Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

something to watch out for

Nothing major, but another rather amusing floating IP pushing the bizarre theory that various Indian languages are connected to Finno-Ugric: this proves, apparently, that the PIE urheimat is to be located in Scandinavia, and that "the Nazis were right after all". See contributions. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocates to Finland. I can't recall ever having seen a Scandinavian nationaist take on this issue before. Something of a first, eh? Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally a nationalist crank who is not from the Balkans, the Near East or India! My faith in humanity is restored :op --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've forgotten the Netherlands...Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean British Isles vs. "the Celtic archipelago that shall not be named". But that's not crankery, that's just whimpitude of the "how dare you hurt our extremely tender sentiments you imperialist" kind. Actually, I meant this debate. Wrong again, you Swiss person, you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ah, now I would just love getting my hands on a Swiss nationalist crank, that would pay for all the Indian and Persian soap opera. They exist, but thankfully for all RL purposes they are very rare. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands have produced at least one Wikipedian with a nationalism of the decidedly cranky kind, but that's a case resolved two years ago, with no sock armies come back to haunt us.

however, I sadly have the impression that our "Finnish" crank is in fact a Haryana expat. No Finn out to prove a "Finno-Ugric-Aryan" relation would pick Haryanvi in particular for the 'astonished fact' that 'the Nazis were right all along'. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Finland is nordic. Finland is not Scandinavian. Ditto for Iceland. - Hordaland (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. In the English speaking world the two are virtually indistinguishable in every area from travel/tourism books to the academy. If this were, for instance, the Swedish language Wiki then you would still be correct to distinguish between the two, but when we're talking about a part of the world in which Scandinavian studies includes the study of Finland and Iceland this distinction is pointless.PelleSmith (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. It's not simple for outsiders. Linguistically the Nordic countries originally shared a common language, which has gradually drifted apart into the closely related languages spoken in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. They are essentially "cousins". Finland has a totally different language and its peoples aren't related in any manner to the others. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty well known internationally that Finland is different. But people who don't speak a language from the Scandinavian family usually have no need to refer to the area defined by this common language. The Germans for example tend to use Scandinavia as a fuzzy term for the Scandinavian peninsula, often but not always without including Denmark, and sometimes excluding Finland. I think we also use "Scandinavian" as a kind of euphemism for Nordic occasionally, since the Nazis' enthusiasm for Nordic culture makes many modern Germans reluctant to refer to it. (This may sound ridiculous to you, but see Lebensborn and no:Krigsbarn.) Hans Adler 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Linguistically the Nordic languages are closely related to both German and English. If one goes back far enough, they probably weren't all that different. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The cultural and political history of the Nordic countries also ties them all together in a way that other nations outside of Scandinavia are not -- and that includes Finland (even if for historical reasons that Finns aren't particularly excited about) and certainly Iceland (which was settled by Norwegians). Consider also separately when distinguishing between Norwegian/Danish/Swedish and Finnish based upon ethno-linguistic considerations that the Sámi did and still do inhabit areas that overlap the current geo-political borders of Sweden, Norway and Finland -- see Sápmi (area). So ethno-linguistically there are in fact native peoples of all three of those nation-states who are very closely related. Of course it is also true that ethnic and cultural exchange has occured throughout Nordic history between all of the region's inhabitants, to come full circle here. If you ask me it is only a matter of time that the term Scandinavia becomes synonymous with the Nordic countries completely, even among Scandinavians. I think our entry on Scandinavia, is in fact overly cautious in this matter, and this is the English language Wikipedia after all. As I stated before both in the academy and in mass culture, English speakers understand the region to include all of the Nordic countries.PelleSmith (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

Mentioned above. Now in AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much fringe as fan-cruft for a few hard sci-fi stories but still agree that it should probably go. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus thing isn't hard sci-fi. Maybe fantasy... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL True enough. Regardless, with the exception of the Jesus one-liner this isn't a fringe matter but it is an appropriate AfD matter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The deluxe model comes with a free tin-foil hat.   pablo_hablo. 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So far Icke has not been mentioned on this article. Let's hope it stays that way Pablomismo.Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't tempt me!   pablo_hablo. 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE In a clear abuse of process this article has been recreated with the name Human disguise despite the recent AfD being a clear delete. The article is worse than it was before, and has been sent to AfD again - which doesn't link correctly to the previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just been accused of vandalism for requestion reliable sources for unsourced sections and paragraphs, and WP:BRD is just being ignored. Verbal chat 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I just posted a comment on the talk page. The entry is a mess of editorial synthesis and you are right to request sourcing. Of course I doubt there is any, which is why you are getting push back. Interestingly I've found several uses of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on Homer and Euripides. If an encycopedic entry can be built around such a concept it would have to be done from scratch.PelleSmith (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently some abstracted version of the Hebrew Bible is OK to use as a source -- [1].PelleSmith (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing. I don't think it is, as this section already existed so I added relevant information that it had been renamed and a new AfD had opened. Verbal chat 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Passage meditation

This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spam, advertising a 2008 book. We should also check out the merge target. Eknath Easwaran -- comes up with 74 google book hits, almost exclusively as author. Apparently next to no independent coverage, not even in bibliographies. Among the very rare instances of unrelated authors quoting Easwaran is Magic Power Language Symbol (2008), and The Aquarian conspiracy (1980). The only non-incidential coverage I can find is The making of a teacher: conversations with Eknath Easwaran (2006). However, this isn't independent, as it appeared with Nilgiri Press as the rest of Easwaran's books. Notability not established. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says that his translations are critically acclaimed and certainly they are selling well. 50 titles available on Amazon. So I would like to hang on until we can find out if there was indeed praise for the translations. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nilgiri Press is run by Easwaran's own "Blue Mountain Center of Meditation". This is essentially self-published literature. Without reviews from notable independent sources this stuff has no place on Wikipedia. here we have some "critical acclaim" (listed without any publication details). Perhaps some of it can be used. "Critics" listed include Henri Nouwen, author of The Inner Voice of Love – Huston Smith, author of The World’s Religions – Wilson Library Bulletin – Yoga Journal – NAPRA ReView – Library Journal – Wisconsin Bookwatch – Spiritual Life – “Book Bag,” Marilis Hornidge, The Courier-Gazette – The Hindu – Holistic Health & Medicine – Cosmos – The San Diego Union – The Book Reader – Book News Previews, Burton Frye.

I tagged the Eknath Easwaran article, but this does not mean that I think it should be deleted. This just means that the current revision lacks sources establishing notability. It should remain tagged (not deleted) until such sources are added. The Passage Meditation article, however, can just be merged into the Easwaran one. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I don't think we're looking for any particularly serious or scholarly reviews, just an independent indication that he is a major author/translator in the "spiritually uplifting" genre. After all, we have quite comprehensive coverage of romantic fiction, read in similar quantities and for similar purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

of course. Any independent verification of the claim that 100k copies of the book were sold should be sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns that some refs may be misrepresented by some editors at this article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have this under control. There is some WP:COI, but the editor is being collaborative about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag as I think recent editing is problematic and the article is still a mess. Please review, and offer opinions on the talk page. Verbal chat 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationist edit-warring on Creation Ministries International

Creation Ministries International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Worst creationist POV problems:

• describing a film by CMI as "unbiased movie about Darwin's voyage"
• Stating that it "has anti-Creationists ranting"

Other problems detailed at Talk:Creation Ministries International#Unsourced POV additions. The POV is so extreme that it even has one of the creationist editors there criticising it. I've reverted, but am now coming up against WP:3RR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help. Awickert (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting a neutrality tag on the article as well as general issues (for unrelated matters) in hopes it can catch a little more attention and I'll post on the talk page there. The film section doesn't feel right to me either, and if you look at the article for it specifically it directly contradicts the information in this article. The vast majority or resources listed are self-publication or links to the organization's own website. That's all from the outside that can be done reasonably... I'll link this discussion here on the talk page, also, hoping for more opinions. Datheisen (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess I didn't do anything because things seemed to be under control every time I checked. But feel free to leave me a message if you (plural) do need a hand, Awickert (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver‎

