Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Multiregional origin of modern humans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgellons

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

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

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

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

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

Mount Ararat

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

The IPs have now backed off their wild claims ([1][2]). Some continued watchlisting of this article may still be useful however, in case they resurface. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Young again

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

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

Building biology

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

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

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

The German Association of Building Biologists [4] is cooperating with German communities and offers publications on topics like air quality, mold, pollutants, radioactivity, and electromagnetic radiation.

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

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

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

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

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

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

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

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

Library of Alexandria

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

Reincarnation research

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

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

Popped onto the page and joined the talk section. There are some valid concerns here. Gotta agree with Verbal.Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note there is a newer discussion below. Verbal chat 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abu Rayhan Biruni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ethnicity stuff in Middle East is not too difficult. There are in general three categories for Medieval Muslim scientists: Iranic (Persian and includes Soghdian/Khwarizmian and etc.), Arabic and Turkic. The places things overlap are places that have been Arabicized and Turkicized. Basically areas such as Caucasus, Iraq, Iranian Azerbaijan(for example Tabriz was not Turkic speaking until the Safavids), and Central Asia (major urban centers were slowly Turkified like Tashkand after Mongol invasions). Scientists and historians have now a very good idea when these linguistic shifts occured for the most part (see Central Asia or old Azari language for Azerbaijan or Shirwan for the Caucusus). For example at the time of Biruni, there was no Uzbeks in the area and this is made more obvious by Biruni saying: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree" and he provides sample of his own native (according to his own word native) language which is the Chorasmian language. Yet I saw a book that calls him Uzbek but obviously this is not correct. Once in a while a scientist is diputed and we give alternative viewpoints. Some ethnonyms are more recent like Uzbek or Azeri (and prior to this Turkic should be used before 14th-16 century since actual developlment of these languages are after 14th-16h century and sometimes the ethnonym is more recent. Afghan (for someone just born in Afghanistan) is fine from 1750 (circa) when the country was decared but before that it mean Pashtun. But in general Arabic, Turkic and Persian(Iranian/Iranic) have been used and when a small conflict might arise, one just follows policies of WP:RS, WP:weight, WP:NPOV and etc. So to make it clear for anyone interested in that era, there are basically three categories of scientists with Muslim background from these areas (Middle East, Central Asia, Caucusus): Iranic(Persian/Iranian), Arabic, Turkic(also Turkish is used). Encyclopedia Iranica and Islam (and Britannica) have it defined for many of these scientists. Once in a while we get clarity for example Turkic/Turkish->Oghuz or Kypchak or Uighyur or etc. Or Iranic/Persian->Soghdian, Khwarizmi, Old Azari. Hope that helps. It should be noted that modern people who call themselves Khwarizmi are not related in the ethno-linguistic sense to the old Chorasmians [5][6]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilizing mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ham, son of Noah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Investigation Group

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

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

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

Negative calorie food

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

Looks like trivia and should be deleted. No food has negative calorie. Zero calories yes but than it is not really food. The celery bit sounds like an urban legend. [7] Seems like they are mashing number ( ie if you eat at a rate less than your basal metabolic rate than you lose weight and this they call these foods negative calorie ) This is a fad like so many others in the diet foods, all you can eat chocolate cake diet anyone?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Academic opinion on conspiracy

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

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

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

Jackiestud

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

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

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

Historical regions of Caucasian Albania

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caucasian Albania was a ancient state, and not a region. Fringe theory is calling it a historical region, and not a state. Here's an article about that country in Encyclopedia Iranica, it says: ALBANIA (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ), an ancient country in the Caucasus. [8] The template is very useful, and includes the territories that were a part of the country. I don't see how this template could be a fringe theory. --Grandmaster 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was nothing wrong with Grandmaster's edit,[9] the map he substituted was probably better. It clearly shows Caucasian Albania and puts it in a regional context. Fences and windows (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have already answered in much detail. The map shows the territory of Caucasian Albania as well, it is called "Armenia and its neighbors", i.e. it shows not just Armenia, but all the states in the region. The map on page 666 from The Cambridge Ancient History is not accessible from google books, but it is listed here: [10], so you can check for yourself what it is actually called. Obviously, border territories were also a part of Albania, otherwise there would be no point in inclusion of them within the Albanian borders. And stop threatening with unilateral actions, you know that disruption on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles is covered by arbitration remedies. If you want to rename the template, you must follow the established procedure for renaming. Grandmaster 05:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg articles

These [11], and probably Trilateral Commission articles, tend to be a honeypot for conspiracy theorists. Look at for instance Knights of Saint Columbanus which mentions Bilderberg 13 times. The Bilderberg Group article probably has sufficient attention, it's the minor ones like Indra Nooyi where she is described as attending the 'highly secretive' Bilderberg group, etc. that could use some light attention if anyone has the time or interest. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reddi and Free energy

At it again [12]. No edit summary and no discussion, per usual. NJGW (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA Spread Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhagavata Purana

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

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

Here's a reliable source for that story (I heartily agree with Mangoe's opinion of ISKCON), along with an interesting analysis by a notable astrophysicist, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar.[14] I don't know that it needs to go in the article—I just hated to see ISKCON discredit a favorite and most unusual old story and it's application to modern physics. Priyanath ^talk 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim

