Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Disagreeing with reliable sources

I'd be grateful for views on an odd issue that has cropped up on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. (I have cross-posted this to the reliable sources and fringe theories noticeboards as it presents overlapping issues.)

A disagreement has arisen about a statement sourced to this article from the Australian newspaper The Age, concerning an individual named Nahum Shahaf, who has been in the limelight concerning claims that a vast international conspiracy staged the death of a Palestinian boy in 2000. In the context of a critique of Shahaf's views, the source states that Shahaf "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications". Several other newspaper sources say that "Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics", that he is "not an expert" and that he is "known mainly as an inventor". He describes himself as a physicist. It's not clear if he has any formal qualifications as such, since nobody has yet been able to find any sources which describe his qualifications. There is, in short, nothing to suggest that the statement that he "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications" is in dispute by anyone, not even by the man himself.

A relatively new editor, User:Tundrabuggy, disagrees with the source on two grounds. First, he states that the reporter is "considered by some to be highly biased [against Israel]" (i.e. a few pressure groups and individuals have criticised his reporting) and has requested the removal of his use as a source - see :Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Challenge on one of the reporters. Second, Shahaf himself has said that his expertise is based on his having "finished all the stages necessary in learning this topic", "read the scientific material" and "consult[ed] with several experts", but has not at any point that I know of asserted that he has any qualifications in that area. On that basis, Tundrabuggy argues that Shahaf is qualified and it's therefore wrong to state that he has no qualifications. Here Tundrabuggy seems to be elliding the distinction between having knowledge of a subject and having qualifications in that subject. (I have knowledge of the daily struggles of being a man, because I'm a man. I don't have qualifications on that subject because I've never passed an examination on gender studies.)

The rather tedious discussion can be found at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf.

It seems to me that this is an example of (a) would-be censorship - if we removed every source that someone disagreed with at some point, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia left; and (b) original research, since Tundrabuggy is essentially arguing on the basis of his personal belief that Shahaf has "qualifications" and it's therefore wrong to cite a newspaper report which says he doesn't, even though the man himself isn't known to have made this claim. I'd be interested to know what people think of this from a fringe theories perspective, since I'm conscious that proponents of fringe sources often claim that they have a greater degree of expertise than is really the case (cf. the ID and anti-AGW crowd). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this falls into WP:FRINGE as a topic. With regard to the information, it appears to be published from what we consider a reliable source. The material should be attributed to the individual. While it should be avoided on a general topic, it is acceptable to include bias or POV materials and sources in Wikipedia, as long as they conform to WP:V. If there is a contrasting viewpoint, than it should also be included per WP:NPOV. Be aware of WP:BLP policies, if this looks like slander or libel, think closely about if it should be included. Also determine if the material contributes to the persons notability. Not everything that is published in the news about someone merits inclusion. Look at the topic point and determine if this particular piece of information is worth mention in the historical biography of that person. Morphh ^(talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. Where is the link to the WP article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I understand now. It seems a little strange to bring a talk page problem here. Talk page problems usually wind up on the Administrators Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

AN is a drama magnet; I try to avoid it wherever possible, as discussions on specialised noticeboards are more likely to produce on-topic responses in my experience. The source is certainly reliable; The Age is a major, long-established Australian newspaper, roughly equivalent to (say) the Boston Globe or The Scotsman. The article in question is a regular investigative news report, not an opinion piece, and as such we have to assume that it's gone through the usual fact-checking and legal clearances (I believe Australia has fairly strict libel laws). With regard to NPOV, I'm mindful of the fact that it deals with "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That doesn't really apply in this case. The "conflicting perspective" appears to be sourced entirely to the mind of one Wikipedian. No reliable source I know of contradicts the newspaper report - there's no source that says "yes, Shahaf does have qualifications", and the man himself hasn't asserted that as far as anyone can determine. So what we have here is a fairly straightforward, editorially reviewed assertion of fact with wihch no other source is in disagreement. I'm not sure that a qualifying statement is needed in that circumstance. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand why there is so much emphasis on a newspaper article that is nothing more than a compilation from other sources, some of which sources may themselves be either reliable or unreliable. As for Nahum Shahaf, his article describes him as an engineer having extensive experience in weapons development for the IDF, including helicopter missile technologies. So if he does not understand ballistics, I am not sure just what he would understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the article you mention is the subject of some dispute (see the talk page), as it seems to be sourced primarily to the man himself. We actually don't have very much information that comes from reliable third party sources. I had the opportunity to do a Factiva namecheck on him concerning your implied question; I found a number of articles about his involvement in the Muhammad al-Durrah case, in which he seems to have a central role, but nothing whatsoever about him in any other context. I might add that involvement in helicopter missile engineering is no guide to whether a person has a knowledge of ballistics. It would be relevant if you were designing the casing, but not to someone working on (let's say) guidance systems or optronics. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the article on Nahum Shahaf was created very recently and mostly written - even its current version - by User:Tundrabuggy, so can hardly be used to back up that same editor's arguments against well-sourced descriptions of Shahaf, unless we truly live in a world of mad circular self-justification. In fact Malcolm, you've just proved the point with the Shahaf article as it's written - people will link to it from the al-Durrah article and make a snap judgement that "well, this guy is a scientist who knows what he's talking about generally, and probably does as well in respect of rifle ballistics or crime scene reconstructions". He may well do, but none of this is at all clear from any serious source, even those currently being used in respect of his more general scientific expertise.

And regardless of those specifics, Wikipedia is not of course a source for itself. The fundamental issue is surely that statements of supposed fact, sourced to a mainstream media outlet subject to editorial oversight and in some cases regulatory oversight, are good as reliable sources here, even if they can be interpreted as being critical. This is non-negotiable, regardless of whether minority nationalist advocacy groups have disparaged that outlet or a particular journalist who works there at one point or other. Nor is corroboration necessarily needed for claims in a reliable source, as suggested below, and to demand it sails pretty close to advocating blacklisting. The day we accept that partisan advocacy groups carry more weight than any other source is the day Wikipedia degenerates into a real POV bunfight. Such groups exist on both sides of any dispute of course, even if some are less vocal than others or get less airplay.--Nickhh (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the article on Nahum Shahaf using what references I could find. Everything there is sourced. Anyone is welcome to look outside of wiki for more information. The man himself claims he is "qualified," his jobs with the defense industry, his inventions, and his description by 99% of reporters as a "physicist" ought to have some weight. The IDF seems to consider him qualified enough to ask him to lead this investigation. Surely with the high degree of technical expertise to be found in Israel, they could have found some "qualified" person in the area of ballistics or forensics that they could have chosen instead of some dude, as this one reporter claims, "has no qualifications or expertise." In fact, in making a claim of "no qualifications" the reporter has left himself wide open to criticism for not specifying. Is he referring to formal qualifications? He doesn't say so. I have suggested that this is indeed a BLP issue, similar to saying that a doctor or lawyer is "unqualified." It is simply not something one wants to say without some specificity or corroboration. It has nothing to do with partisan advocacy groups. Each question must be determined on its own merits. --09:41, 6 August 2008 Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, ChrisO is mischaracterising my points. I never "requested the removal of his use as a source." Specifically I said: "So my point is, I don't think this is a good source used alone, and vote to strike anything that is backed up by his word alone." (italics added later for clarity) My reasoning had to do with a number of articles accusing the reporter of "systematic bias" - "a talented journalist who brilliantly distorts facts and substitutes opinions for news" - etc --for example see: [1] 2) The concerns ChrisO addresses regarding qualifications are addressed on the article's talk page, [2], in a section I initiated July 23 about just this issue, in which I argue that to claim Shahaf has "no qualifications" is an exceptional claim requiring high quality reliable sources. I can't understand why ChrisO did not point to my arguments, in which he participated, here: it.[3] On July 24th, I initiated a request on this issue at the ongoing mediation page here: [4] He participated in the mediation page as well. This was posted here and at the RS message board on the 28th, and despite being an interested and involved party in the mediation as well as this posting, I was never given the courtesy of a heads-up on my TALK page, and only today was the notification made at the mediation page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

