Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Electro Muscle Stimulation

Seems to vouch for the effectiveness of these products and stuff like that, more than is justified by scientific/regulatory opinion. All checking and WP:NPOV appreciated. Sticky Parkin 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic there -- there's nothing fringe about the concept that electrically stimulating muscles will cause them to contract. If anything is missing, it might be an alert that accidentally stimulating in the vicinity of the heart could be dangerous. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It involves devices such as Slendertone [1], who have been told off, particularly in Australia [2] in the past for making exaggerated claims. Far from having a possible effect on the heart, the problem with these devices is the contraction is too small to have much effect, at least where cosmetic results are concerned. So the thing with the article is whether it makes that clear enough, or not. It does say that only some of these devices are accepted by the FDA or something. Sticky Parkin 21:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the (Electro_Muscle_Stimulation#Use) section, you will notice that it clearly explains why certain manufacturer's claims were over the top. So it's not at all expressing a biased point of view. While Slendertone is clearly a toy, i.e. its contractions are too small, as pointed out by Sticky Parkin, there are professional devices that cause very strong training contractions. I suggest that you read an article that reviews the early history of EMS: Russian electrical stimulation: the early experiments. You know how the Russians were extremely serious about their Olympic athletes. If they used it to augment their training they must have given EMS some serious thought. There are tons of sport/medicine articles with findings about fatigue induced by EMS, force gains induces by it etc. I think the only honest way of countering the overwhelming research would be finding and equal number of research articles that prove the contrary.--Gciriani (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How and when is discussion on a particular article deleted out of this board? It seems to me that the editors particularly knowledgeable on this subject helped fixing the title of the article. However, none of them has challenged it, and on the contrary the discussion in the talk page of the article lends to its credibility. --Gciriani (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Page move

I'm contemplating a move of the satanic ritual abuse page to satanic ritual abuse moral panic; the latter title accurately reflects the current view of the scholarly majority in my mind, with several scholarly books on the topic. If anyone is interested in giving an opinion, I wouldn't mind it. Right now it's me and one other editor, both of us have strong, diametrically opposed opinions on the matter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but satanic ritual abuse moral panic is an awful title for an article, regardless of validity. A reader who comes to that article would say, "What is this? Isn't there an article somewhere about just plain Satanic Ritual Abuse?". Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is "just plain Satanic Ritual Abuse"? I agree that the move is not necessary. This encyclopedia doesn't have page names like Unicorn (imaginary creature) for good reason, but this topic is a bit more sensitive than that. People know that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of unicorns ... they don't know that the same is true for SRA.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood Looie's phrase to mean, not the moral panic about SRA, but SRA itself. The (recently made) redirect is fine (will it ever get used after this section is archived?), but I agree that the move itself is best not done. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem like a better title would be the more simple Satanic ritual abuse panic; I don't see the need for using the term "moral". This title accurately reflects the baseless accusations during a 20 year period and it happened in many states. Most, if not all, were proved to be nothing. Keeping the title as is may be seen as adding weight or credibility to the claims made during this period. Using the term panic puts the events in context. We are dealing with an area that is very gray; certainly it is not an area of black and white. --^StormRider 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently deceased pseudoscientist. I just ran through the article with a comb removing all the WP:PSTS violations. We need someone to keep going and find out what the guy was most notable for. I'm thinking it's probably faster than light and Face on Mars. Everything else is just a bit too obscure and not really noticed.

In any case, the article was/is obviously being monitered by his supporters and I don't want to be disrespectful to the recently deceased, but we could use some people here watchlisting it and doing a little research and adding some third-party independent sources.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be monitored. This is a biography about my father, an astronomer with a PhD from Yale who admitedly had unconventional thories, but had countless papers published in peer reviewed journals. His biography is now dominated by a malicious detractor at IP address 63.24.xxx.xxx. If Tom Van Flandern were alive these posts would be libelous. Please monitor this biography, steer back to NPOV and insist on citations. I'd rather the biography be deleted than owned by this single user. Thank you -MikeVF

63.24.xxx.xxx seems very involved for someone lacking a user account. If they cross over into disruptive or unacceptable behaviour I would take a look at requesting a block per WP:RANGE. Artw (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal balling at Royal Rife

An editor is modifying Royal Rife extensively in order to add in weasel words. FDor instance, "The limitations of optical microscopes and the size of viruses are such that most viruses cannot be seen under an optical microscope." - the sourced fact which basically means that the claims cannot be true under well-accepted scientific theories - becomes "The limitations of optical microscopes and the size of viruses are such that most viruses cannot be seen under a standard optical microscope." - A direct violation of the source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No source is cited for that statement, so your complaint is unjustified. Optical microscopes are now available which can resolve 100nm, effectively making the theoretical Abbe limit a thing of the past. See http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/81528 Haiqu (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate that multiple edits NOT be reverted to resolve your lack of knowledge about ONE of them. Haiqu (talk)

I have been summoned by the alarm that goes off at AMA headquarters every time some brave editor attempts to spread The Truth about Royal Rife's Cure For Cancer^®. See the 28 prior threads in which an agenda account has appeared to promote Rife's claims. Mark this #29. MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid yet? BTW, didn't know you were with the AMA, very interesting ... Haiqu (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From the article: "The book also claimed that his cure for cancer was suppressed by a conspiracy headed by the American Medical Association.[2]". Looks like #29. -M^ask? 11:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

well, on my list of 'organizations most likely to spawn evil geniuses', the AMA is close to the top, right after the Girl Scouts of America and the Hair Club for Men (I've heard rumors that the latter two might actually be the same organization, but that thought is too horrible to contemplate). Really, Haiqu... I'm going to hit you with one of my favorite quotes - "Never stay up on the barren heights of cleverness, but come down into the green valleys of silliness." don't take this stuff so seriously. --Ludwigs2 18:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be a fringe sex scandal of some sort... Verbal chat 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think is has to do with where the Hair Club actually gets all that extra hair they use... --Ludwigs2 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Golden Plates

Golden Plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be under the watchful eye of a few editors who, if not actual LDS members themselves, do seem somewhat overly sympathetic to the Mormon point of view regarding the authenticity (or even mere existence) of the plates. Rather than go into wall-of-text land trying to describe the reasons for my concern, I'd suggest any interested eyes give the article a look-see and decide the merits of this post for themselves. While the discussion on the talk page is still in the early stages, more eyes would be better sooner rather than later. Thanks! Badger Drink (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT - IT'S AT THE END! ;-)

Indeed! I have gotten into an odd pickle with a user who insists on using a very nonstandard article format he installed. I was only trying to make my screen image look somewhat more readable by using the standard format, but he reverted me twice and I let him keep his version. I'm not interested in edit warring over a format issue. He then proceeded to visit by talk page and question me. I have responded on the article talk page with my reasoning, but he now attacks me. I'm finished and will let others deal with the ownership issues. His response and attacks make it clear there is an ownership issue. The editor, User:Storm Rider, has apparently installed his unusual format on some other (mostly LDS) articles with more or less success, and has edit warred over it before. His attempt at Jesus didn't succeed. It's on the LDS articles it seems to exist most. (Whether it's more than three I don't know.) It's not forbidden, but just unusual, which he contests. The article was once a Featured Article, and it used standard formatting back then. He made this odd accusation:

• "Your preferred method looks odd, out-of-date, and surely belongs to an odd cult of flying spaghetti mongers, but I digress."

WHAT is my "preferred method"? With that description, it must be pretty awful! Right? Well, brace yourselves, 'cause here it is:

• The LEAD, a non-floated TOC, the first heading, and the rest of the body of the article.

That's pretty simple, but apparently "odd, out-of-date, and surely belongs to an odd cult of flying spaghetti mongers." IIRC, that's pretty standard formatting, just like on this page and nearly every article! I'm sure some few examples of his formatting can be found, but usually on lists. Floated TOCs are allowed under special circumstances, but are also warned against. I have provided the various guideline links in my reply.

I'm finished with this character and issue. I've never encountered it before and was rather caught off guard by the strong reaction. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems very much of a walled garden. I'm off for a while so can't do anything, but I do wonder if more attention needs to be paid to it. Or maybe I'm wrong, and it really is NPOV. dougweller (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of BS that makes editing so distasteful. I particularly enjoy the way Fyslee cheery picks the statements to twist reality. He starts off by telling me that, "If Storm Rider wishes all LDS articles to look odd, so be it. It only serves to strengthen the impression of what many see as an odd sect, a reputation one would think members and editors would seek to change." (See here for the full conversation.)

I don't belong to an odd sect and never have. Why on earth does an editor bring up religious affiliation? What does it have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely nothing. Further, who set Fyslee up as the arbiter of what is odd and what is not in the world of religion or even Wikipedia for that matter? What this editor fails to understand or admit is that odd is in the eyes of the beholder. What is odd to him is normal to me. In this instance, flowing text looks better TO ME; he obviously has a different opinion. Great, that is what makes the world go round.

Having this type of drive by, Nazi-style, inflexible editing, POV enforcement is the bane of editing. The object here is that no editor should ever act as if they are the sole source of what is right or correct. Further, no editor has the right to demean the religious affiliations of any other editor. Then to complain that an editor has not rolled over and played docile so they can continue their maniacal attempt to exert control is detestable. I reject it completely and would seek to stamp out this type of tyranny that a few of our editors display, and what is worse is that he is an bloody administrator. Use your common sense and realize there are few absolutes on Wikipedia! --^StormRider 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nazi", "POV"... could you mention a "cabal" of some sort so I get Bingo? It seems that you're misreading Fyslee's statement - he's not calling you or anybody part of an odd sect, and it would probably help if you toned your rethoric down a notch. If I say "wearing your underwear over your pants makes you look like a fool", it does not logically follow that I think you are a fool. Badger Drink (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is even more evidence of OWNERSHIP. Take a look at Storm rider's emotional reaction, and the fact that he is the one who does what he claims I have done. He reverted me twice and I immediately stopped. He then followed me to my talk page and has been after me ever since. It is indeed his unusual formatting style, which he admits looks better to him (yet denies is unusual), and when anyone else notes that it doesn't look better to them, and that it deviates significantly from the standard format, he doesn't seem to respect any other opinion and angrily defends his own style through words and edit warring. He has maintained control of the article and style, while I have not edit warred, and yet he still rants and raves. Part of my motivation was to help fend off the common accusations made against LDS and other minority religions (that they are odd), and yet he even takes offense at that, revealing a lack of insight into what many think of minority religions. I was on his side in that matter, but he doesn't realize it. Interesting.

It really is a walled garden, and when his edits are questioned by anyone else, he gets pretty angry. I'm not the only victim. The instults and personal attacks aren't pleasant. He seems to think that because it looks good to him (as he admits), no other opinion should be tolerated or considered. Even when another editor attempted to restore the format to what it was when the article was a Featured article, as I had originally done, he deceptively (his edit summary didn't indicate he was undoing the previous editor's edit) returned to a floated TOC, this time to the right. The whole thing reeks of ownership issues. Note that the "inflexible editing" is by the one who is in control of the article, namely Storm rider. I was flexible enough to back off. There is no POV issue ("POV enforcement") in this matter, even though he falsely waves that flag. So far the "sole source of what is right or correct" has been Storm rider, who enforces what he considers to be "right and correct", because, as he states above, it "looks better TO ME", so he does indeed exert a "type of tyranny that ... few of our editors display" by reacting as he does. More eyes on the article and the editor, please. BTW, I am not a "bloody administrator". I'm not an admin at all! Just an ordinary editor who made the mistake of expressing an opinion at odds with Storm rider's. No, this article and editor needs more eyes and watching. The attacks need to stop. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is formatting a WP:Fringe issue? Artw (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Why is Golden plates a fringe issue given that it is about the 4th largest Christian church in the US. Seems like it puts in context the POV of the editor making this entry. This is a joke. I have already linked the discussion page above you should also see Fyslee's talk page where I first began talking to him. It is as if some editors believe if they yammer on long enough reality disappears and the world must bow to what they say it is. I am sorry Fyslee, but your bullying will stop now. Cheers. --^StormRider 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have taken this to a discussion on civility. I'd have no problem censuring or blocking StormRider for personal attacks and other such nonsense. kwami (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I found this while looking at the Parapsycholoy thread above. Then I noticed this one and since I have a passing interest in Mormons, I took a look at the article in question. Then I returned here and forgot this was the Fringe theories board. Sorry about getting off topic. Yes, there are problems with the article and an editor, but my concerns are related to owership and civility. Would it be improper to move everything from my first edit in this thread over to the proper noticeboard (which one?)? Is there a noticeboard for problems related to walled garden articles, IOW ownership, edit warring, civility, etc.? -- Fyslee (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this.

