Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Black mass (paranormal entity)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Funky sources. Clean or AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would see if there are any better sources that discuss the topic (even to riducule it). If not, AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are scattered mentions of black clouds in the paranormal literature, but they don't seem particularly notable. Merge somewhere? Fences&Windows 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merging into Ghost.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that as an option too. Trim and merge into Ghost#Typology? Fences&Windows 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In other news, Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver and tinpot studies from Botswana

Colloidal silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is sort of a perennial trouble spot. "Conventional" authorities like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the FDA, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration tend to uniformly agree that it is ineffective and potentially toxic. However, a positive view of colloidal silver is represented by editors active on the page well in excess of its actual representation among experts in the field. Arguments put forth on the talk page tend to include personal websites, editorial testimonials (colloidal-silver-cured-my-dog-without-all-the-side-effects-of-conventional-antibiotics - seriously), medical treatises published in 1913, and the ever-popular conventional-medicine-was-wrong-about-leeches-too argument. Most recently, a negative study of Internet-marketed colloidal silver (PMID 15114827) was excised as "a tinpot study from Botswana". I would appreciate additional input. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That colloidal silver has ineffective and potentially toxic is an accurate statement regarding the above sources, and the general consensus of the scientific community. The tinpot study from Botswana (PMID 15114827) appears to be a standard application of microbiology techniques to demonstrate the utility of a substance as an antiseptic. In addition to testing an internet source, they also tested two home-made solutions at concentrations substantially exceeding those in the purchased one, and likewise found no demonstration of efficacy. While nanoscale particles are an area of active exploration in materials science, an observation of what is happening at Colloidal Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is nothing short of advocacy, primarily one user. DHawker is a WP:SPA who has for the past two years apparently made edits to colloidal silver of any significance. 70.171.202.96 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia, anyone editor of fringe theories that doesn't side on the "Its a bunch of bullshit" side is immediately labeled an advocate. Colloidal silver is FAR FAR FAR less toxic than acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Which are known to cause harmful side effects beginning as low as a few hundred milligrams). Niether of those are labeled toxic in their lead. Argyria is not toxic, and neither is silver. If you think otherwise, please prove it on the talk page of Colloidal silver, or go change the silver article to say it is toxic and watch your change be reverted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had written a short paragraph on colloidal silver for the article alternative medicine over a year ago, but it was removed there quite soon and I didn't bother with fighting the fringe advocates back then, I already had enough of that. Here is that paragraph, I think it could be quite useful.

Colloidal silver was used before 1938 as an antibiotic, resulting in an "alarming increase"<ref:Gaul&Staud, 1935, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, quoted after Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> of Argyria. Since latest 1995 is has been promoted as an alternative medicine, sparking heavy critique from a victim from the 1940s: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago."<ref:Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> diff

I'm going to see whether I can get the articles from the medicine journals from the 1940s that are mentioned on the homepage, and if I'll get some support with that, I'll expand the article. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be discussed here, but that ref is clearly biased based on the wording. I guess the endless supply of antibiotics prescribed to patient by doctors now are the holy grail, clearly safe, with no danger, ever.

Argyria is just argyria. Is is cosmetic, and harmless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You write: "clearly biased based on the wording". So what? That's not a wiki-policy legimate argument for excluding a source. Try reading this section in our NPOV policy: Wikipedia:Npov#Neutral_point_of_view and the next section on "bias". Read the wording very carefully. We include biased sources all the time. Without them we wouldn't have articles. NPOV requires that we include sources from all sides of a debate, and thus obviously including biased ones, because we are supposed to tell the whole story from the real world as represented in V & RS. If there's a debate, we must document it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Zara, Maybe comments like colloidal silver has been "pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies" could be considered somewhat biased language (and probably inaccurate too). But anyway, all the points you make are already covered in the colloidal silver article. The fact that silver can cause argyria is mentioned numerous times. BRangifer, I've read those policy statements you cited but I don't see that they justify including a word for word personal blast such as the one from Rosemary Jacobs about a product (CSP) that has virtually been unavailable for years. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a blog. DHawker (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pertaining to MastCell's initial paragraph, I presented the "medical treatises published in 1913", some of which were research by doctors published in the Lancet and BMJ, for the HISTORY section of colloidal silver. In spite of the fact that colloidal silver was commonly used by doctors at that time, MastCell questioned using historical research in the history section because it was "outdated" [1]. Perhaps it is MastCell's opinion that using references from the time that you are talking about is "outdated", but I don't think this is wikipedia policy. stmrlbs|talk 06:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Canaan and the biblical claim it was conquered by Hebrews

I removed what I saw as a pov statement, including something about a race of giants (Zamzumim}, and it was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary " the part you blanked makes no mention of any "giants", it merely states that the Hebrews conquered Canaan which is only disputed by fringe". Fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, is Til right? Thanks. I've removed the text again. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who actually disputes that the Hebrews conquered Canaan? Are those few who dispute it now the "mainstream", and everyone else "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan. We simply do not have the data which indicates that there was ever an organized, homogenous conquest of "Canaanites" by "Hebrews". There is evidence of warfare, and the movement of people, but we are nowhere near having a clear picture of historical events in that period, or whether a distinct group of Canaanites ever controlled the area in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan". Yes, I'm sure you would argue that, but on the other hand, there are entire magazines like Biblical Archeology Review devoted to the mountains of archaeology evidence of how Israelites came to be in Canaan. Stating that "basic comprehension" is required to agree with your POV seems like just typical rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that there are mountains of solid research done on how the Israelites came to be in Israel. However, there is no evidence of the exodus, or a conquest. We lack a clear view of the historical record in that time frame to clearly delineate between Canaanite and Israelite, which is to say that Israelites may actually have been Canaanites, or a blend of Canaanites and other peoples. Last week, archaeologists announced the discovery of a massive stone wall below the location of the City of David. We had no idea this was there, and aren't certain who built it. It dates to the time of the Canaanites, but we have nothing in the evidence that says the people who built the older wall weren't the ancestors of the people who built the City of David. I reworded the article to try and strike a compromise, leaving in references to the Bible as describing events, but not relying on the Bible to state these events as definitive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's Biblical Archaeology Review, but you must know it's a pov journal and not in the top rank of archaeology journals. As for 'entire magazines like' it, what else is there? Are you thinking of Bible & Spade? That's your fringe. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you guys basically control wikipedia, why don't you just declare that the Bible is officially and unanimously declared "fringe", and be done with it? (In the name of "neutrality", of course) If anyone disagrees, just block them, then it will be "unanimous", right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't control Wikipedia, or the Bible. However, the Bible is not a reliable source. It is an extremely important text because of its impact on history, however, it is not an accurate or contemporary record of the events it describes. More than anything, it represents a political text which was assembled after the Babylonian exile from various histories in order to create a unifying foundation myth for the Jewish kings of the time. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That theory is far from proven, and many other scholars and sources disagree. Why don't we just stick to presenting all of their views neutrally and impartially, instead of taking part in these marginalization games and trying to decide which ones are "right"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Bible is not a reliable source is not in dispute. How or why it was written is certainly open to debate, but there is no question that the Bible is an important piece of history, rather than an accurate report of it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I never suggest that we consider the Bible a reliable source. But there is an opposite extreme view that says if the Bible says anything, it's automatically wrong and the opposite of true, even something as basic as saying the Israelites conquered Canaan. I don't take the Rig Veda as a reliable source either. But just because it says Aryans invaded India, can we then presume they definitely did not, because it is an unreliable source and therefore lying? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

this is ridiculous, nobody suggested anything like this. Incidentially, the Rigveda at no point says anything like "the Aryans invaded India". Hell, the Rigveda doesn't even have a concept of "India". --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The conquest is certainly not fringe: as TE says, a lot of scholarship is dedicated to the idea that the outlines of history in the OT are more or less accurate. IMO, biblical accounts of history should not be deleted by a rational that they are fringe. OTOH, the conquest should not be presented simply as fact, but as the biblical account. What TE has restored is not neutral or impartial for this reason: "probably the best account of the Hebrew conquest"--the OT is the only account of the Hebrew conquest. kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did restore that phrase, but didn't keep it there for long since whoever wrote it is obviously not impartial. Although the gentile Roman historians also mention it, btw. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, you have a fair point, but the rationale is not that the information presented in the Bible is fringe. The problem is that the Bible is known to be wildly innacurate on numerous things, while containing interpretations of actual historical events. Historical events portrayed in the Bible cannot be corroborated. If the Bible is the only account of the Hebrew conquest, this does not make it a reliable source that can be referenced. To that end, a description of Canaanites in an article can definitely include descriptions from the Bible, it would have to be presented along the lines of "While the historical record describes XYZ, much of the popular view of Canaanites comes from descriptions in the Bible. Because the Bible cannot be used as a trusted source, it describes the Canaanites as...". That said, such a section would have to be deeply subordinate in the article to any reliable sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some confusion here - Til was calling the view that the Hebrews did not conquer Canaan fringe, I don't think anyone is calling the Bible fringe. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Hiberniantears, that's way more than necessary. All we have to say is s.t. along the lines of 'according to biblical sources'. We don't need to get into a debate about how reliable the Bible is every time we mention s.t. biblical. (As for the Roman sources, wouldn't that be long long after the fact?) kwami (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing. Typically insisting on using the Bible directly as a secondary source, as evident by his complaint that we are "treating the Bible as fringe". The Hebrew Bible is, of course, neither fringe nor non-fringe, since it isn't a secondary source in the first place. It is a primary source, a compilation of Iron Age Hebrew texts. Be that as it may, the paragraph in question can be salvaged by improving it: it is almost never a question of "do we keep this material, yes or no" but one of how do we need to edit this to make it acceptable. Now the point here is conflation of the Biblical account with other evidence. In the topic of Canaan, the Biblical account is certainly highly notable, but it should be made very clear which bits are taken from the bible and which aren't. Consequently, the passage

"Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia. Probably the best descriptions of the Hebrew conquest and occupation of Canaan are given in Deuteronomy 3:12-17 and in Joshuah 12-21."

is not acceptable. We need one paragraph or section detailing the account in the Hebrew Bible, and another one detailing Egyptian sources, but we cannot conflate the two. Obviously, Deuteronomy and Joshuah are in no way a reference to the "many earlier Egyptian sources", which need to be specified in order to satisfy WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing." -- Yet another appeal to ad hominem "logic" and blatant personal attack, sounds familiar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

how is it ad hominem to call a pov pusher a pov pusher? I wasn't making a logical argument, I was imparting information for those unfamiliar with Til's history on Wikipedia. "Ad hominem" is something entirely different. It would be "ad hominem" to resort to comments unrelated to the content of Til's edits, instead speculating on his sexual preference, his intellect, his personal hygiene, or his mother. You get the idea. Saying Til has a history as a problem editor with an infatuation for the Hebrew Bible is about as detached and on-topic as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I would dispute that I am a "problem editor". That is only your personal and subjective opinion, isn't it? Just like I have witnessed countless scores of editors express their personal opinions about you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

sure. Most of the "countless scores" you mention are "editors" who were blocked because they were in fact socks of other blocked editors, or because they were trying to sabotage the project by inserting the sort of stuff WP:FRINGE is talking about. You can't write an encyclopedia without alienating some people who prefer to adhere to some pre-encyclopedic, pre-rational worldview. If you are one of those, you need only say. Oh, and there is Ottava Rima (talk · contribs). This isn't so much pre-rational as post-rational, this chap will go on an epic crusade to shoot the messenger who told him he was wrong before considering just admitting he was wrong. Perhaps you want to join his cause of "Dbachmann is an evil vandal". Or then you could just focus on the issue and try to discuss the Bible encyclopedically instead of your regular hysteria on how Wikipedia mistreats it as "fringe". I would be more accommodating if you were a new user, Til, but you have been doing this literally for years, and you show no signs of a learning curve. Everyone is entitled to their "personal opinion". But your opinion will put you in a company. And you will be known by the company you keep. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the most arrogant diatribe directed against other editors I have ever read on wikipedia, with some other comments you routinely make coming a close second. Whatever happened to "comment on edits, not the editor?" Doesn't seem to apply to you. I don't have any more time to waste on your obvious superiority complex and predilection for baiting and accusing everyone with whom you disagree, but neither will I ever acknowledge the pretended superiority you imagine you have over me, and I am no longer going to be baited into continuing this discussion where it doesn't belong since I have better things to do. What you are speaks enough for itself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing on the content question: Assertions that the Biblical accounts of ancient Middle Eastern history are factually accurate are almost certainly fringe views. This is akin to stating that Homer's famous version of the Trojan War is a factually accurate recounting of history. Kernels of truth exist, but we must mainly rely on current mainstream scholarship to identify those portions (and to identify how they've been altered in the narrative) and most certainly should not take Biblical acocunts at face value. Jericho's walls are the prime example of the conquest: The walls did certainly fall, but the city was in area then prone to earthquakes and the city itself was a ghost town during the purported time of Joshua (or at least thus is general consensus of secular archaeology). In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It is also important to note that modern archaeology generally considers the Iron Age Hebrews to be fundamentally Canaanite in language and culture even as late as five centuries after the supposed conquest (even extending into the time after the united monarchy is said to have split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel). Accounts with some considerable distance in time from this period are generally considered to have a greater foundation in historical fact, but are still usually regarded as heavily biased and edited versions of historical truth at best.

tl;dr version: Insisting that the Bible is an accurate representation of Iron Age history in the region is a fringe view. --Vassyana (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan." That's the old circular argument appealing to the "overwhelming majority of scholarship" in a hotly disputed question, if it discounts an equally vast body of scholarship as "fringe" just because it does see solid historical evidence that Israel conquered Canaan and established a polity on their territory. We should acknowledge that there is a dispute among the scholars over the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy, but the most neutral path is always to describe what these positions are impartially, not officially marginalize one POV to endorse the other. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's nothing new, certain people have been trying to rewrite Israel completely out of the history books as much as possible, ever since it started. Never mind Egyptian propaganda, rest assured there are still people today who wish they could bring back the Imperial Romans' Damnatio memoriae that tried to efface the name of Judea following Bar Kokhba and rename it Palaestina. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's reminiscent of Finkelstein's being accused of anti-Semitism - I'd appreciate it if you'd make clear you aren't accusing any of us of anti-Semitism. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No Doug, I didn't accuse you or anyone else here, but what I said is still certainly true of bona fide Anti-Semites in the world (not anyone on wikipedia of course). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We agree on that but it seems irrelevant here. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No ancient source is taken uncritically by modern historians. Not the Bible, not Herodotus, not Tacitus, no one. Historians always look over these sources carefully and examine them for whatever biases the writers might have had. We should treat the Bible no different than other ancient historical documents in this regard — sure, we can describe what the sources say about a topic, but we should also take care to discuss how these primary sources have been evaluated by scholars in the modern era. In many cases this will entail saying that Herodotus/Tacitus/the Bible say "X" but modern scholarship holds that this is a myth for reasons "Y", "Z", etc. *** Crotalus *** 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fatima UFO Hypothesis

• The Fatima UFO Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacques Vallée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I redirected the UFO Hypothesis article to the article of its main proponent. "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis" article's citations were exclusively to proponents' books published by Anomalist Books and references that do not address the UFO theory. Thus, the article was highly inappropriate in the context of both "no original research" and notability. It served as little more than a soapbox to expound on proponent's views. The redirect was reversed by Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) with the edit summary of "redirect and virtual deletion done without discussion or good explanation". I have reinstated the redirect and left a message for Zacherystaylor explaining the problems with the article (User talk:Zacherystaylor#Fatima UFO Hypothesis, permalink). Additional eyes would be welcome on this topic. Also, did I take the correct action here? Is my rationale sound or lacking? Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems sound to me. But, then, cleaning up the UFO fringe stuff on wikipedia is a stated goal for me so I may constitute a slightly biassed person to confirm from.Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. Unfortunatly the internal logic actually made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. I have said I would support redirecting to The Miracle of the Sun rather than to the Jacques Vallée article if he would prefer that. Considering that he posted a huge block of text complaining we don't want to discuss the issue and then said he would not be responding to rebuttals for a while so I don't know... might be easier to just keep it at Jacques Vallée.Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I'm going to be bold and swap the redirect to The Miracle of the Sun.Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) is back again and has launched an RfC on the redirect based on the same "virtual deletion" argument previously used in the timewave zero debacle. I have restored the redirect and commented that he was pointed to the RfC on the issue of whether redirects are deletions a week ago but eyes will be needed.Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Cat naming controversy

A page created exclusively for the purpose of ethnic bickering among Turks, Armenians and Kurds, under the pretext of the name of a cat breed. The article didn't even bother to link to the article on the cat in question before I touched it. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a whole heap of forks on this topic:

• Van Cat naming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van Kedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Vankedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a dab page)

Merging the whole shebang into a single neutral article would seem to be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the internet loves cats, but this is ridiculous. This kind of self-publicity by cats must not be tolerated![2] Fences&Windows 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Accelerating universe

Needs some attention, Systemizer (talk · contribs) is adding what is apparently OR, but eyes from more scientific types would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsure if it is OR or not but it is certainly hardcore edit warring. 8 reverts against edits by 4 editors in 24 hours is double-plus-un-good. I have notified 3RR noticeboard.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Holographic principle is being spammed in the same way by the same editor, who refuses to participate on the talk page. Verbal chat 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm waiting on the 3RR admin board to do something before I engage him further in edit warring.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Has been blocked for two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He has immediately started trying to put the disputed material back on Holographic principle now that his block has expired. Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Color light acupuncture - meridians proven?

