Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

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

Examples of appalling material removed:

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

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

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

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

The article also lied by ommission:

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

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

Remaining problems

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

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

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

Robert O. Becker and The Body Electric

Looks like these need some attention, I don't even know where to start on The Body Electric or even if it needs its own article. I'm not sure about the author either, he seems to be a somewhat prolific researcher but I don't know if he's notable enough for an article. Some googling made me think he has some definitely fringe ideas.

Maya Tiwari

This article seems to have some POV issues. In the Body of Work section, some dubious claims are made and although they are attributed to the author, I feel like a balancing source might be beneficial. Thoughts? N^oformation ^Talk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems written by an admirer. If it had been a product (and I guess celebrities are products anyway) it would be called an advertisement. Most of the sources are non-WP:RS. It really deserves several tags regarding POV, Advert, Ref-improve etc. Given the tone, it would be also appropriate to have a 800 number for donating to her cause, joining the group etc. Reads like a recruitment poster. History2007 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it as an advert anyway, but the BLPN may be a better place anyway. History2007 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone Afd-ed it here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Tiwari#Maya_Tiwari. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Soul

The article seems to need being looked over with a fine tooth come for fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A comb might be less controversial... - Nunh-huh 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, Took me a minute to realize what you meant :> IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's actually a fine-toothed comb... – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon England - Oppenheimer again

It looks as if I'm going to be drawn into an edit war with users Ghmyrtle and Wilfridselsey on this page. It started when I pointed out that the article was drawing attention to the fringe theory and giving a citation that refuted it, which is essentially contrary to Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories - if we refute one we'd have to refute them all. Both users insisted the reference should remain, initially disputing that Oppenheimer's theory on the origin on the English language wasn't "fringe" at all (hmm...)

Wilfridselsey insisted the Victorians had thought Britons spoke German. I asked for a reference, he supplied what turned out to be an anti-German political propaganda leaflet from the First World War. I said this wasn't really good enough and he supplied Googlebooks pointers to various late 18th and early 19th Century works speculating on race and language. I said that while these weren't worth much, they could be mentioned as representing an earlier view. I put in a sentence in a previous section on sources mentioning earlier race/language speculation with a couple of citations supplied by Wilfridselsey. Ghmyrtle immediately reverted, putting back the Oppenheimer reference, in spite of the fact that Wilfridselsey had been attempting to argue the view was not modern.

Whenever I have removed the reference to Oppenheimer's fringe theory, Ghmyrtle has reverted the change and put it back in. Wilfridselsey on the talk page has returned to defending Oppenheimer's theories as worthy of inclusion. I removed the Oppenheimer reference again, but before long my reversion will be reverted again, I have no doubt. Part of the problem is that too few people know enough about linguistics to see quite why the theory is fringe in the first place. Paul S (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing wider attention to this dispute. I left a warning on your talk page concerning WP:BLPTALK and one of your extreme comments on Oppenheimer 3 weeks ago. As a general note, interdisciplinary work often causes extreme friction between scholars using methodologies from different fields. While this can lead to strongly negative reviews by one scholar of the work of a colleagues based in a different field, Wikipedia's neutrality usually requires that these are read cum grano salis, not exploded to grandiose claims of fringiness. Hans Adler 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Truly, this is not "interdisciplinary work" we're talking about here. Try and find any serious contribution by Oppenheimer & Co. on the subject of the origins of the English language which has been submitted to and accepted by a serious periodical and subject to peer review. You won't. When it comes to language, it is fringe by anyone's definition. Remember, this is not his ideas on genetics I am speaking of, only his assertion that some Britons spoke German, based partly on a total misunderstanding of what the comparative method in historical linguistics is. Paul S (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A geneticist speaking about history of language in a book on historical genetics is an obvious case of the kind of interdisciplinarity that I meant. Many scholars are reluctant to do it because they are afraid of making blunders outside their area of expertise. But overall that's not a good thing because it leads to unhealthy compartmentalisation, sometimes with different fields coming to contradictory conclusions without being too concerned about the fact, simply because they don't take each other seriously. Science occasionally needs visionaries who are not afraid of blunders. My personal impression is that some of his blunders (and the Language Log posts you linked from the article talk page leave no doubt that he made some severe blunders) may be due to inadvertently saying things he didn't mean, or introducing local errors during revisions of a long book, or other reasons that do not necessarily affect the overall ideas. This is something that can easily happen to big picture people who are working in a field in which they don't have much routine, and it need not affect the plausibility of the overall picture they are painting. Hans Adler 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But you must understand that Dr. Oppenheimer does not have to be a bad person for his theories on English/Celtic in Britain to be discounted as nonsense by linguists. I'm not saying he is a bad person. I'm saying that this particular theory of his is a fringe theory and ought not to be given weight in the Anglo-Saxon England article. Oppenheimer already has his own article anyway and that is where it belongs. If you don't want Wikipedia to listen to linguists on the subject of languages, where does that leave us all? Paul S (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article originally credited Oppenheimer as suggesting that some of the Britons were German speakers. I believe that it was not an original idea by Oppenheimer, as it had been discussed in the 19th century. I accept that the methodology was not sound but the reasons were diverse. These ideas were discussed but rejected by many historians in the 20th century. Modern geneticists have identified that some Britons had Germanic markers in their mtDNA, thus could have been Germanic speakers. In our discussion I cited Forster's paper, Forster is an eminent geneticist and his paper has been peer reviewed. I changed the relevant part of the article (which was Oppenheimer centric), to There is a hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been Germanic language speakers although most modern scholars refute this. The hypothesis proposed by the genetic community has been largely rejected by the linguist community, so I would suggest that the hypothesis is a minority view and I think that the sentence reflects that. I guess that it could be argued that it is a theory as there is some supporting evidence. Paul S. has completely rejected the sentence and keeps removing it, because he says that he does not agree with Oppenheimer views , he could quite easily have swapped the Oppenheimer citation for the Forster for example, but has preferred the vandalisation route. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at al sure what "Germanic markers" in mtDNA may be, but even if this suggests that some ancestors of Britons came from German speaking areas, that does not mean that they spoke German. Obviously language can change in a single generation, whereas genetic markers are always with us. This really is not good evidence. It's like saying that black Americans have Swahili markers in their mtDNA. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right the reason that we describe the possibility of some of the sub-Roman tribes, in Britain, being German speakers, as an hypothesis is because genetic findings can not be linked to a language. Genetics alone are insufficient to prove the presence of any language. To become a theory the genetic evidence needs to be combined with some non-genetic evidence. There have been some papers that have explored the possiblity that the origins of some placenames being non Celtic, for example in A new explanation of the name of London, by Coates.(Transactions of the Philologica Society. volume.96.issue.2. p. 203–229). Also in the journal of the Kent Archaeological Society (Archaeologia Cantiana, 129 - 2009) they had an article that in it's conclusion said that Etymology rapidly descends into guesswork, not just for word roots but also for the declensions, local dialects, sound changes, and silly mistakes that have always moulded place names down the ages. Despite this huge caveat, this article shows that all the place names in Kent that have been claimed to be derived from Celtic roots have alternative Germanic roots that are at least as plausible. The evidence does not prove what language Kentish people spoke at home in Roman times, but it makes Belgic seem more likely than Brythonic. [1] The argument is whether the sentence should be deleted as a fringe theory and is not really about the validity of the hypothesis. My contention is that the whole idea has been around at least since the 19th century and has been discussed on and off by historians since then. Most of them are against the idea, this includes Sally Thomason. I would suggest that support for the hypothesis is by a minority as it is rejected by most historians and essentially that is what the sentence says. However it is a subject that is widely discussed and therefore should not be removed from the article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

