Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

“ ...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy... ”

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

“ ]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes as well as the aristocracy; it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family. At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Bristol. ”

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

“ A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision. ”

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

“ According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market. ”

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

DNA consciousness

I became aware of this article due to a wikilink added to consciousness. I am inclined to think that the article should not exist. It is entirely devoted to the ideas of one John Grandy, whose only claim to notability seems to be that he has written a few articles for a couple of Sage Press encylopedias, and a couple of papers for minor journals. I don't see any evidence that anybody else has taken notice of his ideas. I frankly have given up hope of getting rid of the bogosity that overwhelms wikipedia -- what I would really like to do is remove the wikilink from consciousness, an article I have largely written and have been maintaining. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. An article on Grandy may be warranted, which summarizes his bold claims. But until this idea has some currency or has been debated by other scholars (psychologists, philosophers, biologists) it is a paradigmatic example of "fringe." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The article relies on just two types of references, irrelevant ones (used to document accepted neurobiology but in no way mentioning Grandy's theory), and Grandy's own writings in (of all things) an encyclopedia of anthropology, which is not where one would look for accepted neurobiology (especially one presenting the pet theories of an author who is just a registered physician's assistant). I don't see how his thoughts on DNA having thoughts carry the least bit of credibility, although I note that the purveyors of woo seem to have latched onto it on some web sites and he has given some conference talks. Does this constitute sufficient notability to justify such an overblown farce? Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One branch of anthropology is human evolution, and many anthropologists have expertise in genetics and evolutionary theory. But Grandy's theory really seems to be about consciousness - which is an area in which philosophers and psychologists have expertise ... and anthropologists. So raising a flag concerning anthropology is a red-herring. The problem is, we do not have enough evidence to tell whether Grandy is making an argument based on his own research or is speculating — and no evidence that other researchers care. This is what we really need to know to determine whether it is fringe or notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis of the article, but let's not get personal about Grundy. Remember that patent clerk? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Those with terminal degrees in the area about which they are speaking, holding professional positions at the top of the relevant field (i.e. a faculty post or commercial scientific advisorship), or with substantial records of peer-reviewed publication are given the presumption of expertise. The patent clerk speaking about physics had to demonstrate his expertise by the power of his argument, by getting it past peer review and by its acceptance among those with expertise in the field. You don't get the benefit of the doubt just by coming up with a lame-brained idea and self-publicizing it. Yes, someone with no formalized training could come up with a new concept that better explains life as we know it, but every yahoo with a novel 'idea' does not get a Wikipedia page dedicated to their 'insight' just because of the successes of one patent clerk, any more than everyone 'persecuted' by the establishment must be onto something just because Galileo was persecuted. His level of expertise is relevant. WP allows the use of self-published/publicized material if coming from an expert. Nothing against PAs, but a physician's assistant talking about DNA consciousness does not qualify, any more than when an engineer says something delusional about evolution or an astronomer shoots his mouth off about paleontology. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that his job is irrelevant to an analysis of the article about his ideas. If they are accepted, or given credence, or comprehensively refuted, in reliable mainstream sources then we report that: if they are ignored in mainstream sources then we ignore them too. We judge the ideas by what the sources say, not by what Grundy's job is. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And my point is that this isn't entirely correct, because self-published sources are treated differently when they come from an expert, and one's job is relevant when evaluating expertise. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not suitable for Wikipedia, and I think an AfD is the best solution. See Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 May 27#User:BOK602/DNA consciousness where we learn "An article on a new subject not covered elsewhere. I'm seeking feedback on how to publish it to Wikipedia." Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical explanations of bewitchment

