Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

Progressive utilization theory

Hello all,
I'm concerned that the Progressive utilization theory article may be host to some fringey content. Any chance of a second opinion? For instance, I recently tried removing some unsourced stuff about criminology and economics, which may or may not be compatible with what's written by the author of the "Progressive utilization theory", but it's definitely not a mainstream view of criminology & economics. PROUT is pretty wide-ranging so there's other stuff which appears to conflict with the mainstream of other fields... Would any of the FT:N stalwarts care to have a look? bobrayner (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of related articles, like Microvitum in a Nutshell and Kaosikii dance &c. I just removed some content from the latter - because we need a MEDRS for claims that a dance is a panacea for many diseases, keeps the glandular system well balanced &c - but there are plenty of other articles out there... bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Massive problems with the article. There seems to be a proponent, whose books are cited, WP:OWN ing it. It is far too long and strays way beyond what is notable. A dire shortage of independent commentary. What a pity. Most of the views aren't way outside the mainstream. In economics, proposing co-operatives is quite commonplace, and even the most utopian proposals are not necessarily fringe in the pseudoscience sense. Of course you can use the proponents to set out what the movement advocates, but then the article needs to use independent sources. A Reception section is needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The main article has recently been protected. Meanwhile there's a lot of stuff linked from {{Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar}}. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have commented in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Opinions from uninvolved editors. Location (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Marga

It looks as though we have a huge problem here. Searching for progressive utilization theory (apparently usually abbreviated as PROUT) led me quickly to discussion of Ananda Marga. Here's a typical reference [1] which identifies the two as more or less a single thing and identifies it as a political as well as spiritual movement. It also has some unsavory history. There aare more like this but my impression is that both articles are heavily owned by adherents. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW there's a whole long chapter in Violence and New Religious Movements (ed James R. Lewis, OUP, 2011) on this movement including a lot of material on PROUT. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an in-house produced infomercial, not an encyclopedia article. Alas they are likely to fight to death over it.... I will tag it as a PR piece, but not holding my breath.... That is all I can do really.... History2007 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of terrorism on Ananda Marga appear frequently in almost all independent secondary and tertiary sources. Currently the only paragraph on this is hidden away as a note in the Chronology table. I tried to add a paragraph on Ananda Marga's political history that led to terrorism based on reliable independent sources which included James R. Lewis.[2] My edits were reverted as "yellow journalism" and "vandalism by a clearly prejudiced person". I didn't have much of an appetite for edit war, so I simply left the page. I am glad bobrayner has taken deeper interest into this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I've started some cleanup work on the Ananda Marga article although it will be a long task (all help gratefully welcomed). First priority was pseudomedical stuff - the article had lots of content like this with no WP:MEDRS in sight.

A lot of these articles appear to be well-sourced at first glance but often the stuff inside the ref tags is just more content, not an actual source. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean they may have dressed it up to look good? No... people would not do that .. would they? .... History2007 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Shabda Cayanika (an article about a book by Sarkar) is a good example: Just look how long and detailed the references section is! It cites chapter 1 of the book, chapter 2, and so on. It even cites the website selling the book. Impressively comprehensive sourcing! bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That one needs an 800 number too. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this group but I read over the piece and noticed that they are using three different transliteration methods for Sanskrit terminology within the same article. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be the center of the whole thing and really is what should be concentrated on. I've found several different directories of modern/Hindu cults which talk about it beyond just including it in a list. There's a political component which the current article is completely ignoring and which makes the group/movement notable beyond the religious/cultic arena. I don't know that we need to apply some WP:TNT but working from the sources I've found would produce content which would hardly intersect with the current content at all, other than a few names. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Sutram

The article Ananda Sutram is also part of the complex of articles involved in this dispute. It would be helpful if more editors expressed views on it as well. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at hammering it into something more resembling an outside, NPOV description. The second paragraph I unfortunately cannot do much with, in large part because it reads to me as (if I may be impolite about it) woo-woo jargon stream-of-consciousness. I think there's probably an argument for deletion or redirection as this seems to be yet another text of interest only within the believer community. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On further reflection I've merged it into Ananda Marga since it seems to have no notability except as a text of the movement. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. (It was worth trying...) bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AfDs

