Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:00, 26 May 2008

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:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

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

"$ETHNIC warfare"

I've found a new popular outlet for testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism.... articles on ancient warfare!

We have Celtic warfare (and Gaelic warfare), Illyrian warfare, Assyrian warfare, Military history of Iran, Ancient Macedonian army/Hellenistic armies. Not all these articles are terrible. But they need supervision. It is also clear at a glance that the same nationalisms that give us grief elsewhere result in poorer "Ancient warfare" articles. Unsurprisingly, of course. I can only state my puzzlement over the fact that Ararat arev hasn't given us a glowing account of Armenian warfare yet :) dab (𒁳) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In massed fighting however, the Gauls' rudimentary organization and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion."

So, where do I enlist? :) Aryaman (☼) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr A. Arev has slipped up there, evidently :)

Illyrian warfare doesn't look so bad (surprisingly), but Military history of Iran is complete dross. We don't get many Iranian-history articles of high quality, it would seem. Pity. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Warfare I noticed a while ago that German Wikipedia's section on Celtic Warfare had suffered from someone taking sections of the Europa Barbarorum mod for the game Rome Total War as gospel and faithfully copying them into Wikipedia(!) It appears from references to bronze scale armour that this could also have happened in the English version's Gaelic Warfare section. This isn't 'testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism' however, just extreme naivety. See also Cassi for similar. Paul S (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohistory

Those of us who regularly watch this page are quick to spot pseudoscience and label it as such. We are much slower off the mark as to pseudohistory (Probably more scientists watch this page than historians). In any case, a slow boil edit war (ie it changes back and forth about once a month) is going on at the article on Robert Lomas, the author of "The Hyram Key" (basic premise for those not familiar with the book: The ancient Egyptians had ritual certain practices; The early Christians in Jerusalem followed these practices, and by the way Jesus did not die on the cross; Suppose they hid documents to this effect in the ruins of the Temple. The Knights Templars are said to have found something in the ruins of the Temple, therefore what they found were these documents. Since the Freemasons might be descendants of the Templars, the Masons are directly connected to the Ancient Egyptians.) To me this has so many suppositions and conjectures that it can only be called pseudohistory. However, attepts to categorize Lomas as a pseudohistorian and his label his work as pseudohistory are reverted. Note... the book was a best seller and helped inspire The DaVinci Code... so it is notable. Those of us arguing to call it pseudohistory are not attempting to delete the article... only to make it clear that this is not history. Some assistance by those who care about historical Fringe Theories is needed. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is even pseudohistory. Category:Fantasy writers may fit better. I mean, I do not hope anyone is suggesting any of this has anything to do with actual history. It may still be interesting as "alternate history" literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This actually goes to a larger issue. Currently up for review at CfD is Category:Historians of Freemasonry. I don't really care whether the category is deleted or kept (I created it, but have agreed that it should probably be deleted based on the nomination's rational). However, since being nominated, there has been a flurry of activity... those who wish to keep the category have been adding it to articles on any author who has ever written something mentioning Freemasonry, be it speculative fiction, pseudohistory, or anti-Masonic rants and exposés. They are also adding it to anyone who wrote a legitimate history of something else... but who happen to include some passing discussion of Freemasonry while doing so. This bothers me. It gives legitimacy to the works and their authors. I have removed the categorization from most of the articles added, but in several cases I have been reverted (and I don't really want to get into an edit war). I suppose the underlying question is... what qualifies someone to be called a historian... and more specifically a "Historian of Freemasonry"? Advice would be appreciated (and feel free to comment at the CfD... no pressure to vote either way). Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we should only call a "historian" somebody with an academic degree in history who publishes academically (WP:PROF). Plus ancient historians like Herodotus of course. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with dab, but here I think he's being too concerned with credentials. I'm a historian of science with an academic degree in it, but I know scientists who have published academically respectable historical studies about their discipline. I'd emphasize the places they've published as much as the formal credentials. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cassi article blithely states By the 1st C AD, the Cassi had become known as the Catuvellauni (“Battle Superiors”). and cites Daithi O Hogan's "The Celts: A History" as its source. The first problem is that this seems pure conjecture based on the name Cassivellaunus and the second is that I understand O Hogan is a folklorist rather than a historian and that his book has had some pretty savage reviews. Does anyone know any more? Paul S (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now searched Google Books for "Cassi" and "Catuvellauni", and am immediately satisfied that historians have consistently connected the two for well over a hundred years. But, even if only O Hogan had said it, this page is not Wikiversity; all we do is attribute ideas to the source, not totally dissect them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Connected" is vague; can you be more specific? What we need to know is whether O hOgain's apparent assertion (and he is primarily a folklorist rather than a historian) is a fringe theory... I've heard it suggested on the basis of the name that Cassivellaunus was a member of the Cassi before, but never heard it put forward that the Cassi had become the Catuvellauni - in fact, that seems impossible because both are mentioned by Caesar. The only people I've heard tell this story are creators of the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome: Total War. PsychoV is the forum nickname of one of them. Are fringe theories being promoted, or indeed are EB modders sneaking their fantasy history into Wikipedia? Paul S (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew next to nothing about this, and have no opinion to push, but I was easily able to get answers to all these questions after reading a few of the Google Books pages I mentioned above. Why don't you try it? Again, we do have plenty of sources, and finding sources to attribute ideas to is our job, not dissecting them with our own 'expertise' and original counter-rebuttals, because this is an encyclopedia, not a university! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between the Cassi and the various Casses? And I am very suspicious of the translatins, such as 'Agile strikers'. As for the capital, see [1]

And Catuvellauni “Battle Superiors” -- Google books shows up only Daithi O’Hogain, and Google scholar, nothing. And although I have nothing against Daithi O’Hogain, if he is the sole source, something seems wrong.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just now looked into that, and soon found that other historians (eg. Rhys) translate it as "Battle rulers", "War kings", "Battle princes" and similar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem isn't with the rendering of Catuvellauni as "Battle Superiors" it's with the assertion that the Cassi became the Catuvellauni, not to mention the dubious linking of the British Cassi with the various Gaulish tribal names ending in -casses which is unsourced. Also - is O hOgain simply the source for the meaning of Catuvellauni or for the assertion that they used to be the Cassi? Paul S (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those claims are back. I agree entirely about the dubious linking of Cassi with casses, ~~and the question of any link between the Cassi and the Catuvellauni~~. And I'll take Webster and Cunliffe any day over O'Hogain.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sources for the Cassi-Catuvellauni link, mainly Keith Brannigan.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And have now rewritten it. It turns out that Dáithí Ó hÓgáin doesn't mention the Cassi, I've put a link on the article's Talk page showing the page that Psycho referenced.

Barry Fell

User Cadwallader thinks the Barry Fell article is not NPOV. He has heavily edited it, putting in a large section from a self-published web page with claims I have checked in any case and seem to have no weight or evidence behind them. Based on that self-published site, he writes "scientific inquiry proved him correct on the one point where academia had published a critique and defamation of him as a "fraud"." See the talk page where I discuss this. He has also added "The West Virginia Archaeologist, which claims to be a peer reviewed journal, published a few other articles critical of Fell, including one by Edo Nyland, a physics professor, who agreed the inscription was Ogam but translated it in the Basque language as a story about a failed buffalo hunt. Though Oppenheimer and Wirtz were Washington D.C. attorneys with no formal expertise in petroglyphs or ancient scripts, their "expert" rebuttal is still being used to discredit Fell today[5]." Maybe the magazine claims to be peer reviewed, I don't know. What I do know is that Edo Nyland is only quoted in the magazine, he is not the author of an article, and the sentence beginning with 'though' is editorial. Note that Barry Fell himself has no formal expertise in anything but marine biology. I see Til Eulenspiegel has also joined in. I'm not sure where to go from here, but the Pyle stuff should be removed I believe as failing WP:RELIABLE but obviously Til Eulenspiegel and Cadwallader don't see it that way.

Have made some edits to the article but it continues to be sadly lacking in sources. It would be useful if someone could verify that the West Virginia Archaeologist is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more articles to use as sources but I'm not sure about West Virginia Archaeologist. But I doubt that articles are sent to archaeologists outside West Virginia to review before publication.Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do authors have to send their articles to a certain geographic location to be reviewed by their own peers? What if we decide that all articles will have to be sent to Moscow and approved there, in order to be considered "peer reviewed"? This is the problem with using terms like "peer reviewed" to game the NPOV policy about mentioning all significant views, whenever you have an argument like "Our books that say ABC are okay, but your books that say XYZ are not, and may not even be mentioned, or treated neutrally." (Note there are many such situations where "our" books say this and "your" books say the opposite, but usually we do not try to play judge between them, and instead we usually end up simply stating what both, or all, published schools of thought say. Since ones "peers" are generally authors within one's own school of thought, of course they can all usually claim to be "peer reviewed", so this term can be more ambiguous than useful for NPOV.) 70.105.31.77 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An academic journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly periodical, usually published by one of the large major academic publishing houses. Research articles are sent before publication to independent reviewers who have a good background in the subject and are nearly always academics in universities other than the one where the authors work. They may also publish non peer-reviewed material: editorials, book reviews, articles by non-academics such as professional practitioners, notices of research in progress. Sounds we cannot establish that WVA comes into this category. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing from West Virginia, I can say that West Virginia Archaeologist is a serious local archaeological journal sponsored by a society of professional archaeologists, the Council for West Virginia Archaeology, whose members are "persons who have a postgraduate (M.A. or Ph.D.) degree with a research specialization in archaeology or allied fields such as geology, history, botany, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology or cultural resources management." I do not know their journal's peer-review policies.

On the other hand, the magazine in which the claims by Pyle, Fell, and Gallagher first appeared, Wonderful West Virginia, is published by the WV Division of Natural Resources and one of it's major functions is tourism development.

Another source may be an editorial in Antiquity which I came across a long time ago, dated about the time of the early articles on the West Virginia site, which commented on it as an example of Fringe archaeology. Sorry I don't have a good reference but anyone with access to Antiquity might want to try to hunt it down. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searched by West Virginia and Barry Fell, no luck. Maybe they don't index editorials.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat is the Indian-born head of a spritual movement. He was once known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and led the Divine Light Mission. He and his movement were the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic articles during their heyday. One scholar's book has been accused of making exceptional claims, trigering WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so in addition to deciding that the claims are exceptional we need to decide that the source is not a "high-quality reliable source". The debate is at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. As currently drafted, the assertions of Jan van der Lans are summarized thus:

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health^[1]. Van der Lans wrote that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings.^[2]
- KSGV: Objectives
  "Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."
- Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4

The specific objections are "that he's a charlatan leading a double life" and that "his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders". FWIW, everyone agrees that the subject led a life of luxury and opulence.

To rebut the assertion that these are exceptional claims, I've done research on news clippings from the era, and find that these claims are confirmed by comments from friends, family, and associates (some ofthem estranged).

Rawat's mother accused him of living like a playboy and adopting a despicable, nonspiritual way of life. Susan Butcher, speaking on behalf of Shri Mataji, said, He has not ben practicing what he has been preaching....He has always preached and recommend to his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy, and abstention from alcohol, and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations, and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life. He's being a playboy. ^[3]
Mishler, the organization's former president, said tight security surrounding the house is part of 'elaborate precautions' Maharaj Ji has taken to hide his private life from followers...Mishler said Maharaj Ji's ban on alcohol and marijuana for his followers was ignored at the estate...Mishler said he left the group because 'there was no way of accomplishing the ideals expounded by the mission.' In addition, he said more and more of the church money began to go for personal use and he was concerned that the Divine Light Mission was becoming a 'tax evasion for the guru.'^[4]
Back in India, his colleagues were also sceptical: "The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff. ^[5]
But his personal physician and disciple, Dr. John Horton, attributes the boy's weight to a sedentary life of making decisions. ^[6]

In light of this information, is it reasonable to say that van der Lans represents a fringe viewpoint, and that his scholarly research makes exceptional claims, or are his assertions consistent with statements by other parties, meaning that they are not exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one sided presentation of the dispute, which omits important facts. WP:REDFLAG applies for the 1973 Mother's claims: A devotee of Satguru, of God, he liquidates himself, or dissolved himself, or effaces himself on the Lotus Feet of the Lord". (referring to her son, Prem Rawat, age 13) and a November 1972, Time Magazine which reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship^[7]. Compare with the statement made after the rift (caused by the marriage of PR to a non-hindu against his mother's wishes) about "leading a despicable life", only three years later (!!!). Clearly a report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. (from WP:REDFLAG).

WP:REDFLAG also applies for the absurd claim (conveniently omitted by Will Beback) about "colleagues in India", who claimed he was a fraud as Rawat was a 22 years old, instead of 16 years old at the time. The full quote; The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff. A group of religious leaders met in New Delhi to demand that the boy guru be examined by a panel of doctors to determine his true age, which they claimed is at least 22.

WP:REDFLAG, also applies to Mishler, who made these claims after leaving the organization due to conflicts. This Mishler went to the extent to make outrageous claims, such as that "that practices Maharaj Ji [Prem Rawat] employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools." A claim that is not included in any of the many scholarly sources available on the subject. There is one mention of Mishler's name in one source, that omits that information for very obvious reasons.

The text attributed to van der Lans, is not accurate. It was published is in a book published by an Protestant Evangelical organization that presents information from a "Christian inspired perspective" (my translation, as Will omits the translation of the KSGV objectives), who caters to pastors and churches. Clearly a Christian apologetic source, which needs to be assessed in that context (btw, there are no sources or references in that publication). The source is in Dutch and not available for verification, although some editors are making efforts to obtain a copy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed draft fully attributes the assertions to their author. It is not being presented as an omniscient viewpoint, but rather as the viewpoint of a notable Dutch scholar. The KSGV is linked in the text, which also describes the publisher as, ...a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith... I asked you several times if you objected to the scholar in general or just this book and you never responded so it'd be helpful if you could give your opinion on that matter here.

The source for Mishler is the L.A. Times., and the subject's mother's accusations were carried by the wire services and at least dozens of newspapers printed them. It's entirely verifiable that they said said those things. We're not in a position to judge whether they are correct or incorrect. They do show that Jan van der Lans did not simply make up the assertions that are being objected to. While it can be argued that quoting them would be a primary source, he is a scholar and a secondary source.

Regarding the subject's age, that isn't in dispute here so it appears to be a WP:REDHERRING. Jossi appears to be arguing that these assertions are so wildly false that we can't even report that they were made. On the contrary, I think they are a mere summation of widely-reported assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The age issue is certainly important, as it shows the necessary context to evaluate that source. I have no problems with van der Lans articles published by non-partisan publications, my argument is about the application of WP:REDFLAG to the sources you have brought to support your contention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to impeach the Indian leaders, reigious and lay, that called the subject a "fraud" then you're welcome to do so. But, combined with the subject's mother and former associate, they show that it's not an exceptional claim to say that van der Lans has accused Rawat of being a charlatan, or to include that accusation in the article. I mean, it's an even more exceptional claim to say that the subject was the "Lord of the Universe", yet we report that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The calling of "Lord of the Universe" by his devotees in the 70's is widely reported. There is even a parody documentary Lord of the Universe (documentary), and my argument about WP:REDFLAG, was not about van der Lans accusations, but about the sources you brought to support your argument. Remove these sources that are obvious redflags, and what have you got? Not much. The problem with van der Lans quote is related to the fact that it is published in a partisan source, and that (a) it repeats claims that have, per my evidence, raise WP:REDFLAG concerns; (b) There is no scholarly source (and there are many) that repeat these claims; and (c) this is a WP:BLP, and the quality of sources is paramount for such claims. Basically, how can we call that a significant viewpoint? We can't≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(What this was placed in this noticeboard? The correct noticeboard seems to be Wikipedia:V/N.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDFLAG says to see Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which in turns points here. You seem to be arguing that van der Lans is promoting a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Will. I am arguing about applying WP:REDFLAG as it relates to Wikipedia:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument on the talk hasn't been that the source is unrelaible, it's been that the claim is outlandish. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in perception

Cultural differences US-Europe

Schnabel points to a difference in appreciation between northern America, the eastern world and Europe (p 104):

Voorts mag worden opgemerkt, dat de meeste nieuwe religieuze bewegingen Nederland hebben bereikt via de Verenigde Staten en beïnvloed zijn door de ‘zucht naar rijkdom’, waarvan De Tocqueville (1971 (1840), 206) al tot zijn verbazing moest vaststellen dat die ‘bij de Amerikanen dus geenszins in een kwade reuk staat, ja zelfs bewonderd wordt...’. De ambivalente houding ten opzichte van geld, die de Europeaan kenmerkt, is in Amerika en ook in het Oosten vrijwel geheel afwezig.
In de Verenigde Staten wordt geld duidelijk als een positief bewijs en als een symbool van het eigen maatschappelijk succes beleefd. Een kwantitatieve verandering leidt hier zonder twijfel tot een kwalitatieve omslag. Wie arm is, heeft dat aan zichzelf te wijten: wie rijk is heeft dat aan zichzelf te danken. In India denkt men daar misschien wat genuanceerder over, maar ook daar geldt dat het bezit van geld zeker geen schande is en ook geen gevoel van schuld geeft in de confrontatie met de armoede rondom. Rijkdom is altijd verdiend. Het ideaal van de Indiase ascese is dan ook niet het in armoe leven op zich, maar het verzaken van de wereld: het loslaten van dat wat men heeft, nadat men zijn maatschappelijke verplichtingen heeft vervuld. Arm zijn is op zich geen verdienste, en de armen is ook zeker niet meer het rijk der hemelen dan de rijken.