African Empires

essentially a WP:SYN-fork of Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that there is no literature on "African Empires". A term that is in de-facto use is "West African empires", referring to the medieval Sahelian kingdoms and their successor states. The term "African Empires" does occur[5], and apparently has some currency in Afrocentrist literature, referring to some sort of imaginary pre-colonial Pan-African "golden age". The term consequently appears in publications such as African Philosophy in Search of Identity, A History of Native American and African Relations (viz., Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories), African Glory: The Story of Vanished Negro Civilizations, Cafundo: My People, My Folk, My Senzala, My Roots, An Introduction to Pan African Studies etc. Not sure whether "African Empires" as a notion in Afrocentrism has sufficient notability for a standalone article or whether it should just be merged back into Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that it is undisputed, of course, that there have been empires in Africa. It's just that this doesn't make for a topic any more than Eurasian empires. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but why was this listed on the "FRINGE" booard? I don't quite follow the reasoning there. Blockinblox (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would assume dab listed it because he feels African Empires article if full of pseudo-historical fringe theories that are rejected by the maintream, and he would like us to take a look. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said, the term comes up in pseudohistorical literature (Pan-Africanism, Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and the like), and unlike "Sahelian empires", "Islamic empires", "Colonial empires" etc. is not a grouping current in serious historical literature. In other words, fringe literature. Which isn't even cited in the article. The article at present has no sources talking of "African empires". But if you wanted to add sources, you'd be left with fringe literature. I found a single source (Vansina 1962) discussing Sub-Saharan African kingdoms as a topic, which I took as sufficient to justify kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that even Vansina (1962) doesn't discuss "Pan-African" kingdoms, but excludes North Africa from the discussion. As it stands, even Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa may be criticized on grounds of {{onesource}}, since it seems arbitrary to compare the Sahelian kingdoms to those of Zimbabwe. Treating North African and Southern African "Empires" as a single encylopedic topic is like pushing an article on the Chinese, Hunnic, Indian and Roman empires. They all existed. They're all on the same landmass. We don't have any reference suggesting they should be grouped. I might add that I have just fixed European empire on the same grounds. Colonial empires is a valid grouping, but listing the Roman and the British empires as "European empires" is original synthesis (as you might list the Austrian empire and the Ashanti empire under empires beginning with A). dab (𒁳) 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being slightly over critical here, dab. I think there is a ligitimate case for having broad overview, history articles on "Empires on X Continent"... discussing the rise and fall of various empires within that geographic area. The key is to accurately reflect the historical consensus about which empires had an impact on (or even contact with) others, and which did not. In other words, I don't think the article topic or title is OR. Nor do I think it FRINGE... but I can see how the article might end up being a FRINGE magnet, given the amount of pseudo-history that has been generated about African history. In other, other words: Keep the article, but watch it very closely. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The following link (http://books.google.com/books?id=rd1CzDFXErEC&pg=PA44&dq=African+Empires&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U1vK5iswmSEP_e50JLcBWv103FakA#PPA45,M1) is to a book that discusses African empires (check pages 43, 44, 49). It is published by Princeton University PRess (hardly a bastion of Afrocentric thought) and authored by Jeffrey Ira Herbst (not an afrocentrist as far as I know). What really sucks is that if black scholars or black publishers put out the exact same book it would be written off as Afrocentric. Apparently the only people qualified to talk about African history are white people or predominantly white institutions. That's really pretty sad. I created the African empires page for the convenience of all wiki users. I really regret that this kind of debate even has to take place. What happened to good faith?Scott Free (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

the only occurrence of the string "African empires" in the publication you link to occurs in the context "the African empires in the western and central Soudan, such as Mali and Kanem-Bornu" -- i.e. we are again looking at the trans-Saharan / Sahelian empires, not "African empires". I am not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about grouping empires by continent, but it is clearly not a good idea. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply daft to assume that late medieval Sahel states are kingdoms but are not empires. I'm not sure even where to begin with this frankly ignorant (in it's proper meaning) statement. The West African grasslands and Sahel tended to produce larger political units than the forest zone from at least 1000 CE. These states moved from clan based Fula or Maure entities to caste based states like the Wolof or Bambara states, to much larger entities like Songhai, Mali and the later Fula jihad states. These last two categories are clearly (and commonly) better identified in English as "empires" or "conquest states" than "kingdoms". Kingdoms by definition, if not Eurasian practice, are a single hierarchy authority system, based on family secession. West African states tended to be either based on the model of contraputual authority (where a conquest caste or group retains political authority and a pre-existing group retains religious authority) OR a system of caste, clan, or territorially based electors to whom the ruler answers and by whom he is chosen. Neither of these seems to be best described as "kingship" (and most serious works of the last 40+ years reflect this). Of course if you'd been at all familiar with the historical literature, you'd know this. As you don't, you probably should not be making substantial changes in articles on this topic. T L Miles (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

you are shooting down strawmen. Of course the Sahelian kingdoms can be consideredd empires, that's completely beside the point. The question is, why should the Sahelian empires be grouped with the Egyptian Empire, the Ethiopian Empire, various Caliphates and Great Zimbabwe? I would be perfectly happy with an article on West African empires, although that would probably be merged with Sahelian kingdoms. In other words, Sahelian kingdoms is our article on West African empires. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna (revisited)

Atropa belladonna. I need some HELP at this page. Please. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems OK to me at the moment. One neutral mention of homeopathy is hardly overkill. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a great many herbs and poisons are "used" in homeopathic formulations (which are really just pure water), and once you let this weed sprout, it will start popping up all over the place. Better to suppress it now than have to take radical measures later. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It really only will pop up and flouish where it has the necessary fertilizer of reliable sources, and where the editorial sunshine and watering of maintaining NPOV, especially UNDUE and COATRACK, keeps it pruned to proper encyclopedic stature (which for many might be by pulling them up). Cetainly we can describe instances of such use in a way which in no way prescribes or endorses it, so I see no need for suppression. After all the most radical measure we'll ever need to make is a reversion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One cited sentence is pretty suppressed anyway. And that's good, coz homeopathy is crap, but no need to kill that golden goose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source: "An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care", a book by Sidney Skinner. You can preview the book on Google Books. Appendix A shows the "homeopathic pharmacopea of the United States", as of 1999. It shows over 1500 items. By your rules, every one of these could potentially be mentioned in Wikipedia, sourced to that book. Once we let atropine in, there's no obvious place to draw the line. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one sentence in each of 1500 articles is not going to break Wikipedia's back. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but 1500 mentions certainly exaggerates the importance of Homeopathy.
Kww (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering how big Wikipedia is? Not really. The info is just about encyclopedic enough, doesn't promote homeopathy (god forbid), and one sentence isn't undue weight. I still fail to see the problem. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Moreschi. Imagine that a person goes to the store and sees a homeopathic remedy and looks it up in Wikipedia. Our page atropa belladonna provides an interesting, complete and essentially accurate view of what that is. Why not let homeopathy be mentioned when it can be cited to a reliable source? There is greater harm to NPOV in trying to stamp it out than in giving it a quick mention and providing the relevant facts. Any user who reads our article on homeopathy will get a pretty clear understanding of what it is. Placebo therapy is not so bad for many conditions. It causes very little (no?) iatrogenic illness. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(E/C) I restate my agreement with these last couple posts. I do think I understand the concern, that even within this list from one source, that some of the items will be found only in there for the most obscure of reasons, and so even their inclusion here would be better off omitted on very subtle WEIGHT grounds, even if sourcing policies could be used to argue for inclusion (for a slightly less subtle version of this issue, check out this). But that all said, I would agree with others here that this really isn't a big deal; articles about related topics to this have far more pressing issues, in many cases, and we're not paper. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

People, this is an article on the PLANT, not on the remedy. If we want to have an article on individual remedies, that's one thing. But to pollute articles on an essentailly unrelated subject with homeopathy is my beef. In January I went through and removed homeopathy from all the articles that did not have sources which indicated that homeopathy was somehow important to the subject of the article (Domesticated sheep is an example where homeopathy stayed). This is the last article left that does not have a source which explicitly indicates that homeopathy is important to the plant. Actually, if anyone knows of a source that says something about this plant being famous for its homeopathic use, that would make me feel MUCH better, but as it is the best we can do is an anecdotal mention in the OUP book on health foods (how Deadly nightshade became a "food" I'm not sure, but anyway). That's simply not very good sourcing and definitely looks to me like a WP:WEIGHT violation. People think that just because it's a small instance that it isn't a big problem. Well, we have a system for dealing with these attempted "small mentions" of homeopathy that had found their way into no less than 30 different articles on plants and chemicals: excising.

You know, List of homeopathic remedies is a great page. Why violate the principle of one-way linking? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The plant article refers to many remedies, not just the homeopathic one. So why have you been focused on the homeopathic one for so long? We aren't promoting the remedy, but rather presenting the mainstream's lack of support for its use. The homeopathic remedy has been mentioned, described and/or studied in several reliable sources including books from reputable published, scientific government agencies, and peer-reviewed indexed journals, all of which satisfy your desire to show that this plant is "famous" for its homeopathic use... whatever that means. And the system for dealing with the small mentions which you describe above - excising - seems to have just been your personal ideological campaign to remove information which you don't like. Finally, the "principle of one-way linking" is just your made up rule which only exists on your user page, so who cares if we violate it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is and has always been that there is no PLANT in the remedy named belladonna. So the association is all on the say-so of unreliable sources (that is, homeopaths). Other remedies at least use the plant (if not necessarily in a way that has scientific evidence backing the use). The problem is that this PLANT is not found in the remedy and the association is only done by fringe promoters. And the principle of one-way linking is actually found in WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT too. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked and I don't see any "principle of one-way linking" found on either WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Can you please point it out? So far, your user page is the only place where I have seen this mentioned. And of all of the editors at Wikipedia, I have only seen you assert your self-created rule as some actual policy which we must all follow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there are a no molecules of atropa left after the preparation (uncertain), the fact remains that they were prepared with atropa, and are marketed as "atropa belladonna" homeopathic remedies. So someone might look up atropa belladonna after buying it, and find a brief sentence stating that there have been 2 studies on the remedy, both which found no effect. The fact that mainstream researchers took the time to do 2 clinical trials suggests that there is some interest in it, and clearly they are reliable sources for describing it. II | (t - c) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What you claim as fact is actually not a verifiable fact, II. WP:REDFLAG must be taken seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which claim? II | (t - c) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to put words in SA's mouth, but my guess would be that he means that it would be very difficult to prove that most homeopathic remedies had ever been near the ingredient they were named after. They've been diluted so heavily that most bottles contain none of the purported ingredient, and those that do may have only one molecule ... such a small amount that no equipment could detect it. Essentially, homeopathic medicines are distilled water, and one relies upon the producer to actually use the chemical he claims to use. Since the producer quite likely knows that the initial ingredient has no effect on the finished product, and knows that his product has no effect whatsoever on the disease it is being purchased to treat, he can't be relied on to accurately describe its contents. In fact, given that the chemicals claimed to be in the remedies are poisonous, there is actually a counterincentive: if he intentionally ships distilled water, no one can tell the difference, and there is no risk of a manufacturing defect actually shipping a bottle full of the active ingredient and killing someone. He's guilty of fraud in both cases, but only liable for physical harm if he tries to produce what he puts on the label.
Kww (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some dilutions may contain just one molecule, while some dilutions can contain much more. I am not an expert of homeopathy. I am not a proponent of homeopathy. I am not even a believer in homeopathy. But I think this "no molecule argument" is a red herring in terms of inclusion. Inclusion in the article is not dependent on whether the remedy was actually made with Atropa belladonna or whether there is any left in the remedy once it has been diluted or if a homeopathic manufacturer is guilty of fraud or if the remedy works or if it's just water. The remedy is associated with the plant regardless of all of this. There are several reliable sources making this association for us and therefore, I must agree with the editors above - a one-sentence mention of the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna is certainly merited in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. We cannot verify that there is any of the plant in the stuff sold as this "preparation". That's the real issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting verifiability. I'm no homeopathy expert, but I read the link from PhilKnight. It seemed to be self-published, and it suggested that past 7C there was likely to be no molecules. Some homeopathic preparations, apparently, are at 5C. Anyway, it is all irrelevant since they are prepared for with atropa. II | (t - c) 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To my total disgust as a scientist, such preparations are legally sold and advertised as remedies and the ingredients treated as real. We need to provide information on them just as for any other widely used drug. Regardless of what is actually in this, it is prepared from the plant being discussed. Its appropriate to mention this. DGG (talk)