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

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

A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement

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

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

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

Mathsci asks rhetorically what is irking this user. What irks this user, as he knows full well [15], is Mathsci's attempting to assert ownership over this article, riding roughshod over Wikipedia policy and last but not least Mathsci's bullying attitude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<off-topic>This unsourced and incorrect change to a redirect [17] shows that A.K.Nole is up to no good. The trademark he is thinking of is MathSciNet (note the captalization) already mentioned by me on the deletion page. OTOH, WP:DFTT. Yawn. </off-topic> Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The username issue and A.K.Nole's subsequent edits have now been raised at WP:ANI. The discussion here about fringe physics is completely independent of his machinations elsewhere on the wikipedia. I have simply stated that I cannot assume he is editing in good faith any more. There is no debate to be won or lost here to my knowledge. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochre and Jackiestud

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've merged the two articles, dropping the more eccentric claims. I included a line from Jackie's source [18], though I'm still rather wary of it. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One Thousand and One Nights

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

Wouldn't this be more suitable for the POV noticeboard? Anyway, the page view statistics for the page [19] and the redirect [20] suggest that "Arabian Nights" is a significant alternative title, but perhaps not as dominant as one might believe. I agree it should be in the first line, but if it is a culturally sensitive matter perhaps it needs to be moved a bit further down in the lede and contextualised, as a compromise. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no reason to waste time with ultra-nationalist bigotry here. The case is plain as plain. Yes, the tales have Persian origin. They are still preserved in Arabic, not Persian, and for this reason they are known as "Arabian Nights" in English. End of story. The proper term for this kind of constellation is "Perso-Arabic". Arabic influence in medieval Persia isn't the exception but the rule. Persian patriots interested in pre-Islamic Persia are welcome to edit articles about pre-Islamic Persia, but this most certainly is not a topic of Persian antiquity but a prime example of the classical Islamic Perso-Arabic culture of the Middle Ages. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero

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

Now blocked for 48 hours. The article still has his own indescrible stamp of obscurity on it. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this idea has any traction among other metaphysical philosophers. If it doesn't fulfill notability requirements, the solution would be to merge this article into the philosopher's page and delete it. Update: I just checked the delete log and its been up for AFD four times already, so I guess it probably would survive another round. Article improvement is probably the best option. Sifaka ^talk 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Piri Reis map

I believe some undue weight is being given here to the theories of Graham Hancock. Other opinions? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reference to Hancock in the Piri Res map article. Please specify. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the dif showing the Hancock stuff. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights

There is a discussion taking place at the moment at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder concerning the disputed claim that the Cyrus cylinder is a charter of human rights. As this is an issue that has come up before on this noticeboard, editors may wish to be aware of this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

this is so old and has been fully discussed. The only thing that seems to be going on is that the Persian ultra-patriots are boosted into activity as a result of the events in Iran atm. This is just childish. So we run into all sorts of nonsens in our articles on Persian antiquity any time there is some political happening in Iran? Let the patriots focus on the articles on current events instead of taking out their frustration on innocent articles about antiquity. I would really appreciate some admin backbone in cases like this. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not related to current events in Iran. Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has been attempting to add a fragment from a 1911 newspaper article to refute a 1999 book for about six months now. The dispute has only reignited because another editor removed a tag that Nepaheshgar added to the article back in February. The specific issue at hand is that the 1999 book says that the Shah originated and promoted the claim that the cylinder is a "human rights charter", but Nepaheshgar has found an article from an apparently completely unknown author in a 1911 issue of the Christian Science Journal that he believes refutes Wiesehofer's attribution of this claim to the Shah's regime. The question is whether this constitutes original research on Nepaheshgar's part, and also whether adding a reference to this obscure article would be undue weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "admin backbone", you do know that the Arbcom has recently ordered admins not to use their tools to enforce WP:NPOV or WP:V? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Let the patriots focus on the articles on current events instead of taking out their frustration on innocent articles about antiquity." But the usual suspects have been using Wikipedia as a battleground for years, projecting modern-day conflicts back in time. There's very little on Iranian talk page fights which doesn't boil down to one of the following:

• Persian Iranian and Azeri Turkic patriots scrapping over who was what ethnicity (they're going at it hammer and tongs at the moment over at the Safavids article)
• Iranian and Arab patriots refighting the Iran-Iraq War (Persian Gulf naming dispute, Shatt al-Arab naming dispute, One Thousand and One Nights - see yesterday's entry on this noticeboard)
• Persian patriots bigging up the Persian Empire(s) by adding the phrase "Persian Empire" wherever possible; trying to prove it was the biggest empire ever yet -unlike every other empire - never did any bad things like owning slaves; claiming anachronistically that the Cyrus Cylinder was a "human rights charter"; attacking cartoon films which "diss" the Persian Empire; badmouthing Alexander the Accursed etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know. It gets very boring and predictable after watching this for a couple of years. We, as the community, should try to learn a lesson from this and adapt. Nothing will ever come from these "disputes". They are just usenet white noise. Of course to the rookie admin, they look like exciting "content disputes" which contribute to the editing process and must therefore not be touched and all parties treated with equal "AGF" and "NPOV". But we must have enough veteran adminstrators by now to recognize that this isn't going anywhere and should just be filtered out as noise. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been toying with compiling a guide to all these disputes, showing their origins in contemporary politics [21] (expanding from an idea by Moreschi). Obviously, it's still very sketchy as I've barely started (any contributions are very welcome - just add your info to the talk page). But it could be a handy guide for admins. It would be quicker than wading through the endless repetition on article talk pages. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Safavids we follow WP:RS sources. Given the various views of Western scholars, of course there will be users discussing various viewpoints. The concensus now is Safavids were of Kurdish origin who were Turkicized in speech but then lead an Iranian empire. I would read the Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam article on Safavids. In actuality, after debating, we simply decided to let RS sources speak for themselves. As you can see no one has been banned, blocked or etc. and users work it out. There is no Iranian and Azeri Turkic patriotic problems, as many Iranians themselves are Azeri-Turkic (Khamenei, Musavi presidential nominate) to normal users here. Overall unlike say the 50 million Europeans who killed each other in WWII, there has never been an incident of Persians killing Arabs or Azeri-Turks killing Persians or viceversa for ethnicity. Chauvanistic concepts were also imported from Europe to this region as before, there was an Islamic ecompassing culture which put faith in God and his holy prophet above ethnicity. Compare for example the relative tolerance of the Ottoman empire until the rise of Turkish nationalism (which heavily borrowed European concepts). So once in a while there is a small debate on history stuff(say between users from Iran and the republic of Azerbaijan), but lets be realistic here, no where have we seen 50 million+ people killed in the region. Actually Iranians (Persians) have never ethno-cided/genocided or wiped out any group because of their ethnicity (if I am wrong, please prove otherwise). For example the record of Achaemenid empire vs the British empire would be a case point. But we can see things in WWII, or the expansion of the West in America and etc. Everything needs a balance and love of homeland as long as there is no sense of being better than other humans and looking down upon others, is not wrong.