Can some people please have a look at this article. Floydian (talk · contribs) apparently WP:OWNs this page, and is editwarring to his preferred version and engaging in personal attacks on other editors on the talk page. The dispute revolves around the alt med use of colloidal silver, and using in vitro studies of silver (not colloidal necessarily, or of the alt med treatments) to support the alt med section. A summary of the alt med evidence base is also being removed from the lead. More eyes and opinions required, I find it hard to engage with the level of vitriol directed at othhr editor though. Verbal chat 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone from this noticeboard is inherently NOT neutral. Keep it over at the NPOV noticeboard. I'm not claiming to own the page, but I am claiming that Verbal is misrepresenting others to get their own way. There is clearly not a consensus for Verbals selective cherry picking of sources in order to present only the negative studies in the lead. A clear violation of neutral point of view to remove several sources in order to swing the weight to the negative source in order to put only it in the lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian should read WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, remember that any editor can respond to issues raised on this noticeboard. It's true that most regular contributors are keen to see a mainstream scientific view predominate over anything that could be seen as pseudoscience, but there is also commitment to collegiate editing, to good sourcing and to policy generally. If you're also committed to those things then you can contribute here too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a contributor. I don't often contribute since I do not know most pseudoscience, but I do contribute to those I do know about (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Homeopathy and this article). You are right that the great majority of regular contributors will have the mainstream view dominate the minority view. This means that they can quickly buddy buddy themselves together and overwhelm the minority or constructive editors who take to the opposing view. The summary that I removed was not the summary, it was a horribly worded piece of information from a source that I dispute the accuracy of that is intended to downplay the efficacy of a substance whose efficacy has not been tested. The summary need not include a contended piece of information when it can summarize everything else quite neutrally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what do you think an EM field is?Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An area that is being influenced/manipulated by wavelength energy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All energy has a wavelength. That's because all energy is composed of quanta of energy commonly called "photons". That's right - Microwaves, RF, Visible Spectrum light, UV, and Ionizing Radiation all are made up of the same stuff. The difference is to do with things like the length of the wave and, consequently the level of energy present. The more energy, the more harmful. Next question: Is RF more or less energetic than yellow light? Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, try arguing the points through, referring to policy and to good sources. You will find that most experienced editors are fair-minded and that you can learn a lot from them. But accept that you will win some points and lose some. When consensus is against you give in - I know that's not always easy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL I've been shot down, despite being certain I was right on more than one occasion. You roll with the punches, shrug and go well that's the consensus model for you. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not new to the wiki process. I have created and built consensus many times before, often agreeing to disagree (Afterall, consensus is through compromise). These editors are not doing that, however. Its their way or the admin noticeboard for 3RR (Which is easy for them, again, as I'm far outnumbered). I'm sure I could go gather 50 people with my POV and brute force my views, but then I'd be a politician and not an editor. I still hold to the point that this is not consensus building, its brute forcing a point of view by grabbing everyone that agrees with you and creating a "consensus". WP:NOTAVOTE applies to consensus building, and I've made plenty of points to which the other editors mostly offer moot points or completely dodge the subject (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Rather than actually answer my points, they just accuse me of things (See File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg, most editors are on the yellow section). Simonm223 is perhaps the only editor with the opposite view of me that has actually sat and communicated properly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am another editor that has been a regular editor on the colloidal silver article. Recently, a bunch of editors, including Verbal, have descended on the article, reverting sourced information with no discussion about the reverts. I guess Verbal felt that putting NPOV on the comment was good enough and how dare Floydian question that. I am not surprised that Floydian has reverted much of the "fly by edits", and am surprised that he has kept his cool as well as he has. stmrlbs|talk 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the cool that has led to the protection of the article, the accusing other editors of being "scum" that should "fucking" do what he thinks. Pretending that we haven't justified our actions doesn't mean that we haven't. He is editwarring and being abusive, and should now be blocked. Verbal chat 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to the sentence "Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website." Care to point out where I am personally attacking an editor? I make an accusation of POV pushing (Which is hardly a personal attack on a site with a core policy of WP:NPOV), which I am emotional with (Hence it being the "biggest fucking example"). After searching the colloidal silver talk, neutral POV noticeboard, and this noticeboard, the only use of "scum" I found is in your post, Verbal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I came in I saw Floydian trying to remove a referenced statement about the lack of efficacy of swallowing quantities of metal as opposed to (or suppelementary to) traditional health care. Considering what I know about the history of swallowing metal as medicine I'd say a referenced statement that doing so doesn't have a known health benefit is appropriate. I'd also suggest that people who want to edit articles on biology and chemistry should have a basic familliarity with the disciplines in question. This is something that certain editors have not adequately demonstrated. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to remove a reference in the lead, which is duplicated in a later section. This fully conforms with WP:LEDE#Citations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You tried to remove a referenced statement from the lede. That is rather different. The reference is being left in as without the reference you are trying to argue against the statement. Also please answer my question with regard to relative levels of energy in a photon of RF and a photon of yellow light. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article that uses physics to disprove EMHS... But that should be discussed on the appropriate page since this is for the colloidal silver discussion. I did remove it from the lead at one point because its very POVish to delete the sentence that says "it has an anti-microbial effect in-vitro" yet leave the one that says "This reference says no study has proven its efficacy, but we can't reword that to say no studies have been done in the first place to prove or disprove its efficacy even though theres no proof of a study that has indicated its lack of efficacy". I am not trying to argue the validity of the statement, with or without source, I am trying to argue the validity of the "reliable" source, NCCAM. The sentence still appeared in full, with citation, in the As an Alternative Medicine section. This is how the article is biased.

Besides, it was one edit, and like every other edit, was quickly reverted by an editor that never has and probably never will look at that article again now that their version has been quickly ratified. How many more off topic discussions and accusations will take place before someone actually sits down and discusses the changes made? I've cited at least half a dozen policies/guidelines that go against these edits, and the only responses I've gotten are "Stop attacking editors", "don't 3RR", and "maybe you need to be blocked" [so that I can avoid actually responding to you]. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It ain't over yet

After a preceding long discussion at the ANI here, we were actually able to have a constructive discussion at the article and made some progress, however, then an user called Wdford joined the discussion. Now, you might be wondering, what this editor is doing there, and I am wondering that, too. But that question aside, if we concentrate on only this article: Wdford is not able to approach the discussion with the required diligence. In the first of his series of edits, here, Wdford added a statement based on a fringe source, quote:

"The non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation is interested in clinical research about silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs."

I've repeatedly tried to explain to him, which this is highly problematic, my last long posting on this is here. Even Dhawker, who was banned from the article, advised Wdford on this on his talk page using his sock-puppet account, quote: "Trust me. You will never get the Immunogenics reference or anything remotely like it included in the article. This is a medical article so any references will undergo extreme scrutiny from many editors who haven't even commented yet."here. That, in turn, made it really easy to identify "Beaupoint" as a sockpuppet of DHawker, but if appears that Wdford does not want to accept that advise. He wrote today, that I would " even now disputes the fact that the IRF [Immunogenics research foundation] people are scientists, although their staff is packed with highly qualified specialists – whose only failing is that they don’t agree with Zara. I have nonetheless offered to remove this sentence in the spirit of compromise, ..." here. Certainly, the guideline *wp:fringe* is not about "compromise". Wdford has to acknowledge that people like those from the "Immunogenic Research Foundation" are not scientists, and that the addition of such material as 'science' to Wikipedia is not allowed, regardless of whether a editor demands it to be removed in a specific case or not. I don't actually think that Wdford will acknowledge that - ever. So, if we want to save the article from being used as a playground by fringe advocates (or people who are simply unable to distinguish between the fringe and the scientific view), each of Wdfords edits must come under close scrutiny. Considering what he has written, is is rather likely that he will continue with problematic edits as soon as the full protection expires, which is in 3 hours. I would take an immediate look then myself, but I've already spent the last night writing the request for checkuser concerning DHawker, and I might actually want to get some sleep tonight. Zara1709 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the people from IRF are not scientists. They are just scientists going against the mainstream viewpoint, but so long as they follow the proper scientific method, they are still scientists. I do believe that while the wording is problematic (Suggesting there already are medical benefits), there is nothing wrong with mentioning that IRF are currently looking in to possible medical applications for silver. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same people here? I mean those behind www.imref.org, you know, the web site, where they say under "About Us":

