Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

British Israelism‎

There's an IP there trying to push a POV on a line in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle copied from Bede, where historians agree that the scribe, probably because the name Armenia was just a few lines above, wrote that the British came from Armenia rather than what Bede wrote, Armorica. His latest edit (his first was arguing that the mention of Armenia confirms the Declaration of Arbroath adds the word 'critics' to suggest that only critics think this. I've edited there twice in the last 24 hours, so... Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That whole section should go unless it's actually summarising the views of early BI theorists.which it does not appear to be doing. In any case, the Declaration of Arbroath does not seem to refer to Israelite tribes at all, except to date the migrations of the Scots. It never claims that the Scots are descended from Israelites. [1] Paul B (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article a bit today, not specifically on that issue though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Electrotrichogenesis

This article is very peculiar: it starts out with a medical study, but then has a bit criticizing the methodology and implying if not stating that the thing is quackery. I'm not sure whether this is a spammish article or not. Anyway, people with experience evaluating this sort of thing should take a look. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs some medical people on the case. I share your concerns. There's a reference to a paper in a bona fide journal but it is a) old and b) a small sample. Then someone has added their concerns not on the talk page but as text in the article. Who's around and knows about biology/medicine? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. There are moderately decent primary sources from the 1990s, but the method has received very little attention from MEDRS-quality review articles, and the couple that mention it don't make anything approaching a definitive statement. The tone of the existing article is definitely overstated in that there is no MEDRS source stating that the method is effective; however there is also no source stating that it is snake oil. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've sent this over to the dermatology task force for some expert opinion. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Serpent (symbolism)

Repeated edition of stuff about Tiamat contradicted by the main article and not properly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is our generic "proto-article" of random material heaped up waiting to be turned into an actual article. --dab (𒁳) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel

New article which I'm not sure is fringe or just weird/bad. If you look at the history or the talk page, it's about the "Religion of Moses and Israel " which seems to be something distinct from Judaism. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is original research. The original title was "Religion of Moses and Israel", which may have biblical roots but I know this phrase from Jewish wedding ceremonies, where I take it to mean simply the Jewish religion, or Judaism. The author of the entry in question also refers to the subject matter as "Moseic religion". This phrase is probably a misspelling of "Mosaic religion" which is just a very outdated synonym for Judaism, once again. There is nothing of worth covered in the entry that can't be covered in Judaism. I say blank and redirect it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

redirected. we'll see if it lasts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative.Griswaldo (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Religion of Ancient Israel" would be about the pre-exilic, pre-monotheistic religion and as such a sub-topic of Ancient Semitic religions. But this would generate needless controversy. It is probably best to redirect to Jewish_history#Ancient_Israelites. --dab (𒁳) 05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The original author[2] complained that already the move to "Religion of Ancient Israel" was a mistake, and I agree. What he was trying to create was an article on the term "Mosaic religion", which is indeed a synonym of Judaism, but which as a term does not seem to be addressed anywhere yet. --dab (𒁳) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths

This is worth looking at I believe, at least for those who don't think the word 'myth' should be driven from Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems like original research to me. Of course the word myth ought not to be driven from the Wiki but what's the encyclopedic value of that entry in the first place? What we don't need are Christian apologists and skeptics battling it out over their own non-scholarly understandings of "myth". Ugh.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at the articles just skimmed the mediation. There's some serious argumentation about stupid things. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty odd. I'm debating whether I want to wade in and rewrite it - It could use it, but I'm not sure the effort would be worth the subsequent headaches. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a while and wondering what on earth can be done with it. At first sight there seem to be two completely different issues covered: the myths and religious beliefs of pre-literate and proto-literate societies, and the modern - 19th century onwards - potentially verifiable stories about long-lived people. But perhaps also social anthropologists might see a continuity, so that in remote areas even today people tell stories about their long-lived elders in much the same way that they have done for millennia. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:TNT. At least split the pre-modern stuff from the "unverifiable claims" of modern provenance. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I used not TNT but a big pair of shears. Please feel free to be bolder. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shears help, but is there really a category of myth called "longevity myth"? Perhaps claims of longevity are a minor motif in some myths and other traditional stories, but not a category of myth as far as I can tell. Most of the examples in the entry are claims of human longevity found within myths and other stories. It really does appear that myth is used in the entry in sense of "urban myths" or other falsehoods that can be debunked. My gut tells me that there is a subject matter here, something that does connect claims of longevity in traditional stories and even in contemporary settings, but if this subject matter has found its way into scholarship I'm not seeing it in the entry, and I wouldn't imagine it was through the study of "longevity myths".Griswaldo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that perhaps longevity has been a topic or an example in the social anthropological/cultural anthropological study of myth and belief. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I would expect so ... do we know this for a fact? Are their studies of longevity in myth, or are we assuming that sources exist are because we like the topic? Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wonder as well. Like I said my gut says yes (at least in terms of motif) but some lazy research on my part hasn't turned much up yet ... though I emphasize the lazy part. Until something turns up I feel like this is original research.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation. Forget everything I said above. Straight to AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The background of User:Ryoung122, who appears to be a primary author and defender of the entry adds more fodder to the "straight to AfD" suggestion as well. From what I can tell, his book uses the term myth strictly in the sense of "fiction" or "falsehood". In his book he "debunks" longevity claims. Of course skeptics also like to "debunk" some religious beliefs that originate in stories that are truly myths, in the technical sense, but I'm not seeing that part of the equation. Is anyone?Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the hoax question, I thank you for noticing this issue, which was first challenged in 2004. But permit me to hold that it's not an AfD or shears material. There is a basic consensus at this family of articles (this one, then longevity claims, then list of supercentenarians, and not to mention such titles as list of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists)) that all 110-year-old claims are notable, although more rigorous monitoring has traditionally started at 113. However, because most editors of these topics are acquaintances of Ryoung122 through the Yahoo group World's Oldest People (also attempted as a wikigroup WP:WOP), their original-research classifications have stood all these years, even against numerous policies. For instance, the 18th-20th-century cases listed (and just deleted) at this article are here primarily because the Group doesn't want them counted as longevity claims. We are in a promising situation building toward agreement on the distinction between these articles, but the bold editing just shown needs to be enfolded into this discussion. Now that y'all have stepped in while there is an ongoing mediation, linked above, I would ask you to contribute to "new consensus" by working the following questions.