The Persian Gulf naming issue is a national issue since from 1960s due to pan-Arabist nationalism, the name of the body of water was changed. Pan-Arabist nationalism again was a concept that was followed by Saddam Hussein for example and he killed Kurds in Iraq or Shi'ites in Iraq. The same pan-Arabist nationalism was responsible for this historic distortion. I am sure if we start calling Europe as Arabia, it might not fit well with some users. In Europe, there is also the Macedonia and Greek issue. The name of a body has been Persian Gulf since the time of Darius the Great and due to nationalism in 1960s a new name was coined. 1000+ year of Arab literature prior to this era of nationalism has also called it Persian Gulf. God has created every creature (human and animal) with sense of "Obtaining what is beneficial and dissuading what is harmful". All animals and humans have this sense, specially removal of threat. In this case, Iranians having bad experience with pan-Arabist nationalism (propped up by the West during the 8 year war and even provided with chemical weapons) will obviously not turn a blind eye to changing a historic 2500 names due to nationalism. If it is nationalistic-chavaunism you are condemning (which I do not condone), then obviously changing a historic name from 2500 years ago due to nationalistic-chavaunistic reasons is condemnable. When Arabic literature itself has used Persian Gulf uniformly until 1950s/60s and some guys started changing it because they did not like Iranians, what do you think should be the national reaction? Sit back and smoke pot?

There is a good critic of the 300 film here [22] from a historian in UCLA. I would read it. Some Iranians might badmouth Alexander the Great and others in history identify him with a Qurannic character and etc. Everywhere has some villians and heroes. Personally, I think Alexander the Great followed the same line of Iranian Kings. However he is associated with burning the Avesta in Zoroastrianism. So in a way he is a villian for Iranian Zoroastrians but in Iranian Islamic culture, he is seen in a positive light. The issue is complex and one can search "Alexander" in Iranica.

Anyhow, I can say my record shows I never have used fringe sources to push a POV. You can check my record, I have been editing very tenacious articles (with this name and previous user name) and not once have I been blocked, banned or etc. Because I follow guidelines of Wikipedia.

And finally, please read the discussion. It is about who originated the anachronism that Cyrus Cylinder is a "human rights charter". I have no doubt calling the Cyrus Cylinder a Human rights charter is anachronism. The issue is who came up with this anachronism, Western writers or the former Shah of Iran? The former Shah 100% likely borrowed such anachronism from Western writers, but he is taking the blame for starting it.

I was not going to pursue it further, but I will email Wiesehofer (a very nice gentlemen who has responded to my inquiries before)and see what he says and post it right in this small section and no where else. Hopefully we will see the response right in this section, because unlike some of the above users, I believe Wiesehofer is a reasonable fellow and I have asked him other questions before. For the sake of just displaying the arrogant behaviour of some users, I will CC two admins and post Wiesehofer's response here. This is so the matter is on the record right in this section and the accussations against me being is cleared up. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the record I think dab and moreschi are excellent admins. Their records are clean. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New problem at Bhagavata Purana - claim it inspired Einstein

IP claiming it was the inspiration for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, using various non-RS sites including a mirror and one at least that doesn't even back the claim. I'm at 2RR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP has now taken it to the talk page - nice to find an IP who would do that! Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The Afrocentrists are back in force, and since February have slaughtered the cleaned-up article. As with the Persian nationalists above, this isn't going anywhere, we are just looking at a bunch of ideologists who creep back every couple of months and start over. Discussion has long been circular and futile. We really need an approach that allows us to short-cut such nonsense cropping up for the dozenth time. It's worth discussing it thoroughly once, even twice, but after six or seven times around, reiterating the "discussion" becomes a simple waste of time. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