"The milieu or terrain of all living processes is an omnipresent colloidal state. The colloidal state originates from colloidal minerals. Colloidal minerals are minerals suspended in water, not dissolved, and they have three principle properties without which life as we know it could not exist. Colloidal minerals (i) form organized states between themselves, (ii) they structure and organize water itself, and (iii) they ignite oxidation and reduction reactions which are both the precursors to as well as the ongoing centerpiece to metabolism in general. In higher life forms and especially human tissues, the colloidal state is the causal determinant of either: (a) optimal cellular health, immunity and healing capacity or (b) disease. The war between health and disease is being perpetually waged through the highly organizing and energizing dynamics of colloidal minerals which give vitality and full capacity to the colloidal state. All infectious and degenerative processes become inoperative in highly organized and energized colloidal milieus catalyzing highly evolved redox reactions. All higher life forms evolved by harnessing this heightened state of oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), while lower life forms continually prove they are unable to do so. Once understood, the balance of power in this war may be reproducibly shifted to induce a disease-free, optimal health state." (imref.org)

Well, sorry, to be a scientist you at least have to be able to present your research within the frame of a coherent theory. What they write is just gibberish. Zara1709 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

I'm a bit worried about the list of signatories section. If nothing else, the academic backgrounds seems an argument from authority. Worse, in many cases, they're wrong: the list is well-known for misrepresenting the academic connections of the people on it, and it looks like at least some of it was copied from there. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, copied from where? Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute's original listing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was recently merged into A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism without any prior discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's because I prodded it: It was an incomplete list, and the information was, at the very least, misleading. For instance, consider the qualification given for Berlinski. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 13:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I was never in favour of the list in the first place. This was originally a category, the category was CfDed twice, both times closed against consensus as 'Delete' by an activist Admin, the first time I had the deletion reversed on review -- lots of bitterness, wild accusations and a partisan block against me -- so I didn't bother the second time around. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

this is a classic case of attempting to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for ideological/religious propaganda. The entire thing belongs merged into Discovery Institute, as it is a propaganda stunt intended to be "controversially" covered in media beginning to end. It turns out that there is nothing "Scientific" about the document at all, and that it is never discussed, even by people pushing it, in terms of any "scientific" points that it makes, it is all about the list of signatories. Unsurprisingly so, seeing that the actual "petition" doesn't make any kind of point other than expressing skepticism towards "Darwinian theory", without specifying the nature of this skepticism, or any reasoning behind it. It's a propaganda stunt for the consumption of the popular media beginning to end. --dab (𒁳) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

366 geometry

According to this article's creator, it is " recreation of deleted article made necessary because of new incontrovertible, easily-checkable evidence on the ground in new book by Butler and Knight", presumably Megalithic geometry deleted at DRV. Whatever, it is certainly fringe and could use some attention to make it NPOV and well written. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just about anything written by Christopher Knight should be viewed with extreme skepticism. He is best known for writing "alternative history" (speculating that something might have occured in one chapter, and then building from that, acting as if the something is proven fact, in later chapters). Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond me how you can use the internet to "check the facts" on prehistoric metrology. I was under the impression that the internet was developed in the 20th century, significantly after the megalithic age. It is also beyond me how people can waste their time writing books as obviously worthless as this. Well, it's probably more satisfying than just watching TV, but they could spend their time writing good fiction instead of bad science. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I cringe at anything that says "incontrovertible". That's like the ultimate red flag. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure where to begin with that article. It's full of wild speculation. The "incontrovertible evidence", as it turns out, is that anyone with the Google Earth software can confirm this ancient 366 geometry by looking at, of all places, modern Washington DC.[2] All of this is "incontrovertible evidence", by the way, "of the continuing existence and (secret) use of 366-degree geometry within modern Freemasonry". I'm not sure cleaning it up cuts it. Maybe remove most of the copy and merge it with the authors who have articles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The six secret degrees of the circle are the hiding place of Cthulhu! Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin is with the merge discussion. Someone started it but only one vote so far. Of course people might be able to suggest other merge targets and other options. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the problem is that authors like Knight and Butler have very good publicists... so there stuff sells. Thus, we can not simply delete the article... it may be pseudoscientific rubbish but it is somewhat notable pseudoscientific rubbish. Merging works for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

why should we delete it? It's classic WP:FRINGE material. It's just, we already have an article on this, currently located at pseudoscientific metrology. Just redirect it. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Say it in the merge discussion, dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

seeing that I suggested the merge, I suppose that already counts as a vote. I don't think there is any argument against merging, the question is just, which parts should actually be merged, and which should just be dropped. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is solid support for merging... suggest that the discussion over what to merge take place at the target (Pseudoscientific metrology) article. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald Howard Menzel

Menzel, an early UFO skeptic, apparently had his theories rather readily refuted, at least if the criticism section in his biography is any indication. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Started fixing criticism section. I can't believe that unreferenced hearsay evidence purportedly from Jacques Vallee's journal was included. This needs oversight. Rest of article still pending review. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the USAF report on mirages used to debunk Menzel may not actually exist; at least, searches in the Usual Places don't turn it up. Naturally there are hits at various UFOlogy sites. Looks like another case for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call on that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Peripheral to this James E. McDonald is weasel word central. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oy. That is just awful. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} Tell me about it. And it's way too busy at work today for me to give it the attention it needs... short of just stubbing the page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Having grazed across a swath of Ufologist bios, it looks as though there is an anti-skeptic cast to most of them. Sigh. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nine Unknown Men

Can some more editors add this article to their watchlist, and if interested, help source and de-fringe it ? I have been reverting the more egregious edits from probable sock accounts, but the article can use more help to make it encyclopdic and even establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The only person who says that the Iron Pillar of Delhi couldn't have been made is that racist, lying hack of a fiction-disguised-as-fact author Erich von Däniken. I have changed accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there a sentence in the article that is not "fiction-disguised-as-fact" ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Von Daniken holds a special loathing in my heart because of the underlying racism of his premise that any ancient non-europeans must have had alien help to do anything lasting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Tenth Doctor (and Martha Jones) episode "Daleks in Manhattan", aliens helped design the Empire State Building, so.... oh, hey, wait a minute, that's "non-Europeans" too, isn't it? Why don't we see aliens working on the Houses of Parliament, or the Eiffel Tower? Well, okay, it's been suggested that Stonehenge was an alien landing circle! (Keith Laumer, 1962, A Trace of Memory.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

excellent find! this links to a wealth of WP:FRINGE articles that had so far escaped my radar, Talbot Mundy, Louis Pauwels, Jacques Bergier, Le Matin des magiciens, Fantastic realism (literature), Planète (review), etc. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Dab and Simonm223. I must say that I had some affection for the pre-encyclopedic version, which was so over-the-top, it was hilarious. Guess, we are better off with the sober version though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Other (less direct) connections: Andrija Puharich, Uri Geller, Stuart Holroyd etc. Perhaps it is all connected. Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brilliant! This reads like someone decided to create the ultimate conspiracy theory, the compendium of all the conspiracy theories ever, and put it on Wikipedia. Extraordinary, and superbly entertaining. On a more serious note, it looks like the extensive cruft built up around Pauwels and Bergier could use some serious cutting and merging. Moreschi (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no blasphemy strong enough to describe such a perfectly bad Wikipedia article. It's not only the ultimate conspiracy it's also the ultimate in how not to write a wikipedia article. Weasel words, un-sourced statements, directories of loosely connected people, fancruft, pov stuff, it's got it all! If there is a hall of fame for bad article versions this should be on it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You ain't seen nothing yet. Start there and keep scrolling down. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Eeek! Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the sad duty to announce the tragic demise of The Nine Unknown Men: they have gone from this to this; and from links with Ashoka, Jesus, Louis Pasteur, Buddha, Nazis, Theosophists, Popes, Extra-terrestrials etc to 1920's fantasy fiction and 1960's counter-culture. What a sorry letdown. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

