (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently being dealt with at WP:ANI#User:Jackiestud. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical regions of Caucasian Albania

Since the arbitration enforcement does not give a damn about fringe POV pushing, I will try it here. Baku87 has created this template which was obviously drafted based on this one. It has two major flaws: one is that the title is awkward, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region, and on top of that he adds the Azerbaijan republic map pushing the fringe theories described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his section about Azerbaijani myths and symbols (Azerbaijani mythology uses 'Azerbaijani' and 'Albania' interchangeably in discussing this kingdom.) There is no point in submitting this to deletion, there will be vote stalking, there will be no point in changing anything since it will initiate revert warrings. Since the arbitration enforcement ignores everything and does not see anything disruptive in deliberate nationalist POV pushing (this was already reported there, apparently there was nothing disruptive), this noticeboard remains the only relevant thing to turn to. Note also the purpose... he added them on those articles with the template of historic regions of Armenia. - Fedayee (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But the area Caucasian Albania did exist, and these were areas of it. Using the Azeri flag is an error, but otherwise I see nothing inherently POV about this template. Are you sure you're not just forum shopping? Start from the beginning - what precisely is wrong with the use of this template? Fences and windows (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Azeri flag to a map of Caucasian Albania, in lieu of any symbols from the country being available. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I think you misunderstood me, I am not saying Caucasian Albania did not exist please re-read what I wrote. Historical regions of Caucasian Albania is misleading, Caucasian Albania ITSELF is a historical region.

The name of that template only make sense if Caucasian Albania still existed recently and that we are referring to its historical regions. That's actually the rationale behind Baku87's move when he associated it with the current republic of Azerbaijan with that map. Note that in fact, only regions which were part of historic Armenia were included and not the rest.

If you want to help, you can start by renaming the article to something like 'Regions once withing historical Caucasian Albania' or something such. I never questioned the existence of Caucasian Abania, neither the existence of a template about it but rather the map and the title, which was a formed to mean 'Historical regions of Azerbaijan.' You have removed the map, which was a good idea, but now the title is inappropriate. I can of course make the necessary changes but if an uninvolved editor makes them, involved editors might think twice before revert warring. - Fedayee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania was a ancient state, and not a region. Fringe theory is calling it a historical region, and not a state. Here's an article about that country in Encyclopedia Iranica, it says: ALBANIA (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ), an ancient country in the Caucasus. [10] The template is very useful, and includes the territories that were a part of the country. I don't see how this template could be a fringe theory. --Grandmaster 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"only regions which were part of historic Armenia were included and not the rest." Don't we fix that by applying it to the regions in modern Azerbaijan too? Fences and windows (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the most usefull template would be something like "Historical regions of the Caucasus" which would then be applied to an article on Caucasian Albania (and other historical regions in the area). Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no use of a template with the title Historical regions of the Caucasus. It would be too general. The present template is useful, because it shows the territories that were a part of the ancient state of Caucasian Albania. It is very informative, and is easy to navigate. I don't really understand why it is even discussed here. The template is not a fringe theory, but a good reference on the history of an ancient state. We have similar templates on the history of neighboring states, such as Template:Historical regions of Georgia, Template:Historical regions of Armenia, why cannot we have a template about another ancient state in the Caucasus? Grandmaster 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

All the regions in the template are a part of modern Azerbaijan. We do not have articles about other historical regions of C.Albania at the moment. When we do, we will definitely include them in the template too. There were regions that historically changed hands many times. I don't think there's any rule that allows a region to be included in only one template. It is done in other templates too, for instance the region of Sophene is included into 3 templates. Why is it a problem here? And I don't see what could possibly be wrong with the title. Grandmaster 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are in any position to 'fix' me. Baku87 created the template on June 2 and added the map of Azerbaijan. Knowing that it made no sense, you left it there and did nothing. You even justified his created template. On June 12 when the map was replaced, you jumped in and replaced the added map an hour later. Your double standards and ignorance of blatant POV pushing is one of the major reasons as to why there are so many problems in those article. And I notice again that you entirely skipped my main point, being that Caucasian Albania is historic by itself, the title of the template is crafted in a way that it implies that it's something more modern when those regions and Albania are in this same period.