There are some AfDs on related articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discourses on PROUT
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namah Shivaya Shantaya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabda Cayanika

Your insights would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly there's some disagreement over sourcing on these articles, but particularly Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3). (Although this is now more of a sourcing issue than a fringe issue). As always, comments from uninvolved editors would be very welcome. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Panspermia

Of interest:
Talk:Panspermia#Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe science
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fossil Diatoms in a New Carbonaceous Meteorite
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Jmmanuel apparent hoax by Billy Meier

The alleged Talmud has a J instead of an E because extra-terrestrials told Billy Meier to put it there. Hoax creator's article needs, work, Talmud needs either an AfD or a para in Meier's article and turning it into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmud Jmmanuel‎. It says something that the best documentation of the hoax I could find was from a competing religious fringer. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Natural-born-citizen clause

Editors are pressing Stephen Tonchen's birther theories as meriting equal and opposite coverage to the usual view. It as been suggested we should be involved in this; discussion is taking place on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe or Significant Dispute

I believe The Natural-Born-Clause article accurately reflects contemporary legal and popular thought; however, all may be moot if original understanding of the founders is what Birther legal scholars (named under Major Revision Needed) claim. These are unified and therefore strong in voice; they see “constitutional heresy,” and they have never yet seen “their day” in the higher courts. Perhaps they won’t. However, if they do, the Supreme Court will look intensely for original intent. Is the dominant contemporary legal-and-popular-thought skyscraper built on a weak foundation? Even if a minority opinion saw it their way, heavy odds are on the side of scandal in a politically charged combustion chamber ready for that spark--see the talk page argument-- especially if any attempt is made to “suspend” the Constitution in the tumult of the financial days ahead. (2013 is not going to be a nice year in the bond market (four times larger than the stock market with a popped bubble bigger than 2008 and hyperinflation the moment interest rates rise.) I wish this were exaggeration; it’s not.) The smaller courts seem to have sensed this higher court possibility; the VAST majority of decisions have AVOIDED comment, LIKE AVOIDING THE PLAGUE. Wikipedia would want to be safely in the NPOV zone. That’s the point of “Major Revision Needed”—the dispute is real and threatens, however “fringe” an editor or a consensus of editors may have thought the issue was in the past. Be sure a “fringe” label is not just a no-substance, fraud-admitting “Alinsky or an excuse for one-sided POV!”

As I said on the talk page, I don’t have the time to do it justice. Somebody else will have to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebetter (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 January 2013‎ (UTC)

There's nothing in your screed to indicate your preferred version has any basis in Wikipedia policy. Also, nice touch saying you won't put in any effort yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I love the leap from original intent to global financial meltdown to suspending the constitution to Saul Alinsky.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucky Louie, I see that you are familiar with Saul Alinsky; you knew his first name. However, I trust that you aren't foolish enough to fall for his lie (that he’s not lying to those he counsels to lie, cheat, intimidate). I do trust that you want to make Wikipedia a reliable source in every respect, otherwise what’s the point of Reliable Sources, NPOV, and Fringe Theory Resolution?

Here is the start of an update that I received at 12:17pm today from my subscription to “Money and Markets” from Weiss Research, Inc., a group that predicted the 2008 meltdown and warned its investors—not like mainstream media--well in advance:

“First, Treasury bonds started to waver and tip over.”

“Next, it was bundles of home loans packaged together as mortgage-backed securities.

“Then, municipal bonds started to crack and lose value.

“Now, another batch of bonds is entering the house of pain — emerging market bonds! Just take a look at this chart of the iShares Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMB).

But in the past few days, this ETF suffered a string of high-volume sell offs

— the highest concentration of such sell offs EVER!

“Not only that, …”

I think you see the point. Whether this is the big one yet, I don’t know. Yet, I’ll tell you what I do know: Interest rates only have one direction to go, and a rise equals a massive bond sell-off.

I invite you to my talk page if you want to discuss the possibilities of the Supreme Court looking at original intent and scandal with “suspension of the Constitution.” First, I invite you to study all of my sources to Major Revison Needed at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause.

