Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Shakespeare authorship question and WP:ONEWAY

Although I suspect topic fatigue has set in for many editors, it would be much appreciated if some would weigh in on this discussion about whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into Shakespeare's plays is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The discussion preceding the current one has more information. Same actors, same topic, same arguments, but it would be nice to get this settled so we don't have to go through this on every article. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY is part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. I'm not sure I'd base any arguments on a guideline, since editors seem to disregard them with wild abandon. The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to spam nonsense about the authorship "controversy" on every Shakespeare-related article. The answer is "no." --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "yes." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "no." Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My mileage varied. There may be a legitimate question to be asked as to how the fringe theories are to be linked to, but no more than that. The answer is, I think, "very carefully", so as not to suggest that they are anything other than lunatic fringery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

This article failed GA for being very pov. One of its main editors has been giving it a Creationist slant. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Creationist cryptozoology? the mind boggles... --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Having just read through the article, I can see why it failed GA status - clunky writing and bad structure. I don't see the bias that you are asserting. There are a few places, yes, where editors are trying to wheedle in some pro-CZ advocacy, but as a whole the article seems to be a fairly neutral description of the topic. I also don't see the creationist slant at all - where are you finding that?

remember, this is an article about CZ; we don't need to be as strict with it as we would if this were an article about mainstream zoology. a bit of rewriting should remove what POV problems are currently there - I may undertake that in a day or so. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Also needs some attention. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, stop paying attention for a few months and the article becomes a pro-Bigfoot wankfest. I fixed most of the issues now. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory and fringe

The Jesus Myth Theory is rejected by the vast majority of scholars, who treat it with disdain, as many sources, both secular and religious indicate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

And yet, the lead section only mentions it as being rejected by "most scholars", a clear mis-representation of the extent the theory is rejected.

Any edits I make which adds the viewpoint that CMT is rejected by historians gets reverted and labelled as POV pushing.

[1] [2] Flash 00:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Dawkins promoting it? I thought it went out around 1920 or so, once Biblical scholarship started becoming a reputable discipline of its own. I always read it as being a reaction to using the Bible as an arbitrator of history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rejected". More like "unproven and unlikely". But most scholars seem to think it's a possibility, even if not a very great one. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> the problem on that article (which I made a short attempt to work through a while back) is that there is ambiguity about what the article covers and a number of agenda-driven editors involved. the actual Jesus Myth theory (e.g., that the story of Jesus is a completely fabricated mythology) was a short-lived scholarly theory which probably wasn't fringe in its heyday but might be considered so if there are modern adherents still advocating for it. The various corollary theories (e.g. that there was an actual historical figure in the correct time frame who was extensively embellished by Roman mythology, or that there was an earlier historical figure or figures who was/were picked up and blended into a sort of historical 'meme') certainly are not fringe, or rejected, or even outdated, but are variously interpreted by editors as or as not pertinent depending on whether they are trying to solidify the Jesus Myth theory for anti-religious purposes or refute it for pro-religious purposes. It leads to disheartening conversations. 'Most scholars' seems like a reasonable compromise in the absence of reasonable discussion: JMT narrowly conceived is broadly rejected, but JMT broadly conceived is not an uncommon scholarly viewpoint. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Ludwigs2's summary is quite accurate. For more background, see any of the previous appearances of this article on this board: see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Christ_myth_theory for a list.

Anyway, there is a proposal at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Merger--Christ_Myth_Theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus to merge Christ myth theory into a larger article called Existence of Jesus or somesuch—people may be interested in commenting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize how many times this has been brought up at this noticeboard? By now, absolutely everyone with the slightest interest in the matter can just watch the article talkpage, no? This discussion is so WP:LAME by now it boggles the mind. Sorry for ranting. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol - dab, if that's what you consider a rant, you must be half-Vulcan. Or else you need some serious lessons in effective venting... but you're right (which is why I prefaced my own response with a deep sigh). some people seriously need the wikipedia redpill, because they are far too absorbed in the reality of their own nonsense. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Help!