Apparently meridians have been proven to exist, and light proven to flow through them. This article is a spammy mess of poor sources and COI advertising. More eyes please. Verbal chat 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Organic waveguides in the optical regime: applications to electromagnetic signal induction in biological systems. Also, the article is at AfD now; despite the spammy CoI issues, I am not sure it should be. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It does look a lot better now. Will have to check the sources etc if I ever have time. Verbal chat 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl

In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed [3] pr WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE and not a WP:RS from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar that article, published in 1967, has a rousing total of 6 citations, none from reputable sources. Google Books shows a few cites, none very important. I basically don't see any discussion of this article from strong sources, so I don't think it should be treated as evidence that the views it describes have been influential. In claiming that extermination of intellectuals is an essential feature of communism it's at least getting close to being fringe, but one way or another I don't think it should be treated as a strong RS. Looie496 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor Panarin

This fringe blp may be unintentionally hilarious, but I think it suffers from several problems, including coatracking, peacocking and puffery, an unencyclopedic and credulous tone, and undue weight. It's a big job though, I'm not sure where to start - and I'm sure tagging will be bitterly resisted. Related awful article Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010... Verbal chat 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Decided to apply my favorite Wikipedia policy (WP:BOLD) and redirect the "prediction" article to Igor Panarin.Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh great. User:Лъчезар was the fellow who was driving us crazy in the moon land hoax article. Maybe this guy needs to find something else to do besides editing here. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's coatracking lunacy but it's almost worth keeping until June 2010 just to see what the excuses are for the failed prediction of the carve-up of the US. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Matthew Hubbard

Could someone familiar with pseudoscience take a look at Alfred Matthew Hubbard? This article has some strange fringe claims: "In addition to being a major proponent of LSD, earlier in life, Al Hubbard invented a device at the age of 16 which provided enough energy to power a boat around Portage Bay, on Lake Union, in Seattle, Washington." They are saying that he invented the "most powerful nuclear battery ever created, and as early as 1919, easily making it the first" — which definitely sets off some red flags in my mind. This article needs major review and cleanup and I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it myself. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

These claims are sourced to Rex Research, a one man operation that disseminates information about "suppressed, dormant, or emerging Sciences, Technologies, Inventions, Theories, Therapies, and miscellaneous Alternatives that offer some Hope of helping to Liberate Humanity from itself. " Not exactly a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sources and a capsule bio here, it's quite clear that the coil was a free energy scam. A 1928 Popular Science article on "fuelless motors" characterizes it as a perpetual motion hoax. [4] Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

Talk:Quantum mysticism

Please look to Talk:Quantum mysticism#Third opinion. This discussion has been shifted to absurd rhetoric and I can't start a user RFC until there is more than one party involved. Thanks to anyone willing to deal with all the parties involved.--OMCV (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(moved here from policy RfC by Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

I have been looking at it but I've found it impossible to follow the quantity of verbiage that has been generated. Not really sure what to do. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fire and lots of it! Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism?... Let me guess... if you seal a cat up in a box with a hunk of radioactive rock... can you determine if it has achieved a higher plane of existance without looking in the box? Or perhaps... is it really that sinful to seal cats up in radioactive boxes? Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy

If some more medical type doctors could look over this article and check whether it is fringe or not, and accurate, I'd be grateful at least. There are a few warning signs - such as "despite FDA approval there is no evidence that it works..." (paraphrase) Verbal chat 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That paraphrase isn't quite accurate -- what the article says is that there is no understanding of how it works -- there is indeed evidence that it works, although not huge amounts of it. I don't think this should be considered fringe when used for the specific purpose of bone healing -- however there is a tendency in the alternative med community to push treatments like this beyond their validated uses. (I should say that I'm a biologist but not an M.D.. WikiProject Medicine is often a good place if you want input specifically from M.D.'s.) Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I misread. Maybe it should be made clearer. Thanks. Verbal chat 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dowsing

It's not especially bad but there's no strong warning like "THIS IS FALSE".. and there are some pro-dowsing sources that are presented as reliable. Does anyone have access to some reliable studies? .froth. (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some minor tweaking could be used in section on evidence and in lede to make sure there is adherence to WP:DUE but in general the article looks fair and balanced. Suggest consulting JREF and the magazines Skeptic and Skeptical Enquirer for sources if it is felt WP:DUE would be served by additional information on dowsing debunking.Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Crop circles

There is a lot of good information on this article but there are a few editors who insist on adding npov stuff or poorly referenced pseudoscience and paranormal information; in particular there are a lot of links to BLT Research Team INC. which is a not-peer-reviewed journal about crop circles and Haselhoff, Eltjo (2001) "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:Scientific Research & Urban Legends", Frog Ltd, ISBN 1583940464. Frog publishing is a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal. Neither of these seem to be reliable sources but I'm afraid removing them will result in an edit war since these sources provide the best evidence for paranormal explanations of crop circles. Could either of these be considered reliable sources? Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the articles npov problems? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's been a problem since forever. Remove it, explain it patiently to them, and if they perist then call the cavalry. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that having "editors who insist on adding npov stuff" is a bad thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

he means WP:UNDUE stuff. Although I see nothing wrong with using "a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal" in an article that is already dedicated to the small world of paranormal fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem comes when they start adding "balancing" paragraphs asserting the paranormal POV after each discussion of provably man-made circles. I tweaked it a bit, it's not as bad as it has been in the past though, not by a long way. At one point there were editors who sought to portray the idea that circles are man-made as a minority POV going against the overwhelming scientific consensus - the scientists in qwuestion being so-called "cerealogists". Guy (Help!) 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

I'm in the process of cleaning up this article but would appreciate outside eyes (drum shot) and review. I'd be shocked that this topic was presented with such a high level of credence, but I've been around here long enough to know better. There seems to be some connection with the Bates Method, which I remember to have been a contentious topic but don't know the specifics of. Skinwalker (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note the impassioned defense on Talk:Sungazing wherin the advocate admits to having permanent visual artifacts. Skinwalker (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

This is a report on a bizarre project that claims that any tiny statistical variation in a random number generator that occurs for any length of time any time within a few days of an event the authors deem important is proof of psychic powers.

• Presents this as legitimate, respected science
• Leaves all criticism out of the lead
• Minimises criticism and gives proponents of the project the last word to any criticism.

In short, a pretty bad article. A lot of the articles in Category:Parapsychology could use a similar cleanup, since a lot of true believers have pulled out the crankiest research in parapsychology and made promotional articles out of it. More mainstream parapsychological articles tend to be better. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made some improvements and fixed some of the worst wp:undue and wp:npov problems. I cleaned up the citations a little but was unable to add any new or reliable sources, which would go a long way to getting this article into shape. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done some further edits to sharpen it and reorganised it. I've put some sources on the talk page here. Fences&Windows 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have to bow out. I have found some of the comments on the talk page to be quite offensive for personal reasons but I don't believe they actually violate WP policy. If I continue I fear, however, that I may violate WP:CIVIL. Sorry guys. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, went out, had a bike ride, blew off some steam, feeling a bit better - not likely to violate WP:CIVIL now. However I'm still not engaging with the other involved editor if possible though I will make some constructive edits to the page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The constructive edit you made into the article is not about global consciousness project, it is about laboratory experiments carried out on individuals to test their "mind powers". Sorry, we have to remove it. Logos5557 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All this renewed attention to the article, and yet still no mention there of the definitive project that stands a chance of pegging the meters and silencing the critics for good. I may get around to adding it myself, but then again it might be more productive to use that time to train for this year's big December event. Tim Shuba (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the best constructive edits in this section, though a bit violating Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Thanks for bringing global orgasm into attention. Logos5557 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton

I've put up a report on him up on ANI. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I get some eyes over here Displacement (parapsychology) to confirm or counter my reasoning on the talk page. I'm about the only one on the talk page and if the article gets returned to a redirect I'd like to have more than my say-so for the basis.Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dean Radin

Article plagued by normal notable-fringe-researcher problems with PoV, Peacockery, etc. Please help. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I started to clean it up, but the "Research" section is unsalvageable. It's just a list of Fortean claims peripherally connected to Radin. If a 3rd party reliable source can be found to draw from, that's what's needed to base a rewrite on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller

Article currently undergoing astroturfing to give the possibility that he has psychic abilities undue weight. - Nunh-huh 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dropa

This is a terrible recreation (sort of) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropa. That was a better article. Neither had much about the Dropa -- this one is actually about the so-called Dropa stones. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole Dropa thing is just about the worst example of bad archaeology ever. See here for details. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted now as a recreation of an article deleted through AfD. I was tempted but felt I was too involved. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not involved previously and thus felt no such need for restraint. Glad this awful little hoax is no longer on Wikipedia. _{I've always found the underlying hypothesis of Erich Von Daaniken to be actually quite racist, this idea that the only way non-Europeans could have accomplished anything lasting is through alien intervention, and I hate to see his made-up stories having undue space on Wikipedia.} Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero-point field

Hi.