To HTF, sorry, I don’t have the time. I would also trust that you are interested in the long-term welfare and reliability of Wikipedia. I’m new to it and really have no investment. It won’t bother me much if Wikipedia is not NPOV at Natural-born-citizen clause. If you want to see the basis of the “screed,” again, please see the sources in Major Revison Needed on Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. mintbark 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV policy clearly states that we are to cover "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We can report on "fringe" theories only to the extent that they are discussed in sources that are accepted by Wikipedia policy as being "reliable". No amount of fear-and-doom apprehension about what could happen if the US government collapses, etc., can change the requirement that we follow our rules on reliable sources. No matter how unified and strong the so-called "birther scholars" may be within their blog domain, they simply do not exist for our purposes unless we can find their views covered in mainstream publications and media. If you can't accept this, you need to try to get the NPOV policy changed before you can expect the rest of us to change the way these alternative theories are (or are not) covered here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is something that has worked for me; there are a couple of pages on Wikipedia on topics where I have a strong opinion, and one of them is, in my opinion, covered poorly / misleadingly. Other than a couple of minor newbie attempts seven years ago before I registered a username, I have never edited either one, nor have I commented on those pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. That's because I agree with the following quote:

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

By sticking to topics that I don't have strong feelings about, I avoid any unconscious bias, and I avoid the tendency to edit the page according to what I know to be true (which would be a violation of WP:OR) instead of reporting what is in reliable sources.

BTW, I just looked at those pages again -- I haven't done so in years -- and they both have gotten a lot better without my involvement. Sometimes you just need to trust your fellow editors to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Richwales. You’ve been patient, fair, and decent throughout our discussions. You’ve tried to acquaint a “greenie” with the rules and “ropes.” I’m going to put it on hold for now with one final question: where does an affidavit fit in? Certainly a court will receive it as evidence, and it’s only as good as the witness. Will Wikipedia policy receive it? And thank you Guy Macon for the good advice. The problem I see is the "live tiger loose in the museum" and the personnel don't yet seem to recognize it! mintbark 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An affidavit that is part of the public record can be used... however, they are very tricky to use appropriately... there are some serious limitations to using one. First, an affidavit is a primary source (see WP:PSTS for more on when it is appropriate/not appropriate to use primary sources). Second, an affidavit is a self-published source (see [[WP:SPS for more on when it is appropriate/not appropriate to use self-published sources). One important limitation on SPS sources is how we phrase the material we take from them... SPS sources more reliable for attributed statements as to the author's opinion, but less reliable for unqualified statements of fact (a lot depends on who wrote the SPS source). This raises the another limitation (or rather a question)... how much WEIGHT to give the opinion. Is the affidavit an expert opinion, or that of "just some guy"? Does mentioning the opinion of the person who wrote the affidavit give his/her opinion WP:UNDUE weight? And finally, ask whether the existance of the affidavit is significant in relation to the subject/topic of the article (or does it realate to something trivial). Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful, excellent answer Blueboar. Thank you. mintbark 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. An affidavit means only that the person writing the affidavit is saying (and presumably sincerely believes) something. A court may "receive as evidence" the contents of an affidavit, but that doesn't automatically mean the court has decided to (or is obligated to) accept as true the contents of the affidavit — the court must still evaluate all the various pieces of evidence (including, possibly, affidavits and other claims saying different things) and decide what the truth is.

Wikipedia, however, is not a court of law. We do not judge the factual accuracy of claims, we only report on what others have said about these claims (per the primary-vs.-secondary-source issue already discussed above). And we don't decide which one of a set of conflicting claims is "the truth"; the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy says we report all the various mainstream, reliably substantiated claims and let the reader decide (if he wants to) where the truth might be. Again, most of the sources putting forth "alternative" theories on this subject are not the kinds of sources that the Wikipedia community has decided over the years to accept as generally reliable; and given that fact, we must go with what the sources accepted as reliable say.