A novelist seems resolute on inserting her personal theories into the article. Without regard to the merits of her conjectures, her theory is backed up only by her own novel, and not by secondary sources. In addition to conflict of interest issues, the issues of reliable sourcing and notability are involved. The article will probably require monitoring, and I would prefer not to be the only one doing so. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly that section should not be there, but the whole article seems to be suffering from some form of curse or split-personality. It looks as though it started off as an article about the Salem trials, and then was expanded, but not altered sufficiently. The lede section talks about witch trials n general, and then sweepingly says that all medical explnations are rejected by historians, which is palpably untrue of some cases (eg John Law's stroke which started the trials of the Pendle witches). Either the article should go back home to Salem, or give a more rounded view of the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given that all sources, academic, newspapers and politicians say that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence helped found, and have given financial and military support to the Taliban, and also that the former president of Pakistan as well as various Pakistani politicians have also said they have given aid to the Taliban, then does the Pakistani denial of giving support become a fringe view? That they deny support since 9/11 is a given, but a user seems to think that these denials can be carried back to before then, as in Pakistan has never supported the Taliban. What weight should be given to this view? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't give any weight at all to what "a user seems to think". What sources are being cited here? If the Pakistani government is saying this, there is nothing 'fringe' in reporting that they say it. On the other hand, if it is a statement originating from a source with little credibility, it probably isn't relevant to the article. I'd think it was a little out of the normal remit of this noticeboard though, and you would probably do better to raise the issue elsewhere.

If you are intending to continue this discussion here, you should probably post a link here on the relevant talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just curious about it. His sources contradict the claims made though, This one [1] has this Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban But the same source has former president Musharraf saying "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." The other [2] says While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban it is followed by the reality was quite the opposite I am unsure if picking single statements from a source like this is OK. It seems to me at least to be misrepresenting them. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black holes as cold dark matter

Recently this passage was deleted from the Cold dark matter article as "fringe":

Black holes are known to exist in abundance. Intermediate mass black holes of about 100,000 solar masses in galactic halos are consistent with observations of wide binaries as well as microlensing and galactic disk stability.(ref name=frampton2011>Frampton and Ludwick (2011) "Number and Entropy of Halo Black Holes" Astropart. Phys. 34:617-9</ref>(ref>Frampton et al (2010) "Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter" Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010(04):023</ref> Smaller black holes are also a possibility.(ref>Hawkins, M.R.S. (2011) "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter" 415(3):2744–57</ref>(ref>Worsley, A. (2012) "Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of the Galactic Halo" Applied Physics Research 4(1):128-37</ref>(ref name=gsfc2004>Goddard Space Flight Center (May 14, 2004). "Dark Matter may be Black Hole Pinpoints". NASA's Imagine the Universe. Retrieved 2008-09-13.</ref>

Many of the authors involved, such as Paul Frampton and Michael Hawkins are extremely prestigious, and most of those sources are peer reviewed in prestegious journals, while some of them are WP:SECONDARY literature reviews. Although the editor who deleted the passage claims that their sources at Talk:Dark matter#intermediate mass black holes and the subsequent section somehow proves that the idea of black holes as dark matter is a fringe theory, that seems completely absurd to me, and the top non-Wikipedia Google search hits on ["dark matter" "black holes"] clearly confirm that they are a top possibility; e.g. [3]. Now the editor who deleted that passage has apparently accused me of being Paul Frampton, even though everyone ought to be able to see that I am in Colorado from my IP address (and for the record, I am a statistician, not an astrophysicist.) Would someone please do us the favor of evaluating whether this is a fringe theory? 67.6.175.184 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that black holes might be dark matter is not fringe (although the theory that they could have masses of 100,000 solar masses is - that's what I was referring to, not to Hawkins' views). As far as I know, Frampton is the only person in the world advocating the point of view that 100,000 solar mass black holes can be dark matter. In fact, decades of accumulated evidence have convinced the vast majority of experts that dark matter cannot be black holes of any mass, or indeed any kind of large, massive object (so-called "MACHOs"), let alone 100,000 solar mass holes.

The strongest evidence against such objects comes from direct searches - MACHOs passing in front of the field of view of a telescope produce detectable lensing effects, and if MACHOs are present in sufficient abundance to be dark matter, they would have been detected in the correspondingly large abundance, but several dedicated searches failed to find them.

