Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Authorship of Dreams from My Father

Kauffner (talk · contribs) and Mikedelsol (talk · contribs) wish to use this source, from The American Thinker, in Dreams from My Father, to include the claim that the book was ghostwritten by William Ayers. I think that a) The American Thinker is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim this extraordinary, and b) the claim is a fringe theory, and one not sufficiently noted in mainstream sources to be included in the article. Editors who are familiar with fringe theories in political contexts are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We should use the American Thinker, but only if we can use this source too. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch it — somebody's going to take that seriously. (One editor on the talk page is currently claiming that the repetition of the American Thinker claim on Rush Limbaugh and WorldNet Daily means that it's reached the mainstream.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt the POV-pushers know about this noticeboard, but I'll watch the page. Right now it looks like you have things under control. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I took a look at our article on The American Thinker as well - which is actually not too bad. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, on his blog Noroton (talk · contribs) has, flatteringly, used this dispute as an example of how political POV-pushing on Wikipedia should be handled. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been further developments on this front. The Times of London has reported that a Republican congressman (Chris Cannon) and his brother-in-law offered to pay an Oxford don $10,000 to "prove" that Ayers wrote Obama's book. The don declined, and later ran an analysis himself, which led him to the conclusion "...I feel totally confident that it is false." The story of the congressman's involvement has also been covered in The Salt Lake Tribune. My feeling is that these sources are reliable enough to merit a brief mention in the article, but other folks at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Fringe think that it's still best left out. Any opinions are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist logic

I ran across this one during routine article cleanup. I'm honestly not sure if it's a fringe theory or not, but it certainly looks like it could be. I don't really know anything about the topic, and it's enough of a mess right now that I wouldn't even know how to start improving it. hbent (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't necessarily be fringe, depending on how it develops. The article was massively expanded by an IP editor two days ago, and if that editor continues to work on it, there is a possibility it will turn into something valid. If not, it isn't a very useful article. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Should perhaps be merged with Indian logic. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an upper division psychology class at U.C. Berkeley called "Buddhist Psychology", so I'd hope there would be some useful sources somewhere that they drew on. NJGW (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

N Lots of scholarly sources so definitely not fringe. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with the Syriac kids please?

The problem as it presents itself to any sane observer: Some Syriac Christians think they are "Aramaeans" and reject the name "Assyrians", while others think they are "Assyrians" and reject the name "Aramaeans". Both endorse the name "Syriacs". This means we get lots of WP:CFORKs on the same group, one copy under "Aramaean-Syriac", the other under "Assyrian", and we get a lot of edit wars by both factions claiming the term "Syriac", which recently has meant piping "Syriac $ISSUE" to "Aramean-Syriac $ISSUE". This is a pure naming issue, the group discussed being the exact same. These kids have the bad taste to go and create a fork of Assyrian genocide at Syriac genocide just to make a WP:POINT.

The proper way to treat this as a bona fide dispute would be {{move}} discussions based on actual sources. Instead, we get a fork orgy by angry young men spewing vitriol at one another and any bystander. As if this wasn't bad enough, we now also have textbook "clueless admins" stepping in in weird ways, refusing to grok even as much of the issue as summarized right above (look at the history of Aramaean-Syriac people and this diff).

Only a zero-tolerance on content forking, and reward of valid and coherent renaming requests can help in this. I have been doing this with angelic patience for a year now, but I cannot work against the "clueless admin" population as well as against the teenage patriots, and I shouldn't be required to babysit admins as well as pov-pushers. Help is appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

note, this problem would be on-topic on the "nationalistic feuds" noticeboard, if that was active. I take it this board is the de facto nearest thing we have. Perhaps I should cross-post the problem somewhere else? --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you try AfD? I may be wrong, but I think if an AfD on Aramaean-Syriac People ends with "merge", and there is a clear closing comment saying that this is because it's a content fork, then you should be in a good position to ensure the page is, and remains, a redirect. Perhaps you could even protect the redirect in this case, or someone else would do it for you. (Of course you may have tried similar things before. In that case sorry for bringing it up.) --Hans Adler (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that [1] is almost entirely written in low-grade broken English. If this hasn't sorted itself out when I get back from a break (Friday, that is), I'll do something about it. Moreschi (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A longstanding problem. Years ago I even created a user account on German Syriac web forum to explain Wikipedia policy and make their community leaders influence the angry young men. Shortlasting results didn't exactly reward the efforts taken. --Pjacobi (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

trying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Fringe theories

There's been some edit warring at Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Elonka has already gone after SA for it (many of you may know this already for having his page watched). Some of the ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects will be familiar to those who watch this board regularly. NJGW (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am cautioning multiple editors, not just ScienceApologist. Major changes to guidelines should be discussed at the talkpage first. ScienceApologist in particular has been edit-warring to force through major changes at the guideline, but hasn't posted a single message at the talkpage since August. --Elonka 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the normal editing process supposed to begin with being bold? What I notice is that those who reverted him have for the most part not stated their issues with the changes he made. NJGW (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the first one to revert the edits which ScienceApologist made. That presumably means NJGW is referring to me when he speaks of "some usual fringe suspects". I stated my reasons in the edit summary, briefly but comprehensibly. I object strongly to NGJW's ignorant and unwarranted description of me, which is a clear breach of WP:AGF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict reply to NJGW) See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This is an ongoing situation where Wikipedia is being used as a battleground, so certain topics (and editors) are on a shorter leash. --Elonka 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I too take objection to NJGW's characterization. As I was one of the "reverters", I assume that he is labelling be one of the "usual fringe suspects". I am not a supported of the fringe POV. I am a supporter NPOV and CON, both of which were ignored by the edits which I reverted. Being bold is one thing, but once an editor sees that their boldness is contested/reverted, the next step should be to engage in discussion. Instead - in this case - the editorchose to edit-war and make personal attacks. We cannot tolerate such poor behavior. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Usual fringe suspects" means people that have come up on this board before. I thought that would be obvious. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get away from discussing editors, and back to discussing content? --Elonka 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage Elonka to follow her own advice concerning fringe theories, particularly for Race and intelligence. She has invited Ludwigs2 to edit this article (he declined) and has characterized the editors on the talk page, which have for some time concentrated on locating mainstream academic sources, as "bickering". Elsewhere she has repeatedly and unapologetically described them as a "lynch mob". Not once has she commented on content. Meanwhile the article has been recently edited by an indefinitely blocked user (Muntuwandi - aka User:Shambalala) and by User:Captain Occam, also a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. I hope that no administrators are actually sympathetic with those pushing the ideas of eugenics and dysgenics, two of the main proponents of which are Rushton and Lynn, both of whom have actively involved themselves with the far right group American Renaissance. Their ideas and the way in which they have been received by the mainstream academic community (in book reviews, for example) should of course be reported dispassionately and neutrally in this encyclopedia, if the need arises. Mathsci (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also being discussed here at ANI. I suggest the behaviour issues are dealt with (if still needed after Elonka's warnings) at ANI, the wording of the guideline is discussed here at WT:FRINGE, and this discussion closed as there is no specific fringe theory being discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The main page WP:FRINGE has now been locked by seicer. User:Ludwigs2 has taken it upon himself to revamp the guidelines "from head to tail" at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox. I wonder whether Elonka can appreciate the irony in this particular editor preparing a completely new version of these WP guidelines? Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Low level edit war at Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Needs an eye on it, but I'm travelling right now. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clouds, and thus contrails, consist of liquid and solid water, not vapor. - Atmoz (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that particular edit I was referring to, but there does seem to be a lot of activity and this has now been mentioned on ANI. Verbal chat 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update A user is making what I believe are fallacious arguments on this page. Any help appreciated as he thinks my dismissal of his list of complaints isn't good enough. (tongue in cheek: Apparently the article isn't neutral as the only sources against chemtrtails are either governmental (gasp) or skeptical (by definition...?)) Verbal chat 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else interesting, see [2] - the IP is also participating on the talk page, but it obviously not new. I'm not sure if there is an issue here to be raised elsewhere or not. dougweller (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP claims to have edited the page previously in edit-wars, and has been blocked recently for vandalism. Verbal chat 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