The article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is in a bad way, and I'd like to get keen, non-partisan editors to clean it up. In other words I'm calling for volunteers, or else advice on where to go (no snide suggestions please).

The article sets out the various errors in the BoM - they include matters such as the presence of horses, silkworms and domestic pigs in the Americas before Columbus, the use of iron, the idea that American Indian languages were descended from Hebrew and Egyptian, and much more. It should be enough merely to list these, but as it stands the article gives far more space to rebuttals - thus we are told, by Mormon apologists, how when the Book of Mormon says horses it really means some other animal (ditto silkworms and pigs), how copper can sort of rust just like iron, and so on. It's embarrassing, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute (at least it does if we want something that can stand as a reference anyone other than believers).

So I'm asking, (1) am I correct in thinking that the apologists' refutations of facts are fringe and shouldn't be covered, and (2) where or how can I ask for a concerted clean-up of the article?

PiCo (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a range of articles covering the Book of Mormon that are only thinly disguised missionary tracts or anti-Mormon harangues. These articles include Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, Archeology and the Book of Mormon, Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc. The articles have devolved into a nearly formulaic series of topics with an anti- argument followed by a pro- argument. Sourcing is always a difficult issue since the vast majority of pro- arguments are drawn from works published by the LDS church or Brigham Young University and written by professors at BYU or church leaders. Balancing arguments are difficult to source since most scholars don't get paid for debunking false religious assertions about history and archeology so they don't waste their time on it. This whole set of articles should be deleted IMHO since they are really nothing more than a proselytizing effort thinly disguised in scientific/historical terminology with enough semblance to reliable sourcing to make it look reasonable. --Taivo (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this series of articles is not a good way to cover a religious topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better route would be to collapse all these petty articles into a single article entitled something like Science and the Book of Mormon where a very broad summary can be written that entails the history of criticism of the BOM and the history of apology, where the main protagonists and antagonists can be named and the general directions can be outlined without going into each detail of when elephants and horses when extinct in North America. The articles should be about the big picture from both perspectives, not the details of who said what and who is right and who is wrong. This shouldn't be a set of debate articles, but a single article outlining the main issues between science/history and the BOM with the main players named, but without a lot of trivia. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to take the initiative I'll lend a hand. But with believers involved it might be difficult. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is, of course, the major problem with all these peripheral BOM articles. Since Wikipedia is run more like the Athenian democracy, with everyone having an equal voice regardless of qualification, and no overall authority, what would be best and what is likely to achieve consensus are often two entirely different things. Although I can see what the best course should be, I have neither the time nor the energy to begin and prosecute the battles that such a revision would require. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would support some consolidation, since it seems to be very difficult to maintain encyclopædic quality with separate articles which each have a smaller number of watchers - they tend to drift towards either apologetics or mudslinging. With a smaller number of articles (or just one), I think it would be easier to achieve neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there had earlier been some sort of general agreement that an article about, perhaps, Independent science and the Book of Mormon might serve as a very good base article for much of this material. There may be sufficient cause in some Mormon related journals to establish notability for the topics, but I still think a strong central article on the topic is probably preferable to weak, and possibly overlong, more focused articles. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on what is in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon I have to agree as there are serious accuracy problems here. Milk didn't exist in pre-Columbian Americas?!? The llama (well known to several Indian tribes of lower South American) produces milk!--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Humans, also well known in the area, produce milk. However, Bruce is being disingenuous. The inly reference to milk is in an abbreviated quote in a footnote about the claim that peccaries are the domesticated 'swine' in the BOM. There is no claim in the text about milk itself. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's comment is a perfect illustration of the fundamental problem with all these articles: They teeter on the brink of WP:OR on both sides of the issue and lead to recurring OR disputes about the tiniest details of the pro and con arguments. Sourcing of comments is rarely part of the equation, only debunking or upholding every particular element. These articles have become places of argumentation in order to convince readers of a POV. Wikipedia is not the place for such things and it is a violation of Wikipedia's principles. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I went through and deleted the most egregious OR from the articles, but they are still pretty bad. The amount of copy-pasted content in the articles really demonstrated the need to combine them as well. eldamorie (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