To support this I went out and found eight (!) recent reviews of dark matter physics. I didn't pre-select them in any way, I found the first eight I could (by google and by using some specialized astrophysics search engines). Of those eight, several never mention black holes as dark matter at all (bear in mind that these are 50-100 page overviews of the topic, some intended for experts and some for students that are learning the subject). Of the reviews that did mention MACHOs or black holes, all were unanimous in saying that they are ruled out as a dark matter candidate, and devoted a short paragraph (again, out of 50-100 pages) to saying so. I added those sources to the article, including quotes.

Given wiki's due weight policy, I don't think Frampton's theory should be mentioned at all unless the article is made much longer. Wiki articles are supposed to represent the prevailing view and accord alternate views due weight, which in this case seems to be pretty close to zero. There are many other possibilities and important points that carry significantly more weight with the community and aren't discussed. Even in a long version of the article, its lack of coverage in all eight reviews indicates that Frampton's theory shouldn't be mentioned at all, while black holes should be discussed briefly. As it is now, in a fairly short section black holes are mentioned (in both the dark matter and cold dark matter articles). Waleswatcher (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that Waleswatcher deleted both theories of intermediate mass black hole dark matter and stellar mass black hole dark matter as "fringe". Frampton, "the only person in the world" who Whaleswatcher says advocates the idea that IMBHs can be dark matter, has at least six co-authors on his two papers that suggest the possibility, both of which were very recently peer reviewed by prestigious journals. Actually reading the papers which Waleswatcher deleted will explain to anyone who wishes to take the time and effort that microlensing, wide binary orbits, and the cosmic microwave background are at present thought to be compatible with black hole dark matter, although only three to five years ago there was reason to believe that all three excluded the possibility. I asked Waleswatcher twice whether he has a financial conflict of interest in WIMP searches, and although he did not deny the possibility, that is when he suggested that I was Professor Frampton.

I am grateful that Waleswatcher now says that stellar mass black hole dark matter is not a fringe theory, but I would like others' opinions on IMBH dark matter, too, please. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dualus. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post on Cold Fusion

"Helium-3, an isotope that in the future may support cold fusion when earthlings finally figure out how to make it happen, is another potential treasure."[4] - I thought the Washington Post was firmly siding with the mainstream science view that cold fusion was completely debunked and crackpot ? How can earthlings ever make it happen, when according to everything mainstream science knows it does not and never will exist. Or is this a sign that the view on cold fusion is really changing lately ?