There's been a lot of rewrites and additions to this recently, and many of them seem to encourage fringe theories to be described credulously. I think that the last week's changes need some review. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The page has been protected, so edits are limited to talk page discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The protect is a good thing. Discussions continue at the talk pages... those who participate at this noticeboard should get involved in those discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory: Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

This article is very long and in need of a big clean up. It is currently very biased in tone and lacks reliable references for notability outside of the work of one man. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Now this diff is a prime example of a major problem plaguing Wikipedia. New account, first and only edit is to this article, already spouting off about Wikipedia policies, removes link to the most devastating refutation of MECO, namely the Usenet posts by John Baez and Chris Hillman.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Being no stranger to the related usenet shenanigans, I have to laugh about this new account's debut. However, while it may be obvious to you or me that the previously linked usenet posts show the level of crankery of the subject of the article, usenet posts are not normally considered as reliable sources for wikipedia, and for good reasons. I see someone else has since added a quote by an astronomer from a news source, although it's just a sound byte saying the idea is "almost certainly wrong". It will be interesting to see how this plays out after the AfD closes. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So no usenet posts? OK. Grrrr.... But what if... I mean, there used to be this alien shipwrecked on Earth, working as a janitor in some Midwestern university... name of Archimedes Plutonium... there may even be a WP entry on him but I won't look, I got enough heartburn already... this creature spammed the usenet with a trillion crackpot posts, which just by sheer quantity alone made him notable... now how would you include "refutations" or "criticism" if not from the usenet... surely no scientist ever wrote a peer-reviewed article about his certified-in-Andromeda ravings... now Mitra is no AP and I'm pretty sure he's an earthling... but there's puff pieces in the Article, like from Rediff (big Indian media conglomerate) where he styles himself a martyr to truth... am I at least allowed to insert Baez' "crackpot index" and count off how many points Mitra gets? No?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For articles about usenet phenomena, it's clearly reasonable to have refs from usenet. As I said, it's not normally considered a reliable source generally. You could make a case that Baez' post, coming from a notable figure with a reputation for physics exposition on usenet, could be reliable in this case. In fact, you may want to do precisely that, now that the reference has been reinserted, removed, and re-reinserted in the last five hours, after the MECO article has been (temporarily??) made into a stub. One problem with citing usenet is that headers can be forged, though I'd say there is almost no doubt that Baez actually posted this one. Further discussion of the merits of including this particular usenet post is best taken to the talk page of the article or even possibly mentioning on yet another noticeboard for wider input.

Oh, I took the liberty of changing your link to Chris Hillman above. His account here is User:Hillman; the confusion being that he signed with his initials, which form a different user's account. Chris is presumably gone from wikipedia, but left a ton of technical material which exists in some form - see user:Hillman/Archive for an overview. Tim Shuba (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ortega (genealogy)