In this article, a claim is made that if the reliable sources are not proven to be not fringe, and anyone questions them (providing no sources for their claim) that the claims are barred as "fringe." As AFAICT, WP:FRINGE does not appear to cover such a claim, I am asking here.

Claims in the body of the article add up to a large number of deaths. The sources are RS (been shown as such at RSN) and those opposed to the figures have not provided RS competing figures (as I suggested many times per WP:NPOV). Rather they suggest that all such numbers are not "mainstream views" and are "fringe."

[2] shows one opinion - that we should only write truth in Wikipedia, and that Jimbo has that position (argumentum ad Jimbonem, I rather think).

Another [3] says

As I already said, not only you have no sources that characterise these estimates as mainstream, but we have the sources that explicitly criticise the figures and the very approach. Your refusal to recognise this fact shakes my belief in your good faith.

And also [4] posits:

Re "You need reliable sources for the claim of the estimates not being "mainstream"" That is exactly opposite to what our policy says: I don't have to prove opposite, the burden of proof is on those who adds some materials: if you want to present some views as mainstream, please, provide a source that states so. However, taking into account that I have already presented non-fringe sources that characterise the sources you advocate as "provocative", and the figures you promote as "inflated", you are supposed to provide very serious counter-arguments.

Another [5]:

You're right. It isn't up to us to "know" that they are fringe. Reasonable editorial discretion is enough. And since you have been challenges, the burden is on you to show that such heavily contested theories are not fringe, per Wikipedia policy.

Which might have some validity if reliable sources (other than editors) made the assertion that the RS sources are "fringe", I suppose. The problem is that those editors seem to feel the onus is on anyone who makes claims based on the body of the article to "prove" that the RS sources are not fringe <g>. Is it possible to do such - that is, in any article with cites making claims and not having cites making opposing claims that the RS sources must also be shown to be "not fringe" as long as an editor says they are "fringe"?

When those editors do not provide RS sources showing that claims made in the body of the article are not mainstream, and the vast majority of academic cites use the references in the body of the article, it is up to me to "prove" that the claims are mainstream (as far as a range goes)? Is it required that to use sources requires that other sources explicity call them "mainstream" ? And is their use of WP:FRINGE reasonable here? BTW, I expect those cited to give their spirited defence <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.

The problem with fringe assertions is that regular sources, like journalists and scholars, often see them as too preposterous to refute.

In many case the best approach is to attribute the information. Rather than saying "X were killed by Y", say "Smith, a history professor at UMass, writes that..."   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Um -- one source is a former PRC official. And the claims are generally fully ascribed in the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This particular article is covered by WP:DIGWUREN (as the template by Sandstein indicates) and has resulted in topic bans for various editors. It is in the same set of articles as Communist terrorism, Holodomor, etc, where Collect (talk · contribs) is a frequent contributor. I do not think it is helpful to bring tired debates of that kind to this noticeboard. Enough discussion occurs on WP:AE. Indeed this article and a recent enforcement request concerning Collect resulted in indefinite full protection of Mass killings under communist regimes. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the list of edits. I am far from a "frequent contributor" to that area, and my talk page edits are generally about WP policies and not about content. For example: On Holodomor I have made a total of 5 edits, including such major ones <g> as [6] (vandalism revert), [7] (rm material not in the cite given - which Pteryi asknowledged), [8] ditto, [9] a really major edit - not (fixing cn tag from [10] where I tagged material as uncited). 5 edits and not a simgle one not required by WP policy, and not a single one adding or deleting sourced claims. Zero. Now examine the actual major editors (since I am a "frequent contributor" perhaps this will show who really are "frequent contributors"): Irpen (470) Jo0doe (263) Bobanni (242) Lysy (138) Kuban kazak (130) Andrew Alexander (122) Horlo (118) Alex Bakharev (111) Riurik (97) Bandurist (82) LuisMatosRibeiro (78) Igny (76) Altenmann (74) Lvivske (69) Jacob Peters (69) Mzajac (67) Lothar von Richthofen (65) Paul Siebert (55) Ostap R (55) Faustian (51) etc.