that's why the pseudoscience people hate the rationalists so much. Their own world is just so much more exciting. So many scenarios too beautiful not to be true have been destroyed and thrown into the mud by mere puny "facts". I ask you, would you be pleased if you sat in a cinema to enjoy the full splendour of a 3D movie with 22.2 surround sound to have some pathetic little man rip off your goggles and jump up and down in front of the screen shouting "it's all a lie, an illusion I tell you!" Of course you wouldn't, you would complain to the management and ask them to throw him out. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an active fantasy life. I write it down and call it "fiction books". Simonm223 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I laughed uproariously at this. Of course, it's so true. And indeed escapist fantasy is perfectly harmless, but to spend your whole life "plugged in" (a la the Matrix) is to miss out on something rather wonderful and fulfilling. It is outstanding how many intelligent minds are trapped in the sub-Marxist sludge of a previous era that really is terribly dated by now (and of course, useful as such fantasy may be to some, it has no place in an encyclopedia). The main theme seems to be the obsession with conflict: the so-called "repression" of AltMed by those damned scientists, or the repression of the Afrocentric truth by those Eurocentric academics - the inability to see that debates, disputes and humanity in general is not all one big zero-sum game. Moreschi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, The old versios is CLASSIC! Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I love the claim that Jews are really Hindus, but don't know it. That makes everything so clear! Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should institute an 'Emperor Norton Museum of Gloriously Eccentric Article Versions' (WP:NORTON for short), linking to the most baroquely fantastical versions of articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

an excellent idea, sir! This would be a worthy sequel to WP:BJAODN and at the same time a showcase of the work done by this noticeboard. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Putative energy breakthrough

There may be a claim that the Emotional Freedom Technique has a scientific basis following a certain study on placebo analgesia. See edits [3], [4]. Would someone care to read the ref and confirm that it is WP:OR to mention it in these cases? Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, DancingPhilosopher (talk · contribs) is really excited by this new Science preprint. Unfortunately, there really isn't any need to hypothesize mystical energies in order to explain placebo effects in the spinal cord. I had already done a rewrite of the edits he made to placebo, and I've now reverted the changes to Emotional Freedom Technique, which were indeed pure OR. Looie496 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cart ruts/electric universe

I've just run into a user adding links to a "cart ruts" site which is part of an Electric Universe site [5] - rings a bell and clearly fringe, but I'm off to bed now. See [6] for the articles with the links. Some serious stuff on these ruts is at [7] and [8] and there's an article in Antiquity Magazine but I don't have access. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to enlarge, the 'Electric Universe' concept is the brainchild of David Talbot taken up by Wallace Thornhill and is inspired by Velikovsky. [9]. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid directing people keen on inserting fringe anywhere and everywhere to build a Frankenstein, the 'Electric Universe' is the two T Talbott. The one L lama is David Talbot, founder of Salon.com. Hatchetfish (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DRV closing

The deletion guidelines, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, state:

“ Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

”

The closing administrator seems unaware of those rules. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is forum shopping, isn't it? Fences&Windows 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or canvassing, yes. A neutral announcement that a fringe-related article was at DRV would have been ok but an opinionated posting such as this one is inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibbs Paradox

After nearly 30 monthss of people expressing serious doubt about the validity of the article but not doing anything about it, I have reverted the article back to the February 2007 version.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dowsing

Just stumbled across the article on Dowsing. I don't have time to go in depth here, but a cursory overview shows that sources are being interpreted in their most positive light possible (or outright misinterpreted) in favor of the scientific accuracy of dowsing. For instance, here the article stated "dowsing may be ineffective at finding unmarked human burials," when in fact the author of the source stated that dowsing was at best ineffective and at worst harmful to proper cemetery mapping. Attention would be appreciated. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... definitely tilted towards the "Dowsing is legitimate" view point. The red flag is that there is a no section on "criticisms". Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It does certainly need an... overhaul? Kudos on the quality. Ironically, despite nearly half the argument being left out, it's still far from flattering with general fallacies in a number of places. I'll admit the lead is sneaky; gives a worthy source and states how science has explained it, but doesn't close the idea that it could still be inexplicable in some people. The things that aren't sourced look to be rather deliberately left that way, with how clever all the other wording is. I'm also not particularly sure how well we should take the list of "Dowsers" in the article. It would arguably be considered defamation to some, and only half of those other articles make any mention of Dowsing whatsoever. Even when mentioned it's never really demonstrated. No primary or secondary resources to back up a statement made in a wikilink trying to weakly canvass a fringe POV article? Man. This editor is good. Unfortunately, even if what can be figured out is all cleaned up, we're running into the increasingly-annoying subscription wall that means it'll be practically impossible to see the actual context. Could be fun to pick apart... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised considering the number of well-known pushers of fringe POV in the edit history. Some of them are extremely devious and very experienced at wikilawyering. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Topological computing

This article, which I just discovered because its main author tried to add related material to one of the articles I watch, is nothing but nonsense. It appears to be based on the ideas of somebody named G.A. Kouzaev, with all the important sources taken from obscure publications. For all the sense this article makes, it could just as well be a hoax, though I doubt that it is. I am inclined to remove all of the incomprehensible sentences, but it doesn't seem like there would be anything left -- I wonder what others think? Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article looks very dubious to me. The lead is content free. It's conceivable that some theoretical considerations have used topological concepts in relation to quantum computers (which themselves are only dreams atm), so I'm not going to declare "hoax", but it's a good possibility. I wonder if a question at WT:WikiProject Physics would help. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a solid IEEE Spectrum hit on it (see here) so it is probably legit in some sense, but it obviously needs review from an expert. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The theory doesn't seem blatantly illegitimate (just a bit suspicious about "brain"), but the grammar and citation formatting are wretched, and poor English skills can't excuse the bad citing. Give it a while to let the editor do hir own cleanup, then push. A quantum-savvy and Russian-capable mentor might be handy here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

the topic is potentially valid. However, it has nothing to do with quantum computing. I understand that it is a hypothetical method of employing certain features of Classical Electrodymamics for computation that never really went anywhere. The--just as hypothetical--extension to quantum computing is discussed at Topological quantum computer. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Topological quantum computer is at least capably written and formatted. I've added "See also" sections to both articles, pointing them at each other, in the (probably futile) hope they'll cooperate and both articles will improve, rather than the links merely disappearing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that these are actually different topics. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

They do heavily overlap, but are not strictly identical. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much overlap at all. I confess myself ignorant of braid theory, but if the topological features of anyons map in any significant ways to the topology of the Maxwell equations, the fact isn't exactly established by either article.

Whoever wrote Topological computing clearly didn't have the first clue what they were on about. Also, "spatio-time" isn't a word. Space-time is, and spatio-temporal its pertaining adjective, but the author back-formed a "spatio-time" from that. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ESL at work there, I think. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Skip sievert and economics

background: I recently blocked Skipsievert (talk · contribs) indefinitely for continued disruptive POV-pushing. The essential background to Skip's edits appear to have been a technocratic POV. This covers a wide range of articles, some of which look to be covered by WP:FRINGE: see Technocracy Incorporated, Technate, energy accounting, thermoeconomics, Economics and energy, and probably quite a lot more if you have the energy to dig through his contributions. There appear to have been many others now redirected into the Technocracy Incorporated article. This could use some work from someone with more interest and knowledge than I have, in collaboration with WP:ECON, whose members are highly relieved that Skip has left the building. Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

wow. I wasn't aware that there is an entire crackpot movement surrounding the notion of "technocracy". --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Flanagan

If anyone has any knowledge of this person could they help with the article, which except for a few things is basically based on his website(s). Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

General relativity and User:Softvision

Softvision (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to argue for certain aspects of General Relativity to be incorrect. Could someone take a look as his recent contributions and figure out the best way to explain to him what the problem is with the way he's trying to work with the encyclopedia? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect to accomplish by bringing this here? Multiple editors at the talk pages in question have already said that the behavior is disruptive. Will it be helpful for participants in this noticeboard to say the same thing? If the disruption continues, just take the appropriate action, please. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