Check out WP:Own and WP:Civility, as well as WP:Dispute resolution. I haven't brought many complaints, so I can't tell you the best route, but those pages should cover it. I don't think there would be any problem moving this discussion, though it would be polite to inform the participants. Or, you could simply link to WP:FTN#this section from over there. kwami (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw, I am a non-party in the formatting wars. I came here after a {{unbalanced}} tag was removed by a single editor multiple times while conversation was still clearly on-going on the talk page. The purpose of such a template is to draw the attention of a wider cross-sampling of editors, and removing a template that isn't clear lunacy (i.e., adding "hoax" to the Holocaust or what have you) is completely counter-productive to this goal. The behavior of that editor - and other editors - is clearly indicative of a typical walled-garden article - and given that the main issue I found with the page was its deference towards a, quite frankly, downright loony perspective of the history, I felt FRINGE was the most appropriate noticeboard. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

An editor has moved the page Business Plot conspiracy theory to Business Plot. While a couple of editors are working to NPOV the page, it largely treats this fringe theory as truth, though no one contemporaneously or since has, other than a couple of less than reliable sources. More eyes are needed. THF (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that three editors are trying to include, in violation of WP:UNDUE, conspiracy theories by John Buchanan (American politician) in the article. Does anyone read this noticeboard? THF (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Temple at Uppsala

Resolved

 – Consensus found at Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia. --Zara1709 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Christianization of Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two editors, of whom I know one to be a Neopagan, have repeatedly removed the information that no archaeological remains of Temple at Uppsala as described by Adam of Bremen have been found. One of them commented in the edit summary: churches on top of pagan sites are everywhere in Scand. diff This might be a popular folk historiography in Scandinavia, or a belief hold by many Neopagans, but actually, the situation is more complex and in this case nothing that resembles the temple as described by Adam of Bremen has been found by archaeologists. The sources I used for this issue are definite, see my comments at Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia and they are highly reputable. Now the two editors are bringing in wp:NPOV, but so far they have refused to state which sources actually say that archaeological remains have been found. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the matter should read the now extensive talkpage discussion, where three editors (Bloodofox, Haukurth and myself) have disagreed with Zara1709. We think the topic is too extensive to be discussed where Zara wants it to be. This is BTW not the proper venue for bringing up this discussion.--Berig (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you count the number of (academic) sources instead of the number of (unqualified) editor's opinions? That is 2:0 instead of 1:3. Zara1709 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problem at the moment is avoiding an undue synthesis since you either misunderstand the issue, or consciously try to misrepresent it.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is infuriating. When the issue at Christianization of Scandinavia became apparent, I did, what any good editor should do in such a situation: Research. I searched up a book Power and Conversion -A Comparative Study of Christianization in Scandinavia, the Ph.D. thesis at University College, London. I've read the book, and would now like to rewrite the section on Sweden in that article. BUT I CAN'T DO IT because several editors (who apparently haven't conducted any research on their own) have repetitively removed the sentence "The existence of this temple has not been confirmed by archaeological findings," despite me having pointed out that the source for this a standard academic introduction to Northern Europe during the Middle Ages in German. I even made the effort to translate the whole statement on the talk page. But if I make another revert now, I would be breaking 3rr, so I have to postpone the rewrite for a few days. WHY do I have to put up with this? The citations I provided from academic literature were simply ignored, instead these editors are acting as if the would need to explain wp:NPOV, wp:NOR or wp:synth to me. Zara1709 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have an infinite patience with people who don't understand, or accept, WP policy, and I'll help you out until the text is acceptable. If you take your time to re-read what your four (4) opponents have written, instead of just being infuriated I am sure that you'll get a better grasp of why your version is so problematic to other editors.--Berig (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, you have my sympathy. Berig and the rest of the Nordic gang like to rely on free google books from the 1800's. It is very difficult to bring these articles up to date with modern scholarship against such compact and stubborn resistance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"The rest of the Nordic gang"? By this I suppose you mean "the regular editors who edit articles relating to Germanic paganism" (Nordic? Maybe you're talking about some other gang of editors who also handle a lot of Finnish history?) and yet it's obvious that you're not talking about me. Want to name some specifics or is this supposed to be just a blind jab at Berig? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture#Participants can serve as an overview. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith made an excellent suggestion to just remove any mention of the Temple at Uppsala in the article, something which Zara disapproves of. Do you disapprove of that too, Pieter, or would it be against your old habits of edit-warring per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You have been warned about virtually every single offence on WP: stalking, disruption, edit warring, personal attacks, dishonesty, etc., so I hope that you'll try to behave.--Berig (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all mention the the "temple". There is absolutely no reason to mention it in the entry, and it simply courts controversy. Why put in an awkwardly worded reference to something of no informational value that one then has to add a disclaimer to suggesting that it most likely did not exist? This probably is not the right place to discuss the matter either. However I might suggest that interested parties have a look at Temple at Uppsala because it is the title and organization of that entry which is probably at the root of the problem. The entry is for the most part pieced together from primary source references to Uppsala as a cultic center. Yet it is organized around the word "temple" because of Adam of Bremen's infamous description of an actual temple. It is my understanding that modern scholarship considers Adam's description as most likely erroneous in some manner or another (in no small part due to the lack of archeological evidence that Zara wants to make reference to in the Christinaization entry.PelleSmith (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I wasn't made aware of this post and a link to it was not posted on the appropriate talk page. I guess I must also be the "confirmed neopagan" that Zara speaks of, probably based off of the quote on my talk page, and that, judging by Zara's comments, this apparently makes me somehow unqualified to handle these subjects. I invite you to compare my Wikipedia contributions to any editor on Wikipedia and tell me if there's room for improvement. The question of whether or not the remains of the temple still exist has no place on the "Christianization of Scandinavia" article, but rather on the Temple at Uppsala article proper. The case of the Temple at Uppsala is hardly a unique circumstance. For those keeping track, this situation seems to be pretty typical of Zara's editing history. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

this discussion isn't really appropriate here. This is a regular editing dispute, and I am sure there can be a reasonable agreement if both sides take a step back, and show willingness to charitable reading of the other side's points. This is an example of a potentially fruitful dispute, the kind that tends to result in improved articles (as opposed to the "disputes" which are really a mere waste of time spent on editors who don't have a point to begin with). --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was the most appropriate place I could find for the discussion. The temple at Uppsala is mentioned rather extensively (>2 pages) in both introductions I've read on the Christianization of Scandinavia so far. Even Padberg's introduction to the Christianization of Europe devotes 2 1/2 of its 307 pages to it and also includes Adam of Bremen's account in a German translation under 'primary sources'. If something is discussed in every introductory textbook, then there can't be any reason not to mention it in the corresponding article, or would you know one? Now, I can't know exactly why this particular piece of information is opposed this vehemently by several editors - but I would guess there must be some reason for it. And to give a comparison: If several editors would removed the mentioning of Charles Darwin from the article Biology, that would certainly be a case for this noticeboard. Zara1709 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your time to read what people write about your edits, Zara. You cannot get away with using sources as long as you violate WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't that hard to find a consensus. Closing the the discussion without any further comments. Zara1709 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments about the "Jewish POV" about the Holocaust on Talk:Ion Antonescu

Another incident on the Ion Antonescu page. Eurocopter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that the article is POVed, and has tagged it for neutrality - I pointed out that the info, which could perhaps be rephrased, is compliant with the Wiesel Commission's report on the Holocaust in Romania - which is the view of mainstream historiography in Romania, and is the basis for legislation. While the article still needs a lot of sources, Eurocopter has stated his intention of replacing the info with quotes from an essayist with no scientific credentials who is often described, including by the Commission, as a "Holocaust revisionist" (see Talk:Ion Antonescu#NPOV and sources for sources on that). He considers the info in the article, sourced or unsourced, "communist propaganda-style facts and disinformation". Eurocopter's tags are designed around that, and reflect this intent of introducing questionable material - while the info is (partly) unsourced, or not clearly sourced, this is POV-pushing at its grandest. What I find especially worrying is a comment he made in relation to the Wiesel report as a source. Verbatim: "Regarding the so called Final report of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HOLOCAUST IN ROMANIA, I doubt its accuracy considering that the president of the comission was a jew (they were certainly not neutral historians). Unfortunately, the official position of the Romanian state in the past 20 years has been in accordance with foreign interests and pressures." How should wikipedia relate to such POVs? Dahn (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more than just fringe. Denying genocide is a short step from inciting hatred. We should respond accordingly. However, the edit itself is a simple cn issue, and it's generally a good idea to fully reference emotional topics. I haven't read the sources, but if the specific tagged claims are already supported by those refs, then point this out on the talk page and delete the tags. If the POV warrior continues, we block him. (Or I block him.) If those particular claims are not currently supported, then we can leave the tags on for a few days while you work with the Commission report. kwami (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not as much with the individual cn tags (they can be easily sourced, and I'll even agree that some need to be tweaked), but with the "POV" template he added at the top of the article, which sent the message that the article is slanted because it does not allow what fringe sources alongside/instead of the mainstream ones, as determining info on Antonescu's participation in the Holocaust. What makes the matter complicated is this: the Commission report was so far not used as a source, though it could be one for virtually everything in the article (and much missing info). I have intended to edit it myself for a long time now, but didn't rush into it: while parts of it are problematic one way or another, the article was pretty much stable. What happens is that, in the past few weeks, it became subject to some seriously POVed editing, and was three times or so turned into an essay about Holocaust denial (see here for example; also note the long rants on the talk page which have been preceding such edits for a year or so, and the single-purpose accounts which issue them). While this happened, User:Bogdangiusca kept adding info from a reliable source, compatible with the commission report (he has so far sourced almost everything that Eurocopter pretended was unsourced, which I suppose is what prompted the latter to state a claim that the entire article needs to be redone). The commission report, which is massive, would require some elbow grease and a window of time where the edit war is stabilized around an acceptable version (I think we can all agree that basing the text on genocide denial for even a short while is not something wikipedia would tolerate). That version could then be sandboxed for several to work on and cover at least the basic of what needs to be covered from the prominent sources. It would also allow me and (I hope) other users to make the text compliant with the MOS etc. - at the moment, it is not.

As you see, the concern behind the post above is that the article may again degenerate into a propaganda piece for revisionism while interest is gathered into actually improving the article. I also think that any edits motivated by such POV as Eurocopter's pose an intrinsic problem. I therefore would propose that the article be kept under some sort of scrutiny by admins, as there is a precedent for disruption. This is not to protect my edits (I have edited virtually nothing in the article so far), but to keep it stable for some sort of radical improvement to actually be possible. Whoever performs it - meaning that yes, I'm willing to edit the info in myself, but I don't want to either monopolize the article or interfere with Bogdan's fine work. Dahn (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I hadn't seen the NPOV tag for the entire article, which is indeed unwarranted. Yes, I agree that pushing an agenda with tags can be disruptive, and as Eurocopter has now had ample opportunity to fact tag anything he thinks might be unsourced, go ahead and delete any additional tags. Or ask me to. But I agree with some: "in 2004 the Romanian government under Ion Iliescu officially acknowledged" clearly needs a cite just for WP standards (funny that Eurocopter didn't tag that! I moved one of his tags down), and it should be easy to come by. kwami (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be easy to source, from several RSes. But since it's almost like placing a citneeded after "the Earth is round" or "Christians believe in the Gospels", and since the report could eventually be cited throughout (it is in itself a citation for that), the best way would be to explain the exact steps and quote the stand-alone conclusions in a special paragraph or section - not just that it says, but what it says. I mean, everything he asks for could easily be cited as is, but the way he is asking for it would result in a mediocre text.