If you wish to read the talk page, you will find similar content pushing by me - none. As for Communist terrorism where you insist I am a "frequent contributor" my edit count on that article is precisely 9. Including vandalism reverts etc. Compared with Tentontunic (94) Paul Siebert (83) Hodja Nasreddin (78) Mamalujo (78) Commodore Sloat (54) Igny (52) Nug (28) The Last Angry Man (28) Petri Krohn (25) Marknutley (22) The Four Deuces (22) AndyTheGrump (19) etc.

My edits there include [11] which was on policy grounds, and not disputed by anyone, [12] reverting a fairly clear POV violation, etc. So for the claim gratuitously given above, the response is "Utter Hogwash!". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WRT the ill-posted AE request -- the consensus there was that Paul, being fully as culpable or more than I, made the request with unclean hands and should be treated harshly for that. Thanks for bringing this up - I am not the one to routinely post AE requests. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how bringing these disputes to this noticeboard might help. Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC) <off-topic>Since you are bringing up statistics on your own editing, you probably spend more time on talk pages: Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (448 edits [13]); Talk:Communist terrorism (219 edits [14]); Talk:Fascism (460 edits [15]); Talk:Holodomor (35 edits [16]). </off-topic>

It was another editor who invoked WP:FRINGE thus this is the proper noticeboard. I note that since you must now understand that I am not a "frequent contributor" to any group as you defined it, and my posts to talk pages are generally of the "policy wonk and Wikignome" variety. But since you brought up the talk pages as though they have the remotest relevance -- let's look there ...

For Communist terrorism where you emphasize my 219 edits ... Paul Siebert (920) The Four Deuces (681) Justus Maximus (325)

AndyTheGrump (269) Tentontunic (262) placing me in a measly 6th place -- while Paul and TFD together have 1600 edits. For Fascism ... I am number 3 - with many of them occuring when working with R-41 on reducing some of the irrlevant stuff. For which he gave me a barnstar. If improving an article requires writing on the talk page, so be it. TFD and R-41 are both well ahead of me on that one, by the way. Holodomor? You have to be kidding! I am not even in the top 20 editors on that talk page, for gosh sakes! (I suspect I am not even in the top fifty - making that claim about as ill-founded as imaginable) Meanwhile I found one editor who has made over a thousand edits to a single article, 600 to another article, and lots of edits to a number of other articles as well <g>. And others whould note that I am currently near 20K edits on enWiki alone. Cheers - but I leave the noting of edit counts for others to the observer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You should not begin a discussion thread with your own interpretation of what another editor said. Not only is there a possibility that you have misquoted the other editor, but we need to know the context of the quote. You should also explain what specific edits to the article are involved. I suggest closing this discussion thread as wasteful to editors' time. TFD (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Um -- since I link to some of the posts, I suggest it is quite unlikely that I 'misquoted" them! That suggestion is a personal attack at its worst, TFD, and should be redacted by you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know. You do seem to have made 450 edits to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (the article we're talking about) and you do seem to be the 5th most prolific editor there. Perhaps somebody else can help you here. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the posts before making an assumption here. Pauls Siebert has made over 1600 edits there, and TFD over 1200, and the length of there edits is roughly 4 times or more the length of mine -- that is Paul has posted more than 15 times the verbiage on that talk page, and TFD more than 10 times the verbiage on that talk page overall. Some posts make me laugh out loud at their obvious and misleading intent to show me as a "principal contributor" to any topic. Cheers - and next time READ. Collect (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody can help you here. Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci. I don't see anything to answer here in your post. If there are specific sources that editors claim should be dealt with under WP:FRINGE and you dispute this then link to the dispute and summarize the specific dispute, but this meandering general question is not helping. Also, the discussion about how many edits you've made to these entries is completely offtopic. I understand that you were responding to a characterization made by Mathsci, but you're helping to derail any productive discussion by arguing about your edit counts. If you are even in the top 10 contributors to a page that gets decent editor traffic you could be accurately called a "frequent contributor," so the fact that you're not the most frequent is irrelevant, and again arguing over that derails any productive discussion. Move on and if you want advice here then rephrase your question about something specific. I'd say, feel free to hat what has already transpired and try again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I specifically made the proper comments on the proper talk pages. It was not I who made assertions about numbers of edits - so that part is irrelevant to my request here. And since a majority of my talk page posts are about WP policies, that shows, indeed, that I am concerned about policies <g>. The only editing area where I am a "frequent contributor" are to BLPs. Cheers - but I think your cavils are not relevant to the gist of the initial request made. Unless, of course, you feel that it is wrong to answer improper aspersions made by others - thus assenting by silence. Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to answer a good faith suggestion about how to rephrase your question and how to keep it focused on Fringe issues so that it makes sense for this board with thinly veiled personal attacks then I guess I can be of no help to you. Good luck getting any assistance here with that attitude. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

