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:

Cult archaeology alert

This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries."[1]. It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. When did the H Channel change from trying to be truthful to trying to find a new low in pseudo-documentary? I remember when you could watch fairly accurate programs on that channel. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that the History Television we get in Canada was basically the same as your History Channel—but now I wonder, because “trying to be truthful” seems quite uncharacteristic of the former. Their schedule is dominated by stuff like extraterrestrial interventions à la Von Daniken; Bible stories; imagined combat between, say, Vikings and samurai; WWII documentaries that are mostly a vehicle for low-budget CGI of tanks blowing up; “reality TV” featuring various dangerous occupations; several series about finding, assessing & haggling over antiques & curios … Not to say they don’t carry any worthwhile historical programmes, but these are pretty few & far between.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They are probably concerned about these numbers. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet Supposedly ~2007 but I could have sworn it was earlier. (Edit: did not intend a pun on the previous user's username!) a13ean (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a funny image, but I would criticize it for not emphasizing Hitler in the first five years, too. The H Channel was, during that time when I was watching it the most, what my wife called "All Hitler, All The Time".™ Ask her, she'll back me up. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Scott has his own page Scott F. Wolter. He seems to be a 'theorist' of the Kensington Rune Stone. Oh, and the Knights Templar were involved,... but I guess that goes without saying really. [2] Paul B (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would the Mayas not have visited Georgia? Is it a big deal whether they did or didn't? Of course the programme sounds like rubbish and shouldn't be used as a source in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it even means for the "Mayas" to "visit" Georgia (one has an image of Mr and Mrs Maya on holiday). Of course some form of trading contact is not especially unlikely, but it's just that the Mayans, like the Knights Templar, tend to carry with them all sorts of emblematic significance, which makes boring tangental trading links turn into Something Really Meaningful That Changes Our Whole View of History. Paul B (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if this man's page actually said what his qualifications are (if any). Does anyone know? Deb (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find them on his company's website, which I find strange. I find the company strange too; at first glance it is a dull engineering company testing concrete, but then it is also involved in the Newport Tower and other fringe archaeology. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually at least as concerned about the Maya stuff. It's edits like this one [3] that I'm concerned about. How Thornton managed to get the History Channel interested in him I'm not sure. His book is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now an edit war in which a new account, who appears to be claiming to be Wolter himself, is removing all criticism. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've raised him at COIN and he says he's complaining to Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And now warned him about 3RR after his 3rd revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, if that really is him, his comments indicate that he's not exactly a rocket scientist (in addition to not being an archaeologist). Deb (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts as to who this anon contributor might be? Deb (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rod (optics)

Claims that rods have been "discovered" in Malaysia published a few days ago in a Malaysian newspaper have been added as "new information" to the article. I believe this material was added in good faith, so I've left it in, slightly expanded for context. However after carefully reading the story, I find its claims to be wildly uncharacteristic of a WP:RS reliable source. It states as fact that "rods" have never been physically or scientifically explained, that insects have no ability to turn at extreme speed, and names someone called "Matthew Lazenby @ Jigger" as the discoverer of such wisdom. My instinct at this point is to remove this questionable "report" from the article, but I can't tell if the source, dailyexpress.com, is actually a reliable source, or the Malaysian equivalent of the Weekly World News. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be reliable for general news, but newspapers are poor sources for science at the best of time, but properly that's an issue for another board. I think we can assume that Mr Lazenby@Jigger did actually photograph the rods and make the claims he is reported to have done. I'm inclined to leave it in because it gives an insight into the attitudes of crypotozoologists about this phenomenon. The rational explanation for Rods is explained clearly enough. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to ignore it in preference to Mr Lazenby@Jigger's apparent belief that a colony of Rods are living in an Indonesian cave is free to do so. You can take a reader to the Pierian Spring, but you can't make them drink. Paul B (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the consistent major grammatical errors in the Daily Express story bother me. They indicate a bad English translation of some other language, probably Malay. Who knows what original meanings have been altered by these errors? I would tend to consider it, on the whole, unreliable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Crop circles

The article Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has, for as long as I can remember, been a battleground. Every time we pare it back to reflect the views of the reality-based community (circles are almost all man-made as pranks, those which are not have prosaic explanations), along come the "cereologists" to promote the idea that the scientific consensus view is in some way controversial - what Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. described as "the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it."

Latest problem user is Stochastikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia other than to try to boost the paranormal side in the crop circle article.

I am now warning him that per previous consensus, continuing in the same vein may get him topic-banned form crop circle and potentially any other article on fringe science or pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This raises another, broader issue. What do we do with pages that are an attractive nuisance for True Believers? Most of the folks who hang around the Fringe Theories Noticeboard are interested in how Wikipedia handles many different pseudoscience topics but are not particularly eager to make a career out of one particular page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is but the symptom of a deeper phenomenon. Think of it this way:

• Inherently, Wikipolicies encourage both openness and the expenditure of effort. Hence UFO, free energy, crop circle advocates etc. are free to edit, regardless of how many beers they have had that night.

• As the number of articles increase, less and less of these articles can be watched by the 3,000 or so high frequency editors, and the 30,000 or so mid frequency editors. That ratio has plummeted by over 300% since 2007. In fact the drop is 340% (3.2 / 0.92) for the high frequency editors, per number of Wikipages.

• Rfc/U attempts are very time consuming, so only the most extreme cases get handled.

Unless something changes (and I do not know how) fringe will walk in by persistence. It is a simple ratio-based fact. There at least 500 fringe topics (but over 1,000 is more realistic) and dozens of people around the world who support each fringe item. That means that in time 5,000 fringe advocates may show up, at least. The blood sweat and tears to leave them WP:OR messages is just not there, as 30,000 new articles get added every month There was some fellow who kept saying that the Chinese pyramids are Turkish, and he may yet add that all over the place - there are just not enough editors to watch over him. And I do not know of a solution that can be agreed to by the community at large. History2007 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I agree. I keep running into fringe stuff I never heard of in my field of interest (archaeology), such as the Leveratto stuff above, and I'm considered to be a bit of an expert on this. For those who have the time, User:AlexNewArtBot can be useful, I'll be monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchaeologySearchResult for instance. And the last RfC/U case you and I were involved in was successful beyond expectations, but Paul Bedson's threat to sock will be difficult to combat. Back to cooking Christmas dinner now. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the last Rfc/U worked, but because the three of you spent so much effort on it - I spent very little time on there, however. And the fact is that there is no way in the world 5,000 Rfc/Us can be performed for all the up and coming fringe lovers, and their sockpuppets. And let us remember that the effort to monitor paid advocacy by PR firms is diluting conscientious editor resources - not to mention all the BLP issues that eat time like Pac-man, etc. So there is a serious shortage of editor resources.

As a social experiment Wikipedia has been widely successful in getting information on "less than controversial" common knowledge topics such as cities, rivers, lakes, etc. But along with the openness came the fringe advocates. That may be part of the nature of crowd-sourced open systems. I do not know how that can be avoided now. I am not even sure if WMF or the highly active Wikipedians have any possible solution to this, or that in the midst of all the paid-advocacy issues this problem is even within their attention span. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of the web and the blogosphere, wikipedia is a great success in keeping fringe stuff under control. I think we're doing ok Bhny (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, we certainly are doing well. On the other hand, watching trends, predicting future problems and trying to head them off at the pass is a Good Thing. On the third hand, prediction is hard; if someone had described Wikipedia to me and asked if I thought it would work I would have predicted failure with the vandals and trolls and spammers destroying everything, as happened on USENET.

The best thing to do is to keep using this noticeboard to bring attention to any problem articles, continue dealing with fringe pushing editors as we have been doing, and keeping an eye out and commenting on any policy changes that may may this easier or harder. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My post was probably getting somewhat off topic for this board, whose aim is to alert people. Yet, I think it is good to have a big picture as one does things. So I will stop now, after pointing out a couple of issues. Regarding Bhny's comment, yes, Wikipedia is absolutely better than the chaos called the websphere where Elvis is still alive and making crop circles. But I do not have (and do not know of anyone who does) any idea of how rampant fringe is within Wikipedia and how it will compares to tightly managed systems such as Quora. Only time will tell. Regarding Guy's point about persisting on this board, I totally support any effort to fend off fringe. Yet I think we do need to be realistic. So again, only time will tell, but I have for long hoped (and suggested on WP:VP, etc.) for much less tolerance for fringe, and faster expulsion via "rapid Rfc/U" for persistent fringe editors. But one thing I am ready to bet on: given the diverse nature of editor views, major Wiki-policy changes are pretty hard to implement now. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a project?