1. Are all secondary-source 110-year-old claims in fact notable? That is the old consensus, in that 110 is the disciplinary definition of "supercentenarian", there are a manageable number of cases (under 1000 living), and the semi-arbitrary age 110 has the benefit of longstanding acceptance. The sudden deletion of much sourced material is troubling unless the consensus changes that this information is no longer valid for WP. Because this one looks so obvious to me, I'll be doing a careful WP:BRD revert so as not to lose the essential content (primarily contributed by myself, cough). Note that because of the recentism bias of the Group, these and many more classical sources have been overlooked, and could and should be brought to bear to bring the big-picture view of past longevity claims that WP is noted for.
2. Is there a distinction between more "modern" claims and more "traditional" claims? We have agreed there is but not on what it is, a subject of the mediation. The GRG/WOP group has pretty well said the only distinction is that claims of 131 years, 0 days, are false and thus "myths" (in the sense forbidden to WP by WP:RNPOV). I have no problem discussing the mythos of longevity (in the permitted sense), but as this board has noticed, there is zero sourcing of the topic of "longevity myths" in sociologists or mythologists: it is all done by gerontologists, who routinely use the word "myth" in the verboten sense. (Ryoung122 has failed for 18 months to provide on-point sources.) You will note that the age 131 years, 0 days, is very arbitrary and subjective, and, I think, math abuse (Ryoung122 admits it is based on a statement by scientist Jay Olshansky that 130 is possible but not 150, which is only one POV). Having studied the case closely, I proposed a minimal-fuss objective division point that properly addresses WP's need to WP:SUMMARY the material into separate articles and that is both a clear distinction and not a significant intrusion. I said that we could file an uncontroverted claim at (modern) "claim" if updated after 1955 (the beginning of Guinness World Records modern standards) OR if earlier but containing full birthdate and deathdate; and at the other article ("tradition" or "myth") otherwise. This means swapping only a handful of names from one article to the other, but Ryoung122 has not commented on this proposal yet. While any distinction between the two articles would be a form of OR, a subjective one based on flouting WP:RNPOV should be replaced by an objective one that is not much different from alphabetical breakdown.
3. What should the "traditional" article be called? As you note, "longevity myths" breaks policy. My attempts to go to "longevity traditions", "longevity stories", "longevity folklore" and the like have been fought tooth and nail. Given that the topic is notable and the division is objective, the question would be how to name it, as well as its associated category (currently forked into two categories "traditions" and "myths").

The various subcategory questions at mediation need not be addressed by this board, but these basic questions above are apropos and worthy of a consensus by outside Wikipedians that has not materialized for 6 years. JJB 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that I fail to see the encyclopedic value of anything associated with this category -- Category:Supercentenarians. Have we become the guiness book of world records all of a sudden? Talk about WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A significant rationale is that this area is rife for misinformation and that people who want to know what reliable sources say about any given supercentenarian they hear of would want a balanced article rather than to rely on the rarefied GWR, or any other nontertiary (noncomparative) source. If you see an unexpandable stub at any point, it can be merged back into a main article. But in general, most category members meet independent notability guidelines, or can be given to AFD individually in case you might disagree. Many of these predate GWR as well and WP is the perfect place to collate promoting mentions with debunking mentions insofar as both exist. And, yes, records in general are something we do quite a lot of, in our own way. Would you mind commenting more directly on my 3 board questions above? Thank you. This notability for individuals is not to preclude the axing of some of the regurgitative list articles based on WP:N and WP:NOR, especially when they can be shown to be overweight re-presentations of other articles. Dealing with the larger WP:WALLEDGARDEN of such articles needs many hands and is why my wife calls this thing "PickyWeedia". JJB 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The same rationale is possible for any piece of information that someone could conceivably want to know. We do not collect and publish all such pieces of information as I understand it. You say the area is rife with misinformation, but so what? How does that make the information encyclopedic, and really how important is it for people to have the correct information available at Wikipedia about any given centenarian supercentenarian? I said this before but there are hobbyists who are obsessed with all kinds of things, I don't think we ought to publish all the lists of information that every such group likes to collect. As to your points above I've already expressed my views on the article. It is original research and ought to get the axe. Salvageable information in it should go elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I said supercentenarians, not centenarians; there are less than 1000 living supercentenarians and most of them do not appear in secondary sources. The issue of lists of notable centenarians is another topic entirely. But I fail to see the OR today except for the title (18 months ago it was quite obvious). JJB 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the entry is based on. 1) A recent notion of maximum age and 2) an indiscriminate list of individuals (whether historical or mythical) whom someone claimed lived longer than they possibly could have. Mix and matching the historical and mythical is pretty "smack you in face" obviously OR. But don't take my word for it, take a good look at the big crater like hole in the entry's sourcing when it comes to reliable sources that actually treat this as a viable subject matter in its own right. I really don't know what more I can say about this, I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, and not for the first time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge back into longevity is the only solution I can see. 2-3 paras in that article, with links to the Sumerian kings, the Biblical stories, any other things that have their own articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Leaving aside the fact that those are all WP:SOFIXIT issues brought in by the 7 years of imbalance (there is no maximum-age notion left except for the one I am fighting in mediation; there is no claim of living "longer than they possibly could", as that makes a scientific judgment which scientists dispute; as for sourcing, other editors have ignored tertiary sourcing beyond Thoms, Boia, MPG and GWR, but I brought in the more comprehensive Haller 18th c., Hulbert 1825, Prichard 1836, Brewer 1905, Custance 1976, Wright 1996, Faig 2002), let me ask you a favor please. If you believe that not all people above a certain age (viz., 110) are notable for line-inclusion in lists, could you please start any AFD process by seeking consensus on some other article than this one that I've worked quite hard to bring up to standard? It looks like we have been spared some of the GRG specials like "last living people born in the 1890s", but here's some ideas for AFD:

• list of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• list of the verified oldest men
• list of oldest people by year of birth
• list of Belgian supercentenarians
• list of oldest twins
• list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009
• list of centenarians (miscellaneous)

I almost merged that last one myself but just didn't have enough impetus. Also ping me on the AFD because I don't watchlist them! If you want to work on the OR walled-garden, it is a much bigger field than the patch I've been working on last year and this year. Thanks! JJB 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning all this up needs a collective effort. Many hands make light work, and I suggest that you take this through WikiProject World's Oldest People. Get agreement on what makes a list notable, etc. But also from time to time bring in people completely outside the wikiproject, because the article we started off discussing here might have seemed OK to someone deeply involved in the topic, but it definitely didn't look OK to people coming to it out of the blue. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done already (note date, and response). JJB 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed merger back into the parent longevity article; please join in the discussion on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible solution.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are needed at this page. "Longevity myth", as defined on this page is simply not a viable subject matter. It appears that some record experts and possibly even medical experts use a very sloppy notion of "myth" to encompass both actual myths that include characters who could not have lived as long as claimed, and urban myths, rumors and various other false but more contemporaneous claims to old age. If we do indeed care about the retention and proper use of terms like "myth" here on the encyclopedia then sorting this mess out would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank y'all for coming in despite our disagreements. I agree more eyes are needed but I propose we do this by adjourning from this board and continuing at the hot topic WP:COIN#User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths, as well as the articles and an RFC I am likely to start. I am counting mediation on hold due to mediator's last edit being 21:47, 1 Oct. JJB 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Did it without RFC at Talk:Longevity myths#Questions to Griswaldo, thanks. JJB 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is restarting, with a new mediator. I have posted on what I think is the main item for discussion (i.e. whether the article should exist at all, cf first posts in this thread). Please, all FTN people have a look and a say in the mediation. This has been too messy too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument about what "myth" means might benefit from a reading of The Power of Myth. Myth does not equal false. Nor does it equal, necessarily, religious. I was pretty sure Joseph Campbell acolytes as diverse as George Lucas and Bill Moyers had helped settle these questions. It's hard for me to see why these topics are worth the number of electrons wasted disputing them. One clear problem is pugnacious incivility. Others include obvious violations of WP:COI and, especially, violations of WP:OWN. Also a truly jaw-dropping, blithely wiki-ignorant effort to bolster an argument by citation to an editor's own doctoral thesis. Not to mention an "expert" who has been judged, by consensus, to be non-notable. Reasonable people can resolve their differences collaboratively. But that pre-supposes a condition that's clearly lacking here.David in DC (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Free space

See [3] Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

• List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This is a landing page for several conspiracy theory searches (most notably, Jewish conspiracy), but the state of sourcing is very dire. I think a concerted effort to improve the sourcing for this wouldn't be too hard; as it serves the purpose of an index, we can use citations from other articles. In addition, we could include brief summaries of conspiracy theories we've just linked to in a bulletted list. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat shows three encyclopedias of conspiracy theories here and at least two of them look to probably qualify as reliable sources as per RS. They would probably be a good start for referencing, if anyone has access to them. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I own the third one on that list - Conspiracy encyclopedia : the encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. It's very long. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And almost entirely avail on google books at http://books.google.com/books?id=4QBjaEMELSsC&pg=PA92&dq=Conspiracy+encyclopedia+:+the+encyclopedia+of+conspiracy+theories&hl=en&ei=pTPHTMaJKsT6lwfkuMTrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Conspiracy%20encyclopedia%20%3A%20the%20encyclopedia%20of%20conspiracy%20theories&f=false Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And as a publication of the Penguin Group, it is certainly RS. I think it would make sense to reference everything possible from that book, and maybe some of the others, indicate all the others as unreferenced, and maybe add the Template:dynamic list to the page. Then, after some time, if the unreferenced ones aren't referenced, or referencable by those sources, remove them as unreferenced. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

As he died recently this article is getting a bit of attention - including an edit warrior now on 4 or 5RR despite a warning. If people could just keep a light eye on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now a few other editors involved, but it's getting pretty messy with at least, I believe, one BLP violation (to do with a historian, not Sitchin). Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've place a 24 hr block for the edit warring, not to mention personal attacks. We'll see if that motivates any change in behavior. Looie496 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Israelites

This article's lead states " The term "Israelites" (or theTwelve Tribes or Children of Israel) means both a people, the descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin." Not surprisingly, on the talk page it is being insisted, if I read it correctly, that the Israelites never had any other gods than Yahweh. Is this a fringe view or a different sort of problem? Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Israelites" and "Jews". "those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin" are known as "Jews" or "Jewish converts", not "Israelites". "Israelites" is a historical term, referring to the period of the 11th to 7th centuries BC. By the testimony of the Hebrew Bible itself, this people worshipped lots of deities, especially "Baals", and only towards the very end of the 7th century came to worship the "God of Israel" exclusively. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAQ RfC-NPOV issues

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Greeks

Hi, I'm posting my concerns about the info box statistics in the Greeks article here because I am being completely ignored on the discussion page. I have been trying to discuss the matter for almost a month without having disputes or edit-wars yet there are no improvements. On 9th October 2010, I expressed my concerns (see here: [4]) about the inflation of numbers. In return User:Athenean placed the Turkish people info box on this notice board arguing that it was in fact that article which had numbers inflated (see here: [5]). I am not being taken seriously by this user, or anyone else for that matter. I have tried to use the discuss page but no one is replying to my comments. Furthermore, User:Athenean has already expressed that they will not discuss the matter of the Greeks info box with me (see here: [6]) as they believe that I am creating some kind of retaliation.

Here are my concerns:

• Greece: Greece's census does not collect data on ethnicity thus that figure includes all Greek citizens regardless of their ethnicity. As CIA states [7] 'percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity'.
• Cyprus: The reference being used is the CIA which I am fine with. However, if one looks at the discussion page Greek users have objected to CIA being used for estimating the Greek population in Greece or Albania as it gives a significantly lower figure. CIA gives the following information:
  • Greece. Population: 10,737,428. Greeks: 93% = 9,985,808 Greeks
  • Albania. Population: 3,639,453. Greeks: 3% = 109,183 Greeks
  • Cyprus. Population: 1,084,748. Greeks: 77% = 835,255 Greeks

Currently, CIA is only being used for the estimated population in Cyprus- probably because of the high estimate. I don't mind either way if CIA is used or not BUT we must have consistency. If CIA is reliable enough for Cyprus then why not Greece or Albania?