Besides, the map you have added is totally misleading and you have been told this several times but continued using it. Had you cared about accuracy, you would not have used misleading maps. For those who are wondering, the map added by Grandmaster represents Armenia and its neighbours, as written on the original. Without that information, readers might even assume that the lines of does not even refer to Armenia but Albania. - Fedayee (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the point in bad faith assumptions about other users? Keep it to the topic and make arguments that concern the matter in question. I demonstrated above that similar templates exist about other states. For instance, we have Template:Late Roman Provinces and Template:Roman provinces 120 AD, which list provinces of a presently non-existent state of Rome. Why a similar template cannot be created about Caucasian Albania? --Grandmaster 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with Grandmaster's edit,[11] the map he substituted was probably better. It clearly shows Caucasian Albania and puts it in a regional context. Fences and windows (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fences, the map added by Grandmaster is titled 'Armenia and its neighbours' (as written in the original used to craft it), zoom in and you will see 'line' with the date for the last two without any indication. This only makes sense when the reader is aware that it's a map of Armenia. But the map is presented as if it is one on Albania. It is not, in fact the frontiers which Grandmaster says are those of Albania are not exactly claimed by the map to be those of Albania, but rather (see map indication) Albanian lands and border territories. That's made even more clear because a large part is included in both Armenia and Albania and the border territories. And you have not replied about the appropriateness of the word 'historic', see the examples brought by Grandmaster. As you can see, while I said that my problem is the term 'Historical', he still continues providing examples as if I am opposing to Albania altogether. The way it is worded amounts to creating a template about 'Historical regions of Sumeria' as if Sumeria was more modern than its regions presented and somehow survived unlike its regions so that its regions become its historical regions. - Fedayee (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand the problem here. The map shows Albania in a wider context of the entire region, why is it a problem? And it could be titled anything, what does it matter? What matters is that it shows S.Albania and its borders at their maximum extent. It is quite informative. See for instance a template on another historical state, Template:Khazaria, it has a similar map. Plus, how can an image make the template a fringe theory? With regard to the name, as I understand, you are having an issue with the word "historical". If we renamed the template to the "Regions of Caucasian Albania", would you be happy with that? Grandmaster 06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't see the problem because you are not reading or refusing to understand. For the umpteenth time, this map is not a map of Albania but Armenia, anyone reading it is misled to think it is Albania and will even think that those last two lines represent Albania's borders which we both know they are not (and only those knowing the title of the map will know that) but they are Armenia. Besides, the borders which you claim as being Albania are not Albania alone but border territories as mentioned on the map. Since you keep ignoring what I write, I will change the map and rename the template. I have provided concerns which you have not even bothered replying to but rather soapboxed answering everything (not even what I have raised) but what I have raised. That's the only thing I will be adding here unless you start answering to the exact issues I have raised. If I don't reply, know that it's because you will not answer or ignore my arguments. - Fedayee (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered in much detail. The map shows the territory of Caucasian Albania as well, it is called "Armenia and its neighbors", i.e. it shows not just Armenia, but all the states in the region. The map on page 666 from The Cambridge Ancient History is not accessible from google books, but it is listed here: [12], so you can check for yourself what it is actually called. Obviously, border territories were also a part of Albania, otherwise there would be no point in inclusion of them within the Albanian borders. And stop threatening with unilateral actions, you know that disruption on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles is covered by arbitration remedies. If you want to rename the template, you must follow the established procedure for renaming. Grandmaster 05:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg articles

These [13], and probably Trilateral Commission articles, tend to be a honeypot for conspiracy theorists. Look at for instance Knights of Saint Columbanus which mentions Bilderberg 13 times. The Bilderberg Group article probably has sufficient attention, it's the minor ones like Indra Nooyi where she is described as attending the 'highly secretive' Bilderberg group, etc. that could use some light attention if anyone has the time or interest. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I do anything about it, take a look at Sir Frank Ewart Smith and the link it uses for Richard Beeching. I should AGF I guess and assume there weren't any others that could be used. And International financiers which seemed to exist only to discuss conpsiracies, I've cut that bit out and I'm not sure what to do with what's left. Redirect somewhere? Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected International financiers to International finance; another target could be Global financial system. Fences and windows (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reddi and Free energy