I wondering if it might be helpful to create a fringe theory wikiproject under whose auspices this noticeboard would then be placed, and which could tag articles as being under its purview. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience appears to partially fit the bill, but it's only semi-active. A lot of fringe theories (e.g. JFK conspiracy theories, theories about Masons secretly ruling the world) aren't pseudoscience, exactly, so the project doesn't have the same scope as this board. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if a new flag and national anthem will do anything as long as there are too few people - Luxembourg is no threat to anyone. The challenge is having more sober people than fringers. Here are your active members anyway. Now, how many fringers are out there? History2007 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes about 3-4 editors to undo the damage caused by a single fringe-proponent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum, case in point ... Given the current laid back policies, there is just no way to stop them without blood, sweat and tears. No way... History2007 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience wikiproject does include some very active editors - the problem is that nowadays there is little work which needs coordinating in the way that many other projects work. Editors dealing with pseudoscience either work solo or they discuss issues on noticeboards like this one - so the project pages are relatively quiet. Not dead; just sleeping. If we do need to use a wikiproject, use the Pseudoscience wikiproject instead of creating a new one... bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe archaeology AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeira Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroglyphs of Quiaca
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruins of Miraflores
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinth City
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinchera Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ixiamas Fortress

Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I've edited your post above as {{user|186.115.57.7}} allows direct access to contributions. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archeologo40. I've found another account and more IPs. One editor used a photo one minute after Leveratto uploaded it. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten about the "|" trick. (Insert off-topic rant about every website coming up with a different "simplified" alternative to real HTML and then expanding it until it is more complex than HTML here...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Domicile (astrology)

Yet another astrology fork: Domicile (astrology) - and the only source cited is a entirely unremarkable website [4] with no indication of why it should have any particular credibility, even to the 'believers'. If 'domicile' in this context means something different from 'House (astrology)', it is unclear, and the latter article at least cites a few more sources. I can see no reason why the former article couldn't be merged into 'house' - or at least, the parts from 'domicile' which can actually be sourced to something better than 'some bloke on the internet'. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have lain dormant in the literature until a 1996 translation of Initiation Astrologique, a posthumous work by Papus published in 1920. You can see here that this system is documented there. I've found a very few earlier references that suggest association between the planets and particular signs, and there are other books published earlier in the 1990s which seem to use the same terms, but this is the first work I see that really lays out the system. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to not meet the requirements in WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The single source provided is insufficient, but the concept has been pretty widely discussed in astrological literature—albeit not always using the term “domicile”. AIUI it has nothing to do with houses—as the lead does indicate—but with the supposed affinities or antipathies between planets and signs.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gérard Encausse/Papus

First, I'm inclined to move this bio back to Papus given that this is the common name used to refer to this seminal hermeticism proponent. Second, the article is rather sad, and is at present dominated by a "just-so" story about how he predicted the death of Tsar Nicholas II. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The 2006 move has the following comment: "Moved Papus to Gerard Encausse: Encausse is most often referred to by his civil name rather than his magical motto." The default is to call people by their actual name. We need a good reason before we use a magical nickname. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the move comment is incorrect. A quick Google showed about four times as many hits on his nom de plume as on his legal name. Also, here we have an obituary from the British Medical Journal [5] which states that "He was better known by his adopted name of 'Papus' than by his own." Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

A few extra eyes on James H. Fetzer would be appreciated as there have been a few recent attempt to add unreliable and primary source material to the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution history of today's editor in this article, ISP 24.177.119.16, indicates Fetzer is editing his own article again. (diff) Location (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics

Psychotronics was recently (re)created following an Articles for Creation request, and apparently translated from the Spanish although the Spanish article is a lot shorter. From a (very) quick glance, it looks OK with properly formatted references etc. But it's appallingly badly written, filled with typical fringe bollocks and, most importantly, draws on a host of sources which I don't think are likely to be held up to be reliable. Some of the sources are published books but, for example, published by "The Theosophical Publishing House".

I feel the entire article is beyond salvation and just needs deleting as fringe-cruft, but am getting bogged down in trying to work out what is reliable, if anything.

Perhaps someone else could take a look at it? GDallimore (Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. I removed a few unreliable sources and the information that was attributed to them. Lots more to do. Location (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is is mostly WP:OR based on sources that are either irrelevant, misused, summarized in badly fractured English, or blatant mind control conspiracy fringe websites like "mindjustice.org". Reminds me a lot of Ethereal Being. WP:TNT applies here, the best thing to do would be to restore the original redirect to parapsychology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also from the same user: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MindGuard_(software). - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. Not worth wasting time over. AFD, and watch it WP:SNOW, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Having gone through the full list of 54 references cited, I actually found two reliable ones which give an interesting perspective on the history of psychotronics. I've tried to salvage the article for now. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [6], and its unreliable references 127-129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia. I disagree to GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!..--Paritto (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article indicates some of the problems with an over-rigid reliance on the - understandable - approach that only "officially" reliable sources should be used. It attributes psychotronics to a Canadian doctor. The real history is not difficult to uncover. The problem is that much of it is only citable to parapsychological literature or supportive books about it. The concept was created by cold-war Czech researchers as part of an attempt to create a "materialist" form of parapsychology with machinery that would direct "psychokinetic" and other such supposed activity. It appears that some of these techniques were linked to non-mystical ideas about mind-body interaction, which is partly because of the anti-religious bias and philosophical materialism of Marxism, but it also fed into the development of western psychiatry moving away from Freudian ideas. It's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a 1st paragraph about Zdeněk Rejdák, so I hope it now has the "real history" Bhny (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic comment moved to my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lane (author)

A statement in Mark Lane (author) reads:

After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment.

In this context, "ignored", means "intentionally disregarded", implying that the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence regarding the assassination of JFK. I have attempted in different ways to change "ignore" to "not interviewed" or attribute the term "ignored" to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success. Good luck finding information on Kiel to determine if he is an expert on Hoover, but from the snippets that can be gleaned within GoogleBooks, the book does appear to be conspiracy oriented. [Edit: All I can find on Kiel is that he "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio".] Ideas on how this should be addressed? Location (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No conceivable source could possibly support using "ignore" instead of "not interviewed". "Not interviewed" is factual and encyclopedic (assuming of course that the sources say they were not interviewed), but "ignored" implies a value judgement -- it implies that they should have been interviewed. Wikipedia can report that source X says that they should have been interviewed, but we cannot present what is essentially an opinion in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an established fact. I am going to check the references again and then change it to "not interviewed". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made that change, but I can see that there are a lot more issues with that page. I suggest filing a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Be sure to carefully read the Guide for Participants at the top) and see if it can be resolved that way. (Note: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at DRN, but of course I won't be working this case because I am not an uninvolved editor) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the Bold change was made, Reverted, and now a Discussion has been initiated (although why it was started in this venue I do not understand). The cited source states this:

After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission.

The source uses the word "ignored", thereby conveying reasoned intent (as opposed to simply overlooking some witnesses by chance), whereas your proposed change conveys something completely different, and thus would require a citation to a different reliable source. We don't cite a source that says one thing, yet convey something completely different in our Wikipedia article. The Kiel source does not appear to be "essentially an opinion" piece on its face, so I must assume you are questioning what this source conveys due to the existence of reliably sourced information to the contrary. If that is the case, could someone please produce that source here for review? It would be a simple matter to check the source(s) that support the change you are proposing, and add that citation to the article. Alternatively, if you are questioning the reliability of the Kiel source itself, that concern should be raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Location was right to bring this issue up here at the fringe theories noticeboard, and his comment

"I have attempted in different ways to change 'ignore' to 'not interviewed' or attribute the term 'ignored' to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success"

Is accurate. I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits; if every day you end up undoing all sorts of bogus info inserted into political articles by POV pushers, you might end up treating non-political editors who are just trying to deal with fringe theories on Wikipedia the same way.

In essence what we are being asked to accept here is the fringe views contained in a book with "How the Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup" in the title being presented in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts. This is exactly the sort of thing this noticeboard was created to deal with.

I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. Am I wrong in my conclusions above? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "ignored" is a major problem. It does have negative connotations, but I don't think it necessarily implies active intention. It might imply sloppiness, lack of time, or indeed sensible selection of people based on the relevance of their evidence. I am concerned about the book itself (published by something called "university Press of America", which offers a "streamlined" decision making on publication [7]. Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. That's almost never the case. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found a direct interview with Lane which starts here and runs on for some pages. Lane certainly says that the commission ignored some of what some witnesses said, and de Antonio says that they (in doing the film the two of them worked on) found "whole worlds that the Warren Commission missed" (p. 176) and found a witness that the commission supposedly said doesn't exist. My impression is that their condemnation of the commission's work in gathering evidence is too comprehensive to be summarized in a choice between two words. On the other hand I'm very uncomfortable casting any of this in anything other than "he claims that" language.