All you need do is read the initial post - which gave cites for the discussion, and "attacked" no one. Not even "thinly veiled." The "attack" was made by Mathsci, as anyone can read. Cheers.Collect (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about your response to me in which you suggest that I'm assenting through silence to "improper aspersions." That is indeed a "thinly veiled person attack." I'm assenting to no such thing. I'm also unsure what you mean by referring to the "cites for the discussion." I see diffs to comments made by Wikipedia editors on talk pages which refer to claims, but what claims are these and how are they sourced? Who can tell if they are fringe or not when we don't even know what the sources are and what the claims are specifically. Instead you appear to want people here to comment without the proper context on how people are arguing with you. As I said in my initial post, present the board with a tangible issue and you might find some productive feedback. If other editors are calling your sources fringe tell us what the sources are if you want another opinion. FYI, this is not a conduct noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Independently of whether Collect feels he has been attacked or not, cutting down on drama-creating rhetoric might be a good idea at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll related to Shakespeare Authorship Queston

It is scheduled to end anytime now, but some people here may be interested in Talk:Oxfordian_Theory_–_Parallels_with_Shakespeare's_Plays#Poll_regarding_redirect.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [[17]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Only significant change since I last looked is the closing down and blocking of all attempts to fix this, and the removal of all tags noting problems. What's it going to take to get this festering boil lanced? 86.** IP (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we simply are not able to create very good encyclopedia articles because of other interests. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about you stop wasting people's time on your pointless crusade? Even were anyone to believe your exaggerations, this would still be the wrong place to discuss this article William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean the fringe theory that humans doidn't cause climate change should not be ddiscussed on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard? Youy have no idea how this works, do you? 86.** IP (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You might get further in your mission if you spent more time trying to persuade editors on the article Talk page, though. Tags are supposed to be there while the community discusses the perceived issues; they're not an end in themselves. --Merlinme (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Such discussions have proved to be nothing but WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, complete with archival of threads and attempts to attack other people. 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See below re RfC. Look, everyone here has the same determination to present fringe topics properly, i.e. with due regard to the scientific mainstream. Infighting between FTN regulars is unseemly and can only benefit the POV-pushing crowd. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture

• Biodynamic agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ran across this recently, adding it to my watchlist because of the obvious WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. I've always avoided the lengthy discussions on when and how "pseudoscience" can be used within an article, but I think it should be applied to this. What do others think?

Looks like the article needs a total rewrite with a very close eye to NPOV and FRINGE, rather than it's current de-emphasis of the fringe elements. Others want to take a look? --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a good laugh on this when it said a farm patch is a"self-contained entity with its own individuality". I had often laughed at the idea of "pet psychologists" - they do exist and they do charge money. Now, the next thing will be to have "farm psychologists" who analyze the super ego of a recently fertilized piece of land. I wonder what Freud would have said to a cabbage.

In any case, this is a very far fetched fringe item, and most farmers would laugh for a while when told. It is an idea held by less than 0.0001% of farmers: clearly a fringe. And the other article Demeter International which allows a 20% surcharge for a "happy farm" needs attention too. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronz has given us an interesting problem. WP:Fringe covers both Pseudoscience and Fringe science but it is not clear from the way the article is currently written just where on that spectrum this subject falls. It is for this reason that I agree with Ronz that the article needs a total rewrite as if this subject has Pseudoscience and Fringe science elements to it then the article should do a far better job in explaining them.

Regarding things like farm patch patches "self-contained entity with its own individuality" I noted that this doesn't have any reference to check if that is actually what Biodynamic agriculture themselves believe or if that what an editor thinks they believe. I mean no rational person will say a Welsh farm patch in England is the same as a farm patch just outside Dodge City, Texas. So is this an accurate summation or poor wording, or misunderstanding? Clearly needs a mammoth rewrite.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamic ag was simply one of the first and still is one of the most widely used approaches to organic agriculture, especially in Europe. I hope we are not proposing to consider organic agriculture generally a "fringe theory" .