• CERN colloquium on LENR

Is the topic becoming more acceptable for discussion in mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's advisable to use this noticeboard as a form of blog for advocating personal views on the future of cold fusion. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. The Washington Post and other newspapers often write in sensationalist terms about science, so do not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. There is so much language of potentiality in the Wash. Post article, and so little of substance: we may mine on the moon, there could be He³ there, it might be used for cold fusion.... It's really something of a Pop Sci-style "soon everyone may have a flying car" advocacy piece, not a reliable source on the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to insert a quibble... Major news outlets like the Washington Post usually do count as WP:RS for writing Wikipedia articles - However, reliability is not necessarily a binary "yes/no" assessment. It is a sliding scale... with some sources being considered more reliable than others (an assessment that changes depending on the specific topic). When it comes to statements about science, there are other sources that are considered far more reliable than media outlets. Our goal is to base our articles on the most reliable sources possible. So, we should rely on those other sources instead of the Washington Post. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What this noticeboard is for: Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience). --POVbrigand (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"...especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience". Within those topics we don't need to give advice, as policy is clear enough already - we base articles (particularly those making claims of radical breakthroughs etc) on mainstream peer-reviewed sources and the like. Yes it is interesting that CERN is holding a colloquium on LENR, but since we don't know what will occur at the colloquium, we are in no position to say what effect (if any) it will have on the views of mainstream science on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like poor editing -- sounds like the writer is mixing up normal fusion research and science fiction. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, I also got the impression that the Washington Post writer was a bit vague on the topic. Luckily other mainstream media writers can handle the topic better like this and this --POVbrigand (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Those newspaper pieces are fairly good. Ideas tend to run to extremes on cold fusion. Some are wildly enthusiastic and believe it's being suppressed because it's part of The Truth That "They" Don't Want You To Know, while others think it's inherently a scam. The topic is a little outside my specialization, but my understanding from talking to people more knowledgeable is that it isn't inherently fraudulent, and there are some theoretical arguments for why it might be achievable someday. In other words it's the sort of thing that is worth supporting at some low level. The topic has gotten a bad reputation because of some poor work and shady characters but ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them. I think the Columbia Tribune story captures the overall state of things reasonably well (which is not always the case, to put it mildly, for mainstream press treatments of scientific topics). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment SBHBoris. As a SPA for Cold Fusion I have always edited with that idea in mind, that it is not inherently fraudulent and that some serious science efforts are made to advance the topic. The 5.5 million will hopefully help to shed some of the bad reputation of "cold fusion". I would really appreciate if we can offer an article to our readership that is more towards what is written in this article by Physorg: "In previous studies, scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory; ENEA, which is the National Energy Laboratory of Italy; and other scientific teams around the globe have reported observing excess heat effects when hydrogen or deuterium has interacted with palladium, nickel or platinum under certain extreme conditions. However, the researchers do not know how the excess heat is being created, nor can they duplicate the same, exact results on a consistent basis in some of these systems. "This phenomenon – excess heat being observed during the interaction of these elements – is intriguing, but we don't understand where it is coming from," said David Robertson, professor of chemistry and associate director of research at MURR. "The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, which is the reason why we're trying to understand it, and we're using every tool in the toolbox to find the answer. This gift to Mizzou will help us enhance our resources to find the answers to this phenomenon and potentially uncover the secrets of a new, clean alternative form of energy." Robertson says the potential uses for this excess heat energy will depend on how much energy is extracted and how consistent the process is for generating the energy." --POVbrigand (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some evidence that LENR/cold fusion is being taken seriously - as a theoretical possibility - by meaningful numbers of mainstream physicists. Probably a small minority, but that is no reason to dismiss it as a topic for further research. And I don't think that anyone has suggested that Fleischmann and Pons' claims for example were 'fraudulent' - it was suggested that they made errors, but that is another matter. This is LENR as a topic for serious scientific investigation though. The problem from Wikipedia's perspective is that there is also a great deal of dubious hype and crackpot conspiracy-mongering going on from all sorts of odd characters, and strong evidence that the gullibility of some 'cold fusioneers' is being exploited for financial gain (even without going into the current E-Cat malarkey...). In this situation, all we can do is separate the wheat from the chaff in the way we always should be doing - insisting that extraordinary claims (which includes positive LENR results, obviously) are sourced to mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals, and scrupulously avoiding crystal-ball-gazing about what is going to happen next. We don't know. But we don't need to speculate. Just wait and see, and report anything of significance that has happened, when we have reliable sources to support it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Schuman -and- Schuman Declaration

All the stress around the word 'supranational' and Schuman's prominent authorship appears to be exclusive voicing of the author of the site schuman.info (dating back to Apr.22,2007 with adds on Mar.26,2009; referenced himself Feb.12,2007).

Though containing a few relevant corrections, the paragraphs are verbose, blurring and have poor factual contents. Apparently the same author made similar inserts in the 'Schuman Declaration' article.