Also, Kiel's book has next to no footprint. Of the five reviews on Amazon, three are gibberish. University Press of America is, at least if you believe this discussion from the fora at The Chronicle of Higher Education, a vanity press; I've found other academics who say the same thing. I would not consider him to be a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the post where User:Location started this thread, he (and I) have no problem with Wikipedia saying that Lane says that the commission ignored some witnesses. What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic making Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses, as he did here, even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. Having Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses violates Wikipedia policy on fringe theories, which is the reason why we are discussing it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to address an earlier reversion by Xenophrenic (who, incidentally, I believe was acting in good faith) that included the statement "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not" and citing WP:YESPOV: "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not". That part of policy refers to five principles to follow: 1) "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." 3) "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." 4) "Prefer nonjudgmental language." 5) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." If "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" is an opinion, it must be attributed. If it is a statement of fact, it is "seriously contested". While it may give too much weight to someone with only high school teaching credentials, I am OK with it's current version attributing the opinion to Kiel. Location (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already raised this on the talk page. The problem seemsd to be that Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources. But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles ... doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits --Guy Macon

Wow. You really went there? I'm going to remind you once, nicely, to please refrain from commenting on editors. When I'm not editing articles the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's or Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, or arguing vociferously against editors at the Conspiracy theory article who are attempting to legitimize their crackpot and extreme theory-crafting, I do indeed dabble in controversial political subject matter. That experience has taught me that when an editor can't make a reasoned argument about content and edits, and instead resorts to attacking editors, nothing good will follow. Let's not do that again, okay?

• Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. --Paul B

Correction: Xenophrenic does not seem to think that. Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact. See the difference? So either show that the (Kiel) source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or produce a reliable source that conveys different or contrary information. (You'll note that I already suggested this above.)

• What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic ... even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. --Guy Macon

Correction: No, I did not misstate Wikipedia policy. Policy says that we do not present fact as opinion (and "attributing" an assertion as "According to 'source'..." conveys that it is merely opinion held by that source). I see that you omitted an explanation of how I "misstated" policy, so I anxiously look forward to your justification.

• But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. --Paul B

That is an interesting assertion. I doubt that I would have taken issue with the attribution of information from Kiel if similar attribution was applied to content in the article from Bugliosi, Moore, et al. But it wasn't. And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of "common sense" here.

Please note that I share some of the concerns expressed above about the author (Kiel - not exactly widely published), the book (with its provocative title), and the publisher (a 'University' press not tied to a specific university?) -- but at the same time, it can be said that the source is from an academic, published by a specialist in "high-quality research and textbooks", and is heavily annotated and footnoted with an almost 100-page bibliography. You really should raise the reliability concern in the appropriate venue. Also, please note that the content under discussion asserts merely that the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons (and Paul B mentions several probable ones above), and does not state or imply that the WC did so as part of a "conspiracy to suppress evidence", as suggested above.

• I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. --Guy Macon

I would like to second that request. In addition, I would like to remind editors to refrain from making edits on the material being discussed while issues and concerns remain unresolved. If your need to edit war is that great, while an unconcluded discussion is ongoing, perhaps a diversion is in order. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: "And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of 'common sense' here." Given the hundreds if not thousands of very specific claims that have been leveled against the Warren Commission by various critics, it's conceivable that you will not find a specific rebuttal for each and every one. Do other reliable sources think the Warren Commission was acting in good faith? Of course. (Here is one from the HSCA.) It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

Also, if we are in agreement that "the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons", then the neutral words for that are "not interviewed"... not "ignored". The terms imply different things.Location (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

That is a contradiction you have fabricated out of whole cloth. There is no indication in the text under discussion that the Commission acted "for nefarious reasons". Perhaps you are reading too much into it? As for your linked source that says "The committee found that the Commission acted in good faith, and the mistakes it made were those of men doing their best under difficult circumstances", it also criticizes,

"the failure of the commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government" ... "the committee concluded that the Warren Commission failed in significant areas to investigate 'all the facts and circumstances' surrounding the tragic events in Dallas ... the committee made the judgment that the time pressures under which the Warren Commission investigation was conducted served to compromise the work product and the conclusions of the Commission ... The committee also discovered certain basic deficiencies in the capacity of the Commission to investigate effectively the murder of a President. ... The committee found, further, that the Commission consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators, choosing instead to rely on an analysis by its lawyers of the investigative reports of Federal agencies, principally the FBI and CIA ... the Commission did not take advantage of all the legal tools available to it ... failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted ...the Commission should have candidly acknowledged the limitations of its investigation and denoted areas where there were shortcomings ... As the committee's investigation demonstrated, substantive new information has been developed in many areas since the Warren Commission completed its work. In conclusion, the committee found that the Warren Commission's investigation was conducted in good faith, competently, and with high integrity, but that the Warren Report was not, in some respects, an accurate presentation of all the evidence available to the Commission or a true reflection of the scope of the Commission's work, particularly on the issue of possible conspiracy in the assassination. It is a reality to be regretted that the Commission failed to live up to its promise."

Your linked source acknowledges the very deficiencies conveyed by the Kiel source.

• if we are in agreement...

But, you see, we are not -- hence our discussion here. The neutral and encyclopedic way to convey what a reliable source says is to convey what the reliable source says, and not a personally preferable euphemism we devise. Please use common sense and good editorial judgement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the above request: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane .2F R. Andrew_Kiel. Location (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Xenphrenic "corrects" my comment above by saying "Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact." Then Xenophrenic is wrong- for reasons I have already given. If we requiore a reliable source to specifically contradict each individual assertion we will be in fringe-theory-heaven. This is exactly why I said what I did about your "apparent" views: "Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources." You have just confirmed that you believe just that. We cannot adopt such a mechanistic approach. It is unworkable. All you need is a generically reliable source - such as the newspaper recently discussed here on the subject of Flying Rods. As long as it has not been specifically contradicted, then LO AND BEHOLD, you can present the cave-colony of Flying Rods as uncontested fact - according to the gospel of Xenophrenic. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer. Xenophrenic is wrong, for the reasons stated by Location, Guy Macon and Paul B, and, I've reverted to the neutral presentation, attributing Kiel's opinion to Kiel. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested temporary full protection of the page so that the edit warring stops while we discuss these issues. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that this conversation be narrowed to a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission, with a possible expansion into a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe political views in general. Several of the issues brought up by Xenophrenic above are outside of the scope of the fringe theories noticeboard. I advise not responding here to these off-topic side issues even if you believe that they are incorrect. I advise instead discussing the reliability of the sources on the reliable sources noticeboard, discussing the content or the article on the article talk page, and refocusing this thread on a discussion of Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission and other political fringe views. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Editing at this crapola Discovery Channel exposé is threatening to pick up again. Really it needs to be run over with a lawnmower as I am guessing right off the bat that nobody in the field really takes the claims seriously. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Only a lawnmower? Did you lose the bulldozer? Zero^talk 11:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That Englishman John Wilkins invented the metric system

I am concerned that an uncorroborated 2007 interpretation of a small subset of the works of John Wilkins, a 17th century English clergyman and natural philosopher, by the late Pat Naughtin, an Australian metrication campaigner also known as Mr. Metrication, is being used (both directly and indirectly) to support the notion that the present day metric system was invented, not by the French at the end of the 18th century as is the traditional and mainstream historical view, but by the said John Wilkins in the mid 17th century.

My curiosity was aroused yesterday when I came across the claim in the "International System of Units" article that those in France who developed the metric system in the 1790s "used a number of principles first proposed by the English cleric John Wilkins in 1668". This assertion was not supported by the cited reference, which was actually a citation referring to a scanned copy of part of a 1668 essay by Wilkins, and a "translation" of it by Pat Naughtin - hosted on the "Metric Matters" website, the website of the said Pat Naughtin. I then decided to look for other links to John Wilkins.

Next I came across him in "Metric system". In the history section there I found this: "The idea of a metric system was proposed by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in 1668." This was again accompanied by a cite of Pat Naughtin's scan and "translation" of part of Wilkins's essay and also by a cite linking to a BBC video reporting that Naughtin claimed to have discovered, in an ancient book, that Wilkins had invented the metric system. This was now getting even more intriguing.

I also found similar claims, supported only by Naughtin's "translation" or the BBC report about it in "Metre", "History of the metric system", "England" and "Kilogram" and totally unsupported in "Lists of British inventions".

In each of those articles I tried to "neutralise" or water-down the claims for Wilkins's role, leaving the possibility that he had described a decimal system, but removing the (explicit and implicit) implications that he had invented the actual metric system of today. This didn't go down too well with another editor though, who came back with some other references. Each of the new references though, either drew directly from Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's essay, or indirectly via the website of the UK Metric Association (UKMA, a single-issue metrication pressure group) who cite Naughtin's interpretation.

I would like to hear the opinions of those here as to whether Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's work (and direct and indirect references to it) should be deemed to be a fringe view or whether it can now be accepted as the mainstream view on this important aspect of the history of the metric system.

