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. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the 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:

Ebionites

I have recently restored a template to the above article indicating that I believe it needs to be rewritten given the entirely undue weight the article gives to the theories of Robert Eisenman and James Tabor. Eisenman has been discussed on this page before, several of the surprisingly negative reviews of Tabor's work can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. The article is currently awaiting mediation from the mediation committee. Two editors are contesting the reduction. In neither case do I see any particular indication from what they have presented that the theories do not qualify clearly as "Fringe" as per [{WP:FT]]. I would welcome any review of the article talk page and the above linked to page of sources by anyone who frequents this board, and a statement from them on the talk page of the article about whether they believe, under the circumstances, the placement of the template is valid. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above description of the issue at hand is a textbook example of campaigning. Rather than wasting time on a biased collection of sources, I suggest looking at the article directly and judging for yourself. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would only point out that I believe the two editors who are supporting Eisenman and Tabor are the editors who have the greatest interest in the article, and that others, such as myself, have been basically waiting for the mediation to kick in before making alterations. One might see the indication of 3RR on the article on The Jesus Dynasty's talk page regarding the removal of a SPS as an indication as to how much effort is gone to by some to help ensure the material they want included is included. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have still not cleaned up your biased request despite AN/I's clear instruction that you do so here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I did remove the offending material, although it is interesting to see that you yourself may once again be engaging in what seems to be a habit of yours, to distract people from the real concerns which you refuse to address by making unfounded statements elsewhere. If you can't abide by WP:TPG and actually address the legitimate concerns raised on the article talk page regarding the weasel words, is it really asking that much of you to cease to make distracting allegations elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Some ufology stuff

I finished a clean-up of List of Ufologists, but a lot of the sourcing there needs some fixing.

Whew.

jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Definitely in need of a cleanup. Almost entirely fringe sources and a significant amount of coatracking.

Mentioned in Skepdic, so that source might help.

jps (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed down to what reliable sources could support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul R. Hill

Here's another issue:

Paul R. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

jps (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I could find no sources for this subject other than fringe pubs. Makes me wonder if he actually meets criteria for mainstream notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You may be right with this one. These articles are sometimes really hard to determine one way or another because the signal-to-noise in many of the attempts to locate sources is so low. I try my best, but anyway. AfD? jps (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Hill. jps (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assorted AfDs

In case you're interested:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Simondini‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ademar José Gevaerd‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla Turner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keel
  • This is a keep, but we desperately need to clean it up. jps (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (ufologist)
  • This is a keep, but it's an article in need of a cleanup. jps (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I scrubbed out a ton of "facts" sourced to fringe/conspiracy sites. I'm just The Cleaner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Hall
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECETI Institute
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bullard‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Bloecher
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilbert B. Smith‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sereda (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Watson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Redfern‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Good
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Pinotti
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng. Sanad Rashed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Volke‎

Some of these may actually have external notability, so if you can find some sources for them that would enable us to keep any of them, do help. However, I'm not all that optimistic.

jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Another UFO incident

In need of a serious cleansing:

Val Johnson incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials.

jps (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The cleaning chores in the UFO department are endless. While looking for sources for Val Johnson I ran across Jerome Clark. Is there no end to it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Clark is one of the most-used sources we have in this department because a previous editor must have been a huge fan and included a lot of his opinions in our ufology articles. His books are lauded by the ufology community and inclusion in his books has been used as an indicator of notability in some instances. jps (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Jerome Clark, sentences that start with "Perhaps his greatest achievement was..." gotta go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials." It is easy to see why. Proponents will detail objective specifics like time, place, damage, etc.. All critics can say is "not so", "not credible", "prove it", etc. - nothing specific except "he has a strange personality", "he was drunk", "he was making up stories", etc. which would all be likely explanations if it were not for the fact that this was a police officer on duty in the middle of the night who would have no capability to on his own recreate this damage when driving the vehicle at the same time. You would have to assume either that someone else did the damage, or that someone else was driving the vehicle, or that the damage was produced when the vehicle was not moving....Unless if you can fathom that he used some sort of gun to aim stuff at his car precisely when he was driving it! I suppose you will find the first and third explanations convincing enough, but given how little of this information you would trust, you could even believe that Val Johnson wasn't the police officer, or that there wasn't even a police car... or damage.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 12:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer multiple, bylined articles in established news outlets that treat the subject somewhat seriously and not wholly sensationally. As for Val Johnson, I'll take an amalgam of regional "page 7" coverage that at least demonstrates the story was the internet meme of its day. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Google News (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Val+Johnson%22+ufo&tbs=nws:1,ar:1) = Good CallKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific illiteracy is sky high. "In his 1983 book UFOs: The Public Deceived, UFO skeptic Philip Klass argued that the entire event was a hoax, and that Johnson had deliberately damaged his own patrol car. Among the pieces of evidence Klass found suspicious were Johnson's refusal to take a lie-detector test, the fact that the Honeywell engineer had found that dead insect matter still covered the two damaged antennas even after the supposed "impact", and that any ultraviolet light which could have burned Johnson's eyes would have been blocked by the windshield's vinyl layer and Johnson's sunglasses." Apparently Philip Klass forgot to mention that sunglasses should not be used to witness a solar eclipse and that there is nothing unusual or revealing about dead insect matter deposited on an antenna, especially if it is sticky, which is probably why it would stay on there in the first place. Does he think that objects impacting car parts would clean those parts?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned up Val Johnson incident. Meanwhile, somebody please help with Mothman, it's in embarrassing shape. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article slanted toward UFOlogy POV, showcasing "credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, is the article slanted towards a "Ufology POV". Among the sources are the Washington Post, a CIA report, Curtis Peebles Watch the Skies (he's a noted UFO Skeptic and an aviation historian for the Smithsonian Institution), and numerous references from Edward J. Ruppelt's The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ruppelt was an Air Force officer who had supervised Project Blue Book. All of those seem like rather credible sources to me. The article presents both the pro-and-con aspects of the case and is extensively footnoted from the above sources. Again, it seems like personal opinions are being disguised as Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for at least removing the most onerous material. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do try to be flexible, and I certainly saw your point and agreed about the offending passage. Also, I noticed that someone has deleted an entire paragraph which supports the Air Force's conclusions that the sightings were indeed explainable as misidentified stars and meteors and temperature inversion, and provides references to prove that point. I will restore that paragraph, as in its current state it is more pro-ufology than it should be.

Chinese martial arts

Just ran across this,

Wang Te Yuan of Szechwan province was young & powerful [...] BaGuaZhang instructor Fu Chen Sung stepped forward to fight Wang. The two fought evenly for ten rounds; then Wang charged in. “Like a matador,” Fu used the technique, “Old Buddha Puts On His Coat” to redirect Wang’s momentum and throw Wang to the ground.

Please help check it out, plus Wudang chuan, and generally everything by TommyKirchhoff (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe about the passage above, and it's cited to a woo-free book written/edited by three well-respected CMA practitioners. It could be rewritten to have a more encyclopedic tone however. And while haven't done a comprehensive check of TommyKirchhoff's edits, what bits I've seen so far look more like trimming away fringe/folklore in favor of serious history than the other way around. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tone aside, the information comes from a valid source. And one has to remember that not all martial arts techniques have been mentioned in print or in English for that matter.