That said, I am willing to add some provisional, "mediocre", quotes for everything in there, on which I am willing to expand later - as we stand however, it seems to me that Bogdangiusca (who is apparently not active at the moment) was still adding to the article from his own RSes, getting rid of those tags one by one. I don't want to interfere with his own research for now risking an edit conflict, and since I proposed we sandbox the article and work on it together, I'll wait until later today and see where we stand. Dahn (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few temporary mediocre citations would hold us over, esp. if you let B know what you're doing, and even if you just get the main points (official acceptance & his general responsibility) we could delete the rest of the tags as disruptive, and expect further cleanup as the article progresses. kwami (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what is happening here is a masquerade, meant to prevent the addition of neutral sources to this article. My comments were not anti-semitic, nor am I of anti-semitic views. All i've done was to request sources for the sensible claims in this article, by placing fact tags and questioning the neutrality of this article, averything according to our policies. As this is a sensible history article, it should rely on neutral/reliable historians, not on a commission, which in my opinion could be biased (as it is dominated by ethnic jews). The so called my POV comments (as they were at that time not supported by sources) were made on the talk page, no way within the article. Again, denying historians and sustaining exclusively the ICHR final report does not represent the way to reach neutrality in this article. I request administrators to keep a close look on this article and supervise the obeying of WP policies, in order to avoid such disguisedly removals of fact tags added according to policies. I'm not willing to make propaganda of any kind, but i'm willing to add as many sources necessary to reach neutrality on this article (which I believe its current form is biased). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right. This concerns Jews, so we can't have any Jewish historians. Conflict of interest/bias. And it concerns Romania, so we can't have any Romanian historians. And it concerns WWII, so we can't have any historians from countries that fought in WWII. (I applaud you, when you reference your articles, in never using sources from the countries involved, nor their allies.) kwami (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't pay enough attention to my comments above. What I'm telling is that in order to have a neutral article, we can't rely 100% on the IHRC report. Controversial topics may reach neutrality if you post as many sources as you can and afterwards compare them. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a variety of respectable sources is a good thing. However, you've stated twice now that the reliability of the Commission is dubious because the leader is a Jew. The fact that the Romanian govt commissioned the study, and accepted its findings, you dismiss as due to the impotence of the Romanian govt. This sounds to me like tailoring the data to fit your conclusion. I might say the opposite: that because no-one likes to believe bad things about their own country, all Romanian sources are dubious. (That doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism: many Usonians deny that things were ever really bad for blacks in the US, that thousands of people were lynched as part of a system of state-sponsored terrorism, not necessarily because they are racist, but because the can't stomach the truth.) Anyway, what is at issue is how well the historians are received by the academic community. Supplying a bunch of contradictory references just to achieve some sort of faux "balance" is itself non-neutral, for it gives the impression that the consensus view is disputed when it is not. When dealing with genocide, people are justifiably concerned about giving fuel to revisionists. kwami (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion the IHRC report on Antonescu could be biased due to certain reasons (probably this is the reason why the Romanian authorities did not adopt it as its official position), therefore I believe it should be compared with other historical sources and used in alternance with them (I never stated that it shouldn't be used only because it's written by jews). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm totally convinced - you could have phrased your comments better, Eurocopter. Still, AGF and benefit of the doubt and so forth. What other sources would you suggest using in the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already posted 3 books and started editing and referencing sensible issues (Stoenescu and Giurescu are currently few of the most reliable Romanian contemporany historians). See my edits made today in the article and you will convince yourself of my neutral intentions. Regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just react against two claims made by Eurocopter in passing above. 1) "the Romanian authorities did not adopt [the Report] as [their] official position". Let's confront this with what the sources say. Some of the most accessible sources will instantly prove that his claim is bogus: "The Commission's foremost recommendation was that the government of Romania should issue an official declaration acknowledging the report of the Commission and adopting the entirety of its contents and conclusions. Once accepted and endorsed by the President of Romania, the report was to be published in Romanian and English and made available in both print and internet editions. The report was also distributed throughout the country to all libraries, schools, universities, and other educational and research institutions. In November 2004, Elie Wiesel, accompanied by Museum Director Sara Bloomfield, Paul Shapiro, and Radu Ioanid, officially presented the Commission’s report to President Iliescu, who apologized for his country’s role in the Holocaust and pledged to educate Romanians about their history."; "Throughout the period covered by the report, Embassy representatives and other U.S. Government officials discussed with government officials at multiple levels the importance of full official recognition of the Holocaust in Romania, improvements in Holocaust education in school curricula, and implementation of the recommendations of the Wiesel Commission. The Embassy participated in the first commemoration of the country's Holocaust Remembrance Day and issued a press statement noting the importance of the commemoration. The Embassy supported visiting delegations focusing on issues related to the Holocaust, including the Wiesel Commission."; [historian Ovidiu Pecican in reference to the Wiesel Report and the Tismăneanu Commission report on communism, which, incidentally, is subject to the same revisionist claims:] "ambele comisii au oferit, in finalul activitatii lor, niste produse istoriografice care beneficiaza si de investitura de documente oficial adoptate la cel mai inalt nivel al statului roman" ("both commissions have provided, upon the end of their activities, historiographic products which also benefit from the investiture of official documents adopted at the highest level of the Romanian state)." I could go on and on with sources, both Anglo-Saxon and Romanian, but this should be plenty for what's needed here. 2) adding sources. The one source cited so far by Eurocopter is Alex Mihai Stoenescu, on whose extremist bias and lack of qualifications I have commented both here (below) and on the Antonescu article talk page. Much of the relevant info is now in the article on him. Dahn (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of Holocaust Denial generally, its a question of reporting a specific individual's level of complicity (in the context of a natural human tendency for the "victor" to look for scapegoats). The original wording of the section was rather POV and OR, but also there has been heavy reliance on one particular source. Direct references to the Commission Report on specific accusations would improve the credibility of the article. Perhaps there should also be a clear acknowledgement that very few "dictators" actually have a free hand to decide policy in war-time conditions - Antonescu was undoubtedly culpable, but you need very good sources to accuse somebody of direct personal responsibility. It will always be hard to find sources that are neutral about war crimes. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, proving that Antonescu is directly responsible for something is indeed very hard. According to Stoenescu p. 385, Antonescu himself described his regime as bureaucratic state, in which every member of his regime has its own responsibilities in accordance with his position on the hierarchical scale (so they were assuming actions within their limits of power without Antonescu's consent). This is exactly the reason why added fact tags after claims stating that Antonescu exclusively/directly is responsible for certain actions. Even the Wiesel commission states in its final report that Antonescu's regime is found guilty for crimes against jews, not Antonescu himself. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Must say I'm very disappointed to hear what looks like extreme structuralism being espoused by someone who is meant to represent WP:MilHist. Nor am I overly impressed with the way things have been phrased. That being said, structuralism vs intentionalism is a valid historical debate, though whether extreme intentionalism (such as Goldhagen) and extreme structuralism (Goetz Aly et al) have a place outside of very clear areas on wikipedia, I'm uncertain of. I will check the article and then my resources to see what sources I provide. When we drift into the 'It was without orders from the top' and the 'It just happened because all Germans wake up wanting to kill Jews' area we need to tread carefully and make it abundently clear whose ideas they are and how mainstream thought these days trends towards the middle ground. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not my extreme structuralism, it is Antonescu's own description of his regime, found in Stoenescu p. 385, in the book mentioned in the article. As I said above, from now on all my comments will rely on sources, in order to not be accused of any type of POV. Furthermore, according to Stoenescu p. 384, Antonescu's regime was similar to the British organization of the Government, in which the prime-minister is the chief of its ministers, but does not have any influence in and does not control administrative/economic/etc processes - of which responsibility is held by the ministry in question.--Eurocopter (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably a bad example to choose; in britain all policy comes from the Prime Minister. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall policies yes, but processes no. For example, that's why when happening a huge blunder within a ministry, the minister which leads the ministry in question faces all the consequences and eventually resigns, not the Prime minister of the government just because he is the chief of that minister. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In a country like Britain, a politician's survival depends on telling believable lies and making sure you can pin the blame on somebody else when those lies are uncovered. In a dictatorship, survival depends on giving your core cronies whatever they want whenever they want it, otherwise they turn on you and you die (usually horribly). When you have manipulated a bunch of racist murdering thugs to get into power, and then you make enemies of a racist murdering thug like Stalin, and you are dependent on a racist murdering thug like Hitler to protect you from Stalin, I guess you have to act like the meanest racist murdering m8therf8cker in the valley all day every day just to keep the rats away from your own throat. In such a situation, when the cronies wanted to murder third-party civilians then he was probably only too grateful they were murdering somebody other than him. When you swim with piranas, its only a matter of time before one of them bites off your *****! Wdford (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see all the rationales provided by a stated POV-pusher and what looks to be like a single-purpose account. The above looks like Antonescu's retrial from an apologist perspective, and I am very surprised that this phantasmagorical piece of WP:OR and wikilawyering seems to be tolerated so for from these two users - who have since rehashed the article page using this rationale and a recognized Holocaust revisionist source (Stoenescu, whose training is in engineering). The sophistry about Antonescu not being held responsible for the Holocaust but his regime being so is especially inflammatory, with its audacious claim that there is a distinction between an authoritarian regime and its authoritarian leader. Not only was the regime Antonescu himself, but, if this still isn't clear, the distinction is unequivocally disallowed by the Report. From a cursory search: p.119-120 (his initiation of early deportation projects: "Many Jews were declared hostages by Antonescu himself. Antonescu ordered his chief of staff to set up temporary labor camps in southern Romania. As one intelligence officer later stated, this was part of a larger strategy to remove Moldavian Jews through 'deportation and extermination'."), p.144-145 (his personal involvement in the murderous deportation of the Jews from Ukraine: "In early October [1941] Antonescu ordered the deportation - which meant extermination - of the Ukrainian Jews to the Bug and the expropriation of their property. Not only Ukrainian Jews were deported to the Bug. Eichmann's envoy, Richter, announced to his superiors that Antonescu had decided to concentrate near the Bug 110,000 Jews from Bessarabia and Bukovina, 'in view of exterminating them.' Their transger and eventual execution fell to the [Romanian] Government of Transnistria, which had gendarmerie units and occupation troops at its disposal."; "Meanwhile, Antonescu ordered the SSI [Special Intelligence Service] to investigate why 'all the Jews had not been evacuated east of the Jmerinka-Odessa railway."), p.147 (where he is seen liquidating the surviving Jewish population amassed in camps: "Antonescu ordered the murder of more than 70,000 surviving Jews at Bogdanovka and then at Domanovka."), p.181sqq (where his role in inspiring and producing antisemitic legislation is outlined, with statements such as this: "Yet, the legislation and 'civilized means' promised by Antonescu were no less abusive [than the Iron Guard's] in terms of dispossession of Jewish property and rights."), p.253 ("Ion Antonescu was responsible not only for the devastation of Romanian Jews and Roma, but also for many of the tragic losses endured by the Romanian nation during World War II."). Again, this is a cursory search, carried only because an obscene point may otherwise seem validated; you'll find Antonescu's participation outlined throughout the document, on every page, and amply discussed in the conclusions. Yes, the report also makes it clear that, in March 1944, Antonescu stopped the deportations he had ordered himself earlier, after those hundreds of thousands of people were killed by him and his henchmen during 3 years of insanity; it also explains that this was because the Red Army was advancing on Romania, and he was desperately trying to make a separate peace with the Western Allies (one could add: so did Himmler).

The other obscene and nonchalant claim, according to which "Jews are POVed on the Holocaust", is not only antisemitic (as pointed out by several who posted here and elsewhere), it is also diversionary. See the report's "Forward" for a full list of contributors - you'll notice the academic and specialists involved come from all ethnicities "involved", and include several leading scientists from Romania. Skip then to p.9sqq and you'll find the basic details on the official adoption and policy-making character of the document. I for one have nothing to reply to arguments about "what piranas do", "huge blunders within a ministry" etc. - they form part of a fringe, bad-faithed, apologist theory, and have no place on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well, so instead of consuming our energy in such endless unconstructive polemics, we should concentrate and add all these sources to the article, so it would be at readers' discretion in which way he would judge Antonescu. My opinion is that in order to reach neutrality for such a controversial article, we should include all possible sources and compare them within the article. Therefore, we shouldn't try to demonstrate here if Antonescu is guilty or not, all we have to do is posting sourced facts in the article and.. let the history judge him. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should concentrate our energy on reading WP:RS, WP:V and the very page related to this thread. Then we will perhaps see that "we should include all possible sources and compare them within the article" is not an acceptable move on wikipedia. And no, sir, an article is not controversial when it does use mainstream information, it is controversial when it doesn't. Dahn (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Be sure i'm familiar with those policies, and I'm familiar with other policies disconsidered by you when stating that every source added by me is unreliable and the IHRC report is the sole source worth adding into the article. I'm quite disgusted to continue discussing in this manner, especially with someone disconsidering reliable historians such as Stoenescu and Giurescu. Therefore, from now on I would get less involved in such polemics and use my wiki-dedicated time to improve the article. Regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need to get more familiar. Let me quote you from WP:V: "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Now the "sources" you have added are one: Stonescu, an engineer whose research is most often described as apology of fascist figures, whose views on the Holocaust are deemed revisionistic, and who is a member of the extremist nationalist group New Generation Party – Christian Democratic. Need I elaborate? Dahn (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No you don't need to elaborate, what you need to do is add your extra material to the article. If you are aware of a different point of view then you don't delete or revert the work of others which you happen to dislike, you add your extra material so that all the significant viewpoints are represented. Reverting a viewpoint you disagree with, or deleting material that quotes a source you don't approve of, is also POV. If you have a reliable source that says Stoenescu is a liar then add that to the article, so readers can make up their own minds. If you have a reliable source that says Antonescu personally ordered a particular massacre, then add it to the article. You mentioned what looked like a lot of good material in the talk page comment above - add some of that to the article to make it better all round. However, please be careful about your accusations - "Holocaust revisionism" is a very serious accusation and needs to be carefully substantiated. Remember to assume good faith, unless you can actually prove otherwise. Wdford (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of having to inform you gentlemen about WP:V and WP:SYNTH, were one finds statements specifically rejecting the type of equivocation you propose above. The rest of your message is part of an ad nauseam repetition of points I have answered to many, many times. Dahn (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edoardo Agnelli

An editor or editors from a couple IP addresses have been changing this article to present what appears to be a fringe conpiracy theory about the subject's death as if it were generally accepted, e.g., and adding in some unsourced and unexplained innuendo about other family members' deaths. I'd appreciate some help with dealing with it as I don't want to get into an edit war. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a revert, and also opened a thread at wp:ani#edit warring at Edoardo Agnelli, since it seems likely that there is socking going on here. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a few edits. Seems OK and NPOV to me now. --Gciriani (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime

Possible trouble brewing on this old favourite of racists and cranks. One editor has already made personal attacks in their edit summaries. If people could take a look that would be great. Verbal chat 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. Verbal chat 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Energy (esotericism)‎

This article seems to be lacking in scientific interpretation, and what there is currently may about to be removed (possibly for valid reasons). Perhaps people with an interest could take a look. All the best, Verbal chat 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article has is no there there. The article lists together a lot of different theories without any apparent source saying that they all have something in common, making an article wide problem with WP:SYN. There is no single core that the article is built around. Just a bunch of different theories listed, without doing anything to show they really are related. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources that seem from the titles to be good academic texts, relevant to the subject, but they are underused, and I agree that the article as it stands it is mainly synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When new agers claim to be "chanelling positive energy" clearly they mean something by that, but I doubt it is the expression of a consistent theory, or even a position among competing theories. Rather we have a consistent usage that may be supported by a variety of different theories, or simply taken for granted. This does raise problems of synthesis, but the usage rather than theories is surely the unifying factor. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note that PMID 18953003 looks like a useful source, although I won't be able to read it until the next time I am in the lab (if then). Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of this term is utterly fascinating and there are a few good book references in the first section of the article. In particular, the tremendous success in the 19th century on the part of electromagnetic theory in delivering seemingly magical technologies to the world inspired many in the spiritualism to essentially co-opt the terminology associated with these ideas. Interestingly, "energy" was not the only term that was co-opted. "Force", "field", "magnetism", and "electricity" were all also used to describe the magic associated with these particular kinds of spiritual beliefs. What is truly interesting is that the use of these terms began to fall out of favor after the scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century began discussing ideas such as "duality", "relativity", "virtual particles", and "uncertainty". The parallels between the development of quantum quackery and "spiritual energy" or "spiritual forces" are undeniable and probably should be explained in the article for completeness. Additionally, consider using the pseudoscience template for explanations of how the term "energy" is used in ways that are explicitly pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce De Palma

I'm looking to either address the pastel-shaded boxes of the article or re-nominate for deletion. What I'm primarily seeking now is any mentioning in mainstream media. I mean, if you invent a perpetuum mobile you would try to do some public relations and bring it to the press' attention. Any hints?

Also the lack of reliable sources for his academic (non-)career is disturbing.

--Pjacobi (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this article could survive an AfD. There is nothing to establish notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tried once before and failed. We can always try again, but make sure when nominating that we point out that the alleged notability among perpetual motion enthusiasts is probably not good enough to establish general notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

2007 standards were more lenient and less consistent than today's. I've renominated it. THF (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

heck, the article does not even have verification of the claim that the guy is Brian DePalma's brother, much less the rest. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum

Usual is happening: Homeopathy violates basic scientific laws, but the homeopaths find a few remedies where a few poor studies say there's some weak evidence they work, and that remedy gains an article which emphasises the evidence and fails to mention that if the evidence were true, whole fields of science would have to be wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

I have reported a band of tagteamers to arbcom: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Please_enforce_the_pseudoscience_arbitration. You may want to join the discussion at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry and Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. I believe it is time for administrative intervention in these articles. Good editors can easily be scared off from improving articles while these kind of tactics are allowed to continue unchecked.ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairly ironic. I was thinking about starting a thread on ANI about this last night, since we have 4 editors at orthomolecular psychiatry (Orangemarlin, Verbal, Keepcalm, and SA) who, in a forum-like thread entitled "This article was a POV-fork", decided that since they agree to a merge, there is therefore consensus and have edit-warred against 3 editors to do so at this point. Despite the forum-like tone and title of the thread, Colonel Warden and Coppertwig objected. I didn't (I avoid these types of threads on article talk pages). Since there is currently (based on a loose count) a 5 support vrs. 5 oppose (or 6 if you count Gohde) opinion on the merge, and there was no no properly titled straw poll, there's clearly no consensus. We have a Requests for Move forum for the standard procedure; at the least both articles need a proper notification. Despite this, the group has continually edit-warred to keep doing the merge, inserting statements like "per consensus" ... against "fringe POV pushing". The bad faith, personal attacks, and view that people who don't share your opinions don't count is typical but nevertheless surpisingly bold in this particular instance.

The objections are mainly based on size and structure, and are entirely legitimate. There are plenty of sources on OM psychiatry as distinct from OMM. II | (t - c) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. Straw polls are evil, of course, and there is clearly only one group who is Wikilawyering: the ones not involved in actually helping consolidate, create, or edit content. I'm particularly amused by the proposal that there is a sdifference from OM Psychiatry and OM"M". I guess we should start articles on Orthomolecular oncology, Orthomolecular denistry, Orthomolecular epidemeology, Orthomolecular podiatry, etc., etc., etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

SA is madly throwing this out to as many places as possible, after a merge has been pushed through without any kind of clearly labeled merge discussion taking place, and starting time-wasting ban requests against other editors to boot, and he accuses others of wiki-lawyering? Possibly the ArbComm should be re-examined and an expansion of his ban considered. Artw (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a few more forums that threads could be started about this. I only count 6 so far. It is II that's been "throwing this about", not SA. I don't play tag either, I play cricket. Verbal chat 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, since a strawpoll and merge discussion has been started on the Talk:Orthomolecular medicine page that furtheer discussion happen there. Artw (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian State in the 9th century and earlier

User:Ivan2007 aggressively promotes Mykhailo Hrushevskyi's nationalist view that Ukrainian statehood has been in continuous existence since at least 882 (rather than 1991, as our pages stated several days go). Please see his user page and some of the recentmost edits.[3] [4] [5] In his List of Ukrainian rulers the user includes Ateas of Scythia and Kubrat of Bulgaria, as if preparing to proclaim Scythia another predecessor state of Ukraine.[6] I believe his additions mislead our readers. It's just like copying the list of Balhae sovereigns to the List of Russian rulers just because it so happens that Balhae's territories lie within the modern borders of Russia. With Kubrat and Ateas this is especially problematic, since the former's capital was Phanagoria in modern Russia, and the latter's capital, Scythian Neapolis, did not become part of Ukraine until the late 1950s. Someone should keep an eye on such edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Without being an expert or delving into the details, I'm having trouble seeing really serious problems here. The concept of Ukraine as a distinct entity does date back to the Kievan state, and the Scythians did control the Ukrainian territory even if their capital was elsewhere. It seems that there should be room for discussion here. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Golden plates again

I am trying to restore some balance and remove some of the adherents POV from the Golden plates article. Unfortunately I have come across a group of LDS-adherents who revert any such edit to the page. See my proposed changes to the lead here Talk:Golden plates#New lead paragraph and please comment and support NPOV (even if you disagree with my edits). Thanks, Verbal chat 16:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently an effort to influence editorial discussion by WP:Canvassing Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'This is an apparent pursuing of a vendetta due to a perceived slight by Malcolm'. Sheesh. The article has moved on and can still do with the input of those without a vested interest, and this is not against policy. Verbal chat 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The occasional crossing the border into canvassing is something I have mentioned on this noticeboard a number of times. The usual concerns are, as I see it, Campaigning [7] and particularly Votestacking [8]. I do not know if many users here agree with me, but when I see something that I think presents a possible problem with Canvassing, I mention it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malcolm and calling a spade a spade is appropriate. The tone of Verbal's request violates policy on a number of levels. Regardless, more eyes/comments would be helpful and could quickly solve the issue and this from one of those terrible LDS adherents. --^StormRider 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting on a noticeboard is not canvassing. That's what noticeboards are for. It can however be "forum shopping" if posts are made to a number of places. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I have looked, and can find no instance of Verbal posting about this elsewhere. Not on ANI, not on Rfc - so Malcom, I suggest you re-read the CANVASS page as well as the instructions at the top of this one, so you won't be confused again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Storm Rider: What policies? I see no policy violation by Verbal here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting on this noticeboard can be canvassing, and I think it actually is on occasion.

Also, if a editor posts here suggesting major changes to an article, and there are discussions about such changes here; then the discussion here should be linked to the article talk page. But very often that is not done. I have seen cases where editors having trouble with an article came to this noticeboard with the hope of getting editorial reinforcements. That is understandable, and the intentions always seem to be good, but the approach can be problematic. It depends on how it is done, not why it is done. And not informing all interested editors that there is a discussion occurring here is deplorable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

it is not problematic. Stop pretending that using noticeboards is evil. The question is, "is the note pertinent to the noticeboard", not "has everyone been notified this is being discussed". People are free to discuss Wikipedia articles anywhere they like, including noticeboards (respecting the noticeboard rules), user talkpages, IRC, private email, phone, or over a pint. Will you call it "deplorable" if I was to discuss your latest edits with a mate in the local pub? Will you insist I notify you of the conversation, or even personally invite you over? This is silly. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann wrote to me,Stop pretending that using noticeboards is evil.

Could point out where I said noticeboards are evil? I do not recall saying that.

The fact is that I participate in this noticeboard much more often than criticize it. And I really do not see what the big deal is with my saying that things on this board do not always work perfectly. That just does not seem controversial to me. Or, if it is controversial to say things can occasionally go wrong even with good intentions, could you explain why you think that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should added a few words about Dbachmann saying "People are free to discuss Wikipedia articles anywhere they like'." I notice that WP:canvassing includes this statement:

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages. [9]

Hiding discussion from concerned editors does not seem consistent with WP principals, and Dbachmann, who has been an editor here much longer than I, should know that. In fact, WP:canvassing makes it clear that all concerned editors should be informed of relevant discussions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, this article has the status of Red Book of Westmarch. Meaning, it is obvious it is mythological, there is no reason to keep dwelling on the point. There are Tolkien geeks, and there are Smith geeks, think of it that way, and maybe you'll be more willing to cut them some slack. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article is concerned, I think Blueboar has made an excellent suggestion [10]. Bravo. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dab, it is mythological. Just like those who actually think Jesus is the Son of God is a mythological belief system; that he really rose from the dead is the stuff of pure fantasy. That the pope is the actual Vicar of Christ is an invention of mankind. Those who think we can actually die and be reborn in an eternal journey to nirvana are following a pure imagination. Mythology takes on many masks developed by man to provide themselves an opiate to pacify the people. The issue is are we going to classify all religious topics as mythology or not? Or do we just classify all those religions foreign to our own POV/belief system as such? The problem for this type of mindset is that Wikipedia seeks to approach each topic in a neutral manner, without spin and without declaring what is true or false. We report experts (reliable references) and allow them to make declarative statements.

Campaigning and canvassing are not acceptable or appropriate in any edit on Wikipedia. You know as well as I that the tone of a edit makes it acceptable or not. --^StormRider 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of LDS articles watched over heavily by LDS adherents with a vested interest in making the practices of their church look better than reliable sources and independent opinion would indicate, and subtly attacking the character and actions of those who try to change things. As a consequence, while they're not bad, some of the articles are not as neutral as they should be. It's faintly reminiscent of what happens in our Scientology articles and it needs attention from a number of neutral editors. Verbal is certainly justified in bringing this here and more non-vested-interest eyes on these articles is a good thing. Apart from that, I agree with Dbackmann(dab) Phil153 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a public, transparent noticeboard -- unlike the private mailing lists that exist where no outsider can have a clue as to what is being said. All this fuss about alleged canvassing is ridiculous and boarders on the uncivil. dougweller (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not canvasing to ask about an article on this notice board... that is what it is here for. Now... there has been a lot of good discussion and several suggestions made at the article talk page since Verbal first started this thread. May I suggest that we shift the discussion to that talk page and concentrate on actually improving the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the editors of Golden plates were not notified of the discussion here. Why do you think it "uncivil" to point out that they easily could be notified, and should have been notified? But even if they were notified and I just missed seeing it, I know there are many times there is no notification. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly could be considered canvassing if the intent of an editors post here was to russle up a WP:TAGTEAM of likeminded editors, rather than to highlight and discuss issues related to WP:FRINGE in the light of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

A large majority of posts here of the type "An editor/editor has disagreed with me on (article loosely defined as 'fringe'), I think the article is (value judgement) and/or other editors working on it are (value judgement), please back me up" are suspect and most likely fall into the former camp. Artw (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortune-telling

My impression is that this is a POV mess. An article on fortune-telling that seems devoted to promoting it. Not once is the word "fraud" used. Am I being too critiical, or is it as bad as I think? - Nunh-huh 11:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a "POV mess" (it does contain a good "opposing views" section) ... however, I do think that section could use some expansion, and the fact that there are people who think fortune-telling is bunk should probably be mentioned in the lead. As for the word "fraud"... that fortune-tellers are frauds is a fairly common POV. It shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source that says so. I would probably state it as an opinion for neutralities sake. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a weak article in a lot of ways -- too much weight on obscure Chinese methods, nothing about historical methods such as divination from birds, entrails, and dreams, etc. The weakness of the scientific section is proportionate with the weakness of the rest. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(off topic opinion) That article badly needs a re-write. Gutting it of non-sourced content, then organizing by type, not locale, would be a start. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to water fluoridation

Opposition to water fluoridation‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A particular user who is under sanction from WP:AE made a pretty dramatic series of edits at this article. [11]. Please look and see, especially at the section on "Potential health risks". I have also reported this behavior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience Report (2). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a problem here it may spill over into the related articles too, so best keep an eye on those also Verbal chat 15:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CSICOP on Ghost

An editor is claiming that CSICOP is completely unreliable and is a propaganda group full of fraudsters and few scientists on the Ghost article. I think this needs a few eyes on it and comment from people more familiar with CSICOP. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave a reference in the body of the article from a very distinguished scientist called Eynsenk who said these things. My opinion on the Talk page is immaterial. Colin4C (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is important to decide consensus. There is no consensus for your edits, which accuse living people of fraud. Verbal chat 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My referenced edits in the body of the article do not accuse anyone of fraud:

"In America a controversial organisation, calling itself the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSICOP dedicates itself to 'ghostbusting'. In their house journal, called the Skeptical Enquirer, they stated that there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead."