The references:

• Wilkins's essay on Naughtin's website
• The BBC report
• Paper quoting UKMA
• The UKMA content cited in the above paper

MeasureIT (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't fringe history of science. It's amateur history of science that seems to be increasingly accepted in the mainstream. There is nothing implausible about the idea that the Royal Society would be interested in metrication, or even that Wilkins would have proposed a measure very close to the metre. In terms of Wikipedia articles, make sure that claims are not too strong and are attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is being seriously misrepresented. The only part of the Wilkins proposal which was enacted in the metric system was the decimal basis of the units; he specifically rejected the method used to set the length of the meter, and proposed instead a method involving a pendulum. The Beeb was careless and repeated unjustified claims which they could have checked themselves easily enough. We can cite Wilkins for decimalization, but that is all. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilkins also proposes the same development of linear measure to cover capacities and weights as was eventually used in the metric system. Taking his Standard as analogous to the metre, his Pint corresponds to the litre; more significantly IMO his Hundred and Ounce correspond respectively to the tonne and the kilogram, being the respective weights of a Bushel and a Pint of “distilled Rainwater”. Regarding decimalization, he actually expresses a preference for an octal system, but defers to “general custom” in proposing a decimal system instead. (I should note that I’ve only read the original monograph, so have no comment about what’s been claimed about it.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that people are looking for a yes/no "who was there first" , which is too simplistic to capture innovations like the metric system. Not really fringe, but do not go beyond what good sources say Itsmejudith (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We cannot use primary sources to cite who was first in developing this, we need reliable secondary sources for that, otherwise it is not only fringe, it would be original research. So as it is, this is unacceptable use of sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I am the “other editor” mentioned by User:MeasureIT. He did not have the courtesy to let me know about this discussion (I had notified the 3RR noticeboard about his behaviour shortly before he posted here). I would like to raise a few points:

• He used the term “universal measure” from which the word “metre”was derived) See Metre#Name.
• A Wikipedia article describing his book ‘’An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language appeared in 2003, a few years ‘’before’’ Naughtin publicised the chapter on units of measure.
• Many writers in the 20th century attribute the concept of the metric system to Gabriel Mouton. Mouton published his work 2 years after Wilkins
• Mouton only discussed the unit of length – Wilkins proposed defining mass in terms of a specified volume of rainwater – a concept also proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 and a concept that was used by the French revolutionaries.

In response to User:Mangoe, we can cite Wilkins for a lot more than just decimalisation – his proposal, apart from the use of a pendulum rather than the earth’s meridian and the use of a standard set of prefixes encompassed every other aspect of the metric system as first introduced by the French a century later. I agree that we cannot state that he “invented” the metric system or that he was the first, but we do not know how much of his proposal was taken on board by Jefferson or by the French and how much they developed independently of Wilkins.

All that Naughtin did was to publicise to the world of metrology one chapter from a book, the whole of which was regarded by philosophers is being a good first attempt at classifying many things in nature. I propose that Wilkins should be included in the List of British Inventions with a caveat that this is the earliest ‘’known’’proposal and cite reliable sources (of which there are many) that give the credit to Mouton.

Martinvl (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we say, as User:Martinvl suggested at the bottom of the talk page at [8] that if an academic copied an interpretation of Wilkins's work from Wikipedia and merged it into their own article and published the result on a reliable site, but without citing Wikipedia, that that is an endorsement for that particular Wikipedia article - an implicit peer review - and proof of the academic concerned rating that particular Wikipedia article sufficiently highly that they cannot do better themselves? MeasureIT (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context - in this case, the appearance of the factoid in summer school lecture slides is no good indication of academic acceptance. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say no in any context. If the material in Wikipedia had a citation to a reliable source we wouldn't be asking the question. Even if the academic is a recognized expert, his quoting Wikipedia while violating our licensing (attribution required) makes the unsourced statement very suspect. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the use of black and white statements like "So-and-so invented the metric system". This is the way of speaking that the media like; everything is the best this, the first that, the most wonderful whatever. It sells TV shows. We should use less hype. Wilkins proposed a system of measures based on powers of ten, which is very interesting, but he didn't design the other main features of the future "metric system". Just state the plain facts. Zero^talk 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The "plain facts" (to quote User:Zero0000) are:

• Wilkins proposed a system based on decimal numbers
• Wilkins proposed a system in which length, area and volume were directly related (no acres, no gallons, just units of area and volume that are related in a decimal manner to the basic unit of length.
• Wilkins proposed a system in which mass was related to volume via the medium of water (cw one litre of water has a mass of one kilogram - that was the original definition)
• Wilkins proposed a system which relied on natural phenomena, not artefacts that were in the custody of a king.

These facts relate equally to both Wilkin's proposal and the metric system as implemented by the French in the 1790's

Other factors worth considering are:

• Wilkins proposed calling his standard of length the "Universal Measure", which, five years later was translated in Latin as being "metreo cattalico" from which we got the word "metre".
• Wilkins considered three options for the universal length - the meridian of the earth, standard atmospheric pressure and a "one second pendulum". Given the understanding of science at the time, he suggested that the pendulum held the most promise which is why he suggested that method.

Commentaries by Dominus (2006 - United Kingdom) can be found here, by Naughtin (2007 - Australia) here and by Stone (2008 - United States) here. Stone's work was published in the the journal of the Society for Technical Communication where he cited Naughtin's work.

Those, as I know them, are the plain facts - hardly a fringe theory.

Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no robust reliable sources provided though in any of the few articles that mention it, and no sources aren't traceable directly back to Naughtin's 2007 theory or via the UK Metric Associations website to it. Hardly mainstream support is it. We should remove it from the articles I think, or word it very carefully to reflect the status of it. MeasureIT (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a university course where Wilkins is identifuied as a prime mover of the metric system. This site ranks the University of Alaska (where this course is given) in the range 301 to 400. Visist the site to see other universities that have been given the same ranking. Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says in a timeline, "1668 John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London, suggests a base 10 system of

measurement." Nothing about being a mover, let alone being a prime mover of the metric system. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Univeristy thesis. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like zealotry. If you have to do Google searches to find the most obscure mention of a subject (an upper-level undergraduate math class taught in the Great White North, and a public administration thesis on a highway signage project) in order to prove it noteworthy, it usually means it is not very noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Coppens (author)

I'm not convinced yet this this author is notable. I'm surprised at the number of links that have been found so far[9]. Google shows up many more.[10]. Even found Philip Coppens Dead (quickly deleted). His death may increase this. There may be times when it's appropriate to use him, but if anyone has spare time they might want to check some of these sometime. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now listed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Coppens (author) Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nexus (magazine)

He led me to this. Does it seem like a reputable publication to anyone else? If so, I may not nominate it for deletion. Deb (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you nominate it, you should have a look at the notability criteria for magazines [11]. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't see anything there to deter me. Deb (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question regarding an article on a magazine isn't 'is it reputable', but 'is it notable' - and as such, this isn't really an issue for the fringe theories noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's closely linked with Philip Coppens - his main claim to fame seems to be that he wrote a lot of articles for Nexus. But it's a subject area I'm not very familiar with, which is why I'd like to hear the opinions of people who are. Deb (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of googling, came to the conclusion that it is notable, so I have added some third-party references. Deb (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Can this peer-reviewed article be excluded on the basis of being "fringe"?

There are many published studies that attempt to use genetic markers to investigate past interrelationships of population groups. This blog gives a quick sample. In particular, the ancestry of modern Jews has been the subject of such studies and that is the topic of the article Genetic studies on Jews. The majority of studies, but not all, emphasize a Middle-Eastern genetic heritage of Jews, while differing in many details. Recently a geneticist Eran Elhaik at Johns Hopkins University published a study "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" in the peer-reviewed journal Genome Biology and Evolution published by Oxford University Press. The paper can be read for free here. The paper is notable in that it concludes that a large part of the genetic heritage of East European Jews is from the Caucasus. This matches a well-known but hotly-contested historical theory but is at variance with most previous genetic studies. It should not need to be said that this topic matters very much to people involved in certain political/ideological debates which, however, don't belong on this noticeboard. The paper was published only a few weeks ago and has received some press attention [12] but it is too early to expect any considered academic response.

A few editors, one in particular, are invoking the Fringe theories guideline and WP:UNDUE to completely exclude Elhaik's article from Genetic studies on Jews and other articles. The argument can be mostly found at Talk:Genetic studies on Jews.

My case is thus:

1. A peer-reviewed paper by a well-cited specialist in the field, appearing in a first-class academic journal, cannot be excluded as "fringe" except in the most extreme circumstances.
2. The minimum (and still possibly insufficient) requirement for excluding such a source would be that the paper is uniformly dismissed as fringe by the relevant academic community. That has not happened here. Though we can expect a debate over it in the future, so far the only comment which has been brought from another expert is that of an anonymous referee of the journal who said "he has been more thorough than most (if not all) previous studies on the issue of Jewish ancestry".
3. In particular, the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific paper disagrees with previous papers is never grounds for excluding it.
4. While there is no requirement for every source to be mentioned in an article, the fact that a highly reliable source disagrees with the others increases the case for mentioning it, in accordance with WP:NPOV.
5. It should be emphasized that the argument is over whether this paper should be mentioned at all. All that is sought is a brief mention of the paper and its conclusions in a few sentences without commentary.