There's this article at Zero-point field that seems to promote various alternative theories about quantum mechanics and zero point field in a manner not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the issue. I went and started to discuss it on the talk page at that article, and they seemed to want to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the theories and not how it conforms to WP policy or fails to do so. It seems to involve a group of anon editors, and they're threatening to pull the dispute tag. What to do about this? You should also review the discussion at Talk:Zero-point field too (the last couple of threads about neutrality dispute). mike4ty4 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article seems reasonable. The section on "Andrei Sakharov and the elasticity of space" seems essayish and a bit inflated. The section called "Related" is really bad. It says, "Such views are not without controversy. Some see such discussion as pseudoscience. [22] However, physicist David Bohm and other respected scientists...". The reality is that nearly all physicists see this as utter nonsense. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. However some also seems to recapitulate stuff already said in Zero-point energy, like the bit about the harmonic oscillator, so perhaps it needs to be worked more into the context of the quantum field theory, as the very first part "In quantum field theory, the zero-point field (or zpf) is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non zero.[1] This phenomenon gives the quantum vacuum a complex structure, which can be probed experimentally; see, for example, the Casimir effect. The term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field." Also there seems to be so much focus on the E/M field, is not there a zero point field of every quantum field? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just went in and tweaked the "new age" theories bit. What do you think of the revised version? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there are two articles. I don't really see any need for that. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, I wonder about statements in there like these: "More recently it has been understood that the electromagnetic zero-point field and the electromagnetic force carrier (the photon) are probably fundamental to all three forces, because the electromagnetic force (expressed by the Lorentz force equation) does not require mass." However is that really right? I thought the nuclear force were carried by other particles like gluons (which may or and the W and Z particles (which have mass!)). Or does this relate to stuff like electroweak theory and grand unified theories (the latter of which are not yet even agreed on)? But would it really be proper to call the unified force particles "photons" in that case? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be best to merge it with Zero-point energy? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Vacuum state. See my comments on the physics project page for more info. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Magna‎

The problem with this one is that there are virtually no reliable sources, no one takes it seriously enough, so we are ending up with a number of fringe sites used as links. See the edit history as well, please. Thanks. (any time you see Clyde Winters name, be assured it is fringe). Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fabio Cardone

Subject is a scientist with an interest in fringe science. He seems to have written the article himself and his English is poor. Hence the article is listed for wikification, which is how I found it, and now as having multiple issues. Someone with a physics background could probably knock it into shape more quickly than I can. Is the subject notable anyway? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems non-notable to me after a read. Putting it up for a PROD. If he is notable that should get some RSes into it quick. Otherwise problem solved.Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in discussions back in 2007 Cardone citing pages on Ruggero Santilli and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia as parallels to his that have persisted without deletion discussions. Both do indeed seem to be similar cases. I will prod. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Haven't prodded, as have read more and cases are more complicated. Santilli is director of an institute, subject of an article that was up for deletion, then kept. Amelino-Camelia - don't know if if he is fringe or not, notable or not. Noncommutative geometry is clearly not fringe, its application to physics also doesn't seem to be. Whether or not he is a leading figure on its application to physics as the article asserts, I would have no idea. More eyes on such articles would be great. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether he is fringe or not isn't a criterion for WP:PROF being director of an institute might or might not be. What institute?Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

His own Institute for Basic Research. Definitely fringe, possibly notable, article judged worthy of keeping although perhaps that should be reviewed. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... doesn't meet WP:PROF.Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Out-of-place artifact

Clearly a fringe topic that is occasionally full of many unsourced claims. Please add WP:RS, and otherwise improve the page. Verbal chat 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The only source I really have to contribute is already there. I put the page on watch and if any unsourced claims pop up I'll be on it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be merged to Pseudoarcheology. The only reliable source I found in my searches is the Salon article already in the external links. This book chapter touches on the issues too:[5], mentioning "seemingly-out-of-place artifacts" in a footnote. There just isn't the reliable source coverage for a stand-alone article. Fences&Windows 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually my biggest concern with the current form of the article is that it gives the impression that the Maine penny is fringey. It may be fraudulent, as the article explains, but since the Vikings were indisputably present in Newfoundland around that time, there is nothing bizarre about the idea that a single Viking penny may have made its way down to Maine. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true. I only left it in because... well... the two editors who recently became active on this, Verbal and I, both have a bit of a reputation and I really didn't want to be involved with yet another accusation of back-handed deletion argument at the moment. (For the record, when I want an article deleted I put up an AFD and I'm tired of having people call valid redirects and merges back-handed deletions.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• OOPs are a significant topic in archaeology and anthropology. While they are often used for fringe theory promotion, they are also an important teaching tool in the field. OOPs are broadly discussed as reasons why a skeptical, conservative, and exacting methodology is required in digs and the analysis of data acquired in them. I do not believe that I have still have my textbooks that mention them, but it should not be difficult to find textbooks discussing the phenomena and how it emphasizes the importance of solid field and research practices. The Center for Inquiry and other clearly reliable skeptics have also addressed the topic in various publications. The article should focus on the handful of most prominent examples and the scholarly use of the topic that I just mentioned. A paragraph or short section noting the (mis)use of OOPs for fringe theories, most notably within the broad field of "alternative history" (pseudoarchaeology), would be appropriate and sufficient. Vassyana (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find good sources you'll be doing better than I. My searches for "out of place artifact[s]" got almost no reliable sources, am I missing a good alternative search strategy, or will offline sources probably be needed? Fences&Windows 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Cs32en has been deleting criticism out of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories

See here: [6], [7], [8]. Can someone keep an eye on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, for those who are admins, a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend checking the talk page history for the required notice. This user is well aware. I've disputed their editing before and believe they were notified then. Next, go to WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban from an uninvolved admin.Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has insisted on adding/maintaining content that is not supported by independent secondary reliable sources. [9] [10] [11] While the user would always (correctly) insist that content that he dislikes must be based on independent secondary reliable sources, he apparently does not consider this necessary for content that he likes.

However, if content from Matt Taibbi's book, for example, could be included in the article, then content from David Ray Griffin's books would be admissible, too. Of course, such a general rule would be unhelpful and in violation of Wikipedia policies.

I hope that A Quest For Knowledge will reconsider his actions. I have already warned the user that his actions may be considered edit-warring.  Cs32en  12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

David Aaronovitch is a British journalist who authors regular columns for The Guardian and The Times. Aaronovitch won the What The Papers Say award for a writer about broadcasting, the Orwell prize for journalism and the What The Papers Say Columnist of the Year award.BBC News His articles on conspiracy theories have been published by WP:RS including 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet. He's been featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary.

Matt Taibbi is a journalist whose articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories have been published by Rolling Stone magazine including 9/11 Truth: Bald Regurgitation of Another Bombing Conspiracy and THE LOW POST: The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies. He was also featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So there should be enough reliable, independent secondary sources that have reported on the opinions of both authors.  Cs32en  19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User is aware of the decision per [this AE thread]. However, since he's a single purpose account, he got a pass, after promising, er, nothing. But hey, Wikipedia is an experiment in internet sociology, and if people just blocked individuals like Cs32en the second they appeared there wouldn't be the requisite drama, right? Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've filled out a request for arbitration enforcement.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments on the actual merits, but from the viewpoint of somebody who hasn't been involved in this (i.e., me), the diffs in that AE request don't even come close to justifying action. If Cs32en has committed other sins, you will have to point to them. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Looie496; I am quite familliar with both sides of the argument as some members of my family subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories while my own skeptcisim prevents me from saying more than there is a slight, very unlikely, possibility of subterfuge beyond the official story. Frankly the most recent edit from Cs32en was removal of a properly referenced source that suggests that belief in 911 conspiracies is idiotic. Though it appears to meet the criteria for inclusion I can certainly understand why somebody would not want to have wikipedia calling them an idiot. I am inclined to say that, while I may not personally agree with Cs32en's position it does not warrant any sort of punitive action on the part of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That some sources use words such as "idiot" is not really a problem. Every reader may decide for him or herself whether to take such sources seriously. However, we should not make those sources appear to be more notable or prominent than they actually are.  Cs32en  15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Clare Prophet