Do you think that "controversial" = "fraudulent"? Do you think that CSICOP does not engage in 'ghostbusting'? Please give refs to support your case. Also state why CSICOP is above criticism from scientists? Is everything they say totally beyond criticism, by anybody? Do you think that everything they say is automatically true, even when scientists disagree with it? This is what the scientist Eynsenk said:

"There exists in the United States an organisation calling itself the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSICOP for short. While the Executive Council of CSICOP has, in fact few scientists, it has assiduously courted distinguished scientists as members, giving itself the appearance of a scientific organization, an appearance which it exploits to the full when its members go 'ghostbusting'...Quite simply CSICOP is not a scientific organization...The preponderence of media people in its higher echelons show it to be a propaganda movement, dedicated to 'ghostbusting' and to extirpating 'irrational' beliefs" (Eysenck and Sargent (1993) Explaining the Unexplained: 175-8).

I quoted that view by Eynsenk on the Talk page of the article by the way. Whether or not I or any other editor agrees or disagrees with it is immaterial. Eynsenk said it, not me! Colin4C (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:Colin4C has been soapboxing on the article's Talk page for some time [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] but has failed to draw a debating partner that will indulge him. This is more likely a behavior problem and not a content issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Having dealt with Colin4c on countless articles over the years, I agree with User:LuckyLouie's general conclusion. Colin has major issues with not understanding that he can't push his own POV onto articles and refuses to listen to other people. Despite his failed attempt above to spin this as neutral wording, his original edit very clearly was intended to push a view, and now he's weakening the language a little but still striving for the same disparaging tone. It's just a transparent attempt to poison the well to try to make the overwhelming expert academic consensus on the topic appear to be a fringe view. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DreamGuy. And if Eysenck said that, I question his use as an RS. THF (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is CSI now (though the reference in question dates to before the name change), and to my knowledge they have never claimed to be a scientific organization in the vein of the American Physical Society, just a rational-thinking based organization. Eeeenyway WP:RS/N says they are reliable whenever the topic comes up, and WP:FRINGE explicitly cautions against portraying the mainstream opinion as unique to some small group. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans Eysenck, who died in 1997, was a top figure in psychology, but you can't establish the mainstream-ness of a claim by quoting a single scientist, however reputable. Moreover the book in question was written in 1982, an absurdly long time ago. CSI is certainly viewed as "controversial" by people who believe in the paranormal, but the great majority of scientists don't, and view CSI and the Skeptical Enquirer as tools for promoting rationality. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All that I said in the article was that CSICOP go 'ghostbusting' and that they are controversial. No more, no less. Are editors here saying that CSICOP do not go 'ghostbusting' or that they are not controversial? My reference that CSICOP go 'ghostbusting' and that they are 'controversial' is a book by the acclaimed scientist Eynsenk. His many scientific articles and books are allowed to be, and are, cited on the wikipedia. Which parts of the following edit do editors dispute?:

"In America a controversial organisation, calling itself the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSICOP dedicates itself to 'ghostbusting'. In their house journal, called the Skeptical Enquirer, they stated that there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead."

Do editors think that 'ghostbusting' is such a "mainstream" activity, by the way, that it does not need to be reported on the wikipedia? Colin4C (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on the subject. Ghostbusters. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So I don't see why reporting that CSICOP do it is regarded here as such a crime. I am, frankly, baffled. Colin4C (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the author in question has misused the term. I wonder if he ever saw the film. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How has he misused the term in your opinion? Colin4C (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. It's in the opinion of the sources listed in Ghostbusters. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...I just clicked on the link and found that it is about the film...I thought that it would be an account of the activities of organisations who seek to discredit the reality of ghosts... Colin4C (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with using (and believing) unreliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If CSICOP is not controversial why has the referenced wikipidia article on them got a very long section called "Controversy and criticism"? In the light of this Eynsenk's claims are not so off the wall. By contrast the article on the Review of General Psychology which stated that Eynsenk was one of the most cited scientists in scientific journals has not got even a small section on "controversy and criticism". Colin4C (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Franek Kluski

Someone asked for my help on this, but I haven't had the energy to tackle an article so thoroughly screwed up. It's a page about a supposed psychic that was obviously written by a true believer. I have no idea if the person is even notable enough to have an article in the first place, but the article should not stay as it is. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the major sources can be accessed here. Unfortunately the article doesn't use inline refs, and the other sources are in Polish, so I'm not sure that a non-Polish-speaking editor could do much with it. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good for the goose

Talk:List of psychic abilities#Query.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reified linguistic constructs

There are a few articles based on linguistic constructs that are not supported by linguistic or any other evidence. These articles make no actual claims that are pseudoscientific (fringe?), but by their very titles they presume unsupported conclusions.

The naming formats I've noticed are "X peoples" and "X mythology" or "-ies", where X is the name of a proposed language family. Such titles strongly imply—though the articles never actually state this—that there is a set of peoples or mythologies that corresponds to language family X, and which have something in common as peoples or mythologies. There is a scientific way to go about this: linguistic reconstruction. However, AFAIK, none of these articles—apart from the Indo-European stuff (much of which is quite good) and low-level groups like Tai—are about linguistic reconstruction or conclusions drawn from linguistics. Instead, they simply lump together a bunch of disparate peoples or mythologies as if they were known to have something in common. Granted, this is a common, if sloppy, phrasing found in popular and sometimes even academic literature, but generally the author is apparently parroting fancy-sounding terms without presenting any scientific justification for their use.

I've been deleted these articles where I can, except for low-level groups where I think it's possible that the relevant peoples are aware of their similarities, because the languages are so close that it should be obvious. (Even some of these may turn out to be spurious, since ethnicity very often does not follow language, but I'm saving my time for grandiose claims like 'Altaic mythology' and 'Sino-Tibetan peoples'.) However, I've been getting pushback at Finno-Ugric peoples. Now Finno-Ugric, as a language family, is part of a very well established Uralic family, though there is some question as to whether the Finnic and Ugric languages are closer to each other than the are to the third branch, the Samoyedic languages. If Finnic and Ugric turn out not to be a valid linguistic node together, do the Finno-Ugric peoples suddenly cease to exist? Like the way the dwarf planet Eris did not influence your horoscope until the very second that Mike Brown spotted it on his photographic plates, but in reverse? AFAIK, there are no known ethnic commonalities, no cultural, mythic, or genetic commonalities, that set these peoples, as a group, apart from their neighbors. The languages are so distant that a non-linguist is not likely to notice the similarities, even when presented with the data, and they were entirely unknown until philologists started working on these languages (prior to the establishment of Indo-European, actually). The things they do have in common, such as shamanism, are shared by many of their neighbors, and so do not define them as a group. Genetic studies have not found common genetic markers. (One genetic study recently added as a purported reference used the term "Finno-Ugric", but only dealt with a subset of Finnic, ignoring Ugric entirely, and admitted that any Finno-Ugric markers—if they are ever found—may end up being regional rather than actually corresponding to Finno-Ugric.) So what does "Finno-Ugric peoples" mean? The article leaves it undefined, except as the almost meaningless statement that FU peoples are peoples that speak FU lanugages, and my unsourced attempts at pointing out that they are nothing more than this have been reverted. (Currently just fact tagged, which is fine by me, until someone wants to delete it again.) Ethnicity is a cultural construct, and there are Finno-Ugric societies, so perhaps we're witnessing an ethnicity in the making. But that isn't the operating premise of the article.

I've heard historical and comparative linguists complain about historians, geneticists, and anthropologists reifying language families, and then drawing conclusions from them that are entirely unsupported by linguistic, historical, genetic, or cultural evidence. Like three migrations into the Americas, corresponding to Greenberg's three-way partitioning of Native American languages, which Americanist linguists believe to be entirely without justification. However, these articles don't even go that far, they just glomm peoples together, and as with much fringe usage, there is little in academic writing to counter their assumptions. kwami (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether you are right in general, but I think in the case of Finno-Ugric peoples you are wrong. There are 434 Google Scholar hits for the precise search term "finno-ugric peoples"], the first being two academic books: Finno-Ugric Peoples and Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples. (You can read part of the first on Amazon, and a review of the second.) The books are a bit dated, but it appears there is a "Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae" that still publishes papers with titles like "The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European Russia". Perhaps this topic is a red herring scientifically speaking (I have no idea), but it clearly exists well beyond our notability requirements. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that both works approach this as a linguistic topic based on linguistic evidence. I have no problem with that. I just think that it needs to be clear that the evidence is linguistic, and that if we don't present the linguistic evidence, we're not basing the article on any evidence at all. kwami (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I actually found a reference advising proper caution: "[The] affinity of the Finno-Ugric peoples is based solely on the linguistic affinity of these nationalities, and often no other fact can be presented to prove it. [...] linguistic affinity is really a proof of cultural affinity, but only of the far distant past when the structure of the culture was far different from that which we investigate today. The common features of primitive culture are often found spread over very extensive areas and in several different language families." That's all I wanted to say. And, although it discusses FU, it is equally applicable to other reified ancient language families. kwami (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this noticeboard can be helpful. This question seems to demand a lot of linguistic expertise, something you probably won't find here. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like what is going on in here is called 'anti Finno-Ugric sentiment' by Hungarian nationalists. But let the sources do the talking: In Finland, as well as in Hungary, language history and language origins have always been acutely relevant to national identity in a way that they are not in, for example, Western Europe during the past fifty years...
In Hungary, conversely, nationalist ideologies have been mostly hostile to mainstream historical linguistics for positing a close connection between the Hungarians and the Khanty and Mansi hunters and fishermen of the Ob river in Siberia. Hungarian nationalists (for example, László Marácz, Hungarian Revival, Nieuwegein 1996) would rather envision prehistorical kinship with the Mongols, the Sumerians, the Uyghur of Western China, and other, more “prestigious” people.
According to László Marácz: The discovery of these Finno-Ugric linguistic links was used as a psychological blow to the Hungarians whose pride and fighting spirit had always partly derived from the inspiration they had gained from their supposed Scythian origins.--Termer (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not anti anything. I fully accept the connection of Finnic and Ugric. That isn't the issue. (It also looks like I messed up while copy editing your recent addition; the direct Marácz quotation above is more understandable. I'll clean it up if you don't get to it first.)

The issue is postulating a people for every suggested language family, regardless of whether it's backed up by any evidence that would actually define a people. The evidence could be linguistic reconstruction, history, genetics, anthropology, or even modern identities constructed from those linguistic theories, such as the society and festival mentioned it the FU peoples article. That article is starting to shape up to the point that I think it is becoming a legitimate contribution to wikipedia. However, most of the others (Uralic peoples, Altaic peoples, etc.) were irresponsibly misleading without severe warnings, and made no contributions beyond the existing linguistics articles. Of course, with suitable content, they could also be made legitimate articles, but that would require more than just a list of peoples that doesn't delve into what they do and do not have in common. kwami (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

there is no WP:DEADLINE and no need to WP:DEMOLISH anything. In case you're not familiar with the subjects but think that the articles could be improved. There is google books that gives 544 returns on Uralic peoples and 1,391 on Altaic peoples. So I know it's easier to delete the stuff but much more constructive would it be to get a book and improve the articles I think.--Termer (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd really have our work cut out for us to do a good job, more time than I can afford. And I don't want to do a crappy job just to say I've done something. Meanwhile these articles are misleading. I've not been deleting them because they're undeveloped, I've been merging them into the linguistics articles (saving the few worthwhile passages) because I believed them to be misinformative—not technically false information, but presented in such a way as to convey a false understanding. Once I added in the appropriate provisos, the articles basically warned the reader, "this is garbage". At that point, I think we're better off without an article at all. If someone looks up these topics, they'll be redirected to the language family articles, which will be a much better source of information. kwami (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, we been through this already, Wikipedia is not based on editor beliefs but on WP:RS and WP:Verify and in that sense non of your arguments have much of foundation as already shown by about thousand sources out there that cover the subjects. In fact one could as easily and unreasonably redirect the language articles to the-peoples. After all, languages are nothing that can exist without the people who speak the languages. And in the case of Uralic peoples and Altaic peoples the subjects go beyond languages:

The Altaic Studies is not limited to linguists. Instead is represented by scholars whose comparative research is not related to linguistics, but to another discipline - history, literature, ethnology, religion etc. For example the term shamanism was originally applied by anthropologists to the religion of the Ural-Altaic peoples of Siberia.[17]. Also Haplogroup X (mtDNA) has been unambiguously identified in North Asia among Altaic peoples, suggesting a possible homeland. [18].