for quick reference, the last good revision before this year's round of attack is here. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a recurring problem, I am thinking that it may be time to move up the Dispute resolution ladder and submit this to Arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you know what you are saying there. The arbcom already has looked into this. This is why the article is under "probation", which didn't stop the trolls from returning to butcher it in February. Predictably, arbcom proved completely incapable of dealing with this. Nor should they be asked to, since they do not "judge on content". This includes the judgement of whether the content in question is far out extremist crackpottery. This noticeboard has done several orders of magnitude better at coping with this sort of thing than the arbcom in its brightest moments. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given what happened with the Macedonia case, ArbCom is only likely to strip the bit from any admin who went within ten feet of the article, and then block any troublesome editor, before failing to follow up with any kind of concrete plan to prevent the inevitable return of socks of the blocked editors. Not worth your time. Better to commit yourself to full time watching of the article, or just finding another corner of the 'Pedia to watch while the article goes to pot. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I am posting this here in the hope that some editors with a clue will put it on their watchlists so we can intercept the trolling as it comes in as opposed to in half-yearly intervals. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is now on my watchlist! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of familiarizing myself with the history of the article, and I noticed that the current version is considerably (several times) larger what you identified as the last stable version from February. I have a fairly high level understanding of the issues here, but would you mind breaking down key things to look for in a basic list (or point me to an existing one)? In looking things over, I see three variations of the article:

1) The Moreschi version that is the basis for this dif.

2) This longer version, which was reverted to by dab today.

3) This considerably longer version, which Wapondaponda reverted to, and which appears to be the unbalanced problematic version.

So while 3 appears to be out of the question, is #1 preferable to #2? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially about a bunch of tenacious Afrocentrist editors and their (sock) armies trying to create the impression that Afrocentrist claims on the "race of the Ancient Egyptians" has scholarly validity, which it does not have (yes, we have good sources on that point, check Moreschi's article). This has been going on since about 2005, so we can look back on some four years of circular "debate". Moreschi went to great pains to clean this up and present the case as it is.

The attempts to lend credibility to these racialist fringe claims involve the attempts to conflate Afrocentrist literature with bona fide studies on the prehistoric population history of Egypt. Needless to say, these topics need to be cleanly separated. Last August, we did this by introducing the detailed "Origins" section at Egyptians. The additional material that has accreted on the Afrocentrism article since then I have now split off to the new standalone population history of Egypt article, which does sport a brief "racial aspects" section out of charity towards the "Afrocentrist view".

In reply to Hiberniantears, I obviously do not insist on any specific revision. This is a question of good editorial judgement, once the air has been cleared of trolling. Just clearing the air of trolling will be a huge step forward here. "Article probation" in theory should do this for us, but of course this will need admins willing to clamp down on the trolls, just slapping a warning template on the talkpage isn't going to impress anyone. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the extensive discussions and efforts that have gone into cleaning this up. I'm going to revert to the February version, and apply full protection to the article, for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conversation now effectively moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong. I see no justification for reverting this article all the way back to February because a single editor complains about "Afrocentrist sock armies" butchering the article. This article needs to be unlocked and Dbachmann needs to be banned for making disruptive edits. AncientObserver (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time, back in Wiki pre-history, this article was a section on the Afrocentrism article. It became obvious that it was uncontrollable, and it was spun off by an Afrocentrist editor (user:deeceevoice) to became a separate article. There Afrocentrists and White Supremacists, Arab-Egyptians, and anyone else with a racial axe to grind, battled incessantly over how white or black the Egyptians were - usually projecting modern Euro-American categories onto ancient peoples. The article became a complete and utter mess, with quotations from Herodotus intermingled with genetic studies, and with no sense of the changing contexts in which ideas about race developed and how this applies to the various modellings of 'race' in Egypt over history. The minimal version preferred by dab is one solution. The other (which was preferred by User:Zara1709) is to contextualise the debates clearly by showing how they emerge from race-politics and 'science' at various times. Unfortunately the "true believers" will not have either of these arguments, and the article invariably sinks into a morass of claims and counter-claims, competing pictures of "white looking" and "black looking" pharaohs etc. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Barlow is absolutley right,i myself warned about this article that is was going to be another fringe fest like the previuous article Race of the Ancient Egyptians which in this case the article was rebranded Ancient Egyptian Race "Controversey" but of course the afrocentirst started to circle wagons and slowly took the article back to the Race of the Ancient Egyptians,how many times does this cycle have to continue when will an admin take a stand and realize that an article that's main focus is the race of the ancient egyptian is unworkable i.e it becomes a farce of competeing dna studies ,ancient observers personal opinions and ancient egyptians art..to try and prove they are black or white...than some editor comes along and sites fringe than the ycle continues..--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This disgraceful article should be deleted, or at least reworded into something like "Ancient Egyptian skin color controversy" in order to highlight the absurdity of such issues. Wikipedia—while excellent for mathematics and some science-related material—is simply incapable of dealing with emotion-filled issues such as these. Cranks inevitably just waste people's time, and undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. CABlankenship (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to the use of unconstructive language such as "disgraceful" and "cranks". Clearly CABlankenship has a contrary POV, but that does not excuse incivility or failure to Assume Good Faith. Please could an admin issue CABlankenship with a warning, and perhaps check if CABlankenship is a sockpuppet of Dbachmann. Wdford (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here we go...--Folantin (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. The skin-color of the Ancient Egyptians is a minor and trivial issue which does not deserve an entire article. If this "controversy" were over any other feature (for instance, the size of Ancient Egyptian feet), nobody would seriously consider it worthy of an entire article. Furthermore, the word "race" in the title is controversial and inappropriate. CABlankenship (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

as has been pointed out again, and again, and again, this "controversy" is indeed unnotable in scholarship, but it is notable in Afrocentrism, an US based racialist movement. This is the classic WP:FRINGE case of a "theory" with no merit that is nevertheless given coverage because enough noise has been made about it (a.k.a. "notability"). So yes, it does deserve an article, it just needs to be made absolutely clear that the article discusses issues of Race in the United States and not of Egyptology. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure these guys are not socks?