This surname Ortega is extremely common among Spanish speakers throughout the world. The article Ortega explains the etymology of the surname (from Latin urtica), with examples from other Romance languages. The article Ortega (genealogy) was created as a Wikipedia:Fork by a contributor who believes that all Ortegas derive from one family line. The genealogical information looks erroneous. It is not sourced well. Considering the etymology of the name and examples in other Romance languagues (including Italian, Mario Ortica, etc.) the claim that all the Spanish examples derive from one line seems quite unbelievable. The Spanish surname derives from a nickname apparently common among Romance peoples, from Vulgar Latin-speaking people who nicknamed people after the urtica. Later this nickname became a surname. However the claim that all the Spanish Ortegas come from one line seems ridiculous. Ortega (genealogy) is fringe. A is putting the smack down (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me -- but the first step is to raise the point on the talk page of the article, and only take it to a discussion board if the result is unsatisfactory. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but who will read it there besides the contributor who continually reverted my changes without comment? :) See the edit history of Ortega. A is putting the smack down (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ortega (genealogy) may be Original research, not even qualifying as fringe at least. A is putting the smack down (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right on the issues, but you've been handling this badly. You've been edit-warring, you've been labeling changes as vandalism when they are not, and you've made no attempt to open communication. I'm personally dubious about the whole thing, given the general story that names of aristocracy are most commonly derived from place names, but in any case, it would be easier to help you if you would take a less violent approach. Looie496 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many Ortegas there are on this planet? There are countless in Los Angeles alone, from the campus of USC to the Los Angeles County Jail. It's exactly like saying that all Lopez's are one family. The scenario is that the name existed before any such aristocratic line arose, and not all Ortegas trace back to that line. What evidence has been assembled for the claim that they all trace to one line? Annd the etymology from a place name then treats the examples in other Romance languages as irrelevant, when in fact the examples in other Romance languages indicate the historical reality. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The person's information was so bad he didn't even know about the examples in other Romance languages (Ortica, Ortie, Urzica) and he was promoting an imbecilic derivation of Ortega from the Latin word Fortuna, an obvious folk etymology. I suspect that all his information is basically erroneous. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this out, not just other Romance parellels. There are also parellels between Basque language names and Spanish names, such as Ochoa (see article). There is also a parellel here, I found the Basque surname Asin; Asin is the Basque word for the urtica/nettle. See the Basque name Jose Maria Asin. I'm telling you guys, the nickname/surname is old, much older than any aristocratic line, and not exclusive to such a line. It was popular among the Vulgar Latin people who became the Spanish. Before Romanization they spoke a language similar to Basque, and Basque naming practices survived. But leaving aside pre-Roman influence, the examples in other Romance languages are also there. I'm going to eventually get more information to back up my position. Till then I am letting you guys know that I suspect that Ortega (genealogy) is erroneous. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is even a place in Aragon, Spain called Asín. I will check the etymology of that place name eventually. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that edit summary, I regret it, especially because he was editing an article on his surname which is dear to him. However I had some bad experiences last year and a few weeks ago a friend of mine was murdered. When I was reverted twice without comment I felt like venting. That is very disrespectful to revert like that without comment (and to add to it, the same day I was having the same experience with another anonymous contributor at Vulgar Latin vocabulary). I hate it when I say or do stuff like that because it's hard to take it back, but if life was nicer with me, I would be nicer with others. And you guys should come up with a quick way to erase edit summaries and comments like that so we can forget all about them. A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ortega surname has a connection with Aragon, where Asin is located, see [3]. Aragon is one of the regions of Spain that historically had the most Basque people, Basque people who have the surname Asin (Latin urtica, old dialectical Spanish ortega). A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the way this website works is you type in the surname and it tells you how a particular family shield looks. For Ortiz it lists three different shields, three different lines [4]. Now if someone puts one particular shield for Ortiz in the Ortiz article and claims they are one line, he is wrong. For Ortega the website lists a shield, a line from Aragon[5]. That is not to say all Ortegas are of that Aragonese line. And I think the Ortega (genealogy) article doesn't even deal with the Aragonese line although Aragon is mentioned in the infobox and the shield is the shield described as Aragonese. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with Alex -- it is bad enough that we have very few editors with philological expertise, but too often they are also jumped upon by the ever-increasing "clueless admin" population in the best "Randy in Boise" tradition. We really need to be doing something about this. Such as, impressing on new admins that they are to protect the editors with expertise. Wikipedia isn't a schoolyard where every kid has the same right to play. Admins need to learn that they should to kick out Randy in Boise -- yes, even if he is honestly convinced the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons -- in order to take weight off our valuable experts. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dab. And I was really in a bad mood or else I wouldn't have embarassed myself by such a show of anger and saying something that can be very hurtful. I checked the surname Lopez, there are several armorial lines [6]. This does not mean that all Lopez's are one line, and a person with the surname may not have ancestry from any of those heraldic Lopez lines. See Lopez. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Miguel Asín Palacios, middle name Asin, from Zaragoza, Aragon. A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it. It appears that the name Ortega can be traced to two Aragonese lineages of lower nobility, with two different coats of arms. Apparently they are attested from the 16th or 17th century. The 10th century stuff appears to be due to a lady Ortega Ramírez (given name), illegitimate daughter of king Ramiro II of León (r. 931-951) [7]. This medieval lady Ortega as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to do with the surname. Also, the "Fortunate" etymology pushed by the anon is due to Mexican eccentric Gutierre Tibón, which means we can cite it as a curiosity, but it certainly doesn't have any philological credibility. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The etymology as far as I can tell goes back to Latin urtica and Vulgar Latin nicknames, and usage of a name meaning "nettle" in Spain goes further back to Basques etc. Those two heraldic lines may have popularized the name. I haven't looked into this that much however, maybe the usage of the surname Ortega can be traced to two lines in Aragon, however this does not mean that all people with that surname descend in part from those lines. As in the case of many Spanish surnames, there are heraldic lines (Lopez has heraldic lines), yet the name just started out as a name, meaning "Son of Lupe", a name probably tracing back to numerous lines within a certain area where the dialectical Lope was used instead of Lobo. With Ortega, it is a dialectical variant of ortiga, probably a variant tracing to Aragon (seems obvious). A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ultimately, there were (or are) lots of villages called Ortega in Spain. Anyone from one of these villages could be named de Ortega in the Early Modern period. The two lines of infanzones are just the only ones who had a coat of arms. I don't think this has anything to do with Basques. Ortega vs. Ortiga is just a spelling variant, hardly even "dialectal". In the 16th to 17th century, such spelling variants were the rule, not the exception. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, villages? I did not take that into account. And I'm not very familiar with Spanish dialects and you're probably right. The Basque influence may have been just enough to make Ortega popular in Aragon (anyway doing research almost at random I found some possible correspodance between Asin/Aragon/Ortega), whereas Ortica, Ortie, and Urzica are not popular (although attested) among Italians, French, and Romanians. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann is excellente by the way :) On point. Excellent and quick research, he's so quick it almost surprises me sometimes :) It will take me awhile to discover the etymology of Asín/Asín (name) (whether it is in fact from the Basque word asin/osin/asun, meaning "nettle"), it's late here and I'll save that for tomorrow. Another point I will look into: when not ultimately derived from a toponym, maybe the reference was to some "stinging", "prickly", "antagonizing" quality of a person, reminiscent of the nettle. The Latin word urtica besides meaning "nettle" also had developed those figurative meanings [8], based on the prickly/stinging qualities of the nettle. A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

in the case of Asin, I wouldn't rule out a Basque origin -- the name figures in the Diccionario Onomástico Y Heráldico Vasco, but google books won't let me see the entry. --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

--discussion on the Asin toponym continues at Talk:Asín. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I don't see it as clueless to say that no matter how right you are, it's good to make some attempt to communicate with your opponent. If you look at the history and contribs, you'll see that Alex plunged into an edit war without making the slightest attempt to communicate using anything other than edit summaries -- several of which incorrectly labeled his opponent's changes as vandalism. (forgot to sign when posting, signing now) looie496 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex has apologized for that. Your edits were not "vandalism", but they were misguided. You have now been told they were misguided, and I think we can expect you to get your act together at this point and build a proper case based on references. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That comment was by me, not the IP -- sorry for forgetting to sign it. looie496 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting to the root of the matter as the anon edits Gutierre Tibón (diff). --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The person obviously does not like the established (and correct) derivation from Latin urtica. The other issue is establishing a lineage (a lineage for all Ortegas? this person should add its talents to Lopez) tracing back to Ortega Ramirez. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks so much like vandalism, I call it vandalism [9]. The anon came back. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Dbachmann stated that he could not find a source tracing a line back to Ortega Ramirez, but even if the Aragonese infanzones trace back to Ortega Ramirez, that is not evidence that all Ortegas are from that lineage. As I mentioned with Lopez, there are several heraldic lines, and most Lopez's today probably trace to none of them. And you will notice the Lopez article does not put all the shields (several different shields) in the infobox. A is putting the smack down (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

anon is now revert-warring at Gutierre Tibón‎. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The anon now has an account. That editor is disrespectful of other editors and disrespectful of Wikipedia's standards. But it may be he is simply ignorant and convinced he is correct. His manner of thinking seems foolish to me and his essay at Ortega is erroneous. I will take this case to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Rudgley