At it again [14]. No edit summary and no discussion, per usual. NJGW (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA Spread Theory

Brand new article, full of OR. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Prodded. Term is not used outside Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see W. Lawrence Lipton. Fences and windows (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been deprodded. I'll start an AfD. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, I've just done that with Twinkle. An AfD is probably better anyway, sorry F&W. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Twinkler, I'm happy to be spared the work. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It does make life a lot easier/more productive. I've put a COI tag on the author for his autobiography also. There I'm not sure about an AfD yet, it may just have to be rewritten to turn it into an article. I've also removed all his self-entries to various lists of authors, educators, etc. He's just using us for publicity so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bhagavata Purana

I may actually need help here (or have someone tell me I'm wrong) [15] which I reverted again. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from the ISKC website-- hardly any reasonable person's notion of a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source for that story (I heartily agree with Mangoe's opinion of ISKCON), along with an interesting analysis by a notable astrophysicist, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar.[16] I don't know that it needs to go in the article—I just hated to see ISKCON discredit a favorite and most unusual old story and it's application to modern physics. Priyanath ^talk 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim

This article is tripping my bullshit detectors, but I am hindered by my ignorance of German. The primary source listed is from the central European chapter of MUFON, for example, but other citations come from legitimate (if speculative) magazine publications. Thoughts? Skinwalker (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article could definitely use some cleanup. The author of that primary source, Illobrand von Ludwiger, is characterized as a "physicist and pioneer in satellite control systems", but actually he is most notably a proponent of UFOs and other paranormal phenomena. Heim generally appears to fall into the "brilliant crackpot" category -- his intelligence was obviously outstanding, but he never presented any work that the mainstream physics community could make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement

There has been a posting on this page about the AfD for the now deleted Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science. I posted a link to a video above which shows that Jeremy Dunning-Davies is an active supporter and advocate for the work of Ruggero Santilli. He is also directly involved in this institute. A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) is now claiming that it is inappropriate, even contentious, to draw reference to the fact that Dunning-Davies is a public web advocate for Santilli and fringe science. I'm not quite sure what is irking this recently arrived user, but in this case fringe science advocacy seems completely clear cut. This video of JDD singing the praises of Santilli's new science apparently cuts no ice with A.K.Nole. I am posting here to get other opinions on whether JDD is directly involved in fringe science, in particular the pseudoscience organisations connected with Santilli, Myron Evans and Franceso Fucilla which are quite apparent in this video. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have in addition listed Jeremy Dunning-Davies for deletion here. This should supersede any discussion here. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute Mathsci's presentation of this case. I am not an advocate for fringe science. What I am advocating is the proper application of WP:BLP to this article. The sentence in question was Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli supported by a link to the web page Administrative board of the Teleseo-Galilei Academy of Science http://www.telesio-galilei.com/board.html Administrative board of the Teleseo-Galilei Academy of Science. I maintained that "connected with fringe science" is a contentious description of a living person and further that it is poorly sourced. One link to one organisation does not support the plural "organisations". The source does not self-describe as fringe science, that is Mathsci's synthesis. The source is primary, not a reliable secondary source. The connection with Santilli is not seen in the source and must be Mathsci's original research: it is certainly a coatrack. Mathsci airly refers to other sources, such as a video, which he has refused to cite in discussion or in the article. All in all, this does not meet the high standards of BLP.

Mathsci asks rhetorically what is irking this user. What irks this user, as he knows full well [17], is Mathsci's attempting to assert ownership over this article, riding roughshod over Wikipedia policy and last but not least Mathsci's bullying attitude.