Fringe religious figure, huge biography, few citations, needs serious pruning.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact tagged a bunch of stuff and tried to fix the PoV a little. Help would be useful. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as theosophy related figures go, Prophet is actually quite prominent. I have access to a lot of material about that general topic area and NRMs in general. I have some other wiki obligations that I need to attend to first, but some time later today or in the next few days, I will dig around for some sources and help prune/rewrite the article. If I don't get to it sometime in the next few days, please leave me a talk page message as a reminder. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

She is rather significant, and actually rather important to the new NRM workgroup as well. The recent biography by her daughter, Prophet's daughter by Erin L. Prophet would be a great source for the article if anyone has access to it. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt, she is notable but the article is a mess. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)

This pending AfD might benefit from review by some fringe-policy savants.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States

This article, which was previously a racist troll magnet called Race and crime, has reared its ugly head again. Some have tried to fix the problems, and the article is better than that it replaced, but it still contains (until I removed them anyway) raw statistics, in a table format without any contextualising or explanatory text, and some fringe theories, one factoid sections (removed), and a section "Racially motivated crime" which contains a paragraph about one rather dubious theory. Many many more eyes and opinions please (I may be being overly harsh as I remember the problems with this article in the past, so please can as many of you go and have a look, and see what you can do). Verbal chat 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A very random collection of anecdotes from various publications. I'd start by looking for publications that summarize what other scientists have written, and things that have received attention outside of the scientific community. The article should also contain a section on the evolution of the controversy inside and outside of the scientific community. The current structure of the article is unhelpful for further development. I suggest removing content that is not supported by independent secondary sources as a first step.  Cs32en  15:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember a suggestion last time this came to this board to expand such an article to become Demography and crime, to give balanced coverage of the impact of demography on crime. Fences&Windows 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt whether this article will be rescuable and although the Demography and crime suggestion could be considered, I don't hold out much hope for it either. You can pluck two ideas from the air and they will sound like an essay question (miniskirts and antisocial behaviour; alcoholism and computer games; Heideggerian philosophy and climate change). They may not make a good essay question though, and it is not the way to generate an encyclopedia article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you all (and anyone else) to make their views known on the article talk page. Verbal chat 08:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Graves goddess threesomes

The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have provoked a burst of referencing, which is good, because it would be a real shame to lose that material if it is valid. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the "sources" added are all primary sources with the 'interpretation' of them is being done by an editor. I'd leave the section up for a while, there is some potentially citable content there hidden amongst the nonsense. Any help properly citing it would be appreciated! Davémon (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if some new voices would join the discussion at Talk:Triple Goddess, things seem to be going in circles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've barged in WP:BOLDly. I just don't see why the the triple goddess and the the notion of truine goddesses in general all have to be shoved into that one article. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I'm losing patience. This thing is being sat upon by a WP:SPA who is talking the thing to death. Can someone uninvolved care to take a look and see whether we are off-base in resisting him? Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. If Sizzle wants to improve coverage on triple goddesses in general, why cannot he do so in a straightforward manner and without pointless disputes on the Neopagan article? --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide nominated for AfD

Brought to attention of this board as it involves WP:EXTREMIST AfD up. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Random event generator (parapsychology)

Clear content fork with Random Number Generator. Article creator is opposing redirect. Third party opinions welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think this is a proper redirect. The material in that article does not belong in Random Number Generator in my opinion, so by redirecting, you're effectively deleting the article without discussion. The phrase "random event generator" gets 447 hits on Google Scholar (virtually all parapsychology-related), including a number of articles that use it in their titles, so a claim that it does not deserve coverage on Wikipedia would be doubtful at best. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than the name in what way is a "random event generator" different from a "random number generator"? Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Two ways: first, it runs in hardware whereas most random number generators are actually "pseudorandom" algorithms that generate sequences that are not truly random; second, it is used for a specific purpose whereas software random number generators are used for a huge range of purposes. A "random event generator" is a type of random number generator, but its use is so unusual and fringey that it would be undue weight to even mention it in the random number generator article. Random event generators are notable but barely so; random number generators are a major topic in computer science that every programmer needs to understand. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the alternate redirect (which links to parapsychological uses of the hardware device) satisfy you? I am fine with it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Being hardware doesn't make it not pseudorandom, that would depend on the hardware - and it should be discussed at random number generation. Parapsychology isn't the only, or even a very good, application for real random numbers. The software/hardware debate is also a bit misleading - there really isn't much difference between them, any hardware can be implemented in software - and hardware is generally "petrified software". All instances of general purpose software and hardware are used for a specific purpose, so I don't see what that changes. The new redirect is the best resolution I feel.Verbal chat 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern with the redirect is that if things go as they usually do on Wikipedia, somebody will remove that material from the random number generator article in a week or so, and nobody will complain about it. (I'm certainly not going to keep watch for this.) Other than that, the only quibble I have with what you wrote is that unless you believe in hidden variables, quantum mechanical randomness is "true" randomness that can't be implemented in software. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum computation is one of my areas of professional expertise :) You are right that measurement cannot be simulated in software authentically without using a random source, but these exist and we don't need to mention parapsychology to discuss these. There are interesting in their own right and for much more important practical reasons (in cryptography, for example), or even simulating a QC. Verbal chat 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

{Undent}I wouldn't entirely rule out hidden variable theories within quantum mechanics; it's fully possible that there is deterministic crap happening that we just haven't observed or effectively described with math just yet. But that's getting a bit off topic. I have no intention of removing information from random number generator either, I understand your concern but I'm reticent to allow a POV fork in the off chance that somebody deletes properly referenced discussion to a fringe use of hardware derived random number generators. Simonm223 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardware means all physical artifacts, not just related to computers (and actually hardware in "hardware number generator" means "physical artifacts"). A zener diode is a hardware for instance, which can provide random data based on its thermal noise. You can't upload (or petrify) a software into a zener diode but you can use a software to collect and transform the data from it. Therefore, there is a huge difference between hardware and software random number generators. When the source is physical, it is hardware random generator, when the source is an algorithm or a software it is pseudorandom number generator. Logos5557 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And that is a topic appropriate for discussion in random number generator. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. I see that Random number generator has already had a section on hardware random number generation for at least a month. Also there's the article Hardware random number generator, which has a section on parapsychology. I was going to suggest redirecting to that section, but I see that that's already been done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Astrotheology

Please note the recreation of Astrotheology.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously AfDed & deleted -- see WP:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Derham's book seems notable enough as per Google scholar here and even JSTOR has a few articles relating to the subject here, but the article is a mess. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedied and gone. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Vadim Chernobrov

Since I last touched this article in 2005, apparently this person has invented time travel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovondatr. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Super. There's lots of stuff I'd like to go back and undo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How is he notable? Simonm223 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock

Unsourced BLP about a hero doctor of the alternative health movement. The section that describes his battles with the FDA doesn't seem very balanced. He's an Associate Editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, so definitely very fringe.Fences&Windows 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone is claiming that as this guy has written 3 non-notable books he doesn't need to be notable, and is adding references to the article which are sourced to ... wait for it ... the articles talk page! Which features the famous Nancy Merkle!! And the subject himself (or so the IPs claim) has also posted a long diatribe on the rather awful talk page. Help needed to fix this! Should it go to AfD? Is he notable? Verbal chat 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should wholesale transwiki all our articles about alternative health practioners, conspiracy theorists and assorted crackpots into Wiki4Cam? Fences&Windows 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This Guardian article is one source that briefly mentions Blaylock. Asking for WP:RS, as Verbal just did, seems to be the appropriate way to tackle this issue. Clearly, the article in its present state would be an AfD case.  Cs32en  20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How is a person a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. Fences&Windows 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being obtuse, serious question, how can this board consider the biography of a real human being to be a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My medical knowledge doesn't extend much farther than first aid so I would not be appropriate to review it and it may very well be just fine. However this article: Excitotoxicity is strongly connected to Blaylock and presents the subject matter of the article as fact (it could very well be fact, again I don't have the background to really make statements to that) With that being said, it might be good for somebody with some serious medical expertise to give it a look over and confirm whether it's scientifically supported assertions or a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaylock's recent work on nutrition etc. places him in the scientific and medical fringe, whether or not he's correct in his claims. Proponents of fringe theories should be discussed here. Fences&Windows 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware that his theories place him in the scientific and medical fringe, and I see nowhere a cite or statement which of his theories is considered so. The right place to discuss a biography of a living person is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, regardless of what they are "proponents" of.86.3.142.2 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you his theories are fringe, hence this noticeboard is appropriate. The BLP noticeboard would also be appropriate, but this noticeboard is more specialised towards fringe theories and proponents, while the BLP noticeboard is more geared towards breaches of the BLP policy. One of the problems with this article is there is no evidence yet that he is notable, and the article should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am not assured. I see no evidence that his theories are fringe, and with respect, either of us assuring each other is no substitute for evidence. I understand your logic for putting people on a fringe theory notice board but respectfully disagree - as I believe compartmentalisation of overview leads to systemic bias as I believe is demonstrated when one looks at the earlier comments in the thread, which all assume guilt of fringe without any evidence. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his notability.86.3.142.2 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then please provide WP:RS and address the notability issue on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This Guardian article indicates that Blaylock's viewpoints are fringe with regard to the scientific debate, which is what WP policy refers to. There may be other sources, but in the absence of them, this is a reliable source that is clearly sufficient to characterize Blaylock's viewpoint as a viewpoint that has fringe status with regard to WP policy.  Cs32en  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source, I can understand your position now. The paper you quote is from 2004 and says

But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies.