(summary:) Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess.

Crossing the line

A bit simplistic, but this is more or less the picture: in Europe a religious leader would cross a line from the moment he lives in luxury, or alternatively when he teaches something different as to what he applies to himself (for this point see Schnabel p 101, this makes a charismatic leader a fraud/"bedrieger"); the US has more tolerance in that respect: neither does affluence in and by itself, nor the charismatic leader putting himself apart from the flock carry a necessary connotation of condemnation. There, affluence is admired; "fraud" would only apply when appropriating money in mischievous ways, etc.

For all Dutch authors from the early 1980s we've been considering regarding Rawat (Haan, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers, Schnabel,...) there's no doubt, Rawat crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed (in a European perspective) - that is the mainstream opinion there; For US/northern American authors of roughly the same period the mainstream opinion is that he's a quite successful religious leader, and that accusations from former adherents and disgraced family members are "fringe".

Conclusions

For sources from the Netherlands of the early 1980s REDFLAG applies to those sources that would contend that Rawat didn't cross a line of appropriatness — not the other way around;
Regarding the underlying differences of appreciation between Northern America and Europe (...and the East): I have no clearcut solution as to how to present that in Wikipedia. Anyway on the one side I suppose we should try to avoid the pitfalls of a too US-centred view (compare WP:NPOV/FAQ#Anglo-American focus and systematic bias); on the other hand the Prem Rawat article (and by extention the "Criticism" article) are hardly the place to start expounding on these general cultural differences: these are biographical articles, BLP's even, that leaves little room for the interpretation of the worldwide connotations of terms like "fraud" (which, according to any Dutch-English dictionary, is the correct English translation of "bedrieger").

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am reminded of an interesting comparison between US and European attitudes in reguards to the concept of "Equality" that I once read in an Op-Ed collumn in a newspaper (I no longer remember which paper)... A poor man sees a rich man drive by in a fancy automobile... if the poor man is an American, he will say to himself: "Someday, I will ride in a fancy car just like that guy". If the poor man is a European, he will say to himself: "Someday I will make that guy get out and walk just like me". Not sure if this has anything to do with the current debate... it just came to mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're OT, I can add that there are a couple of economics papers demonstrating why both beliefs, as well a moral standard of the sort Francis talks about above, could be simultaneously rational and self-reinforcing. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess."

Gee, you'd think there are two groups serving two different masters. One group loves and serves Mammon, and lives to accumulate it in this temporal world, while the other group hates it. 70.105.57.250 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Rawat married in 1974 his followers gave him a Maserati and a boat. Scholars who compare him unfavorably to the penniless celibate monk are judging him by the wrong measure. His followers wanted him to live a life of luxury and therefore he is not being duplicitous by obliging them.Momento (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which completely misses the point. Van der Lans didn't compare to "the penniless celibate monk", nor would he very likely have done:

There were comparatively few monks in the Netherlands, that wouldn't have been an image that suited his target public very well;
The Netherlands were sexually quite liberated at the time: I didn't read any of the sources discussed here criticising Rawat for having a soulmate, even less for being married: most clergy in the Netherlands could marry, and those who couldn't (...for instance Catholic priests), were rather criticised because their religion didn't allow them to marry - that criticism was even prominent within their own ranks at the time (and place), don't underestimate the post Vaticanum II atmosphere which made even most Catholics believe that pretty soon obligatory celibate for priests would come to an end;
"Penniless": at the time (and place) abbeys and their inhabitants were rather cricicised for their richess, not for being penniless (which nobody would believe).

Really, please address the sources and not a figment of your imagination.

Apart from this complete cultural misappreciation, you even more fundamentally miss the point in your defense of what Rawat "was" or "was not". There's no merit in that discussion (aka: "verifiability not truth" per WP:V). How did reliable sources describe him, that's what Wikipedia is about: the sources discussed here described Rawat at least as "ambiguous", to which no REDFLAG applies (again: REDFLAG would apply if they would have failed to point out that ambiguity). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Paul Schnabel wrote then about the differences was and is still true. For example, the opulent lifestyle of Jeremiah Wright would be widely condemned in the Netherlands. Andries (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am about the only one who has read most of the book "Followers of the guru"/"Volgelingen van de goeroe" by Jan van der Lans and I can only repeat my opinion that Jossi is wrong when he says that the book is Christian apologetic. I introduced this book to Wikipedia and I generally dislike Christian apologetic sources. This could be added to the long list of specious allegations that Jossi makes about sources and their paraphrasing that he does not like regarding Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission. Andries (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take back to Criticism of Prem Rawat?

This discussion originated at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. Maybe it's time to take it back there.

In the mean while Jayen provided a context analysis there (Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#van der Lans: context - "The text on Andries' page was essentially correct ...") – the apparent context being a fairly standard description of disciple-guru relationship, as pointed out by Jossi.

Is anyone still contending a REDFLAG re. Van der Lans? In other words, can we get rid of (Criticism of Prem Rawat#Observations from scholars):

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health<ref>KSGV: Objectives<br>"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."</ref>. Van der Lans wrote that...

... and replace it by:

Jan van der Lans, a Dutch professor of psychology of religion wrote in 1981...

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

I am concerned that this article has become bloated with original research, unverified information and outright conspiracy theories. Do we have any volunteers who would like to review this article and help improve it? Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it during my lunch break at work tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been substantially updated, but needs more eyes in it to examine if the extent of my correction is sufficient, or was too severe. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian update

Ararat arev doesn't give up. What a loser. The time he invested into wasting ours could have gone into building an extensive website of his own by now. Armenian "antiquity frenzy" tidbits keep turning up all over the place. Recent finds include

Category:Ancient peoples of Armenia (Oodians, Amazons(!), ...)
Category:Hayasa (Hittite-Hayasa War - redirected)

And on the Ararat arev front, some evidence our extensive semi-protections are working! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Amazons

ok, there appear to be a large number of {{inuniverse}} references to Amazons from Roman historiography. For two years(!) we claimed that Eurypyle "was the leader of an all female expedition against Babylonia. She captured the Amorite capital in 1760 B.C.E."[3], which was linked from Timeline of women in ancient warfare since its inception in Nov 2006[4]. This is appalling! The "source" we seem to be indebted to for this is Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-420-5.. This work is cited in dozens of other articles[5]. This Amazon stuff has passed under the radar for too long and needs serious investigation. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN Security Council Resolutions: Are they binding or not?

I was wondering if I could get your take on whether UNSC resolutions should be described as binding or non-binding if the aren't taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter? They are currently described as somewhat non-binding however this contradicts what the UN itself would tell you if you went on a tour of the UN. This originally came to my attention when I saw some changes made to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 initially the changes described the resolution non-binding because it was not done under chapter 7 of the UN charter. I had reverted this change in that it was unsourced and this was in turn unreverted and an additional section was added as to who believes it to be binding versus who believes it to be non-binding. The way the article stands right now is that it merely states that the resolution wasn't done under binding Chapter 7 of the UN charter. You'll notice on the talk page that I expressed concerns about suggesting that UNSC resolutions are non-binding when the International Court of Justice says that they are binding however the response I received was that the ICJ opinion itself was non binding. Also if you look at UN_Security_Council#Resolutions it says all the above that was added to the UNSC 497 article. Another concern is that the article might be cherry picking scholars or politicians who claim that UNSC resolutions not done under Chapter 7 are non-binding. I posted a concern about using the opinion of Erika De Wet when there is no article about her in Wikipedia so she might not even be notable however I was told here that she is notable. I post the above as much for my own understanding as well as getting accuracy in these articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Also, see an excellent comment by an anon on the UNSC 497 talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what some reliable sources say on the matter:

Long list of sources

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164.
"Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter." De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371.
"Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding." Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113.
"Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations." Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66.
"The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI." Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33.
"Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-48.
"First, it may issue non-binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter expressing its opinion on the abuses and their resolution." Mertus, Julie. The United Nations And Human Rights: A Guide For A New Era, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415343380, p. 120.
"Under Chapter VI the Security Council can only make non-binding recommendations. However, if the Security Council determines that the continuance of the dispute constitutes a threat to the peace, or that the situation involves a breach of the peace or act of aggression it can take action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII gives the Security Council the power to make decisions which are binding on member states, once it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. Sourcebook on Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1843143801, 1998, p. 568.
"Nor is the disenchanting performance due to the fact that under Chapter VI the SC may only address non-binding resolutions to the conflicting parties." Cede, Franz, and Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations: Law and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9041115633, p. 70.
"This clause does not apply to decisions under Chapter VII (including the use of armed force), which are binding on all member states (unlike those adopted under Chapter VI which are of a non-binding nature)." Köchler, Hans. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power, International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN 3900704201, p. 21.
"The impact of these flaws inherent to Resolution 731 (1992) was softened by the fact that it was a non-binding resolution in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter. Consquently Libya was not bound to give effect to it. However, the situation was different with respect to Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992, as it was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter." De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adopion of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, Springer, 2005, ISBN 3540252991, p. 203.
"There are two limitations on the Security Council when it is acting under Chapter VI. Firstly, recommendations of the Council under Chapter VI are not binding on states." Werksman, Jacob. Greening International Institutions, Earthscan, 1996, ISBN 1853832448, p. 14.
"Chapter VI exhorts members to settle such claims peacefully and submit them for mediation and arbitration to the United Nations. Chapter VI, however, is not binding - in other owrds, there is no power to compel states to submit their disputes for arbitration or mediation by the United Nations." Matthews, Ken. The Gulf Conflict and International Relations, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 041507519X, p. 130.
"One final point must be noted in connection with Chapter VI, and that is that the powers of the Security Council are to make "recommendations." These are not binding on the states to whom they are addressed, for Article 25 relates only to "decisions." Philippe Sands, Pierre Klein, D. W. Bowett. Bowett's Law of International Institutions, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001, ISBN 042153690X, p. 46.
"Article 2, para. 6, must be linked, first of all, to the use of these kinds of pressure that have no mandatory effect. Both the General Assembly and the Council have the power to make recommendations to the States, that is, resolutions that do not bind the States (see section 89)). Worthy of mention from this point of view are the provisions of Article 11, para. 2 ("The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security... and... may make recommendations with regard to any such question to the State or States concerned") and the various provisions of Chapter VI, particularly Article 33, para. 2, Article 36, and Article 37, para. 2, which give the Security Council the power to recommend settlement of disputes likely to endanger the peace." Conforti, Benedetto. The Law and Practice of the United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004143084, p. 127.
"...the primary authority of the Security Council is defined in terms of international peace and security. The Council's jurisdiction under Chapter VI—which give it recommendatory but not binding authority—is stated in very broad terms." Matheson, Michael J. Council UNbound: The Growth of UN Decision Making on Conflict and Postconflict Issues after the Cold War, US Institute of Peace Press, 2006, ISBN 1929223781, p. 42.
"After much lobbying, the Council agreed on a resolution intended to "assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution" that would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. But the preamble went on to specify that the Council was "acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations." In short, this remained an exercise of good offices, not binding arbitration subject to enforcement." Jensen, Erik. Western Sahara: Anatomy of a Stalemate, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005, ISBN 1588263053, p. 112.
"Thus decisions under Chapter VI, for example, to recommend terms of settlement are not binding, and even decisions under Article 40 of Chapter VII may not be." Political science quarterly, v. 90 (1975-76), Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, p. 147.
"The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002.
"There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002.
"...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004.
"There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002.
"There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003.
"There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.
"The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58.
"Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Nambia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression." De Wet, Erika. The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134228, pp. 39-40.

Hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What exactly is the fringe theory here? That UN resolutions not under Chapter 7 are (or can be) binding? rudra (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If UNSC resolutions not under chapter 7 should be called non-binding resolutions in wikipedia articles even when the resolution itself makes no mention as to whether its binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. How many UN resolutions schoolmasterishly declare "this is (not) binding" about themselves? The fact of the matter is that in the practically certain absence of any such explicit statement this is simply a matter of definition. Chapter 7? Binding. Other? Not binding. Period. I'm getting the impression that the real argument here is something on the lines of "pointing out that a Chapter [not 7] resolution is not binding is WP:SYNTH", and that too in support of a POV that would be only too happy to have uninformed readers fall into the trap of assuming, on the basis of the prestige of the UN, that a resolution is binding when it isn't. rudra (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(RE: SYNTH) Yes, that is what I meant. Also, if you take a tour of the UN, the tourguide will tell you that GA resolutions are non-binding and SC resolutions are binding. Furthermore, usually when you read about the passing of a UN resolution in the press, if it was a GA resolution the press will tell you that it was non-binding but if it's an SC (say not chapter 7) resolution they generally won't make a statement as to whether it was binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, last I heard, tour guides don't trump the UN Charter. As far as I can see, "Only Chapter 7 resolutions are binding" is not WP:SYNTH, it's a statement of fact. The same goes for "Chapter N resolutions are not binding", for all admissible values of N except 7. rudra (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read remember reading through the entire charter on wikisource and I didn't see anything about non-Chapter 7 resolutions being non-binding. Are we using the wikipedia definition of Non-binding resolution? Also, am I to take it that whenever we see a non-chapter 7 resolution in an article in wikipedia we should mention that the resolution was not done under chapter 7 so it's non-binding? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here, as nowhere in the Charter is it said that Chapter 7 resolutions are binding. The issue is one of international law, and it has been decided by the experts: only Chapter 7 resolutions have binding force. So on the must/should/may scale, the correct advice would seem to be "may" rather than "should". rudra (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I'm not picking this up quickly enough but I can't understand why it's clearly decided by experts to be non binding when the International Court of Justice says that UNSC resolutions are binding. The ICJ should trump the experts above, no? Or at least indicate that there's no consensus on the issue? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the ICJ says doesn't change the way the UN works. I'd suggest going by what the experts say about the Namibia Advisory (because the ICJ doesn't have powers of judicial review, and as a matter of fact has said so. The ICJ was asked for and gave an opinion on specific resolutions). rudra (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra, can you explain your position a little more fully – if Pocopocopocopoco is correct that most press sources don't describe the resolutions in question as non-binding, and if other sources (the ICJ, the UN itself) consider them to be binding while still other sources (those Jayjg cites) consider them to be nonbinding, then why would Wikipedia step in and resolve the question? Wouldn't NPOV require that it not do this?--G-Dett (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are tour guides or the press experts on international law? As for the ICJ, it advanced a theory that Art.25 could be applied: it was a theory to support their non-binding opinion on a specific resolution, not a definitive statement of how the UN actually works. See the version linked by Pocopocopocopoco above, esp footnote 3, the quote of Frowein ending with: In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here. I'm not sure NPOV requires a "balancing" of popular myths (e.g. "astrology works!") with the weight of expert opinion. rudra (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, Rudra. Frowein's was the dissenting opinion. Whatever may be said of this analogy of yours – whereby the majority finding of the International Court of Justice is likened to a "popular opinion" (such as the proposition that "astrology works"), whereas the dissenting position is presented as "expert opinion" – it does not constitute a plausible approach to NPOV. Now, Jayjg is correct that Erika De Wet is an excellent source on this question, and he is correct that she comes down on the side that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. But here's what Jay leaves out and you overlook: De Wet presents this as a vexed question about which there is significant dispute from excellent sources. She cites the work of several such expert sources, including Rosalyn Higgins, Wilhelm Kewenig, and Olivier Lissitzyn, discusses the complexities at length, and carefully lays out the groundwork for her own position. She is a very good scholar, but to argue that Wikipedia should simply adopt her position as settled fact is preposterous; she doesn't even present it that way.

I hope that part of the NPOV problem is clearer now. But there's another major NPOV problem, that of poisoning the well. Here's the passage of the Wikipedia article that's aroused dispute:

This Security Council Resolution was not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[1] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding,[2] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others....In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[3]

Footnote 1 consists of a whole mess of cherry-picked sources, only some of which address Namibia. The NPOV and NOR violations are obvious. The bolded sentence which follows is rank POV-pushing, too cute by half and too sarky by 3/4 for encyclopedic prose. The subsequent sentence reads, "This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others" – yes, and it's been supported by still other scholars, whom De Wet is good enough to acknowledge as serious even as you guys dismiss them as astrologists. The claim in the final sentence, presented here as fact, is cited to the dissenting opinion. That's right, the majority opinion of the ICJ is presented as an "assertion," with extra well-poisoning by way of "non-binding," while the dissenting opinion is presented as settled fact. Way to write a serious and neutral encyclopedia, guys.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, what a surprise to find you have followed me here. Your statement is interesting, but incorrect in a number of important ways. To begin with, 26 sources isn't "cherry-picking", it's the majority view. In addition, it's not Frowein who was the dissenting opinion, it was Fitzmaurice. More importantly, whether or not there is a debate about amongst legal scholars about whether Chapter VI resolutions should be binding, as a matter of customary international law Chapter VI resolutions are treated as non-binding. That is why so many legal scholars state this as a matter of fact, not an article of debate. Yes, the ICJ did, in 1971, attempt to extend the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions to Chapter VI resolutions - but that attempt failed, and, as De Wet points out, even Namibia was, in practice, adopted in terms of Chapter VII. NPOV is quite fully satisfied as regards customary international law; if the legal scholars who would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding ever do get their way, then your arguments would carry more weight. If and until that happens, Chapter VI resolutions are still not binding. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you're blowing smoke and begging the question; the point (De Wet's point and mine) is not that legal scholars "would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding," it's that they claim they are binding. That issue is disputed; De Wet acknowledges the dispute, and the ambiguities giving rise to it, even if you don't. Now, explain exactly (a) how you've arrived at your understanding that the position you support is the "majority view"; and (b) why we should present the "majority view" as if it were settled fact when it's actually disputed by many scholars. Then, explain (c) your opposition to an application of this "majority view" standard to the settlements' illegality under international law.--G-Dett (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I wonder if all of this stems from different definitions of what constitutes a Non-binding resolution. If you look at the wikiarticle for non-binding resolution it defines it as a resolution that cannot pass into law. However, if you look at some discussion that I had with Rudra on his talk page, His understanding is that '"Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"'. I wonder if non-chapter 7 resolutions might actually fall under international law but the members are not obliged to enforce them. So in the example above, Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law due to UNSC 497 however since UNSC 497 was not under chapter 7, the members of the UNSC are not obliged to enforce UNSC 497. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26 sources isn't "cherry-picking", it's the majority view. Depends. If the cherry-picking happened within the sources, that cannot be said for certain. Also, in the absence of a denominator.... we have had this conversation before, I believe. In a widely studied field, for a contentious point, you need to bring a source that states that someone with expertise - not a random WP editor - believes that something is the overwhelming majority view, such as is needed to state the contentious point in WP's voice. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the Hyksos - more Ararat arev

I've just realised as I started to create a new section that this looks like another problem with Ararat arev. Using several IP addresses he's added something to The origins of the Hyksos -- which looks like nonsense to me. Look at the edit history (where he is warring with someone else) and my comments on the talk page. He's non-responsive to my edit summaries but now I understand why. Can the page be semi-protected in some way? I'm not sure what to do with a disruptive editor like this. Thanks.