The issue is not whether Dunning-Davies is connected with fringe science: it is whether this has been established to the standards BLP policy. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are various pieces of information available, the most important being the presence of Dunning-Davies on the two websites attached to Santilli. These change every few months, I suppose because there are disagreements between Santilli, Myron Evans, Fucilla and possibly Dunning-Davies. However, at present Dunning-Davies is listed on the website. The other information can be found in the articles Dunning-Davies writes promoting Santilli's iso-mathematics and geno-mathematics (which is some of the worst pseudoscience out there). There is also the video above and other videos showing Dunning-Davies at the award ceremonies. If Dunning-Davies has publicly let it be known that he is attached to such institutions, which by their very nature are not recorded or recognized by any mainstream academic institution, this is unfortunately all we can go on. My personal feeling is that Dunning-Davies, or for that matter Ruggero Santilli, do not have sufficient notability to have BLPs on WP, except for their fringe science/pseudoscience notability/notoriety, Since fringe science and pseudoscience are reported on wikipedia, BLPs of this type will always generate this type of difficulty. The problem is often that these people or their cronies are the originators of these BLPs; the subjects are often shameless self-publicists. Another example is Florentin Smarandache, who again is connected with the same circle of fringe physicists. There is no original research or synthesis here:

“ Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli. ”

Perhaps A.K.Nole was unaware that this BLP is periodically edited by people like Francesco Fucilla, so it is under constant watch. WP:OWN doesn't come into this. The problem is to avoid wikilawyering instead of using the normal sources for fringe science or pseudoscience, which by the nature of the subject are problematic. One example of how to deal with this is Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory. Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"There is no original research or synthesis here". Excuse me? Does Mathsci really believe that the reader will go a series of (uncited) web sites, somehow know that they are attached to Santilli, then read and somehow understand papers on advanced physics and mathematics? Of course not, that's what Mathsci did, and that's OR and SYNTH. How does Mathsci's text and his explanation here not violate WP:OR: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors? How can an article requiring such a lengthy explanation not violate Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources? How does Mathsci not violate drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources? How does the text not violate WP:BLP: Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association?

Let me be quite clear. I do not know and make no assertion about whether Dunning-Davies is mainstream, fringe, or off the map (contrary to the misleading section heading chosen by Mathsci). I say that no acceptable reliable secondary source has been adduced for any such assertion. I say that this article is a clear violation of BLP and I say that Mathsci has failed in the obligation to be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. This is not wikilawyering, it is core policy. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The rhetoric is getting a bit heated on all sides -- let's turn down the temperature, can we? I agree that the sentence in question creates a weighting issue even if it is correct, but since the article appears to be on its way to deletion anyway, this is not a problem of vast urgency. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some time in the future A.K.Nole might develop a better understanding of the academic world of science and the British university system. His remarks seem completely clueless at the moment.

My own personal feeling is that it is better just to have articles on specific topics in fringe science/pseudoscience, provided that they have already been properly assessed in the mainstream literature by recognized academics. Unfortunately it is often the case that the flawed science can be spotted by an average undergraduate, so, with errors that bad, there is no a priori guarantee of suitable scientific criticism. BLPs on the people involved are probably not the way to go. This is just my own WP experience with this type of fringe science. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made the points I wished to and Mathsci does not address them. I leave it to other readers of this page to decide whether the first paragraph of the posting above is anything other than a personal attack. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To A. K. Nole: I would call it more of an unfavorable characterization with respect to editing the article. Wiki requires a thick skin.

I will comment on the AfD. Awickert (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very hard for me to WP:AGF with A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) after his undisguised attempt at WP:BAITing on my own talk page . [18] Any more silly remarks of this nature and A.K.Nole could find his editing privileges curtailed. On the other hand that kind of foolish edit tells us quite a bit about A.K.Nole. If he has any further comments, he should make them at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention, although at his own extreme risk. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