To be clear, I have no problem with discussing the legally sold and advertised products or even saying what those products list as ingredients. We have articles like List of homeopathic preparations where this is more than appropriate. I just have a problem listing those products on the pages devoted to the ingredients when they don't actually include the ingredients. That's a monumental violation of WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I would prefer not to mention this at all, but since this seems like an unwinnable fight, I've tried to make the best of it, by editing the article so that the body contains a sentence reading, "Homeopathic formulations of belladonna are also sold", and a footnote is added that reads, "Homeopathic formulations are usually diluted so strongly that an entire bottle may not contain even a single molecule of the substance a formulation is named after. Thus, a homeopathic formulation of belladonna is unlikely to actually contain any belladonna." Let's continue discussion on the talk page, please -- I expect we're getting annoying here. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this square with WP:WEIGHT? Isn't this the ultimate in not having weight? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if we were dealing with atomic weight. ;-) We are not. We are dealing with relevant weight. Given the quality of the sources, the brief mention is wholly warranted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We know what your standard for a high-quality source is. Let's let Looie496 respond, okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, I prefer the same solution that you do, but I don't see it as productive to continue this fight. The numbers aren't working for us. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496. ScienceApologist. All. I feel your frustrations. Please believe me. I do. I think medical fraud is disgusting and I would never be party to actively promoting it. Though I am not saying that Homeopathy is outright fraud, I am personally skeptical of homeopathy as the scientific data doesn't add up in its favor - at least what I've seen. Regardless of my opinion or your opinion or a homeopath's opinion, perhaps what we have here is kind of a Wikipedia First Amendment challenge and this article is like Skokie, Illinois circa 1977. Without making a direct 1:1 correlation between homeopathy and the NSPA (though I bet some of us here would like too! ;-), this might be one of those ultimate litmus tests of one of our core and most precious freedoms. And as much as it might pain us to do so, we must be willing to defend this liberty for those whose point-of-views we most oppose if we expect to have the same liberty protecting our own views. And I know what Wikipedia is not, so let's not go there. Instead, let's remember what Wikipedia is.

::::::::: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

Now consider that a source such as the Oxford Book of Health Foods is an encyclopedia of sorts and one that comes to us from a most reputable source of human knowledge.

To be fair, I must point out that Freedom of Speech (at least in my neck of the woods) has limitations and doesn't protect all forms of speech. Similarly, WP:Fringe is a limitation on NPOV; one which we all recognize and support. But let's look at the text we are disputing here. It is not reckless. It is not promoting the use of homeopathy. In fact, it is doing quite the opposite by presenting the less-than-favorable mainstream scientific opinion on the matter. We are doing our WP:FRINGE due diligence here, and then some. After all, we are not referencing this mere sentence with one (1), but rather four (4) reliable sources all describing (and essentially condemning) belladonic homeopathy. Consider this a success for Wikipedia. For all of us. We are really doing this one right by presenting some interesting, relevant information about a very common but questionable practice in a most starkly neutral light.

Deep breath. For me. For ScienceApologist. For all of us who have gathered here and all of us who have discussed this issue going on nearly 6 months now. Let's all withdraw, swallow the bitter pill and wash it down with a cool vial of inert distilled water and get on with making Wikipedia the best damn collection of human knowledge this planet has seen in a very, very, long, long time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Political timeline of the Pretanic Isles

This needs some looking at. It appears to be intended as a timeline of events in insular Celtic history. The bizarre title "Pretanic isles" seems to be a Celticist coinage to avoid the phrase "British isles". The creator of this article claims it is justified by one sentence in the British Isles naming dispute article - a sentence that is footnoted to Google seraches. The article also lists exact dates for quasi-mythical events such as the battle of Camlann. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it to British Isles. AFAIK we don't actually do "political timeline" articles like this, particularly not ones that appear to be pushing some sort of weird Celtic nationalist agenda like this one. Neither do we do ones with such...odd...titles. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's spammed a lot of pages with "See also" links to the "Pretanic" page [6]. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The date for the Battle of Camlann comes from the Annales Cambriae, which is given as one of the sources. Since many of the articles on various religions are written as if the events in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc., are actual fact, I don't see the problem. The timeline includes political events of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, the Kingdom of England, and the United Kingdom, equal to or more than mentions of Ireland, so it's not simply "Celticist". A large part of the reason Celtic areas have so many entries in the timeline is because those areas were often unstable and there were therefore more changes. I have moved the article and changed the name. Natty4bumpo (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is obvious to the most casual reader that the article is overwhelmingly Celticist in orientation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the title refects that fact. Leaving aside Canlann specifically, there are numerous dates that are portrayed as fact, when facts are anything but certain. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Annales Cambriae is a primary source, therefore you can't use it directly. I very much doubt whether scholarly consensus is quite so confident about giving a specific date for the Battle of Camlann. There is a huge POV problem with this list. I have no idea why certain events have been selected and others omitted. The 19th and 20th centuries are almost wholly taken up with Irish affairs. I mean, this is supposed to be a "Political Timeline of the British Isles" and there is no mention of the 1832 Reform Act, to take just one glaring omission. --Folantin (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines for article titles are pretty clear, 'Pretanic Isles' is not a normal name for the British Isles during the last two thousand years or so. But I now see it's been renamed, so the POV etc problems are what's left. I have only intermittent access for a few days so shall leave it to others right now. Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, thanks for the 1832 Reform Act ref. Had I known such a thing existed, I would have included it. Natty4bumpo (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was just one example. "Had I known such a thing existed..." Well, then you're perhaps not the ideal person to be compiling a "Political Timeline of the British Isles". --Folantin (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Missed the comment about religious articles -- they are considered to be non-factual anyway, and are written as clearly sourced from religious texts, eg 'Moses was a Biblical religious leader'. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I advise changing the title to "Political history of Great Britain and Ireland". British isles is seen as objectionable by many Irish people; see British Isles naming dispute. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496: Scots would object to being so completely identified with the Union that their separate existence as a country ceases to have its own identity, while the Unionists in Northeast Ulster would object to being lumped in with Ireland. That's why I originally titled the article "Political timeline of the Pretanic Isle". However, the Isles are predominantly known as the "British Isles", so even though I know that giving the name "Pretanic Isles" is more objective than giving the name of the dominant political identity, "British", I have to accept that.

Folantin, I don't know everything about the history of the British Isles. Frankly, I doubt anyone does. I could track down every article you have posted and critique them for information they lack and accuse you of "not the ideal person to be compiling" said article, but let's not get into that kind of thing, OK? Your most recent comment borders on the ad hominem.

Doug, many articles on related subjects (for example, History of Palestine) but not about specifically religious matters treat the Bible (for example) as if it were hard fact. That Ecyclopedia Britannica does that also is no excuse. Natty4bumpo (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem, it's valid criticism. Seriously, you cannot have a "Political Timeline of the British Isles" which goes into great detail about Irish politics in the 19th and 20th centuries and omits virtually everything about England, Scotland and Wales. I mean, we also have absolutely nothing happening between 1660 and 1685, a period of masive political activity in England when the major parties, the Tories and the Whigs, first emerged. It lacks proper referencing too. --Folantin (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, your comment was clearly meant in a pejorative sense, so it's ad hominem. As for the Tories and Whigs, in the 17th century those were insults, not the names of political parties. Neither was truly organized as a political party in the modern sense of the term, and, in truth, neither of those names are official even today. Truthfully, neither the Whigs nor the Tories of the 17th century has organization continuity with the parties which use those nicknames. However, you are correct about the dates of organization of those parties being lacking, so I shall take care of that forthwith. Natty4bumpo (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I said "when they first emerged". This is just the tip of the iceberg. The article looks like a "Timeline of Irish History" (or even "A Timeline of Northern Irish History") with a few token mentions of everywhere else. Personally, I would never attempt a "Political Timeline of the British Isles". The subject is too vast, it would take ages to reference properly and there are too many potential problems with NPOV. --Folantin (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I added entries, which I should have done initially were the task of putting up what I did at first so overwhelming in the number of links I had to make, spelling and punctuation I had to check and sychronize with that on Wikipedia. The entries for those parties, as well as the Labour and Social Democratic Parties, are in the years they officially adopted the names Liberal and Conservative.