Zero^talk 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A few responses to comments:

1. Mathsci: "Editors of wikipedia are not in a position to evaluate it themselves." — Agree entirely, per WP:NOR. This means we report it in a neutral fashion without judgement. Same as the many other genetic studies in the article.
2. It is a primary source for sure, but so are most of the sources in the article. It shouldn't be treated differently on that account. Actually a lot of articles on current science are largely based on primary sources and I believe that works pretty well in subjects that don't have ideological or emotional baggage.
3. Shrike's comments: Between you and me, I predict the choice of Khazar-surrogates will be the weak point that critics of Elhaik attack. But WP:NOR prohibits us from employing our own analyses like that so it isn't a case for excluding the article. Regarding WP:MEDRS, it is designed for a special reason that doesn't apply here, namely to avoid killing people by giving bad medical information. However, some of it is good advice for all scientific articles. Zero^talk 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Tritomex doesn't understand WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; my original point #3 is valid and covers it. Besides that, in his/her attempt to show uniformity of the conclusions of previous genetic studies, he/she is simply wrong. Consider for example Zoossmann-Diskin: "the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and [East European Jews] are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations", which is of course entirely different from most other studies (almost as much as Elhaik's is different). Those guys do not agree with each other; the article must reflect that. Zero^talk 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

At face value, it doesn't appear to be self-evidently 'fringe' - but both WP:PRIMARY and WP:WEIGHT issues might perhaps be of concern. Having said that, the entire article looks of concern to me, as based almost entirely on summaries of primary research, and excluding one because it reaches controversial conclusions might seem questionable. The subject is clearly controversial, and probably needs more input from uninvolved editors with the necessary understanding of the subject. You might de better to raise this elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He didn't found anything new really the connection between Jews genome and Armenian genome was already known.[13] "This could mean that Jews, Kurds, Armenians and Anatolian Turks all carry the genetic markers of ancient indigenous populations of the Fertile Crescent, while Palestinian Arabs and Beduin may largely descend from the Arab conquerors, with their distinctive genetic signifiers."

Its his claim that Khazars and Armenians is the same people and that Palestinian Arabs and ancient Israelis are the same are problematic and as geneticst I am not sure that he can make such comparison.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial, maybe, but it is ludicrous to suggest that a study by a geneticist at one world-renowned university published in a peer-reviewed journal of another world-renowned university is "fringe".

The content should be addressed by experts in the field referring to other sources on the basis of its merits. It should not be discounted on the basis of being "fringe".--Ubikwit (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This source may be a minority academic position. If it is then it ought to be mentioned in an article entitled Genetic studies on Jews. The article does not seem to be about studies at all, though Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source. Although published in a peer-review journal, there has not been enough time since its publication in December 2012 for it to be evaluated within the academic world. Editors of wikipedia are not in a position to evaluate it themselves. Mathsci (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that for genetics claims we should use similar standards to WP:MEDRS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it a primary source?

Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry.

It is a study that analyzes primary source genetics data with respect to two theories in order to evaluate the theories.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Two issues here.

• (a) The paper fits all criteria for high-quality sourcing, and objections to it as 'fringe' are pretextual, based only on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. Those who call it 'fringe' are confusing Elhaik's genetic theory, with the historical hypothesis it is connected to, namely the Khazar hypothesis or the Khazar origin of the Ashkenazi. Fringe theories are judged so when, over time, the evidence against them is such that mainstream theories exclude them, and this criteria cannot apply to new or recent peer-reviewed scholarship. The theory however has been clawing its way back from its fringe status in historical studies, as we see from recent arguments by the historian Shlomo Sand, by the eminent linguist Paul Wexler, and now by Eran Elhaik in genetics. This, Shrike, aside from the issue of science, also very much a TAU secular scholarly challenge to the reigning ideology of Zionism. I don't think we should believe either (both seem to me skewed), but the debate's complexities should be covered, rather than packaged to give just one side.
• (b)It is, as Andy Grump notes, a primary source. That guideline cannot be automatically applied to exclude the use of Elhaik's paper at Genetic studies on Jews, for the simple reason that the editors there who oppose its inclusion on other grounds, have found no objection to the many pages on similar topics which use primary sources. See, for example, these relevant sections in wikipedia's sister pages Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Ethiopian Jews,Lemba People, Medical genetics of Jews, Jews with Haplogroup G (Y-DNA), Y-chromosomal Aaron,etc.

Editorial objections to the inclusion of a new paper like Elhaik's might be taken more seriously if the editors opposing it showed consistency in excluding all primary sources from these sister pages and all others on population genetics. If you wish to remove Elhaik as a primary source, then automatically, all primary sources used in compiling the above articles should immediately be chucked out, which, of course will not happen. Therefore, to use the primary source argument uniquely to exclude Elhaik would appear, prima facie, to be a case of policy manipulation to erase scholarly evidence one dislikes. Given the circs, thus, should be accepted because not to do so would amount to the suppression of one primary source that challenges the conclusions of others purely on grounds of militant distaste for its content.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, the genetics data is just raw data, and this is a primary level analysis of that data.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I am sorry that I will take a little more space but as I am pediatrician with genetic specialization and as I participated in the dialogue I think I have to present my views. Contrary to Elhaik paper which is a genetic analysis using samples from Behar and al genetic study, there are 20+ genetic studies carried out on thousands of participants from each Jewish groups. All of this studies with one exception have concluded that all major Jewish groups have common Middle Eastern origin (as presented bellow) Our article Genetic studies on Jews presented only classical genetic studies Here we have one article (or analysis) which uses samples from one huge genetic study (Behar and all 2010) coming out with diametrically opposite results. Elhaik paper refer to Shlomo Sand book "The invention of the Jewish people" which is also considered marginal by many historians and the only scholar which responded as per proposed reference from Haaretz article was again Shlomo Sand. Haaretz states "The only scholar who agreed to give his opinion (and did so with great enthusiasm ) was Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand", while Sand is not even a geneticist. According to Elhaik he used "innovative techniques" My problem with this is WP:UNDUE. I do not believe that this article can present this paper as a classical genetic study, and as its results are opposite from all results of classical genetic studies, I believe that here we have a WP:UNDUE question "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well" More so, there are numerous other articles all in line with classical genetic studies, so to pick up only one article whose results are against all classical genetic study, to promote it to the rank of classical genetic (as currently only this genetic studies, related to Y, X, and Autosomes are presented) study and to present it in a way which would imply as there is a dispute between geneticists about the origin of Jewish people would be in my view WP:UNDUE violation.. Also,Elhaik paper was not published "just few weeks ago" it exists on web from at least summer 2012 as online document, and in numerous conspiarationist site as "evidence of Khazar origin of the Jews" however only few weeks ago it was published in specialized journal. Results of classical genetic studies: [14] Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora. [15] [16] Nebla and all "It is believed that the majority of contemporary Jews descended from the ancient Israelites that had lived in the historic land of Israel until ∼2000 years ago. Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture.In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews.. " [17] Anna C Need and al "Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks." Shen and al "A 2004 study by Shen et al. compared the Y-DNA and DNA-mt Samaritans of 12 men with those of 158 men who were not Samaritans, divided between 6 Jewish populations (Ashkenazi origin, Moroccan, Libyan, Ethiopian, Iraqi and Yemeni) and 2 non-Jewish populations from Israel (Druze and Arab). The study concludes that significant similarities exist between paternal lines of Jews and Samaritans, but the maternal lines differ between the two populations. The pair-wise genetic distances (Fst) between 11 populations from AMOVA applied to the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial data. For the Y-chromosome, all Jewish groups, except for the Ethiopians, are closely related to each other. They do not differ significantly from Samaritans (0.041) and Druze (0.033), but are different from Palestinians (0.163), Africans (0.219), and Europeans (0.111). Nevertheless, the data in this study indicated that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their geographical neighbors, the Palestinians." Naama M. Kopelman and all "We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. ... These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry...Jewish populations show somewhat greater similarity" to Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins than to the European populations, the most similar to the Jewish populations is the Palestinian population". Faerman "Ashkenazi Jews represent the largest Jewish community and traditionally trace their origin to the ancient Hebrews who lived in the Holy Land over 3000 years ago. Ashkenazi Jews are among the groups most intensively studied by population geneticists. Here, main genetic findings and their implications to the history of Ashkenazim are presented reflecting in a way major developments in population genetics as a discipline. Altogether, Ashkenazi Jews appear as a relatively homogenous population which has retained its identity despite nearly 2000 years of isolation and is closely related to other Jewish communities tracing their common origin to the Middle East." Hammer and all 2009 [18] In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood" Haplotype VIII of the Y chromosome is the ancestral haplotype in Jews. Lucotte G, David F, Berriche S. Source International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France. Abstract DNA samples from Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews were studied with the Y-chromosome-specific DNA probes p49f and p49a to screen for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and haplotypes. Two haplotypes (VII and VIII) are the most widespread, representing about 50% of the total number of haplotypes in Jews. The major haplotype in Oriental Jews is haplotype VIII (85.1%); haplotype VIII is also the major haplotype in the Djerban Jews (77.5%) (Djerban Jews represent probably one of the oldest Jewish communities). Together these results confirm that haplotype VIII is the ancestral haplotype in Jews." Behar and al 2006 [19] "Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry" L Hao and all "...The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry" [20] The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for making a human — and shows that the Jewish groups share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships. Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East. From there, groups of Jews moved to other parts of the world in migrations collectively known as the Diaspora. Atzmon and all. The study compared these Jewish groups with 1043 unrelated individuals from 52 world-wide populations. To further examine the relationship between Jewish communities and European populations 2407 European subjects were assigned and divided into 10 groups based on geographic region of their origin. This study confirmed previous findings of shared Middle Eastern origin of major Jewish groups and found that "the genetic connections between the Jewish populations became evident from the frequent IBD across these Jewish groups (63% of all shared segments). Jewish populations shared more and longer segments with one another than with non-Jewish populations, highlighting the commonality of Jewish origin. Among pairs of populations ordered by total sharing, 12 out of the top 20 were pairs of Jewish populations, and none of the top 30 paired a Jewish population with a non-Jewish one" "Each Jewish group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture from host population, while the split between Middle Eastern and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, occurred 100–150 generations ago, as "compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago" as the Jewish community in Iraq and Iran were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires during and after Babylonian exile. The main difference between Iraqi, Iranian and Ashkenazi Jews was the absence of south European component in this Middle Eastern Jewish groups. This study found that genetic dates "are incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs" Citing Behar, Atzmon states that "Evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin has been observed in all Jewish populations based on non overlapping mitochondrial haplotypes with coalescence times >2000 years" Behar and all 2010 "The results shows that most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster with common genetic origin, that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations..."The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant." In conclusion the authors are stating that the genetic results are concordant "with the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World" Priya Moorjani and al 2011 A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15], [38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39], [40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC Cambell and all 2012 "North African Jews are more closely related to Jews from other parts of the world than they are to most of their non-Jewish neighbors in North Africa, a study has found. North African Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to Each Other and to European and Middle Eastern Jewish Groups. SNP data were generated for 509 unrelated individuals (60.5% female) from the 15 Jewish populations (Table 1). These SNP data were merged with selected datasets from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) to examine the genetic structure of Jewish populations in both global and regional contexts (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The first two principal components of worldwide populations showed that the North African Jewish populations clustered with the European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups and European non-Jewish groups, but not with the North African non-Jewish groups, suggesting origins distinctive from the latter... The relationships of the Jewish communities were outlined further by the IBD sharing across populations [Fig. 3B and SI Appendix, Tables S1 (lower triangle) and S4], because the Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations." Beside this the current page do not have section for the "innovative techniques" as it presents only classical genetic studies which explore X, Y chromosomes and autosomal chromosomes. So my issue with this paper is WP:UNDUE. Excuse me for the huge space I took.Tritomex (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