• Australia: The reference being used is by the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs which lists the population of all the Greek diaspora in one table. However, the source is only being used for Australia as it gives a high estimate of 700,000 yet it is not being used for the other countries (some in which the source gives lower estimates e.g. the United Kingdom est 200,000 Greeks).
• Germany: This figure includes all Greek citizens including a noticeable Turkish minority from Western Thrace (see: Turks in Germany and Greeks in Germany).
• Turkey: a footnote has been provided in the footnotes section of the info box stating the following: There are over 1,500,000 Greek Muslims though most identify as Turks. I tried to remove this as there is no reference provided but it was reverted by an edit from User:Athenean.
• There are many more problems; some of the references are in fact dead links whilst others are questionable too.

I hope I will be taken seriously here. I must admit that I fear that the Turkish people article will suffer the consequences due to me writing all this here. Turco85 (Talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???

Stop beating the dead horse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The_Circus_(film)#.22Time_traveler.22_footage Thoughts??? -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Did a little copyedit to reflect that the reaction to Clarke's interpretation of the clip is what's notable, not any actual controversy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC) And I cleaned it up some more. Not sure this is so much a fringe theory - no one is touting it as such (at least, not sanely, that is). Clarke is at a loss to explain what is going on, and is suggesting that the posture is that of someone talking on a cell phone. The time traveler stuff was added by reliable media. ignoring it seems , well, stupid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Agree except for Clarke's role. When we have reliable sources reporting that "Clarke believes the woman could be a time-traveler", it's not our task to sort out the degree of Clarke's belief (or what may or may not have been added by media). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, I've had to revert an editor who insists on inserting material in the article lead connecting this story to out of place artifact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC) WP:DUE: this is a recent internet meme, in no proportion to the notability of the 1928 picture. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I would agree. Also it seems rather disengenuous to say that clarke does not think 'she' is a time traveller when she is using a piece of technology that would not exsist for about another 50 years (he also goes on to counter the susgestion that in the 1920's she would have no one to talk to by saying if she were a time traveller such things would not matter, so yes he does in fact make the connection). Its also begining to look like it might be a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Update: Please see Charlie Chaplin Time Traveler is just an old Lady using a Siemens Hearing Aid. Not a hoax. Also, not time travel. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Does not explain why there are claims that other versions of the extra do not include the women, or that the film technique used in this clip did not exsist at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, okay, most interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with dab re WP:DUE. The old and very specious argument that it's another editor's burden to add material that offsets the overweighting toward recent events is being bandied about on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Lol. I completely disagree. The only reason someone has presented the UNDUE argument is that the article was anemic prior to this instance. Two sentences in the Lede were added (as the Lede serves as overview as well as introduction to the topic) to reflect the news stories from several reliable sources. Additionally, a small subsection regarding the matter was added to the article, one of only three sections in the 1800 word article. Instead of bitching about how this recently-added section is overcrowding the article, maybe take the hint and expand the article, so that the recent event doesn't appear to feature so prominently. That's like trick or treating at only three houses and complaining that the apple you got from one house is so much larger than the lollipops you got from the other two homes. Also, i find the amount of Sherlocking going on here shocking and entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to engage in. Doing so creates an environment wherein synthesis can easily occur. Stick to the sources, which are reliable, notable and all over the place. Keep yourself and your personal views out of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) AGF, be civil and no one owns any page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC) All good practices, bu I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic being discussed, SS - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) One do not accuse others of alolwing personal views to affect judgement for a start. Also your attitude seems to be (I may be wonrg) 'I have decided it will, stay and it will becasue I have decided'. That could be seen (as well as certain other attituds you have shown) that you are exercsing a kinid of ownership, not of the page but, of the contentious material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The article was definitely anemic before the "time traveller" section was added, but that does not excuse adding a section that would be disproportionate even in a long article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: Agree that it is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: How, precisely, is it undue weight? The way I see it, it is a brief reporting of a current bit in an endemic article. If anything, the article should be expanded. Other examples of similar instances in the articles (The Crow and Poltergeist and others spring to mind) actually go into greater detail thanes presented here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) In the examples you give the stories relate to the production, not the showing. That is why its undue, ita not about the film.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I've tagged the article accordingly, though the "bold" instinct in me is to take it out completely. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I think that would be a mistake at this point, and would likely trigger an escalation of the matter. Contribute to discussion and realize that Boldness isn't going to be an effective tactic at this point - there's been too much of that already. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't had a chance to wade through the voluminous discussion on the talk page, but do any other editors support this section other than you? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I reviewed the discussion, and Jack Sebastian appears to be the only one endorsing a full-fledged section about the situation. Based on editors' response in that discussion and this one, I will be trimming down the section. I invite others to join and monitor the page. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC) All mention of this belongs removed from the article. It's an online fad a couple of days old. Wikipedia is not a blog. No amount of adding relevant material to the article will "tip the balance" and make this in any way worthy of inclusion. Realistically, the article will just need to remain tagged for cleanup for a couple of weeks until the "meme" crowd has moved on to the next fad. Inclusion of this item is leeching off the notability of the 1928 film even though the fact that the 1928 footage is from the premiere of a notable film is completely irrelevant. If people think this has any notability, let them create a George Clarke article and defend it on its own merits. --dab (𒁳) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I agree. It all should go. I'm surprised it has remained there at all if only one editor wants it there, and it is totally against policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Precisely where, Scotty, does it violate policy? It isn't Undue Weight - the article is in fact anemic. Is it OR? Nope, indeed, everything written is reliably (and often redundantly) sourced. Is it NPOV? Again, no. No views were espoused from any editor - except perhaps for an elitist view that current events surrounding something noticed in an old film apparently have no value whatsoever. I am not sure what policy its violating, and am left with the distinct impression tha this is one of those 'I' don't like it, so we're getting rid of it' decisions that are both unencyclopedic and a step onto the slippery slope of personal bias. The encyclopedia lost today, folks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Lets get something clear. It was not seen in the film, but in film of the premiere (assuming its not a hoax). That is why its undue, its not about the making of the film or even how well the film did just some in incidental piece of trivia. There may be a place for it, but not here (indead an alternative place for it has been proposed). Also I have to say that your attachment to this is rather extreme and perhaps you should examine your own motivations.Slatersteven (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) First of all, please do not presume to impart upon me any sort of attachment, Slatersteven; I've already noted how I don't subscribe to Clarke's opinion or conclusions. My motivations in regards to this have been only in regards to wiki policy and guidelines, which everyone - including Erik - chose to conveniently up and forget. We have solid precedents for these sorts of sections in a great many films - The Crow, Poltergeist, Atuk, and The Conqueror are but a few. It belongs in this article. The rest of you don't see it, and lost the plot about how to deal with it. Short-sightedness is one of the constants of the universe; I'll get over this example of it. And don't be fooled by some vague promise of putting it elsewhere. It's hasn't shown up there, and dollars to donuts say that most peole world prefer it vanish forever. Those are the same sorts of folk that treat the wiki like some fan forum. Like I said, more's the pity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I hesitate to wind you up about this any more, Jack, but what the hell are you talking about? Precedents? "These sorts of sections"? HUH? The article on The Crow has a section on how Brandon Lee was accidentally shot during filming. Atuk is a film that's never been made. There's a section in that article describing how some people think the project is cursed. Poltergeist has a sentence or two on some kind of curse. The Conquerer contains material on how John Wayne and a lot of others on that project got cancer, possibly because they were shooting downwind of a nuclear test site. This is an internet meme about some guy who thought he saw something in one of the DVD extras, not even part of the film, that looked like someone talking on a cell phone. This is not even in the film, but in a DVD that came out 75 years later. So where's the similarity? It doesn't have anything to do with a "curse". No one died. Does any vague connection to the paranormal make it similar? The sections in the articles on The Conqueror and The Crow don't have anything to do with the paranormal anyway. You're not making sense. No, I mean you're really, really not making sense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The only thing that "winds me up", Stephen is intransigence and rude jagoffs (Well, that, and clowns, but that's a different conversation.) Since you claim to not understand my reasoning, allow me to connect the dots a wee bit better. The last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't in the business of debunking myths or Sherlocking stories for truth; indeed, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We have verifiable sources regarding a genuine news story - a news story directly related to one of our articles. So we theorize that its a "flash in the pan" or just a "Halloween prank" or "a hoax" - all symptoms of speculation. We don't know it's nature, and it isn't up to us to determine the veracity of the claim; we simply ensure that valid, reliable sources are being used to substantiate those claims, and allow the reader to make up their own minds and explore how they will. To excise information because you disagree with the content is censorship, something I am fairly certain isn't one of our polices, either. The prior instances or precedents indicate that we do allow for related information to be incorporated into articles, even when not absolutely related to the specific subject matter. Curses, radiation, bad luck, whatever - it's all allowed, as shown by example. So, it isn't about a supposed woman from the supposed future talking on a supposed cellular phone - it never was. It was about adding information about the same topic into the same article. As I see it, others obstinately sidestepped most of our polices to make an elitist decision about a reliably-sourced story that they didn't like. What I don't see as making sense is why you aren't aghast at this, Steven. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I fail to spot sections about time travellers walking past screenings of The Crow, or Poltergeist. I also fail to see how a 1928 hearing aid being mistaken for a mobile phone in 2010 has anything to do with Charlie Chaplin's film, or films in general. The statement "It isn't Undue Weight - the article is in fact anemic" alone is sufficient to establish that Jack Sebastian doesn't even understand what is being discussed. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC) See, this is the part that pisses me off about Wikipedia; editors get a bug up their ass about the nature of a thing, and nothing short of a metaphorical machete can pry it loose, even when they are wrong. Dbachmann, can you say with absolute certainty that the woman is talking to into a hearing aid? Maybe she's batshit insane and talking to a box of Cracker Jack. Maybe she works for CONTROL, and is talking to Maxwell Smart or Jesus via her shoe. We don't know what is actually going on, and yet you are already stating with specific certainty that the thing in her hand is a 1928 hearing aid. Not sure what experience you've had with these things, but I'm pretty sure you listen to hearing aids, not talk into them. Of course, if you were there,a nd can speak authoritatively on the subject, I'm all ears. And, as I said above, it isn't about time travelers; it never was. It's about using cited, reliable information about a topic in an article about that same topic. Is a woman outside the filmed premiere of Circus directly related to the film? No more than a supposed curse is related to Poltergeist or radiation sickness is related to The Conqueror. When you start out with an article that's less than 1800 characters and add a normal (actually smaller than normal) section, of course its going to be larger than the rest of the article; the plot itself was only two sentences long. I get what's being discussed; I'm not entirely convinced that some others do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The Poltergeist and The Conqueror stories are related to production, not distribution. And no the sequence is not the subject of the article, the subject of the article is the film not its premier (which did not even have a section until this story was found). No she is not directly related to the film, any more then the number 29 driving past would be. She is at best related to the premier (not the film) by indirect association (IE in the same place at the same time). So the best we can say is that she is linked by an indirect association to something that is linked to the film (I hear occams razor being sharpened here).