Films and flowers and 14th century painters and obscure insects are considered "notable" enough to have their own articles, but Dbachmann and his fellows have a serious burning desire to kill this particular debate. The issue was considered "notable" enough to be the subject of an International Symposium, and that debate was not limited to Afrocentrists or African Americans - a number of reputable scholars took it seriously.

Am I allowed to ask where do admins draw the line between troll and mere redneck, or will that get me stomped on yet again?Wdford (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on the WP:ANI noticeboard, it is surprising that this reference by a leading egyptologist

• Redford, Donald B. (2004), Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0801878144

has not been used in Race of Ancient Egyptians or this WP:UNDUE fork, largely the work of a sock of banned user Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good recommendation, Mathsci. I'm on the waiting list at my library, but if you have read it and can make relevant contributions based on that work, please do so. Wdford (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be read to some extent on google books and on amazon.com. I won't touch these articles (I have briefly chatted about Race of Ancient Egyptians with 2 egyptologists that I know). Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More racial merriment

At Multiracial American we have some excited fellow insisting the article is "racist" and biased[23] because, I suppose (they aren't being very coherent), it doesn't treat "mixing" of the various European "subraces" as "multiracial". Needless to say, "mixing of white with white" has never been an issue in the history of racial legislation in the US, nor in the US census, nor, to the best of my knowledge, in any sort of discourse on race in the United States (subcategories of the five major races recognized in the census being catgorised in terms of ethnicity, not race). The editor unsurprisingly cannot present a single source that would at least illuminate where they are coming from, but they make up for that minor flaw by producing all the more noise and wikidrama.

Really an issue of cough up some source or go away, but I figure I have already made the mistake of "assuming good faith" here so I cannot suddenly switch to rollback-the-troll mode. PS, also note user's block log. They were "given another chance" for being apologetic after an indef ban for trolling less than a month ago. It would appear that the apologetic mood has worn off rather quickly. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll pitch in. Looks like this one is headed for ANI shortly. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sarmast

I've just been looking at AIV and gave a 31 hour block to a new editor edit warring on this article with possible COI problems as well. See [24]. The two other editors there are probably at their limit and I'm sure the article could use a an eye or two more on it. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Islamic Republic is the same thing as Arab Republic"

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) has been trying to merge/add content about Arab republic into Islamic Republic, claiming that they're the same form of government.[25] Given that Arab Republic is a secular type of government, and Islamic Republic a religious type of government, and there are other major differences in terms of elected institutions etc, this is a violation of WP:Fringe, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I tried to explain this to him , but he reverted saying "not much difference. Arab republics also reliy heavily on Islamic code of laws and both systems are fake republics that share many trades". [26] The user is essentially advocating a fringe POV that the systems in Iran and Pakistan which combine elements of theocracy with elected institutions, are essentially "one and same" as the systems in Syria and Egypt which are more or less military dictatorships. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly nonsense. Take the example of the short-lived United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria. That was supposed to be the first step towards a pan-Arab state. The concept "Arab republic" is about Arab nationalism, rather than Islam (and some leading Arab nationalists, e.g. the founder of Ba'athism Michel Aflaq, have been non-Muslims). On the other hand, you can clearly have Islamic republics which are not Arab. --Folantin (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Arab republic doesn't appear to be a valid article. How is "Arab republic" a form of government? I mean, I can understand that an Islamic Republic is a form of Republic based on Islamic values, but is then an "Arab Republic" a Republic based on characteristics of the Arab ethnicity or something?

I don't think so. An Arab Republic is simply a Republic which is located somewhere in the Arab cultural sphere. Just like the Federal German Republic is simply a Republic located in the German cultural sphere. Nobody would argue that "German Republic" is a term for a form of govermnent.

In other words, Arab republic should just be deleted. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...or be a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to a disambiguation page or deletion of Arab republic. But the main issue, is Jaakobou's attempt to equate two totally different systems, on the Islamic Republic page [27], which is clearly WP:OR. "Arab republic" is basically the term that Egypt and Syria use for their type of government. It's suppose to be a republic, based on Pan-Arabist values, Nasser is the one who coined the term. It's usually a one-party system. Islamic Republic on the other hand, is a republic based on Islamic values (Pakistan) or ideology (Iran) with a complex political system. [28]. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments above, Jaakabou is completely wrong. I suspect this is some kind of spillover from the Israel-Palestine battlefield on Wikipedia (plus, obviously the effect of recent events in Iran). --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC):::