None of this, which you repeatedly post on various talk pages, to explain your attempts to control article content on genetic articles dealing with Jewish populations, responds to the points raised.

'classical genetic study' is a meaningless term in this context.

• You cite the usual papers, in order to make a WP:OR construction that there is "consensus". Those papers frequently differ in their findings. This is a relatively new science. There is no "consensus" against which to measure Elhaik's paper's finding and declare them (see WP:NOR) "fringe".
• What is WP:FRINGE is determined by the scholarship, not by editors.
• Your use of WP:Undue shows you do not understand it, since WP:NPOV says all relevant points of view, of which Elhaik's is one, must be covered. The section you cite from the former doesn't apply, since Elhaik's peer-reviewed work, published in a highly respectable scientific journal, is not a "minority view" as much as a "new review" of the literature you cite, which points out numerous problems. Until geneticists come out and review it, we have to mention it neutrally, without regard to the issue of its as yet undetermined status within the field.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to echo Andy's sentiments. I believe it should remain in the article under the section "autosomal DNA", but definitely not in the intro. It should also be directly followed by links to critiques of his work by Razib Khan and others.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read the lead, which says 'Studies of autosomal DNA, which look at the entire DNA mixture, have become increasingly important as the technology develops', and therefore citing by name some examples of that approach is perfectly normal. WP:lede reads:'summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.' This is a prominent controversy since Zoossmann-Diskin, Jits van Straten and Eran Elhaik are all geneticists/microbiologists, and come to decidedly different conclusions from the unique ME-origin model, they and others constitute a distinct minority view which, since it should form part of a section, deserves summary mention in the lead. The lead in any case is vitiated by selectively highlighting without comprehensive and strong secondary source support, theories as established conclusions. Razib Khan's remarks refer to an earlier version of Elhaik's paper to which Elhaik replied.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jits van Straten has no credentials from population genetics, nor even from genetics and he is not historian as well. Considering Zoossmann-Diskin in this question, he is fully in line with the rest of genetic scientists as all genetic studies including his do not support the so called "Khazar Theory". It is very important to point out that all genetic studies (and I listed them above) have same or similar conclusions in this question.--Tritomex (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also important to show that academic books from population genetics are also in line with all genetic studies like Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA - Page 383(refuting so called Khazar Theory) [21] So there are no "two competing theory in population genetics" but an artificial attempt to create them. Regarding Genetic origin of the Jews, there is only one theory which is supported by 20+ genetic studies,(see the list above) and the Khazar theory which is not supported by any genetic study nor it is validated at any academic book from population genetics and as Bernard Lewis states in his book "Semites and Anti-Semites" P:49, "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics"--Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In population genetics it has not a single genetic study to back it, although over 20 genetic studies have been carried out on Jewish populations.--Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that there are only two useful conclusions to be drawn from this discussion: (a) the disputed paper isn't 'fringe', by the definition that Wikipedia uses, and (b) the Wikipedia article in question is synthesis, and should be deleted as such - it isn't an article about the subject, it is a collection of summaries of primary sources gathered together to support a particular premiss - that Jews share a common genetic heritage (which is self-evidently true , since everyone does) and that this genetic heritage separates them in an unique manner from other populations (which is self-evidently false, according to the genetic evidence, according to history, and according to good old-fashioned common sense). The article doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - though I'm sure that any attempt to rectify this will be met by the usual waffle about 'censorship', 'bias' and worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The majority of genetic studies in the article support a Levantine origin for the Jewish ethnic divisions, compounded with varying degrees of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry. To my knowledge, only Elhaik's study supports the Khazar thesis, and even he agrees that Jews have a considerable amount of Semitic ancestry. Therefore, the lead should stay the way it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article itself is a kind of coatrack article which compiles studies to make or prove a point, and synthesizing content to support a position. It should be trimmed radically or deleted. The article is more of a research paper rather than an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles don't try to prove something. They summarize what has already been proven.(olive (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

That the reason that I proposed to use similar standart to WP:MEDRS btw such articles exist. for example [22] so I think valid article could be written on this issue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the problem with this article is that its encyclopaedic reason for existing is misplaced. It has in fact been turned into some sort of attempt to prove or disprove that modern Jewish populations are related to the ancient populations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Consider however that there are only three other ethnicities that have similar articles (Tamils/Sinhalese, and Serbs), but neither takes this approach. Moreover, the Article on Jews seeks to not only to self-define itself, but redefine the discipline within which it is ostensibly located. Consider the following:

• Genetic studies on Jews intro - "This discipline is used to better understand the chronology of migration and thus complements the results provided by history, archeology, language or paleontology. The interest of these studies is to investigate the origins of various Jewish populations today. In particular, they investigate whether there is a common genetic heritage among various Jewish populations."

vs.

• Population genetics - "Population genetics is the study of allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes into account the factors of recombination, population subdivision and population structure. It attempts to explain such phenomena as adaptation and speciation."
  

Identifying that gene flow among the Jews exists is a bit of a no-brainer given the Jewish diaspora article.
No mention is made that Jews themselves are not united by 'blood', but by religious practice, which forms the basis of a converts' inclusion in the Ethnoreligious group. What is then the significance of these studies, and why are they encyclopaedic other than for the purpose of attempting to 'prove' that modern Jews are not 'pure' genetically, something they freely admit, and which is codified in the Torah! It sounds like an article seeking to define who is a Jew. Crock81 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the point I'm making. Your linking to a 'paper' not to Wikipedia and an encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article is very different from a paper which is usually created by suggesting a position, and then providing proof or support for that position. We cannot synthesize content, or provide support for a position. We are simply assembling information from sources that have been published. Tightening up the use of sources probably doesn't change the way this article is actually written.(olive (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

A single study that flies in the face of the consensus of previous studies has to be treated as a fringe primary source unless and until the consensus changes to include it, or until it is generally acknowledged as a significant and respectable minority viewpoint. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Human population genetics have 4 fields with major interest regarding "genetic evolution" and migration is one of most important . Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population. To quote Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University paper explaining the role of population genetics "Migration into or out of a population is the fourth and final factor that can affect its genetic composition. Obviously, if immigrants are genetically different from the population they are entering, this will cause the population's genetic composition to be altered. The evolutionary importance of migration stems from the fact that many species are composed of a number of distinct subpopulations, largely isolated from each other but connected by occasional migration. (For an extreme example of population subdivision, think of ant colonies.) Migration between subpopulations gives rise to gene flow, which acts as a sort of ‘glue’, limiting the extent to which subpopulations can diverge from each other genetically." [23] Migration, or Gene flow as it is synonymously refereed in human population genetics, together with natural selection, genetic drift, is the main mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time.[24] Gene flow is one of the main fields of interest in Human population genetics.Migration into or out of a population may be responsible for a marked change in allele frequencies (the proportion of members carrying a particular variant of a gene). "Immigration may also result in the addition of new genetic variants to the established gene pool of a particular species or population." As in the case of all ethnic groups, Wikipedia population genetic articles exists in "Jews" in the same way as it exists in Turks [25] Croats [26] Kazakhs, Kurd, Syrians, Serbs, Italians or almost every single ethnic group without many exceptions. Concerning "Jews as not being united by blood" the article never states such thing, the common and shared Middle Eastern genetic origin with the rest of people from Middle East does not exclude but include Jews, and as it is obvious from genetic studies this article covers both migrations, gene flow and admixture which exists among Jews as among any ethnic group. It is a fact that due to geographic distribution of the Jewish population, and shared historical origin their genetic origin was the main focus of this scientific genetic studies, yet this not unique, as this question is always present in HPG studies.