It has been suggested that Race and Intelligence constitutes a fringe topic. It is certainly controversial, and some of the science in this area is bad, but is there a consensus for the whole area being fringe? 213.48.162.17 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely call it Fringe. However, it was an issue that seriously debated in history (and continues to get some play amoung racists groups today) and so it is also a fairly notable concept ... and as such it is a topic worthy of an article (if only to debunk the various theories). 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not fringe. It's currently discussed in leading scientific journals by respected scholars (for example, see this series from early 2009 in the journal Nature: doi:10.1038/457786a, doi:10.1038/457788a, [10]). --06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The original poster here seems to be A.K.Nole/Quotient group/213.48.162.2/213.48.162.4/213.48.162.12, a sockpuppeteer and wikistalker. Only a small group of academics work in this area and their work has been criticized by mainstream experimental psychologists (e.g. Nicholas Mackintosh), anthropologists and geneticists. So, yes, it is a fringe area. A short orchestrated debate in Nature does not show that the subject is studied by a sizeable number of academics. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fringe isn't exactly the same as pseudoscience. I would say it's something on the fringe of science, between science and pseudoscience, although the term is sometimes also used to include unquestionable pseudoscience. I would say for internal Wikipedia purposes a topic falls under WP:FRINGE if the public discourse primarily has the characteristics of a pseudoscience discourse, i.e. it is strongly polarised between believers and non-believers in a certain theory or idea, most publications are by cranks and pseudoscientists rather than proper scientists, etc. (Perhaps this is a better definition than the one we have in WP:FRINGE, which uses the words "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study".) Under these criteria race and intelligence may be a borderline case, but I think WP:FRINGE applies more likely than not. Keep in mind that the purpose of WP:FRINGE is to deal with a certain kind of discourse on- and off-wiki, so it should apply to those pages where this kind of discourse plays an important role. Hans Adler 08:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, do you consider the American Psychological Association to be "fringe"? They've published a few reports on this topic, the best-known being this one.

The APA is one of the largest psychological organizations in the United States. I think it's pretty clear that this agency does not fit the definition of WP:FRINGE. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Captain, the article is called "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and is about what we do and don't know about intelligence. You'll notice that they even use "ethnic groups" and "ethnic differences" and even say we avoid the term "race". So, it is careful not to frame the article as a piece on "race and intelligence". This is consistent with a view of the topic of "race and intelligence" being at least borderline.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, then it's about ethnicity and intelligence, which our article states that it covers also. The ethnic groups discussed in that paper--Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans--are the same as those discussed by people who view this topic in terms of "race", and they're also defined in the same way. (By self-identification.) To claim that the APA's reports about this are irrelevant to the topic of race and intelligence is to confuse a difference in terminology (and nothing else, really) with a difference in topic.

Addressing Hans' comment about one characteristic of fringe topics being that most of the publications are from cranks, the central debate over genetic vs. environmental influence has been between James Flynn and Arthur Jensen, both of whom are considered eminent psychologists, and two of the world's leading experts on intelligence. Some of the discoveries that were made as a direct result of their research on race and intelligence (such as the Flynn Effect) are now discussed in textbooks used by most college courses on quantitative psychology, even those that don't discuss the topic of race. This is certainly a very strange definition of WP:FRINGE you're using here, Ramdrake. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the title per se is what's under examination but rather the content. The Nature editors use the terms "race-linked" and "intelligence" (as do many and various other academic publications), so that seems to rise above the fringe threshold. Also, nothing in the Neisser et al work hints at a fringe classification for discussion of difference in test score performance between groups they call "white", "African American", and so on. Consider this quote from a recent book: "Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups (Nisbett, 2009, p. 94)." Professor Richard E. Nisbett is a respected psychologist. (A review of that book from which I copied that quote is here doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.015). From this I don't see how the classification of fringe could fit the overall topic or the major subtopics. --DJ (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being discussed here. "Race and intelligence" is both notable and a subject of legitimate scientific disagreement. "Race and intelligence" is not a theory per se, and therefore does not represent an inherent departure "from the prevailing or mainstream view". That a relative minority of scientists engage in this particular field of study is not a cause for concern, as the same could be said of many other areas of research. So, why are we here, exactly? --Aryaman (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, it does not matter whether "Race and Intelligence" is considered a Fringe topic or not... the topic is notable enough that we should have an article on it. I think some people think that this guideline says that we should not have articles on Fringe topics... but it doesn't. It discusses which Fringe topics should have articles, and gives advice on how to write them. This topic clearly falls into the "should have an article" category. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The original poster hasn't backed up his argument. Up until now there has been no hint of any discussion about the existence of the article from any editor at all. Suggesting otherwise is probably a misuse of this noticeboard. If A.K.Nole/Quotient group and their Bristol IPs continue with this kind of silly misleading and time-wasting post, someone might eventually file an SPI report and their editing on WP curtailed.

Race and intelligence is a topic where a small coterie of psychologists or retired psychologists, such as Jensen, Rushton and Lynn, - some linked with the Pioneer Fund and American Renaissance (magazine) - have attempted to use data from intelligence tests to make assertions about race and genetics, thus straying into the areas of anthropology, sociology and biology. Public policy makers in the US have listened to some of them (eg Linda Gottfredson), echoing the use of intelligence tests in the US on army conscripts in the first half of the 20th century. However, the conclusions of this group have been placed in doubt by mainstream academics and experts in psychometrics, who have criticized their manipulation and selective use of data and their flawed scientific methodology. I don't really see the purpose of discussing these matters here, fringe or not. Clearly a controversial topic, in the public eye in the US (because of the policy of affirmative action), studied very little in academia. Mathsci (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article itself may or may not have other issues and other policy violations (I have not looked at it in that light), but it is clear that as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned, we don't need to discuss it further. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That answers the original question then. The claim had been made on a user talk page that Race and Intelligence was a "fringe topic" and a controversial article "that can never be encyclopedic", and argument was getting sidetracked, so we moved here as a more appropriate venue for discussion and clarification. The consensus appears to be that those claims were both incorrect, which helps us all to get back to improving the article. Thanks to those who participated. 213.48.162.5 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A.K.Nole/Quotient group/213.48.162.* continues to troll on this noticeboard with silly remarks and is best ignored. His wikistalking career will not last a lot longer I think. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quotient group. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic hit the news 15 years back with a fringe-theory work titled The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles A. Murray, promptly exposed as funded by the racist right wing, and debunked by other books, e.g. The Bell Curve Debate and The Bell Curve Wars. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This topic once again hit the news 15 years back with a work titled The Bell Curve which the media promptly labeled "fringe". That the media has a notoriously bad track record in reporting on this subject was already documented in the 1987 study by Snyderman & Rothman Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing. The poor-quality reporting on the actual findings of intelligence research and academic consensus in the media prompted an article to be authored titled Mainstream Science on Intelligence which was cosigned by 52 university professors specializing in related fields. As this was not sufficient in improving the situation, the APA commissioned an 11-person task force with the job of composing a progress report on the state of intelligence research at that time. The product was Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. None of this, however, has halted the media in portraying anything other than the 100% environmental thesis as "racist fringe cruft". Quel surprise. But is Wikipedia just another media outlet? I'd like to believe it's not. --Aryaman (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the topic per se is fringe. It is surrounded by a lot of ideologized fringe claims, to be sure, but that's just a matter of sticking to RS. Also, it needs to be made clear that this is an US topic. "Race" here is shorthand for Race in the US. Same as with Race and crime in the United States, the topic might profit from a move to an unambiguous title. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

«fringe» — (1) "Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race"; (2) "The Return of Determinism? The Pseudoscience of the Bell Curve". The Mankind Quarterly crew certainly wants to spread their ideas across Western Civilization, and was previously based in Scotland. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with dab on this one: the topic isn't really fringe, but one of the positions really seems to be going contrary to mainstream thought and be in the fringe department, as some of the following refs demonstrate:[11][12][13][14] [15][16][17][18]. This last one is more specific to Pioneer Fund-related research: [19].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably is fringe within the wide definition used in this board. In the helpful classification the ArbComm laid down, it could count as "questionable science" (with psychoanalysis being a parallel). I questioned whether it is possible at all to make a neutral article on this title and would be interested in any proposals to rename. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote "The Return of Determinism? The Pseudoscience of the Bell Curve": "A large number of magazines and papers have covered the authors' claims, and have perhaps unintentionally legitimized the topic in rational discussion." If Wikipedia "neutrally" does the same, well. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a re-name might well be helpful... perhaps: Examinations into Race and Intelligence, which might shift the focus of the article to a more historically oriented outlook (ie the topic would be more the history of how the understanding and attitudes regarding the topic have changed through the years, and less the validity of those understandings and attitudes). Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a re-name at all. "Race" is the hot button. "Ethnicity" was mentioned above as an alternative. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm "Ethnicity and Intelligence" seems just as contentious to me. I can just see the ethnic nationalists piling on the article. Ugh! --Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, that would be where the "Polish joke" came from". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those ideas sound good. However, something might be gained by moving this discussion back to the article's talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, Race and intelligence in the United States. You cannot call it "ethnicity and intelligence" when the debate is explicitly in terms of "race (US notions of) and intelligence". I have yet to see a study where "race" is not used as "the rough demographic division of US population". You have to distinguish the rather well-defined notion of "race" within the US with the much more fuzzy notion of "race" if you attempt to apply it worldwide.