This article raised a few red flags with me, especially the glowing praise in the unreferenced parts. Needs verification, although I'm not saying this is necessarily a "fringe" author. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look now. dougweller (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Half of the text in the article is now devoted to one negative review. That feels way out of balance. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

well, it's the only review we know about so far. It's only "out of balance" if you can show that there do in fact exist more positive reviews to put against that.

it appears my suspicion wasn't unfounded. I am now beginning to wonder whether he does really have all these fancy academic honours the article claims he does, without any sort of reference of course. dab (𒁳) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is clearly this. Since it basically describes him as a graduate student, I don't see anything all that "fancy" about it. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And you might want to look for other reviews of other books, although I think that's his best known book. It needs a bibliography, I'd hoped I could find one easily but failed. dougweller (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean that the article needs a bibliography? Yes, definitely. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized where I had come across this chap before -- Pagan Resurrection, which I cleaned up two years back (now made a redirect as failing WP:BK). This author seems to have written a good book on psychoactive drugs in the early 1990s, and since then has ominously lost it, and is now writing crackpot literature on confused ideas about prehistoric occultism. I have now become aware of this article because Rudgley is mentioned in a hilariously nonsensical post on Talk:Runic alphabet. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Financial astrology

Could somebody take a look at this? I'm totally flummoxed on how to deal with it. I came to it recently because of spam like references, including one supposedly published by "the Harvard Business School Press." Just to be sure: astrology has as much place in finance as it does in computer science.

Any help, rewording, etc. appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not nominate the article for deletion? Guidance on how to rewrite it so that it conforms to the rules was given a long time ago on the article's Talk page, if the defenders of Financial astrology can't be bothered to do the work, then that's their fault.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that Financial astrology is a part of Mundane astrology, i.e. involved with predictions. Since it has the astrology template on it, I don't think it is trying to deceive. I am not recommending it, just saying that it is a notable astrology subject. An Amazon search shows a number of published books on the subject, so the sourcing is there if someone wants to improve the article (I am disinclined to spend time on it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

…And cruft leads to more cruft. Take a look at William Delbert Gann, which is linked from this article. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Past life regression

Oh. My. God. Talk about terrible. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a WALLED GARDEN! Check out Regression Therapy, Michael Newton (hypnotist), Journey of Souls, Destiny of Souls, Roger Woolger, Ian Lawton, and Andy Tomlinson.

I haven't been watching any of the other articles, but as I said on the talk page, I feel that your criticism of Past life regression is greatly overstated. looie496 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Past life regression is a New Age therapy that seems rather problematic [10][11], and is being marketed to people who are too naive to understand the risks. I have talked to people who encountered serious problems from this form of therapy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything, I think my criticism is understated. That article was FAR from encyclopedic and used almost no third-party sources. It's a joke! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The original state of this page was terrible. It still needs work. Verbal chat 14:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just listed this at AFD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Luis Cordon's Popular Psychology:An Encyclopedia has two pages of text on it, and clearly states it's pseudoscience. I added some text and removed some bunk. Any claims of efficacy would fall under WP:MEDRS as far as I'm concerned, and per WP:FRINGE it should be easy to debunk with some half-decent sources. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

There have been discussions here about problems with articles on ancient Persia and Babylonia (specifically Cyrus cylinder and Battle of Opis). I've been reviewing this topic area and have found numerous problems, in some cases amounting to a walled garden of bad articles. I've posted some review notes at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. Feedback would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea which part of Wikipedia policy is supposed to require us to even put up with blatant nationalist pov-pushing. This is simply something that does not belong here, not a matter of "debate" or "consensus". People who come here to abuse the project as a campaign platform should be duly warned, patiently pointed to policy, and if they persist, shown the door. It is difficult enough to work with people who are trying to write an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

Is an article I've just come across. It seems to be very positive in its descriptions of alternative medicine terms, but I'm not sure what policies would apply here. Could probably do with some copy editing, reduction of some terms, and expansion of others with scientific information. There are a lot of things like "therapy x cures y by principle z" which I'm not sure should be said in wikipedia's voice. More eyes, attention, etc. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it violates WP:NOT for one... Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, and what is a "Glossary" if not a form of dictionary? Transcribe any term definitions over to Wiktionary and Delete the article? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact an official-looking list of glossaries, with many entries. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! How in the world do we justify having all those glossaries... is there some sort of subtle difference between a glossary and a dictionary that I am missing? (Probably a question that is better answered at WT:NOT, so I have posted a querry about this there.) Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one difference is that a glossary may be organized by topic, whereas a dictionary is alphabetical. Looking through the list, some are very nice, others could well be deleted. It would be a real shame, for example, to lose this. looie496 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I could a glossary for say, physics, but Alternative medicine is a diverse field with each type having its own jargon. I'd support its deletion, or at least a ground-up copyedit. For one thing, it constantly uses the word theory, in ca context where "scientific theory" would be presumed, when it actually means "guess". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It actually means 'belief' imho as I consider most forms of CAM a form of religion. This article was use wierdly by wikiproject alt med in the past. See Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Alternative_medicine#Core_Project_Articles "The following lists/articles/categories are considered important to our WikiProject. The entire point of our Wikiproject's annotated lists is to write a short teaser that will entice the public to read the main article on the respective subject. Every CAM article in Wikipedia needs a teaser added to one of these master lists. Otherwise, people may not be able to find our articles." (!!! from me) Sticky Parkin 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it doesn't stop all the alt-med mavens insisting on reverting alny attempts to enforce WTA in that article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medical systems

An editor made a category "Category:whole medical systems" which is what he says they're called by the NCCAM which some of the alt med category follows. I would appreciate your views on the talk pages as to whether it should be called Category:Alternative medical systems or should be renamed Category:Whole medical systems. I've asked at any wikiprojects that might be interested too. Sticky Parkin 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Placebo

There is currently a discussion going on over at the Placebo page as to whether the effect exists or not (because a review calls it a "subjective" not "objective" effect). One administrator has been making accusations of biase (I'm in the pay of BigSugar, perhaps?) and tried to change the lead to imply the effect doesn't exist. This could do with some review by experts please. Many thanks, Verbal chat 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page, and removed the objectionable line from the lead. Can I suggest that you try to ignore the incivility and focus on getting the desired result? In my experience making a point of an editor's incivility hardly ever gets positive results, unless you are trying to create a paper trail to justify a block. In this case, since it's an N-vs-1 situation, it should be possible to solve the problem most easily by gang-reverting. looie496 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the accusation of bias is a very strange thing on a placebo page when I'm arguing it exists :) I'll need a calmex or something ... Verbal chat 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thai traditional medicine