People pushing positive promotion of the climate denialist blog Watts Up With That? are demanding that a positive review by Virginia Heffernan be included in the lead even though there is a verifiable regret she expressed about it. Please help at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring to include unsourced contentious material about a living person. Since ScienceApologist won't tell us the source for his edit, I believe it is this,[3] a comment to a blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Having read the material in question: while she is not absolutely clear about a rejection of her original endorsement, it's clear that her present opinion doesn't match her first (and exceedingly brief) statement. I personally see no way to treat the material without creating a potentially false impression. Better just to drop the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nubia

It appears the Afrocentrists grew tired of Egypt for the time being and now concentrate on Nubia as the improved "homeland of black civilization" (better than Egypt!). In any case I just did some emergency cleanup of Nubia, Nubian people and related articles, but much, much more work is needed. See also Thesunshinesate (talk · contribs), Chancellor Williams. Ah, and here is another eyesore, in case somebody feels like wasting a Sunday on a boring race essay. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement analysis

I'd appreciate it if others could watchlist this article and keep an eye on it. It's an obscure technique that tries to tell if someone is lying or not by examining specific words chosen and reading into them very specific meanings. DreamGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Heads up about this entry at the COI noticeboard.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads down. Oclupak (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein questionable material

At Ludwig Wittgenstein, there is one editor who is furiously edit-warring to re-introduce material that was earlier removed by consensus of editors.

The material centers around speculation that because Adolf Hitler and Wittgenstein briefly attended the same school, they knew each other well and had a profound influence on each other lasting their entire adult lives. The thesis was put forward in a book by fringe author Kimberley Cornish, who has been associated with holocaust denier David Irving. According to critics, the book is garbage (negative reviews outnumber positive reviews by about 10-to-1; see Wikipedia article The Jew of Linz).

Kimberley Cornish for a number of years tried very hard to accord his crackpot theory a prominent place in the Ludwig Wittgenstein article by making many edits, as an IP and as User:Kimberley Cornish. This included inserting a cropped 1901 classroom photograph, in which he labeled Adolf Hitler with his name and another, unknown, boy as "Ludwig Wittgenstein". Finally editors at Ludwig Wittgenstein got so fed up with Cornish and his antics that they basically kicked him out, setting up the The Jew of Linz article so that Cornish could promote his book to his heart's delight. Which he promptly did. It wasn't until much later that other editors stepped in and cleaned up that article as well.

In the course of his self-promotion, Cornish repeated all number of unverified claims from his books, for example that a forensic examiner in Australia looked at the picture and identified Wittgenstein as "highly probable" in the picture. Regardless of whether or not an examiner did so (probably not, since Cornish is known for playing fast and loose with the truth and making things up out of whole cloth, as noted by many of his critics), we know this is impossible because the picture dates from 1901 and Wittgenstein did not attend that school until the 1903/1904 school year.

SlimVirgin pretends to be on the safe side by captioning the picture as "there is no consensus" that Wittgenstein appears in the picture. It would be more accurate to say that "there is no evidence", but then the picture could not be in the article at all!

The foremost biographer of Adolf Hitler's youth is Brigitte Hamann, and she is on record numerous times saying that Wittgenstein and Hitler, being two grades apart and moving in different circles, had "nothing at all to do with each other". Source Further, Hamann explicitly says that "the picture was not taken in 1903 and the child close to Hitler isn't Wittgenstein. The picture is older. It was taken at a time when Ludwig was a pupil in Vienna and not in Linz." Source

By SV's logic, the Dinosaurs article must include a photograph of fossilized impressions that "show" a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint. After all, it is sourced to Young Earth Creationist literature. To be safe, a disclaimer stating that "there is no consensus" can be included!