Dab, could you please be more specific regarding his edits on Wudang Chuan and other pages? What exactly is fringe? As Ergative has noted, he is simply trying to demythologize martial arts history. The information he has argued for on the Wudang Chuan talk page agrees with what I have read in various scholarly books and research papers. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt good faith on the part of this editor. But the quality of his edits leaves much to be desired.

Does it not strike you as odd at all that the entire internet has never heard of an "Old Buddha Puts On His Coat" technique? This is a claim made in Fu Zhen Song's Dragon Bagua Zhang (Blue Snake Books, 2010) and nowhere else. This book is full of assertions, no doubt by authors who know what they are talking about, but it cites no literature whatsoever. It might as well be the first book about Chinese martial arts ever written, as it isn't aware of anything else.

as for Wudang chuan, the article has always been dodgy, and I am sure the editor has been trying to help.[1] It is still full of original synthesis, personal comments and hearsay evidence based on random websites. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dab's edits create inaccuracies worse that what he considers my "personal comments." To disregard an entire book based on the seeming non-existence of a technique Dab could not find "on the internet" is dubious and ridiculous. Seems the guy has an axe to grind with me, even though I'm using hard-nosed research and genuine expertise in this subject. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre denial

The article suffers from a large amount of POV issues, over half of the article are sourced directly from Japanese denialists of the Nanking Massacre such Shūdō Higashinakano (who was found to have defamed a witness of the massacre). In particular, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a gallery of photos [2] that is used to air Higashinakano's views. My concern is where the article adheres to WP:FRINGE, or provide undue weight to Higashinakano et al.--PCPP (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My language skills are non-existent in Japanese and Chinese, so I have been very limited in my ability to help out at that article. I think it would be very good to have someone familiar with the subject change it from being a platform for Higashinakano's views to being a neutral presentation of expert opinions from mainstream and significant minority sources, with less emphasis on minority opinions. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Armenia

This article is once again being butchered by a patriot. Experience says it's probably Ararat arev again, but who knows. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

90 Minutes in Heaven

plus associated articles, Don Piper and Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven.--Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm The Cleaner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Woah, that article is/was bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt

My comment on this article would be that I disagree with the fact that Roosevelt knew nothing about the Pearl Harbor attacks. I believe that he instigated them so that the U.S. would have to get into the war. People may get outraged at this, but I have sources to back it up. Here are some of them: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett; World War II: The rest of the story and how it affects you today by Richard Maybury; whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/.../pearl.html - www.nypress.com/article-4183-fdr-knew-pearl-harbor-was-coming.html - www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm Comments are welcome, but the facts are there. 69.247.188.19 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Pure fringe - covered more than adequately in the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new. Check out Ravensfire's link. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say there is a good bit of evidence pointing to the fact that he knew in that article! Furthermore, I have listed other sources that back it up. Another is The Pearl Harbor Myth:Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor. There is a good bit of evidence for both sides, and most people, presumably you included, believe what has been taught for years, that there was no prior knowledge. I have studied both sides, however, and find that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the fact that he knew about the attacks beforehand. You can't argue with government documents or statements by Navy officers from the time that were involved. Personalskeptic (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're here to save us from the mistakes in our early learning! We were completely unable to get beyond that without your timely hand up.<sarcasm/> Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa dude, aren't you the nice guy. Just trying to state some evidence, that's all. Never could've guessed you were being sarcastic. Personalskeptic (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You said about me, "presumably you included", but you presumed wrong.

If you want to help the Pearl Harbor debate article improve (and it could use some help), jump in with your suggestions at Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. Say 'hi' to Trekphiler who is the resident expert. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for assuming wrong. I also apologize for my rash comment a moment ago. I have been getting some flack from others, so it just got the best of me. I do respect others opinions, and I just want to make mine known, that's all. Personalskeptic (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat! Just another day here at Wikipedia. :P

Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha. BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\

No, he's open to new information, but I bet you do not have information that is new to him. He's seen quite a lot of the debate writings, from scholarly ones you haven't listed to popular books you are referring to. People regularly arrive at that page after reading Stinnett and getting mad, and Trekphiler has his sheaf of better-sourced rebuttals at the ready. Here in his adopted home town of Oakland, Stinnett is better known for his superb photographs of The Play. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, well, I try lol. I'm still researching to find new things, but he seems to know quite a bit about it. I'm trying to find not so well known material, but we'll see. He seems like he would pone me at the moment, lol. Personalskeptic (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Say 'hi' to Trekphiler who is the resident expert." Why thank you. :D

"BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\" I've followed the evidence, & I've yet to see anything contrary that's persuasive. I've also got a pretty good nose for bull, & it turns out, when I smell it, people who know more about it than me prove me right. (The review of Stinnett, frex, calls a lot of it pure invention & outright distortion. And Toland just felt wrong... You'd be persuaded by both, if you didn't know better.)

"No, he's open to new information, but I bet you do not have information that is new to him." Right on the first, probably also the second. (I'm not as current as I used to be, tho. :( )

"I'm trying to find not so well known material" Do yourself a favor. Read Prange's Verdict. It is the last word (or should be). Until we uncover the buried archives revealling FDR, Marshall, Stark, & McCollum were all secret Nazis. ;p

I am always, but always, willing to try to open the minds of those clouded by junk. Isaac Asimov once called those promoting ignorance something like "armies of darkness", & I thought it was a great phrase. He vowed to stand up to it, & I agreed. It's also probably the only thing I can claim in common :( with Isaac: intellectual honesty. I don't thrill to criticism, :( but the evidence is the evidence, & if I'm going to call myself a scientist, I've got to see it as it is. I'd like to think Isaac would appreciate it. (BTW, I never actually met the man, just knew him through his essays, & that saddens me quite a bit. :( :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

United States gravity control propulsion research

Why is the general category of General Relativity relevant to this fringe topic? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It shouldn't be in that category; this edit summary is accurate. Moreover, the article is mostly a synthesis of sources, with very few third-party reliable sources about the article topic. It is primarily an essay based on the extreme fringe views expressed in this section and this section. The article as it stands is a clear abuse of multiple citations in order to promote fringe. Tim Shuba (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This section seems to be a synthesis/soapboxing argument promoting a fringe view that antigravity technology is being suppressed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn#Mayan Taurat/Talmud Hypothesis - where I'm being used as a source!