I do not accept this topic as "pseudoscience" just because of a source embraced by Sizzle_Flambé says "pseudoscience". There is pseudoscience (as in, Civilization One) and there is the PC reflex to stifle any debate on race from the outset by calling pseudoscience. It isn't pseudoscience to do studies on IQ tests and US demographics. It is pseudoscience to try and sell the results you get out of that for anything else than they are. Calling an area of study pseudoscience because you feel uncomfortable about it or about what results it might turn out isn't intellectually honest. It is apparently taboo or unthinkable to find a significant difference, however slender, in the distribution of IQ between racial groups. I do not know if there is such a difference, but I object emphatically to attempts attack such studies on anything other than scholarly grounds. Some people do not like to see images of The Prophet. Others do not like to see debate on differences between racial groups. To both I say WP:NOTCENSORED. If it's notable, Wikipedia will carry it for what it is worth. --dab (𒁳) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors on R&I deny the existence of "a significant difference, however slender (sic), in the distribution of IQ between racial groups". I believe the disagreement is on how to weight the different hypotheses to explain this incontrovertible fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a great moral relief to the rest of the world to blame this thinly masked racism all on the United States, and perhaps would also satisfy the masochists of the United States, but look again at one of the major puppetmasters here, Mankind Quarterly: originally published in Scotland, its founders include German eugenicist Ottmar von Verschuer, Italian author of The Scientific Basis of Fascism Corrado Gini, Canadian anthropologist Reginald Ruggles Gates, and Scottish anthropologist Robert Gayre. As for J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund, he's at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, so how is this race-baiting exclusively a USA affair? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

because the US is the only country where you can do such studies. Of course you can talk about the studies anywhere, but you will always be talking about studies done on racial groups in the US, not on "races" in general. There is no other country with a racial composition like the US, where some 92% of people can be unambiguously be classed as either black, white or Asian, but all of them native to the US. Mankind Quarterly may have been published in Scotland, but I doubt that it contained any studies on R&I performed in Scotland, for the simple reason that Scotland doesn't have enough racial variety for this. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you haven't looked at all at the statistical bases used, have you? Race and intelligence#Worldwide — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already admitted that there is a lot of crappy scholarship flying around here. Good luck taking your IQ test to the Kalahari and coming back with an estimate of "Bushman IQ" that is anything other than statistical noise. I do not dispute that this is so much horseshit. What I am objecting to is your conclusion that this entire topic is "race baiting" or "thinly veiled racism". --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is merely that this "horseshit" comes from an international herd, not just US Mustangs. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas around the world

Those following their supposed migrations (to Greece, Sri Lanka, Cambodia...), might like to participate in the merge discussion I have started on whether Kamboja-Pala Dynasty of Bengal should be merged with Pala Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Social Credit

Social Credit is a syncretic political/economic theory-of-everything developed by a British engineer in the 1920s, and historically very important in Canada, where it somehow managed to influence both the right- and left-wing parties that are still around today. It's some kind of combination of monetary crankiness, extremist populism, bankers poisoning our water and what have you. Anyway, the Wikipedia article about it is full of glowing exposition of the absurd doctrines, and not much else. EvanHarper (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article describes Douglas's social credit theories and philosophy at length, but that is reasonable, as it is obviously a notable subject - I don't see undue weight here. The article is extensively sourced, and seems factual and balanced, with a critique of Douglas's economics and a section on his possible anti-Semitism. I do not see why this article should be flagged on this noticeboard. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article's not very strong on the criticism, and since the balance of opinion about this movement is pretty heavily weighted to the disfavourable side, some work is called for. Perhaps tag for an expert in economics? And seek out reliable sources that criticise the ideas: economics textbooks, histories of social thought in the first half of the 20th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism & radiometric dating

An editor is edit-warring to insert the unrebutted YEC 'belief' "that radioactive decay rates are not constant and thus [YECs] challenge the validity of scientifically-accepted radiometric methods" into Young Earth creationism. I have suggested that this requires mainstream scientific context for inclusion, per WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

L. Fry

Thinking about AfD and wanted a second opinion first. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article certainly needs renaming, cleanup and trimming, but what would be your precise reasons for nominating it at AfD ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell she's a one-line mention in the article on the protocols WRT their American publication. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason for AfDing: apparent complete lack of reliable sources (other than the LoC bibliotrivia -- all the rest look highly suspect). If anybody nominates it, I'd be more than happy to support. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support deletion but would support stubbing down to what is in the Jeansonne book, which is RS and does portray the article subject as having had a non-negligible role in right-wing politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree... cleaning up the article is the best route to go. It can always be nominated later if it turns out that there is nothing to support notability. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My justification was lack of RSes. I mean there is a website that has a major article claiming that Barak and Michelle Obama are reptoid alien hybrids being referenced in that article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you see, if we could just get Human disguise undeleted, we could add pix of Barak and Michelle to it.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See my latest comments there. I stand by that Wikipedia is not a place for lists of fancruft but a new article based on the Campbell book would pass muster for me. (Of course that would have little to do with Men in Black (movie)Simonm223 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The weird stuff is all from 72.76.154.163. Ludvikus' version is free of it all. A reversion to the pre 72.76.154.163 text but retaining some of the uncontroversial biographical detail could be a way to go. Paul B (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic User:Ludvikus production. Ludvikus, now indefinitely banned, was obsessed with the Protocols of Zion and wanted to create separate articles on every individual who ever edited it and every separate edition of it. Many of these have been deleted or merged. This one seems to have been taken over by a fan of Fry. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In a way, this is heartbreaking. The human capacity for obsession with obscure details has led to, well, so much wasted time and so many wasted lives or deaths in dusty garrets, but also to so many glorious discoveries in research. Here an old beader, there a Venerable Bede; here a pea-pod-counter, there a Gregor Mendel. You never know. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The human capacity for obsession with obscure details has led to ... Wikipedia! Frankly, Ludvikus or no Ludvikus, I find this stuff interesting. Paul's cleaned up version is reasonable. If it can be merged somewhere, merge it, otherwise clean it up and let it stick around. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab, in none of our policies or guidelines do we mention being "interesting" as a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. Let's face it, one person's "interesting topic" is often another person's "unencyclopedic crap". That said, I have not looked at the article to see if it passes the all of the criteria we do have (Notable, verifiable and supported by reliable sources, neutrally written, no OR, etc.) ... so I make no further comment. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perpetual motion

Is anyone watching this page? Among other things, it looks like it may be becoming a coatrack and an advert for various perpetual motion enthusiasts. Of particular concern are sentences like this:

A new and rather simple device is shown here.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Magnet_Motor_by_FM_Concepts