Does this read more like an advertisement than a proper article to you? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Chemtrail conspiracy theory

A user keeps replacing the NPOV tag on this article because in his opinion it isn't neutral because the article is written from the point of view of chemtrails being a conspiracy theory, thus failing NPOV. They also think all scientific or governmental sources are inherently biased, hence failing RS. They now seem to edit around only this topic, but I refrain from calling them an SPA because prior to this current interest they edited the Loose change and other "9/11 Truther" articles. I think some explanation and enforcement of policy is required on this page, and I would also support it being moved under the PS arbitration. Pleas help FTN, you're our only hope... Verbal chat 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you say, "the article is written from the point of view of chemtrails being a conspiracy theory," then he's right to have the tag there. We're supposed to have a neutral POV, not take sides. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Per wp:fringe, we are allowed to take sides when it comes to fringe theories, and chemtrails is fringe to the point of being very close to "tiny minority". looie496 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to be neutral, not ignorant/indifferent. There is a difference. Neutrality (philosophy)#What neutrality is not is an interesting couple of paragraphs for those who think otherwise to consider. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Last night the tag was being readded by a drive-by IP twice, same range, different IP address each time, probably the same editor as is unhappy on the talk page. Probably to avoid 3RR. dougweller (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Asked for those proxies to be blocked at WP:PROXY. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Booth Escaped

(this discussion is being moved here from the Fringe guideline's talkpage)

I am one of the editors working on the John Wilkes Booth article, and I've encountered some criticism (read: one editor) who feels that including the numerous books and documentaries (detailing the 100+ year old conspiracy theories that JWB escaped being shot outside a farmhouse) should be purged as fringe theories. I was wondering if I could get some guidance from editors here as to how to proceed. I want to be fair, but the other editor in question is dancing the knife edge of civility and I think more opinions other than his/hers (or mine, for that matter) should come into play. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are numerous books and documentaries about this, then it sounds like you can make a case that the theories are notable (read: not necessarily true, just well known and often propagated), but this really depends on the scholarly quality of those sources. What it comes down to is what the consensus of professional historians is--do they claim by-and-large that there categorically was no conspiracy? do they often claim that there may have been one? etc. etc. If the conspiracy theories are extremely notable and have not been reasonably debunked, then they may merit a detailed discussion. But if it's not an avenue of research pursued by serious historians then it would be hard to argue for the inclusion of the argument details in anything but an article called Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on whether the inclusion of the "Booth Escaped" theories (or "theories") meets WP:UNDUE policy, i.e., is the space it takes up in John Wilkes Booth adequate or excessive? Should it be excluded altogether as a "tiny-minority view"? An opinion on that would require a familiarity with the relevant history and scholarship which I do not possess.

However, if I understand the discussion on the Article's Talk page (please correct me if I am wrong) there appears to be concern that the inclusion of "Booth Escaped" is an attempt to push a fringe theory. That is not my impression. From what I can see, the wording in that section is scrupulously neutral and could serve as a model on how to do it right.

In my experience, Fringe advocates always (always!) give themselves away; they cannot resist from advocacy. I see no sign of that in the contested section.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The section, as it was when I looked at it, about 5 minutes ago, looked great. It neutrally presents the theory, who advocated it, public response to it, and avoids fluffing it up as some sort of deliberately repressed 'great truth' or as 'some crackpot's nonsense'. This would ,as others have mentioned, make a solid example of 'how to handle a theory which while a minority, has recieved durable interest and numerous investigations.' I don't understand why there's fighting over it at all, the wording as it is this evening is cited, and factual. ThuranX (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal time and Fractal cosmology

Both of these articles need reviewing. The first seems to be in a dire state and should probably be proposed for deletion. The second appears more reasonable, but does contain discussion and references to the notorious M. S. El Naschie. All help is appreciated, Verbal chat 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, here is Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals. Several articles appear to reference Naschie's journal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we list them and check. Maybe the reliable sources noticeboard could help? Verbal chat 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The universe isn't a fractal. It has a measured power-spectrum that is does not have fractal dimension. This is actually mentioned at Plasma cosmology. However, the question of whether the universe had fractal dimension was of interest for about 5 to 10 years in the 1990s. The fractal cosmology article, as written, was extremely problematic, however, so I redirected it wholesale to nonstandard cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

While bouncing around these articles I found Scale relativity which I promptly nominated for deletion as a violation of our WP:FRINGE guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I roundly agree with the opening comments of ScienceApologist at the top of this entry. The articles are both in need of work, or some critical review, and perhaps one or both should be omitted. As the primary author of the Fractal cosmology article, however, I would have appreciated a less hasty approach to redressing the issues raised than that taken by ScienceApologist. It seems rather a low blow to re-direct to a topic which makes no mention of Fractals in Cosmology, at the present. And doing so evades any sort of discussion that might have made the article more factually accurate, or less biased away from the mainstream. Nowhere did the article say the mainstream view was wrong, only that the scientists in various areas of Physics were coming to find fractals in their explorations, and that a growing number of them felt they were important to our study of the Cosmos.

So lets talk facts. SA stated above "The universe isn't a fractal." Does he have clear proof of this? Does he consider the SDSS review by Tegmark's group to be a 'last nail in the coffin' for a fractal-inclusive picture of the Cosmos? Mathematically speaking, SA's statement is shaky, though not totally unsound. If one removes the word "a" his statement becomes patently false, however, as it's easy to prove that nature exhibits fractal structure on various levels. So the question then becomes "On what level of scale is the universe not fractal?" One would have to dig deeper to know that statements by Tegmark and others are really shorthand, in that the hypothesis they feel they have deposed is the idea that the universe is fractal all the way out to the largest levels of scale. Proponents of Lambda-CDM do not rule out fractality at all, but merely adhere to the notion of a Cosmological principle which states that the universe is statistically isotropic and flat at the largest scale levels.

Remember the FRLW metric was a outgrowth of some simplifying assumptions, one of which is that the universe is statistically homogeneous. But numerous forms of Inflation do not conflict with this, and some still predict fractality at the ultra-large scale, beyond the observable horizon of our 'Hubble bubble." However, the subject of dimensionality itself deserves some mention. As a proponent of the constructivist view in Math, I am of the opinion that objects and spaces do not have a specific dimension, apart from the observations we can have of them, or interactions we might have with them. This is very much like empirical Science, in that statements about dimension cannot be made ad hoc. And each of the various theories of the microscale universe, or of gravity, from String theory and LQG to Causal Dynamical Triangulation all include the idea of different dimensionality near the Planck Scale (ranging from 2 to 10 or 11 dimensions).