It is making a bit of leap (WP:OR) to say he has "fringe status" based on 'popular opinion's spectacular travelling away from science' as couched in the journalist's opinion. The source does not show Blaylock's position on MSG at all, or if it itself is non-mainstream, just that his book was a spur against MSG. Even then, the article continues

However, there remains a body of respected nutritionists who are sure MSG causes problems - especially in children. And parents listen. Most doctors who offer guides to parents qualify their warnings about MSG - it may cause problems, it has been anecdotally linked with disorders. But public figures like the best-selling nutrition guru Patrick Holford are powerful advocates against MSG. He's sure the science shows that MSG causes migraines and he is convinced of the dangers of the substance to children, particularly in the child-grabber snacks like Monster Munch and Cheesy Wotsits.

If I were to WP:OR that myself I would say "Respected nutitionists and most medical doctors warn about MSG" but that is actually closer to the source. I note a more recent article from the same paper, attributed to the BMJ as listing MSG as one of the common things that can trigger a migraine attack. Whereas MSG may have been dismissed recently as not being the cause of 'Chinese restaurant sydrome', Blaylock's concerns were not that it ever did.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article indicates that it very likely is a fringe viewpoint (theories that "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", WP:FRINGE); it is not a proof that Blaylock's views are fringe. However, there is, to my knowledge, no default assumption that a particular theory would be not fringe, and as we would prefer to err on the side of caution, I'd say it's sufficient for making the preliminary determination that Blaylock's views are to be considered fringe and that WP:FRINGE thus applies to the article. A single mention in one article is not enough to meet the notability criteria anyway, and additional secondary sources would very likely contain further information that can help to clarify the status of his theories and hypotheses. In the unlikely event that there would be enough sources to meet WP:N, but no further information on the status of his theories, we would probably have to quote the relevant part of the guardian article verbatim, so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions about its meaning.  Cs32en  00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the source does not say what you are saying it says, using anything that amounts to 'likely pointing to being fringe' is utterly unacceptable in BLP. None of the information in the article refers to fringe science, the information in the article refers to a person's biography and is adequately and appropriately sourced. As I noted on the talk page, there is a wealth of information out there when you trawl, most of it, though, wants money to view the data, so I have deliberately chosen to use only those pieces which are free.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating to write in the article itself that (some) views of Blaylock are fringe, but that, based on the available information, we should classify the article, or the part of the article that deals with these views, as falling under the WP:FRINGE guideline. If there is a (permanent) article on Blaylock, we will very likely have further information on this question, and we need not say that his views are "fringe", we can (always depending on the actual information from appropriate sources) characterize his views as "supported by a minority", "minority viewpoint", "differing from the established theory" or whatever would seem most adequate. Many of these terms do not violate WP:BLP guidelines (and "fringe" also would not, if sources clearly indicate that the views are unambiguously fringe).  Cs32en  01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. Verbal chat 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture

An IP has been doing a whitewash of this article, stripping all critical material [13]. He's at 5RR, for the record. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 06:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore? Fences&Windows 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, WP:MEDRS intact, second unblock request looks unlikely to be persuasive. They made their points on the talkpage so I at least am not quite to the I part of RBI, but we shall see. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Make that unresolved, but we seem to have successfully transitioned to the discuss at Talk:Acupuncture phase. More eyes would still be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Orthopathy

Could do with some attention. Arguments about notability and adding dubious sources countering criticism, and not only giving the article a criticism section but a response to criticism section - which I find very unencylopedic. Anyway, could do with some TLC from assorted editors here. Please join in! Verbal chat 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, is there likely to be any mileage in the idea of merging it with the article on its founder, Shelton? I don't know if it's notable in its own right, but I don't like to see it with only two kinds of source (its founder and the debunker Stephen Barrett). If its profile were as high as some other forms of complementary medicine then there might be some independent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that merge. At the moment there is a new editor attempting to remove the criticism by Barrett saying it's unfair. Verbal chat 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That would help, especially since the field is not well-distinguished by outside observers from similar practices. The Shelton article should not get the Fit For Life stuff, though. If I recall correctly, the paucity of material treating the modern revival has more to do with my attention span than availability of independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed the merge, however the other editor has again removed some of the only reliably sourced material - the criticism - from the page, in apparent retaliation that I removed his quote and WP:SYNTH. Verbal chat 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How to properly acknowledge a fringe theory?

If a fringe theory appears in an article, should the fact that it is fringy, and the current mainstream academic view of the theory be consigned to a footnote, or should it appear in the main copy of the article? Davémon (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following:

• Always in the text, not in a footnote.
• Always refer to the relevant article with a link, and state that it is a specific viewpoint.
• Depending on the circumstances, describe the majority viewpoint.
• Depending on the circumstances, use "minority viewpoint" or a more specific description that clearly characterizes the viewpoint as a viewpoint held by a minority. The term "fringe" may sound dismissive rather than encyclopedic (my personal viewpoint), so I would be reluctant to use it, but this also probably depends on the circumstances.  Cs32en  20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So fringe=minority, mainstream=majority ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Always with reference to the relevant scientific community. Minority viewpoints should be characterized as minority viewpoints, while some fringe viewpoints may in fact best be described as "singular" viewpoints, if they a propagated by a single proponent.  Cs32en  20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is something we can or should make firm and fast rules about. Some Fringe theories do not even merit mention in other articles (per WP:UNDUE), while others do. Of the ones that are mentioned in other articles, sometimes it is best to clearly note that it is a fringe theory, and at other times it is best to phrase things with more subtlety. How to phrase things in articles is really a matter of consensus between the editors working on the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(← outdent) Since y'all are discussing here what I brought up there, I'll quote myself and hope for an answer here:

• "I wish WP:Fringe specifically said whether editors may or may not introduce the word fringe in an article when it isn't found in any source. IMO if something is decidedly non-notable fringe we leave it out, otherwise we call it minority."

Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to take the discussion of Fringe theories on a case by case, article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the specific situation is very important, and that editors thus should make decisions on a case by case basis. However, guidelines may contain guidance on (a) which aspects should be taken into account when discussion a specific case (b) the range of possible solutions applicable to most cases.  Cs32en  21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all points raised. I think Cs22ens outline is a good one. Formal guidelines should only be based on already formed general consensus, with an aim to aid editors in arriving at a conclusion quicker. I would say that the phrasing should be taken as verbatim as possible from at least one of the mainstream sources which are critiquing the fringe theory, avoiding the editorial judgement of using the phrase 'fringe' or 'minority' (unless the critiquing source does). Strong or emotive language (even from highly respected experts in the field) should probably be avoided! Davémon (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Context should also be important. E.g. the article about (say) Robert Graves's The White Goddess should (and does) have a section on criticism of that work. This needn't be replicated in the text body of every article that even mentions that book; it would be redundant, and require maintaining every separate copy. A footnote and/or wikilink — e.g., [ref] Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception.[/ref] — should suffice in that situation. Also note that this does not put Wikipedia in the position of declaring Graves's work either "fringe" or wrong (or right); this only says it was "criticized" (objectively true), and points to where those criticisms are quoted and cited. That leaves this encyclopedia a "fair broker" of ideas, not an advocate. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The "redundancy" concept does not sit well with the idea that minority/fringe views should be explained as such where they are talked about in detail, which is clearly beneficial so not to mislead average reader into thinking wikipedia endorses a minority view. Relying on wikilinks and footnotes isn't quite enough to get the message across, some acknowledgement in the main body of the article is preferable. Wikipedia should be a "fair broker" of ideas as they are reported by the mainstream academia, subjects like 911 conspiracy theories, alien abduction, prehistorical matriarchal societies, should not be treated as equal with mainstream historical and scientific narratives. I agree, using the words used by the mainstream sources that critique a fringe theory is the right way of approaching this. Davémon (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two points to clarify here. (1) "where they are talked about in detail" doesn't mean "everywhere they are mentioned or alluded to", e.g. in a short dependent clause of a sentence. (2) "should be explained as such" can be done very briefly in such mentions/allusions by adding (say) the word "controversial" and either a footnote or a wikilink to the detailed coverage — rather than inserting a lengthy argument that breaks the narrative and swings the whole sentence out of balance. I have in mind the one-line sentence with a four-word dependent clause:

According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.