Cornish's book is gradually subsiding into well-deserved obscurity. His publishers are not reprinting the book. Google search hits are relegating the supposed Hitler-Wittgenstein nexus to back pages as more and more time passes. Resurrecting the notions of a crackpot writer within the WP article on Wittgenstein would reverse that trend, a bad idea. It would also run counter to WP:WEIGHT, which says that tiny-minority views are not to be included in WP articles.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This anon arrived at the article, reverted several times with insults, posted abuse on talk (e.g. [5]), and while he was doing this a new account was created that tried to out me, and called me a lying cunt in an edit summary on the same article (now oversighted). [6]

The anon has confused several different issues, and has been told this already. Here is the material he's objecting to. It's reliably sourced and debated; see the Notes section. That's all I'm going to say about it, because I've had enough of trying to deal with this person. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading that section (out of context of the article, which I haven't looked at in a while), it seems a bit over-weighted. The only clear element is that Hitler and Wittgenstein attended the same school for a time - the rest is (properly sourced) speculation that (a) they knew (or at least knew of) each other, and (b) that they had an influence on each other from that childhood experience. That smacks a bit of vague historical revisionism - there's really no evidence that Hitler of Wittgenstein gave any serious thought to each other as adults. would you have any objection to my trimming it back a bit?

Also, is that picture really from 2 years before W attended the school? If so, then it really ought to be removed as a specious addition.

Has anyone taken the time to properly warn that IP for unpleasant behavior? --Ludwigs2 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) is on the prowl again, pushing his strange fundamentalist fantasies about ancient Ethiopia and the Bible. See user contributions. His recent contributions seem to be close to 100% reverts, plus the occasional rants about "hateful distortions" on talkpages.

I know this is also a repetitive call for attention, but as long as we do not finally honour this one with a dedicated "Til Eulenspiegel" (or more conventionally, apply user sanctions), this is probably the best place to bring it up. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Dab's problem is today, but he chose to wade into two articles overnight and turn them upside down into total POV pieces, and accuses me of being the disruptive one. Almost nobody in Ethiopia thinks the name of their country comes from Greek for "burnt face" as was first proposed by a European scholar in 1843. There are a number of alternative and referenced theories about where their name comes from that are more popular in Ethiopia. The question here is, do Ethiopian views about themselves count for anything, or must they accept what is being handed to them by European scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd asked the people of Victorian Manchester how the name of their town originated, they'd almost all have said it came from the manly chests of early Saxon citizens who repulsed Viking invaders. That was the standard folk etymology of the name. But we don't say that's the etymology in the Manchester article. So, no, we don't care what non experts say, wherever they come from. Being from a place does not automatically give some special insight into ancient etymology, especially the etymology of a language wholly unrelated to your own. Only the consensus of experts matters. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And Ethiopians couldn't possibly be experts on their own history, nor are their views about themselves significant, or even worthy of mention. Because everyone knows experts come from Europe, and only they count. I see, il Duce. Don't bother getting me sanctioned, I will not be back on English wikipedia for quite some time, because what it is becoming these days speaks for itself. If you need me, I will be active on Amharic encyclopedia and on the Afrophone wikis mailing list. See ya. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester, in case you haven't noticed, is in Europe. My point is that being European, Ethiopian or Chinese is irrelevant. Being an accredited expert is, whatever ones race or nationality. Your argument seems to be that Ethiopians don't like the etymology, so it can't be true. Well, the Welsh don't particularly like the etymology of "Welsh", but they don't deny it. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note - all this was discussed back in 2006 with Til under his previous username. See the archive sections 24, 26 and 27. Til (aka Codex) just dismissed all other editors Talk:Ethiopia/Archive_1#etymology. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support dab's filing. The user is again on the warpath to promote his fringe POV with recourse to the usual doses of wikilawyering to game the system. Perhaps AN/I for a block solicitation would be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

re etymology, I submit that the claim that an 8th century BC Greek name (Homer) is based on a 15th century Ge'ez name is not so much a "pov" as patent nonsense. It's not worth anyone's time to discuss this failing excellent quality academic support. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This should be done at a User RfC. If Til continues on his campaign, then escalate to a WP:AN report. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuzari Principle

A mess of original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Has just had a big OR dump to someone who usually just uses talk pages to go on and on with OR. I'd like a sanity check though. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

• Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article should be named Hurrican Katrina fringe theories because that's what it contains. One editor, User:BD2412, has reverted my page move citing a discussion from 2005 as evidence that the page cannot be moved to a more appropriate title.[7] Can we generate a consensus here on what the proper title should be? I think five years is a very long time, and that discussion had only a handful of editors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One question, are any other fringe theories called such in articel titles?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have worked on 9/11 conspiracy theories and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. We often use "conspiracy theory" in titles. This Katrina "stuff" is not entirely about conspiracies. I recommended "fringe theories" as a broader term that includes conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas, but I am open to a different, yet accurate, title. The term "Alternative" is bad because it exaggerates the weight of these theories. Do we have any other articles that start with "Alternative theories regarding"? If we do, they ought to be changed as well. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a no then. In that case calling it Hurrican Katrina fringe theories would be wrong. Perhaps "non meterological thoeries" might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The theory that the government dynamited the levees is an a historical conspiracy theory, having nothing to do with meteorology. The idea of diving retribution is non meteorological. While it has some utility, I think your proposal does not encompass everything in the article. Perhaps the article needs to be broken up into pieces so each can be named accurately. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you remove the one paragraph section on what Louis Farrakhan said about the intentional destruction of the levies, the rest of the article focuses entirely on religious claims (that Katrina was God's punishment for our sins, etc). I would therefore suggest that the levy paragraph does not belong. We should remove it and rename the article to Religious claims regarding Hurricane Katrina. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article had previously contained a section regarding arguments connecting global warming to Hurricane Katrina, which Jehochman moved out at the same time that he renamed the article. The result of this trend will be that we have a series of stubby articles that will never grow, each covering a set of unconventional ideas expressed about the causation of this particular storm. bd2412 T 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to what? One large article with sub-sections that will never grow... one that combines unconnected sets of unconventional ideas about the causation of the storm? I think it is better to have several small articles that focus on specific subjects than one large article that attempts to combine unrelated subjects (and thus is not at all clear as to what the article topic actually is). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How about unconventional theories regarding Hurricane Katrina.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Unconventional" is a euphamism for "crackpot" or "crank". I am not sure whether any of those are properly neutral. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The subjects are not "unconnected"; they are connected in that they are "unconventional ideas expressed about the causation of this particular storm". Some people view global warming as a fringe theory and divine punishment as a reasonable theory of causation; some people view things exactly the other way around. bd2412 T 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that that the concept of natural disasters being "Divine punishment for the sins of the world" is not all that unconventional in religious circles. It is a concept that has a long history. (Hmmm... Do we have an article that covers this concept? If so, perhaps the religious claims about Katrina should be merged into that article.) Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Divine punishment. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks J... Divine punishment definitely needs a lot of work, but I could see a section (or sub-article) to discuss "Natural Disasters as Divine punishment" (as a suggested title for either a section or a sub-article). The section or sub-article could discuss how religious leaders through history have claimed that various plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. are a form of divine punishment for what they see as man's wickedness. That would place the claims about Katrina being Divine punishment in their proper context... as part of a long tradition in western religion. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea. There was nothing particularly unique about Katrina; the same sorts of claims have been made about past hurricanes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Katrina was unique in its scope and the relative attention paid to it. Everything about Katrina, including the volume of discussion regarding the effects of God, government, and global warming, was sharply magnified relative to storms before and since. bd2412 T 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