Folantin, with your constant comments like this (including on the recent arbitration page), it is you who is perpetuating the "battle." And by the way, has Jaakabou been notified of this discussion? 6SJ7 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil...So my suspicions were right. I have very little interest in the Israel-Palestine feuding on Wikipedia and have tried to avoid it as much as possible. However, if a small group of editors insist on spreading their fights to completely irrelevant pages then I will point this out. --Folantin (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If your suspicion is that I have several of these noticeboards watchlisted and sometimes jump in when I notice something that seems interesting, then your suspicion is correct. Whatever other suspicions you seem to have, are not correct. I actually agree that the page in question should be a disambiguation rather than a redirect. As for the "Israeli-Palestine feuding", you are the one who brought it up. You were also the first person to bring up anything about another editor's motivations, rather than their edits. (See WP:AGF.) Between the arb page and this page (and maybe some others I haven't seen), you seem to be running around and accusing people whose opinions you disagree with of being part of "Israeli-Palestine feuding" (or on that other page, of being in your words, "pro-Israeli"), thus bringing up "the issue" in places where it hasn't been brought up previously. That seems pretty disruptive to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Is Islamic Republic the same thing as Arab Republic"? That's the issue here. Answer: no, it isn't. Problem solved. Personal issues/vendettas etc. on my talk page, please. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were the one who brought up a wider issue, so you don't get to unilaterally declare it irrelevant so nobody else can say anything. But yes, now, if you are done discussing the wider issue you brought up, the discussion is over. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about Jaakabou. But for the record, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My main concern is the factual accuracy of the Islamic Republic page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking idiotic, since the people in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are NOT ARABS! It is quite possible to have an Islamic Republic without Arabs. In fact, it would theoretically be possible to have an Arab Christian Republic or an Arab Jewish Republic. See Jewish tribes of Arabia and Arab Christians. Edison (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you vex yourself at this point, as the situation has been resoved satisfactorily, and I think uncontroversially. --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)

Found this post on RSN, thought it might be of interest to people here "Just putting this out there, and hoping some more experienced heads can give it a look... This is the article for a controversial eligious movement based in the US but with communities around the world; article contains liberal citations from official website, and most edits with dissenting information are reverted by users who are also members of the community. I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and I'm hoping someone with an idea of what they're doing can intervene. Thanks - jaybird 71.169.155.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article.   Will Beback  talk  14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching this one too, and I see that a lot of unreferenced and non-neutral has recently been added by a user claiming to be a former member. I've restored the earlier version. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My main concern with this article isn't fringe theories so much as the serious and sustained POV issues. Perhaps the POV notice board would be a good place for discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I cut a lot of the POV issues out of the articles. Let's wait and see.Simonm223 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Aton Crow (talk · contribs)

a fresh account apparently here to make use of user and talk namespaces as a personal webhost. Without a single main namespace edit, account is dumping reams of text apparently rambling on about confused occult and/or pseudoscienific ideas.

this isn't urgent, just another case study in how far we are willing to tolerate out-of-main-namespace fringe material. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Dobrev's theories on Bulgarians

An anonymous user user:168.7.241.58 (Thanks BalkanFever - I forgot to paste) is busy adding Fringe (nationalist) theories to early cyrillic, glagolitic alphabet and other pages to do with the origins of Slavic languages. These are all sourced to one site with text written by the Bulgarian economist Peter Dobrev. I have tried reverting, and explaining on their talk page, but I'm being ignored. Could someone please stop them? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify it's 168.7.241.58 (talk). I also believe admin intervention is needed. BalkanFever 04:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article Bulgar alphabet was created today using the same source. It needs to be speedily deleted as fringecruft. I believe Deirdear (talk · contribs) who created it is the same person as the above IP. BalkanFever 05:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

we have an article on this class of crackpot theories, at Pre-Christian Slavic writing. Bulgar alphabet can be merged there. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a block on the IP? BalkanFever 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also asked here. He's annoying me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a rangeblock. This may also be a good opportunity to review Ancient Bulgarian calendar. Bulgars#Iranian_theory and Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thealogy

Ok, 'thealogy' is ok, but 'Monotheasm'? Anyone know anything about thealogy? Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Basque this time

At Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, an editor (Arnaiz1) claiming to be M. Arnaiz-Villena is repeatedly deleting large amounts of sourced material, claiming he never said these things and that we're part of a conspiracy against him. Since they are stated either in his books or in the website of a foundation advertising his books, a foundation of which A-V is president, Arnaiz1 is obviously misrepresenting something. A-V's claims are pseudoscience, though because few people have bothered to review him and we don't have any sources using that word, the wording in the article has been downgraded to "fringe". A-V is the author of the Usko-Mediterranean BS that was deleted last month. For those of you who haven't heard of him, A-V is the greatest epigrapher in the history of humankind. It was him, not Champollion, who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, which turn out to record Basque, not an Afrasiatic language. (The entire field of Egyptology is a scientific fraud.) Also, the use of Hittite in the reconstruction of Indo-European is a fraud, as Hittite is also Basque. And the Hammurabi code is not a legal code, but records Basque religious texts—Sumeriology and Assyriology are great scientific frauds. And Phoenician was not a Semitic language, but Basque, as were Minoan, Etruscan, and Elamite. His website advertises that Basque is also the key to deciphering the Indus, rongorongo, and the Mesoamerican scripts, as a neolithic Basque civilization spanned the globe. kwami (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics (esoterism)

I just discovered a family of articles that look like they could do with some help from more editors, and it's right up our street. For other articles look at the contributions of the main author (cf Energy (esotericism). Verbal chat 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that stuff a while back. A little investigation showed that this is a Russian/Ukrainian phenomenon, and that getting a handle on it would take more work than I wanted to invest. Definitely not very encyclopedic as it stands, though. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this particular article to AFD. As it stands it is an OR fork; maybe the Ukrainians can get a section in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also up for AFD is Information metabolism, the first pure case of a WP:COATRACK I've seen. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

SOmeone who knows more about the Order of the Golden Dawn than I do should take a look at Tattva vision. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Environmental Medicine

This alternative medicine organisation was quoted as a major source of opinion on GM food, I've never heard of it and it doesn't even have a Wiki article. This seemed a violation of undue weight to me, so I've removed this section. This is being discussed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research 2