If you look at, say, the Minor v. Happersett article, you will see that it discusses pretty much only that case's status as a voting rights case which was pretty much rendered moot by the ratification of the 19th Amendment. That is because reliable sources (books, law journal articles, and the like) have framed the Minor v. Happersett decision in this fashion and no other — if there is in fact a conspiracy to suppress Minor v. Happersett as the Supreme Court's supposedly definitive and final word on who can run for President, said conspiracy is not any recent invention of Barack Obama or John McCain, but on the contrary, it goes all the way back to 1875. As you will see from the Minor v. Happersett talk page, I made a serious effort to get a bit more mention of the current "natural-born citizen" spin into the article (if only to show that this interpretation, though popular in certain circles in recent years, has been consistently rejected by every court that has considered it) — but the current consensus is that the theory is not deserving of even this paltry degree of mention because it isn't acknowledged at all in any sources of the kind we accept as generally reliable.

Some of the material in question here might be acceptable at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories — an article specifically devoted to the fringe theories in the context of their being generally recognized as "fringe" theories. Even there, though, editors need to concentrate on material from secondary sources that discuss the theories, as opposed to directly quoting the claimants themselves.

As for the possibility that, by so severely restricting what kinds of sources we can and cannot use, we are training a blind spot on the "live tiger loose in the museum", I can only say that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"; please see (and carefully study) WP:CRYSTAL. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts

"It has been proposed in this section that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts be renamed and moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses." Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's being opposed on the basis that some of these claims really are accurate, just dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is the wrong reason to oppose it... When it comes to covering a theory, Wikipedia does not care whether the theory is accurate or not... it cares whether it is notable or not. However, that does not mean we ignore the issue of whether the theory is accepted or dismissed. And we don't have to cover (notable) accepted theories in the same article as (notable) dismissed theories. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe this skewed, clueless discussion explains the absurd voting behaviour in the RfC. Since when is the Norse settlement in Canada "dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists"? And pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and America, while not actually proved, is such a promising hypothesis due to the sweet potato connection (not just the plant, also the word for it) that a lot of serious researchers seem to be looking for this right now. The only thing that is wrong with the title is the silly plural. Before Gun Powder Ma moved the article to the "hypotheses" title in July without consensus, the title was Pre-columbian transoceanic contact, singular. But then the move wasn't undone correctly.

Has the fringe noticeboard become the new playground for the group voters who used to populate WP:ARS in order to cast mindless keep votes at deletion discussions? How about reading an article before voting on it? The fringe in it is clearly marked as such, maybe even too clearly. Hans Adler 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Meteorite Diatoms

Interesting article from Slate Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog: No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Weston A. Price Foundation

Edits by Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs) (added originally through 128.114.105.66 (talk · contribs)) are blatant WP:SYN violations from my viewpoint, as well as NPOV and FRINGE. Discussion (what there is of it)here).

Basically, Pottinger's cats wants to rebut criticism of the foundation with his own original research, sourced by primary sources (changes presented below in bold):

They also point out that prior to the widespread use of pasteurization, many diseases were commonly transmitted by raw milk, while they made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005[17][18], though the FDA's own source data shows that for Listeria contamination, raw, unpasteurized milk had 3.1 cases, pasteurized milk had 90.8 cases, and Deli meats had 1598.7 cases.

The director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration division of plant- and dairy-food safety, John Sheehan, called the organization's claims on the health benefits and safety of raw milk "false, devoid of scientific support, and misleading to consumers"[2], though an article in the International Milk Genomics Consortium, while expressing ambivalence about raw milk, nevertheless stated that pasteurization can "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health", and noted raw milk's protective effects against allergies in children.[20]

The anti-vegetarian and anti-soy views of the foundation have also been criticized in several publications.[23][24][25] Joel Fuhrman MD wrote a series of articles entitled "The truth about the Weston Price Foundation" in which he argues the Foundation is a purveyor of "nutritional myths", largely because they have failed to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence.[3] However, the soybean is listed on the FDA's poisonous plant database.[26]

The other change he made, as I pointed out, is probably worth discussion:

The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence".