... which became:...

According to the Robert Graves whose work on Greek Myth classicist Micheal Grant CBE considered to be "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and has been characterised as "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" by academics such as Richard Buxton ^[13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology ^[14]; Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.

...adding two lines of text to the four-word dependent clause, and overshadowing what the sentence was actually about. Adding just "the controversial^[13] or "the controversial" before Graves's name wouldn't have been so obtrusive, but still would have given fair warning — perhaps even more clearly than that long text.

Incidentally, the idea that Kore (the maiden) is not Demeter's daughter, but Demeter's own younger self, was discussed much earlier than Graves, in 1896, by Lewis Richard Farnell in The Cults of the Greek States, volume 3, p.121. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem in this example is simply poor writing... The material could be rewriten as...

According to the Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. Graves's theory, however, is controvercial. Academics such as Richard Buxton have characterised Graves's work as "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" ^[13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology ^[14];

... and it would be both acceptable and accurate. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's text is an improvement (except for the spelling!), but I wonder if it would be better to cut out the sentence "Graves's theory, however, is controversial." The following sentence, cited to Buxton, seems sufficient to establish that Graves' opinions aren't widely shared--although I actually think Graves' views are quite popular, or at least many people seem to have views of Demter that are similar to his, even if they're not directly inspired by his work. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so there we have it, clear as crystal: "Graves's opinions are not widely shared, though his views are quite popular, or at least many people have similar views even if they're not directly inspired by his work." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

... I'm hoping you were being sarcastic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who was being sarcastic? Anyway, Sizzle, I don't think it's that hard to understand what I was saying--Graves' views are not widely shared in academia, especially among people who study ancient Greece and Rome, but his ideas have had impact in the popular sphere. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Buxton's sentence establishes that Graves's opinions are not shared by Buxton. Each of the critics presumably expressed his own view. Whether academia (or the lay population) in general agreed more with the critics than with Graves is not in evidence just from quoting the critics. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sizzle, you are not making a whole lot of sense here. Please make an effort to separate academic opinion on historical Demeter from modern literary or pop culture references to Demeter. I submit that this is a problem of section scope. The whole Graves discussion should be removed from the "Demeter and Persephone" section (which should focus on academic literature on the Eleusian mysteries), and put in a new "reception in modern literature" section. Grave's book is perfectly notable, but it isn't notable because it contributes to the scholarly study of ancient religion. It is notable, as the The White Goddess article points out, because it "remains a major source of confusion about the ancient Celts and influences many un-scholarly views of Celtic paganism" and because it has "misled many innocent readers with his eloquent but deceptive statements about a nebulous goddess in early Celtic literature". This makes Graves a perfect addition to an "in popular culture" section, but his WP:DUEness really stops there.--dab (𒁳) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic opinion is not monolithic. Some of that criticism is quoted/paraphrased from an essay by Michael Pharand, who himself was quoting it but then disagreed with it. FYI, The White Goddess article points all that out only because I moved the text to that article from Triple Goddess. It is appropriate to point all that out in the article on the book, which is why I moved it there. That done, it needn't all be said again everywhere the book is mentioned: we can wikilink to it with a brief summary comment like "Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception." ... Which is precisely what I did.
Re Demeter: Graves is not the only person who has ever referred to her as part of a triple goddess; however, he is the person who popularized the idea, which makes him (and the book) worthy of mention there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that academic opinion is not monolithic. I should hope it is not. This is no excuse for discussing Demeter in terms of Graves. Graves is relevant indeed for popular opinion, but he is completely irrelevant for academic opinion. I am not sure what you are trying to do with these articles. It's ok to include the criticism in the White Goddess article, as you did, but at the same time, The White Goddess is also extremely relevant to the (neopagan) Triple Goddess article, while all of this is perfectly irrelevant at the Demeter article, which I thought was what is under discussion here. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical racial categories

Capoid race had a lot of original research and didn't make clear that the term was no longer current. I've dealt with that, but I've also come across Africoid peoples, which is a harder nut to crack. There's debate on the talk page that flags up the problems with the article, but broadly it has a lot of personal opinion, original research, poor sourcing, and confused writing. A reduction and merge into Negroid has been proposed. Fences&Windows 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole series of articles is a massive mess. It will need a whole taskforce to clear it up, because the minute any voice of sanity is introduced, at least 3 sockrings start jumping up and down all over again, plus a bunch of other Afrocentrist non-sock accounts. Afrocentrism is another unholy mess, as is Race of ancient Egyptians, where the destruction into stupidity of months of hard work drove me into wikibreak for months. I don't even want to start thinking about Africoid peoples, where the most bizarre claims are made, by the Afrocentrists, that 19th century concepts of race are still viable. Moreschi (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians needs to be reverted to the last sane revision. We have rules for a reason. The "historical racial categories" articles are a huge magnet for current-day racists, and we need to impose some sort of order there. The best move may be to merge all of them (excepting some three major ones) into scientific racism. As it is, the Iranid race article gets disproportional attention from Iranian racialist cranks, the Africoid peoples/Negroid race one gets disproportional attention from Pan-Africanist racialist cranks, etc. Having a main article on historical racial categories more generally will even out this effect. This whole racism issue remains a huge unsolved problem for Wikipedia. On one hand, we have politically correct hysteria preventing detached coverage of perfectly encyclopedic topics like the Race and crime debate in the US, while at the same time, positive racist fringe theories are running unchecked at all these little "this race", "that race" articles. On the Afrocentrist side, I think we are seeing a concerted effort at pushing the theories of [[S.O.Y Keita] way beyond their WP:DUE relevance --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Webmaster6, Francesco Fucilla et al

There have been several previous threads on this noticeboard about the Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, a web organization either down a back lane in East Croydon or somewhere in Hungary. (It is connected with The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, a web organization either in a village on the outskirts of Swansea or somewhere in Hungary.) This organization is devoted to pseudoscience and awards prizes mostly to those who have contested well-established parts of theoretical physics. Prizewinners include Myron Evans, Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Diego Lucio Rapoport, Alwyn Van der Merwe, Lawrence Paul Horwitz, Florentin Smarandache, other editors of Progress in Physics and Franco Selleri, whose BLP is currently up for deletion here. The organization at first bore the name of Ruggero Santilli; it appears to be financed by Francesco Fucilla, who has edited wikipedia himself (his editing style is instantly recognizable because he uses capitalization and exclamation marks, London IPs and often adds his own signature, a tell-tale sign). Webmaster6 (talk · contribs) has been slowly adding pages to wikipedia connected with Fucilla and this organization. Several articles on promotional videos have been deleted (starting with "The Universe of Myron Evans"; here's a video of Dunning-Davies extolling Santilli's theories [14]). Both Evans and Fucilla run off-wiki commentary on the BLPs they wish to add to wikipedia and the deletion process: Evans on his blog at www.aias.us [15] and Fucilla on the Telesio-Galilei website [16]. I believe that Myron Evans actually threatened WMF with action over his BLP (later confirmed by User:Daniel), which resulted in his own biographical stub being put up for deletion by me some time back. (A neutral description of his eponymous theory took its place.) I think more eyes are needed on this little walled garden of articles and in particular the contributions of Webmaster6 who appears to have a WP:COI. No need for wikipedia to become a mirror site for pseudoscientific websites, even if there is a slightly comical aspect to the whole thing (Santilli's magnegas - an alternative fuel based on his own new molecule, made from reprocessed human waste, tested on a Ferrari). Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone that the first step in handling a suspected conflict of interest is "direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline". There is no evidence that Mathsci has troubled to do that, or even had the courtesy to notify Webmaster6 of this discussion about his contributions. A further reminder: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." 213.48.162.2 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

213.48.162.2 (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet account. There seem to be too many around at the moment. Their statements are inaccurate, because of previous deletion discussions of Webmaster6's contributions (here for example) and threads on this noticeboard. Perhaps when 213.4.162.2 has a moment to spare, they can consult with their twin 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs) on how to stalk me in a slightly less obvious way. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia

Alfred de Grazia

Consider stubbing this article. Lacks third-party independent sources. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 128.59.171.155 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. yeah, I'm going to stub this down for now, and see about some sources later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it about this time last year, and Science Apologist also put in useful work. Subject's notable as a political scientist, and the books on political science are worth listing. Later he became a fan of Velikovsky, and I suppose that is a notable fact about him, but it doesn't need too much detail. User:Amideg is the subject or close to him, so the article continues to be dogged by COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he does seem notable. I'd say this can be re-written with an eye towards his works, but the way it was when I found it... blah. I'm expecting to get a heaping helping of flak when the interested parties notice, but I might be able to get some more relevant citations by then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you live in some parallel Wikipedia. Or what do you mean by "notable"? The article as it stands indicates no trace of notability. Just whence do you take your knowledge that he "does seem to be notable"? Nothing currently in the article I am sure (wrote a book, founded some sort of commune in 1970 which fell apart in 1972) -- please note that "notability" does not mean "can be googled". It means significant coverage in quotable, independent third party sources. Where are these sources? If they aren't forthcoming, simply delete the article, especially if it is a WP:BLP. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He did write quite a lot of books on political science, and they looked to me like standard textbooks but I'll look again. WP:PROF should be our guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott

David Talbott

Consider stubbing this article. Most of the sources are promotional and directly connected to the author. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 64.206.236.98 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Unlike the de Grazia article above, this one is well-sourced and appears neutrally written. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

that's after I tweaked the intro into not going on about just how radical Talbott is.[17] --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum?