BruceGubb has figured out what the "individuality" passage is meant to say, roughly. The wording could be clarified. (Incidentally, many seemingly rational approaches to agriculture do ignore the individual, read particular, nature of the farm; this is the "factory farming" approach: one size fits all.) hgilbert (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There were already a number of published studies of the approach listed in the Studies of efficacy section of the article; I have added more to the list. And it should go without saying, but given the nature of this noticeboard...yes, these were published in standard scientific journals. Finally: 142,482 hectares across 47 countries is not exactly fringe level. hgilbert (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not about how many people practice it, it is about the types of claims that are made vis a vis the scholarly consensus. Popularity of fringe practices does not negate their fringiness. Homeopathy is fringe. Agriculture based on homeopathy can't help but be fringe. (Reading some of the practices, I'm surprised there isn't a treatment involving Eye of Newt or the gizzard of a chicken collected under a blue moon.) Agricolae (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't accepted by mainstream science then it's fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Then we're safe; there are plenty of studies by "mainstream science" (I think you mean mainstream scientists) that take biodynamics as a significant (non-fringe) branch of organic agriculture. hgilbert (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please save use the straw man dismissal. It's not accepted by mainstream science just because it has been studied. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True but conversely just because it meets fringe does not automatically mean it is pseudoscience which seems where this argument is going. Pseudoscience, Fringe science, and Protoscience all fall under fringe but the later two do follow the scientific method. For example, the Pro-Clovis theory is still fringe but it is NOT Pseudoscience but rather Fringe science; furthermore continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all fringe science ideas that eventually became mainstream. Fringe in wikipedia terms simply means not part of the mainstream--nothing more nothing less; it does NOT automatically translate as pseudoscience.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that is a discussion worth having, because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference in the way it is dealt with. More importantly, does it accurately present the science being reported? I just took a look at ref. 22, which is a 2003 masters thesis consisting of two submitted papers, book-ended by a general discussion and conclusions. The Abstract of the first paper summarizes that, "No differences were found in soil quality in the first six years." (p. 10) The Abstract of the second concludes, "The biodynamic preparations were not shown to have an effect during these adverse composting conditions." (p. 48) The General Conclusions section begins with the sentence, "There were no consistent differences in any of the soil quality parameters measured over the first six years of the experiment." So, what is this being used to support on this page? Is this negative outcome included in the Studies of Efficacy section? No, it is used to document the statement, "some positive effects have been noted", and the fact that it makes passing reference to a König study about zucchini published in a 2000 pro-organics symposium proceedings. The page cites a devastating study only to make vague references to positive effects, and completely ignores its negative conclusions regarding efficacy. Agricolae (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this distinction, BruceGrubb. That is very helpful.

Let's accurately summarize the various studies, many of which have mixed conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources saying it is pseudoscience, and those sources have been somehow overlooked or removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of pseudoscience? That's appalling. I will add some text and sources. The article must be categorized as pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire 'Treatment of pests and weeds' section is unreferenced . . . and absolutely ridiculous. Deploy the ashes of an incinerated mouse when Venus is in Scorpius? Spray the ashes of weed seeds with the clear urine of a sterile cow, the urine having been exposed to the full moon for 6 hrs? Who makes this stuff up? And we are debating whether this is pseudoscience? Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the article could use your expertise, Agricolae. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't take much expertise to make my pronouncement, and we have the same problem as with most pseudoscience - it is a lot easier for me to look at it and see that it is silly than to find someone with credibility bothering to call it silly in print. I can look at the above hocus pocus and recognize it as simple employment security for sterile cows, (do you know what the term for a sterile cow is on most farms? Hamburger!) but, particularly given that it was never referenced to begin with, I don't even know where to start looking for a formal refutation of the whole sterile-cow-urine-under-a-full-moon approach. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know a bit about biodynamic agriculture. It derives from ideas worked out many decades ago by Rudolph Steiner, as part of his anthroposophy, a mystical, quasi-religious philosophy. It was never mainstream, nor intended to be. Ironically some of the principles coincide with recent concerns in sustainable agriculture - the importance of plant and animal derived nutrients in the soil, the need to minimise (or eliminate) external inputs. Yes, fringe. It may be better regarded in Europe than in North America, among scientists critical of typical agribusiness than those who aren't, etc., and we should try and present all the recent mainstream assessments fairly. I'm really surprised that others hadn't heard of it before. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot of fringe-pushing going on. Recently we've been arguing there about the inclusion of a quotation from the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience claiming that effects of biodynamic ag stuff has been "verified scientifically" (see here where I finally yanked the passage). The quote is from a proponent, and tracing back to the source of the quote shows no evidence that any such evaluation was performed. The only apparent reason to put this in is to give the misleading impression that the author of this encyclopedia thought that BA was OK. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm primarly concerned by the use of individual papers to back up biodynamics rather than the use of reviews in the article. Do reviews exist? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

a monkey wrench

I've found source (no time to re-locate it just now, unfortunately) that says that the Nazis basically took Steiner's material and peeled all the woo-woo off. If that's true then there is a major WP:SYNTH problem lurking here in that we can't assume that material from different times and places adds up to a commonly held system. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)

Repeated insertions of unsourced or inadequately sourced personal interpretations of facts and theories tending to promote the fringe Legitimist POV on articles about the defunct French throne and/or its order of succession are ongoing by Emerson 07 and his apparent sockpuppets (e.g. 112.198.79.106 and 112.198.81.179). He initially ignored Jimbo's edits & warning about fringing. I have stopped requesting sources, protesting, deleting and correcting these edits temporarily, here and at Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist), History of the French line of succession and Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, in order to refrain from edit-warring. However, that has left the fringe insertions and their POV distorting the article in question. Please review the following diffs:

• rewrite per fringe theory
• sourced info removed
• sock reverts my rv & repeats Emerson 07's argument
• re-inserts fringe in other article
• Jimbo reverts fringe pending sourcing
• fringe restored after article re-directed
• restores Jimbo edits but makes threat
• rv redirect but leaves no inline sources
• sock again rv then repeats Emerson 07
• me deleting unsourced fringe
• my request to not rv w/o sources
• I'm told sources unnecessary
• fringe inserted in another article
• unreliable source (fringer's personal website) cited
• sock reverts my rv
• fringe line of succession inserted
• obsolete fringe title in another article
• unsourced fringe titles re-inserted
• rv mainstream view
• re-inserts fringe
• re-inserts fringe
• I rv sock

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight (talk • contribs)