So where is the universe not fractal? And why pass judgment so summarily when you could have marked it for deletion or review? I can find plenty of recent peer-reviewed article publications in serous journals, so the argument that Fractal cosmology died in the 90s doesn't hold water.

Therefore; it's my intent to resurrect the article as last revised before your re-direct, ScienceApologist, and I'm asking politely that you mark the article for deletion, if you think you have a clear reason, and take up the question on discussion pages, or by posting review tags with the article.

Thanks, JonathanD (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have resurrected the article Fractal cosmology, and taken note of the many reviewer notes placed by Verbal. I have left comments on his user page, and that of ScienceApologist, which I hope will foster a mutually satisfying resolution of this matter. Being the prime author of the Fractal cosmology entry, I would obviously like to see it remain intact, but I welcome commentary, and I'd rather see the article improved or corrected, than have WikiPedia do without it. It seems like a hot topic with growing weight of evidence behind it, from my view. Perhaps my outlook on the subject is somewhat insular, but the same could be said of its critics.

Is Fractal Cosmology really Fringe science? Has the mainstream actually ruled out the possibility the universe is a fractal or displays fractality? Or is the real question, "In what range of scale do structures in the universe appear to be fractal?" Let's get some more opinions, at least.

Regards,

JonathanD (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

update

If people could chip in over at the Fractal cosmology talk page with suggestions for internal and external links, or generally how to improve the article, I'd only be too please. People are focusing on editors rather than editing at the moment. Much obliged, Verbal chat

More UFO listcruft

We now have List of alleged UFO-related entities and List of UFO-related entities, both up for deletion, but just in case, perhaps you should take a look and opine for yourselves. Mangoe (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Weekly World News lede

It appears that the text of Weekly World News is mostly OK (I didn't read all of it, as it is rather long), but the lead is abominable. Is it possible that someone could provide something that vaguely resembles an encyclopedic opening? Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sniffex

Given recent edits to Sniffex, it might make sense to add this article to your watchlists. -- The Anome (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Riley Martin

"self-described alien contactee, author, and radio host. " I've just cut out a bit of OR but that was before I started to look at the article more closely. What are our policies on such detailed information about his radio show episodes? I love the begging bowl link in the 2nd paragraph, which clearly has to go but I've left to show how bad this article is. Can anyone find any information about 'Historicity Productions'? It looks self-published. He's been on the Jerry Springer show and Sirius radio and Howard Stern so I'm thinking that he has sufficient notability, so it's just a matter of cleaning up the article. dougweller (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Saqqara Bird and possible COI

See the recent history [12] and User talk:Dawoudk. It may well be that he is an architect, but his own web site descrbes his father differently than he is doing now. At least he has responded to me and I'm happy to accept that he is an architect. He clearly has a COI problem and I'm not sure how best to handle it. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian ufology

This article is ridiculous: a good nominee for one of the worst on all of Wikipedia. I tagged it with all the appropriate tags and started fixing problems, but I don't have the time to go through all of this. Beware, the article owner is a might prickly. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens, that is bad. No doubt there's useful info in that but it's all framed wrongly. I really recommend stubbing and starting again (as the topic is surely perfectly valid). Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified submerged object

Continuing on the UFO theme, I introduce USOs (or my preferred name, underwater-UFOs). This article seems a bit too credulous, and could do with a review. Verbal chat 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've seen worse on these UFO articles. A mild cleanup would be nice but there's much nastier out there. Moreschi (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to get UWUFO into the woo lexicon (prn: you-woo--you-foo). Verbal chat 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As in $U(w)_{oo}U(f)^{oo}={\overline {foo}}$.

Because the Einstein summation convention always tastes great with metasyntactic variables. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Covert incest

Our article on covert incest is currently a travesty of unreliable sources. The concept is treated as though it were a notable theory in psychology, but it contains only three citations to studies published in actual peer reviewed journals. [13] merely observes the existence of the concept, but does not assert it. [14] describes a supposed symptom of "covert incest" while critiquing the characterization. And of course [15] doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all, but only the views of a critic of "covert incest". It appears that the existence, and supposed harmful effects of "covert incest" have only been asserted in pop-psychology literature not subject to peer review, which the article cites extensively. While these books are reliable sources as to the views of "covert incest" proponents, they hardly support the claim that "Covert, emotional or psychic incest is an alleged type of psychological abuse" with which the article on covert incest begins. Thus, if described at all, "covert incest" should be treated as a linguistic or cultural phenomenon -- or perhaps even a notable pseudoscientific concept -- not as a serious theory in psychology. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on the page a fair bit, and completely agree that it's pseudoscience, pop psychology and survivor spam. Google scholar turns up only five citations since 2003. The problem was finding solid criticisms of the topic. I'm also sure any changes to criticize the concept is going to run into opposition from single purpose accounts and wandering IP addresses. I would even wonder about it being that notable - enough to pass WP:N, but with no real impact on psychology. Anyway, I'd love to have my expanding work on the page be reversed and trim the page down to bare claims and criticisms. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing redux

Colon cleansing appears to be a fringe topic. There are at least six sources that state quite clearly in my opinion that the topic is fringe, including one peer reviewed journal. Antoniolus (talk · contribs) believes it is not quackery, and has dedicated long blocks of text on talk:colon cleansing and my talk page. I believe consensus is clear that this is fringe and the page is not WP:NPOV but rather adequately demonstrates the mainstream position is colon cleansing is quackery. I'm getting frustrated and no substantive sources have been provided to demonstrate that there is any reason to give the concept any credibility or soften the wording to imply that mainstream medicine simply hasn't made up its mind yet. I see it as civil POV pushing at this point. Am I wrong? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore him. You don't actually have to force yourself to read his tl;dr material on the talk page: he can post what he likes, that isn't a problem. Obviously, if he starts messing around with the article itself, then that's a much more serious issue. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is s/he has edited the main page a couple times now, with the result being a dilution of the main page. I don't want silence to imply consent but I'll try just ignoring for a bit and see what happens. S/He has posted sources (poor ones or reliable ones requiring original research if they were to be integrated) and I don't want to give the impression that they're OK. I'll try taking your advice and seeing where it gets me. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of languages by first written accounts

Article is a South Asian fringecruft magnet once again. It looks for all the world as if the Dravidian crackpots and the Aryan crackpots had a bet going as to who can behave more out-of-touch with reason or factuality. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd century BCE fringecruft is not properly referenced. Fake references provided for tamil and dravidian. Indo-Aryan loanwords attested in Mitanni documents, as mentioned in article and appropriately referenced. Hence reverted to pre-Dbachmann position. ­ Kris (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

nonsense. You are objecting to the 6th century BC date, remember? The 3rd century one is perfectly mainstream. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

any help with this? At least we have a Dravidianist and a Sanskritist going at one another's throat, so that I am not incurring the full wrath of either in reverting this stuff, but we finally need to find a way to keep recurring nonsense like this off the 'pedia. I have had this conversation about four times now, and it doesn't get any more interesting to rehash it yet another time. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab, you are right there is a POV war going on but I have tried to resolve the issue by citing with academic sources that say Prakrit 250 BCE, Tamil 200 BCE, Sanskrit 150 ACE, but you are reverting that too. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

recent edits by User:Dr Rgne on various 'races'