If you will notice, there is very little about Ireland between Late Antiquity and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms period, and nothing much again from then until the 19th century. I will most likely add more--I've seen few Wikipedia articles where that is either not the case or it is not needed--about the other countries, such as the Reform Act and the parties, later, and by that I mean in the next few weeks.

On the other end of the time spectrum, yes, there's a lot about Ireland in the 20th century entries, and about Northeast Ulster in the second half of the 20th century, but during those periods, the "Irish question" dominated much of the news. Ask any schoolchild in London in the 1980's whether he or she was more worried during that time about nuclear annihilation or IRA bombs; I got the answer to that question from a friend who grew up in East End. Natty4bumpo (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think your perspective might be a little skewed. Entry for 1979: "Adam Busby founds the Scottish National Liberation Army". I think the election of Margaret Thatcher in the same year had rather more impact on the politics of the British Isles. --Folantin (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a lot of stuff missing, such as most of the English kings and the Black Death, but since this article is only two days old, perhaps it would be reasonable to assume good faith about that. (There are certainly some pov issues, though.) Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Looie496, but Moreschi has already slated the article for deletion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A political timeline of the British Isles would probably be way too long to be much use. Personally, I think a timeline of the history Insular Celtic peoples is more likely to be of interest. We have to decide which subject it is really about. Natty Bumppo's explanations for his choices are really very unconvincing. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Natty, please stick with one signature for the purpose of this discussion. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Hamilton is my name; Natty Bumppo, you'll notice I misspelled it Nattybumpo, is a character in a book. I've been been meaning to switch for a while, but just to make it clear to everyone, Chuck Hamilton = Natty4bumpo.

That's actually a good suggestion about the name, as long as no one gets upset about including the Bretons. Of course, purist Celticists might get their nose bent out of joint over the inclusion of material about the English and the Normans. Don't get me wrong; I like the idea but I just pointing out that no decision is going to be without controversy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone interested in commenting: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_timeline_of_the_British_Isles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No article should treat the Bible as though it is a factual work of history. If any do, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug; I've got your user Talk page bookmarked. I'm not going out on a hunt, but the next time I'm using Wikipedia as a source when I'm arguing Middle Eastern politics and see it, I'll point it out.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

this should just become a timeline of the British Isles. Perhaps split. The "Celticist" bias can be smoothed out by a merger with timeline of British history. I don't think we should delete material that is suffering from blatant bias. Nine times out of ten, it can be usefully integrated with existing material. Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with a timeline of Insular Celtic history if somebody's into building that. dab (𒁳) 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shaman

Let's put it this way: Before I made the tweaks, it claimed that they literally could heal and harm people with their minds. In the lead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

In all it's wonder and glory, satanic ritual abuse is a much changed page from a year ago. What does the fringe theories noticeboard think, is it too far slanted towards skepticism, and are there any suggestions? There is ongoing debate on the talk page that it is too skeptical and there is not enough credence given to the "believer" side, that undue weight is given to the skeptical sources. Are there any suggestions or insights onto this? WLU (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For more weight to be given to the "believer" side in the context of the article, it would first have to be demonstrated that such a being as Satan does exist, a "God" to for that matter. Of course, the existence or nonexistence of Satan doesn't necessarily have anything to to with "Satanic ritual abuse", but evidence for the existence of that is roughly same in amount.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some actual evidence of the existence of satanic ritual abuse in reliable secondary sources might be nice as well..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. WLU (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, this is nonsense. You don't need to prove the "existence of Satan" to establish the existence of Satanism any more than you need to prove the existence of God to establish the existence of Christianity. The point is that "Satanic Ritual Abuse" is a conspiracy theory, or a "moral panic", with next to no footing in reality. Therefore, the article will, for better or worse, need to be about the moral panic. --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I'd also like to ask anyone who is really interested to comment on the much more lengthy discussion at NPOV. To avoid any implication of forum shopping it would help clarify the page much more were these comments ventured in a single location (i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Discussion of NPOV issues on Satanic Ritual Abuse talk. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Xrroid

You might be interested in the Xrroid article, and the accompanying discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xrroid. -- The Anome (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bates method sources

We have a dispute at Bates method, beginning here but summed up in a thread below, about what sources are acceptable to cite for the opinions of Bates method proponents. An editor argues that certain websites being cited are not themselves notable, thus any reference to them violates WP:UNDUE. While I don't quite see how UNDUE says that, I do see the basic point that a random personal website is normally not something that should be referenced. Now, for practical purposes, I would say that the sources in question are more than just random personal websites, but perhaps what I call "practical purposes" don't matter here. I looked at WP:FRINGE to see if it addressed what individual fringe sources can be cited in an article about the fringe theory. While WP:PARITY comes somewhat close, it doesn't seem to have an answer for this type of situation. Is this just something that has to be approached with common sense? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Bates_method#Time_to_remove_poor_sources and Talk:Bates_method#List_of_poor_sources. All but one of these sources are self-published. The exception is a short promotional piece for a class. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the links posted but FRINGE should not be used as a way around WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources are personal websites, they may fail source standards (see WP:SELFPUB). Notability for a source is not a requirement for reference use so long as it follows the policy. I don't believe sources themselves fall under WP:UNDUE weight, but the content itself does. Give weight that is appropriate for the statement in relation to the topic / subtopic. Morphh ^(talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS is concerned, this seems like a legitimate use of fringe sources. And regarding the specific material referenced, I see no obvious violation of WP:SELFPUB (although I think that policy is a bit unclear.) We need editors to look at the references in the article to the sources in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To explain a bit: The sources in question are the main (sole?) sources used for verifying the opinions of current supporters of Bates. (I'm simplifying the situation, but hopefully not too much). --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Linus Pauling's most famous pseudoscience still has people who are die-hard committed to this idea. We need some extra eyes at Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. There are actually people arguing that orthomolecular medicine is not generally considered a pseudoscience. That's news to me. In the last class I taught about pseudoscience, we devoted an entire week to the subject! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it may be generally considered pseudoscience. But at Wikipedia we need to verify this with sources. Currently, the only source provided - to my knowledge - is an unpublished opinion-piece written 13 years ago. Per WP:PSCI, we need a more authoritative source before we label Orthomolecular medicine a pseudoscience. If it truly is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, then producing such a source shouldn't be a problem. I've done some searching myself, but to no avail. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Levine, don't confuse WP:PSCI with sourcing. WP:PSCI says nothing about "authoritative sources". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you have sources please cite them, if you don't then you can't rely on anecdotal claims about courses that may or may not ever have happened and which would amount to nothing either way.92.48.74.9 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always relies on sourcing, so reliable sources are alway a consideration. Now then, if we are to say that Orthomolecular medicine is generally considered pseudoscience (which ScienceApologist asserts above) then we must look at what WP:PSCI says about this:

"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

So all I am asking is: How do we know that the scientific community generally considers Orthomolecular medicine to be a pseudoscience? Well, how do we know anything on Wikipedia? The answer, we verify with reliable sources. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, no source has been presented to verify that Orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience other than one 13 year old, unpublished opinion piece. Again, if Orthomolecular medicine truly is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community, then producing such a source shouldn't be a problem. Please provide such a source. Again, I don't know anything about Orthomolecular medicine and thus I have no opinion on whether or not it is considered pseudoscience. I just want to make sure that if we are going to label it as such, we follow the guidelines of WP:PSCI. This matter would be cleared up in my eyes if a reliable source was produced which shows that the scientific community generally considered Orthomolecular medicine to be a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable source already. You want to up the ante and demand something called an "authoritative sources". As we've reiterated many times here and at WT:FRINGE, since the scientific community tends to ignore the bastard children of pseudoscience, having one source from a scientist is generally good enough... ESPECIALLY if there are no sources from scientists who disagree with that source. The issue here is one of pseudoscientific POV-pushers incredulity about extremely credible sources. When an academic describes an idea as "pseudoscience" and the rest of the scientific community is silent, the DEFAULT position is to accept that as a pretty good indication of being generally considered pseudoscience. If you take the arbcom's final example of psychoanalysis, there are academics which label it pseudoscience but there are also academics which disagree with that label. Therein lies the rub. Since there are no academics disputing the charge that orthomolecular claptrap is pseudoscience and there exists a source which clearly categorizes it as such, we're done. No need for your game playing. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please redact your incivilities above. I have told you before that calling a person a POV-pusher is always uncivil. And I don't appreciate your lack of good faith with your last sentence. Second, in order to make sure that we are on the same page and talking about the same source, please provide the source here which you think is reliable enough to label this entire concept a "pseudoscience". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An unpublished source from some guy with a PhD in psychology, which spends only 2-3 sentences on OMM, is not a reliable source. The argument that the scientific community ignores OMM is false, since there are publications on it. OMM requires a good source, since it was founded by a Nobel Laureate and run by people with MDs and PhDs. 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs)