About 100 years ago there was a storm that killed something like 6000 people in Texas. I am sure there was a lot of focus on that event during the following years. The 1938 storm that hit New England is legendary around here. Katrina appears more significant because of recentism, and because all the conversations happened online where they are easily accessible. Plenty of information can be found about older storms, but that info is in newspaper archives and books out of print. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's still three storms out of thousands that have hit the U.S. in that timespan. I doubt there were many theories put forth about the earlier storms regarding sabotaged levies, global warming, or weather control technology. bd2412 T 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious theories regarding hurricane katrina I think is the best name based on its content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. We would have to remove the part about dynamiting levees, and put that into a separate article, Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about renaming to Religious claims about Hurricane Katrina, with a link to divine punishment, and we move any other bits out to their own article(s) or another appropriate article? Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedant mode on - I wish people wouldn't use 'theories' this way. I prefer 'claims'. And admit 'conspiracy hypotheses' won't fly. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with claims being used instead of theories.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Divine retribution article, which may need to be merged into Divine judgment (to which Divine punishment redirects). bd2412 T 18:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to clean up, reorganize and review all these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I boldy spun out the two sections to the separate articles. Note the WP:SYNTH problems with just collecting all fringe theories of a topic into one article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Censoring my own thoughts on this topic, regardless of whether this garbagetopic should even be on Wikipedia, the title "Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina" is most assuredly not appropriate.   Thorncrag  00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative title suggestions, obviously. The article is about people who have attributed the destruction associated with Hurricane Katrina to supernatural forces. This is a reasonable topic. I don't think any of the above titles are very good. I don't think "religious theories" is correct nor are "religious claims". These are supernatural attributions. There's also a few sources who have attributed Katrina to the devil and sources which connect the two. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thoncrag.... while Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina may be a correct title when taken in a literal sense, it reads as if someone was claiming that Katrina was the result of a "build up of undischarged spiritual ectoplasm" or some other pseudo-scientific clap trap (When a hurricane nears... Who ya gonna call?... Ghost Busters!). These claims mentioned in the article explicitly religious in nature... I see no reason not to say so in the title. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the claims are "religious" in nature. A "religious" claim is one of dogma. These are merely attributions to divine powers. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem in my opinion is that the title is open to interpretation. I submit that most readers will presume that the article encyclopedically links events of the disaster or the hurricane itself to divine intervention, when those are just fringe claims. And by the way, weren't most of those claims basically excited utterances which have been largely retracted? Thus, isn't a lot of this content giving undue weight, etc? Just asking, not implying.   Thorncrag  04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

errr... Reading this discussion, it seems as though we somehow made the implicit assertion that we can lump together a whole bunch of non-notable things to create a notable topic. this strikes me as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (or maybe WP:NOTCATALOG is more on point). I might support listifying this - i.e. list of alternate hurricane Katrina disaster explanations - but otherwise I think the article should be deleted and the useful bits farmed out to sections of other (actually notable) articles. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs... I would hardly call Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan non-notable... when they make claims like this, it makes national news... and thousands of followers believe it. We may not agree with their religious take on what causes natural phenomenon... but their POV is notable enough that we do need to note it.

Perhaps the title should be very explicit... Divine retribution claims concerning Hurricane Katrina This title would tie the article directly to the Divine retribution article... and indicate that we are discussing the event from a purely religious POV, and not a scientific POV. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Ludwigs may be on to something in a sense. However, there are secondary sources listed at that article which do analyze the similarities between these claims. Rather like the Lisbon earthquake, I think this particular natural disaster got people who believe in divine action in the world thinking that there was some action of the supernatural (whether it be wrath or evil or what have you) at work. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

well, there are two problems here. Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan are prominent figures with reasonable numbers of followers, yes, and I suppose if we wanted to do an article on 'claims of Katrina as divine retribution' we could discuss whether that particular claim is notable. I'd think in that case, we'd need to demonstrate that the 'Katrina as retribution' theme was more than just passing commentary - one or the other of them would have had to be pursuing it in a serious way for a reasonable period of time (If, for instance, this was one of those week-long, flash-in-the-pan, media memes that pop up every now and then, then it may not be notable). Assuming it is notable, though, there is a distinct problem with throwing in other outré Katrina theories, since once you start adding theories together that way, the article stops looking like a societal event (Robertson and Farrakhan making religious claims about Katrina) and starts looking more like a serious collection of alternate theories. If the only thing these things have in common is that they present alternate explanations of the Katrina disaster, then the article is about alternate theories of the Katrina disaster, which is pure Fringe.

In other words, if this is an article about Robertson's and Farrakhan's extreme religious views on Katrina, I can almost see that as a valid, notable topic. but if this is an article expounding on non-meteoralogical explanations of why Katrina was such a disaster, then we might as well open the door all the way and let people who want to claim that the flooding was caused by UFOs or Bigfoot have their say as well. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oera Linda

IP adding personal opinions in fractured English to this article. I've reverted him once and he immediately replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Not immediately but after reeding your elaboration.

1. Someone who cant distinguish adding ref form removing should be thigh from fringing this project. Actually Dougweller obscured for unknown reasons or whatever his agency reasons the article removing few refs. Well could you dough what you consider OR so more refs may be added? Is anything new added to this article at all beside ful names, dates one ISBN and few wikilinks to existing articles? Please elaborate what overflow to your OR.