Sigh...semiprotected. I don't understand this loony, I really don't. We nail him time and time over and he still doesn't give up. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was fast. The hardest people to deal with are those who are clueless about the subject. We've got a guy on megaliths who thinks Barry Fell was a geologist who used linguistic experts to decipher languages and that some sort of experts should study megaliths for 'imprints' which will reveal all about their ritual uses before excavations. He clearly has no clue at all, doesn't do any research, and you just can't have a discussion with people like that.Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach. There are currently Armenian-antiquity-related edit wars breaking out on Urartu and Hayasa-Azzi, due in no small part to Ararat arev's prior contributions, which our other non-banned Armenian users have picked up on. This needs some attention. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the "History of Armenia" infoboxes will have to go. rudra (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now also edit-warring on Nairi. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, 37 edits amounting to this, followed by this. That entire section of "Prehistoric Armenia" (an oxymoron) needs to be excised from that infobox. rudra (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra, look at the History of Iran template! (here -> Template:History_of_Iran) It is from around 4000 BC in their template! Hah!. They have a long list of the cultures, tribes in ancient Iran there, before they arrived, starting from Proto-Elamite civilization in 3200 BC, yes in their template!. Are you saying Persians claim they are that much older? Persian kingdom (Persians) started from 600 BC too, they are putting their ancient history in their template, yes in their template, and you are removing ours. We have our long list of tribes and cultures in Armenia as well, starting from Neolithic, if you read in the History of Armenia section, and than Kuro-Araxes_culture, etc etc...

This is what it says-> "The history of Armenia begins with Neolithic cultures of the South Caucasus, such as the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, followed by the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes and Trialeti cultures." Where is this in our History of Armenia template? Why should History of Iran template have theirs and not us to have ours?? 75.51.172.124 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the old WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Nice try. No dice. rudra (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian topics navbox isn't any better, as "Hayasa", "Nairi" and "Urartu" are listed under "Armenian History". Nicklausse (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is going on? Someone now claims that the long extinct c.3400 to c.2000 BC Kura-Araxes culture was Armenian by placing the "History of Armenia tag" on it. So, Armenians are 4000 to 5400 years old? Is this what Ararat Arev's POV ideas are all about? (I reverted the edit but wonder how long this will last!) As Dbachman rightly states in this article's discussion pages: "Combining the "Armenians" and the "Kura-Araxes culture" entries in the EIEC into a hodge-podge falls under WP:SYN." It's OK to say that Kura-Araxes plays a role in the Armenian hypothesis of their origin but not right, in my view, to then place a deeply intrusive "History of Armenia" tag on this article since an Armenian link to the long gone Kura-Araxes culture CAN'T be proven. What will Ararat Arev's backers claim next? That Adam and Eve were Armenian? This is getting a tad ridiculous! The problem lies partly with the broad and highly intrusive "History of Armenia" tag which places Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi and Urartu within it when their respective link to Armenia is either unclear (for Urartu) or non-existent for Hayasa-Azzi. I prefer Dbachman's approach--that they play a role in the Armenian hypothesis instead of just pushing the "History of Armenia" tag on these 3 articles. Its more intellectually honest. Artene50 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

calm down. This is Ararat arev, and the recommended course of action is WP:DENY: revert and move on. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo MOND madness

My understanding is that MOND is a mainstream alternative, in the sense of being a serious, falsifiable theory, albeit one with few adherents and serious flaws. Am I wrong? <eleland/talkedits> 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument right now is how falsified MOND is with most astrophysicists "in the know" declaring it to be falsified by a number of different observations. The current state of the idea is marginalized but tolerated. More interesting are modified gravity theories to explain dark energy (like DGP models). ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that MOND is fringe in the sense that it lies on the fringes of acceptable science and that it is only held by a very small minority of professionals. Am I incorrect in my knowledge? Vassyana (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with MOND is that the authors of the idea seem impervious to others' falsifications of the idea. This is a rather old story, as it were. Remember polywater and N-rays not to mention steady state universe and caloric theory? Whenever a theory gets falsified, there are often supporters waiting in the wings who will bend over backwards and attach bells-and-whistles to try to explain away fundamental contradictions to the point where the final modified theory is either so esoteric as to be almost absurd or is essentially identical to standard theory. At this point, the "tensor" modifications to MOND are so grandiose that any "simplicity" the theory originally could claim is lost in its awkward new packaging. And things like the bullet cluster and large-scale structure of the universe studies don't seem to cooperate with the simplest MOND models one comes up with. Nevertheless, two different "MOND" groups continue to churn out archive papers on a weekly basis attempting to stop all the holes in the dike. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, MOND gets a decent amount of Physics press, I think it's best considered minority science for now, with a bit of questionable, but not much more (to an outsider) than all the other alternatives (e.g. String theory, supersymmetry, etc). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOND has problems beyond string theory and supersymmetry of having observational evidence that many have stated explicitly falsifies it. Outside of New Scientist, I don't think there's much notice of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And PPARC. The article probably gives it a lot of undue weight but it is marginal science, not pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. It is fringe science in the sense of being on the boundaries of science, not in the sense of being pseudoscience. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable for an article on MOND to describe MOND. One way of telling if a theory is "respectable": is it worth publishing evidence against it? In the case of MOND the answer is definitely yes, as demonstrated by searches on arXiv (especially if you throw in the related TeVeS). And evidence against is cited in the article. PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laz

Kolkhianboy (talk · contribs), previously a bunch of quite disruptive IPs until I semiprotected all of his favourite articles, is a displaying some worrying tendencies towards ethnic chauvinism of a Laz variety. Laz language has also been affected, possibly others. Nothing massively urgent but something that needs monitoring. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Orthogonal Chiropractic Technique

Written from an in-universe (in chiropractic) perspective.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Another NPOV-free zone. I've cut all the fluff down to a one-sentence stub. Someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest (as I suspect recent authors of having) might like to rebuild. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neat solution, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, assuming this technique is actually notable in the first place? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for merger with Chiropractic. I also noted that the first version of the article has copyvio written all over it.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS reappraisal redux

I'd like to once again request some additional input at AIDS reappraisal and perhaps some additional eyes on zidovudine as well. A number of recurrent issues have flared up, including whether AIDS denialism is opposed by "the scientific community", or simply "a majority of the scientific community". To avoid this becoming a two-person back-and-forth, I'd like to invite outside input. There are multiple active threads at Talk:AIDS reappraisal started in the past few days. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think "scientific community" is fine. This is surely even more obvious than homeopathy. It's Number 46, part 1. Speaking as Mr Joe Public, I couldn't name one AIDS denialist, but then why should I memorise the names of cranks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at Dysgenics

There is an RfC currently open at Dysgenics, asking whether the article in question devotes too much space to a WP:FRINGE subject. A wider input would be appreciated at the RfC. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the whole Race and intelligence shebang, starring Jagz (talk · contribs) and Zero g (talk · contribs) in the main roles. I think I mostly get what's going on here, but would someone mind explaining for me in very simple English what the whole debate's about, just to make sure I fully understand the whole picture? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can explain, they are positing that dysgenics has to do with the anti-eugenic effect of a higher comparative fertility rate of low-IQ people (in the USA, typically non-Whites) vs high-IQ people, therefore eventually bringing about a dumbing-down of humanity over the long term, and even the demise of civilisation. This fails to take into account that:

IQ scores as a rule have been increasing since we started measuring them 50-100 years ago (instead of decreasing)
dysgenics is a real medical term used for the study of mutations which deleteriously affect the survival of the organism.
This hypothesis is forwarded by a very small group of researchers, basically a subgroup of the staunchest hereditarian researchers mentioned in the Race and Intelligence article, foremost among them being JP Rushton himself.

Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suffer badly from US-centrism. Is there any chance we can move this to genetic deterioration and focus on non-human populations, mentioning humans as a marginal special case, and relegate the whole Race and Intelligence stuff to where it belongs? If I want to read up on genetic deterioration, I am not interested in petty squabbling over "race and intelligence" debates in the US culture wars. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particular attribution at parapsychology

What do you think? Is it only a few people who think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Certain people at Talk:Parapsychology are convinced of this and are not backing down. They reminded me of a proposal I made a while back to add a section to WP:FRINGE about particular attribution. So I was bold and tried out some wording. More eyes are needed both there and at WT:FRINGE#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if scientists applied scientific method to seeing whether purported paranormal effects were real, then that was called "parapsychology". Therefore it wouldn't be appropriate to label it pseudoscience. I'll have a look at the articles, but tell me if I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that the latter simply masquerades as the former. This makes it difficult to distinguish among the two at first glance - so indeed, you would have to spend some time reading up on the subject before you could decide whether you thought it was pseudoscience or not. That having been said, our opinions of the field itself are not particularly relevant. The question here is how the attribution of the "pseudoscience" label should be made. Antelan^talk 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. No one involved in the discussion disagrees that it's been called pseudoscience, nor that the label belongs in the article as a notable view. It's the how of it that's being discussed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://phoenicia.org as a source

This website is used in quite a few articles. It's a personal website although with articles by other authors, arguing for Phoenicians in Brazil, Australia, etc (and of course they come from Atlantis). It also calls itself the "Virtual Center for Phoenician Studies" and "Encyclopedia Phoeniciana". I'm trying to do some cleanup. It seems used quite a bit in Carthage for instance. --Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "Who we are" page, it is definitely a personal site... and unless it the owner is reguarded as an expert in the field (which I doubt) it should not be considered RS. It might be OK as a convenience link to articles by noted scholars (if any of the authors who's works are copied fall into that category). Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that a lot of the stuff there takes myths, the Bible, etc as history (and Atlantis), see [6] which at the bottom says "(Published in Kolo Suryoyo: April-May-June issue 2002. Number 136. Page 85 -- Reproduced without permission)". --Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So its out even as a convenience link. Yuck. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience and alternative science

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force

This article is the site of a conflict between a single indefatigable editor who takes the position that centrifugal force is a real, true, and undeniable phenomenon that exists independently of coordinate frames, and every other editor of the page, who report the standard interpretation of centrifugal force supported by all known reliable sources, in which it is regarded as a pseudo-force that can be described in terms of coordinate transformations of the standard Newtonian equations of motion in an inertial frame.

No matter how many other editors explain this to them, they are steadfast in their determination that the WP:TRUTH must prevail. They are impervious to requests that they provide references to support their view. They are impervious to citations to reliable sources, to polite arguments, to mathematical demonstrations of the effects of coordinate transforms, to animated diagrams showing how the motion of objects appears under these transforms, to polite appeals to abide by policies such as Neutral Point of View, verifiability from reliable sources, and avoiding original research.

Instead, they insist that other editors are unintelligent, incapable of properly understanding physics, and are conspiring against them to suppress the WP:TRUTH; indeed, this essay could almost have been written to describe their editing style.

They appear to be intelligent and sincere, but simply unwilling -- in the interests of THE TRUTH -- to engage in the normal Wikipedia processes. Instead, their strategy appears to be to "win" by simply outlasting other participants in the editing process, something in which they have made considerable progress to date. (I have also considered the possibility that they are a knowledgeable person who is simply trolling for kicks, similar to the behavior of one editor in the 0.999... saga, but I prefer to assume good faith.)

Repeated attempts to forge a compromise, using WP:NPOV, have failed to resolve this conflict, largely because they are unwilling to provide supporting cites which might be used to demonstrate that there is a real controversy over this issue in the citable literature.

As a result, the article has become a mish-mash as it is edited to and fro. I am at a loss to see how this process can be resolved. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we not just revert editors who clearly have neither a grasp on their chosen subject nor on WP:RS? This should be a non-issue. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Centrifugal force. They are very careful to ignore all discussions involving Wikipedia policy, and have an engaging style that exploits the good faith of other editors. I entered this as an outside party, trying to broker a compromise using NPOV. I realize now that I should probably have simply threatened them with blocking unless they followed WP:V, rather than getting sucked into the discussion, or just kicked this to arbitration, but by now I'm too embroiled in the argument to act as an enforcer of policy without the appearance of conflict of interest. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, looking at User talk:David Tombe, this does seem to be a case of somebody simply Not Getting It, and admin action may be appropriate at this point. The arbcom will just make a bureaucratic mess of this. We have many many competent editors on physics topics, and they're positive angels to clueless blunderers as a rule, and when somebody just keeps going in spite of everyone, they should just run into blocks of escalating lengths. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been admin action before, when this user had no user account and edited from many IP accounts [7]. He's repeating similar behavior now but being very careful to avoid 3RR by not reverting, instead just deleting and reinserting material to fit his POV. Be prepared for a multiple-page useless debate if you try to discuss it with him in good faith. I'm at a loss myself on how best to deal with him. I think it would be best if a disinterested 3rd party brought this up for WP:ANI (i.e., someone who hasn't edited those articles recently). Plvekamp (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's taking a break for awhile. Let's see how long it lasts, the situation may have resolved itself. Plvekamp (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<scratches head> I usually just block disruptive SPAs indefinitely. Don't know about wikibreak, either, he's been busy editing today. Seeing as he's been going for so long under the IPs, he's not a newbie and appears to have been adequately warned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this requires administrator intervention, you can also just ask me for help. I haven't done anything with centrifugal force in a very long time. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on the talk page of the editor in question. -- The Anome (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him in regard to that edit. Please keep me informed of any further developments. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits in question are coatracking in order to support the theory in this paper [8] in a non-peer reviewed internet journal. The paper claims that inertia is due to centrifugal force in the aether, and much of it is based on the misconceptions contained in the edits this user keeps inserting into the article. Plvekamp (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I ought to be allowed a say here too. The sole purpose of my intervetion on the centrifugal force pages was to tidy it up. There is one centrifugal force. It acts radially and it gets induced by tangential motion.

The existing article had split the topic into two and misrepresented both aspects. The main topic concentrates on the issue of rotating frames of references but ignores the fact that any actual centrifugal effects only occur on objects that are co-rotating with the rotating frame.

Most of my edits have been instantly removed by persons who clearly know very little about centrifugal force.

No fringe theory is being pushed. I am merely drawing attention to the age old Bucket argument which points out that no actual effects occur on a stationary object which is viewed from a rotating frame of reference, whereas an actual centrifugal pressure can be induced by actual rotation. David Tombe (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more warnings, followed by a 3 hour block by SCZenz, seem not to have had any effect, and David is still inserting the contentious content without providing supporting references. After a thorough review of the entire affair, and in spite of my precious reservations, this now seems to me to be a clearly defined case where blocking is appropriate. Accordingly, I've now blocked David for 31 hours; see this message on his talk page for my rationale. -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child Sexual Abuse

User:PetraSchelm has reverted (without prior discussion or consensus) a long-standing, sourced section on "Controversial Research", citing WP:COATRACK:

[9]

I'd like to invite discussion from other editors. My own view is that CSA has seen more than its fair share of "controversial" research, in addition to the non-controversial research carried out in the spirit of Kinsey, before the CSA paradigm became powerful as it is today. There is also lots of critical literature outside of the medical field that isn't even mentioned.