Lord help us, they're storming the castle. Man the balustrades and ready the hot oil vats! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that people who want to be scientists after they grow up and finish their studies, can so easily ignore scientific data and commentary of the most current and authoritative references on subjects when it violates their preconceptions that are based on utterly unreliable works from authors with well known biases & misrepresentation that have largely kept everyones' heads down throughout the country with ongoing attacks, legal chicanery and campaigns of denunciation & intimidation.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd take higher doses of those vitamins. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One issue with fringe theories is that there is a significant dearth of discussion in conventionally reliable sources; though it's a bit or-ish, if an subject is only published in a non-peer-reviewed, non-mainstream, non-academic, non-pubmed-indexed journal (or journals), that strongly suggests pseudoscience. I can't permalink to it, but pubmed shows 226 results for "orthomolecular". (chemotherapy shows 1.6 million, scurvy has 1900, rickets 9000; google scholar shows 3000, 2 000 000, 44000 and 77 700 for rickets). That's a considerable drop-off, but not as much as I would expect, which leads me to think that perhaps mainstream interest in OMM is increasing and mainstream comments and/or criticisms will start appearing. Google books is also of limited use - [7]. Unfortunately there's just not much mainstream attention, which is suggestive but not diagnostic. WLU (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This article points to skepticism from mainstream medicine, but also difficulty in outright rejection. It looks like orthomolecular medicine is trying to struggle out of the ghetto, but hasn't made it out yet. WLU (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you try a pubmed search on "orthomolecular", you will see that the story is basically the opposite: the treatment started out above the ghetto, but fell into it. Linus Pauling coined the term in 1967-68, and the first papers were published in extremely reputable journals, such as Science, PNAS, Oncology, etc. About 5 years later the first solid experimental results started coming in, and they were unremittingly negative: one experiment after another failed to show any positive effect. The result was that the mainstream medical community considered the hypothesis to be discredited, and after that, the only people who pushed it were fringe practitioners. By now, the term "orthomolecular medicine" has been fringe for so long that there is hardly any control over who uses it or what they use it to mean. Looie496 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't "solid" experiments, they were mainstream accepted experiments, that bought the errors, lies and misrepresentions back then. Post 2000, this has begun to change. Hemila (PhD Biochem, MD, PhD PH, Cochrane author) has shown how egregiously wrong most all of the test interpretations and reporting of the 1940-1990s tests were, on vitamin C and respiratory illnesses. Mainstream medicine claims to having "tested" orthomolecular medicine protocols are usually patently false, they did not, and now with an interenet connection one can often see for themselves (what do we call those that don't check?). Likewise Levine at NIH (papers 2001-2007) has shown the mainstream cancer opinion against Pauling was founded on intrinsically flawed tests. The "control" here is recognizing official or well known OMM sources, not some misbranded little smuck trying to pass off "counterfeit goods" as also happens in medicine and pharmaceuticals. The other fly in the "mainstream" ointment is that individuals can often test OMM protocols with reversible *biochemical* results. (reversible - when the extra OMM chemistry stops going in so may the benefit for things that depend on ongoing maintenance, with chemical measurements to boot)

Again, the "mainstream" has repeatedly had its nose rubbed in the OMM dust on "new" treatments: niacin for dyslipidemia, folic acid for birth defects, fish oil for CVD, iron-free vitamins, vitamin D, some on vitamin E in alzheimers, lipoic acid for diabetes, and coQ10 for statin damage etc. This situation tells many independent observers who may have the real quack sites.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those arguments won't fly on Wikipedia; see wp:fringe. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that ScienceApologist is a proven disruptive editor with a track record of 28! blocks [8] one Arbcom, followed by subsequent controversies around of his Arbcom sanctions. ScienceApologist has recently conceded to work with a mentor[9] Other editors who have complaints about disruptions from this user should bring it up with the mentor. MaxPont (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If OMM is beginning to come back to the mainstream, then eventually there will be unequivocal sources in mainstream medical journals to demonstrate this. Until then, I think it's fringe but should be treated deftly to indicate that the outright rejection is now starting to decline. Undue weight should not, however, be placed on the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and other sources which are still fringe, nor should the tentative acceptance of some of the principles be used to vindicate the idea that OMM was in fact incorrect. Until mainstream sources show up saying OMM was treated unfairly, the majority opinion should be that of rejection; OMM's rebuttals should be pointed to, possibly given in small detail, but should not dominate. WLU (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. We've already got the AMA saying it's not effective and a Jukes article calling it "quackery" or "food faddism" in the lead. The pseudoscience charge is just not based on a good source, and TimVickers has agreed to a compromise. As far as the evidence, OMM will often say that it is being validated by mainstream breakthroughs in nutrition. Perhaps. The original claims of high-dose niacin for schizophrenia are still unvalidated, although there is a clinical trial undergoing. Vitamin C for cancer was another big claim, and it is now being studied again. There's a lot of talk about omega-3 fatty acids helping mood disorders, but the evidence is really suggestive. Ditto for tryptophan, 5-HTP, ect. II | (t - c) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin C for cancer is a good illustration of the difficulties here. There is strong evidence that it sometimes works, but only in doses so large that they must be given intravenously. Does that really count as "nutritional therapy"? The definition of OMM has become so loose that, although it may include some valid things, it also is applied to vast amounts of pseudoscientific cruft. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin C megadosage#Cancer for cancer is a textbook OMM therapy. Pauling coined the word, and then Pauling had the idea (based on another guy's speculation) of vitamin C for cancer. (Prior to Pauling, some other guys used intravenous vitamin C for polio and perhaps other conditions.) Also, there is certainly not strong evidence that it works. The evidence is very mixed. It apparently works in animal models (mice) with certain (human-derived) tumors, but the evidence that it works in humans is basically nonexistent. II | (t - c) 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation opposition

Water fluoridation opposition NEEDS HELP. In part, the issue is now that there are a lot of people trying to say that because the anti-water fluoridation activists think it is important to include unrelated facts about extremely high-concentrations of fluoride due to things OTHER THAN municipal fluoridation schemes that on Wikipedia they should similarly be allowed to soapbox their claims. We have right now two sections devoted to health affects that are IMPOSSIBLE to get with a municipal water fluoridation scheme. I'm trying to get them removed but the true believers won't let me. Will you stand up to their ownership of this article? Please. We need your help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, I often think you get too excited about things, but that article is as bad as you describe it, and seems to be rapidly getting worse. I think any uninvolved observer who reads the lede is going to see the problem. Here is how the lede currently ends: "Sociologists used to view opposition to water fluoridation as an example of misinformation. However, contemporary critiques of this position have pointed out that this position rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge. If an analysis of scientific disagreements is included, the public opposition to fluoridation does not necessarily signify a failure of education or democracy." Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I started an RfC: Talk:Water fluoridation opposition#RfC: Are sections 2 and 3 relevant to this article? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Eutony

There are two things I'd like the folks at this noticeboard to know about this article. First, it was recently semiprotected, because an IP editor was revert-warring a number of hostile tags onto the article. Second, it really does have most of the problems the IP was pointing out, albeit in a misguided way. It has not a single inline reference and reads like an advertisement for this (new age?) mind-body discipline. It treats all of the claims of its advocates as some kind of undisputed, absolute facts. Help, please, from folks with experience NPOVing this kind of article. Just be aware that there was recent admin action there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been merged by Dieter with Gerda Alexander. Eutony itself is now a redirect. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no objections to that either. I just checked the article before it got redirected - ZOMG, that was awful. I loved the "precociously". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the precociously in the merged version for your enjoyment :) I had never heard of Eutony. The only interwiki worth mentioning is de:Eutonie, which dates to May 2008. I guess we can keep an article on Alexander and her school, but one article is definitely enough, and it does need third party sources if it is to be rid of its warning tags. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Low Level Radiation Campaign entry

The article about the fringe group The Low Level Radiation Campaign was deleted about a month ago after I prod'd it for numerous reasons. Now the Company Secretary of the LLRC, Richard Bramhall, has turned up here to request restoration. It was restored and then immediately put up as an AfD. Richard Bramhall, who has extensively edited the article, has now asked for the page to be deleted to remove the criticism (on the link above) - and this makes me edgy. I'm all for the current article to be removed, as it's awful. However, should we have replace it with an article that uses the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and their Second Event Theory as sources to accurately describe this group of fringe scientists. Maybe I'm over-reacting, as this is a very small group (and I'm not as mad as I sound), and the article will not be retained in its current state anyway. I'm just interested in what, if anything, should replace it. Thanks. Verbal chat 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could balance them with another fringe group: the good folks at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons believe that low-level radiation is good for you. In all seriousness, the question is really how notable the LLRC is. If they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources, then there should probably be an article. If the sources are iffy, then we're better off just deleting it. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as some are arguing, LLRC is not notable (which is not agreed for reasons already adduced, but who cares?) then an article attacking it, as proposed by Verbal Chat, wouldn't be justified. Why would Wikipedia attack a unnotable entity? Worse, if such an article set out to "use[s] the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and the Second Event Theory", as VerbalChat suggests, it's hard to see how it would achieve any standard for balance, especially since VerbalChat thinks the sources would be "accurate". This presumably unconscious bias is representative of mistaken beliefs entertained by some of the Wikipedia editors participating in this discussion. Some of the beliefs derive from the original article, for example the apparent belief that the Second Event Theory is central to our theses; others derive from ignorance, e.g. the idea that the mainstream does not support anything we say, and the idea that lack of public awareness of our work is somehow important. On the first point, I have, on these pages, already referred to substantial and important support for the notion that there is something very badly wrong with the scientific basis of radiation protection standards. On the second, we generally speak only to informed, specialist opinion, not to the general public; ours is a highly technical subject area and addressing it to a mass market would inevitably entail the use of scare tactics. We have been accused of this, but not credibly, and many in the nuclear industry and in the radiation protection community acknowledge that we have an important message. Unfortunately the internet is populated by more rabid and more vocal opponents. A notable exception to our low profile was the 1998 – 2000 campaign against implementation of specific provisions of the 1996 Euratom Directive, which achieved considerable prominence with the public and with news media, and which fulfilled its aim in the UK if not elsewhere in the European Union.