Although my primary concern was WP:UNDUE I fully agree with Mangoe as there is no genetic study or scientific academic book from Human population genetics which supports Khazar Theory ( and which was described by historian Bernard Lewis as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever.." ) Elhaik paper has to be treated as a fringe primary source.--Tritomex (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with AndyTheGrump, Nishidani and olive.

If the article synthesizes speculative analysis with the aim of proving a hypothesis it would seem not to belong in an encyclopedia.

Since the technology is evolving and there is more raw data than clear results gleaned from analyzing the data, why not just create a list page for people trying to keep abreast on what is going on in the field. --Ubikwit (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned about all our articles that use genetic studies to show relationships between various groups. Almost everyone I've come across has had editors misusing genetic studies to prove some point (and that doesn't include the editors who merrily change cited material ignoring the fact that their change isn't even cherry-picked from the site). I'd support any efforts to deal with this. In the particular case of this article, it's been hawked around from article to article as the latest thing that proves X - see for instance Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People and Talk:Khazars. Historylover4 (talk · contribs) and his socks have continually tried to include it in articles. Remember that just because something is a reliable source for one article (and I'm not suggesting this is a reliable source) that doesn't mean it's a reliable source for all articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Doug. The particular prominence given this article by POV-pushers, for or agin it, should not blind us to the larger question, which I think others have noted. Elhaik's article is, as a source, of the same quality, and RS value, of every other genetics article. It was singled out (as was Zoossmann-Diskin's) as 'problematical' only because it gave a different result from the standard template 'theory' which many other genetic articles could be cited as supporting. I certainly would back any effort to review what is going on, if it dealt broadly with the overall issue both Andy the Grump and olive raised. For the moment, however, we have a concrete problem: are we to withhold, exceptionally, Elhaik's article from a (dubious WP:SYNTH page), while leaving the rest of the article intact, though the other genetics papers there, as sources, remain unchallenged for what they are being used to "prove". Personally, I'm pretty wary of Elhaik's paper, as I am of Wexler's - these are very complex and fluid areas of rsearch - but I support the use of Elhaik's paper because I have yet to see why any argument against its use does not apply, mutatis mutandis to all the other genetic papers used in these articles. People opposing its use appear, equally, to have an ideological investment in a different theory, and a dislike of anything, however well sourced in terms of RS parity, which would contradict that theory.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Excluding a scientific study solely on the basis that the results don't meet with 'consensus' is perhaps questionable (if that is what is going on) - but excluding it because the results would be politically embarrassing is another matter entirely. Perhaps this is a matter for the fringe theories noticeboard after all - is our article actually a pseudoscientific synthesis itself? Reaching the conclusions and then looking for the evidence to back it up doesn't look like science to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Elhaik paper should be discussed in the article body and mentioned in the lead section. Other text in the article should be recast to allow its conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that also represent a type of unwarranted WP:SYNTH? Each new publication would modifify the kaleidoscopic (pseudoscience) article if you simply recast to accommodate each new hypothesis. There must be a better way to simply present the existence of research related to the topic in a manner that doesn't imply any conclusions.

Doug seems to have raised a more difficult point regarding the use of this source on different articles. One article he mentions appears to discusses the DNA analysis in conjunction with an analysis of related historiography. If the source is used simply to illustrate a historiographical point (as a minority academic POV), that would seem to be a different use than its citation in an article to support claim(s) related solely to genetics. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not synthesis to adjust other wording to accommodate a new thought, especially one that is contradictory. The article cannot present to the reader a conclusive thesis if there is a high quality contradictory study, which there is. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, generically speaking, yes, it can. There are studies that are published in high-quality journals by expert authors that turn out to be ridiculously wrong and serve no part of the scholarly consensus on the subject. Publication is not the be-all and end-all of establishing what represents a noteworthy counter-opinion. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the article should be deleted is ridiculous, as is the notion that the entire reason it exists is to "prove a point". The problem here is that it's a hot button issue. What I would recommend instead is raising the protection level of the article, and perhaps revising it so as to more accurately reflect a NPOV.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that brings the discussion full circle back to the point raised by ATG and olive that none of the published works (if I've understood them correctly) listed in the article in question represents a definitive scientific statement--all are hypothetical, primary level interpretations of raw data--and therefore the attempt to support any theoretical position on the basis of those sources would represent a WP:SYNTH statement.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Came to this late, but I have been involved in talk page discussions about this subject on the article talkpage, and also some similar arguments over the years when genetics articles have touched upon sensitive points. Some quick notes:

• I agree with the basic conclusion most relevant to this noticeboard that this is no straightforward fringe case.
• I did originally express agreement with the idea of being hesitant to use this article when it was still a working paper on ArXiv, and obviously a bit surprising in its conclusions at that time. See WP:REDFLAG, which is distinct from WP:FRINGE. But now it is published in a more final form. While it is possible to criticize this article, the same can be said of all or most others which have covered the same topic. But these are articles by the recognized experts.
• Some of the points raised above are very valid general points about the problems genetics articles give because of their dependence upon primary articles. But this is really a big subject that has been brought up many times. Simply: I do not think anyone is ever going to get consensus for a ban on genetics articles so we just have to try to be careful about POV pushing.
• In this light, I generally argue in such cases for short neutral summaries of all relevant articles (which is often only a small number). I do not think that this can be called WP:SYNTH, as long as we keep strict about not letting people remove reference to inconvenient articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A listing of all relevant papers with neutral summaries sounds like a reasonable organizing principle for the article.

What you have at present is several editors trying to defend the current form of the article against papers that would undermine the basic premise it presents by contradicting core assumptions.

Only one of the geneticist cited by Nishidani is discussed in the article, Tritomex appears to be arguing that the most recent relevant paper should be dismissed as being fringe so as to exclude it from the article.

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we really talking about several sources? I think this thread is about the new Elhaik publication? For example Zoossman-Diskin is discussed in the Wikipedia article unless it has been removed. To me this whole discussion should just be one about how to get the right balance (the short neutral summaries), and is being made unnecessarily difficult by parties trying to ignore each other's valid concerns completely, using wikilawyering in order to try to find a rule that will give them total "victory". If that stops, the main problems will stop.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it seems to me that the choice is between an inclusive or exclusive approach. Either apply MEDRS as Shrike suggested earlier, which would probably cut out a lot of sources currently in the article. Or include all the relevant papers. I still also see a problem with the scope of the whole article. Is it actually about studies on Jews, i.e about the scientific process, methodology etc? Or is it about genetics of Jews, ie the findings of the research? This needs to be resolved before we can see whether to adopt an inclusive or exclusive approach to sourcing. Is even the preposition right: on Jews, which sounds awkward and even insulting. The Nazis carried out research on Jews. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Judith has raised yet further concerns.

To recap, the discussion regarding the Elhaik publication (agreed to be not "fringe") led to a consideration of the article with respect to which its status was being questioned.

ATG and olive pointed out that the article was more like a research paper insofar as it put forth a conclusion and attempted to prove it using the papers cited, leading ATG to suggest that the article was a fringe piece of pseudoscience. So I suggested something more along the lines of a "list" format article.

Nishidani also cited a Jits van Straten publication in relation to that discussion. Why that is not included in the article at present is beyond my scope of understanding about the article, but it was presented in conjunction with the Elhaik publication.

Doug pointed to the question of the context in which the paper is cited with respect to its status as a RS.

I didn't mean to ignore anyone's valid concerns, and I'm not really sure what the wikilawyering and "total victory" references were about. I support your statement about "short neutral summaries of all relevant articles", but in this case, perhaps it should be pointed out there are quite a few publications already cited and the list is growing.