In this sense, coatrack does not justify the removal of whole sections, and the way that this was done was less than civil. Lambton ^T/_C 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) An extreme fringe of researchers--including a pedophilia advocate who "analyzed" a hand-selected sample of 25 people 30 years ago--allege that child sexual abuse is harmless, and/or "the negative effects are not pervasive or long lasting, therefore some adults retain positive feelings about their childhood experience of sexual abuse." Two editors at this article believe that this fringe research constitutes a "controversy," that should be described in a lengthy paragraph in the article. I think this is undue weight, and a coatrack. Also, that dubious, discredited 10 and 30 + year old research doesn't belong in the article at all, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of a controversy meriting a paragraph. More input is welcome.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this version of the article, I agree some coatracking is going on and that the "Controversial research" section is too lengthy. Some mention of the most notable research is fine, with due discussion and rebuttals: three whole hefty paragraphs is probably not. Make it short and sweet. Certainly, this research is very fringy stuff, and should be dealt with as such. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; a short summary of the conflict in context with rebuttals is appropriate, but the section as it was, was excessive. Care is needed to avoid undue weight for the fringe theories that have been derailing this and related articles for quite a while. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Articles relating to child sex abuse are a bit of a problem generally. We either get one extreme or the other: "abuse is everywhere" (the fights over Satanic ritual abuse) or "abuse is no problem" (not here, but the fights over Adult-child sex would be one example). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that any research seen as controversial is almost excluded from the rest of the article, the removal of this section was improper. It leaves the article reflecting only one end of the spectrum in CSA research. It polarises the issue towards a misrepresentative, religiously medicalistic, clinical and illness-biased position on the subject. Lambton ^T/_C 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. See WP:UNDUE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial subject matter must at the very least be abridged. While several of the studies in question are frequently trumpeted as running contrary to the idea of CSA, they in fact do not prove anything quite so sweeping. Rather, they merely pick a small technicalities of the commonly held model.Legitimus (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view at best. IMO, Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both condemned the study. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The left-wing media (like Reason) largely accepted the study; most of the condemnation came from anti-intellectual wingnut rags like WorldNetDaily. This neutral article in the New York Times highlights the conservative nature of the attacks on Rind. Similarly, most of the papers published on Rind et al. (1998) analyze the hysteria and defend Rind and his team against the flawed claims of their critics (most of whom came from the "repressed memory" fringe). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fringe is those that believe that repressed memory doesn't exist. A large majority of the studies on this topic show that it is a solid and valid scientific theory. Here's a few examples :

Widom, Cathy Spatz (1996). "Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization : Part 1. Childhood physical abuse". Psychological Assessment. 8 (4). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association: 412–21. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ542113. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Widom, Cathy Spatz (1997). "Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse". Psychological Assessment. 9 (1). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association: 34–46. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ545434. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Sheflin, Alan W (1996). "Repressed Memory or Dissociative Amnesia: What the Science Says". Journal of Psychiatry & Law. 24 (Summer): 143–88. ISSN 0093-1853. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Herman, Judith Lewis (1997). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. pp. p119-122. ISBN 0465087302. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Albach, Francine (Dec-1996). "Memory recovery of childhood sexual abuse". Dissociation. Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 261-273. ISSN 0896-2863. Retrieved 2008-01-03. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out 1) the Rind study was condemned by Congress 2) three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and didn't concur with Rind 3) Rind et al published in a pro-pedophilia journal called Paidika 4) the conclusions of the study were that the effects of child sexual abuse are not "pervasive or long lasting," which isn't much of a big controversy anyway, because up to date research--already reflected in the article--notes that the prognosis for recovery is excellent 5) what was controversial about Rind wasn't so much his conclusions but his opinion that child sexual abuse should be called "adult-child sex" sometimes, if it happens between adults and teenaged boys who say they weren't harmed. 6) The Rind study has a whole article already, and is 7) described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. It's not really relevant to child sexual abuse in general, because it didn't shift or even affect the weight of scientific opinion, not even minutely; and because the controversy was cultural, not scientific. The ten year old Rind et al pro-pedophile push to legitimize sexual contacts between adults and adolescent boys has a place where it is relevant, and that's in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional condemnation means nothing in this context; imagine what our evolution / intelligent design articles would look like if it did. Rind et al was in Psychological Bulletin, not Paidika. The section that was removed was prima facie NPOV and well-sourced; perhaps it needed to be augmented with equally NPOV and well-sourced criticism of those specific assertions, or to better contextualize them as controversial minority views. I do not see any grounds to remove it entirely. <eleland/talkedits> 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they published it in Paidika, I said they published in Paidika; the authors have a pro-pedophile bias. Fringe theories need not be mentioned at all, except perhaps in articles devoted to them, and in this case there's a whole article devoted to Rind elsewhere, in adddition to detailed coverage at the pro-pedophile activism article. The significance of "condemned by Congress" is in response to AnotherSolipsist's contention that "most of the condemnation came from... WorldNetDaily." (And mainstream science rejected it also.) The solution to a coatrack isn't to further expand it by adding rebuttals; it's to crop it. (We have two isssues here now: 1) the coatrack itself, for which there is consensus to crop significantly to include only Rind 2) whether Rind should even be included or not....)-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "coatracking" here so much as the attempt to over-emphasize the weight of a minority view. So some study interviewed minors on how they feel about being in a "relationship" with adults. The study was heavily criticized as pedophile activism masquerading as science. This is all perfectly on topic in the "child sexual abuse" article, we just need to take care not to allow the article to implicitly jump to conclusions (WP:SYN), along the lines of "the Stockholm syndrome says some people feel good about being held hostage. Hence, we conclude it is really ok to take hostages or kidnap people." Plus, there is a main article, Rind et al. controversy; details on that should go there. pro-pedophile activism should perhaps be considered a valid sub-article of Child sexual abuse, and the "controversial research" could be accommodated in that context. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of Sandfort's study mostly focuses on the implications of his findings. The actual data he collected can hardly be considered pseudoscientific: A few critics have pointed out that his sample was non-representative, but Sandfort didn't claim otherwise (in fact he subtitled the study An Empirical Investigation Among a Nonrepresentative Group of Boys.) I don't think there's any serious doubt among the CSA-erudite that a subset of sexual abuse victims regard their experience positively (whether as a coping mechanism or whatever), which is all our article says. The minority view that CSA should be legalized was, if I'm not mistaken, represented nowhere in the section deleted. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 30+ year old study with a sample size of 25 that consisted entirely of subjects recruited from the Dutch National Pedophile Workshop--it's ludicrously irrelevant to anything except the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Petra -- if you take away the controversy surrounding the "implications", what is left is staggeringly unremarkable. This will either be about the "activism" controversy or nothing at all. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandfort is notable for a number of reasons. 1. The sample. The convenience sample uses men who have no particular mental health record, and actually believe that they are doing the boys good. There is no clinical or legal element. The sample is unique and valuable, representing a liberal climate that may not exist in any other developed country for decades to come. 2. The intimacy between interviewer and interviewee. Again, unique and naturalistic. Boys, it appears were encouraged to be themselves during the interviews. The interviews were carried out in familiar territory (the men's homes), in neutral terms and the men were not present. The level of detail that the interviews went into more than offsets the small sample size - a method probably more suited to your "soft science" conception of psychology. 3. The conclusions. Is it not fascinating that the conclusions were so wildly unlike those of other studies? Could this have something to do with the methodology? This should be up for discussion in an article that goes beyond the "one true" narrative of CSA, and actually represents the diversity of opinion in this subject with some fairness. Lambton ^T/_C 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandfort alone may not be particularly significant, but studies using representative samples have shown that a large portion of abuse survivors hold or held their abuse in a positive light. In Rind et al., 42% of the 118 men included in the sample and 16% of the 514 women maintained overall positive feelings for their abuse. That's a lot of people to make unpersons. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet no one else before or since has ever replicated these findings, which why Rind triggers WP:REDFLAG, and the confirmation bias inherent in a pro-pedophilia advocate conducting a study is relevant. Again, Rind has its own article, and is recounted in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet: You have a very poor understanding of the subject, and indeed the profile of Bruce Rind and his works. Rind et al was a meta analysis conducted for the APA. That means that it was a high profile report that depended on many studies that produced similar findings *before* it was published. There have also been critical surveys and case studies of CSA victims that were not included in Rind, but are referred to by other authors and critics. Your accusations of Pro-Pedophile activism are very similar to those made by the Far-Right homophobe, Reisman, in nonsensical rants about the gay agenda and recruitment of children. Even Dallam - an incredibly biased and value-laden counter to Rind did not go as far as you have. Lambton ^T/_C 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors. (Although it's interesting, I suppose, that you would align someone who chose their username from the far left and edits critical theory articles with the far right...). Again, three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and did not concur with Rind, and no meta-analysis published since has concurred with Rind either. His overall conclusion was that there is harm (not controversial); what was controversial was his opinion that the term "adult child sex" should be used in cases where an adolescent boy and an adult man have sex and the boy doesn't believe he was harmed. The use of this "value neutral term" is a noted goal of pro-pedophile advocates, per Mary de Young's analysis of pro-pedophile activism, which is described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. The signifigance of the decade-old Rind et al study is to the history of pro-pedophile activism.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion that some adult-child sex should not be termed child sexual abuse isn't what was in the article. If the rest was uncontroversial, why do you object to its inclusion as "fringe?"

The other meta-analyses didn't concur with Rind et al. (1998) on the issue of self-reported reactions because they didn't study or comment on that. Another red herring... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be included on a scientific basis because it doesn't add anything to the article; the conclusions are already represented via the most up to date research. Why do you want to include it? We haven't included the other three meta-analyses either. We're trying to represent the WP:WEIGHT so that the article is up to date, informative, and readable. Self-reported reactions are of low evidentiary value; that's why no one studies or comments on them in a meta-analysis (unless they're trying to confirm a confirmation bias, which is what Dallam and Congress pointed out Rind was doing...) Rind's opinion re "adult-child sex' caused a cultural controversy ten years ago, and there's an article exlaining the controversy, and it's included as well, in detail, in the pro-pedophile activism article. Like Sandfort, it's a very important study--to pro-pedophile advocates. To everyone else, it's an irrelevant fringe theory. (And the fringe basis is cultural, not scientific. Sandfort and Rind have zero relevance to the weight of scientific opinion; they're cultural curiosities.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←PetraSchelm is correct, and dab also stated it very well at 14:55 and 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The study was widely debunked and criticized by science and widely quoted by pedophile activists. In the CSA article, a short paragraph about pedophile activisim and the use of Rind et al and maybe Sandfort by activists would be appropriate, with links to the relevant articles. It needs to be done carefully without SYN. There is no controversy about this in scientific research today to report, and to include information in the article that implies there is, would be undue weight for a fringe theory, from the smallest of fringes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Rind was not fringe. If you can provide some academic articles against Rind, I will provide some for (or neutral). We will discover that the debate was wide open. Lambton ^T/_C 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of Rind is to the fringe of the fringe; no one else really cares. The cultural controversy, which is a decade old, has its own article. It's like the Dutch pedophile party that only had three members. It had shock value, so the press commented on it/it was a big news story for fifteen minutes. Then it faded to total obscurity except for on pro-pedophile websites, where it is enshrined as gospel and blown out of proportion eight ways to Sunday in the style of fringe websites everywhere. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to give an erroneous impression of notability. Rind is notable to the history of pro-pedophile activism, not to the study of child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Rind et al. (1998) are fairly unique, actually, and it continues to be cited in the literature. Google Scholar turns up 364 papers citing it. That's almost half the number of hits that the most notable study on CSA (Kendall-Tackett et al.) has, despite the 5-year advantage of Kendall-Tackett. Some citations of Rind in peer-reviewed journals (and one Ph.D dissertation) from 2008:

A Ph.D dissertation: "A 1998 meta-analytic study examined the relationship between CSA and ED and found a statistically significant, but small, relationship (r = .06) among the sample of college students without a clinical diagnosis of eating disorders (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998)."[10]
The British Journal of Psychiatry: "In addition, meta-analytic data indicate that the association between childhood sexual abuse and psychopathological symptoms tends to be larger for more severe forms of abuse."[11]
Psychiatry Research: "For example, 17% of college students report childhood sexual abuse in the form of sexual intercourse (Rind et al., 1998)."[12]
Sexual and Relationship Therapy: "They found, in a meta-analysis of 59 studies of over 15,000 college students, that the relation between self-reported CSA and psychopathology was weak and even weaker when CSA was considered to be consensual, particularly for males. They also reported that 11% of women and 37% of men indicated that their short-term reaction to the CSA was positive. Rind and Tromovitch (1997) similarly reported that only a small proportion of individuals with CSA experiences are permanently harmed in their meta-analytic review of seven national samples of psychological correlates of CSA. They concluded that while psychological adjustment measures suggest that CSA is related to poorer adjustment in the general population, confounding variables prevent attributing causal effects of CSA. [goes on]"[13]
American Journal of Public Health: "Very little is actually known about the long-term risks and benefits of abstinence intentions, virginity pledges, or early or late initiation in the context of consensual sexual experiences; however, numerous studies have documented long-term adverse outcomes of sexual abuse, including sexual risk behaviors. [Rind cited among others]"[14]
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) found in a meta analysis of 59 studies comprising 15,000 college students that relations between a self-reported history of CSA and psychopathology was low, and it was lower in magnitude when the respondent deemed CSA to be consensual, but only in men. Some 11% of female and 37% of male respondents reported their short-term reaction to the abuse as being positive."[15]
Psychological Medicine: "[Cites Rind several times, then...] Rind et al. (1998) examined the relationship between CSA and psychological adjustment outcomes (e.g. alcohol problems, interpersonal sensitivity) in samples recruited from college and university student populations. Effect sizes were computed for the association between CSA and psychological outcomes, and for the magnitude of the relationship between several moderating variables (e.g. gender, level of contact) and psychological outcomes. Significant interactions were found between gender and two moderating aspects of the CSA experience, namely level of contact (i.e. psychological outcomes were significantly stronger for males than females when CSA was unwanted) and timing of reaction (i.e. negative reactions to CSA were significantly greater for females than males across each category of reaction timing that was measured: immediate, current, and lasting)."[16]

So there. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just proving my point that the part of Rind that is not controversial is already reflected in the article; the most up to date research. It's already common knowledge that more severe forms of abuse=more severe harm, etc., and it's not necessary to cite Rind (or any individual paper) to state that in the article. No one asserts that anyone is "permanently harmed" (except for the brain damage research from Harvard, which we haven't included in the article...). Using Rind to state the obvious Trojan Horses in his controversial claim of "adult child sex" on the basis of dubious self-reports of dubious short term positive reaction for a dubious percentage of males only, that no one else replicates or agrees with; that is the glory of all the PPA fringe websites.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information on positive reactions to CSA is not reflected in the article. Two of 2008 papers I quoted above describe Rind's findings on this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Uh, then what is this: "In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal.[14] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases.[15] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers[16], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002).[17] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions.[18]"-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, the weight of scientific commentary on Rind et al. (1998) is positive. The American Psychologist special issue on Rind (vol. 57, issue 3) illustrates this.That which isn't positive was largely produced by the Leadership Council, a group of "repressed memory" apologists. (Interestingly, User:Jack-A-Roe and User:ResearchEditor have both been heavily involved in promoting their unusual brand of neutrality at Satanic ritual abuse and the repressed memory articles.) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leadership Council is a "nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts." Their advisory board includes approximately 50 respected scientists who have written approximately 80 books. The attempts made by certain editors at the SRA and repressed memory articles have been to provide as many reliable sources as possible, presented in a NPOV fashion. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. Like this edit by Jack, for example, where he quotes Ken Lanning stating that "satanic ritual abuse victims report things that are physically impossible": [17]. I won't mention the presence here of the editor who voted very oddly in the adult child sex AfD. It would be nice to hear more outside views, though, instead of more of the same from the two fringe editors at child sexual abuse, and any adult-child sex AfD voters they can scare up. I think we've made the pro/con case from the involved editors' perspectives, and it's time to wait for actual new/wider input (on a problem that has dragged on for years at this article).-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that edit, Jack paraphrases a pre-existing quote that said "some of what victims allege in these cases is physically impossible" to say "he considers some of what the victims alleged to be either untrue or physically impossible." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=rind+et+al&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Google, and just about every other SE disagrees, with you, Petra. Lambton ^T/_C 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, by returning one result (on volcanoes), and excluding all results containing the words "child" and "sex" "Yahoo Kids" provides no consensus. Maybe you should back down a little and argue from Yahoo Kids. Lambton ^T/_C 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern, though. A hard-core of editors who dedicate themselves to presenting any topic involving children and sexuality in the most bizarrely condemnatory light. It can best be described an abandonment of neutrality and adoption of a public-consensus POV that leads to a cherry-picking of the most fearsome, medical-only literature on these topics. These conclusions are then treated as fact, in articles that come accross as thoroughly harsh on these topics, far harsher than most established psychological, sociological and critical articles on the subject. Lambton ^T/_C 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. WP:UNDUE is not an abandonment of neutrality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone" is not the consensus of academics and specialists who actually know something about the subject. Noting the public consensus is all fine and well, but it requires no more than a few lines, and should play no part in weighting and determining assumed facts in the rest of the article, which deals with professional, qualified opinions. Lambton ^T/_C 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus is also that it's fucked up.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not science, Petra. There is a reasonable consensus of near-universal harm, and even of unethical or risky practise (E.g. Finkelhor, who concedes that some instances are seen as positive). I know of no "scientific" consensus that equates to "fucked up" - an almost irrelevant opinion that one is likely to find amongst the "great unwashed" and in their holy books (which come in instalments of 365 a year). Lambton ^T/_C 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Rind concedes it is fucked up (he merely wants to call a small percentage of adolescent males who self-report--only in the short term --that their experience was "positive" people who have experienced "adult-child sex." Since short term self reports are considered highly dubious, his proposed exception has not been adopted by the scientific community. In fact, it was overwhelmingly shot down. Also, his opinion on terminology is an opinion of terminology, not a scientific observation...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This may be a silly question — I'm not sure — but how much research really looks into the causal relationships between child sexual abuse and future life problems? I know the correlation is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've just heard, admittedly in nonscholarly sources, the suggestion that the reaction to CSA and the social stigma is at least as damaging as the CSA itself. Is there any solid research on this question? <eleland/talkedits> 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are eleland's comments from the adult-child sex AfD:

"Hold your nose and Keep because, face it, logically Child sexual
abuse would be the POV fork here. "Adult-child sex" is a neutral
title; it's not like the article is called Man-boy love. Not all
notable POV's (maybe not even a majority?) agree that sex between
minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances.
Merging this information to Child sexual abuse would be inherently
POV. <eleland/talkedits> 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)"
Seriously, thanks for sharing, but we'd really like to get some neutral outside input.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments which I stand by, and which are both reasonable and entirely irrelevant. Attempting to paint all those who distance themselves from your moral crusade as paedophile apologists hardly engenders confidence in your position. Now, are you capable of answering my question, or would you rather amuse yourself with ad hominems and well-poisoning? <eleland/talkedits> 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, whose sock puppet are you? A month and a half on WP and you're quoting contributions I made last fall? Please. <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard? If your opinion is that "maybe not even a majority of povs" agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful, you're unclear on the concept that the overwhelming majority opinion is that it is harmful, and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of ediotrs who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my opinion was that "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful," I would have said so, rather than saying "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sex between minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances," which is what I actually said. You're exaggerating everything I say into a strawman in order to avoid responding to my substantial questions and comments. Casually asserting that Bruce Rind is a "pedophile advocate" is more in this same vein. I don't appreciate off-wiki activist agendas being imported here, whether pro- or anti-, and again, I'd really like to know whose sock puppet you are, as would others. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sockpuppet disrupting here today, and it was blocked. Meanwhile, are you suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Would you like me to repeat it for you? Here: You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard?...and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of editors who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard. Thanks for understanding,-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite pathetic, and I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. You're defining those who disagree with you as non-neutral, and you're defining published peer-reviewed scientific research which you don't like as pedophile advocacy. Petra, I've been active on the FTN for longer than you've had an account, and my main interests here are pseudoscience and nationalist historiography. I don't really care whether your veiled implications are a cynical tactic or you really believe that I'm an apologist for child-fucking; either way you haven't made a single substantive on-point contribution to this sub-thread, and you've left my original question 100% unanswered. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me throw in a WP:INSULTING_PITHY_AND_IRRELEVANT_POLICY_LINK, because this seems to be the way we discuss things on WP now. How about WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!, that's always a good'un. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How constructive. And I'm so glad you're helping the "solicit wider opinions and input by posting on a noticeboard" process--I think it will really improve the article if people are terrified to comment here because they think they'll be dragged back into the adult-child sex AfD nightmare.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, maybe we should try to cool down the tone and pace of this a little bit. People always get very worked up over topics of sexual abuse. Let's focus on the immediate editing decisions: how to present these studies. I think it is undisputed that some mention needs to be made of them, but that any detail belongs on {{main}} articles such as pro-pedophile activism or Rind et al. controversy. After all, just a matter of micro-managing tight phrasing and not a very big deal either way. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is going to an RFC and then probably Arbcom because the minority of editors who want the coatrack have just reinserted it--all three paragraphs--without discussion. (This problem has been going on for years at this article, and has involved multiple editors blocked for pro-pedophile activism).-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an excellent essay from the "Skeptical Inquirer" about the Rind study, for all you skeptics of fringe who might like to participate in the RFC: [18]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that you are having difficulty attracting opinions from "outside" editors is that the barriers to entry are set so high that few of us are likely to want to get involved. First, you have to be prepared to take endless abuse and personal attacks, and this regardless of your views. (And please don't do a "Who, me?" or ask for diffs, or we will all be here forever.) Both sides do it and most, if not all, individuals. Second, the views of any outsider who is not prepared to claim a high degree of professional background in psychology is going to be dismissed, so who would bother taking the time to think about the issues? And those who do claim a professional background are also dismissed by the other side with a level of vitriol that reminds me of domestic-abuse fights.

In order likely only to prove my points, I will make one stab at the issues. The article is about sexual abuse perpetrated against children. Leaving aside that "child" may be defined differently across the world's varied cultures, there are very few jurisdictions where sex with a child is not declared, by definition under the law, to be abuse. I think, from what I am reading here and on the pages of the various articles, that these points are agreed as to stating what is the case. (And we are not here, or in the article, dealing with what should be the case.)

The heavy preponderance of formal studies, broadly accepted in the scientific community, conclude that adults having sex with a child do harm to the child. This would be what I will call here, the "primary conclusion". (No scientific study of which I am aware, and certainly no psychological one, has 100% certainty. The degree of deviance from 100% establishes the amount of weight that should be given to dissenting opinions when discussing the primary conclusions.)

Rind, and others who seem to agree with him, no matter how many of them write and publish, still represent a very small area of dissent from the primary conclusion. (It is not the number of papers that determine the weight of professional opinion, but the weight of the evidence within any study that, gathered with others, determines the validity of the primary conclusion.) Thus, in an article on Rind or his compatriots, or on pro-pedophile views, you can give his studies the significant weight because you are there only discussing the opinions that dissent from the primary conclusion. Child sex abuse is about the primary conclusion, which is that, flatly stated, sex with adults harms children. I would suggest, given the worldwide weight, that Rind and those who agree with Rind, get a single, short, declaratory sentence about the dissent, and a reference that identifies the study. In Related Links, include the Rind article and the pro-pedophile activism one. There is one outside opinion. Enjoy! ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism_in_association_football#Poland

User insist on insertion of off-topic (my opinion) material about leftist symbols [19] into this article about Racism in football because, his argument - "it is sourced". Sourced on "Gazeta Polska" a weakly which is called "far right" [20]? and "should not be considered mainstream". [21] . WP:FRINGE? Discussion here [22]. M0RD00R (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three users persistently deleting EL to Skeptic's Dictionary

User:Jack-A-Roe, User:PetraSchelm and User:SqueakBox have together removed a link to Skeptic's Dictionary from Hystero-epilepsy 5 times. They have justified this by characterizing the link as self-published, link-cruft, questionable, non-expert, and a profit-generating ad revenue scrape site. Given Jack-A-Roe's history of civil POV warring, however, I suspect the link is actually being removed because it tangentially mentions "repressed memory" therapists in a negative light, and itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder. A third opinion would be nice. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... "itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder." - since you've studied my contribs, you didn't notice that I've never edited Dissociative Identity Disorder? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we reverted you mostly to discourage you from pointless wikistalking and harassment of Jack, which is the only reason you keep inserting the link. Meanwhile, it is a crap EL for that article, which is in its early stub stage of development. It's an ad-heavy for profit link, and the useful information in it should come from cited sources and be used as inline refs. "Hystero-epilepsy" is not a pseudoscience or a fringe theory--no one believes in it; it was just part of the history of science. In Charcot's time, people thought epilepsy was a neuroses with no physical basis; but that doesn't mean they weren't studying it with scientific methods. We don't go backwards in history and label every hypothesis that turned out to be wrong "pseudoscience," pseudoscience refers to current beliefs with no scientific basis/contradicted by science now. I don't see Charcot advocating hystero-epilepsy on TV, do you? (He's been dead for a hundred plus years...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say hystero-epilepsy was pseudoscientific or fringe. I posted this here because most watchers are bound to be familiar with Skepdic, and because the link was probably removed to further the fringe POV of "repressed memory" advocates. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, really--the link was removed to discourage you from wikistalking Jack (to a stub article you never edited before, and have contributed nothing to except edit warring over an inconsequential external link no one cares about). The link is crap, but the issue is that we don't want you to follow Jack or anyone else around purposely to harass them.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You checked my contributions, saw an edit and then caused disruption not because you actually cared but because you wanted to wear me down? That sounds like wikistalking. My occasional perusal of Jack's contributions to ensure he isn't pushing his POV on the trauma articles, on the other hand, is not. See Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Jack doesn't pov-push on trauma articles, the only person who has accused him of that is you (and uh, weren't you blocked for pedophile pov-pushing?). What you've done is followed him to a stub article that says zip about trauma or anything else, because it's practically empty, and edit-warred to insert an ad-heavy EL that doesn't belong, because it implies that an early development in the research on epilepsy and hysteria--conducted by the man whom Freud referenced heavily--is pseudoscience. The Skepdic's dictionary is a fine EL for the Dianetics article, but not for the psychoanalysis article, for example. Jack's interest in the article appears to stem from his interest in Iatrogenesis, where he is collaborating with other editors to improve that article and its subarticles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of surprising that AnotherSolipsist appeared on that very obscure article to revert my change, when he's not edited that article or anything related to it previously. I wondered about that; then decided not to worry about it unless it continued to happen.

Putting that curiousity aside, regarding the use of the Skeptic's Dictionary website as an external link: there are two issues about that. It's not a reliable source, it's not a book, it's a self-published website. There is also a book by that title, that includes a subset of the website content - the book was published by a third party, increasing its reliability. I don't know if hystero-epilepsy is in the book or not - if it were, that would add reliability and encourage its use as an in-line footnote. The website is self-published and represents the author's biased views (he does not claim otherwise in his about-himself section on the site). This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard because various editors have wanted to use it in various articles; while there has not been a definitive decision, doubt was expressed about its reliability and the general agreement was that if the site is used as an inline citation, the opinions of Carroll should be attributed and not generalized. So, if it were used as an inline reference, it could be phrased "According to Tom Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary... etc". That approach is from the RS noticeboard recommendation.

In this situation though, as an external link, it's even less appropriate, because it does not meet the qualifications for what should be linked - external links are used only for websites that include information that can't be included directly in Wikipedia for various reasons, such as official websites of organizations that are the topic of the articles, or websites with extensive resources on a topic that go far beyond the level of detail Wikipedia can provide. For more on that see WP:EL . But those qualifications doesn't apply in this situation - it's a one-page article on a self-published website. If any of the information there is valid and usable - there is no reason to advertise his website as an external link when the info can be paraphrased and carefully used with attribution and an in-line footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the EL from skepdic should be deleted as per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The skepdic site states: "who assume even before meeting their patients that they have probably been sexually abused." This statement is unsourced, incredibly misleading and shows the extreme bias of the author. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Jack-A-Roe know this all along? There seems to be two things going on. One looks like an attempt to keep an article POV (in fact maybe two or more articles if the impression I get from a quick persual of some editors' contributions) and another to stop people from using at least two skeptical sites. I also see the word 'tertiary' being used as an excuse to remove external links, despite the fact that WP guidelines make it clear you can use tertiary works.#REDIRECT Insert text

I forgot to add that PetraSchelm is the third editor here (see discussion two above this one).--Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"An attempt to keep an article POV"? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on Wikipedia. Did you even read the article? Here it is, all five sentences:

Hystero-epilepsy is an alleged disease "discovered" by 19th-century French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot.[1] It is considered a famous example of iatrogenic artifact, or a disease created by doctors. The disease was considered a combination of hysteria and epilepsy. Charcot housed his "hystero-epilepsy" patients in the same ward as patients with epilepsy, because both were considered "episodic" diseases. At the time, both hysteria and epilepsy were believed to be neuroses; and diseases caused by the conversion of psychological distress into physical distress. Symptoms included "convulsions, contortions, fainting, and transient impairment of consciousness." Joseph Babinski convinced Charcot that he was inducing the symptoms in his patients because of his treatment regimen. [2] I'm sorry--where exactly is the POV in this five sentence article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "Jack-A-Roe know this all along?" - I don't mean that as as tactic, I actually don't understand, so I can't reply to your question.

As far as Skeptic's Dictionary, someone has already re-inserted it in that article, and I'm not removing it again at this point. I don't think it belongs there, but I also don't think it's all that important. What I do think is important is the use of Skeptic's Dictionary in general, throughout Wikipedia. It's linked on around 550 pages, including maybe 200 or so articles. So it's used a lot.

I have nothing against skepticism; many may not believe this, but I take a skeptical approach to science. I want to see evidence, not magic. But I don't find Skeptic's Dictionary to be a reliable source because it's just a collection of one person's opinions. On some topics, maybe his opinions are worthy of citations, but on many topics, he's not an expert, he's just writing his opinions.

This is not something I'm making up - he states it himself in the intro to his website: "The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." Not only that, but he considers topics like the one we're discussing to be "occult" or "pseudoscience". Well, the little article that we're discussing, hystero-epilepsy, is not either of those, it's simply history. It's the story of some mistakes that were made by someone who thought what they were doing was science at the time, a long time ago. I'm skeptical about hystero-epilepsy, I don't think it exists as a disease. But I don't think we need Carroll's opinion piece to reference the article - there are scientific and history sources available that are much better.

So... I hope that clarifies it. I'm not fighting a battle to keep one external link out of one of the smallest most obscure articles in the encyclopedia. I just don't think it's a good external link, according to the external links guideline. Apparently some other editors agree with me about that, and apparently some don't. That's Wikipedia in action. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we should avoid having full blown debates on this page that aren't directly addressing the question of "fringe theories". This is a question of WP:EL. External links are selected on a pragmatic basis, with a view to their utility to the readers. We do not require watertight WP:RS quality for them. As Jack-A-Roe says, this is wiki business as usual, to be addressed on article talkpages. I would encourage everyone to post links to such debates on this noticeboard, but to avoid replicating the full debate here. dab (𒁳) 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack-a-roe, when I said you knew it all along all I meant was that it might have helped if you had said that immediately. If you have better sources, great. But I really don't want to hear complaints that it is a tertiary source (textbooks are tertiary sources, Wikipedia guidelines say tertiary sources are ok) or that it is ad supported. And as you know, we've been through the 'it's a personal website' bit, none of those make it fail WP:EL. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I didn't write anything about it being a tertiary source, someone else wrote that, and I don't see that as an issue in this situation. I consider the link inappropriate based on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. And as dab noted, this is not a WP:FRINGE question so it doesn't belong on this noticeboard. For completeness though, I'll note that so far only two editors voiced support for keeping the link and four editors stated their support for its removal. I suggest that if there is any further discussion of this it be done on the article talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly see nothing in this link that violates the EL policy. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje Shugden

Controversy surrounding cult-like sub-group of Tibetan Buddhism that claims great antiquity. Spreading over onto Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso and other high-profile pages. Those familiar with the field might be interested in keeping an eye on it. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ANI#Dorje Shugden. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi (talk · contribs)

I did not remember this user, and did not note the warning above -- hence a heads up that this user is currently wreaking havoc in the ancient history topics. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. He's created {{Ancient history by continent}} and a whole bunch of very strange articles, and is reverting the addition of split and merge tags. None of the articles seem to me to have much more merit than would an Ancient history of Antarctica, but since he doesn't look to be in the mood to discuss things, it's hard to know what the justification is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to think an article on Ancient European History should include the Hittites and Egypt, and is somehow different from Classical antiquity. He's actually left the tag on this one and has opposed a merge (I'm for a simple redirect). Doug Weller (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Ancient American history -- the penny dropped when I saw it. He's included non-literate cultures like the Adena and Mississippian culture and Poverty Point. I couldn't figure that out, but they are all linked to fringe claims of inscriptions, etc. Bat Creek stone, Grave Creek stone, etc. Ancient Australian history - there is no aboriginal writing, but he seems to want to prove there is (the book he references there is about 19th and 20th century writing by aborigines, I'm not sure what he thinks it proves.) Then there is Ancient African history, most of which is about non-literate cultures. I'm not sure where he plans to take this. My other problem is that he doesn't reference very much or very well (I'm going to have to look up 'A-group peoples' in the Sudan, a reference would have been nice. On one article, he uses an 1870 book and a non-academic web page to tell us when academics date the end of 'ancient history' (ok, that can be fixed, but...).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with calling prehistoric Africa "Ancient Africa", or prehistoric Australia "Ancient Australia", but the point is WP:CFORK. Since we already have Prehistoric Australia, Ancient Australia should just be a redirect there. Obviously, talking about "Early Middle Ages" in the context of Australia is about as clueless as it gets. I am not holding my breath to see anything useful from Reddi at this point. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And take a look at what he's included in Ancient history -- I've made some comments at the bottom of the talk page. 19th century references to Egyptians studying lightning, electric eels, etc. Egyptians knowing about aerodynamic forces. He deleted a lot of good stuff and has restructured the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh -- Reddi has a long history of such nonsense. It may be time to let him know Wikipedia doesn't put up with his approach to things. Let him keep a blog or something, but it will not do to have him keep wasting everybody's time. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Chronology (Fomenko)‎

This already had a lot of detail about Fomenko's arguments, now someone has added a huge wodge more which may be OR, certainly seems WP:Undue -- he didn't like my reverting it.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been suspicious of this page, as the proponents seem to be related to the publisher of the book, and therefore also involves WP:COI. Since documenting this would involve some use of off-Wiki material, I've been reluctant to go down that route. A Russian colleague, however, has expressed the opinion that Fomenko's work has moved from scholarship to pseudo-science to a purely commercial activity. I'll revert your material again and see what happens. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's back, and I've put on the Talk page that it's not clear what is actually Fomenko et al and what is the editor's perspective on them.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sangreal Sodality

Earlier today I tagged this article for proposed deletion. Since it is pretty fringe, I thought I might as well mention that here. (I considered tagging it for rapid deletion, because a substantial part of the article seems blatant advertising to promote their group, but was not sure if it really qualified.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed by an administrator because you didn't give a reason (you did in the edit summary but it needs to be given--Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is just a matter of WP:NOTE (specifically, WP:ORG). There are no "fringe" claim as such. As long as no third party sources establish the notability of this thing, it should just be redirected to William G. Gray. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked DDG, who removed the tag, what I did wrong [23]. It seems that article has been speedy deleted a number of times, and always restored. I might try an AfD. Merging would be a logical move, but that would not necessarily remove the blatant advertising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should just redirect it and see what happens. I do agree that no notability is established as the article stands. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated both articles for deletion since the only "notability" given for Gray is as the originator of this. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus redivivus

user:Rokus01 is back, keen to promote all things Aryan as usual, adding alleged Chinese Indo-European origins wherever he can [24] and performing other marvels. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear. Hadn't he been banned? His motto of questioning "appeals to authority" may be honourable in a researcher, but is of course crippling to an encyclopedia editor (an encyclopedia being nothing else but a giant appeal to all sorts of authorities). --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an official community ban proposal? The big problem with his contributions is that they are on such esoteric topics that it's difficult for those not familiar with the topics in question to point out exactly what's wrong. (I was able to tell immediately that his additions to Criticism of Islam, for example, were rubbish, but am completely lost on the racial migration stuff). He's good at picking very obscure texts which make his additions appear to be well-sourced on the surface, but what he's actually doing is intermixing his personal opinions with stuff very few editors have access to (and which in many cases are in a foreign language). - Merzbow (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN might have been written for him. He's good at what he's doing, I'll grant him. Unfortunately what he's doing is conflicting with what everyone else is trying to do here. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this distortion of a source (reddi again)?