What the heck's going on in this user's contribution history? Both the articles and the edits need examination. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Scratching around from this user's history, there seem to be a number of rather fringey-looking quantum/mind-related articles that may be in need of closer scrutiny:

• Quantum mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Quantum mind/body problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orch-OR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (aka Roger Penrose' "quantum mind theory", probably the worst of the lot)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an article devoted to documenting the misuse of the word "quantum" within fringe science and alternative medicine? It's got to be one of the most misused terms. There are plenty of examples (including articles here), with V & RS of the type allowable for an article on a fringe subject. Sources from believers and from skeptics would be allowable. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see the problem here. Quantum mind/body problem is a survey of philosophical thinking on the apparently anomalous position of the conscious/sentient observer in some interpretations of quantum mechanics; quantum mind is an overview of various theories that invoke quantum mechanics as an explanatory mechanism for mind, concoiusness and free will; and the most notable quantum mind theories are detailed in individual articles such as Orch-OR. Minority views, maybe, but those articles seem to be balanced, NPOV and well sourced. What exactly are your concerns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For some background you might also want to look here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mind/body problem seems to have little but original synthesis. Apart from mentioning Hugh Everett, it doesn't tell you anything about how quantum mechanics has been regarded in philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think quantum mind/body problem breaks WP:SYNTH because it is not advancing a position. It is just a survey article like history of quantum mechanics or philosophy of mind. It summarises a whole bunch of attributed views, from Einstein to Dennet. Somewhat unevenly written, perhaps, but not a problem article. I still don't see what Brangifer's concerns are with the three article he listed (quantum mysticism is another kettle of fish entirely ...). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not advancing a position? It's purely the view of Wigner. Which might be notable enough to warrant summarising somewhere (probably in the article on Wigner), but not like this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how the article reads to me. The term "quantum mind/body problem" may have been coined by Wigner, but the article presents the views of several scientists and philosophers on this topic. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It collates the views of several scientists and philosophers, but they were usually not directly addressing this topic. So it's synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just have different interpretations of what the article is trying to say. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shadow people

An editor trying to connect Stephen Hawking's remarks on dark matter to paranormal beliefs. The article itself is based on very marginal sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article appears to be nothing more than presentation and synthesis of (mostly fringe) WP:PRIMARY sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Dargaville

Dargaville's article involves a number of highly fringy things he's involved with or promotes. The article has quite a few issues, from style and grammar to lacking cites, to bordering on advertising. I had a go at trimming the fringe a bit, but there's plenty left to do. (much of it was written in the tone of an unquestioning believer, stating as fact things like Dargaville's meditation techniques being able to cure cancer, or his physics of mind 'validating' teleportation and "alien space travel")

Point is, I don't honestly know where to start with the numerous issues, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those more experienced and see if anyone wants to work on it, rewrite it, ignore it, or nominate it for deletion. ;)

Hatchetfish (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've sent it to AFD as third party interest seems decidedly lacking. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research an attack page?

Colonel Warden‎ (talk · contribs) recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles (Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). Verbal chat 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't canvass speedy deletions. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that this is not the first time you've done this. Do not post requests here in this way. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is an appropriate noticeboard and the speedy template was removed before I posted here - there is no ongoing deletion debate. I have never canvassed an AfD or speedy. Verbal chat 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are not Colonel Warden's keeper. Let him make his own mistakes and defend them. Trying to delete that page via speedy deletion was... bizarre. Fences&Windows 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's emphasize the key point: posting to noticeboards is not canvassing, ever. That's what noticeboards are for. It might be forum shopping, depending on how it is done, but it should never be characterized as canvassing. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the POV tag as it doesn't seem justified. The resons given include that it is too skeptical (like the preponderance of RS) and that the lead summaries the article, including the fact that belief in reincarnation has been linked to trauma. Verbal chat 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add borderline coatracking at Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect to your list of related problem articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Web Bot

An article about a software program claiming to predict the future including 9/11, the Columbia accident and 2012. I would probably go and afd the article as being not notable. Or we can wait for October 25 for its next prediction to see if it comes true or not. --McSly (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It has received significant coverage in the press, so I'm not sure AfD is appropriate. I've done some sourcing, still needs improvement. Fences&Windows 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage 2

Given its connection to various fringe theories, people on here may be interested in this AFD. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pumapunku‎

If anyone has time and an interest in this, there are quite a few sources on the talk page that could be used to improve the dating section which at the moment is biased towards a fringe viewpoint. I am not around much for a while and don't have time myself. There's also a long forum style post on the talk page and although maybe it should be removed I think editors should avoid responding in kind, we all know talk pages aren't forums. Some of the links on the talk page can't be used themselves but lead to good sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected link. Moreschi (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This sentence, sourced to an article in National Geographic, sounded bizarre. "Ceramic artifacts depict imagery of warriors, masked with puma skulls, decapitating their enemies and holding trophy skulls, adorned with belts of human heads with their tongues torn out." First, what was adorned with the belts, the warriors or the trophy skulls? Second, how do you show in a ceramic artifact that a tongue is torn out? I'm not even sure what a depiction, in ceramic, of warriors masked with puma skulls would look like. How reliable is National Geographic for archaeology? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More likely NG has been rendered inaccurately. And this dating issue sounds rather worrying. I need to look into it but 15,000 BC sounds rather implausible. Antiquity frenzy anyone? Particularly when that seems to be partially sourced to German astronomy (huh?) from the 1930s (dated research by now, methinks). Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just double-checked that. Astronomy. What? Moreschi (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) Verbal chat 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

so The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is at it again. One of the more ill-advised mass-editors I have come across, and one of the most resistent to good advice and criticism. Needs more eyes watching their contributions history.

this chap insists on littering article namespace with absolutely abominable content forks. Check out his Outline of chocolate or Outline of Iceland (you'd expect a description of the island's coastline) or Outline of water, etc. He copy-pastes the lede from the developed article, and then proceeds to posting a sort of "list of loosely connected articles", looking as if it was just the wikilinks ripped from the deveoloped article by means of a very short shell script.

this WP:OOK thing isn't pertinent to WP:FRINGE, but "The Transhumanist" and his renitent attitude has caused major disruption and lost man-hours. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that the proposed policy Wikipedia:Outlines should be marked as failed due to the controversy and resistance found across the mainspace. See the talk page for my suggestion that it be marked as failed. Verbal chat 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Telugu

We have a fresh Indian racial drama, with Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) bent on declaring "Aryan" anything connected to the Telugu people or the Telugu language. The factual background of this is that Andhra Pradesh was indeed an Indo-Aryan/Dravidian contact zone in the Middle Ages. Check out the contribution history to see how this is turned into the usual confused racial nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll be watching out in case this guy tries any further nonsense. Moreschi (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: This IP is the same guy. Moreschi (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommended for your pleasure: Orpheus's passport!

There is, or was, a dispute at Orpheus over whether he can be classified as Thracian, Greek, or Macedonian. See Talk:Orpheus, the last revision before I swung the axe, my talk page, and even ANI. Weirder and weirder, it appears that Bulgarian Orpheus is even something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. This stuff applied to Alexander the Great was weird enough, but when applied to a mythical figure is simply frightening.

Read and weep. Moreschi (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

probably a good candidate for wp:lame Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew that Orpheus was Goa'uld. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Seriously though, added page to watch. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a passport no doubt helped him get in and out of Hades. Don't die without your passport, and make sure you're buried with it! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is proof the passport must have been Greek, because there's no way Charon would have taken any Macedonian passports as valid. Euridice, an alien, unfortunately got held up at the immigration desk. Moreschi (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin attn required on Talk:Parapsychology

Rodgarton (talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks for him. Moreschi (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)