Judith's concerns address the scope of the article in more specific terms.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the name and scope of the article can be improved, and I think editors of the article probably would not disagree. The article was I think originally a translation from a French Wikipedia article and the title has always been a bit awkward. But shouldn't this be discussed on the article talkpage? It has been raised before, but I think that one practical problem has been that editors of this article have not gotten around to this question, just as they have not been good at getting to discussing many concrete editing proposals at all. Maybe if they would just start spending more time on making concrete editing proposals which are not rushed and knee jerk, things would go much better. By the way, community members interested in this type of problem might also want to look at Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jits van Straten has nothing to do with Elhaik paper and he is not WP:RS for population genetics as he is not geneticist and he is not historian too. There are at least two different yet combined problems. In population genetics as in most sciences there is no equality between classical (standard) genetic study on different population groups, using standard methods and procedures from sampling to to loci determination related to X, Y and autosomes and an "innovative techniques" as Elhaik described his article- genetic analysis of Behar and all 2010 samples. If there would be equality between this two approach, there would be no need for costly trials involving thousands of participants and months of hard work. As the current page covers only classical genetic studies, to promote Elhaik paper, (which is the only genetic paper supportive od so called Khazar theory ) to the rank of standard genetic studies (which are all telling the opposite from Elhaik paper)(see above) would be in my view WP:UNDUE violation. Elhaik on his website, goes further with innovations in population genetics as he promises anyone to revile if they are Khazars or not in return for money.[27] "Can you tell me if I am a Khazar descended? Certainly, if you have your DNA sampled genotyped for autosomal chromosomes (not Y or mtDNA). All donors who contribute over $50 to the project can also submit their DNA sample and learn about their Khazarian ancestry" So what we have here is a fringe primary source, telling opposite from all classical genetic studies using standard procedures, which was covered only by one secondary source namely Haaretz stating that all genetic scientists interviewed refused even to give their opinion on this subject.

The second problem is the Khazarian Theory which is itself a fringe theory. As this theory is attractive in Anti-Semitic circles although considered mythological by historians like D.M. Dunlop and Bernard Lewis, this genetic paper was presented in numerous antisemitic sites like Stormfront and similar. Also this paper was available on line for at least many months. Third as blogs like those of Rhazib Khan spotted, there are numerous factual errors in the article like for example the description of Hungarians as "Slavic people" To summarize, We have here a genetic analysis using non standard procedure which is concluding the opposite from all genetic studies and academic books from population genetics which uses standard procedures, in support for a fringe history theory.--Tritomex (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a much more concise and intelligible statement of your concerns regarding the "fringe" aspect. Thank you.

I'm not involved in editing that page and am not going to get involved, but it seems that there's work to be done. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Slightly off focus, but since extraneous points, which however do bear on the general issue, have been raised here, I'll conclude with a general note.

Jits van Straten has nothing to do with Elhaik paper and he is not WP:RS for population genetics as he is not geneticist and he is not historian too.

Tritomex. Jits van Straten has a Minnesota Phd in microbiology, worked in that field for two decades, is an amateur historian who did an invaluable archival study of the Jewish population in Amsterdam, from registries and cemetaries, and wrote a survey (secondary source) of the various theories, genetics, history and linguistics, regarding one, the demographically major, branch of the Jews. The work was published by a highly regarded academic publisher, Walter de Gruyter. He therefor qualifies for the article on Genetic studies on Jews, in the relevant section. That he has nothing to do with Elhaik does not mean (a) if Elhaik is included in Genetic studies on Jews, then Jits van Straten cannot be because he doesn't comment on Elhaik. Of course not. He comments on geneticists like Zoossmann-Diskin etc., who discuss Ashkenazi genetics and origins.

Your point about non-standard procedure represents your personal judgement, and is irrelevant.

Your attempt to link the Khazaria theorizing to anti-semitism is laughable. The Khazar theory has had a long career in Jewish and Israeli historiography, where no one, from Abraham Firkovich, Heinrich Graetz, Salo Wittmayer Baron, [Abraham Poliak] or modern scholars like Paul Wexler and Eran Elhaik cannot be tainted with that brush. The Khazaria theory died on its feet almost immediately after the establishment of Israel,(Sand p.237) as a taboo area, and your editing treats it still as a taboo, though it is simply one of several theories in a zone of great uncertainty.

Bernard Lewis's comments here are outdated, predating the modern genetic arguments, and the revived historical interest in this hypothesis. It was published just as Khazaria studies enjoyed an academic boom, which he failed to notice and indeed, just after Golb and Pritsak's groundbreaking work on the Khazarian Hebrew documents (which identified the Khazarian kohanim as converted Khazar shamans), and in the same year as Peter Golden's article on Jewish proselytising among the Khazars. By 1999 Golden, a doyen in the field, accepted that the dominant strata of the Khazar were Judaic, conversion had occurred, with the people adhering to rabbinical Judaism, and their contribution to Ashkenazi formation an open issue, though controversial, and inviting further investigation (Peter Golden, Khazar Studies: Achievements and Perspectives (1999) pp.7-58). The whole troubled ideological issue here is that of a clash between proponents on endogamous descent lines (genetics), and large historical evidence for conversion and proselytising of non-Jewish populations from high antiquity onwards (the admixture side, which implies ME and non-ME descent as equally relevant for genetically determined 'identity'). The former is linked to Israel's constructed image as a nation based on a "return" of a dispossessed people to its native land: the latter is linked to critics of Zionism, but the technical vissues have a validity that should override the respective political investments in "results" that confirm ideological partis pris.

It is true that Elhaik makes historical mistakes. So do most of the other geneticists, and Jits van Straten. That's the whole problem.

Take this sensible review of the massive study by Atzmon et al:-

In a sense, geneticists always seem to find support for what they set out to prove in the first place. It is small wonder that “Abraham’s Fathers” comes at the end of and completes a decades-long push by Big Science to legitimize Jewish claims to Middle Eastern roots. It is a splendid survey, the last in a long series, but it is not the final word on the subject. There are flaws both in the sampling and historical thinking.

That goes for every article, pro or contra. There is a glaring aporia between the cutting edges of genetic research on origins, and the most up-to-date historical scholarship on the various origins of this congeries of Jewish groups. The whole Ashkenazi/ME theory has to accept that there was a 'demographic miracle' unattested in human history, that took place between 1500-1900 in Europe. Elhaik, and Yits van Straten don't believe in miracles as acceptable elements of scientific or historical analysis. We are in an area of pure speculation, the research agenda are contaminated by sociological, political and ideological pressures (Sand details how a key genetic paper showing identity between Palestinians and Jews in 2000 was reformulated, soon after, when the Al Aqsa Intifada broke out, to repackage diametrically opposed conclusions, emphasizing their genetic difference (Sand p.276) etc, and the both methodologies and their results are too conflictual, from paper to paper in crucial details, for anyone to assume we are dealing with hypotheses that have been repeatedly verified, and have acquired both scientific and historical consensus. The very word 'Middle East' is used of an area as extensive as Palestine, Turkey, Iraq and Iran (Wexler and others see a Middle East origin fingering Iran; your own papers often finger Babylonia (exilic period) as the decisive point where Ashkenazi split off from other Jewish groups, and there perhaps we are dealing in good part with proselyte populations. So please desist from making personal judgements on who to include and who to exclude and respect the diversity of opinions in a fluid, inchoate area of research. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fusion Energy’s Dreamers, Hucksters, and Loons

Interesting article in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.single.html

Their conclusion:

"Given this history, it's easy to understand why fanatical devotees gravitate to unorthodox approaches to fusion energy, be they cold-fusion moonbattery or schemes touted by startup companies with more cash than brains. The mainstream scientists who've been pursuing the dream have left us with little more than a thicket of delusions and broken promises. And, if one is to believe them now, after six decades of work, the clean, nearly limitless power of fusion is still 20 years away. At this rate, it will always be." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nice article, and, from what I know, gives a pretty much balanced perspective.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  I never knew moonbat could be verbified... and perhaps it could be even renounified into a battery which fires moonbats... the possibilities are tantalizing... a13ean (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sphinx water erosion hypothesis‎

An editor here is adding material from Robert Schoch and removing material by Ken Feder[28] on the grounds that " Feder is not a primary source and is only repeating the opinion of someone else and is redundant regardless. Find a primary source such as Lehner is you want ot add to this topic.)" This is also a breach of NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this climate-change related and thus covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The article is essentially about a dispute between some geologists, who claim that the geological evidence supports their conclusion even though there is no archaeological evidence to support it, vs some archaeologists, who refuse to even consider the geological evidence because there is no archaeological evidence to support it. Both parties have a case, but their cases pull in opposite directions, and the available evidence is not conclusive either way. To the extent that climate change is mentioned, it refers to climate change some 5000 to 7000 years ago, where the climate change itself is not disputed just the dating thereof. Wdford (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

U-procedure and Theory U

Can anyone make heads or tails of this? I think something might have been lost in translation. Does not appear to be notable to me, but wanted to check here before AfDing it. a13ean (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure it out either, but it does appear to be quite popular: [ http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U" ] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I see a lot of stuff from the guy on it, but secondary sources are somewhat limited, although I guess having an MIT class on it counts for something... a13ean (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Management guff but not essentially pseudoscientific. A connection to Peter Senge might make it notable, as the idea of a learning organization is popular (but still management guff). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked at it some more; I don't see anything fringe or pseudoscientific about it. Whether it is notable is another question, but not one for this noticeboard.

BTW, does anyone know how to make links to Google searches work? I get

http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

when I type in

http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

and I get

"Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

when I type in

[http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just cut and past the whole darn url from your browser. [29] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)