Somebody should go through and remove the stuff that is only referenced to promotional websites, for example. Also a lot of the criticism is unsourced probably because no one has bothered to comment on the ideas. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE need to be applied heavily to the article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that perpetual motion is a self-referential topic. It just never stops, does it? *sigh* — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this has been a constant problem on the article. The problem is that some examples might be desirable, but maybe we should just say "enough is enough" and take them all out. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frak, it seems like just last week I was cleaning out all the peswiki links. Does anybody have an opinion on adding it to the blacklist? More importantly, does anybody have a better suggestion than maintaining a personal suspicious links file (some domains are occasionally WP:EL and/or not spammed often enough to be blacklisted, but are still always worth checking) and pasting into Special:Linksearch periodically? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You could suggest the addition of suspect links at User:XLinkBot. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Anno Domini 2009 there are people who seriously advertise perpetual motion devices. You found Noah's Ark? Atlantis? The Holy Grail? The Abominable Snowman? Evidence of Neolithic nuclear techonology? Ancient Vedic UFOs? No problem, welcome to Wikipedia, pray write an article about it. But people who come here to tell us they disproved the 2nd Law of TD? That must really be as low as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, dab, no, dab, this is actually a very hopeful sign: as noted above, the one unfailing example of perpetual motion is in fact the field of perpetual motion design, or at least its designers, so if only we could harness their (the designers' own) energy, we might be able to solve this generation's energy problems! .... I had in mind something like chaining them to treadmills or bicycle generators, but I'm open to other ideas.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklight Power#Published material

Can someone explain to me why we are listing all of Mills' publications in Fringe Journals (e.g. Physics Essays)? This would seem to contravene WP:SOAP, WP:COAT, and WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just take it out and say "he has also published in non-academic sources such as ...". Is this company notable? I'm not seeing anything in the lede that indicates notability. If it is notable, the article could do with some severe editing down. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The company is definitely notable as one of those things that comes up when in cold fusion and free (not as in Gibbs) energy discussions. Based on a couple conversations over the years, I would say about a third of my physics department has heard of hydrinos. It also got a decent write up in Bob Park's Voodoo Science. I suspect that the full paper list is left over from when the article was about Mills rather than his company; if I recall correctly, BLP, Inc. has their own copy of that list, so we could just link to that and forget about trying to maintain a mirror here. Really, this whole article needs to be shortened to focus on the bits that have received outside notice, per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent sources; and no, press releases are not independent sources. Like many fringe topics, there is a lot of material that has not received outside notice, which is at least a warning sign that WP:WEIGHT is being violated. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

George Washington and religion again: this time it's the Baptists

We seem to have kept the deathbed conversion story in check, but now the John Gano conversion story is making another attempt on George Washington and religion. It's not clear exactly where this story comes from, but it was given prominence by a Time story in the 1930s. The version in John Gano admits that it is unlikely to be true; the GW version doesn't. This in particular needs some other sources beyond Franklin Steiner and a rebuttal article which is unreachable at the moment. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly the current John Gano article presents GW's baptist conversion as fact. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't... given that the story is not repeated by any modern historians, I take it as an extraordinary claim... which would require extraordinary sources... and I would not call an article from Time Magazine (dating to the 1930s) reporting third hand claims by Gano's descendants an extraordinary source. The entire thing has been cut. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to refer to the story, since it was clearly a legend linked to Gano's name. And if it's not mentioned, then it will only be re-added. The external links include some useful material, especially as the original Time story is rebutted in letters from experts a few days later. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've fixed the links to the original Time article and to the rebuttals. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could mention the story in the Gano article, as long as it is made clear that it is a legend ... but if we do mention it, we should also mention that no serious historian gives it any creadence... That Rupert Hughes, in his three volume biography of Washington, explicitly debunks the story (by showing that Gano was not even at Valley Forge at the time). I would also point out that James Tallmadge Benedict, Gano's great-grandson, researched the story and categorically denied that it happened... see: here.