This is funny. I've removed it once, it's been restored - and if you look at the phrase "critics such as 7 have argued " you'll see a link which doesn't work but is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller%7CDougweller". How nice to be used as a source. I'll leave this for a little while for amusement's sake. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Pan African Studies

Fringe journal, probably notable enough for its article, maybe needs a note saying published by an unaccredited institution. And can the article claim it's peer reviewed? Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a smaller Journal, but reviewing its' Editorial Board and Where its editors are affiliated I wouldn't doubt its Peer reviewed quality. Its not an A-list Journal but its not fringe either. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was led astray by it's rather odd publisher. I'd be hesitant about using any sources published by the unaccredited Amen-Ra Theological Seminary however. I note that at the moment the article is basically copyvio. And shouldn't it mention the publisher? Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

World Cat shows its by California Institute of Pan African Studies; SPARC (Organization) and Thomson Gale (a top academic publisher). Where is this "Amen-Ra Theological Seminary" coming from? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah found it Amen-Ra Theological Seminary, Hmm that is odd The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many Theological Seminaries lack outside secular accreditation. Most seminaries are only accredited by denominational bodies like Presbyterian Church (USA)'s "Presbyts" which are only accredited by PCUSA. If its legit enough for its Journal to attract attention from Temple University and Lamar University i dont think its an issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the board of editors. But where I would have issues is in using its own publications. So seminaries can be self-accredited and give doctorate degrees? And anyone can set up a seminary I presume. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much any one can. The degree would not necessarily be good every where... outside of Church pastorships or other seminaries or bible colleges it would be worth very little. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Extinction of Illyrian languages

Resolved

Believe it or not, someone is arguing in this day and age that the Illyrian language may not be extinct [3]. In addition to making false claims of consensus, this person is spamming the talkpage with cherry-picked and misinterpreted sources. My view is that even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, which is possible, the two would in any case be considered separate languages, which would mean Illyrian is quite extinct. The analogy is similar to Latin and Italian. Even though Italian descends from Latin, Latin is still considered a dead language. Actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin even today, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That text was added on September 2008 during a debate (in which none of us was involved) whether Albanian can be considered possible as a descendant of Illyrian, or modern form of Illyrian, in the end the Albanian language connection was put in the article. It has remained there unchallenged and stable for more than two years, while a few days ago it was removed claiming it a POV. I restored it while it was removed again by claiming it OR. While on talk page I brought what I think as WP:RS authors which back that claim and tried to explain that was a POV matter rather than a fringe theory. My idea is that there are two POV on that matter, both from respectable sources and they both should be presented in the article. We are here in wiki to collect data and present them here, not impose our opinions.

P.S.Let me notice that the analogy with Latin is a bit forced since Illyrian was not a written language and we have no clue how they spoke. Another best adapted analogy would be that of Celtic languages which today are still spoken in Ireland and Britain. Sure the existing form is very different from that of Roman times,pretty much the same difference would be between Illyrian and Albanian, if Albanian is the modern form of Illyrian. What is a consensus between academics is that we don't have sufficient data on Illyrian languages. It is a matter of personal perception, some called it extinct (while admitting they have no sufficient data) and some (also admitting there are no sufficient data) declaring it is not extinct since it exist in the modern form. There are more than respectable scholars who maintain both views and like I said, this is a matter of POV rather than fringe theories. Aigest (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

On the lighter side, its footnote #8, "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Albaner - Brife, Hanover, 1705..." must be one of the most verbosely and baroquely incomprehensible footnotes I've ever seen. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the theory that modern Albanian is the modern form of ancient Illyrian to be fringe, we need to know that the mainstream view is explicitly that it isn't. Are there a few reliable sources for that? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no mainstream view on that, on the contrary, I would say that Illyrian - Albanian connection has a majority view from its first appearance as hypothesis in 18th century to nowadays. Remember that just I said above there are too few data from Illyrian language to make a proper evaluation, that's why other methods have been used (history, geography, archaeology, toponyms, Albanian language characteristics, loanwords, etc) see Mallory - Adams 1997 (two great scholars on Indoeuropean linguistics ) on the link I provided above. Aigest (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is why infoboxen are a bad idea, round bajillion? They are totally inadequate vehicles to express complex concepts.

• From memory, at any rate, it's roughly clear that Albanian likely descended from Illyrian or something like it, but we have absolutely no idea what. For some reason an extremely strengthened version of this has become a big meme in Albanian nationalist mythology (can't remember why?). No matter: whatever descendants Illyrian has or hasn't, it itself is unquestionably "dead" (like Latin), if not necessarily "extinct", which sort of implies it left no descendants (which it might well have done). I would prefer just to remove the stupid box altogether, but failing that labelling Illyrian as "dead" is totally fair, unlike the stupidly tendentious text currently fouling up the box. Best, Moreschi (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that by adding that most scholars consider Albanian, a descendant of Illyrian the infobox dispute would be solved.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. This is the problem with infoboxes. The key words are "Illyrian or something like it". We know basically nothing about Illyrian (see Thraco-Illyrian for an illustration of how little people agree), and therefore it's inaccurate to simply put in the box what you propose. The best solution is to scrap the box, or just call Illyrian dead, which it unquestionably is. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to put that in the box, but on a separate section with a summary on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And what do you propose for the box? Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts about the article. At the moment there's nothing about either aspect of the dispute on the article itself, so the |extinct shouldn't even be part of the infobox. Incidentally a similar dispute is the Aquitanian-Basque connection. Many scholars consider the Aquitanian language an ancestor of Basque(which would mean that Aquitanian isn't extinct) and there's a section about that issue, which is summarized on the infobox.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would propose "probably by the 6th century AD" for the Extinction field of the box, as is done in Dacian language (which may also be the ancestor of Albanian). That should address all the major concerns without being verbose and tendentious. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)We should deal with the majority vs. minority views issues that exist. Dacian as an ancestor of Albanian is marginalized and a minor academic view more or less comparable with Basque, as part of the Vasconic substratum, unlike Illyrian and Aquitanian, which are the predominant views.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Marginalized" and "minor"? Not at all (outside Albanian circles, that is). Not interested in your OR. Athenean (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)It's not an estimation since most scholars who have studied with the Albanian language make the connection with the Illyrian language and not the Dacian one(summary of theories or the Encyclopedia of IE culture). Academically although the Illyrian theory is the predominant one, other theories exist but they are so marginalized that sources like Britannica don't even mention them They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce.. Btw Moreschi's edit [4] is a very good solution.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Put down the stick and slowly back from the horse. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)I suggested that edit of Moreschi's, so why did you make that wp:horse edit?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a shade unnecessary? Apology forthcoming? Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A side remark. A few days ago, for completely unrelated reasons, I happened to rewrite [5] part of the BLP of Victor Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, who is an expert on Balkan linguistics. He has published in Albanian and wrote a book on the language in 2004. On his website various articles are accessible, including this one from 1988. [6] There he writes

The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (A.D. 550-630).

There's probably more recent stuff (the 2004 book is not easily accessible). It was just an accident that I happened to make those edits, but that is wikipedia for you. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You saved the article so it was a good accident :). Btw he's citing Fine, who has summarized Georgiev's Dacian thesis. His 2004 work is probably why he was made a Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo(so you can guess it's topic ;))--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORSE applies, because though Moreschi's edit resolved the dispute, ZjarriRrethues went on and on about how the Illyrian theory is the "predominant" one and had to have the last word, even though that is a) tendentious (as Mathsci's quote illustrates), b)largely irrelevant to the dispute, and c) after Moreschi's edit, moot. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A dispute was resolved, so please don't continue a discussion only to make edits about how tendetious what I write is.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

St Ives, Cambridgeshire

Sorry if it is the wrong forum - i am new to this, but there are some strange statements in the "St Ives" article:

In section "Churches":

The only centre of True worship in St Ives is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in Green Howe. There you will find a non-judgemental welcome and no plate passing! The Congregation numbers around 100 members of all ages. No one is turned away from their public meetings. You will often see their members knocking on doors around the St Ives area. They carry a simple message designed to stimulate interest in the bible. If you want to hear the truth about God's word and not have your 'ears tickled' then this is the place to go.