I should like to say something about "Conflict of Interest" once again. CoI is being brandished on these pages like a banner at a demo suggesting, without elaboration or specificity, that my extensive involvement in editing the article somehow damages Wikipedia's standards. The original article was rubbish. Was anyone else coming forward to address its bias? No. I addressed it in a co-operative spirit with the clear aim of writing agnostically. It's all in the record, I believe. Can anyone identify actual material written by me which offends against balance? When I had to leave off in May 2007 the article was still not ideal but it was at least somewhat balanced, as noted by one commentator on the original deletion log in June 2008.

I asked for the article to be restored so that we could see exactly what had been deleted. Now we've seen it we think it should go. I don't see why that should make anyone "edgy". As I have already said, we want the article deleted because it will inevitably be subject to malign attention from partisans.. The evidence is there and we don't have the resources to go on (as MastCell says) " dealing with the never-ending petty shoving matches which this site generates." Richard Bramhall, LLRC— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 (talk • contribs)

Deletion doesn't mean it will be gone forever. What we're trying to ascertain here is whether your group meets notability criteria and whether something, probably a much smaller balanced article, should replace it. Also, you are free to partake in discussion, but due to your CoI you should refrain from editing the page. Instead, bring up points on the talk page. If you can provide reliable sources for your claims about the LLRC, that would be great. Note I never said 2nd event theory was central to the LLRC, and censorship should make anyone "edgy" - especially if your groups claims are true! An attack page has also not been suggested. If you are having problems logging into your account, just follow the instructions on the login page. Also, please be civil and assume good faith of others actions. You are being needlessly confrontational and combative. (PS my name here is Verbal, Chat is a link) Verbal chat 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two examples of "exterior-controversial" topics (evolution and global warming) illustrate the problem you run into. Global warming is a mainstream view, but it doesn't have nearly the universality of consensus that evolution does within the scientific community, and a Wikipedia article on global warming that omitted any mention of skepticism would be severely lacking.

Less critical is a topic that would perhaps be worth adding, namely the question of what sources are usable. Scientists are taught that the best references are primary references, and tend to use them in Wikipedia whenever they can, but Wikipedia policy actually prefers secondary references (i.e., review papers). There is a good reason for this: it's generally possible to spin any story one likes by selective use of primary references. Reliance on high-quality secondary references makes it a lot harder to get OR into an article. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanity prevails?

I am impressed with a number of notorious troublespots without any obvious connection apparently sorting themselves out. Satanic ritual abuse seems to reach a safe haven of common sense. Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been sane for two days. No vandalism to History of Armenia topics for ages. History of Hinduism solidifies into something that is actually readable and mostly accurate. No "Türkic" nationalist activity at Turkic alphabets since July. Hell, even currently hot topics like Kosovo and 2008 South Ossetia war are completely under control. Might this mean that ... sanity finally prevails? The beginning of a golden age of Wikipedia where the trolls don't even bother to try? I am particularly impressed with the impact of Moreschi (talk · contribs). He has managed something I never did, he uses the block button heavy-handedly and fixes content at the same time. This is the Wikipedia I signed up for! I know there are disturbing trends, both the admin community and the arbcom showing a capability for bad judgement unimaginable in the old days, but these successes really make things look bright. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) There are definitely signs of an upturn. SRA in particular has seen a massive turn-around, for which hats off to WLU (talk · contribs) and Cesar Tort (talk · contribs). The common connection between all of these has been to rigorously stick to good sources and to represent academic consensus faithfully. This is definitely the way to go with Afrocentrism, and it it precisely how Dieter and others have dealt with the problems caused by influxes of Hindutva ideologists (not to mention how WLU etc dealt with Abuse truth (talk · contribs) at the SRA article).

South Ossetia was interesting: we got a massive entrance of rabid patriots while the guns were still firing, but when the guns stopped, precious few of the influx actually stuck around. Word does get around in troll circles of "where not to go" and even beyond: I read an article in The Economist the other day that commended us at Wikipedia for coping much better with nationalism than the rest of the internet! Obviously, we will always have "hotspots" that are closely tied to real-world events which flare up whenever real life does, but over time, the fallout caused by such flare-ups should be less, as we grow better at dealing with them. The intensity of the flare-ups should also diminish, as the trolls learn that Wikipedia isn't quite the open target they thought it was.

Not that there still aren't problems. With the exception of the one article, most of the Afrocentrism topic is still a ghastly mess. And RFA is still broken - a broken arbcom can be mostly routed around, but a broken RFA will directly feed into declining quality of the admin corps, and that is not good. Partly why I'm experimenting with admin coaching as a vehicle for making sure the right people to pass RFA. It may not work, but something eventually will. All we need to do is persevere. Moreschi (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Historically, I began focussing on nationalist hotspots back in 2005 not because I had had any special interest in nationalism, but because I found this to be the Achilles heel of Wikiepdia, with science topics much better defended against crackpottery, for the obvious reasons that science students tend to spend more time online than people into the humanities. I also find that there are hardly any topics dealing with actual science popping up on this board, such actual pseudo-science as we get mostly concerns alternative medicine. Topics like the Bogdanov Affair are mostly resolved by the regular community of editors of physics topics without any noise even at AN/I.

I have always reacted to nationalist pseudohistory by compiling information about nationalist pseudohistory, and once the Indigenous Aryans and Voice of India (etc.) article had become stable references, the Hindutva trolling magically went away. It's a sort of on-wiki Streisand effect. The more the trolls try to sell bullshit, the more they find Wikipedia exposes their bullshit until at some point they decide they are better off keeping away.

I also agree that RFA is the more urgent problem than the arbcom. I don't think the arbcom in its current form has any justification left, but it also does no damage as long as it doesn't succeed in becoming more powerful (I think I remember some scary suggestions by arbcom aficionado Tony S.) The admin community seems to be developing into a sort of hivemind which doesn't have any intelligence to speak of, but which is also incapable of doing really stupid things out of mere inertia. It becomes increasingly important to address individual admins who know what they are doing directly. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say we've definitely had a decline in AIDS-denialist activity on Wikipedia, though some of that may be because the most active one has forked off his own denialist wiki. But while patting ourselves on the back, could I ask you fellas to watchlist Lyme disease, which sees a steady influx of meatpuppets? That seems to be the major hotspot at present, and even there it's not so bad right now, mostly due to a lot of regular editors being involved.

Re RfA, I'd have to agree - I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need more AIV patrollers. We need people who can understand and effectively intervene in thorny conflicts in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's basic principles. The problem is that we see a ton of candidates who are good people, decent editors, nice folks, but just haven't demonstrated any conflict-resolution skills. They're essentially a black box - will they avoid conflicts altogether? Will they turn out to be the next Newyorkbrad? Or, more likely, will they react unpredictably and possibly harmfully when things hit the fan? But I find it quite hard, still, to oppose a nice, well-meaning candidate solely on the grounds that they haven't been in any conflicts. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

no need for them to be involved in any conflict. My problem is that I have this reflex to fix articles, so I become "involved" immediately, if only in trying to enforce basic policy. So I become vulnerable to cries of "admin abuse" as soon as I touch any of my buttons. You could ask candidates to comment on any ongoing conflict of your choice, e.g. ask them to state how they would feel that, as an admin, they should handle individual editors currently on a pov-pushing campaign. No harm in asking current candidates to e.g. look into and comment on recent events at, say, Egyptians or John Michell (author). dab (𒁳) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This would actually be a great pre-RFA test--candidates should find a problematic article (there's no shortage of them) and fix it, whether it be through conflict resolution, finding good sources and incorporating them into the article, even basic copyediting. Whenever I take a look at RfAs (not often) it seems that several of the candidates don't have any experience writing articles--they're just vandal-fighters, which is fine, but is only a small piece of what needs to be done around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. As you say, vandal fighting should only be a fraction of an Admin's job. Doug Weller (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.201.241.2 User talk:71.201.241.2 Special:Contributions/71.201.241.2