Also there is the Permanent International Altaistic Conference gathering specialists that cover all Altaic disciplines,[19] whose papers published include "Aspects of Altaic civilization", "The Dwelling of the Altaic peoples" [20] etc.

So we're dealing with valid subjects of study that evidently go beyond linguistics unlike you claim. etc. --Termer (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if the articles covered the topics in this way--as what in the modern world is effectively an arbitrary grouping of peoples based on putative ancient connections of the languages they speak, as the FU article is starting to, I wouldn't have a problem with them. (I say "putative" because UA is discredited, and many object to Altaic as well.) For example, shamanism is found among non-UA peoples as well, and so is not diagnostic of UA (nor in UA diagnostic of shamanism). kwami (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Again UA (like objections to Altaic) is discredited only by hard core Hungarian nationalists a la László Marácz who'd wannabe related to Skythians and Sumerians, also Huns rather than mostly insignificant Finnic and Ugric peoples. Also , there are often racial aspects involved. For example some Finnish teens do not want to get associated with the Sami and keep reverting Finnic mythology into Finno-Ugric mythology [21] [22], just to make sure that the Sami wouldn't get associated with the term Finnic and hping to push the Sami over to the Ugric side. And then we have you who objects the idea that Hungarian mythology gets associated with Finnic and reverts it back to Finnic-mythology. [23]. The joke is in the fact that both Finnic mythology and Finno-Ugric Mythology are valid subjects. Exactly like Altaic peoples and Uralic peoples. So I don't have much to add, I'm going to restore the articles you have blanked and redirected as I get to it and as time permits and rewrite if necessary following WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Terner, you're a half a century out of date in linguistics. No-one accepts Ural-Altaic anymore. Even long-range linguists like Starostin, Greenberg, Illich-Svitych, and Ruhlen who posit Nostratic/Eurasiatic do not accept Ural-Altaic. The similarities are chalked up to Magyar borrowing of Turkic vowel harmony, not genealogy.

If you can demonstrate that Finnic and Ugric mythologies form a coherent whole, that would be wonderful. But we shouldn't just assume they form a coherent whole because the languages are related. And just because you can find pseudo-academic sources that use the term doesn't mean we should follow. Linguistics can inform mythologists, but conclusions about mythology need to depend on the mythologies themselves. kwami (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't care about having an extended exchange of personal opinions here. What I care about is what do the sources say and in that respect everything relevant has been attached and linked into to this discussion above + is available at relevant talk pages. So the only thing left to do is to write the facts into the articles. And I don't need to demonstrate that Finnic and Ugric mythologies form a coherent whole, that's completely far out. the only thing there is, the sources need to be followed that speak about Finno-Ugric mythologies. And in case you're aware of any alternative perspectives published by reliable sources, please do not hesitate to bring those forward in the related articles. Other than that, this discussion has gone in circles for more than 3 times by now and from my part it has ended.--Termer (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Melodrama and race

Additional brains are invited to review a lively dispute in progress here. One determined editor is staring down half a dozen (myself included) who don't accept metaphor as sufficient justification for adding a large body of somewhat POV content to this article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Six against one is easy. At this point you warn the editor clearly but politely that continuing to repeat the same arguments in the face of massive consensus will be viewed as disruption. Don't get sucked into continuing the argument; you've done that. If the editor continues anyway, bring the matter to WP:ANI, emphasizing that this is not a content dispute but rather a case of refusal to accept a clear consensus. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mitanni Armenians"

Adults needed. 85.74.201.146 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

i see that wiki supports calling the mittani 'armenians' 85.72.90.42 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

this is just our resident Armenian troll hailing from Richardson, TX adding to his sock army. This would be as easy as clicking rollback if it wasn't for the insistence of Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) to play troll's advocate. --dab (𒁳) 08:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed various IPs spamming Armenian history articles with links to that Armenian Highland site. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe with some confidence that we should refer to "Ararat arev" as "Gevork" in the future[24]. Also, if he is really aged 20, this means he began his trolling spree aged 17, which fits the "angry young man" profile perfectly. Here's hoping he'll grow out of soon. --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

searching for "Gevork Nazaryan" I have just been able to clean out various unnoted Ararat-arev droppings. In the interest of efficiency, it will be important to keep a note of this at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ararat arev for future use. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some connection between AA and GN seems plausible. But, according to the newspaper report GN was a grad student in 2003, which doesn't square with AA's being 20 in 2009. Or am I missing something? --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I understand USians become grad students around the age of 17. Even assuming Grevork turns 21 tomorrow, he would have been still 14 at the time the UCLA article was published. Also, the armenianhighland.com site went online in late 1998, when he would have been aged 9. I conclude that quite regardless of AA's identity, the myspace.com information on GN's age is wrong. He would be closer to 30 today. Note that in 1999, he intimates that The idea for The Armenian Enlightenment Chronicle was born in early 1997. ... I, Gevork Nazaryan decided to dedicate almost all of my time and energy to the creation of a Mega Site, one which will rightly present all of the greatness and glory of the ancient Armenian Civilization. ... It is during this period that I decided to start typing from my historical works from the original handwritten manuscripts, which I started to write as part of my first historical works when I was Seventeen years old ... Since the age of seven years old ... I have fell in love with books and my fascination has become reading and knowledge. Throughout these years I have developed a unique and particular passion for history. The study of the my great ancestors the proud Highlanders of Ararat-Armenia since times immemorial has become my foremost interest

we need to understand that this guy is on a mission. He makes it his life's task to imprint his version of human history on the internet. This makes it extremely unlikely that our incredibly motivated Wikipedia troll is anyone else but GN himself. He started out when he was seven. He apparently passed 17 before or around 1997, which would make him 23 in 2003 and 29 today.

This means, of course, that if this man is aged close to 30 now and still has his head stuck all the way in ethnic nationalist fantasy, this is a chronic condition and won't go away anytime soon. We'll just have to deal with our Armenia articles being under attack for as long as the man has internet access. I am able to locate Gevork's "close blood relative and next of kin" on facebook, confirming the "about 30" hypothesis. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I had a feeling AA would have something to do with California. Well, old "Ararat Sun"'s contributions can be deleted on detection without any fuss. --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the usual age for finishing high school and entering university is about 18, university courses are 4 years, so the usual age to enter grad school would be 22 (or on the older side of 21). On the other hand, I started university at 16 and others have started much earlier. dougweller (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

hm, upon further investigation, I find Nareklm (talk · contribs), apparently a mate of Gevork's, originally from Boston, but it seems now also hailing from Los Angeles. Narek is "17" at myspace, and he writes articles about Gevork and about "Armenism" at armeniapedia.org. Also eloquently comments at youtube. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in without fully researching the situation, Dab, but should this information really be posted here? ClovisPt (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that Til Eulenspiegel is a reincarnation of User:Codex Sinaiticus, a biblical literalist with a special preoccupation with Ethiopian Coptic Christianity. Codex was always interested in linking the histories of various ethnic groups to biblical tribes. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you are right, I keep forgetting Til Eulenspiegel is Codex Sinaiticus. Under both incarnations, this user wasted prodigious amounts of my time, and the time of other editors.

As for ClovisPt's comment: Gevork (Ararat arev) has seen it fit to troll Wikipedia more than two years. He has his own long term abuse subpage. He has created hundreds of socks. Yes, I believe it is justified to try and take measures that addresses the problem at the root. If highschool kids post "penis" on articles, we don't hesitate to notify their schools in the hope they take disciplinary measures. Gevork has caused more disruption than entire legions of pubescent teenagers. He is banned from writing access to this website, and he is trying to circumvent this ban. If establishing his real-world identity can be used to prevent him from doing further damage, we should by all means try to establish it. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cal Orey (Writer)

I suspect there may be a possible article about this writer, but this is just a puff piece. Any help in making this an encyclopedic article appreciated. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

She realized that due to her Osage Indian roots that it may be in her blood to be super sensitive and the key to her being able to sense both good and evil.

What's not to like? A well-written and factual article! Phiwum (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good edit

Here is a good edit. I like to be positive sometimes. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I bet all of my wikicoin that someone accuses you of having moved to Portugal without knowing that they are making that accusation. Hipocrite (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now there's an anonymous editor that we need mentor and encourage to join the wars. BTW, how's the food in Portugal, SA? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calling it a pseudoscience in the opening sentence is a good edit. While it's obviously a pseudoscience, it's not a defining characteristic. It places undue weight on the scientific demarcation of a field that very often (especially historically) hasn't claimed any scientific status to call it a pseudoscience in the opening definition. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edit, the mention was premature and the edit removed sourced information about belief prevalence. It's good that SA is bringing such issues to the attention of the fringe noticeboard (I assume his post was ironic). Phil153 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Need some help over on Aspartame Controversy

Hi, Recently I was found in violation of 3RR, I just started editing wikipedia a few days ago and found myself reverting deletions that I could not understand and that I received no clear explanation of. I must admit that at the time I felt harassed and annoyed over the fact that the other parties involved did not deal directly with what could be done to reach consensus merely taking turns reverting my edits. I am deeply sorry that I breached this vital aspect of wikipedia etiquette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Latest_edits_by_keepcalm Shows how the 'revert war' started.

At the heart of this issue is that it seems to me that the information in GAO87 report - Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame is relevant to the article 'Aspartame Controversy' but whenever I added information from it, it would get deleted wholesale. When I asked for comments so that consensus could be reached the responses were brusque and seemingly displayed a lack of familiarity with the content of the GAO87. The GAO87 report is used throughout the article as a valid source of information. Surely using direct quotes and copying tables from it could not be construed as 'Original Research'.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, the rest can be seen on the discussion page and in the edit logs.

Sorry for the trouble and thanks in advance for any advice that allows all our efforts to be constructive and fruitful. Unomi (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also could someone please interpret this for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive As I understand it sourced edits do not necessitate 'consensus' assuming that the sources are valid. This is a separate issue but I would like clarification for the future. Unomi (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to ask for help. The function of this board is basically to help defend Wikipedia against people who behave the way you're doing. My serious suggestion, if you want to accomplish anything more than getting blocked, is to pull back, refrain from edit warring, and learn how things work around here. So far you haven't given the impression of being someone who listens to advice, but who knows, anything can happen. Looie496 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered Unomi at the talk page, which is where things need to be worked out. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We have all answered this editors tendentious talk space edits over the past couple of days. He needs to read WP:NOTAFORUM. More than that, I'm getting a little tired of the "I'm a new user" chant, despite the fact that this new user has uncover a relatively obscure RfAr, but hasn't had the time to read critical guidelines like WP:NPOV and others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have decidedly not answered my questions regarding the edits that you see unfit, the closest you came to that was today when you ventured that the GAO87 is a bad source, which honestly I think you need to reconsider, it is used extensively on the article we are talking about here as well as on the 'Aspertame' article, it is endorsed by the GAO and HHS, it is *the* document which outlines the approval process of aspertame. I found the 'relatively obscure' RfAr because it is linked to via the tendentious tag that you seem to like so much. Yes, I do know how to read. You and other editors kept saying simply NPOV without telling me what it was exactly that you considered NPOV. No, I can not read minds. I asked you repeatedly for elucidation but none has been forthcoming, instead it has now changed into

First, the report is 20 years old. Second, it is not a reliable source. Third, hundreds of studies that are reliable supersede the report. Fourth, you are attempting to give undue weight to an unreliable, outdated, and unscientific report.

Which could be construed as Original Research, can you show me sources that show that GAO87 is discredited? Can you point me to these 'hundreds of studies that supersede the report' - on the subject matter that I use it as source for? I am writing about the historical FACT of the existence of the GAO87 and its contribution to the 'Aspertame Controversy'. While you may find it disagreeable that 9 out of 43 (self proclaimed) aspartame researchers had 'Major Concerns;little if any confidence in aspertame's safety' that does not mean you or I can disagree with the fact that this report exists and is a major event in the timeline of 'Aspertame Controversy' No one is saying that it should be the 'only' questionnaire data from scientists, but we cannot take it out simply because we are waiting for something to 'balance' it. If you truly felt that the GAO87 was so problematic why haven't you moved to strike all entries that use it as source? The GAO87 is NOT a scientific report, it was never meant to be, it states that itself quite clearly. Its stated goal was to clarify the process by which the FDA approved aspartame and also sought to shed light on current(1987) research into aspartame and the scientific opinion of researchers in the field. Again I am sorry if I am 'taking up too much space' but it seems that no matter where I try to get reasoned answers I am met with some manner of wikistrictions. To all neutral editors, we need your help. Unomi (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Scientology considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community?