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Ahh, where to start? The premiere was not for another film but this one - therefore, its related. The sequence was located on a DVD extras for the film, therefore its related. The #29 didn't attend the premiere, nor did the zebra - the story isn't about them. I could also point out that in the article about the musical Mam'zelle Champagne, it makes note of the fact that architect Stanford White was murdered by Harry K. Thaw on opening night. Not at all related to either the play, the music or the production of the musical. The same goes for Our American Cousin, the play at which American President Lincoln was assassinated while in attendance. Both completely unrelated to the plot, production or cast of the play, and yet, they still somehowmanaged to make it into the article. Why, because they were related to the subject matter. As Valenciano noted, tens of thousands of people have come to the article looking for info after the news story emerged. It seems...short-sighted (the kindest descriptive I could think of) to ignore that. We write an encyclopedia for the reader. We don't get to censor material because we don't like it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Was she attending the premier or just walking past? Also its been susgested by others (who have seen DVDs) that this material does not appear on other versions of the extra, so it may not in fact be actual footage of the premier. it is also very important no one questions that Lincoln was assisinated (also he is rathr more improtant this this 'time traveller'), Not the same with this time traveller where some major doubts have been rasied. the saem could be said of your other examples. I alsonote that you are still using other stuff exsists as an argument for retention, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, your points (cross-posted in the article's talk page) are malformed, Slatersteven. It doesn't matter if the woman attended the premiere or was walking past - her appearance was caught on the film provided int eh DVD extras for a Chaplin film collection. As well, your assertion that this doesn't appear in other DVD extras is misleading; surely you are aware that more than one DVD collection of Chaplin's films exist, right? Some apparently have the Extras film in question, and some do not. Likewise, your assertion that one instance was "more important" than another is an example of failing to see the larger picture. Again, it isn't about time travelers or cell phones or assassinations. It's about reliably-sourced information related to a subject making it into an article about that subject. Complaining about how other demonstrated applications of this concept is simply wrong (other stuff exists) is semantical; most applications of OSE presuppose that it is the only argument being submitted. It is not. The info is reliably cited, is clearly notable, and has other examples of where the same underlying principles have been utilized to foster inclusion (rather than exclusion). Therefore, it should be included as a small section of the article.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Jack, you don't seem to get it. This has nothing to do with the film. The fact that she happened be recorded walking along when there was a premiere of this particular film is pure coincidence. It might as well have been any other film or any other occasion on which people might have been filmed walking down the street. In other words the link to the film is virtually non-existent. That does not mean that the incident is necessarily not worth discussing, but that it does not belong in this particular article. Many things have happened at films, etc. Sometimes these events become significantly linked to the movie and its reception - as with the death of Dillinger at Manhattan Melodrama for example, but this has no meaning with respect to the film itself at all. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC) That same argument could be applied to Our American Cousin and "Mam'zelle Champagne" - no meaning with respect to the actual subjects themselves, but related nonetheless. This wasn't a woman caught in a newsreel about life in LA, it was a very specific filming of the premiere for this film. As well, we don't need to determine whether the Extras DVD is related - it demonstrably is, as it was collected in a set of Chaplin DVDs. Therefore, we needn't place our own Sherlocking above the obvious choice by those marketing the DVD collection. It is our chief mission to keep ourselves out of the process of making an encyclopedia. I'd also point out that Dillinger's death IS discussed in both the Lede as well as body of the article for Manhattan Melodrama (oops on your part, I guess :) )- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC) If you weren't so convinced you are so smart, you would look a lot less like a fool. I know it's discussed in the Manhattan Melodrama article. That's why I mentioned it, genius. The point I was making is that that event is sufficiently important to be relevant to the article on that film, being linked to its marketing and subsequent reputation. The same applies to Our American Cousin. I'm probably one of the few people here who've actually read that play, as I'm interested in its author, but I'd never suggest that the death of Lincoln should not be mentioned in the article. Paul B (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I f you find yourself unable to remain civil, perhaps you might want to consider taking a nap or something, Paul. At no point did I all you a moron or a fool for not following the hopscotch reasoning as to why the removal of this is a bad, bad idea. There was no call for you to act like a tool. Maybe you missed it, but I was pointing out that information related to a film belongs in the article for that film, just like film related to the Chaplin film belongs in the article for the Chaplin film. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) It is difficult to miss your point as you repeat it incessantly, and equally incessantly fail to engage with the substance of responses. This thread is not a debate, as you are not being responsive. Paul B (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What am I not responding to, Paul? I ask because I feel as well that others are completely ignoring/misapprehending the policies that we all have to follow, not just when we feel like it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The passage in question has been removed, in accordance with the (almost) unanimous consensus of editors here and on the talk page. I think it's time for this increasingly circular discussion to be hatted.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC) What, Scotty can't answer the question, so he wants it archived so he doesn't have to? Lame. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) No, it should be hatted because the issue has been resolved. Your repetitious arguments don't make it unresolved. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) And Clarke's Charlie Chaplin Time Travel Video is now in its rightful place as an Internet video meme at List of Internet phenomena#Videos right between "Dancing Matt" and "Charlie Bit My Finger". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC) It really doesn't belong there. If anything else comes of the video, you can bet it will be back. It's moronic in the extreme to remove that which drew attention to the article for the first time in almost 8 years. Extremely bad call. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The YouTube video of the Irish filmmaker showing a 4 second clip of a "DVD extra" is what got millions of hits, not the Chaplin film. The Chaplin film was never seen or examined. Yes, the film is peripherally related to this Internet meme, but so is Chaplin, time travel, cell phones, etc. and we're certainly not disrupting those articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Er, you might want to check the page stats for The Circus, LuckyLouie. The article received less than 1860 hits in September of this year. In October, the trend continued until the video was released on the 27th. At that time, traffic for the page peaked at 7600 times and for the month, the article was viewed 25.842 times - in three days. And again, I dismiss your usage of "internet meme"; it is an overused and oft-misapplied term that only serves to marginalize good data. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Er, our job is not to increase the page viewing statistics, but to write good articles on the topic. If only 6 people care, well, that's just the way it is. I guess I would be happy if more people were interested in Tom Taylor (author of Our American Cousin), but if someone claimed he was an alien, causing a brief blip of interest from the netsphere, that would not be a good reason to include the claim in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I already explained that to him. Look, the issue has been resolved. Let's hat this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I agree and Jack seems to have decided its over too [[8]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood

Following the problems at the Sitchin article, we now have problems at this article, eg [9] (only fringe writers believe the Piri Reis Map shows Antarctica, Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This bio shows signs of once having been a coatrack for "Polar Shift", e.g. little sections for "Evidence" and "Continuing Work", stuff covered at Polar shift theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The USAF claim comes from one of his own books, that cannot be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic fringiness

Two new chiropractic articles have been transferred from a user's sandbox. Not only are they not NPOV and are promotional, they are pushing unscientific BS as if it were reality, all without proper references. The articles need more eyes on them and some working over:

• Bio-Geometric Integration

• Potential Energy Theory of Subluxation

-- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The second article was speedily deleted as a copy vio and I tagged the first article for speedy deletion because parts of it were a copy-paste of the FAQ section of the eponymous institute of Sue Brown, DC. [10] Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

An editor insists that this is an "emerging" physics theory. A previous version of the article called it "non-mainstream". There may be other issues too. Eyes on this article would be appreciated. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That same editor Terra Novus (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statements to the lede, as well as a template ("beyond the standard model", which I removed as inappropriate), that continue to give the reader the impression that this theory has been accepted in mainstream physics. As many users have indicated on the article talk page, this does not seem to be the case. In addition Terra Novus has added Heim theory to that template. [11] I have provisionally removed it. Terra Novus has been reported multiple times at ANI for these kinds of contentious edits; each time he replies that he will reform and then four of five days later continues with similarly problematic edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, can you do anything more to clean up the article? I don't expect to understand physics articles, but I do expect them to let me know where theories stand in relation to the mainstream. Does the article perhaps need stubbing right down? Or merging with the article on Heim? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely separate problem and not one I'll tangle with. The stub ECE theory was not dissimilar; however, it was easy to write because of peer-reviewed criticisms and the public editorial in a journal by the Nobel laureate 't Hooft. In this case, there has been almost no reaction in the scientific literature to Heim's theories since their inception. Speaking off the record, I believe that the unpublished criticisms of Bruhn on difference operators are probably correct; and up till now there has been no account in print of a consistent and rigorous theory of difference operators on an arbitrary manifold. It is not a case of the jury being out on Heim theory: here it seems there's nobody on the jury! Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tagged it for an expert in Physics but am not holding my breath because Theory of everything has been so tagged since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus has perhaps broken one promise to many, looking at his talk page he's still adding YEC viewpoints to articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how my edits at Heim theory have anything to do with YEC. It strikes me that the editors involved with Heim theory need to discuss instead of continuing edit wars. I see my edits (in this case) as productive and adding to an area of Wikipedia that seems to be purposely neglected...--Novus Orator 06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith raises the very pertinent question of how a non-scientist can deduce if a topic in science is inside or outside the scientific mainstream. The answer is that it is in the mainstream if many scientists refer to it and it is outside the mainstream if few do. Nowadays it is easy to determine how much a subject is referred to by examining citations to it in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic or person is cited in scholarly publications that are peer reviewed, these are ipse facto mainstream publications. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is likely to have many thousands of citations, one that is not accepted very few. Heim theory, in the latter category, provides an archetypal example of this principle. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

See the ANI discussion for why your reasoning is incorrect. Having a theory in a certain database does not make or break its scientific status. Most scientists are very specialized, so they are only qualified to determine the status of a very narrow field, thus making that point misplaced.--Novus Orator 08:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What Xxanthippe wrote is perfectly correct and very well put. The notability and acceptance of a subject are assessed on wikipedia using WP:RS. In this case there are none. There are no review articles. As Cardamon has written elsewhere, wikipedia is not about gazing into a crystal ball. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Fresh off his block Terra Novus has made the following statement.[12] The following two edits [13][14] are also not particularly encouraging. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how they are not encouraging?--Novus Orator 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The last time things were explained to you was here.[15] Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article (FTL editors are being encouraged to take the topic off article see here)...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci I am afraid I don't see how the ban explanation has any specific bearing on your complaint of my current contentious behavior. I have not edited contentiously on any article since the expiration of my ban, so there is no substance to this thread...--Novus Orator 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism which at the moment has not been submitted through the normal channels for approval by the council for wikiprojects. The only supporter at the moment seems to be Terra Novus. In addition, it is not advisable for a single user, with a known record for problematic edits to physics articles, to create a template for emerging physics in his user space [16] and then soapbox about it on Talk:Heim theory.[17] Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been submitted through the normal channels here. I have the right to have experiments in my userspace. I am afraid I don't see how this relates to the topic....--Novus Orator 07:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice to the users involved in this conflict is to assume WP:Good Faith and to contribute constructively to discussions, instead of bickering on noticeboards...--Novus Orator 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by a single person cannot be described as a "dispute". The WikiProject YEC page is up for speedy deletion. [18] Multiple editors have pointed out problems on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now copied to user space). The experiment with the template is listed in the category "physics templates". It is the only such unapproved "experimental" template to appear there. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it from the category (Thanks for pointing that out-my bad). As for the WikiProject YEC, please take all discussion here. This is now a legitimate proposal so I suggest that you contribute constructively to the proposal thread.--Novus Orator 08:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And this fits in with your promise to avoid edting in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" how?

The Collapse of the United States‎

The Collapse of the United States‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could probably bear closer scrutiny. The very skimpy sourcing includes Jeffrey Nyquist and some obscure apocalyptic Christian website. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the apcalyptic links, and now just have the Russian interview...--Novus Orator 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article is discussed at greater length and in its proper context in Igor Panarin#Prediction of the USA's collapse in 2010. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll merge the content...--Novus Orator 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, it should never have been an independent article. Panarin biography should be reorganised so that it deals with each of his books/other major publications in turn, summarising the arguments of each, including review comments. That way readers can see how his ideas developed in context and how they were responded to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-cruft

Further to threads passim, what, if anything at all, is worth keeping from:

In my very humble opinion it is a walled garden guarded by WP:OWNers. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget everything here -- Category:Supercentenarians. Much of the material on these pages is sourced solely to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), members and fans of which apparently belong to the same Yahoo group and edit these entries on Wikipedia almost exclusively.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• On their website the GRG describe themselves as "Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years." I know nothing about gerontology but I wonder if this means they are at the fringes of the discipline. As a layman I would imagine most people who study aspects of aging do not share this objective.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

From grg website [19] the prime mover is L. Stephen Coles. According to his bio he qualified in electronic engineering and then again in obstetrics and gynecology. But the source could be regarded as SPS. He has published mainly in Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine, now Rejuvenation Research, which seems to be the house journal of this group. It's starting to look on the fringey side. Are any of our resident biologists/medics around? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For most everything they cite here, i.e., world records, they are as skeptical as the best of this board. They are also skeptical about resveratrol, Okinawa diet, and swamis. But as you two have noted, what they are is qualified gerontologists and amateur folklorists and (maybe) statisticians, and the allied editors are editing folklore and statistics. (It is probable that they have some basic grasp of statistics, but I have already presented evidence the prime mover Ryoung122 doesn't.)