In section "Protection":

The town of Saint Ives in Cambridge is protected by the hidden force of Careless Army and has a hidden alliance with Germany and Russia. The Careless army is older than Saint Ives and is obsessed with power and money. No one would want to fight the powerful army, which is more than 100 times bigger than the British Army.

br Flo

It's not really "fringe", it's just vandalism or trolling. Any user may remove it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Books by Koenraad Elst

I see that we have articles on a number of books by the writer Koenraad Elst. He advocates a non-mainstream line on Indian history, chiming with certain themes in Indian nationalism, on the verge at least of extremism. I would not have thought that these books are notable in their own right. They received little or no scholarly attention. I'm thinking of merging them all back into the biography of Elst. Any views? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's either that or AfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't think most of them - or any - will pass WP:NBOOK, which seems like a pretty reasonable guideline. One or two might have got enough mainstream or scholarly attention so that the article could be more than just a simple "plot summary", but for the rest, merge away. AFD is a waste of time. Moreschi (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

We have an IP editing this who is inserting details about someone's qualifications which are not only unsourced but irrelevant to the article (the IP seems a bit gung-ho on adding 'biologist' to articles) and although I'd appreciate a watch on this, I've noticed the section the IP edited is sourced only to the Institute of Creation Research, and I'm dubious about that being a good enough source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the IP's edits seem to indicate a COI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd missed that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings

Pseudohistorical book being used as a reference in a few articles [7] - I came across this when looking at the edits of an IP some of us will have noticed: [8] is an attempt to add Supery's ideas to an article. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not even give the basic info when this book was published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is because the article's creator removed it from our Vikings article and put it into a new article as he didn't think it had a place in the Vikings one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Secret des Vikings/ Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It should have been deleted. If renominated now I'm pretty sure it will get the axe.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine[9] or Google News[10]. Google News Archive[11] and Google Scholar[12] turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A library card, that is all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Now being passionately defended by Ossegor (talk · contribs). Not sure what the agenda is, exactly, but seems pretty fun....Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Aha: judging by this, it seems like the author himself has graced us with his presence, after having previously visited our francophone counterparts. Hmmm...Moreschi (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Secret_des_Vikings_(2nd_nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Editor adding promotional edit about some unpublished minor fringe idea. Ignores messages on talk page, edit summaries. See also his userpage at User:Arkquest

Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Please, good sir Arkquest, do not keep reverting without explaining yourself first, and read our policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and notability before putting this stuff in again (that's WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V). Moreschi (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Abir-Qesheth Hebrew Warrior Arts

Created by a now blocked puppet master, claims it " has an unbroken tradition from its roots as a fighting system of the warriors of ancient Israel.". Much of the same material is in Yehoshua Sofer (who does seem notable as a Jamaican Jewish musician). Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, does anybody have an email address for the good people at Bullshido? This is setting off alarm bells all over the place. An ancient martial arts system miraculously preserved since biblical times in tiny fragments of the Jewish diaspora? Really? Really? It's actually been spammed elsewhere on the web with...interesting results (check out [13]).

At any rate, probably redirect this to the guy's biography, and cut his page down to what he's actually notable for, if anything. Moreschi (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no, it's on bullshido already. Check out the sensational action videos at [14] (scroll down a bit).

Sorry, I really shouldn't, but we've had BS martial arts stuff here before, and it never gets old, it really doesn't :) Moreschi (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

sigh, can you say Stav? --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, I just noted this and this. So now we keep articles about crappy martial arts hoaxes, but we delete the prime site notable for exposing them? Way to go Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hagar (Bible)

I'd be grateful is some editors could have a look at this. I've got into a dispute with an editor who insists on replacing the longstanding assertion that Hagar is the (supposed) Biblical ancestor of Arabs. He claims that "Muslims" insist that he is the ancestor of Muslims. Of course this is true if you identify Muslims and Arabs, but as expresed it creates the absurd claim that all Muslims are descended from her. The claim that Arabs descend from her dates back at least to Josephus, so it is not a specifically Muslim claim. I provided a citation for this, which the editor argues against with reasoning that just perplexes me. Many other citations for this uncontroversial statement can be found. I previously had a weird debate about divorce on the Talk page, which was not resolved. I can't seem to communicate with this particular editor, so other input would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This really could use some more attention. I have no clue if we're dealing with wilful obtuseness, or wilful obtuseness with an agenda. Either way it's pretty baffling. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is attempting to introduce a new section, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism#Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document into the article, mostly repeating stuff which is already in the article, but adding inaccurate Discovery Institute claims about the 'Dissent' + some WP:OR explaining away the inaccuracy. More eyes might prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also noted recently at list of common misconceptions that apparently, there is no single scientific method. Because, would you believe it, paleontology is a science that cannot do experiments. I get the idea, but its presentation as a "common misconception" is at least as misleading as calling this "Dissent From Darwinism" Scientific. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the scientific method would perhaps best be described as a set of methodological principles that get applied differently to different scientific situations (like the inability to replicate the Big Bang under laboratory conditions). (The misrepresentation in and around the 'Dissent' is so pervasive that it is hard to get hot & bothered about their misuse of "Scientific" -- the whole thing would be more accurately renamed A Religious Inarticulate Quibble with a Strawman.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Salibi

Argues that Hebrew Bible place names actually refer to places in Arabia. Heavy use of his blog. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I just deleted this] from his article, added by one of our problem editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for trolling. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kali Ray

New article, what struck me was "In her twenties, Kali Ray a "spontaneous kundalini experience” which lasted over twelve hours. In 1980, while teaching meditation to several students, Kali Ray experienced what is known in ancient yogic texts as kriyavatisiddhi: spontaneous movement manifested in a yogi who has awakened kundalini. " I guess there may be BLP issues as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Should go to AfD. Looks like it was created by the subject as promotional. I'm not seeing evidence of notability. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

However, there is the possibility that TriYoga, the style of yoga she is associated with, is an encyclopedic topic. In which case, the focus of the article should be on that style, and her bio should makeup only a small subsection of that topic. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: List of yoga schools. Apparently, one could make an argument for the notability of the bio and the school. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash

I don't know if this is fringe or not. Anyone know anything about 'tanash'? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Great googly-moogly. Before Robert Graves got dragged into it, this article was 99% smaller. Probably 99% more accurate. I'm highly inclined to wipe the thing and start over, as regardless of the OR involved the thing is painfully incoherent essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say that it was brought up at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tahash. I see DGG likes it. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian script

Dacian script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fringe topic (no indication to date that even a acholarly argument over its existence exists), currently at AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Classic Balkans nationalism, two accounts are trying to blow this out of proportion. One even templated me on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this has a lot to do with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia, which the guy is treating as his magic talisman which allows him to own any page with the remotest association with Dacia. I imagine this may soon turn into Wikiproject:Dacomania if we're not careful, although a lot of the members are almost certainly bona fide and not into fringe fantasy. It's the self-appointed leader I have my doubts about.--Folantin (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection

The significant mainstream idea is not being fairly represented in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

Proposal for Prognosis.

Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection; 26 fatalities have been documented in the medical literature since 1934. There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available.

I think this proposal is appropriately weighted to include at the end of Vertebral artery dissection#Prognosis. The relevant but stale discussion is at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more.

The 2010 reference meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and is a systematic review, published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature. It is more relevant Chiropractic than VAD, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is the leading researcher on chiropractic related topics, and it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications.

The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM), while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't think it adds nothing when it is apparently relevant to the topic. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's results are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! Policy actually mandates the inclusion of the mainstream view per WP:WEIGHT. MEDRS simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views such as the proponents fringe view.

There is relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:WEIGHT guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it.

PMID 20642715 is a reference of extremely high quality, and it doesn't matter how often we opine on it. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. It's not just WP:RS, but MEDRS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of IJCP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to us to suggest another inclusion criteria.

There is excessive weight for the fringe view while the conclusion of mainstream view is not being represented.

The following represents Ernst's 2007 conclusions: "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[15]

Current fringe view at Traumatic.

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection (16–28% of cases in hospital-based studies). Although reports of the association are of weak to moderately strong quality, many of the reports have methodological flaws, and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities.

Personally, I believe the part "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" under Vertebral artery dissection#Traumatic gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints.

Proposal for Traumatic.

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection (16–28% of cases in hospital-based studies). Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, can result in serious complications such as VAD followed by stroke. Reports of the association are of weak to moderately strong quality, and many of the reports have methodological flaws.

IMHO I think the proposal for Prognosis and the proposal for Traumatic both satisfy WEIGHT and FRINGE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR ... can you please condense your question a bit. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage, and I really wish not to waste any more time on it. The current version makes it very clear that there is a controversy. The source in question ("Ernst-death") was left out on grounds of WP:WEIGHT, because it does not answer my vital question: whether it actually adds anything to the current content. It enumerates a relatively rare event (death due to chiropractic) and suggests that some of these deaths may have occurred as a result of vertebral artery dissection (which was first reported in 1978, and therefore all case reports prior to this can only be extrapolated). Nobody has been able to tell me if the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. If not, the source is redundant. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The prognosis section in the VAD article should be specific to the prognosis for VAD. The additional reference (Ernst-death) that QG proposes to include under prognosis examines rare outcomes of death following upper cervical manipulation and only speculates about VAD as the cause. The Ernst-death reference does not examine VAD specifically, thus, adds nothing to the discussion of prognosis of VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the traumatic section proposal, I prefer how it currently exists. The section currently acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the controversial association between upper cervical manipulation and VAD. The section also acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the fact that causation is disputed. Thus, I think the article as it currently exists already satisfies NPOV, WEIGHT and FRINGE and does not need to be modified until additional research examining causation is available.Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, this proposal is for Prognosis. See Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more. This recent systematic review in accodance with WP:MEDRS should be included based on WEIGHT. "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection; 26 fatalities have been documented in the medical literature since 1934. There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available. E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

Griswaldo, the 2007 reviews's conclusion is not presented in the article in Traumatic. Rather, the fringe view "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" is included against WP:WEIGHT. To fix the problem, a summary of the conclusion can be included. I propose the following to replace the fringe view: "and spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, can result in serious complications such as VAD followed by stroke."Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Jfdwolff, it is irrelevant whether the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. The source is not redundant when death due to chiropractic neck manipulation from a systematic review is being left out against MEDRS and WEIGHT.

Jfdwolff, if you still claim it is redundant then show me where in the article it explains deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection.

Puhlaa, "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection" is not speculation. It is sourced in accordance with WP:V. Puhlaa, you prefer how it currently exists with regard to traumatic? You have not explained why the fringe view should be included rather than the conclusion. We don't need to wait for additional research when the conclusion is "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[16]

Puhlaa, please understand you did not give a valid explanation why the conclusion should not be included when the 2007 source is currently being used in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where to post this, as you have started the same thread is in 2 places, I will thus just post it at both also. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the goal here is just for editors to provide their opinion on the matter. I have given my opinion (based on my knowledge of wikipedia policies, the science in question, and my personal view), your opinion is also very clear (it was after the first post, the others werent necessary). My approach at this point is that if a majority of other editors agree with your view, then my view is perhaps flawed and not worth arguing further. Thus, respectfully, what other editors have to say is more likely to re-shape my opinion than reading your opinion a second or third time. For the same reason, I dont feel obliged to re-post my position on the issue.Puhlaa (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. None of the sources provide a reliable figure about mortality without treatment, so there is no figure about this. It would therefore be correct to state that because VAD can be caused by chiropractic, and VAD occasionally leads to stroke and death, that therefore chiropractic/CSM can cause stroke and death through VAD. As such, "Ernst-death" is therefore unnecessary, because it provides no further information about what I have already said. The study has a number of significant problems, such as the presumption that older case reports were actually about VAD while VAD was only described as a clinical entity in the 1970s by Miller Fisher.

I get the overwhelming impression that QuackGuru's multiple posts on the same topic (here, on Talk:Vertebral artery dissection, on User talk:Garrondo) all serve to further his cause to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK about CSM/chiropractic. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment? Where is this stated in relation to CSM? The "prognosis" section does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the "Prognosis" section in the VAD article should not be to discuss the outcomes of CSM, nor to attempt to link CSM to death. The goal of the "prognosis" section in the VAD article is to discuss the outcomes of VAD, which is stated as 1-2% mortality. The article discusses that CSM is associated with VAD under the "Causes" of VAD section, but trying to also link CSM to death in this section adds nothing to the discussion of CAUSES OF VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the "prognosis" section is to discuss the outcomes of VAD then why it does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. Treatment with anticoagulants and aspirin is related to a treamant. That is a different point. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a shame that we have to present this plain and simple fact time and time again. I have now ensured that Ernst2007's original conclusion is well represented. I think that concludes the issue. QuackGuru has been unable to demonstrate clearly why we should specifically mention the conclusions of "Ernst-death". I am done commenting on the issue, because I can only clarify my position so often. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"In studies of anticoagulants and aspirin, the combined mortality with either treatment is 1.8-2.1%.[1][13]"

The article states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. Stroke and death following CSM is after chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy. So, in fact, it is not redundant to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[17] The source is being misused and taken out of context. I explained it before on the talk page that the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-VAD related mortality does not need to be mentioned in this article. Ernst2010 does not provide a actual figure for mortality. Please stop arguing about this study, which is not about vertebral artery dissection but about mortality after CSM.