Over at the pseudoscience template talk page we're discussing whether Scientology should be listed as an example of a pseudoscience on the pseudoscience template. Does anyone have reliable sources on whether or not Scientology is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community? It's clear that Dianetics is from the sources given on its page, but what about Scientology? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" seems like an odd label to apply to Scientology. "Wacko cult" might be better. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Scientology is a New Age religion. It does not purport to be scientific, as far as I know. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what we think about the matter. What matters to this specific question of whether it should be on the template is what the scientific community calls it, if anything. Many scientists call Dianetics pseudoscience, and Dianetics is a core component of Scientology, but it could be viewed as WP:OR for us to generalise that to Scientology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be crystal clear: I am asking for reliable sources, not editor opinions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's understood; my personal opinion has no particular weight in determining the content of articles. However, I think it's likely that the scientific community, if it bothers to speak with one voice about Scientology, is more likely to think of Scientology as a wacko cult than a pseudoscience. I'm not sure why the opinion of the scientific community matters here, however; what is salient is how scholars of religion, anthropology, sociology, and so on classify sociology, and their perspective is probably to say that Scientology is a New Age religion, or a "new religion" (not sure how common this term is, but scholars of religion use it to describe religious movements that have sprung up over the last few centuries). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Something can be both a cult and a pseudoscience. The reason that the perspective of the scientific community is important to my specific question is that the Arbitration Committee's ruling on pseudoscience states that 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. That's why I am not asking for the perspective of sociologists or other varieties of expert on whether Scientology is a cult, however interesting the answer to that very different question may be. I'm asking for the perspective of the scientific community, the experts on the specific subject of scientific demarcation, on whether Scientology is a pseudoscience, because that's what determines whether it should be categorised and described as such on Wikipedia according to the Arbitration Committee's ruling. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From the way you're asking this, it seems that the only thing that would satisfy you is a formal poll of the National Academy of Sciences. If your demands aren't quite so stringent, could you clarify what sort of evidence you are hoping for? Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in whether there are A) science sources by individual authors that discuss the science demarcation of Scientology, B) statements from scientific bodies such as academies regarding their perspective on the science demarcation of Scientology, and C) reliable sources that characterise the scientific community's perspective on the science demarcation of Scientology. The latter two types of source would be especially valuable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Started looking for some sources. Here's what I see so far:

• God in the Classroom A medical scientist criticising Scientology's anti-drug program Narconon as pseudoscience.
• An educator's guide to America's religious beliefs and practices "some researchers consider Scientology to be pseudoscience".
• Freud evaluated A psychologist describes Scientology auditing as "pseudo-science".

These are mostly of the first type I mentioned above (perspectives of individual scientists or academics), so I'd be interested to see some of the other types. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember right, there was a flurry of reports in the media after Tom Cruise, a prominent Scientologist, publicly criticized psychology and psychiatry. I believe Scientology's stance on those two sciences was heavily criticized, so a Google search using "Tom Cruise" and "psychiatry" might bring some results. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Between 1963-65 there was a full judicial inquiry into Scientology in Melbourne (or maybe a royal commission) with all kinds of witnesses. According to the The Age on 16 July 1980, the inquiry "condemned Scientology as an evil pseudo-science" (and the state government later banned many of its practices under the Psychological Practices Act). Source (35pp pdf) here. You might be able to find further terms there to use in your searches. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

This source might or might not be of type C: I can't tell because I don't have access to the source. The snippet from a Google Scholar search for "scientology 'as pseudoscience'" says "s Witnesses, the United Sikhs, the Church of Scientology, Aumisme, and ... is not falsifi-able, and have categorized it as “pseudoscience” lacking scientific ...". France's "War on Sects": A Post-9/11 Update. Susan J.Palmer. ‌[25] I can't tell whether the bit about pseudoscience in the snippet is referring to scientology or not. Actually, likely not, because it's with a singular verb, whereas scientology was mentioned as part of a list. A Google Scholar search for "scientology pseudoscience" returns 271 items. I haven't looked at most of them but there might be something useful in there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Try searching for "Thetans" and "pseudo-science" and you get more hits. I suspect that the scientific community is reluctant to comment on Scientology as an institution, but are more willing to comment on those beliefs and practices that boarder on the "scientific", such as Thetan meters and the like. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that regulars here will approve the slapping of the term Pseudoscience on any old thing, as a way of basically designating it an unsciency dislikable thing. Scientology is a religion that uses some pseudoscience terminology, that doesn’t actually make it a pseudoscience. Astrology existed for thousands of years without the modern concept of science existing. Poor old Cryptozoology is a broad field that yes, encompasses a lot of pseudoscience, but does it deserve “is a Pseudoscience” slapped into the very first senetence in place of the previous version which was actually quite a succinct description, especially as questions of whether or not it might be a pseudoscience are dealt with a paragraph or too later. I’m beginning to think that throwing “is a pseudoscience” without further examination into any lede is just an inherently bad idea. Artw (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, dianetics is clearly a pseudoscience, and dianetics is the heart of scientology, so calling scientology a pseudoscience isn't much of a stretch. In in case, the message that I'm getting from this thread is that the "regulars" are pretty much bored by the question of whether it is a pseudoscience or a cult based on a pseudoscience. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with looie, my preference is to use the word 'pseudoscience' as little as possible. So, I would tend to not use it in reference to Scientology generally, though an article on the e-meter, thetan stuff might very well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw comments as to our approval of using the tag are misplaced... For example, while many scientists denegrate Faith healing as being bunk, it would be highly inappropriate to slap a "pseudo-science" tag on that article. It is inappropriate not because scientists believe in faith healing (the vast majority don't)... but because scientists don't use the term "pseudo-science" in conjunction with that religious practice. Many Scientists do, on the other hand, use that term in conjunction with Scientology's practices. There are many reasons why such labels are used in conjunction with Scientology and not faith healing, but the major one is that faith healers make no claim to be doing something "scientific" (indeed they say exactly the opposite... that it is Divine intervention and not science that is causing the cure) while Scientologists claim that reading one's Thetan levels with a Thetan meter is scientific. In other words... the tag depends on what the sources say. If reliable sources call something pseudoscience, it is appropriate to "slap a pseudoscience tag" on the topic. If reliable sources do not call it pseudoscience, then it would not be appropriate to "slap" the tag. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The slim evidence of scientific views I've found so far doesn't seem to warrant a conlusion that "Scientology is generally viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community". So unless more evidence is found, it'll be removed as an example of a pseudoscience on the pseudoscience template. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it already includes dianetics, I don't see any problem with that. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This outcome seems best. ClovisPt (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerated figures

I need help for deciding which viewpoint has more weight. There has been a dispute over a realistic estimation of Iraqi Turkmans and Syrian Turkmans for weeks. Some certain editors with a clear and heavy POV are committing a revert-war on those articles; with no verifiable source, keep adding the most unrealistic population figures into those articles, proven to be exaggerations of Turkman nationalists such as ITF. Please help to solve this dispute.

Also please note that their only source (apart from a bunch of random urls) is UNPO, which by defination is a political organisation forming of and supporting ethnic nationalists around the world. There is a very huge gap between the neutral estimations by third-party and verifiable sources, which put the estimation of Iraqi Turkmens as 1-2% of the country(ca. 300-500 thousands), and these users' exaggerated figures which claim a funny lie of 2 to 3.5 millions. Please see this to find out about mainstream estimation and the nationalistic fringe one:[26]. Ellipi (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

basically remove numbers that do not have good reliable sources to back up. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is no warranty that it is not reverted again. Ellipi (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pitched in at Iraqi Turkmen. Isn't it funny how the behavior of an editor named Thetruthonly (talk · contribs) is so utterly predictable? Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Their edits are predictable!

In the article Syrian Turkmen we have for example a reliable source like this: [27] which reads: Syrian Turkmen (plus two other small minorities, Circassians and Armenians, but never mind) are 1% of the Syrian population. (= lesser than 190.000 Turkmens). They have provided two links: a Turkish link (clearly not a third-party source), and a Mirora link which claims Turkish is the fifth greatest language in the world!! This shows how unreliable this source is as according to Languages_by_speakers#30.E2.80.93100_million_native_speakers, Turkish stands actually at 22th. Ellipi (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What would you like to see happen here? Looie496 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean the same POV-pushing is/was happening on Syrian Turkmen. Ellipi (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New UFO related articles

Those interested in this subject might want to see the articles and categories being created by Tiramisoo (talk · contribs). dougweller (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rigveda

Rigveda under attack by incoherent/confused Arya Samaj adherent. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's being a pain on a bunch of articles, and compeltely ignoring 3RR. Mangoe (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I suggest that if User:Knowledge is free for all continues these shenanigans after the block expires, he should be given a much lengthier block. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It just goes to show that knowledge is expensive for some! Looie496 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

or that some people don't value something when they get it for free. If I began to teach Rigvedic scholarship in obscurantist Scientology-style workshops at exorbitant fees, this type of character would queue up to have me initiate them as my disciples. But giving away knowledge for free on Wikipedia is so un-gurulike that it must be worthless. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Quantum aetherdynamics

Quantum aetherdynamics is a new article created by User:PhysicsExplorer. Needs attention. Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Others hesitated, but I have boldly taken the plunge. Looie496 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama conspiracy theories again

There is yet another attempt to get Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories renamed to something more congenial to the birthers (you can't say these people aren't persistent). Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and there is a related thread at WP:AN/I#Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new proposal: From now on, anyone who wants to bring up Obama's birth in his article has to be able to provide the original long form of their own birth certificates, proving they are natural-born American citizens. I'm betting 99% of them couldn't. --GoodDamon 22:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article today. Found wording that would not be found acceptable on other articles, but also a lot of discussion. For example, count the number of times people and issues are identified as "fringe" and none have references to support the allegation. It is even in the introduction. "Claims" is also used too liberally when we all know it is not an acceptable term for general use. If the article would first just address the topic of the title and then address why the issue became important to some people i.e. qualifying for president; the transition is not very clean presently. Given my experience on controversial articles, this one has a broad range of agendas and would take an immense amount of time to work through.

As an aside, I did not find one reason why a long form was not issued by Obama. If all it took was a request, why not make the silly request and stop the questions? Is a long form simply not available to all of us? I am betting that if 100% of the people asked for it, they would get it. This issue only maintains legs when answers are not provided. Conspiracy theories exist when answers are not clearly answered. --^StormRider 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This board is not the place to ask rhetorical questions or make asides. Please don't disrupt the discussion with tangents. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an experienced administrator review the situation and issue warnings for circular arguing or stonewalling, as the case may be. There are several editors with sticks beating the same issues over and over again. The reason there may be too much emphasis on "fringe" is that it is a natural reaction to the repeated attempts to water down the article with weasel words and euphamisms. Any editor who is hindering the editing process can be subject to the remedy available at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Knighten Guilde

created by Knightguild (talk · contribs). I've already tried to clean it of the most egregious viking fantasies, but maybe someone wants to take a look. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

John Strype wrote about it. [28] [29] dougweller (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Shaw

BLP of writer on life extension and related things. I wonder if it needs to be stubified still further? Would be grateful for any further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Homeopathy is now up at FAC. I'd appreciate any and all help during what's likely to be a somewhat trying candidacy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi occultism

• Nazi occultism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over 2 years ago I started to clean up the mess that was previously known as Nazi mysticism. The fringe theories that exists about the topic of the religious aspects of Nazism are themselves notable; they even have an own name, which is Nazi occultism. Since the pseudo- or rather cryptohistoric theories about are themselves notable, I didn't remove them completely, but created a specific article for them. I probably shouldn't have done that. You know how fringe advocates are (Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat): Give them a little finger and they'll try to chew off your hand. It appears as if I have stopped one particular editor from removing the sentences: "The recurring motif of this literary genre [Nazi occultism] is the thesis that the Nazis were directed by occult agencies of some sort: black forces, invisible hierarchies, unknown superiors, secret societies or even Satan directly. Since such an agency "has remained concealed to previous historians of National Socialism," they have dismissed the topic as modern cryptohistory." , (diff) but they still appear of wanting to give me a NPOV dispute. (diff) I will see to that, but currently I don't know if arguments will actually be useful in the debate; probably they will not, and then I would appreciate it, If some more editors, probably some who are familiar with the preceding state of affairs in the article Nazi mysticism, could take a look at the article and the discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is neither a correct characterization of my edit (I kept nearly all of the content of the sentence Zara1709 says was deleted, moved it to the top of the page, and removed biased wording), nor particularly keeping in good faith or civility.There is an aggressive censorship of the Nazi occultism page occurring, and I am not sure what the motivation is. I don't even think the broad topic of Nazism's myriad connections with occult issues belongs here in fringe theories. Even Zara1709 has admitted to real occult connections (see talk:Nazi occultism): "Admittedly, there were some occultists who worked for the SS..." and "what there is to say on the real relation between Nazism and Occultism is said (or is to be said) in the article Religious aspects of Nazism, where we currently have a section on Occultists working for the SS." Simply because relations between Nazism and Occultism have been covered in Religious aspects of Nazism does not mean they should not be covered in a page called Nazi occultism. To censor anything on the Nazi occultism page by that logic seems to me to be a clear violation of the POV rule against content forking. If this one author Goodrick-Clarke that Zara1709 adores defines "nazi occultism" as having only to do with fringe theories about demonic possession of Hitler, then he defines the phrase too narrowly (that's not why I originally came to the page for information, for instance), and consequently shouldn't be the only source for defining nazi occultism. Presumably a page on Nazi occultism should, for instance, discuss Nazi occultists, even if that means overlap with the page on Religious aspects of Nazism. I do not appreciate the disparaging comments or the consistent unilateral censorship by Zara1709, and will seek further means of dispute resolution if such activity continues. Somebody, please do look at the talk page and see if any of the several editors flagging for neutrality have done anything that deserves to be characterized as "trying to chew off your hand." Zara1709 may be giving me a finger, but I don't think it's the little one... Parallaxvision (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've recently taken part in discussion about the "Nazi occultism" page, and have questioned the way the page has been edited by Zara1709. Does that make me a "fringe advocate"? I don't know.