Please stop with the personal attacks. If you believe that Noah lived to 950 when the scientific record is 122, the real fringe theorist is YOU and the real person who does not have a grasp of statistics is YOU, JJ.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the walled garden, I have been trying to rally for careful scope definition so we can determine what is WP keepable and what is plain vanity. As already said, I will back you up on the majority of AFD proposals. But I think a go-slow approach will work better to actually complete the massive job. I've thrown out all sorts of ideas for merge or delete in prior discussions. I would say, what do you two want to delete first, let me share my thoughts, and then we'll message WP:WOP and User:Ryoung122 and wait a couple days so we have a fair and notified start on AFDs. Going too fast would jeopardize a valid process by inviting accusations of, um, going too fast. JJB 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Actually I will make a recommendation: let's start with the three by-continent articles as the least defensible. I'd want to confirm I felt this way after reading the articles and histories, of course. (Yes I did just say delete prior to reading them, that shows how bad it is, hearing an inclusionist says that.) JJB 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a great map of the garden! JJB 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with notability criteria for lists, but something that really strikes me is the lists of centenarians. We have to draw the line somewhere, and since these days a lot of people live beyond 100... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Read it as "list of notable centenarians". Those are actually tamer because they resemble the unimpeachable list of Eagle Scouts (notable), but their breakdown is arbitrary, the titles abysmal, and a merge-to-biglonglist not inconsiderable. Another take is that you could delete the main article as redundant with the template and keep it occupationally or alphabetically broken down. (An agreement on subarticle max size would be needed, 100K is accepted by many people, these articles are much shorter than that.) But "delete all" would be a steeper climb because there are more articles, and they're more of a WP-style topic taken over by WP:WOP and thus a fixit. As to supercentenary articles, they don't require notability, but the idea that they should require at least one secondary source per name is also often flouted and thus can be another entry point. JJB 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the list of centenarians, it might be best to turn the list into a list of only those centenarians who meet notability guidelines, specifically including WP:NE, which would mean that those who are only notable for having reached an advanced age would not be included. I have a feeling that might include a large number of them. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for looking at this area. I think the list of centenarians already met your suggestion of being limited only to those with WP articles, and due to their all having occupational categories very few are likely to be notable solely for being 100 (which I agree would delete them there if so). The problem on that set is not OR/SYN or unencyclopedicity, but only presentation. There are a lot worse problems afoot though. Feel free to dip in anywhere. JJB 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on User:NickOrnstein's activity (apparently favoring deletion) on these articles, I have completed and/or created deletion nominations on the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie McMenamin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian)

JJB 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the usual suspects...JJBulten, Grismaldo, Itsmejudith and DavidinDC. I could call this the anti-supercentenarian attack cabal.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"The anti-supercentenarian attack cabal"? Ha. I've seen it all. You belong to the GRG and affiliated yahoo group that I'm finding out controls the relevant wikiproject here that inflicts upon the encyclopedia your own unencyclopedic hobby. The editors you name are not a cabal, but merely a number of people concerned about your trivia cruft for different reasons. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that this stuff is crufty, I have to ask... why is it being discussed here, on this noticeboard? I don't see a Fringe theory being presented when it comes to these articles. I would think this would be better discussed at WT:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar: the original attraction of Itsmejudith and Griswaldo was the possibility that I might have been inserting creation science into the one article (currently called longevity myths) that deals with ancient longevity cases. I think the consensus is that it's fine to mention the views of Biblical apologists in a single graf of that article balanced by a skeptical graf. There was also some concern that I used apologist Arthur Custance as a source (balanced by a skeptical source) relating to the outline of the article, but that has faded with apparent silent consensus accepting him, as he is not quoted on a creation science point.

Anyway, without putting myself at risk of being considered a forum shopper, I think WT:NOTE might be a good next step, but you might enjoy Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Might_wanna_Wake_Up.21 and following. David in DC seems to agree on wanting a centralized discussion, but there may not be critical mass for one yet. JJB 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're a forum-shopper. You have an agenda (a nonstandard, non-mainstream, anti-science, pro-fundamentalist) agenda and it's not difficult to find other editors on Wikipedia who have too much time on their hands.

Let's take a look at some FACTS:

1. The death of Eugenie Blanchard, considered the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group, generated more than 1,000 news articles on Google News, even though her age of just 114 was slightly below average for the world's oldest person.

2. Discussion regarding the GRG has already mediated and legitimated its place in the scientific mainstream. That's why it's featured in mainstream publications like the New York Times, Tokyo Times, BBC News, and the Wall Street Journal.

3. Other people have lives to live, work to do, and you are on here far too much, making up unsupported allegations.

4. For some reason, editors like ItsMeJudith favor the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to editing. To suggest merging or getting rid of the Oldest People article is tantamount to attacking Home Tree in Avatar. It's logically foolish because you don't merge a trunk-article into a branch-article.

That's enough for now, but I'm not done. To be continued.Ryoung122 05:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouija again

A user hell-bent (sorry for the pun) to disseminate warnings about "the dangers of Ouija" from a supernatural/religious POV has created a POV-FORK called Ouija Board Criticism. The material itself is cut and pasted from a copyrighted page so there are COPYVIO considerations as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The copyright issue seems to be spurious; from all that I can tell the places claiming copyright on it actually got it from use back in the days when this material was in the main article. That said the forking problem is very real considering that all of this material is stuff that was eliminated from the main article some time back. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual panic

I saw someone asking about this on the Ref Desks. In terms of psychology, this is pure fringe and ought to be merged into gay panic defense not offered as a separate article. I don't know enough about the legal side of it, however, to know if it has more legitimacy there. I'll mark it for the merge, but it could use some feedback from people who know more about it than I do. --Ludwigs2 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)