This article is in desperate need of help. The positions of advocates are presented in flattering terms, while critics (or "skeptics") are dismissed ("unpeer reviewed") as laymen or nonexperts (because they aren't reincarnation researchers) and the substance of their criticisms isn't presented. A very problematic article with glaring WP:NPOV problems, caused by heavy reliance on non-RS fringe sources. Ownership is also apparent. Verbal chat 08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The self-published websites that Verbal is referring to as "critical" should not even be in the article at all. They are not peer-reviewed because they are amateurs, as opposed to the professors of psychiatry whose research they are reviewing. Mitsube (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is another claim I should have added: editors there are discounting the James Randi Educational Foundation as non-expert and self-pub. They classify it as a fringe source! However, this is not the criticism I am referring to above, though it is clearly relevant. Verbal chat 09:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, JREF has done more to dispassionately investigate fringe issues than almost any other organization I can think of. The fact that they have frequently debunked these issues has been because of adherence to strict experiment protocols.Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Criticism of reincarnation shunted into a ghetto with little "rebuttals" added? Seems to violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Did some fixing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fringe content used/uses the Journal of Scientific Exploration. This was not questioned! Another interesting article where the lead seems slightly unbalanced. Verbal chat 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that at least some of the content in the article is plagiarized from Stevenson's obits in The Telegraph and the Washington Post. Compare:

In one case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic who was thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to several witnesses, the boy provided the driver's name, the location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with. These all matched the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.

with

In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.

— [29]

and compare

Another case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles (260 km) from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that, some eight years before Gopal's birth, one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother. The deceased man was called Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child identified various people and places known to Shaktipal.

with

A typical case involved an Indian boy, Gopal, who at the age of three started talking about his previous life in the city of Mathura, 160 miles from his home in Delhi. He claimed that he had owned a medical company called Sukh Shancharak, lived in a large house with many servants, and that his brother had shot him after a quarrel. Subsequent investigations revealed that one of the owners of Sukh Shancharak had shot his brother some eight years before Gopal's birth. The deceased man was named Shaktipal Shara. Gopal was subsequently invited to Mathura by Shaktipal's family, where the young child recognised various people and places known to Shaktipal.

— [30]

The Ian Stevenson also has some similar problems.
Secondly, the NYT obit has some useful quotes from Professor Leonard Angel of Stevenson's research, and mentions a Skeptical Inquirer article Angel wrote. Also see the references at the end of this Skepdic Dictionary. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Nature (journal) isn't a scientific journal, and it is dismissed as "popular magazine". I couldn't make this up. I'll note the copyright issues on the article talk. Verbal chat 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going fix the lead where it prominently associates the University Of Virginia with the reincarnation research but leaves out that the college's Division of Perceptual Studies, a parapsychology department whose focus is ESP and the paranormal, actually conducted the studies. However the article now seems to have bigger problems as evidenced by tagging sprees and 3RR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It appears that a single editor with an axe to grind is reverting anything that might challenge his position that the Stevenson research represents a sound scientific model. And is simultaneously insisting on inserting weasel words to discredit criticism. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made the edit, and now I'm going to give that kerfluffle a rest. Seeing a "This user believes in reincarnation" infobox on one editor's page makes me think it won't end well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrably False Statements of Fact.

Strangely nothing in Wikipedia addresses this issue, equally strange there exists debate about a known fact. I believe that this is the best venue regarding an editors ability to recognize conflicting references and without subjective interpertation dismiss demonstrably false references. It's a simple exercise with this example at the extreme obvious side of the spectrum.

A reference exists[31] and makes the specific claim that the term "grief porn" was coined on April 7, 2005. Prior use evidence of the term, in context, exists in both published fiction and non-fiction works and in the printed press dating many years back. [32][33][34][35]

Must Wikipedia be a slave to referenced errors, is there no level of editorial responsibility allowed? Is an error in a Blog, journal or paper notable in and of itself? Or must anything sourced be allowed inclusion as the standard is verifiability and not truth?

Is there truly not any level of demonstrably false information that can be removed?99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that something be included just because it's in some source. If editors agree not to use a particular source, then they won't use it. Friday (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Battles over this sort of thing tend to be incredibly tenacious. I've had two cases where I had to track down high school yearbooks to refute newspaper errors and offhand remarks, and one case where I had someone in another state searching library stacks to prove that a referenced work did not in fact exist. The jury is still out on whether Herbert Hoover swore or affirmed the oath of office (circumstantial evidence says swore, some newspaper reports say affirmed). People don't seem to understand the notion that to be reliable, a source has to be correct. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to avoid the wall of text below, as I've seen these same arguments repeated at least a half-dozen times in the article discussion. The discussion from two different editors think that both sides can be stated to benefit the article, whereas this IP contributor here swears up and down that none of us understand the rules. tenacious isn't the word her; tedious is far more fitting. We have already pointed out several times that the usage of citations isn't an either.or arrangement but rather a 'however' arrangement (ie, this was reportedly done, but this contradicts that). It is a net benefit to the article to mention both as counterpoints to one another, allowing the reader to make up their own minds. From a practicality aspect, it prevents one citation from being periodically removed in favor of another (case in point, the anon did precisely that) - effectively destabilizing the article.

The argument against the use of a reliable citation from a newspaper is put forth from an anon who admits they've edited under another account in the past, and there is a strong indication that this might be a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. Additionally, their edits are clearly tendentious and uncivil, and they are unwilling to discuss without making personal attacks. Thought that might better frame the inquiry of the person. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm being told the following:

I appreciate what you are saying, anon, but I am not the person saying that he coined it; the cited article says that. You may disagree with that, but - unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint.