I put abit more details in the Schuman_declaration Talk page. Wouldn't the plain removing of most of the contributions from these dates solve the bannered WP:COI problem, if not also the WP:Refimprove one ? Gwaevl (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems more of a reliable sources issue. At first glance it doesn't seem reliable but I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you can just go ahead and improve the articles by replacing the poorly sourced and poorly written material with better stuff. Google Scholar should direct you to academic journal articles on these topics, and they will lead you to further sources. It isn't a fringe theories question, though, but politics. Do use WP:RSN if you need comments on sources. Ask at WP:NPOVN if anyone seems to want to insert biased views in the articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Mind - undue

Can someone step in and have a look at the issue here: [5]. The problem is that the editor acknowledges that there are no secondary sources on the particular section but he still insists on it being included although it would be undue as it seems to be a very very minor view. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone around to have a quick glance at the talk page and provide some opinions on the issue of whether material can be based solely on primary sources? His version of the article even had this statement: These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. , which is pretty much the definition of undue! IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Feilding and Beckley Foundation

This is what seems to be an alternative consciousness promoter who is mostly famous for self-trepanation. Lots of her claims are listed in the article, like the fact that she believes we lost blood flow to the brain after we began to walk upright (apparently she doesn't get the fact that our brains weren't that remarkable until after that change) and that trepanation fixes that and lets us achieve "higher states of consciousness" (however you define that) like children are able to do before their cranial bones fuse. She is also big on supporting research into hallucinogenics. (Perhaps she associates a "higher state of consciousness" with mental impairment.)

I removed the most obvious breach of POV, the "scientist" designation from the lead sentence, but there's a whole lot on her "research" involving her own Beckley Foundation. That page also has a plethora of somewhat plausible sounding "research" yet with red flags throughout if you know what to look for. The bulk of both pages' edits seem to be done by a couple of single-issue accounts, and of course when you are dealing with an emotional subject like recreational drugs you are going to have POV pushers.

If anyone is familiar with her and her organisation, it would be great if you could give it a look. Bialy Goethe (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Beckley Foundation appears to be completely unreferenced and has probable COI problems as well. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Would someone else look at the 'Sea of Azov' section and my rationales in my edit summaries for removing it? It's been readded yet again, but it doesn't seem significant enough at least from this source to be in the article, and certainly not the level of detail. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems undue to me, the sourcing seemed pretty poor, one primary source and one unreliable source; thus due weight not established. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Counties POV Warriors

There is a theory espoused by some in the UK regarding the status of various counties. Wikipedia seems to be one of the places in which these POV warrior push there view. One particular user User:Owain seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to create objects like Template:County flags of the United Kingdom, Category:County flags of the United Kingdom all of which seem to reference only an organisation Flag Institute which is unofficial. The articles all miss out references to the Metropolitan county this has been going on for a vary long time, it has been caught and stopped in several places after votes but the users are now constructing a parallel system of articles that reflect there view.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you give some more specific examples? Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just had to revet the Merseyside article to include the flag.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merseyside does not have a flag. What you suggest is the flag is in fact the banner of the arms of the former Merseyside County Council. It was legally the property of that organisation and represented only it, not any wider geographic entity. Using it in any other way is an illegal misrepresentation of the arms. I don't see how pointing this fact out makes anyone a "Traditional Counties POV Warrior". Owain (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone can come up with some source that actually and specifically shows this as the county's flag, I don't think there would be a dispute. I gather that the Flag Institute is serving as a registry rather than as a legal authority (i.e., just because they don't list a flag doesn't mean there isn't one); they do seem to be a perfectly good authority for those flags which they do list, seeing as how they cite authorizing legislation or equivalent for each such flag. As they do not list one for Merseyside, some other source would need to be provided. I take it that part of the hitch is that Merseyside as a governmental authority doesn't exist anymore (if it ever did) and thus there is no governmental website to which appeal can be made. But surely something can be provided. I would agree with Owain that simply assuming that the council's arms can be used as a banner for the county is illegitimate. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The source of the Flag Institutes is totally invalid. It lists flags for counties that do not exist any more.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