The source says that practicioners of CSM have disputed the link. I will happily quote a more biased source from the CSM camp that disputes the link if that serves your agenda. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A more biased source from the CSM camp should meet MEDRS. The current source is obviously being taken out of context when the source says "many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation".[18] The source repeatedly associates CSM with VAD which the outcome or prognosis can be stroke or death.[19] So, in fact, it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

break 1

• Jfdwolff has ignored that the source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[20] So, in fact, you are taking the source out of context.
• Jfdwolff claimed the proposal was redundant but could not back up his claim. Stroke and death due to chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy is associated with VAD is in accordance with MEDRS. I am not arguing about a study. The Ernst2010 source is a highly reliable systematic review that is very relevant to the topic.
• Jfdwolff, do you still believe the text is redudant. If so how is it redundant when there is nothing in the prognosis section that is about CSM is associated with VAD followed by stroke and death.
• See WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals; professional and academic books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher; and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
• See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.
• This MEDRS compliant source does discuss vertebral arterial dissection associated with manipulation of the spine throughout the systematic review. If this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT then we must give the recent systematic review due weight.
• "What’s known Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."
• "What’s new The article is the first systematic review of all fatalities reported in the medical literature. Twenty-six deaths are on record and many more seem to have remained unpublished."
• "Vascular accidents after upper spinal manipulation are a well-recognised problem (e.g. 1,2). Dissection of a vertebral artery, caused by extension and rotation of the neck beyond the physiological range of motion, is thought to be the underlying mechanism(2)."
• "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic. Usually high-velocity, short-lever thrusts of the upper spine with rotation are implicated. They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death (1,2,26,30)."
• "Reliable estimates of the frequency of vascular accidents are prevented by the fact that underreporting is known to be substantial."
• E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

• The systematic review should be included per WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS. A relevant and reliable systematic review must be given its due weight when the source does discuss VAD related outcomes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

QG, why do you want to see the good article about VAD turned into a debate about the risk of stroke and death from cervical manipulation? It is currently a good NPOV article. The article you propose to add examines death from CSM and then speculates about the association of VAD and CSM, it adds no information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. What it does add to the VAD article is the POV of that author. If it is included in the article then it must be balanced by opposing quality research so that the VAD article maintains NPOV. If you indeed want to convert this good article into a debate about cervical manipulation then dont forget what else we 'know'. Which of the following should be used to balance your proposed addition?:

• "the association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke is similar to the association between physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that, on average, patients who seek chiropractic care for neck pain or headaches, and who then developed a VBA stroke may have actually been in the prodromal phase of a stroke when consulting the chiropractor; that is, the neck pain or headaches, which lead them to seek care were early symptoms of a VBA stroke." and "because this increased risk is also seen in those seeking health care from their primary care physician, this association is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke."

Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine. 33 (4suppl): S123-52. PMID 18204386.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• "No cause-and-effect relationship has been established between cervical spine manipulation and CAD, but it seems that cervical manipulation may be capable of triggering dissection in a susceptible patient or contributing to the evolution of an already existing CAD. Despite the many risk factors that have been proposed as possible causes of CAD, it is still unknown which of them actually predispose patients to CAD after cervical spine manipulation."

Hanelinea MT, Rosnerb AL (2007). "The etiology of cervical artery dissection". J Chiropr Med. 6 (3): 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.jcme.2007.04.007.

• "Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit."

Murphy DR (2010). "Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?". Chiropr Osteopat. 18 (22). PMID 20682039.

• "...spinal manipulation is associated with frequent, mild and transient adverse effects as well as with serious complications which can lead to permanent disability or death. Yet causal inferences are, of course, problematic. Vascular accidents may happen spontaneously or could have causes other than spinal manipulation. A temporal relationship is insufficient to establish causality, and recall bias can further obscure the truth. Moreover, denominators are rarely available."

Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7). PMID 17606755.

• Even Ernst in his 2007 review recognizes that causation is still only speculated, his 2010 review adds nothing to the evidence for causation. I would prefer NOT to see the article turn into a discussion of CSM and stroke. You have already done a great job of that at the chiropractic article and the spinal manipulation article, lets let this one remain specifically about VAD. Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article. Puhlaa (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the 2010 Ernst systematic review meets WP:MEDRS. None of those sources you provided meets MEDRS except for the Ernst 2007 review. The MEDRS approved source adds information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. I have shown how the proposal is not redundant when the outcome or prognosis from CSM associated with VAD can result in stroke or death is not in the article.

You wrote "Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article."

The newer source is the newer evidence. The newer 2010 source does make a claim about the causality.

Here is a specific proposal for Prognosis using a newer MEDRS compliant source: "The causality between chiropractic neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection that can result in stroke or death is probable."E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

If you require specific text about the causality we can include this proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First, you said that the newer source does make a claim about causality...here I agree, the author does restates the speculations he has made in previous article on the same topic about causation, however, his speculations are based on the older research already incuded in the article, his 2010 article adds no new evidence on the subject of causation. Second, although 2 of the sources I posted are only general reviews (thus they do indeed meet MEDRS but are not considered the highest level of evidence), the 2008 best evidence synthesis by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force published in Spine is definitely a secondary source.

Methods:"We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis."

Further, the 2008 review is in some respects a better source than Ernst 2010. Ernst 2010 is the production of a single author, whereas the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force Review is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion. Your proposal simply pushes you POV and is not balanced by other research in the area. As I said, if you want to turn this good article on VAD into more of a discussion of CSM, there are plenty of alternate sources that can balance the 2010 review. Why dont we just copy the paragraph from chiropractic-safety and paste it right into the VAD article? This is where you are leading with your proposals.Puhlaa (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2008 source is about CAD not VAD. That is a different issue. VAD is more likely to be a result of CSM than CAD. I know a lot about this stuff. Someone has to read the studies before they are published to ensure their accuracy. But our job is not to continue to question the researchers. If you think Ernst is not neutral that is irrelevant according to Wikipedia policy.

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of your above comment is meaningless to my comment, and I dont think wikipedia cares how much you know about the subject (I know a fair bit myself, but its impossible to compare our knowledge as you veil yourself in mystery :). However, I am amused at your point that the 2008 collaborative and heavily vetted review is about CAD and not VAD, when you are pushing to include a 2010 single author review that is about death and CSM. Since you obviously agree that it is pointless to fill up a VAD article with discussion of sources not specifically about VAD, I think we can agree that Ernst 2010 will add nothing to this article.Puhlaa (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is relevant because it specifically discusses VAD. "Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."[21] You agreed we should wait for newer evidence about the causational link. The newer source is the newer evidence about the link.

I know a lot about the subject of Wikipedia policy. Obviously, you are ignoring my comments. See WP:IDHT. WP:V is not a meaningless policy. Why do you claim the source is not relevant when the source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[22] QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were indicating that you know alot about the issue of stroke and CSM, not wikipedia policy. You have a clear advantage over me in your understanding of policy I admit. However, your link to a policy on disruptive editing seems pretty rich considering your history (need not go into detail). A quick look at my short record will show no complaints (except perhaps from you). Isnt there a policy on accusing other editors of bad faith? especially when it is over a clearly minor misunderstanding? You would know better than I.Puhlaa (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" adds nothing because this has already been established in the literature and is already described in the VAD article using the earlier sources that determine the causational link. What does Ernst add? "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic." As quoted from his review, Ernst 2010 adds a count of cases of people who have died after CSM, then simply reiterates the already established association between CSM and VAD, and then simply reiterates the already established speculation that there is a causational link. The VAD article already describes these established associations and speculations. If anything should be added to the VAD article it would be a discussion of how pre-existing conditions, temporal relationships, and biases may be overinflating the issue. The problem is, we dont know! Perhaps the relationship is causational (although the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force suggests not). Until we have more evidence either way, there is no point in expanding the discussion of speculated causational links in the VAD article. Save it for the chiropractic and SM articles. Puhlaa (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You claim it is "speculated causational links". It is not our job to decide if the source is bias or neutral. See WP:V again. We don't need to wait for more evidence when we do have a reliable systematic review. See WP:MEDRS again. The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" does add something to the article becuase the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article.