Remember, you are not citable and cannot, on your own merits, be cited as counterpoint to any cited statement.

If there are citations that refute that, it doesn't mean that we purge or whittle away to nothingness the cited statements already present. We instead add the citations that counter the claim of invention. there is a limit to how far we can go to connect these contrary statements without running the risk of synthesis.

Also, I will again state that your opinion as to the "truth" of the citation isn't usable by us. Verifiability is the litmus test for inclusion, not truth. You don't get to prove or disprove the claims of a cited source. Do you not understand that?

We don't remove or water down the statements of a perfectly reliable source in favor of creating heat.

Okay, I am trying to help you understand Wikipedia here, anon99. First of all, the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That isn't me saying that, that's policy. So, maybe stop arguing that we cannot include it because its "false", as that is immaterial to inclusion. Ask an admin. Hell, ask two. Secondly, just because the section of Guardian online is called the ObserverBlog doesn't actually mean it is a blog.

Lastly, the hardest part of Wikipedia for new editors is learning that their opinion is utterly worthless when it differs from that of a published source.

You cannot contradict a published source, as you (nor your opinion) are citably sufficient to do so.

I will again point out that this isn't a matter of "knowingly (using) false information"; it is a matter of verification; indeed, it is the very first line of that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

as I noted before, just because the section is called the Observer Blog doesn't actually mean its a blog. You need to understand the difference between a blog and a news article. I simply do not have the time to educate you on this.

Here is the link to the blog[36]. The edit:[37] and the proof that the claim is false.[38][39][40][41]

The date given is an unsupported "Fringe theory", the reasoning entirely based upon policy and some strange view that my providing impeaching citations is as my fellow editor so clearly states: "unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint". Strange. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it's a serious problem of Wikipedia. Just today I had verifiability, not truth quoted at me by a very experienced editor. I believe the rules are in part optimised to deal with fringe and crackpot editors. We don't want endless discussions with them where they try to prove that the earth is flat so it can be stated in an article, or disprove evolution so that an article can no longer present it as true. Unfortunately that leads to situations where all editors agree that something is wrong, but a large minority insists that we claim it anyway because we have a source. We have WP:REDFLAG, but that again is also optimised for dealing with fringe. A very common problem seems to be factoids that are passed from one "reliable source" to another in a telephone game that can sometimes go over several centuries. Thus we get the situation where "reliable sources" tangential to a topic describe it in great detail, but omitting anything that could help to verify the information from archives, while more on-topic sources mention it only in passing because the author only writes what he could verify. I think WP:REDFLAG needs to be broadened to cover this situation; however, it's important to get the balance right to avoid its use for pushing fringe positions. Hans Adler 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to derail the RfC at the appropriate talk page but I'd like to chime in. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean we don't have any false statements to any degree ever. In fact it behooves us to state the false so we may shed light on the subject. If we don't include this information then someone will find it, note that it's not in the article and edit the article to include it anyway. Then we argue over whether it's a reliable source and so forth. If we instead state outright that some paper has printed this but has since been shown to be incorrect then we don't have to worry about future editors and battles, the article can defend itself. This should not be seen as an endorsement of false statements, but you must address the false statements in order to refute them. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely the point i was making earlier. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can this really be the policy of Wikipedia, as was stated above by the editor seeking inclusion of this false information: "It is a net benefit to the article to mention both as counterpoints to one another, allowing the reader to make up their own minds." This is after all a claim that a phrase was created on specific date, April 7, 2005. A date which is demonstrably false. [42][43] ,99.144.192.208 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, after reading the talk page where you guys have been discussing this: This is not about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong as if it was true, it's about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong while indicating as clearly as is possible without transgressing the "original research" restriction that it is actually wrong.

The demonstrably wrong claim appeared in the Observer Blog. Our standard rule seems to be that main entries in such a newspaper blog, which are signed by people who otherwise also write in the newspaper, count as reliable sources. [44] Thus it's misleading to refer to this as just a blog entry.

This leaves us with a situation in which the error can be reported with proper framing as such, or simply dropped. In other words, as so often the rules don't tell us what to do and it's a matter of WP:Editorial discretion. The following two criteria are potentially worth considering:

1. How wide has the error been disseminated? If a lot of people believe in the incorrect information, it makes sense to mention it and to indicate why it is wrong. If not, it doesn't seem to make much sense to include a random piece of random trivia and embarrass the author of the erroneous claim.
2. Does it improve the presentation of the article if the information is included? Our best articles contain all noteworthy information, but they are also fleshed out with additional non-vital information.

Hans Adler 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The date, mention of the press conference, and even mention of the topic itself, are not known to exist anywhere else on Earth. Additionally as you are putting forth a suggestion for a possible framework for resolving False Statements of Fact would you be so kind as to visit the RFC at the grief porn[45] article and demonstrate a practical application of your framework to this real life example?

Let me also ask a follow up question, am I understanding you to say that errors can sometimes be Notable and worthy of inclusion? If so, would the same standard exist - ie, would one require a supporting reference that noted the error and/or it's importance to our understanding of the subject? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, are we sure this is a reliable source? Sorry, I don't have time to research this myself, so hopefully I'm not leading you on a wild goose chase but somewhere there's some verbage about the blog being subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Can we confirm that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Another thing you might want to look into is this is apparently an Observer blog about the Observer. Is this a primary or a third-party source? Finally, have you considered e-mailing the author? He might issue a correction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)