There are other edits he's made that are currently not in dispute that others might want to look at, most of which were removed, including those made through 128.32.166.162 (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are similar problems with the edits of Pottinger's Cat on Orthomolecular medicine. Mathsci (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

With orthomolecular medicine, I was merely attempting to restore an old article, but ceased with that, as it did not follow WP:MEDRS. My recent edits to it have been WP:MEDRS compliant, and have consisted of the introduction of new meta-analyses. I accept that under WP:SYN, the poison plant database and international genomics consortium and msnbc article can be removed. I advocate for the use of criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA. I have made an edit in which I removed all the problematic items I previously inserted.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are problems also on Emotional Freedom Techniques. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I wanted to appeal that. The sources I use are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, but they get reverted continuously, with no justification being given. They are reviews in mainstream journals that are totally relevant to the article.Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not how it looks either on the article or the talk page, where you seem to be edit warring and in a minority of one. MastCell and the others have experience with WP:MEDRS, advocacy, etc. You are not engaging in discussion with them. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They merely say, on the edit history - "I don't think these are improvements". The sources do come from reliable secondary sources and adequately controvert the position currently in the article, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100Pottinger's cats (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on the talk page which you appear to have ignored. As the other editors write on the talk page, a survey written by an advocate is not reliable. Equally they make the point that the statements about acupuncture are WP:SYNTH. But let them comment here, since some of them have already remarked that you are making similar edits on several articles. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As I note below - the article relies on an attempted debunking of acupuncture, hence my inclusion of the reviews controverting that negative position. Also, what is of relevance is that the reviews written by the advocate appear in mainstream journals - they are certainly notable enough for inclusion.Pottinger's cats (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is more of the same. Not so blatant, but still Pottinger's cats introduces a primary source to rebut the criticism:

John Robbins has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had initially recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet, though he later became convinced through his research that a diet with meat and high animal fat supplemented by vegetables and minerals would provide optimal health.

--Ronz (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Frances Cress Welsing

We have an editor here who is removing any commentary on her by other scholars - with the edit summary "the best source for understanding Dr. Welsing's views is her book the Isis Papers, not the biased views of others.". Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Respectfully suggest this topic be re-classified as non-fringe theory based on the following:

• Per Dr. Steven W. May in his “The Poems of Edward De Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, etc.” from *Studies in Philology* Vol. 77, No. 5 (1980), p. 10: “Professional scholars have dismissed his [Looney's] arguments along with those of his successors in the cause, often with some indignation, yet the “Oxfordians” have made worthwhile contributions to our understanding of the Elizabethan age. Foremost among these is [B. M.] Ward’s quite competent biography of the Earl,…. Also noteworthy is Charles Wisner Barrell’s identification of Edward Vere, Oxford’s illegimate son by Anne Vavasour, a relationship which escaped E. K. Chambers…. Scholars tend to belittle as well the significance of the Oxfordian movement, yet its leaders are educated men and women who are sincerely interested in Renaissance English culture. Their arguments for De Vere are entertained as at least plausible by hosts of intellectually respectable persons, and the general interest in the “Oxfordian” movement is undoubtedly more widespread now than ever before.” See Professor Steve May — http://www.shef.ac.uk/english/people/may Knitwitted (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This board does not make official declarations about whether a theory is fringe or not, though it can help form consensus. It is well known that May was once relatively sympathetic to Oxfordians. Your quotation is 33 years old. I doubt you'll find anything comparable in his recent writings. However, even in that statement he says nothing about the non-fringe nature of the theory, only that devotees of it have found out some historically valuable facts. This is unsurprising; De Vere's life had been barely researched at that time, since no-one was very interested in him. Neither of the examples cited has anything much to do with the theory. Ward wrote a "quite competent" biography of the earl (in which the theory is never discussed and is only mentioned in passing). Charles Wisner Barrell helped to identify Oxford's illegitimate child, again something that has nothing to do with the theory. I might add that Barrell's tendency to misrepresentation of evidence, evasiveness and possible outright dishonesty vitiates any of his contributions, minor as they are, as you have to check the facts behind everything he writes. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide, it's for the experts on the topic. It's very clear that any theory that someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare might as well be a theory that aliens built the pyramids instead of the Ancient Egyptians. Heck, even the quote cited above just confirms that most scholars don't take the theory seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - the quotation given more or less describes the “Oxfordian” theory as fringe itself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the quote above used to justify this request is an example of that much-beloved Oxfordian tool of cherry picking. May also wrote, "As I worked on my edition of the Earl of Oxford's poetry during the 1970s, I hoped, as I still do, that I might find some connection between De Vere's work and the writings, any writing, of William Shakespeare. Unfortunately, I discovered instead a gulf between the two poets' styles that rules out any direct ties between their output. I looked further into De Vere's life as I prepared my book, The Elizabethan Courtier Poets. The facts of his biography and career at court made any connection with Shakespeare or his writings even less likely." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of cherry picking, it is interesting to note how the same article I've proposed as an argument against fringe theory re the Oxfordian authorship page is well and appropriate to use for the lead-in to the Edward_de_Vere article: "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,[1]. Could someone please direct me to what Wikipedia rule determines what part of a 32-year-old article can be used where and why it would not be applicable elsewhere? Knitwitted (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt at cherry-picking has clearly backfired (to mix metaphors). You attempted to portray May as saying something he didn't. He made perfectly clear in the first quote that "Professional scholars" then considered the Oxfordian theory fringe. His statement cannot therefore be used as "an argument against fringe theory re the Oxfordian authorship page", on the very good grounds that it is self-evidently nothing of the sort. Next time, before you bring your cherries here, I suggest you inspect them a little more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, . .Andy, I think women are entitled by nature to have only one 'cherry'. Of course lusūs naturae do exist, and all are worthy of the most minute inspection.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I never can tell whether you are disingenuous or just obtuse. My point was not that (relatively) old articles cannot be used. It was that you would be hard put to find even him saying anything similar. In other words, the passage does not even represent May's views very well - and that's despite the fact that it says very very clearly that Oxfordism is fringe. Not a word in it implies anything otherwise. The other passage represents views that no non-partisan commentator on Oxfiord disagrees with. It's used simply because it's a conveniently neat summary of the standard view. There's no reason why the quotation you cite could not be used in a relevant article, but you were not proposing to use it; you were claiming it to be proof in some way that Oxfordism is not fringe. Paul B (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I vote for disingenuous. Almost her entire Wikipedia tenure has been devoted to time-wasting exercises in futility in which she counterfeits innocent good faith and does her best to try the patience of other editors. I don't believe anybody is that obtuse. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Say Tom, instead of spending your time slurring your words, why don't you prove Dr. Shaheen's assessment of Shax's cites per the Geneva Bible is incorrect? Then kindly prove the accusations by Howard and Arundel against Oxford are false. You're reluctance to correct errors in facts proves you can't. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

Controversy exists between the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques

and my edit to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100

The only response in opposition to my edits is that the person who did an overview agrees with the practice. However, his substantial reviews have been published in mainstream journals, and warrant inclusion. Also, part of this article relies on a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted with reliable reviews that I have included. I attempted to compromise by including ALL sources, both pro and con, but the pro sources were removed without justification, simply because the other editors didn't like them, even though they meet WP:MEDRS.

I have attempted to resolve this issue in a talk page, but other editors (particularly Mastcell and Bobrayner) simply revert my edits, and do not engage in meaningful dialogue.Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment left on talk page. GaramondLethe 01:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Pottinger's Cats could first deal with the concerns about their editing which have been raised at Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques, Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation, Talk:Organic food &c. bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For emotional freedom techniques, I responded at the talk page. For orthomolecular medicine - my subsequent edits complied with the requests given, but included extra meta-analyses. I understand the criticisms given at the other sources.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basic idea of the topic: used by people without medical degrees, sold to the hopeful, believed by the gullible. Welcome to WP:Fringe. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is busy again. Previous discussions are at [3]. I've raised a couple of NPOV issues at WP:NPOVN#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Any masochistic editors interested in the area might note that there are a few spinoffs recently created - not, like this one, on the history of the controversy, but on various controversies themselves, eg Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Asiatic Race Theory (titles need fixing - hypothesis is best and lower case of course) and others. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Utter disaster of Katrina proportion. I commented on NPOV board. The only way to settle it may be to get the far off users to use the Emotional Freedom fringe techniques just above here... History2007 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)