"There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available.[1]" Under-reporting is also not found in the VAD article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

you claim that Erst 2010 "does add something to the article because the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article", however, this info is not found in the article because it is not relevent to a discussion specific to VAD. The goal of this article is to discuss VAD, not death and stroke from CSM. Puhlaa (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct QG, under-reporting is not given mention in VAD. However, there is already a source referenced that mentions under-reporting and is specific to VAD (Ernst 2007) "...vertebral artery dissections due to intimal tearing...under-reporting may frequently be high.". Thus, a summary of this may be added to the first sentence dealing with CSM in trauma: "Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection, and under-reporting of incidents is likely common." I would be OK with this proposal. I will post the proposal on the talk page for consensus with other involved editors. Puhlaa (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Be both agree that relevant text is missing from the article. But we might disagree exactly what is missing from the article. The source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[23] When CSM is repeatedly associated with VAD followed by stroke and death it is relevant to the article. It is also clear under-reporting is also missing from the artcle. Both are relevant to the topic. So, the article is incomplete. I'm not the only editor who has proposed text for the article. You can take a look at the different proposals on the talk page and make your own proposal. I suppose anything is better than the current text. A brief mention that chiropractic neck manipulation associated with VAD can result in stroke or death would make the article complete. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your conlusion (we disagree with what is missing). I am ok with adding a mention of under-reporting (it is a major weakness in chiropractic RCT publications and needs to be improved). However, I can see no value to the inclusion of a mention of the potential CSM to cause death. VAD can cause stroke and death no matter what the cause, what value is there in specifically attempting to link CSM to stroke and death in an article about VAD? I think I have made my view clear on this, I have little more to add to this discussion. I would rather see the opinion of other editors than re-hash this further. I will not object to a mention of under-reporting, but will continue to object to trying to link CSM to death in an article about VAD (unless other editors consistently agree that this has value to a VAD article, but this doesnt seem to be the case). I will consider putting together a proposal for the traumatic section on the talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Under-reporting 'is' important, and I don't know why we wouldn't use the newer source as a reference, but otherwise let's not waste time on Ernst-Death regarding CSM causality at VAD. That systematic review cannot stand by itself unless you want to comment on, as Puhlaa in part has mentioned: i) pre-existing conditions prior to seeking care (spine 2008), ii)temporal association not equaling causation (ernst 2007), iii) Ernst's biased, iv) force required for VAD exceeds spinal manipulation forces (jmpt 2005), v) need for further research to establish causality (neurology 2008 and spine 2009), vi) objections of practitioners (rosner), vii) flaws in Ernst-Death including case reports, before VAD was even recognized, and not exclusively from chiropractors. These complex issues belong at Chiropractic and Spinal Manipulation where they can be handled in detail, and only at VAD if all relevant MEDRS studies are included, not only the systematic review you favor. Ocaasi (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The book of Jasher

I'm not sure if this should be dealt with here or at a religious board, or both but I don't want to forum shop. This is a bit of a mess. We have:

Book of Jasher

Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)

Book of Jasher (biblical references) which is virtually the same as:

Book of Jasher (biblical references)

Sefer haYashar which is sort of a list article.

However, this is a lost book and what is being used as sources for articles such as Shem where it's a major sources are considered to be forgeries. [24] You can search this book at Amazon.com but some people still claim there is a genuine copy, see this LDS book [25]. This website discusses the issues. It can be found at Wikisource [26]. You get books claiming other versions are a forgery, eg [27]. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, there is Sefer haYashar (midrash), not to be confused with, it says, at least one of the above. The lead says " Among the various texts purporting to be the original "Book of Jasher", this is the version enjoying the widest acceptance, particularly among some members of the Latter-Day Saints.". 'Book of Jasher' appears a number of times in articles and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to which version is being referred to. 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any connection with a "fringe theory". A noticeboard for religious topics would be more correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is fringe. But I DO agree that it does not merit so many articles. I also think that two articles may be warranted. The Midrash, Book of Yashar, is as I understand it a book that was authored (or put to paper) sometime in the seventeenth century, or maybe much earlier, but definitely post Babylonian Exile, perhaps even post Roman Empire period. My point is, this is a very different historical horizon than the context in which the book of Joshua was written. I am not sure whether a second article is warranted. It depends on how much content from reliable sources exists, I guess. But I understand the importance. For modern i.e. critical scholars, references in the Bible to books like the Book of Yashar are the functional equivalent of inline citations today. This is important because, critical historians argue, if God wrote the Hexateuch, or if Moses and Joshua wrote it based on personal experience including dictation from God, there would be no reference to other books. reference to other books, like the Book of Yashar, is evidence that the author of the Hexateuch was using sources - books that do not exist today but existed whenever the hexateuch was written. Critical historians take this as evidence that the hexateuch was written by men, not by God, and that it was written long after the events occured. This argument is NOT to be belittled. This argument is one, but an important, piece of a larger argument that inaugurated a real break in Western history, from people using the Hexateuch as a historically reliable source as to the events descibed therein to being a composite document that was composed at different times by different authors and which tells us more about the authors who wrote it than about Abraham or Noah or Moses. And THIS break was a really important moment in the emergence of modern, academic history. Orthodox Jews of course reject this reading, and must therefore provide competing explanations for the meaning of the phrase in he Hexateuch, so there is a lot at stake for Orthodox Jews (and I guess Christian fundamentalists as well). So this is why I think it is important. But is there enough content to justify an article on the Book of Yashar?

Offhand I propose that there be one article on the book of Yashar in Rabbinic literature, including the eponymous midrash, and that discussion of the significance of the Book of Yashar as it appears in the Hexateuch for modern historians be incorporated into the articles on Higher criticism or The documentary hypothesis; if it gets so long as to merit spinning off, fine, but I would guess that if any article got spun off, it would be an article about all books mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but that are not part of the Hebrew Bible, or something like that. If anyone thinkns this comment would be constructive on another page, they are welcome to copy it there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it as possibly fringe because of the forgeries and LDS involvement, but I'd already put a link at Wikiproject Bible [28]. Shall we move this all to there? With links at other wikiprojects? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

I didn't know where to post this so that's why it's here. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place.

I think that the article about Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscon AZ shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, along with 6 fatalities, should not be included in Wikipedia.

Though I agree that the shooting is a significant event, this individual is getting more than enough airtime from this shooting, which may be partially what he was looking for, and I don't believe he has done anything of value to have his own Wiki entry.