I definitely do not think it is "reasonable" to mention it in the George Washington and religion article. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, the material is probably relevant for the Gano article, and could be included there with the qualification that it is largely discredited. A link to the Gano article in the "See also" section of the GWAR article, but that would be as far as I would go. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Fruitarianism, a human, all-fruit diet. Currently growing by leaps and bounds. Lots of undue weight and questionable sources are joining the mix. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Related article needs attention Johnny Lovewisdom. Apparently Dr of something or other. No indication of formal education that I saw.Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. It looks like the only reasonable solution is to return to a version from a couple of months ago. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. The contribution history[20] of Zanze123 needs heavy scrutiny, especially at Arnold Ehret, Viktoras Kulvinskas, Ann_Wigmore, (it keeps going) Morris Krok, Norman W. Walker, Walter_Siegmeister, (wait, there's more!) Carlos Brandt, Hilton_Hotema, and Kenneth Hsu. This is one of the worst (if not the worst) walled gardens of fringe I've ever seen here. Wow. Just wow. These articles are almost exclusively cited to self-published books and websites, and largely consist of glowing praise for the subjects of the article. I'd nominate many of these for AFD if the climate there wasn't so... unreasonable. I'm going to start tagging the articles for cleanup and notability. Skinwalker (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Ehret is probably the best one for entertainment purposes. A section header is titled "Timeless influence", and we get such claims as his murder by the American food industry, the superb phrase "fictional autobiography", and some wonderful claims surrounding white blood cells as mucus. No seriously, these guys wanted to shut down your immune system. Wow. See also Johnny Lovewisdom, linked to from most of them. Extensive cleanup and merging need, I think. Moreschi (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Reddi - why does it take some people forty edits to fix one comma? WP:TWWPK. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'd nominate many of these for AFD if the climate there wasn't so... unreasonable." Meaning? If the subjects aren't notable, you you make reasonable efforts to check before nominating, and you give a reasoned nomination based on policy, there shouldn't be a problem. Fences&Windows 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have created Talk:Fruitarianism#Request for Comment: Revert to version of September 30?. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To address these issues, so 'fringe' (less represented) topics are not to be covered at Wikipedia. Authors who advocated fruitarianism are linked, just like any group of other authors, or scientists, or composers etc. Sources have been provided wherever possible. Regarding reverting the fruitarian article, quotations from authors who wrote about this subject is highly noteable as are the other contribituons. If you feel otherwise, revert the article, and leave the article one-sided. OK, Ehret has not had timeless influence even though his books have been in print for over 90 years and even though other authors have referred to him in their books throughout the decades. The autobiography is by an Anita Bauer, if she existed, however the book does not confirm if she really did exist. Regarding the claims surrounding white blood cells as mucus, these claims are made by Ehret and Thomas Powell in their books, and corroborated by Corwn Samuel West and others. Just because conventional science may not support this is not a reason to avoid chronicling what others have thought in history. There were no '40 edits to fix one comma'. Content takes time to add. All changes, cleanup, notability and citation issues can be discussed at the talk pages. Improvement of content, sources and quotes is important. Perhaps some of you could make contribution, in addition to your deletions. Zanze123 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "These articles are almost exclusively cited to self-published books and websites, and largely consist of glowing praise for the subjects of the article." (Skinwalker) in fact the articles are cited to secondary sources as required. If you wish to critique sources cited, or the subjects of the articles, use the talk pages, or make contributions to the articles citing secondary sources accordingly, rather than just deleting entire sections without giving any reasons, or discussing on the talk pages, as you did. Zanze123 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim about Arnold Ehret's 'assassination' was already in the article. I later quoted from the published article What ever happened to Arnold Ehret by Sylvia Saltman in Vegetarian World Magazine (1977), which refuted the claim, in order to show both sides. Regarding 'self-published' books, books lacking publishers may have been commercially published, the name of the publishers, to be confirmed, just like any other verification. If Wiki regards a topic as 'fringe', labelling it 'fringe' would benefit the reader. If academic sources are the most important criteria when providing references, make some relevant contributions to the Fruitarian article.Zanze123 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the relative lack of academic sources that is the problem. We cannot add sources that do not exist. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 main academic sources in the article which favour fruitarianism - 1 about Alan Walker, 1 from a South African journal (whilst there is a whole section Nutritional Concerns with many more than 2 academic sources critical of fruitarianism). Yet according to everyone above, the article should be reverted to exclude the ones in favour whilst keeping those critical of fruitarianism. How then is the article balanced (a concern voiced above) if only academic sources which critique the diet are permitted at the article. I fully support SummerPhD's point that an article of this nature warrants more academic sources than non-academic sources, but presenting both sides. There is a lack of sources available, but how many of you against this article have ever contributed anything besides deletions? When academic sources provided, they are immediately dismissed unless the discredit fruitarianism. Further, not all aspects of this article warrrant academic sources - such as the different possible fruitarian diets. That is an aspect central to the subject matter, but is not an academic matter but a cultural one. Yet you are all above in favour of deleting that too. With regard to the point above about quote farm, the quotes should all be removed, and used if and where appropriate for citation purposes. In its place should be a section called Advocates, and another section called Critics, briefly mentioning those such as in the quotes to be removed. To revert this article to the September version is to erode all other changes, without giving specific reasons in each case for doing so. Rather than just deleting content, provide reasons for deleting or amending individual points on the talk page, - which only SummerPhD has done. If you feel that this article does not deserve to exist (because as it sounds to me, you disagree with it, or object to it, or because you perceive it to be fringe and therefore automatically unscientific - Galileo was also considered fringe), then it should be merged with another article as a subsection of veganism or rawfoodism etc. Zanze123 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Slow down a sec. Fruitarianism is notable almost by definition: the main article is not the problem here. It just needs some cleanup. The notability problem stems from a large quantity of articles, mostly biographical, detailing in rather hagiographic terms the lives of popular advocates of fruitarianism and raw-foodism in general. Popular among fruitarians, that is. Their general notability does seem to be a legit source of dispute. Moreschi (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is thus: there are very few reliable sources about fruitarianism providing any real depth. The few mainstream and academic sources referring to it mention it briefly as an obscure diet of significant nutritional concern or as a ultimate or proximate cause of illness and/or death in a case history. The sources with any real depth come from self-published sources (vanity press, some guy's website, etc.) or "esoteric" publishers. We can cite hundreds of examples of non-scientists making pseudo-scientific claims surrounding the diet (protein is toxic, most illness is caused by "mucous", vitamin B12 is not a necessary nutrient, etc.) and reliable sources simply dismissing the diet as wildly unhealthy (without covering most of the bunk dished out about mucous/protein/B12/etc.). Following the guidelines, the article would be a brief definition from an independent source, science discussing/debunking the sustainability and nutritional aspects of the diet and a brief list of well-sourced, notable fruitarians with brief mention of their histories with the diet. The nonsense about this, that or the other quote possibly referring to fruitarianism or a "diet similar to fruitarianism" is garbage, best disposed of properly. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the sources don't have to be academic. It's unlikely there are going to be academic sources discussing it in any depth, as it's so obviously silly, it would be a bit like trying to hit a pig's arse at a distance of 1 yard with an Ak47. But there's got to be media sources, popular press, mainstream media. Sure, they may not be amazing quality, but to establish notability they don't have to be. Anything, as you say, is better than relying on the self-published works of cranks. Moreschi (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your point about the need for notability. What is Wiki's requirement? You suggest popular advocates of fruitarianism and rawfoodism are not relevant, because they are popular among fruitarians (and rawfoodists), rather than other groups. They are popular and thus noteable in the dietary movements they relate to. They are thus noteable in general in relation to the dietary topics they relate to. If you feel they are not, then please delete all advocates of all diets (vegan, vegetarian, rawfood etc), at the relevant listings on the same basis, i.e. that they are only generally noteable within the dietary group they relate to, but not to society in general. If you can show that they are not noteable in general, then delete the entire articles including all such existing articles on similar advocates of specific diets, on the same basis. Citing advocates of fruitarianism and verifying their dietary beliefs with quotes from their commercially published books, and secondary source articles about those advocates, is not hagiographical. However, if you feel there is hagiographical content, highlight it for at the talk pages for discussion, amendment and or removal. Since there is a lack of academic published research, chronicling what authors thought in history, is not irrelevant to the subject of the fruitarian article. Zanze123 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So the history of Western fruitarian thought, has no basis in the article. If so, then the history of vegan thought, vegetarian thought, rawfoodist thought etc, and all such advocates, should be removed from the respective articles. Regarding notable fruitarians and reliable sources, the problem there is that this enables no fruitarians to be listed as notable and virtually no reliable sources in favor of fruitarianism to be included, not because there are not reliable sources, or notable fruitarians, but because perceptions of what is notable and reliable will vary, as will knowledge of notable fruitarians and reliable sources. You can say there are no reliable sources even if there are, or dismiss those which exist e.g. Alan Walker, South African journal etc. Dismissing the B12, protein, defficiency and mucus topics by presenting only reliable academic sources without contrasting that with the counter-belief and accompanying sources, does not make for a balanced article. Vanity press and 'some guy's website' are not relevant to articles. As for 'esoteric publishers', the publishers of the Bible could be classified as 'esoteric' depending on your belief, so this point makes no sense. To suggest that only self-published sources have 'real-depth' makes no sense. The New York Times article on Alan Walker was not self-published. The South Africa journal was not self-published. There are other examples of non-self published research on the topics of fruitarianism, B12, protein, mucus, vitamins, defficiencies, both for and in favour, by academia, science and M.D.s. For example: Gabriel Cousens is an M.D. not an N.D. hence the quote which was included, yet this has been classified as 'pseudo-scientific' and was deleted without discussion. In reality, anything which is in favor of fruitarianism shall be deemed unscientific, unreliable and unnotable so that the article can be slanted according to conventional beliefs rather than be balanced in presentation. Zanze123 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism : Continued

I agree with your point about media sources. For example at Ann Wigmore and Viktoras Kulvinskas, I added media sources, and the same can be done for Fruitarianism. That is no reason not to chronicle what authors and scientists mentioned fruitarianism (and its related topics e.g. protein metabolism) in the last 150 years. Thomas Powell, Corwyn Samuel West, Ragnar Berg, Louis Pasteur and other doctors, chemists and scientists have written about these subjects. You may not know about their work, or may not agree with it, but that is not a reason to automatically dismiss them and their findings. As for diets which sound similar to fruitarianism but are not, this depends how fruitarianism is defined, which is precisely why the different definitions are relevant to the subject of this article. Zanze123 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor reappearance of the Hindutva brigade

Ustadbarman (talk · contribs) at P.N. Oak. And yes, I know we've been here before, but people need to keep their eyes peeled. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-Hindutva at best, in this case. It is always good for comic relief to see these self-styled defenders of Hinduism fail utterly in Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hinduism.[21] --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex magic

Just ran into this whilst looking at an edit at our Nommo article (someone changed 'failed to confirm' to 'failed to conclusively refute'. Can anyone take a look at the criticism section? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It reads as if it were cut and pasted from some sort of orgainizational document (OTO?)... and seems to be a premptive statement (essintially saying: "any criticism is irrelevant, as we are dealing with belief and not scientific fact here".) It certainly isn't what I would expect in a criticisms section (I would expect an attributed summary of what various critics say)... although it might be included as a "rebuttal statement", included after a discussion of various criticisms). Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The section on 'Arnold Krumm-Heller' also bears scrutiny:

After the Zimmerman Telegram and former British MI-6 agent Crowley's role in the sinking of the Lusitania, who was carrying L. Ron Hubbard's uncle, the United States went to war and Krumm Heller's book Für Freiheit und Recht was published in Germany with the kaiser's blessings[9] but it would not be until 1946, that the novel Rose-Cross containing the secret of Sex Magic would be published in Argentina. Krumm-Heller confessed he would have to use the official language of the Roman Catholic priesthood for the public at large, he knew, were not ready for the new dispensation and so he wrote: "...Inmissio membri virilis in vaginam sine ejaculatio seminis."[10]

I can find no evidence in the cited source of MI6, Crowley, the Lusitania or Hubbard (let alone his uncle). This is also one of the more incoherent conspiracy theories I've come across. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. Elbert Hubbard did die on the Lusitania, but I'm not sure that there is any evidence to support a linkage of Crowley and the loss of that ship. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Krumm-Heller material, along with the section on Eliphaz Levy, were both added on August 20 by JDPhD (talk · contribs), and both appear to misrepresent their sources, so I have removed the added stuff. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)