Anyway, I agree with much of what is said above by Parallaxvision. However, the point about Goodrick-Clarke needs a little clarification. It is the often-stated notion of Zara1709 that the words "Nazi occultism" are simply the name of a bunch of fringe theories. On this basis, Zara has made the WP article "Nazi occultism" an article that isn't about Nazi history as such, but is rather a highly critical review of works Zara considers to be "fringe". Zara has defended this approach by referring to the eminence of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, who is indeed an important mainstream historian.

The thing is, though, that Goodrick-Clarke actually does not define "nazi occultism" as having only to do with fringe theories. Goodrick-Clarke does indeed criticise much of the early literature on the topic. As he puts it: "Books written about Nazi occultism between 1960 and 1975 were typically sensational and under-researched." (Goodrick-Clarke, N.; Occult Roots of Nazism; New York Uni Press, 1992; pp 224-225, emphasis added) But he goes on to say that those early books, with all their faults, attracted the attention of "serious authors" to "an exciting field". Goodrick-Clarke expresses particular appreciation for James Webb's 1976 book The Occult Establishment, which Goodrick-Clarke says "rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas". (Goodrick-Clarke, N.; Occult Roots of Nazism; New York Uni Press, 1992; p225)

Where then is the justification for treating "Nazi occultism" as simply a fringe topic? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Parallaxvision, stop playing games here. You are accusing me being biased, but then you remove the sentence that "most modern scholars do not consider Rauschning reliable.(ref Theodor Schieder (1972), Hermann Rauschnings "Gespräche mit Hitler" als Geschichtsquelle (Oppladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag) and Wolfgang Hänel (1984), Hermann Rauschnings "Gespräche mit Hitler": Eine Geschichtsfälschung (Ingolstadt, Germany: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle), cit. in Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2003), Black Sun, p. 321. ref) (As Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke summarises, "recent scholarship has almost certainly proved that Rauschning's conversations were mostly invented".)(ref Goodrick-Clarke (2003: 110). The best that can be said for Rauschning's claims may be Goodrick-Clarke's judgment that they "record ... the authentic voice of Hitler by inspired guesswork and imagination" (ibid.). ref) (diff) Of course it's nice to have the quote from Rausching in the article, but to also remove the dominant view of contemporary historians, that "Rauschning's conversations were mostly invented", is not acceptable. You are giving the impression that Rausching's statements are correct, but an Encyclopaedia simply CAN NOT SAY THAT HITLER WAS LITERALLY POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL.

You have also added a section on secret far-right societies 1912- 1925 and a little about Himmler. (diff) Well, according to my literature, Himmler was never a member of the Thule Society (Hakl 1997: 201), although he had the strongest occult leanings of all high Nazi party members. More importantly, however, the secret societies you mentioned did not have any direct influence on Nazism, as Goodrick-Clarke has shown in his work. If you had read what I have previously written, you would have known, anyway, that those real secret societies (and what connections to the occult Himmler actually had) are discussed in the articles Ariosophy and religious aspects of Nazism.

I tried to explain to you why this is not a case of content forking. There is a (small) academic discussion about the significance of occult groups for Nazism (which concluded that they didn't influence Nazism directly) AND there are (many) fringe theories about occult influences on Nazism. These fringe theories are described by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, and following him, some other historians, as Nazi occultism. And although one or two occurrences of the phrase 'Nazi occultism' in the work of Goodrick-Clarke are ambiguous, Goodrick-Clarke makes is extraordinarily plain that he wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research. The phrase Nazi occultism is only used in Appendix E of the book, which is almost exclusively about the fringe theories. (The mentioning of James Webb and Ellic Howe being the exception.) Nazi occultism does not refer "to connections between National Socialism its members, and occult subjects: secret societies, astrology, black magic, etc." (sic) (diff), it refers to several highly speculative theories [read: Fringe theories] about Nazism, that are regarded as cryptohistory by academic historians. Zara1709 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta

The subject of this article has written a book claiming that Jesus was Julius Caesar (same initials, proof positive). It's being edited by an IP that may have a COI and certainly has a POV. I've removed some of the wilder claims but they are beginning to come back (eg the claim that he's a linguist - so far as I can see, and I don't know that it is even definite, all he did was studying linguistics among other subjects, he's an industrial engineer). Eyes would help. It's hard to find useful sources (it would be nice to use this one [30] giving Carotta " the Screaming Lord Sutch Memorial Award for such a complete load of garbage that it beggars belief, let alone how on earth it got printed", but it's a blog). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since die tageszeitung is mentioned in that article I did a search in its archives for Francesco Carotta. (And 'die tagezeitung' IS written uncapitalized, damn it.) This is the result:

• 1 interview / "Jesus hat nie wirklich existiert" 12.4.2001 taz Themen des Tages 281 Zeilen, MONIKA GOETSCH S. 3
• 2 interview / carottas gute gründe Er ist Er 12.4.2001 taz Themen des Tages 30 Zeilen, S. 3
• 3 interview / FRANCESCO CAROTTA, geboren 1946 in der Poebene, Vater Atheist, 12.4.2001 taz Themen des Tages 12 Zeilen, S. 3
• 4 Helden der Suggestofiktion Von dem ausgedachten Volk der Khuza auf der "7 Hügel"-Ausstellung bis zu dem Potemkinschen Stadtleben der DDR: Der schöpferische Umgang mit der Wahrheit war schon immer kulturstiftend. Und bei genauerer Betrachtung erweisen sich viele Fakes als Plagiate - von anderen Fakes nämlich 21.8.2000 taz Kultur 250 Zeilen, HELMUT HÖGE S. 13
• 5 Er kam, sah und heilte Die Götter von heute sind die Herrscher von gestern. Ein Sachbuch geht den Parallelen der Jesusverehrung und des Cäsarenkultes nach und stellt die Frage: War Jesus Cäsar? 24.12.1999 taz Kultur 180 Zeilen, Helmut Höge S. 19 (url)

Now, die tageszeitung is know for its satires, and it's quite probable that they would use thesis like this one as pretext for some Realsatire. "Jesus hat nie wirklich existiert" (Jesus didn't really exist) is a headline that fits die tageszeitung quite well. On the other hand, especially 4) looks promising if we want write a Wikipedia article. "Der schöpferische Umgang mit der Wahrheit war schon immer kulturstiftend" (The creative approach to truth has always been formative for culture.) Zara1709 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this article in Times Higher Education calls Carotta a philosopher and linguist. I wonder if the writer was just repeating press release/book jacket copy? I can look at Carotta's book (the English translation) in the next couple of days, if anyone thinks it would be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably from this press release [31] - see this bio [32] - I think to call him a scholar, a linguist or a philosopher needs a good source. I added a critical commentary from what I think is a very reliable source, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and it's been removed twice because the editor pushing Carotta thinks Murphy-O'Connor is wrong and thus not a RS. I have no problem with the existence of the article, just with attempts to make Carotta something he isn't and to remove anything critical. dougweller (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because Wyke and Carotta are acquainted, and she would know. And it's because he in fact is a philosopher (License e lettres, Univ. of Dijon or Lyon? Forgot…) and a linguist according to German law (federally approved education, Univ. of Frankfurt???). He was also co-owner of a publishing house and had an IT business. It's all on his vita page. I know from the German WP discussion that there used to be a lot more info, but he removed all of the superfluous information that's not relevant in terms of academic titles, finished education etc.. In fact it says on the vita page (in German) "Studium der Philosophie" and "Studium der Linguistik", which means that he studied and finished with degrees. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already said that I know he studied those subjects. Having a degree in philosophy does not make you a philosopher. Teaching it at academic level, publishing in the academic journals, do that and you can be called a philosopher. Ditto linguist. German law is irrelevant. dougweller (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. And Carotta doesn't call himself a "philosopher" or "linguist". He simply says that he studied philosophy and linguistics, whereas the old vita page (which should be available via web.archive.org) also mentioned his degrees. Since today he neither works as a philosopher nor as a linguist nor as an engineer nor a publisher nor an IT entrepeneur anymore, the article should be worded differently, e.g. "Carotta is the author of the book Jesus was Caesar". But since you mentioned that publishing in the academic journals is important, the article could also say that Carotta is a historian, Biblical scholar and archaeologist, because he published articles on history and archaeology in peer-reviewed journals, and lectured at the Complutense University Seminar on the historical Jesus, with a follow-up publication in a book edited by Piñero, one of the leading theologians and Biblical scholars in Spain. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Julius H. Caesar! I've never read such bilge as Carotta's theory in my life. --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What you think, is not relevant. Or are you a noted scholar? —85.179.141.31 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you a noted scholar? Do you have to be a famous astrophysicist to dismiss the notion that the moon is made of green cheese as bilge? --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

({outdent)The German version says "In Deutschland erwarb er einen Abschluss als staatlich geprüfter Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. In Germany, he earned a degree as a certified interpreter and translator." So clearly not a linguist which generally means a specialist in linguistics. The German article also says "Carottas hypothesis is not scientifically recognized. Die Leben-Jesu-Forschung beachtet die Publikation nicht, mehrere Rezensenten in Tageszeitungen sahen darin eine „Wissenschaftsparodie" [1] [2] und der niederländische Historiker Anton van Hooff bezeichnet sie gar als Pseudowissenschaft [3] . The life of Jesus research is not respected the publication, several reviewers in newspapers saw it as a "parody of science" [1] [2] and the Dutch historian Anton van Hooff described even as pseudo-science [3]." The sources being

↑ "JESUS-JULIUS" - Arno Widman in the Berliner Zeitung
↑ „Ein Stück Welträtsellösung“ - Albert Sellner in der Badischen Zeitung (wiedergegeben bei Carotta mit Anmerkung) ↑ "A piece of the puzzle solving world" - Albert Sellner in the Badische Zeitung (reproduced in Carotta with Note)
↑ Anton van Hooff auf skepsis.nl zu Carottas Buch (niederländisch) ↑ Anton van Hooff skepsis.nl on to book Carottas (Dutch).

I guess these need to be added as well. dougweller (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Widman is a feuilleton critic and not a scholar. Furthermore he's an old pal of Carotta's—they have a longer history together, incl. satirical works—, who expected Carotta's book to also be a work of satire. Why would this be a relevant criticism? Are you biased? —85.179.141.31 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sellner is a known German satirist, not a scholar or a scientific reviewer. Why would this be relevant? Are you biased? —85.179.141.31 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anton van Hooff is only a history teacher at a secondary school, who with regard to Carotta has been refuted many times, especially by classicists. Why would he be relevant? Are you biased? —85.179.141.31 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I have just come across Biblical cosmology, which has me rather puzzled. It starts out by saying: The various authors of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) provide sporadic glimpses of their insight regarding astronomy and cosmology. These glimpses may be stitched together to form a Biblical impression of the physical universe.

It is the "stitched together" that worries me, particularly because no secondary sources are cited, aside from a link to what appears to be an unpublished work by Jim Siebold. It is possible that the article is taken from a published book, or essay, but no credit is given. Or, it could be very nicely written original research, and represent a fringe POV. Anyone have some thoughts on the subject? (I see that Early world maps -- another interesting article with little in the way of secondary sourcing -- also links to Jim Siebold as a source.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot is just copied from the New Advent Encyclopedia [33].

That is apparently the internet version [34] of the Catholic Encyclopedia. That could hardly be called fringe. Still, as the WP article says: The encyclopedia was designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church, excluding information which has no relation to the Church and explaining matters from the point of view of the official Catholic doctrine, as it stood during the pontificate of Pius X. So there could be some balance issues, but that is not an issue for this noticeboard. Thanks for the answer. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there a standard format for acknowledging the source of an article copied from a copyright free source? I do not see anything on the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)