This user has appeared in the last few weeks, and seems to have an agenda and style of editing (esp WP:SYNTH) similar to former user Rokus01, though I don't think they are identical. S/he has been altering the Neanderthal article and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, in addition to others on IE topics, generally seeming to push the view that Europeans are partly descended from Neanderthals and that IE is paleolithic. Some edits are downright bizarre, such as the addition of an image of medieval glass-blowing and a caption about Slovene words for pipes to an article about an alleged Neanderthal flute ([10]). The Neanderthal page has been semi-protected because of the frustration that his editing style and manner of discussion has produced, but is now clearly slanted in favour of the Neanderthal-HomSap interbreeding theory, which is even presented as undisputed fact at points. Other edits may be similarly slanted. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the difficulty is an unwillingness of this editor to engage in discussion and a lack of facility in English. He tends to add material that is meaningless to a general reader because of its technical nature and problematic English. I suspect one reason that his Talk page interaction is minimal is simply that his English isn't really good enough to engage in discussion. I've tried to deal with some of the Neanderthal edits, but haven't had much time this week to give it more attention. Would be great if someone could follow up. By the way, we've tried hard to avoid discouraging this editor from editing because he does seem to have substantial knowledge and familiarity with the literature. And his addition of a listing of Neanderthal specimens to the Neanderthal article is quite good, in my opinion. But I'm starting to wonder if he has the interests of the project at heart. TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell (writer)

Could someone take a look at the article and talk page? I got involved because the talk page was being badly messed around, with an IP editor (who was OTT I think in criticising Michell) and others were deleting each other's edits, warnings were being put on the talk page instead of user pages, etc. I've now gotten a bit more involved and have been told that my edits on the talk page indicate I don't understand OR, that I'm using it as a chat page, etc. The main problems seem to be the balance of the article a couple of editors who both don't understand referencing, OR, etc -- and it would be nice to get better balance in the article, but the problem there seems to be although Michell is very popular among New Age adherents he's largely ignored (except maybe for his book on Shakespeare) in other quarters. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Watchlisted. I'll see what I can do. What a mess. At the moment it really does read like one massive puff piece. Moreschi (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You need to read the talk page (which I'm accused, several times, of using as a chat page) to get the flavour of what's going on. And evidently I don't understand much about Wikipedia, I don't realise that Britannia.com is a famous online encyclopedia (number 3 on Google I was told and in fact if you enter Britannia.com into Google the Britannica does come up), and, if you search the history of the article, one of my edits was reverted partially for being NPOV if I understand the edit summary correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is horrible. Personally I recommend reverting to a much earlier version, such as this one, and starting from scratch again. This horrific puff piece isn't really on. Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, SageMab (talk · contribs) is now fervently resisting any attempt to remove some of the more egregious puffery. We have a problem. Moreschi (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

this used to be a problem, back in November, but hopefully not now it has been brought up here on this noticeboard. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The same guy you clashed with back then is the problem now. He wants it to be a list of approving quotations about JM. I'm particularly amused by the last section about his "prestigious" art exhibitions. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she seems to have a bit of a hangup about administrators, keeps reminding me I'm not one and has asked another editor (Sesquipedalian) if he is one. Evidently he thinks if an editor isn't an administrator there are things he shouldn't say or something. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

if I was worth my salt as an admin, I'd have clamped down on him ten months ago :) dab (𒁳) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest [11] as an alternative to the old version Moreschi pointed at? It has a bit of puffery, but also a substantial amount of useful information. I think the puffery could easily be removed if SageMab was not constantly interfering. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked DougWeller to stop following me around. What about this article is puffery? Be specific please. I do think that Looie is working to improve this article. I think a lot of the other edits are done by people who do not understand NPOV and who have no love of the author's subject matter. Paul, do not assume what I want. It shows no good faith. A lack of serious negative critics over an authors 40+ year wrting career does not make other commentary about his work "puffery", a biased term. I have seen picking at this article rather than constuctive edits that added new material. I am not a "fan" of any subject on Wikipedia. I do care about facts and how they are edited. I would like to request a stop of the "ganging up". The article, not a major piece, is being chatted to death on the discussion page. SageMab (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think editors need "love of the author's subject matter" in order to write an article, I daresay it is you who has trouble understanding our NPOV policy. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Having love for John Michell's subject matter is probably the scariest thing I've been accused of since I started editing Wikipedia. I do have the attitude that articles about fringe topics should actually present information about them, not restrict themselves to pure criticism, but I have no sympathy for the pov-pushing that SageMab is trying to get into the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And where Looie in the above quote, or any place else, have you been accused of "Having love for John Michell's subject matter..."? Read my comment carefully and do not accuse me of pov-pushing for an author. Uncivil and untrue. It's not like anyone is accusing you as being part of a cabal. SageMab (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the true spirit of Jimbo Wales behind the original WP:CIVIL policy, but I almost never see it invoked other than as a last resort of problem editors thrown into the fray after it has become clear they have no case. We need to make clear that while comments like "your mother smells of elderberry" may be incivil, dry statements to the effect of "you are wrong" are not (WP:SPADE). --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, this is excellent. It's wonderful how all this fringe stuff interlinks. Michell is apparently a member of the Lindisfarne Association, which is in turn closely tied to our old friends - wait for it - integral thought and Ken Wilber, which have been up on this noticeboard a good few times previously. The backdrop of guff is being peeled away and hopefully a proper article can now emerge. Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

related trouble at Radical Traditionalism. Yes, this is a little walled garden. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrails

This article uses almost exclusively self-published websites to offer a slew of conspiracy theories about chemtrails. I'm not even sure that this is an encyclopedic topic: I couldn't find a single secondary independent source that acknowledged the notability of this particular fringe theory. We need some people to look it over, cull out the stuff that is referenced solely to looney-toons webpages, and try to make an article that actually tells people about the social significance of this conspiracy theory (if there is any). Whew! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem here. The article was written in a skeptical tone even before your edits — the first cite is to an article in Skeptical Inquirer. It's extremely fringey stuff no doubt, but it's the kind of stuff that somebody might come to Wikipedia wanting to learn about, and I personally wouldn't be ashamed about what they would learn from that article. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of the sources and external links are poor quality, with some of the publications carrying "official" sounding names obvious tracts generated in some amateur's living room. I agree a scrubbing to clean up sources is in order.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

History of electromagnetism

Reddi. I just cut out a bit of unattributed quotation (referenced, but no indication it was a quote) from an 1890s book which I didn't think was helpful, and some fractured English about Thales replacing it with the original stuff, he's replaced both (I did note that the English was bad, maybe it's me that can't read?). I'm not sure about do to about some ancient speculation from the 1890s but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but it seems like the first step should be to raise the question on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct. My edit summary made it clear but I should go to the talk page also. Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis, part 7295

This perennially problematic article could use more attention. Let me direct your attention to a recent issue that's cropped up: recently, the article Acharya S was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)). Acharya S is a proponent of a version of the Jesus myth, but previous consensus was that she didn't belong in the article because she was not a particularly notable advocate of the theory. After her article was deleted, a large section devoted to her popped up in Jesus myth hypothesis. The editor who inserted it acknowledges that Acharya S fails WP:BIO, but cites WP:FRINGE as a reason why she can be included in Jesus myth hypothesis despite a lack of reliable sources or any indication that she's a prominent writer on this topic. Perhaps it's just me, but this looks like a circumvention of the AfD result. More input would be appreciated at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Acharya_S. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

there could be a compromise of mentioning this author in a brief paragraph, but obviously not in a "large section". Yes WP:FRINGE says that it's ok to discuss fringy literature in an article that is dedicated to a fringy topic in the first place, but the "Jesus myth" article in this case needs to make perfectly clear that it is about a crackpot subject right from the start.

I frankly never understood this dedication to "debunking" Jesus as "a myth". There are, of course, legends about Jesus' life just as there are about Buddha's, Muhammad's, Charlemagne's, Pope Silvester's or Isaac Newton's. This doesn't make any of them unhistorical, nor does accepting that there was probably a historical Jesus make anyone a Christian any more than believing that L. Ron Hubbard lived 1911-1986 makes you a scientologist. --dab (𒁳) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of the article is not necessarily limited to sources that completly deny the existence of a historical Jesus. There are, in fact, highly regarded scholars, such as Hyam Maccoby, who deny that the historical Jesus had any similarity to the Jesus of the Christian Bible [12]. In any case, there are other problems of the article too, such as the inclusion of sources said to give historic evidence of Jesus, ie Josephus, that are problematic because it is disputed the references have anything to do with the historic Jesus. There is a lot that could be said about the problems of the article, but the problems are certainly not all on one side of the issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that we already have full articles covering these aspects: historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and mythological aspects of Jesus Christ cover all reasonable aspects of this. The "Jesus myth" article is really just limited to the fringe theory that "Jesus is just a myth". Maccoby's theses (according to our article) that Jesus was a Jewish Messianic claimant whose life and teaching were within the mainstream of first-century Judaism ... executed as a rebel against the Roman occupation of Judaea are perfectly mainstream and have nothing to do with the "Jesus myth" thing. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not actually define itself that way. But, if it is a content fork (or POV fork), it might be better to merge it with the other articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article does define itself that way, and this has been covered in detail before on this noticeboard and on the article's talk page. This is a good example of the kind of circular argument that constantly bedevils the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular argument? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Circular" in the sense that it comes up again and again, without any real change. Maybe I should have used a different word, because circular argument has a particular meaning in logic, and I wasn't referring to that meaning. I should have said "repetitive" or "recurrent", I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest "perennial" Verbal chat 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you might want to read this: Circular argument, so you will have it ready in situations when it actually applies. I will say our disagreement on the article is unresolved. But, if it is you position that my disagreeing with you proves I am am wrong (which I think you have implied a number of times), that probability really is circular reasoning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I just linked to circular argument two posts above, and noted that I didn't intend that meaning of the phrase. Perhaps this illustrates a common problem with Wikipedia discussions: editors often don't read each other's posts very carefully. At any rate, Malcolm, I have explained in detail why I disagree with you on several points (see, e.g. Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Page_is_locked.2C_locking_horns_won.27t_help) and it would be tiresome to repeat that here. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had it written (without the mind-reading ability to know you would include the same link) and went ahead and saved it because it included a very different point than your edit. I always read your edits. It is always such a pleasure to have these little discussions with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sheesh, Malcolm. So the argument is perennial (or "Sisyphian"), we get it. Can we now do something about the problem? As in, spelling out the scope of the article in giant letters so that even our more cranky clientele with lexical deficiencies will Get It? Or perhaps split it? I mean, just how many distinct articles dealing with Jesus' historicity do we really need? --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sisyphean" is perfect. Although I think what needs to be done at the moment is more like cleaning out the Stables of Augeas--there's a lot of stuff in the article that's very poorly sourced. Every time I try to do something (even correcting a misuse of the word "euhemerization") it sets off a revert war, with cries of censorship, POV-pushing, and pro-Christian bias on the talk page. (Hm, this may not be the best way to ask people to come edit the page...) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the solution. It seems to me that, if the article is to exist, it needs scope to include a little wider range of sources. Or it could be merged, maybe that would be okay too. Certainly the editing situation seems to have been at an impasse for a long time. I would be happy to support any solution that would seem to have a chance to improve the situation. I do not see Akhilleus' solution as workable, and I do not think the problem is all on one side (for example, and as I pointed out above, the Josephus section that claims to support a historical Jesus, is really very problematic.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The scope of the article is just fine, and conforms to how it's treated in academic works that deal with the subject. The Josephus section that Malcolm refers to is in a section of the article that I think should be removed entirely. The article really ought to follow a chronological format, dealing with Jesus myth authors individually, rather than synthesizing them into a single position (as the article does now). So if, say, Arthur Drews said something about Josephus, his position could be detailed in his section.