The article Dendera light says "As far back as 1894, J. N. Lockyer mentioned in passing the possibilities of lamps.[4" and the footnote is "J. Norman Lockyer, "Dawn of Astronomy". Kessinger Publishing, 1992. 448 pages. ISBN 1564591123 (c.f., "[...] possibility that the electric light was known to the Ancient Egyptians.)" I looked this up. What I found on page 180 of P. 180 [25] Dawn of Astronomy By J. Norman Lockyer was Lockyer suggesting that mirrors were used to illuminate areas where no direct light reached, writing that "in all freshly opened tombs there are no traces whatever of any kind of combusion having taken place, even in the innermost recesses. So strikingly evident is this that my friend M Bouriant, laughingly suggested the possibility that the electric light was known to the ancient Egyptians." Has this been interpreted reasonably in the article and footnote? I suspect the editor obtained the Kolbe quote, which I can't check, from here: [26]. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for notability. In the absence of any serious discussion... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin apologist

Mista-X (talk · contribs) is going about claiming that Joseph Stalin had nothing to do with the assassination of Leon Trotsky. He does so by claiming there is "no evidence", though of course there is, and even the Soviet government acknowledged as much in the late 1980's. Mista-X has done this in the past, and been blocked for it, and he's at it again. I'd like extra eyes on the following articles, if possible:

It would be nice if we keep Wikipedia at least as honest about Soviet history as the Soviet textbooks themselves were. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was framed, I tell you! He wouldn't have hurt a fly! He loved that man like a brother! --Relata refero (disp.) 06:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary. I have these pages watchlisted anyway because of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), but even Jakey never tried this particular stunt. Wow. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I may have gone a bit overboard... MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I notice that "dictator" is gone from the lead of the Stalin article, sigh. Getting this removed was one of JP's pet obsessions. I'll have to look into this. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored "dictator" to Stalin; I imagine this will come under heavy fire from SPAs, so eyes are appreciated. - Merzbow (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have watchlisted this page sooner - it's truly amazing. In this gem from the talk page, an editor argues that Stalin should not be described as a "dictator" because "not a single Soviet historian" described him as such. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the wild wacky world of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), of whom that user is now an RFCU-confirmed sock. - Merzbow (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of experience with Jacob back in the day, but I have to admit he'd fallen off my sock radar. You'd think the fate of his namesake would be instructive enough, but I'm sure there's some revisionist explanation for it... MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Creme

I had tagged this article [27], but another editor who apparently thinks the article is well sourced and reasonable just removed the tag. last week I was able to get two forks from this article speedy deleted, on the grounds of blatant advertising, but I suppose they will soon be back...if they are not already. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I suspected would happen, one of the two forks I had speedy deleted (for blatant advertising) is back: Share International. I suppose the second will soon follow. Would an AfD solve the problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Schosha, Why is this on this noticeboard? It is just a minor cult and presented as such in its own article. It is not presented as a scientific theory in another article. I believe you have chosen the wrong Wikipedia forum for your complaints. Andries (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put this information here because, even by New Age standards, Creme and Share International are on the fringe; and, particularly, because these articles violate many Wikipedia guidelines. The articles are unsourced, with unbalanced POV, and engage in blatant advertising which is not intended to inform, but to attract members to Creme's groups. If this has hurt your feelings, I am sorry; but this is about the articles, and is not about personalities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article about each (minor) cult is fringe, but that is no problem as long as the the beliefs of the cults are not mentioned in other articles. Clearly not every cult should be discussed here. The right place to discuss your complaints are the talk pages of the respective articles. Not here. Andries (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of articles is allowed, even if you do not want your article discussed. But, if you think I have violated Wikipedia rules, you certainly have a right to make a complaint on the Administrators Notice Board. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to be constructive and try to get the sources and list them on the respective talk pages. They do exist. Andries (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent)It's fringe, so it's discussion is appropriate here. Andries is the (re)creator of the Share International article. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I was the creator of the article before it was speedily deleted. With regards to the appropriateness of this forum, I think either you or I are completely mistaken. Andries (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think you were? As for the appropriateness of this forum, you've asked that on the discussion page and had an answer.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that I was the creator of the article , but I am already editing Wikipedia for several years, so I may misremember. Andries (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly created the article on Creme[28] - I have no idea about the deleted article.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I remember that I re-created the article after it had been speedily deleted, but the original creator of the article cannot be determined anymore with certainty. Andries (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly knew the reason that article was speedy deleted; because, you asked Jimfbleak (the administrator who deleted it) and he explained [29]. But you recreated it anyhow.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Schosha, I am still convinced that you are off-topic here. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard. Andries (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermetism template

I do not know if it has been discussed here, but I noticed the other day that there seems to be a new Hermetism template, which can be seen (for instance) on the Hermetism article, and on the Hermetic Qabalah article. Of course there is nothing (as far as I know) hermetic about Hermetic Qabalah, which owes more to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to Aleister Crowley, than to any classical source. Also, looking at the Hermeticism article, I see it unites a source in ancient Egypt with the 20th century lunatic Aleister Crowley -- which is complete nonsense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the template as created by User:King Vegita, to date the one and only member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hermetism, which I think he created at about the same time, along with the project banner and portal. He created the project on April 9, the banner, template, and portal later, generated a bit of concern regarding his activities, and disappeared on April 17. I wish I could say what to do in this case, but I honestly don't know. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles used to use the Hermeticism template (I am not sure what the difference is, except that King Vegita insists on it). Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oera Linda and associated stubs

I'm having problems with the editor who created Oera Linda, and related stubs Irtha. Wr-alda. Frya, Fasta (Frisian) and maybe more. The stubs in my opinion have no justification and should be in the main article, maybe left as redirects, and include his personal opinion as shown in edit summaries such as (for Wr-alda "Look up the Sami god and you'll see it's patently obvious." He's also twice removed my mention of a new article on Oera Linda, I've put it back again, we shall see how long that lasts. I don't want to get into a personal edit war with him.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Nilotic peoples

huge {{essay-entry}}. impinges on the race of Ancient Egyptians and Aryan cans of worms. Meanwhile, "pharaonist" trolling continues at Egyptians. I don't have the heart for this right now. Ah, yes, and there is also Genetics of the Ancient World. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged Origin of the Nilotic peoples for cleanup and will redirectify it to Race of Ancient Egyptians if the cleanup doesn't happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't that a bit harsh? There was a lot of content... dab (𒁳) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was. The topic is valid, that's not the problem. Not all of it was bad stuff, but the whole thing was WP:SYN. A slimmed-down version stripped of the synthesis would be fine - just no one seemed very interested in writing that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been reverted. Discussion continues on talk page. This is fine, except that I'm slightly worried that the author isn't admitting there's any kind of a problem. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pungent vegetables give you anxiety.

From Su vegetarianism:

Su vegetarianism, which some airlines call Asian vegetarian, comes from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. No animal products whatsoever are eaten; su vegetarians also do not eat the fetid vegetables: onion, garlic, scallions, leeks, or shallots.

This diet not only benefits physical health, but also helps to settle the mind as well. Buddhist experience in meditation shows that those who eat the fetid vegetables are prone to restless minds, and have great difficulty making progress in meditation.

Su vegetarianism seems to be a combination of vegetarianism, rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but the stuff about avoiding "fetid vegetables," is ancient Indian or Chinese folk medicine, not having anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. The claims about physical and mental health are also pretty suspect. It might just be a good idea to re-direct it to Buddhist vegetarianism.

Also, since this is English Wikipedia, shouldn't references be in English? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the redirect (or a merge if it is not fully covered already). As for the language of the sourcing... if there are equally good sources in English, Yes, we would prefer them. But if the best sources are in some other language, those are alowed. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well onions and garlic make me anxious, but only about my breath. <eleland/talkedits> 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead line of feminism

Could somebody give this a quick look. I'm having to argue that the mainstream scholarly position and dictionary definition of feminism should be used without attribution and without giving weight to minor/fringe/dissenting ideas in the lead line. As is the norm for the lead lines of articles.

I'm being asked to attribute (that is name drop who says) the clause that "feminism is movement for equal rights for women". This is not something that I think needs to be done in the lead. I'm not necessarily averse to citation in this case but attribution of a view held by the majority of mainstream sources and dictionaries seems unnecessary to me - especially in a lede line, and when the view is cited below in the article's text.

The unattributed use of the mainstream definition is being disputed, by User:Blackworm, because he contends that becuase authors (see these 2 links [30][31] )have contrary views to the mainstream definition (that is basically the dictionary definition) of feminism this mainstream view cannot be presented without attribution in the lede. I think this objection comes under WP:FRINGE. The mainstream definitions and dictionary definitions all say very similar things to the effect of feminism being a movement for equality. These articles don't show why that common mainstream and dictionary definition needs qualification to the degree asked for.

Now, AFAIK we don't attribute the mainstream and dictionary definition of subjects if that definition is common among the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources and if it is cited in the article. Nor do we need to say this subject "usually is defined" in the lede when the overwhelming majority of definitions present the history of the 'feminism as a movement for equality between mean and women'. Yes there are dissenting opinions about that but we mention them in the article and we don't give it undue weight by putting fringe ideas in the lede.

Below is a collapsed box detailing a very small sample of sources and dictionary defs stating this mainstream view:

More, many many more, sources could be added to the collapsed list. (Please check this against google scholar and google books). Hence my position that attribution (name dropping a scholar) of what is the commonly held mainstream definition (as represented in multiple dictionary definitions as well) is unnecessary in the lead sentence - referencing it is of course okay but that's not even usually necessary in the first line of an article as per WP:LEAD and as can be seen by looking at the lead sentences in any article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles.

If you want to see the discussion click here (but it's very long--Cailil ^talk 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to look at the whole discussion right now, but you are right that a mainstream definition should be given in the lede, avoiding references. There is space in later sections for all the notable controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Itsmejudith, I think we have resolved this issue at this point--Cailil ^talk 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic POV ploy; compromise the entire article because of a fringe viewpoint. If facts are disputed by a fringe minority, then it is argued that the article cannot discuss them as facts, and then state disagreements with them — instead, it must not present them as facts. Naturally, this is a huge violation of undue weight and you're completely right here. --Haemo (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate at WT:V

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_is_.22mainstream.3F.22 could use some views of people on the front lines. When people are cheerfully saying that all the articles need is a few people to go in and sort things out, then, clearly, they have never attempted to sort out any alternative medicine article. At the moment, the article on Radionics - a form of witchdoctory where a bit of hair or blood is put into a machine to allow distant practitioners to send healthy vibes at you - is full of nothing but glowing praise, for instance, and this is true of 90% of alternative and complementary medicines. Homeopathy required many years of work to get to the state it's in - and is now at Arbcom. 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Share International

I see that Share International has been nominated for deletion [33]. Anyone interested in the Benjamin Creme discussion (above), and on the talk page, might want to take a look and comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are off-topic here See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard Andries (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have linked three conversations here to the Village Pump. I also see that no one there has committed. What is your point? You want to move the conversation there? Good, because I would like to have as many users participate in the AfD as possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my point repeatedly explicitly and I have no hidden agenda: the discussion belongs on the talk pages of the respective articles and not here. Andries (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this on your user talk page [[34]]. Why did you not object to that?

It seems to me that your intent is that a minimum number of people will see your articles because you understand that they are problematic. My own intent in these matters is to make disputes known to as many people as possible, and to obtain the maximum number of comments. That way, if I am mistaken, there is a better chance of getting corrected by users whose opinions I respect. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you fail to assume my good faith and more or less admit that you use this notice board for a purpose for which it is not intended. Andries (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andries... I think your refusal to discuss things here is a bit like "locking the barn door after the horses have escaped". Whether you like it or not, the articles are already being discussed here. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, no one is going to force you to do so... but that would mean that your opinion on the articles will not be represented in the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to address concerns (most of which are valid) on the respective talk page and the articles. Andries (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cults, sects, and new religious movements, to have a centralized discussion about these kind of issues. Andries (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? Rather it seems to be your assumption of bad faith, simply because we have discussed your article. You have accused us of bad faith here, and now on the Village Pump too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss the articles here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cults, sects, and new religious movements Andries (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, if your goal is to tell people: "discuss the articles dealing with these topics at that project page and not on this noticeboard", you will be disappointed. We will continue to discuss any article with potential WP:FRINGE issues, if such issues are raised here. This includes articles on cults, sects, religious movements ... or any other topic. You see, the topic does not matter to us... what matters is whether the article has WP:FRINGE problems. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think that people would say if you discussed Christianity here merely because it contains unscientific ideas e.g. the resurrection. Then I think people would tell you to discuss it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. And with very good reason. Andries (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to articles on minor religious groups being discussed here and the discussion about Prem Rawat/Divine Light Mission was on topic here because this was about balance issues. What I object to is that religious groups are discussed on this notice board merely because they are small and undersourced. 99% of Wikipedia is undersourced. Andries (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Christianity had a problem with WP:FRINGE, I would certainly think that it could and should be raised here. The Resurrection, however, isn't a Fringe Theory (it is a belief held by millions and thus not "Fringe")... although I suppose there could be a Fringe Theory about the Resurrection that might qualify for discussion here (for example: a theory that after being crucified, Jesus was beamed up into a space ship by space aliens, or something).

I think you misunderstand why the Share International article is being discussed here. WP:FRINGE says that to be notable, a Fringe theory (and I would include fringe religious beliefs in this category) has to have been discussed in a serious manner by the mainstream... there is no indication that this is the case. The article makes a passing reference to one obscure English journalist. What the article needs is reliable mainstream sources that discuss the group and its impact (whether positively, negatively, or neutrally). Another problem is with your statement that Share International is viewed as the Anti-Christ by a fundamentalist Christian group. That is a very Fringe view... one not held my the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. Thus to mention it, you need very very solid sourcing and direct attribution in the article text to say who believes this.

These are not the only problems with the article... in addition to the WP:FRINGE issues, there are NPOV issues as well as issues with WP:V and WP:RS. But those issues can and should be discussed at other noticeboards and policy talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By mainstream media or by relevant experts in the field who are in this case religious scholars who have discussed the subject. Thanks for explaining your reasoning regarding Christianity which I think is flawed. Clearly very important aspects of Christianity are fringe according to this noticeboard (contradicting scientific theories). The statement that Benjamin Creme is part of satanic conspiracy according to several Evangelical Christian sources (I will mention the names in the footnotes) is well sourced to reputable sources (that do not agree with this allegation). Andries (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki

Or, perhaps the most god-awful article on a fringe topic on Wikipedia.

The lead contains one sentence of weak criticism. It then has 20 sections of pure praise and promotion. There's then a criticism section, containing the weakest claims ever. When it actually stooped to make a brief hard criticism, [35] they... synthed data from extreme fringe journals and used this OR to rebut it.

Poor Emily Rosa, notable in her own right as the youngest researcher to be published in a major peer-review journal, is, of course, left out.