<off-topic>This unsourced and incorrect change to a redirect [19] shows that A.K.Nole is up to no good. The trademark he is thinking of is MathSciNet (note the captalization) already mentioned by me on the deletion page. OTOH, WP:DFTT. Yawn. </off-topic> Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MathSci's remarks are, as s/he admits, off-topic: s/he is demonstrably incorrect about the trademark issue. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The username issue is utterly bogus. Raising such issues in order to gain points in a debate about something else is generally considered disruptive editing, if not stalking. You are advised to reconsider your approach here. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochre and Jackiestud

This is getting stupid. Jackiestud (talk · contribs) is now deleting well sourced additions of mine (I actually used books instead of websites, silly me( and replacing it with unsourced pov stuff , and that which is sourced is sourced in part from two Wikipedia mirrors and other non-RS websites. I tried to explain this to her on her talk page but she's just ignored me. I'm at 2RR now and don't want to hit 3, but in any case this is just part of an edit war between her and several other editors on various articles. She's deleted my comments on problems with recognising ochre, my addition of a new report on Blombos cave, any suggestion that Blombos may not be unequivocal evidence etc... Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be merged with red Ochre, or rather vice versa since Yellow Ochre oddly redirects to 'red ochre'! Obvious solution would be to direct both to 'Ochre' and merge content of the 'red ochre' article. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that Ochre claims to be about a color, whereas Red Ochre is about a pigment (hm, I see where she found one of her sources now, at the latter article). But actually, after the lead, it then becomes a pigment. Needs a bit more thought. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochre should be Yellow Ochre, which is the colour. Really, I think they'd all best be in one article, which could reasonably include discussion of the chemistry, and of the use of earth pigments in history. There's no reason to have an article on one pigment, which also actually claims to include Yellow Ochre, while Ochre is also de facto about Yellow Ochre - but mentions several other Ochres! Paul B (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support a move for a community ban of Jackiestud. This user is clearly too confused to be expected to ever contribute anything useful. --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At ANI, another Admin has predicted an indef block if she can't be found a mentor. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've merged the two articles, dropping the more eccentric claims. I included a line from Jackie's source [20], though I'm still rather wary of it. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One Thousand and One Nights

I'm having a strange minor but protracted dispute with User:Soundofmusicals who insists we shouldn't put the common English alternative title The Arabian Nights in the first line of this page. Now, since this was the title of the first English translation and the two most recent ones, as well as being the title of the entry in The Encyclopaedia of Islam and several other studies of the book (see the notes and references section in the Wikipedia article), I'm at a loss to understand why we shouldn't mention this alternative as early as possible per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not even asking for a page move. Judging by the talk page, this is simply the result of yet more standard-issue ethnic bitching. I think Soundofmusicals has been trying to achieve a "compromise" with some users who just don't like Arabs very much, but this is the sort of compromise which leads to our articles saying 2+2=4.5. --Folantin (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more suitable for the POV noticeboard? Anyway, the page view statistics for the page [21] and the redirect [22] suggest that "Arabian Nights" is a significant alternative title, but perhaps not as dominant as one might believe. I agree it should be in the first line, but if it is a culturally sensitive matter perhaps it needs to be moved a bit further down in the lede and contextualised, as a compromise. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Culturally sensitive"? You mean we should pander to ethnic bigots? I've demonstrated at great length that this is a significant alternative title in English. --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right. It seems to be the Iranian ultra-chauvanist user:Xashaiar who is the probem here. Paul B (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That also explains why there is a Persian translation of the Arabic title in the first line and there are no objections to that. Xashaiar (and others?) are trying to make out this is more of a work of Persian literature than an Arabic one. Of course, it is believed that the Nights was based on an earlier Persian collection, Hazār Afsān ("A Thousand Tales", not "Nights"), as the article notes, but no copies of this work have survived so we don't know the precise degree of influence. Likewise, La Fontaine's Fables is regarded as a work of French - not Greek - literature, even though some of the stories are based on Aesop. --Folantin (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero

Systemizer (talk · contribs), creator and recreator of articles such as 420-year cycle and Septennial cycle, seems to have taken over this article and is fighting off any attempts to, for instance, remove a citation to another Wikipedia article, or call Alfred North Whitehead a philosopher, let alone any real content changes. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)