Trouble is that France is likely to remain a republic for the foreseeable, and no-one is really bothered to work out which line of succession has the best claim. If you want more eyes on the article, I suggest going to WikiProject France. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a trouble? I went at a few of these, only to find it a much bigger issue. Three distinct groups of monarchists who each consider the others to be fringe and illegitimate, and all adamantly opposed to being treated as different flavors of the same fringe belief, which they clearly are. This particular page has had a lot of the problematic WP:OR material removed, but it is now in limbo, awaiting some broader resolution that will require a consensus that doesn't seem possible, or someone with a whole lot of time to be bold and then deal with the consequences. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture

Seems to have quite a bit of OR, but I don't have time right now or the resources to deal with this (and related articles). Probably no one else here does, but I didn't want to just ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a little tidying although there's probably still room for improvement. It wasn't too bad; the original openly acknowledged that the Vinča "script" is very controversial, and that Gimbutas's ideas are controversial too. bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The bit about how wonderful Merlini is seemed pretty bad though, glad you dealt with it. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

Yet another POV-fork of Global warming controversy, and one that has nothing but synthesis and original research to back it. I swear, there's like a dozen articles covering the same basic content. Do we really need this one? 86.** IP (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Scorpio (astrology)

Articles like this are just embarassing. Maybe we need a working group to clean them up. Sadly I've decided to take a Wikibreak now. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't think that scorpios are strong-willed, sensitive, passionate, and can achieve anything in life? You must be a Sagittarius. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the scissors to it, see what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Leo (astrology), Gemini (astrology) and most of the other zodiac signs have similar issues. Yobol (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I'm not sure that was the right approach.[18] I think a lot of this content should have remained, but rewritten so it's not in Wikipedia's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But no good source, not even a source that would tell us about Scorpio in traditional astrology. Even for magazine astrology the sourcing was poor. Add more if you can find anything to go on. Scorpio in medieval thought, that would be really interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Itsmejudith here. I've been trying to find reliable sources on astrology for two months now, and, surprisingly, there is precious little out there. The topic is almost completely ignored by mainstream scholars, and there are only a handfull of fringe scholars that have published anything reliable, and they have published very little indeed. That leaves a vast mess of in-universe sourcing, most of which is self-contradictory. Publications by the largest astrological societies can't be considered representative because they emphatically state that they don't want to have anything to do with the most commonly practiced forms of astrology. I'm loathe to accept them as sources anyway because they are published in sham "academic journals". If the source has deliberately misrepresented itself, how can it be trusted for any information? They also seem to want to create a "new form" of astrology that doesn't yet exist except in their dreams, so what they write about bears no resemblance to reality.

I'm loathe to leave unsourced material in the articles with just a citation tag. At this point, I've come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that acceptable sourcing will ever be found. So I endorse Ismejudith's approach. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a few months ago Dieter Bachmann and I agreed that astrology magazines were acceptable sources for the article on astrology software. That was on the basis that those magazines were where you would expect to see reviews of the software; for comparison you would expect to see reviews of manga in manga magazines. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I probably would agree with you on the software, PROVIDED that extreme care was taken to avoid any promotional slant. I wouldn't rely on Manga fanzines for encyclopedic-grade information on the philosophy or history of Manga without further verification, though, unless the author were a clearly recognized expert, as confirmed by reliable independent sources.

However, I can't agree that any of the in-universe astrology sources can be used to provide encyclopedic-grade information on astrology in general, only on the kind of astrology that each clique or each author believes in. And that's where we run into the relevance problem. There are plenty of people who claim to be "experts" in "astrology" (implying astrology sensu lato), but are only "experts" in their own "brand" of astrology. It's really difficult or impossible to determine how many other astrologists they speak for, if any. Self-promotion and misrepresentation are rife as well, reducing the credibility of many sources.

Like I said, the largest organizations are very "elitist" and exclusive, and they state themselves that they are not representative. For example, the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand. The academics at the Sophia centre are even more elitest, and don't even speak for each other; there are major differences in astrology as imagined by Nicholas Campion, and that imagined by Patrick Curry, for instance. If their centre weren't so small and endangered that they had to cling to each other for dear life, they would be at each others throats.

Another thing is that the various personalities at these larger societies and the Sophia center describe astrology as they think it ought to be (sometime in the distant future, perhaps), rather than how it is generally practiced today. Their visions are likewise inconsistent and conflicting.

So which sources should we pick from the myriad swarm of self-published popular books and fanzines? How do we tell what is representative, reliable, credible, disinterested, scholarly and trustworthy, and what not? The problem that always will return is the dearth of reliable independent sources with which we can assess in-universe claims. Without that, I'm afraid we're stuck.

Last, but not least, is the problem that no reliable sources I've seen discuss astrolgy in the widest sense of the word, inclusive of Western, Vedic and Chinese astrology and the other variants. Maybe they are so different that they cannot be treated together. Which brings us to the question of whether the Astrology article should really exist, and how much material from it should be moved to the daughter articles. I share your concern that the article is still too Western-centric. I myself have problems remembering that it is not an article on Western astrology alone.