These are just as good [6] or we could go for a different flag. [7] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing this is a quote from the flag registry "In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area", meaning they ignore the existance of the Met Counties and ar e not neutral but and organisation with an agenda. Further supported by there creation date. 1971 just before local government reorganisation. They are a pressure group not neutral at all.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I reserve judgement on your agenda claim, but certainly the publisher of a postcard is not an authoritative source. People have put all sorts of bizarre historical fantasies on postcards. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Version of used in [8] with the other Met County Flags [9] howvere I will appaoch the Liverpool Records office for an answer, via FOI see [10].--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is spiralling completely out of control. Why has no-one discussed this yet on the article talk page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I started this because I view this as just part of the recurring traditional counties v met counties argument and was looking to get a judgement on it all.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But the "recurring argument" (which is infinitely less of an issue than it was a few years ago) only seems to be a major problem for yourself. The best thing to do, in all these cases when it arises, is to discuss it on the article talk page, and seek a wider range of opinions, rather than spiralling off into the realms of FOI requests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the FOI request is sensible. I just hate goingthroughthe same arguments again and again. I'd like just to revert and point to a decision.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've referred this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject England#Issue with county flags as it appears to be out of our bailiwick. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Baylor paper on Irreducible complexity

A paper, published by Baylor University, called "Dissecting Darwinism" appears to be disputed at the Irreducible complexity article. The editor, Dave Souza, who disputed my attempted use of the source, called it "fringe". Now, belief in the concept of Irreducible complexity by someone outside of the Discovery Institute, as Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn, an oncological surgeon at Baylor University, appears to be, may be considered belief in a fringe concept. Is the paper, however, advocating a fringe theory, if the very topic of that article is that theory? The publication it was published in, the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is apparently a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal. I will post a link to this discussion on the talk page of that article, and I expect the regulars from that article to voice their opinions here, and I have also asked for confirmation that the paper is a reliable source, but I think opinions from the independent regulars at this board would be helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The paper right now has notability problems, namely, that it's unclear that anyone cares about it. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To amplify this, it is an attempted refutation of evolution published by a non-expert (a physician) as a non-peer-reviewed opinion piece in a non-relevant journal (a medical journal published in-house). As such, a detailed elaboration of the author's fringe beliefs seems WP:UNDUE. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both Mangoe and Agricolae. Also, original papers are primary sources for the arguments presented by their authors. TFD (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone were to, say, argue that there had never been any opinions that support the idea of Irreducible complexity published in any peer-reviewed, academic journals, would this paper refute that argument? Cla68 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed academic journal". There are only peer-reviewed articles. While it's true that some journals publish only peer-reviewed articles, this one doesn't. This article has not been peer-reviewed. The only reason to say that it was published in a "peer-reviewed journal" is to imply that the article has some degree of scientific legitimacy, merit or recognition. The motive for doing so is, of course, every-day garden variety dishonesty, or complete ignorance of what peer-review is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. It's not exactly a surprise that the Discovery Institute and other ID fans appear to be eliding this distinction. Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Cla's question is that no one is saying that there have not been any opinions [in the peer reviewed literature] that support the idea of Irreducible complexity. People have expressed opinions in support of ID in all sorts of fora, many of them peer reviewed (law journals, philosophy journals, at least one medical journal). But there haven't been any published science that supports ID. And therein lies the crux of the issue. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, an actual answer. Now, why is it that you lot can't do that the -first- time, instead of firing off snide remarks that don't answer the question? If you spent less time trying to be smart-arses and more time listening to the real NPOV questions Charles poses and giving real answers, or adjusting your approach accordingly, you'd find that the crazies had less to grab onto, not more. Your attitude towards editors like cla68 undermines your position, not that of the pseudo-science-mongers. Wondering why climate change is having trouble gaining a 100% holding? You have your answer in your attitude. Teach TO people, not at them; respond to people's questions with real information, not abuse. No one said education was easy.101.118.54.86 (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is neither to teach TO nor AT people. The purpose of this board is to discuss whether fringe theories are being properly treated in the article space of Wikipedia. If those sympathetic to fringe theories are offended by this, that is not the concern of the people commenting here. One person's snide remark is another person's editorial opinion about what should or should not be done at Wikipedia. If you want to be taught about the state-of-the-art understanding about various pseudosciences or other fringe theories, there are other places nearby where you can inquire. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)