In short, an article that bends over backwards in order to avoid making any relevant criticism. HELP! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut 7kb of cruft from this 40kb article. Much is still left to do. Antelan^talk 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is that there are far too many weak sources cited. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there, but not quite sure what to do about that, short of a complete resourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "sourced" information is not vandalism. Feel free to reduce some of the weakly-sourced puffery. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Please watchlist NAET and Energy medicine, I just got these to some vague semblence of NPOV and Verifiability, and, well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon on Heisenberg

A new anon 189.48.107.245 (talk · contribs · count) has arrived and posted the same lengthy and fairly incoherent discussion of Heisenberg: Heisenberg's scientific criterion on various talk pages touching on the philosophy and history of science. Does anyone know whether it's proper to just delete this material rather than keep it cluttering up the pages? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK. Removed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolfing

Some sort of fringey massage, written almost entirely from promotional sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites for science research. SmithBlue (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC) And please strive for more accuracy with your template's reasons for deletion. Making mistakes like claiming Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books. ISBN 0-60960-090-7 is not an RS on Medical Intuituive when WP:NPOV clearly states "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", and Myss' books are the "bibles" of MI, just makes all skeptics look like stupid biased fools. You want an accurate encyclopaedia? - well you model accuracy first. Throwing templates around as on Feldenkrais and Rolfing just makes skeptics look like ill-informed fundamentalist apologists for the mainstream partyline. Skeptics need to be respected for their reasoning not for blind rejection of the new or differrent. SmithBlue (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is bogonic, but the article stinks. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (spirituality)

This is an article that has recently been completely rewritten by one editor. There seem to be some problems with it, including that it mostly discusses energy healing, a subject not necessarily indicated by its name and introduction. I would appreciate it if some editors would take a look at it; because, perhaps, my uneasiness about it is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is quite bad. Should at best be a disambiguation page. Essentially touts "energy medicine". dab (𒁳) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reversion to this version of 16 March: [36]. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That version is still highly problematic given the amount of OR in the listing of supposedly related concepts from all over the globe and all historical periods. Surely there must be some serious research somewhere into the development of these New Age ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The aura of wellness: Subtle-energy healing and new age religion," available on JSTOR, may be useful. It's an overview of the history and beliefs of energy healers, written from a skeptical perspective. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's there now is New Age, but spiritual energy isn't a New Age concept. Prana and Qi (among others) date way back, centuries back. I too suggest taking the article to the version (hopefully there's a version in there somewhere) where it actually talked about spirituality instead of this pseudo-medicine stuff that's there now. Spiritual energy isn't about health, it's about enlightenment. Eg. the purpose of yoga is to direct prana through nadis to activate chakras, each of which is supposed to then give you new spiritual insight. It's been adopted as "exercise", but it's a form of meditation. Sure, there's supposed to be some health benefits to it, but that's not the goal of the practice. It shouldn't be framed as medicine, especially since mainstream medicine rejects it. To the religious practitioners it doesn't matter if it's scientifically relevant because the goals are spiritual, and that's how it should be framed. What's in the article now confuses all of that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Prana and Qi (among others)" have their own articles. The article is pure WP:SYN. Unless an identifiable concept of "spiritual energy" can be referenced to some RS, I suggest this page should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to Energy (disambiguation). You cannot google "energy" and then cobble together the results into a single article. "Energy" is too common a word for that. dab (𒁳) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is crap. What I was saying is that it's a notable concept that the article doesn't do justice. I think a disambig page would be a good way to fix it. That'd be preferable to a redirect to Energy (disambiguation), which doesn't really have anything related to the topic (hence why it's linked off that page). Alternatively, there are identifiable concepts of spiritual energy that can be described in an article without synthesis, and without the New Age spin. Google Scholar has quite a few sources on the topic [37]. Presumably there's enough reliable sources there to write about it. I'd either find someone to rewrite it completely as an article about the concept in spirituality, or disambig it with links to the various notable cultural forms of "spiritual energy". In Eastern mysticism there's plenty to work with. Note that I'm talking spirituality here, not medicine. Not necessarily mutually exclusive views, but definitely different views of the topic. The former isn't fringe where the latter is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Obviously, it may be useful to synthesise common alt-med ideas - provided others have done so first. Someone mentioned a JSTOR article, I'll check that later, and see if we can make a coherent page out of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the suggestion of Itsmejudith, I have been looking through some of the earliest versions of the article. Of the one I have so far looked at this one [38] seems the most balanced and neutral. Perhaps going back to this version would be a good new start for the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what we need is not "Energy (spirituality)" but "Energy (one specific school of thought)". Viz., it needs further disambiguation. On what grounds do we distinguish "Energy (spiritual)" from "Energy (psychological)"? What kind of "spirituality"? New Age? Christian? Spiritist? This will not make any sense. The present version, and even the dated version linked by Malcolm, appears to take for granted we are talking about New Age pop-spirituality. If so --- fine, but move it to Energy (New Age) if that's what it's going to be about. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I note de-wiki has de:Energie (Esoterik). That would make sense. The German page is also essentially a list of individual concepts in esotericism. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental problem with the article is that it links; the words "energy" and "spiritual". In many core New Age teachings (such as Theosophy and the books of Alice Bailey), energy at the level the article talks about is not spiritual at all, but just a slightly higher aspect of the physical body. It might be called subtle energy, but not spiritual -- which in Theosophical Society literature refers to much higher levels. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the article talks about New Age in the first place. "spiritual energy" is a perfectly valid topic in lots of religions and philosophical systems, and there is no reason why the article should lose itself in esotericist blogcruft (WP:WEIGHT). --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

case in point, actus is also "spiritual energy" (energeia), but far from being a topic of soft-headed esotericist blather, it is a perfectly respectable topic in philosophy. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've fixed it according to my gist above. Let's see how it fares. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change in relation to acupuncture, still unsourced unfortunately, that takes into account that not everyone sees it in terms of spiritual energy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary_of_alternative_medicine

It would be nice if we could get this made NPOV, etc. Then we could upmerge some of the tiny-altmed to it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditional_Chinese_medicine

...By all the gods!!!! Several... HUNDRED articles on one bit of alt-med? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; it's not exactly "alternative" anymore, and has thousands of years of history behind it. I don't really see the issue with having a large number of articles on various components and practices for it. However, some one of them need to be more critically weighted — they read like advertising briefs. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever been alternative? The herbal preparations need to be pulled into a subcategory; there should definitely be an article on each one commonly used. Perhaps also the practitioners and advocates. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's alternative now. It used to be just "medicine" in the Middle Ages. "one bit of alt-med" isn't quite fair, this is a rather huge topic, and can well be treated in a scholarly manner, just like Alchemy, Renaissance magic, Scholasticism or Neoplatonism, or indeed any historical branch of scholarship. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In general, the problem isn't the topic itself, which is perfectly valid and serious. It's the tons of New Age blarney it tends to attract. Cut that from the articles and leave the serious historical detail, which can doubtless be well-sourced. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, the Augean Stables haven't had a good top-to-bottom cleaning in a while... :) MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the subarticles of Zang-fu viscera can be folded back into the main article. Not too bad otherwise, actually. Cf. Category:Ayurveda. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphedema

Written like an advertisement [in parts] - I've removed the worst bits, but it really needs an expert to check it over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Age Movement

Brand new template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could serve as a useful reference tool. For instance one article now included in the template is the José Argüelles article, which has two references (one of them to an apparently self published site), among other problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at goddess worship, which I've already deprived of some off-the-wall claims about Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought that upholding minimum standards before an article gets to be on a template would be a good way to uphold quality. What standards might depend on the template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Age

I hesitate to bring this up, because it is such a big article, but it is an important article that is a complete mess. Major sections of it are completely unsourced. The most completely unsourced sections are the introduction and exactly those sections that try to explain what New Age means and its origin. The article includes under the name a large collection of unrelated movements, and individuals, that have nothing in common but the name New Age.

Has anyone taken a look at it, and have some ideas about what how it could be improved? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I have! But we appear to be having a little trouble discussing the matter. I'd have thought you'd have mentioned you were doing this. Redheylin (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redheylin, you might want to consider trying, at minimum, to refine your communication skills [39]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aids denialism

I got this edit passed to me for review. The edit removed almost the entire section "Points of contention" from this revision.

The edit summary states "None of this anything beyond fringe theories" but reading the text it looks incorrect. In fact this seems crucial material for the article - a summary of the fringe theories and their mainstream objections/concerns, presented in a well balanced manner, and all seemingly cited.

Can others take a look, see if this is being removed as a misunderstanding of FRINGE/WEIGHT, or if in fact it is that? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Other eyes would be most welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the text is being discussed on its talk page. Removed text is at Talk:AIDS denialism/points. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an ongoing talk page discussion and dispute which is being forum-shopped all over God's green earth. But on the upside, more eyes are good. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis

Well, here we go again. There's a constant, low-intensity fight at this article about whether it's a fringe theory or not. The article has several statements from prominent scholars stating that the idea is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, but this doesn't convince everybody.

There's an RFC. Partipation from those interested in questions of fringe theories welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fringe. This has been long established. The pov-pushers are ill advised atheists who somehow believe that assuming Jesus was a historical character must be a religionist position. I say doh. By that logic, we must all be Muslims, since hardly anyone doubts that Muhammad was a historical character. And Raelists. Because Rael is not only historical but alive and kicking. This is boring. We have established that this is a pseudo-scholarly fringe theory about a year ago. Pursuing this editing conflict simply amounts to sulking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but saying so doesn't stop people from keeping the fight going. It would be nice to find a way to solve the problem... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. This is certainly a very fringe theory, no one with any common sense would disagree with that. Soo...do what we usually do with people who try to push ~~crank nonsense~~ highly minority positions. Reverts and then blocks. If it's different people each time, just reverts. Putting a noisy hidden notice at the top of the article sometimes also helps. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as fringe as you seem to think. There is, for instance, George Albert Wells, who appears to be a serious scholar; and, just to give one other example, Hyam Maccoby (who does not really say anything about Jesus, but presents an argument that the entire story was formulated by Paul). It would not take long (for anyone seriously trying) to find other scholars with their doubts about Jesus, and the issue remains controversial, and not settled. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Albert Wells does indeed look to be a serious scholar - of German. He's probably not the best source for this subject. The other chap is a) Jewish and b) not saying that Jesus is a mythical construction anyway. Doubts about Jesus and the Gospel stories do not equate to saying that the whole thing is fiction. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is an illustration of one of the problems; despite ample evidence provided that this is a fringe theory, editors are constantly overstating the degree to which the JM theory is accepted (or even discussed) in academia. George Albert Wells was a serious scholar, but of German, not of religious studies. For him to write about the New Testament is a bit like a scholar who works on Joyce to start writing about Aristotle. The Joyce scholar might have interesting things to say about Aristotle, but they wouldn't necessarily be indicative of what scholars of ancient philosophy say about Aristotle. And in this case, we have statements from New Testament scholars that say that Wells is outside the mainstream (to put it mildly).

And Hyam Maccoby, at least according to his Wikipedia article, has nothing to do with the JM theory; he didn't question that there was a historical Jesus, and in fact believed "that a fairly accurate historical account of the life of Jesus could be reconstructed from them [the Gospels]..."

Anyway, most of the problems with the article are taking place on the talk page; the pace of editing on the actual article is fairly slow. If a wider range of editors would come to the talk page, that might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maccoby's version amounts to support for the Jesus myth hypothesis because he position is that the Jesus described in Christian scripture did not exist, because that was a creation of Paul. In fact his article links to the Jesus myth hypothesis article. (Your view on Wells is interesting...but, taken all around, I suppose it is just as well that you have also ruled out listening to Norm Chomsky's views on anything but linguistics.) In any case, I think that this issue is genuinely disputed by serious scholars, and that it should not be an issue on this noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is exactly a case for this noticeboard: it is a fringe theory with enough notability for its own article, but care must be taken to avoid a mis-representation of its credibility. dab (𒁳) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andries could make a better argument than that. You have decided its fringe, so it is. Good thinking, Dbachmann. Its not as though they are talking about flying saucer landings, or taking out ads announcing the arrival of Maitreya at Heathrow. Rather, there are serious scholars who disagree on this subject, but you are going to call it fringe anyhow.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, yeah, so it is a "under-achieving scholarly hypothesis". Look, the discussion of this is elsewhere, in the talk archives. Don't expect me to repeat the entire debate here. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, you seem to have started editing the article only recently, so perhaps you're unfamiliar with the subject, but the Jesus myth hypothesis is specifically the argument that there was no historical Jesus. Maccoby believed that there was a historical Jesus, and that the Gospels could be used to reconstruct his biography. Ergo, he is not a advocate of the JM theory.

Chomsky's political views are a good analogy here, actually. Even if you like Chomsky's ideas, you'd have to agree that in the context of U.S. politics, where only a fairly narrow range of ideas are "mainstream," that Chomsky is considered to be outside the mainstream. An article about him would have to note that. Similarly, Jesus myth hypothesis must note that the theory is rarely discussed within the academic fields of religious studies and ancient history (and we have copious citations that say exactly this). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is purely subjective now, but I happen to find Chomsky's politics marginally more palatable than his linguistics... dab (𒁳) 07:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on topic, though, we have a full article on the historicity of Jesus, and another on mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. It is perfectly mainstream to say Jesus was a historical wandering rabbi who subsequently accreted some mythemes. It is possible to discuss reasonable doubts on Jesus' historicity. All this doesn't make you a "Jesus-myther". The JMT specifically posits that the gospels are an artificial re-casting of the mythology of mystery religions. It was an interesting idea, back in the 1880s, but I daresay mainstream scholarship has moved beyond that now. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really don't get it. The problem is not that there are different points of view, or who is right in this issue. The problem is the dismissive know-it-all attitude I am seeing from some editors here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is precisely what we see here, a tendency for this topic to generate both aggresive and defensive argumentativeness with little or no interest in the actual history of these ideas. I was involved in this page a while back, but virtually gave up because of the endless arguments. It has been proposed agasin and again that the best way to approach this topic would be to go through the history of it - from Bauer, through Drws et al, with the context of their arguments and of later writers. This has been repeatedly blocked by the need of partisans to either list or refute arguments for non-historicity: that and the fruitless, repetitive point-making disruption of nmany editors in succession - currently user:BruceGrubb who is covering the page (and the historicity of Jesus) page with the same arguments repeated over and over. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in a word, a perfectly standard problem of WP:FRINGE (WP:DUE). I honestly think it is you, Malcolm, who "does not get" this. We are not saying the theory is "false", we are saying nobody outside a small circle of aficionados thinks it has any merit. The "dismissive attitude" is out there, in the real world, and Wikipedia merely reflects this status quo, as it should. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that experienced contributors here seem to be falling out over the status of this hypothesis. We should easily be able to distinguish between pseudoscience/pseudohistory on the one hand and minority academic positions on the other. For me, this falls clearly into the second category. The criterion is, has it been seriously considered in academic circles. It has, even if we have to go back to Bauer to find the discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Itsmejudith, it just me. You will not be loosing anyone important. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith makes a good point--in the late 19th century/early 20th century, the JMT was part of academic discussion, such that Schweitzer discussed the nonhistoricity argument in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. In Wikipedia terms, it wasn't a fringe theory at that time. But what we're arguing about is its status at the present time, and we have ample quotes from scholars in the relevant fields that say that the theory is regarded as refuted, and that it isn't something biblical scholars concern themselves with. (We even have a complaint from a proponent of the theory that academia doesn't take the idea seriously!) I would shy away from the labels "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory"--but neither would I call it a "minority academic position", at least not after the 1950s or so. "Fringe theory" properly describes the current status of the JMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the history of a particular article, and I am talking about the attitude of some editors on this noticeboard. But the problem certainly is spread thought Wikipedia, because many editors are working on articles in which they are psychologically invested in their own POV. This is a problem that can not be eliminated, but but needs recognition because, if editors feel justified in blowing away the 'opposition', an effort to achieve neutrality much more difficult. This does not refer to those who take your position, or my position, but applies all around and is the reason that know-it-all attitudes are so destructive to the process of writing articles. (Of course I have absolutly no expectation of change, but rather expect a continuing of dismissive attitudes and edit wars.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding. No one here is "psychologically invested" in this topic at all: none of us are rabid Bible-belters who understand absolute truth in terms of Christ walking on water. We're simply interested in making sure that fringe theories do not get undue weight on Wikipedia, in terms of recognition of their academic status (and also making sure they're not unduly marginalised). If this involves calling out fringe theories as fringe theories, so be it. That hardly amounts to "dismissive attitudes". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion has become circular, I will end my participation at this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, the division between "minority" and "fringe" is a sliding scale. This is something to be established in detail in the article itself. For the purposes of this noticeboard, it is sufficient to note that the article has a history of attempts to inflate the theory's notability. That's really it. This has nothing to do with "know-it-all" or "dismissive" attitudes, but is simple practical wisdom born from experience of how these things work on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "fringiness" comes about when editors try to present minority views as if they were predominant. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read up now on how it is no longer even considered today. I'm probably reading too much about 19th century ideas than is good for me. I'll have to think about what you say about a "sliding scale" Dieter. It does seem to me that there is a world of difference between an academic ploughing a lonely furrow and a freelance writer with an idea for a bestseller. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there is - if the academic is a specialist in the relevant field. In this case, he wasn't, and this happens quite a lot - academics stepping outside their speciality to write entertaining but not-always-reliable stuff. Chomsky on US politics being the classic example. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to Judith - yes, and along that "world of difference" the scale slides. Beginning with the question, what is an academic. A tenured professor (a professor tenured where, at Drew University...?) Sombeody with a PhD (such as Koenraad Elst?)? Or some bona fide professor emeritus who is getting ~~a bit funny~~ somewhat eccentric (like the later Marija Gimbutas, or Mario Alinei)? There are a lot of people with an academic background who lose their marbles and start publishing fringecruft. Their flavour of fringecruft will still be more intelligent than your average creationist blog, but the question is not only, has the chap seen a university from the inside, but also, was this publication ever peer reviewed. If so, when and to what effect? These things are really the point of this noticeboard. We don't need a task force to establish the credibility of someone like David Fasold. Things become difficult in cases such as this when there was some academic debate in the 1800s on an idea long passed out of academic discourse, but still pushed in ideological fringe publications. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I see the Academy as a fence-erecting entity. We need to find where the fences have been erected before we can ascertain which side of the fence a particular source is. In some places the fences are higher than others. It will be said that in some places the fences have long broken down but I'm not sure. So long as peer-reviewing is a possibility and the academic publishing houses are on the lookout for scholarly studies of odd nooks and crannies of knowledge, then I think there is in principle a possibility of establishing whether a publication has been generated from academic practice or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definitely. If a publication has been published academically and peer-reviewed, it is not for Wikipedia to second-guess its "academicity" -- WP:RS is the only reference point that separates us from complete intellectual relativism (anything has been published somewhere, so saying "it has been suggested" is essentially true of anything). Of course, if a peer-reviewed publication did get abysmal peer-reviews, it should only be cited along with that caveat. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the latest gambit seems to be that committed Christians are unreliable sources. See [40]. This article still requires attention. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuz Asaf