By the way, did you see the external link to CURA that Zac added? It might be helpful locating sources. Unfortunately, what would be the best source for Chinese astrology is designated as having "just a few unhelpful pages on astrology". Yes, it's frustrating. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also to admit to accepting in relation to History of astrology the reliability of Campion. He has an academic affiliation, but I would rethink that now. I would like to see us continue to keep all the astrology together. It remains to be seen when and how the divergences between traditions occured. I was just looking at zodiac, and will try and add the Chinese 12 stems, which are often called "zodiac"; whether there is any connection with the Western zodiac is a fascinating question for the history of ideas that may be addressed one day. I am coming to think that we are seeing one group of people trying to impose their own quite limited view as the sole kind of "astrology". That is the new "computational" group, with their pseudo-academic publications. Naturally they loathe the sun-sign magazine astrology that is actually dominant. And they go loopy when presented with the sheer scale of practice of Indian and Chinese astrology. They present themselves as the natural inheritors of medieval and early modern Western astrology, but actually it is a reinvention, just as modern Wicca lays claim to continuity with medieval and early modern witchcraft. We will unpick it all, but it takes time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes, but we don't delete material simply because it's unsourced unless it's a quotation or it's something that is challenged or likely to be challenged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: We have to go with the best sources we can find. If scholarly sources don't exist on this topic, then we should try looking at journalistic and popular press. It's difficult to Google newspaper sites because they all have damn horoscope sections, but perhaps one of these books would be acceptable?[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Campion's history is the main problem I'm thinking about right now, too. Yes, he's a genuine academic, but he's teetering on the very edge. He's patently very partisan, and I'm reluctant to trust him for the history without a reliable backup. Another problem is that he's not only fringe within the academic community, he's also fringe within the astrological community. You're right about the article being to highly influenced by the "computational group" from AAGB and Sophia. That's because there were a lot of SPA shills from there before you and I arrived. They were eventually blocked en masse, but a lot of the problems remain. The pro-astrology editors seem to rely exclusively on their material, too. Gauquelin, Eysenck, Ertel, Campion and Curry are all part of this movement. The Journal of Astrology, Correlations, Culture and Cosmos, and Astropsychological Problems are all associated with this group. It does seem like a small, unrepresentative and very incestuous group of Western "neo-astrologers" is being over-emphasized out of all proportion here, and their disdain for other types of astrology is palpable in the fact that the other types are de-emphasized or ignored. Yes, like Wicca, modern astrology is also a reinvention going back to about 1900. Medieval astrology was moribund in the 1700s, and after a brief revival during the Romantic era, died out for good. Medieval astrology was also a reinvention from the late tenth/early eleventh century based on Arabic and Greek scholarship brought back to the West by Western scholars who had studied in Islamic or Byzantine centers like Cordoba or Constantinople. The "unbroken chain" myth was a problem we had to deal with in the articles related to creationism, too. Modern creationism was invented only in the 1920s. I guess it's just part of the human tendency to trace one's ancestry back to Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, William the Conquerer, etc. Good luck with finding better sources! You have a tough row to hoe! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Quest: I'm afraid that you will find that the popular books you linked to will rarely agree with each other about anything at all, and it's impossible to determine whether anything is "authoratative" or "widely held", as there are no widely recognized experts in astrology. This isn't like creationism where we have clearly identifiable leaders and spokesmen. Astrology really is a free-for-all. Books like that are written and published for entertainment purposes only, and have precious little scholarly value for things like history or philosophy. There is zero fact-checking, and edotorial policies are geared exclusively to maximizing sales. I'd have to say the same for newpaper articles and the mass media. They rarely, if ever, treat the subject seriously enough to serve as reliable sources for WP. They usually write to entertain, as well. In short, there isn't very much there that's any more reliable than the in-universe fanzines. As for deletion, it seems to be the only way to eliminate extremely dubious material sourced with completely unreliable sources. Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found. For example, the "Core Principles" section [[20]] of the astrology article is OR or SYNTH based on primary or extremely unreliable sources, or misused sources. There is no reasonable expectation that any adequate sourcing will be found to support any of it, or that it could ever be improved. There just ain't no baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is full of ignorance and inaccuracies, unfounded speculation, distortion of facts and groundless slanderous remarks. I don't want to take it anymore seriously than it deserves, so please bring it to an end, and stop using this discussion page as a soapbox for predjudical remarks about the subject, other editors and a named person who is a subject of a WP:BLP. This is contentious material that is not sourced because it is not true, so it doesn't have a place here.

@Dougweller. I think you had a point, but I have taken most of the unsourced info off the page, and added a number of references to well respected works. I'll try to contribute more later as I believe the pages have a good potential for development.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Well, we can't delete these articles because astrology is clearly a notable topic. Nor can have empty articles. Can you please take another look at this list of sources[21] to see if any are acceptable? At the very least, this book[22] would meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements of reliability. Obviously, these aren't scholarly books, but the publisher does produce many excellent - if beginner - books on many different topics. Keep in mind that astrology is much like religion. For example, we don't need to have fact-checking on whether Jesus was the son of god. We only need fact-checking that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎

For info, I have opened an RfC on whether the above article should have a quote to illustrate the opinion of every scientist listed. I think it's of interest to this board, as the article is a controversial one and climate change denial is a very visible fringe theory that we want to get right. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)