I'd like someone to take a second look at these - it's my impression that he is trying to suggest that some obsolete racial ideas are still to be taken seriously, eg removing the word 'alleged' in the article Alpine race. Before I go any further in reverting these edits I'd like a second opinion, thanks. dougweller (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's wrong and is being disruptive, particularly with the edits to Caucasian race. Revert away. If more problems crop up with this user we can start thinking about being a bit firmer. Moreschi (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He's also wrong about the concept of racial typology merely being "out of fashion". The concept is obsolete (as a biological construct - it is still very much alive as a social construct) and acknowledged so by a majority of anthropologists.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The ways that people thought about these things in the 1920s are obsolete, but the concept of people being divisible into geographically-structured groups with different characteristics is very much alive, based now of genomics. looie496 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

With the critical difference that "race" was based on a concept of discrete groups. We now know that human genetic variation is clinally rather than discretely distributed.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We always knew that. It's not a recent discovery. It's rwally a question of how this fact is modelled. Early race researchers were well aware that human types blended into one another, but wanted to model distinct categories in the hope of mapping ancestry and adaptation. Part of the problem with these categories is that the originators odf them never quite agreed whether they were best understood as aggrgations of adaptive features or as ancestral lineages. The Alpine race is a conceptual category that is no longer very useful. It was a way of trying to model difference in order to generate data. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fwiiw, the Alpine race isn't an "alleged race", since the problem lies with the "race" more than with the "Alpine". You may as soon say it is "an alleged population group native to the Alps". It is, much rather, a historical notion, i.e. an obsolete concept of scientific racism. Obsolete concepts aren't "allegations". Ramdrake is right that the concept of race is very much alive today, even the US, home of political correctness, classifies its population by race in the official census. What is "out of fashion" is scientific racism. I don't think the "clinally rather than discretely" catches it: this is doing injustice to historical scholarship. Nobody ever assumed races would be completely discrete. Human genetics does show clusters which could be dubbed "races" according to one scheme or another, if the term wasn't so discredited as a scientific term. This is a problem of terminology more than one of substance. That's not to say I defend edits such as this one. "out of fashion" here is just used as a cheap euphemism for "obsolete". WP:DUE says we should label "obsolete" with confidence whatever current academic mainstream considers "out of fashion", without any innuendo to the effect that it might come back into fashion... --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, he is now back as IP 41.245.135.240 (I'm pretty sure) reverting me edits, which means removing information about references (I added some dates, volume numbers, etc), calling Carleton Coon 'Carleton' in the article rather than Coon, etc. dougweller (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's been around for a while. I had a brief debate with him on the Alpine page a while back. He's a traditional 'believer' in race categories. Usually they worship Coon and are linked to White Nationalist ideas, but not always. It gets very tedious lookling after these pages. I've given up on the endless pointless revisions about what colour hair Alpines might or might not have and what territories they do or did cover. Paul B (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Important RfC: Criteria for List of pesudosciences

An RfC has just been started here, that many editors here would probably like to comment on. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Starchild skull

Needs some attention. Am I right in saying that as Y chromosome has been identified it must have a human father? See this diff [16]. The Royal Holloway investigation is sourced not from an official report but from an interpretation in powerpoint form on the Starchild website [17] although it isn't clear it isn't the official report. For some reason this article from the New England Skeptical Society doesn't seem to have been used in the article. [18] dougweller (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stylometry

Has anyone here heard of Stylometry? This article has very few sources; and I am uncertain if it is something relatively new but substantial, or if it just a subject that lacks notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, I've heard of this before. It's not uncommon either. Possibly the article is slightly over-egging its usefulness but otherwise I don't see a problem here. Moreschi (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama family

Is it WP:UNDUE or fringy to mention the Obamas' multiracial or biracial heritage based on a mere, uh, quarter million references? --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Our old friend the one drop rule is in action again. Moreschi (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually resarched this, since I couldn't understand the reverter's motivation, and gave an account here. I suppose it makes sense, in a disturbing sort of way... --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been a massive controversy on the Barack Obama page, because it relates to the validity of of describing him as "African American" without qualifiers. I would advise staying away from it. To be completely clear, the issue is not whether Obama is multiracial—Obama has even called himself a "mutt"—but rather whether statements like "Obama is the first African-American president" need to be altered. The majority view has been that such statements are valid, and if you want to argue against that—I'm not suggesting that you do—get ready for a bloodbath. looie496 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of it. Obama is clearly African American, by his own self-identification. This was never the issue. The issue is that some people seem to think there is a contradiction in stating the fact that Obama self-identifies as AA side by side with the fact that he is of biracial ancestry. This isn't about removing "African American" statements, it is about opposing the removal of "biracial" statements. There is a difference.

in fact, I have presented references to the effect that about 5% of African Americans have significant (>40%) White American admixture. The average African American has about 18% White American (European) admixture. I.e., your average African American is of about 82% West African and 18% European ancestry. Obama is of 50% East African and 50% European ancestry. He still identifies as African American -- so what?

if your average US American until now has failed to grasp that the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws is going to result in a multiracial/mixed-race population (and ultimately, the "Race of the Future"), now would be an ideal time to come to terms with this. --dab (𒁳) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that Obama has self-identified as being African-American and as being Multi-racial. In both cases he qualifies as being "the first". Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

that's what I am saying, I guess. I am just tired of the constant implication that by mentioning "biracial" we somehow claim he is not African American, even if "African American" is linked right next to that. Some people seem to simply shut down their brain when confronting certain topics. --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can point out that one does not negate the other... just as you would be correct to identify yourself as Irish-American, Asian-American and bi-racial if your mother is Irish and your father is Korean.

Next time the census people come around... if they ask you to identify your race... just say "Human". Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

List of languages by first written accounts

Surprise, some ABCD jokers have discovered this article once again. Are various mutually exclusive decipherment claims by people like "eminent expert" (poor crackpot) Egbert Richter "decipherments" that belong listed under "written accounts"? Or is this much ado about nothing? --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Negative Health Effects of Olive Oil?