If the two of us were anywhere else but here, I'd say "ain't that the truth!" We don't feel it's right to give a criminal more attention, but this is an encyclopedia, and not just any encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a goal that no other encyclopedia has ever had. It aims to document the sum total of all human knowledge. If it's a notable event, good or bad, it gets documented here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not document every scrap of information out there at all. In fact we have several policies that limit what we document quite significantly. In this instance, there may be a WP:BLP1E concern in which case supporting the merge to 2011 Tucson shooting might be a good idea. But that discussion is better had at WP:BLPN than here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cryptomechanics

I'm not even sure we should have this article - no hits in GBooks or Scholar, some web hits but some of those are about other subjects. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the online sources cited appear to even mention "Cryptomechanics" -- meaning the article would appear to be pervasive WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptomechanics Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert away, already under WP:BRD. "blanking of refs" isn't an issue when somebody goes and rewrites a long-standing well-developed article. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

current status of research on Abiogenic petroleum origin

See here. It is claimed that a 2006 review of the field is outdated because of a 2008 paper and a 2009 letter to a journal. Please comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Quantum energy teleportation

Is this fringe? Drmies (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have received quite a lot of attention from the scientific media, so it at least appears to be notable. The sources do seem to be treating it as a serious hypothesis; not pseudoscientific. It doesn't appear to be distinctly ruled out by WP:FRINGE, although it is marginal. As it stands, the Wikipedia article does not mention the hypothetical nature of the subject, and it does not mention that it is (apparently) the product of a single individual; uncorroborated and untested. At the very least, this would need to be remedied in the article. Wildbear (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cow Urine

Can anyone review this article? I have doubt if its passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reddi and 'biblical science' section in Christendom

Reddi (talk · contribs) is active again editing historical articles. He's very fond of very old sources, and after an IP reverted this: [29] he restored it - I reverted it and he's restored it again. It's copied form the 1903 version of this 1896 source [30], mentioned in our article on the author: Andrew Dickson White#Conflict thesis which may be of historical import but if it belongs in the article at all, which I doubt, it belongs only as a mention. The IP who originally removed it discussed it at Talk:Christendom. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ??? (part 2)

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80 § Charlie Chaplin and time travel, and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)

I want to apologize in advance for bringing this up again, but we need experts on this noticeboard to interpret the outcome of the above linked discussion, and to revisit it here for clarity and direction. Since October 26, 2010, one user (versus dozens) has claimed that notability is inherited and demands inclusion in our film article on Chaplin's The Circus (1928) because, in his words, of "all the talk about it".[31] The majority of the content has now moved to Time travel urban legends#1928 cell phone user. The user, however, still wants to link to it in the film article "see also" section, but we have no single reliable source about the film that mentions or discusses George Clarke's time travel urban legend, so I don't see how we can include it. Could we get some outside opinions on the repeated introduction of this fringe material? See also sections are generally used to include potential information that has yet to be merged, but George Clarke's "time travel theory" is really no different than the theories of let's say, internet celebrity Time Cube. And, just because TimeCube has had a lot of "talk" about his theories, doesn't mean we are adding him or links to his theories into the see also sections of Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. (see for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Time Cube) Is this situation any different? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A user has started a mediation case about a simple, straightforward application of WP:ONEWAY? Wow. And WOW because it's the same user who, in his defence of a huge, in-universe style advertisement for military "Santa tracking", wrote the following immortal words on Talk:Santa Claus:

"No one is arguing that Santa is real or not, and no one should. We stay neutral on the topic. We avoid committing to either side of the argument [...] I refuse to believe that we are not so unskilled that we cannot write an article without staying out of the debate." [32]

Hans Adler 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, 9/11 terrorist attacks has an entire subsection devoted to a fringe theory. I doubt we have any standard about fringe theories in the See Also section. In fact, I'm not even sure we have a guideline about See Also sections in general (but if anyone can point me to it, I'd love to see it). In any case, if your description is accurate that it's only one editor arguing for its inclusion, then that editor should abide by consensus.

BTW, I'm not sure that this is really a fringe theory so much as it's an internet meme. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is reliable literature about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that addresses and debunks the fringe theories. However, there is no such literature about the film and George Clarke's time travel theory. That is the difference. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct that "meme" is more accurate, as a fringe theory would indicate something people seriously believe in, not something that is obviously false and which only has entertainment value. If an actual fringe theory held that actually an impostor starred in the film, not Chaplin, or that he deliberately burned down the set, that sort of thing, it might deserve to be mentioned if it appeared in the long list of books that have discussed this movie. What troubles me is that we've gone over this time and again, and yet, no matter how clear the consensus, we keep beating the same dead horse over and over again. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see/receive any notification of this new discussion (the fourth or fifth venue sought for new input), which I find kind of ironic, considering the charges of forum-shopping that have been leveled at me by the submitting editor. Pot, meet kettle. It beared pointing out.

Anyhoo, some slight corrections and some major ones. First of all, there have been at least two editors who think that some mention of the material should be in the article. Not using the article as a COATRACK, not offering UNDUE perspective. Not offering any opinion as the legitimacy of the claim (though there are citations for that). All that we are suggesting is a simple, cited notation about an event covered by dozens of reliable, notable news sources.
Additionally, it bears pointing out that the reasoning for keeping this material in the article is simple fact: prior to the YouTube video and subsequent reporting my major media outlets, the page statistics indicated maybe a dozen people visited the article on a busy day. When the story broke, the page stats for the article went through the roof, and one day featured over 17,000 hits. Even after the story died down, the page statistics have not returned to their previous levels. As well, there are over a million web hits for this particular topic. Conservatively (ie. removing blogs and other non-rs crap), the numbers for the the internet/news story mightily exceed the number of hits for simply the movie itself.
IMHO, these are indicative of one thing: our readers connect the two. The manufacturers of the DVD collection, the Chaplin website itself all connect the two. Even the news sources and the subsequent debunking articles connect the two - when speaking of the internet thing, they mention it as being a DVD extra of the film. The filming of the premiere (wherein the woman is apparently chatting with her ear trumpet) was created (presumably) to act as marketing for the film, 1920's style. They are inextricably linked. IT could easily be argued that the internet thing, with all its news coverage, actually increased interest in the actual film. The last time I checked, we don't get to superimpose our personal opinions as to the factual nature of the articles we edit. I am not stating that I think the claim of either cell phones or time travelers is anything but silly, but neither I nor anyone else here is allowed - as wiki editors - to judge. We simply state the information given us by reliable, verifiable citation and move on. We don't push the reporting as real or as a hoax (which is about the dumbest thing in the world to suggest); we note that the matter came up, what the claims were and how these claims were addressed. Period. It's the most neutral way to proceed. Not try to hide the mention first through a tiny link, and then through an outright removal.
If there are any dead horses being pummeled here, it is this: we aren't citable; our opinions regarding the claims of citable references have no value in Wikipedia. I find it very disconcerting that other editors are failing to remain neutral, using their judgements of a theory as basis for exclusion.
Lastly, I think its great that Time travel urban legends was created to cover these sorts of matters, but it doesn't really replace the need to at least mention the incident in the film article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)