Of course, as far as I can see, the mainstream position is that Josephus gives us some evidence for Jesus' historicity. Of course, we have Josephus on Jesus to report what the scholarly consensus is; Jesus myth hypothesis is a different animal. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the mainstream position is that it is perfectly plausible that the gospels themselves refer to a historical rabbi. I mean, why make one up when Palestine was perfectly riddled with messianic teachers at the time? This would be like, to grasp for a simile at random, faking a Washington DC sex scandal when there is ample supply of real ones to choose from. There must have been dozens of "the end is nigh" preachers in Palestine at the time. So one of them was called "Yeshua" or similar. Or perhaps it was a different one of the same name. The entire point of the gospels, the resurrection is quite another matter. If you believe in the resurrection of Christ, you are a Christian. If you just surmise that some bloke that may or may not have been called "Yeshua", or similar, was annoying the Romans in the 30s AD, you are just applying Occam's razor. After all, the gap between the death of Jesus and Q is a measly 40 years (or less). Hardly comparable to Arthurian romance vs. Sub-Roman Britain (>800 years). This entire dispute is such a non-issue, it's difficult to know where to begin. Also, consider Socrates. Do we have epic disputes surrounding the historicity of Socrates because the man is only known by word of his disciples? Why not? --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article Josephus on Jesus, which the Jesus myth article does not link to; and this does not seem to support your view on Josephus [13]. I will stand by what I said, that the POV problems are not on one side only, and that the scope of the article needs to be slightly expanded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the introduction contains this sentence: "A related hypothesis is that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE."

That certainly allows the latitude for using sources such as Hyam Maccoby in the article, but Akhilleus' gate keeping activities have blocked it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debates

Users who watch this page may be interested in the articles that have nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR

Fringe theory what

In Soviet Ukraine this policy had a dramatic effect on the Ukrainian ethnic population and its culture as 86% of the population lived in rural settings. The forceful introduction of the policy of Collectivization was one of the main causes of the Holodomor.

Article was created as copy-paste from Holodomor and now from main article removed significant and important chapters under “brand” “Deleted duplicates from Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. In fact this chapters has nothing or little relation to historical event Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR. While in general it’s another article in fringe theory about “Ukrainian Holocaust” (see other Language link which referred to Holodomor”, List of Books and articles [14] and External links [15] – note the first ref in list.

Actually it’s thory widely popular because of “

One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.”

(From p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30. Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996. See also Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund: Media Tryck, Lund University, 2006).)

May be would be good to limit effort by group of editors to exploit WP as soapbox per

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.

ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand this. What is the problem? In fewer words, and no quotes, please. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems in misusing widelly known (in relevant histrocals society) historical fact only for “Ukrainian Holocaust” proposes Jo0doe (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)-

Hoxsey Therapy

I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. (Cross-posted to WT:MED) MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure, this is about the use of a book by Kenny Ausubel? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although as you can see (having stopped by) the issues do go a bit deeper and involve fundamental aspects of WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maria Kanellis

Doing some RC patrol, I came across this article on a female professional wrestler, and was bemused to see that it's written with the point of view that all those competitions are actually real. Now of course that's nonsense -- I wonder whether this happens in other wrestling-related articles, and whether anybody cares? To be honest, I'm not sure that I even care. Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I care about it, and I'm not sure it's a matter of fringe theories, exactly--but there are a lot of WP articles that are written in an in-universe perspective; wrestling is only one of the many areas in which this happens. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy: Quackery in the lead

I'm trying to improve the homeopathy page by looking at problems that have been raised and then finding what the consensus for dealing with it is (no change, small change, big change, etc). The first issue I've proposed is keeping quackery in the lead. Here is my summary: Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead. Now I agree that it should be included in the article, as it's verifiable, a common opinion, and from a reliable source. However, for the lead I feel that the term pseudoscience is enough. I would suggest keeping the sentence in the lead up to the semicolon (replaced with a full stop), and integrating the remainder into the body of the article. Perhaps into the "Research on medical effectiveness" section or the 20th century section. This is something I've suggested before but which has been overtaken (usually) by discussions as to whether homeopathy works, so please lets keep his on topic: quackery removed from the lead, put somewhere else. Note that currently quackery doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.

Please come and join the conversation or suggest other topics or fixes. All the best. Verbal chat 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to my intent with this, so can I assure people that I'm not advocating censorship, and could people please go over and leave their opinions on the talk page (try to stick to the subject, and stay civil due to sanctions and the homeopathically potent atmosphere over there) Verbal chat 10:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"quackery" is pseudoscience in medicine. "pseudoscience" usually refers to the natural sciences (cold fusion and the like). dab (𒁳) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of political parties in Catalan Countries

A couple days ago I added a {prod} tag for deletion in this article under the following rationale

[the so-called "Catalan Countries" have no substance in everyday life, but it is a political construct by Catalan nationalism, and, as such, legitimate, but POV all the same. For example, "Catalan Countries have a multi-party system" as written in the intro doesnt make any sense, because the so-called Catalan Countries are a transnational political construct with no common political institutions at all, no common legal system, no common ruling institutions.... not even a common language (not everybody speaks Catalan in the so-called Catalan countries). As such, to have a list of the political parties in the "Catalan Countries" amounts to admit that those "countries" exist politically as such at all and are united as such, something which it is definitely not true, but a desideratum of some political minority. Then, if we sticked to the strict philological reasoning of Catalan-speaking, it doesnt make much sense either, not only because, as I mentioned already, in some of these territories Catalan in its various forms is spoken only by a minority, but, also, because we wouldnt list political parties of countries which speak, say, Portuguese or French in a single article, would we? what for? To back all this, the creator him/herself of this article is a self-proclaimed Catalan nationalist which bears its political banner in its very username user:Independència (Catalan for "Independence") only contributes every once in a while to add Catalan nationalist POV to the articles s/he is interested in, nothing more and nothing less All in all, having this collection of parties is POV by itself, because the gathering criteria "Catalan Countries" when mixed with politics, it becomes clearly controversial and, definitely, a POV statement]

To that I can add now that only two users (one of whose is the creator, the other an anon who could be the same author) have edited this obscure article over the course of two years. This article is just the pet of its creator, with no encyclopedic value (I just came across it by chance myself). There is not even concordance in grammatical number terms (so is it one "Catalan countries"? or should be "the Catalan countries"?) To me is like if someone created another whimsical article like, say, [[List of contemporary parties in the Confederate States of America]]. What for? isnt it fringe? is it encyclopedical at all? That is trying to relate two concepts which are not meant to be in any kind of direct relation: there is no CSA nowadays as there is no "Catalan Countries" nowadays. Then, those parties are meant as parties representing existing political structures, not proposed (by a minority, BTW) ones.

The prod tag was removed by an admin and substituted by an NPOV one as a means to listen to more opinions prior to deletion. I am fine with it, but I wouldnt like to take lack of opinions as consensus for keeping. I rather think is the contrary, under the light provided above.

I am not that acquainted with wikipedia's manor corridors and procedures. Should I post this request in AfD rather than in here?

All in all, I am looking forward to hear your thoughts. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If a single source goes against a consensus, is it fringe?

That's part of the issue raised at Wikipedia:RSN#David_Cymet.2C_Pi.C5.82sudski_and_anti-semitism. In order to centralize a discussion - which is related to FRINGE - I'd like to ask for some editors to comment on it at the RSN. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunor and Magor

The fascinating published opinion that there are etymological connections between medieval Hungarian legends and ancient Sumerian myths has unfortunately run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge", who wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about. On the flimsiest of grounds they have decided to damn the memory of these theories to non-existence. [16]. This obviously has to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)