I would like to point out that the reference given for some studies for adverse health effects of olive oil, is actually more or less a biased article written by the Pritikin Center's chief doctor, a center which commercially promotes the so-called 'Pritikin diet'. This commercial diet is known for the antipathy to fats and oils of any kind. Even though i do agree that research into any negative health effects of olive oil should ultimately be included, i hardly think that that should be drawn from a commercially-driven article, which cites a handful medical studies, especially in the light of many tens of studies that highlight the positive health effects of olive oil. The ref is here: Olive_oil#cite_note-oliveoiltruth-26 I would please like your input on this. ps. I have already posted this query in the Olive Oil talk page and it was suggested that i repost here. KLA (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not a good source to base an assertion on. The same assertion could be based on the Lada & Rudel article, though, which is a good source. Even concerning that I question the relevance of studies that used monkeys, which normally eat diets containing very little fat of any sort. looie496 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that source is not reliable. It might contain correct information, and it does cite references - however, there is no author listed and it's on a commercial website of a company with a financial conflict of interest regarding the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

This needs at least some recognition that there is mainstream medicine, and that there is criticism of this or the Ayurveda that this is based upon. As it is, it uses almost solely fringe sources, with trivial mentions of mainstream journals.

By far the most-cited source is:

Contemporary Ayurveda; Medicine and Research in Maharishi Ayurveda, H. Sharma MD, C. Clark MD

Is this even a reliable source for what it's used to claim? It's hardly independent. I suspect that a lot of the other sources are just taken from its footnotes, though I cannot prove that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked the talk page for this article. Since an editor is looking for sources[19], and since there has been a fair amoount of activity on this article in tha last month or so to improve sources, NPOV language, this notice would seem to be somewhat premature.(olive (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

"Looking at the sources" is not the same as "making any effort to balance NPOV". Maybe there is an effort, but all the sources added so far only criticise it as far as a single incident of Conflict of interest in publishing a paper. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery

Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article really needs a rename and cleanup, if not a request for deletion. Related article: Post-abduction syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vassyana (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed that both articles be merged into Abduction phenomenon, so comments would be welcome. Shouldn't the Abduction phenomenon article be named Alien abduction? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely merge the two articles... where to is another matter, but I have no problems with your suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Obama birthplace controversy in footnote of Ann Dunham article

There's a small, fringe controversy about where President-elect Barack Obama was born. Reliable sources say he was born in Hawaii, but some people claim he may have been born in Kenya or some other place outside the United States (a foreign birth would raise questions about his eligibility for the presidency). Obama's mother was Ann Dunham, and so I mentioned this fringe controversy briefly in a footnote there. I was reverted by another editor, and talk page discussion ensued [20].

This birthplace controversy is notable, having been covered by the Cincinnati Enquirer, Washington Times, Associated Press via Hartford Courant, NBC, Forbes, and other mainstream publications. There is a section about this fringe controversy in Wikipedia's Alan Keyes article, here. However, not even the slightest mention of this controversy (even in a footnote) is being allowed in any of the Obama articles, including Ann Dunham.

I have pointed out that a Wikipedia guideline specifically allows fringe theories to be mentioned in non-fringe articles. I can see why this fringe controversy might not be mentioned in the main Obama article, where there is a great deal of notable information competing for inclusion, but the article about his mother (Ann Dunham) has a much lower threshold for notability.

Of course, I don't personally believe that Obama was probably born outside the United States, but still this notable fringe theory has been widely covered by the mainstream press. So, I don't see why the fringe theory cannot be mentioned very briefly (and described as a fringe theory) in Ann Dunham. Would doing so be a violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines regarding fringe stuff?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions like this always raise suspicions of trolling. Is this important enough to you for you to face accusations of trolling in order to get it into the article? looie496 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can accuse me of trolling all you want. However, it might be more helpful to address my straightforward question: Would doing so be a violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines regarding fringe stuff? If the answer is "yes" then I'm perfectly happy to move along. However, if the answer is "no" then I'd like to learn that too. Is it "trolling" to be interested in how Wikipedia policies work? Of course not. I already said that I don't subscribe to the theory that Obama was born outside of the U.S. I merely suggested that one footnote in one of the many articles about Barack Obama contain the following: "Alan Keyes and various fringe characters doubt the birthplace." If this would be a violation of Wikipedia's policies about fringe theories, then I'd like to learn why. So, please try to answer instead of threatening me. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is one person, tops, whose WP:BLP article this particular fringe theory is notable enough to belong in: Alan Keyes. How that nutball's rantings and his frivolous lawsuit have any bearing on Ann Dunham's BLP is beyond me. --GoodDamon 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the section only belongs in the Keyes article. And you're saying that none of the many articles about Barack Obama and his family can even wikilink to that section? Is that because of some particular Wikipedia policy that I don't know about? Because I don't see anything in Wikipedia "fringe" policies to support that position.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The nonsensical lawsuit is not about Ann Dunham. It does not belong in her biography, nor does reference to it. It is neither notable nor relevant, and therefore including it or reference to it violates basic Wikipedia policies. Tvoz/talk 06:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ann Dunham article says she had a child in Honolulu. The lawsuits say she did not.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I just came across the following statement: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

That statement seems to be in tension with another statement: "The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites."

Are there other relevant policies or guidelines, and how would these two quoted statements apply under present circumstances? It seems odd to have a whole section in one article that mentions certain things, while not allowing articles about those things to Wikilink back to that section. But if that's the policy then I'm happy to drop the matter. This is a matter of curiosity for me more than anything else, and it would be useful to have people's views for future reference.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on how much coverage it received in the mainstream press outlets you mention. If only a sentence or two, a single story, then although sourced it is not important enough to mention. But if they returned to the story on several occasions then perhaps a very short mention would be appropriate. I would have thought it was more relevant to Obama's own article than the one on his mother. Most likely the court case will fail, there will be very short reports in the press, and it will be forgotten. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly that tidbit does not belong in that article. We are a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, not a place to load up on gossip and innuendo and frivolous court cases. There may be a place to include such information in this encyclopedia. Slander and libel about Barack Obama, for example. Not in main biographical articles, however. No, off-handed mention in out-of-the-way paragraphs or in minor lawsuits does not a reliable source for a major topic make. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Novelty Theory

Stumbled across the page Novelty Theory just now. Now I may know crap-all about cosmetology, but I know the stank of crank when I smell it. It may be a notable enough crank idea, but it doesn't appear to be described objectively. At the very least it completely fails WP:LEAD. What do you think? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That load of gibberish is about cosmetology? ;)

It's so jargon-heavy as to be meaningless, so I can't actually tell if the subject is treated properly. My guess, though, is that the sparse sourcing indicates some missing information. It sure is nice to know that we're currently in a peak novelty period! — Scientizzle 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think that would be cosmology, hah hah hah. looie496 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, help

Majestic 12. Credulity is amazing. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)