Neutral and sourced description of popular religious belief mixed up with recent non-notable speculative stuff. I don't know how to start to disentangle, would appreciate further eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess, isn't it? Suzanne Olsson's book is self-published, that should go (with the Matlock references too, another unreliable source), and the 'Hindu epics' stuff is all OR. I'll do that.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. This seems to be an issue for Hindu nationalists, who say this is a Muslim attempt to usurp Kashmir (this chap supposedly having visited Kashmir bringing Semitic beliefs, as opposed to Indian Aryan ones). What's more, it's also a magnet for odd theories about Christ's life, which may well be of dubious notability. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm following it correctly, it's really a co-opted version of an Ahmadiyya theory about Jesus, and therefore should be properly attached there, with the other material noted as fringey. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The idea that Jesus went to India is associated with the Ahmadiyya but also predates them. I'm not sure how closely the figure of Yuz Asaf is always associated with Jesus or his supposed visit to India. There does seem to be a notable traditional religious cult independent of the more recent Ahmadiyya views that are linked to nationalistic claims around Kashmir. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson - User:Kashmir2 is struggling with the concept of self-published books right now and has added to the page. I tried to explain policy, she now says on my talk page "In the places where Olsson books are cited they comply with these guidelines and should remain."--Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've been accused of protecting the page (I'm no admin and the page wasn't protected), allowing self-published fiction books to remain in the article (I removed them and Suzanne Olsson, who had complained about them, restored them), etc. I don't think there is much hope for it although if Mangoe is right, we can merge it. Doug Weller (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening and sorry it has got you into this clash. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly of the most bizarre clashes I've been in, with at least one editor (I'm pretty sure you are right about sockpuppets) getting confused about who has done which edit and accusing me of blocking a page. Still, it's a better article now and that is what counts. --Doug Weller (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea's been around for a long time, as a folk belief among Ladakhi Buddhists, as Ahmadiyya tradition, and as random speculation from otherwise acceptable scholars. We had better get this article in order before the movie that this Guardian article anticipates comes out. I note the article quotes Dr. Hassnain, who appears to be a scholar of Buddhism...--Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess movement

A movement of 1970s to 1980s US second wave feminism. we have:

Goddess worship (diachronic in scope)
Goddess movement (the 1970s+ movement)
Thealogy (a term used by the 1970s+ movement)
Feminist theology
Heavenly Mother
Mother Divine
Mother Goddess
Great Goddess (disambiguation)
Great Mother (disambiguation)
Divine Mother (disambiguation)
Gender of God
Gender and religion

That's not so bad, but tends to attract rather far out opinion pieces. I've removed what seemed to fall under WP:SNOW here and here, and I suppose some of these articles should be merged to allow a discussion of the topic in context, most likely Thealogy belongs merged into Goddess movement. I am not sure whether Goddess worship should be merged into Goddess. All of this isn't at all terrible, it's just a little walled garden in need of cleanup. I am not disputing the topic's notability at all. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess worship is evolving at the moment (under the direction of a single editor) into a general article. I'm thinking merging it into goddess is increasingly a good idea. The problem would appear to be settling upon good terms. We really need someone who knows this stuff well, even someone from the movement(s), to help straighten this stuff out. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge Goddess worship and Goddess. Perhaps Thealogy could go in Feminist theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:majeston

I have been removing some links from articles that clearly fail as reliable sources, plus some trivia, etc. These are Nephilim (role-playing game), Nephilim, Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Lemuria (continent) and Mu (lost continent) user:Majeston, who is upset with me because of edits on the Urantia article, is following me around (maybe, maybe he just watches them all) and reverting my edits with no reason given. He is also removing requests for citations, eg on the Maya society article. I've just noticed he also reverted an edit of mine at Paper folding which he has never edited, so maybe he is following me around. Any advice as to what to do? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK -- if he persists, you should just drop a note at WP:ANI. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't had this problem before. He's a problem as he doesn't care about guidlines or policy.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these editors tend to be the least of our problems, since they get themselves blocked within a day or two. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's kept under the wire. Ironic though, his prose is almost unreadable, he's made the article more unreadable with every edit he does. I've raised it at WP:ANI where he's responded asking that the editors who reverted him to be blocked. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too many pederasty articles, perhaps...

A sort of idiosyncratic definition is being used, and then widely extrapolated. Considerable overlap between articles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pederasty

Science and the Bible

A little situation with a Biblical literalist who seems to insist that because the Hebrew Bible is the inspired word of God, there is no way "incorrect cosmology" like the notion of a flat Earth can figure in the text.

Talk:Science_and_the_Bible#Biblical_flat-Earthism [41]

interestingly, they stop short of claiming knowledge of a spherical earth was directly "inspired" by God, but rather resort to speculations that theories of a spherical Earth may already have emerged by perfectly natural means in 26th century BC Egypt, citing a website debunking scriptural foreknowledge [42]. I would be interested in this claim of Old Kingdom notions of a spherical earth, but that would be for History of astronomy since it has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible.

I note we also have Biblical cosmology. dab (𒁳) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

degenerating into an edit war now. I'm off this for the moment. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look. We do seem to have rather a lot of articles circling around this topic. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, let's see. We have:

Science and the Bible. Used to discuss claims of magical foreknowledge, but these bits are now relegated to
Scriptural foreknowledge (Biblical inspiration).
Biblical cosmology I had not been aware of, but it's fine as a WP:SS main article to "Science and the Bible" and history of astronomy
the whole thing needs to be presented as a sub-topic to History of science in early cultures
Flat Earth is an evergreen, but has already been raised to excellent quality in past disputes, no problem there
Babylonian astronomy is a related topic, but independent as not appuying on Biblical texts.
- Babylonian astrology is in constant danger of CFORK wrt the preceding
oh dear, and there is Hebrew astronomy. Has been tagged as problematic since October 2007. That's probably the main trouble spot for now.
Creation according to Genesis is probably only of marginal interest here.
Religious cosmology is a summary article in need of supervision.

dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and science is tagged for a number of issues although it does have some good content and sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's better than Inventions in the Islamic world. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the whole series needs to be viewed as one. I suggested on Talk: Muslim Agricultural Revolution that it be split into Agriculture in the Islamic Golden Age and [[Industry in the Islamic Golden Age]. No responses yet, but much of Inventions in the Islamic World could be fitted into an Industry page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic science doesn't parallel Science and the Bible. "The Bible" here is the Hebrew Bible, for the most part compiled in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. Islamic science otoh is medieval science and should be contrasted with Science in Medieval Western Europe, not with Iron Age proto-science. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, DAB seems determined to misrepresent my personal opinion in this continually dismissive manner, instead of addressing the need to qualify two fringe biblical literarlists went against the mainstream belief of their time, showing that the common mainstream was not to extreme literalism but to understanding metaphors, idioms, visions, and prophecy. However, I guess it's easier to mislabel me than to address my problem with the article. Fortunately, a cooler head prevailed and the problem was fixed with a qualifier that other scholars of that time did not agree with those two fringe scholars, and the source DAB kept removing was replaced in the article by another editor. Then, of course, came DAB's insult to my intelligence, but I guess he just didn't care for the taste of the grapes today. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exact parallel is Qur'an and science, to which I've added a few decent references. That article discusses the makers of various claims and their political and theological significance rather than listing the arguments for them. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

even that isn't an "exact parallel", since the Quran is decidedly post-Hellenistic while the Pentateuch is decidedly pre-Hellenistic. Different era altogether. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that an approach that focuses on the theological discussion of "scientific" components of the book in question is the way to go, rather than any direct comparison of scientific content. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to say that there were exact parallels, only that if we are watching one group of articles for creep towards fundamentalism then we might as well watch the other group too. There are some knowledgeable Muslim editors who have put in some work on articles around science and Islam but there is still some way to go. I find it very useful to take articles in groups, as you did in your original post dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, Qur'an and science is problematic in the same way. Dear me. Should probably be split or moved or merged. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, see above. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, the scope of the article should be made clear either way. It can be a bona fide discussion of "what can we learn about the development of science and technology in a particular era and region from this text", or it can be a discussion of pious claims of miracular foreknowledge, but not both at the same time. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Dysgenics (people)

Sory to bring this up again, but there is an AfD currently going on that might interest people concerned with fringe theories. Dysgenics (people) has been named for AfD and wider input would be appreciated. Being an involved party to the debate myself, I can't say more than I've just said, but invite others who might be interested to drop by the article and express their opinion on the AfD if they so wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huuurrgggh, more "race and intelligence" warring. I predict painful arbitration in the not-so-distant future if this doesn't get straightened soonish. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

This article could do with some eyes. Apart from a WP:LAME slow edit war whether Jerusalem is in "Israel" or "Palestine" (which should perhaps be addressed by removing all flag icons from the article...), we get constant additions of various neolithic sites, most persistently an anonymous user, presumably of Bulgarian origin, who keeps adding archaeological sites in Bulgaria. Obviously, the list isn't intended as a "list of neolithic sites", but evidence of continuous habitation would need to be presented. That's often disputed, but we would require at least some evidence that it is even disputed. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. Continuously inhabited? Thebes in Greece was famously destroyed in 335 BC by Alexander the Great (with the exception of Pindar's house, according to legend). Looking at the 1911 Britannica, it seems the city was rebuilt on a much smaller scale in 315. So that's 20 years with nobody home (except, maybe, at the Pindar residence). --Folantin (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think the idea is "with continuous traces of habitation", viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end. Obviously all these cities must have been destroyed and rebuilt several times over. It's just a matter of WP:CITE, for our purposes, we are just listing attributed "claims of continuous habitation". dab (𒁳) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in this context, let me also point to

all of them tagged for merge or cleanup for ages now. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the idea is 'with continuous traces of habitation', viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end." That definition's A bit too sophist-icated for my liking. These are the kind of lists that Wikipedia is bad at doing anyway. --Folantin (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But "oldest continuously inhabited city" is still a meme in the real world (a bit like oldest tree), and we have to deal with it somehow. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Mountain

We need a third opinion at Talk:Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) that involves a fringe theory. I do not feel the article is currently pushing the theory, and is appropriately neutral and proportionate to weight, but another editor does not even want it mentioned at all, even though it seems to meet the standards of RS in multiple publications. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothisis that the carvings on Turkey Mountain might be ancient Punic script takes up more than two thirds of the article... so Undue Weight is indeed an issue. It is clearly a Fringe Theory (proposed by people who are not archeologists or lingusts). The real question is whether their theory has been commented upon by someone in the mainstream (in this case, those who are archeologists or linguists). This does not seem to be the case. It looks like another situation where the mainstream has not bothered to comment, because the theory is not considered worthy of being commented upon.

I think the fact that there are carvings on the hill is minorly noteworthy... and worth a sentence or two in the article... but speculation as to what these carvings might mean should be omitted as being Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the hill itself notable enough for an entry? Is there anything to say about it other than these carvings? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very nice local park, dirt bike racing takes place there.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the "see also" section there, note all of those topics have their own articles, so I am now planning to get all this stuff out of that page, and move it to a new page at Turkey Mountain inscriptions, see the talk page I linked above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it, but this still seems to be a Fringe topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be NPOV if no one has paid any serious attention to it? --Doug Weller (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Blueboar: Of course I know it's a "fringe topic", that's why I listed it here (I think the same thing may have even been listed here before). It reads much like the articles discussed as examples on the main project page (WP:FRINGE), showing how articles specifically about fringe hypotheses should be written in order not to be pushing the hypotheses unduly. I don't think it's the case here at all that the fringe hypothesis is being "pushed", so it seems to already meet the standards outlined on that page, and does not seem to violate the guidelines there on what a fringe article should NOT be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the moment it does violate the guideline... "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."

I do not see any discussion of such referencing... the article does say that Fell's theories are discounted by most experts, but that is the extent of it... there is no discussion of what these experts say in relation to Turkey Mountain, or why they discount Fell's hypothisis.

That said... I think the article is borderline at the moment... with some work it might actually meet the inclusion requirements laid out in WP:FRINGE... but at the moment it does not. I have left additional comments at the article talk page. I think this should be hammered out there and brought back here if it does not improve. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Based upon Til's comments on the talk page, it looks as if the basic requirement can be met... it has been discussed in multiple sources. So it looks as if these inscriptions are notable enough for an article. But the article still needs a lot of work... if nothing else, it needs to include discussion about what those disparaging mainstream sources say. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology

I need some help at Talk:Parapsychology. There is very clear consensus in the academic community that this subject is pseudoscience, but there are a lot of supporters of this subject that are arguing vociferously that such a statement about this consensus is not sourced (despite there being about 1/2 dozen sources which explicitly state this) and arguable. I need help both with sourcing and with fighting POV-pushers. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that further please? The article passed a Featured Article Candidacy - FWIW - with a prominent statement in the lead of that version that there's no acceptable evidence for it and that its fringe. Further, I see that one of the major editors says

The sources we used when writing the article were carefully selected. Most references to parapsychological journals were dumped in favor of mainstream academic journals like the Psychological Bulletin. When something was pulled from a journal such as The Journal of Parapsychology, it was typically the skeptical view such as that of Ray Hyman. It's difficult to imagine you actually examined the sources when you say we cited third-rate journals written by a parapsychologist, because the combination of parapsychologists in parapsychology journals covers uncontroversial statements, historical statements, critical statements, or fully attributed views of the parapsychologists themselves. There's no flat facts cited to any parapsychologist in this article (or at least there were none when I reviewed it last). The parapsychology journals are treated not as third-party peer reviewed, but as primary sources, and treated correctly as primary sources through attributed statements. You refer to WP:PARITY, but that's the exact concept used here. It's also hard to imagine that you reviewed the sources when you say "no institutional affiliation". Every parapsychologist sourced had academic affiliations. Not that it matters, of course, because they were treated as if they had no affiliations at all.

That seems reasonable, so I'm having trouble identifying the exact problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a basic issue that the article is positioning itself as more academic than possible: a false-ediface of the type that is almost unreasonable. The very fact that one of the editors tried to get it listed under the science category at our list of featured articles is one of the problems here. What started was a basic point: if we have half-a-dozen sources of respected academics and scientists calling parapsychology a pseudoscience, we should just say that. Other editors are hoping to promote WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution in an attempt to make it look like only a minority of scientists think it is pseudoscience. We all know this isn't the case. Not to mention that Neal and Martin act like they own the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BS, per usual. The entire article denigrates parapsychology, so it's hard to call it a particular attribution. The number of sourced critics far outweigh the proponents, and the proponents are severly treated as lesser academics in the process. The whole article is a model of WP:FRINGE in practice, placing majority views in the majority and minority views in the minority. Never is a majority view treated as the only view about a topic, as what you're suggesting, especially when sources show that as demonstrably false. Further, if you have a complaint about an editor trying to include it as science in a list (wasn't me), complain about that editor, not about the article itself. If you have a problem with me saying your edits are poor quality, don't call it ownership, demonstrate that they're quality. Like I said, BS, and misrepresentation. That article has gone through GA, FA, and a whole bunch of editor reviews, so if you think all of the sudden it's fundamentally flawed because someone disagreed with you about one line... you're putting way too much weight on your personal views. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who disagrees with ScienceApologist, allow me to point out where he's misrepresenting the issue. The issue isn't that it doesn't belong in there. No one disagrees with presenting the view that it's pseudoscience. The statement has always been in there and no one said it wasn't sourced. ScienceApologist wants to present it as a flat fact, that the view is a fact and not an opinion, despite mainstream academic sources that disagree with the view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. At this point, people are clamboring for reinstating a number of problems with the lead including reinstating such fatuous claims as there have been a number of "meta-analytical studies that have generated significant controversy". Just plain outlandish statements tending to prop up the "legitimacy" of this non-subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not one of them, so how's that a reason to come over here and misrepresent what the the dispute is? If you have a legitimate complaint, be legit about it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you poor souls who don't want to read the whole talk page, ScienceApologist himself presented sources, for instance the following:

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 20 (1): 182-192 JAN 2008: Samuel T Moulton

Where the abstract says:

Abstract: Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi.

So he's fighting a losing battle here, as his own sources contradict him. Even James Randi objects to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd appreciate seeing a direct citation that says where James Randi "objects" to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. Since James Randi's whole approach seems to be dedicated to settling the question whether parapsychology (along with other approaches to the paranormal) is or is not pseudoscience, and his hypothesis seems to be that it will be settled in the direction of pseudoscience, (he's got a million dollars riding on that bet, after all) it seems simply perverse to insist that he "objects" to calling parapyschology pseudoscience. My guess would be more that since he doesn't have training in the sciences, he doesn't have an understanding of the distinction scientists make between science and pseudoscience, and he simply doesn't use the word, at least I can't find it in a quick search of his writings. But if you do have a citation showing that he does in fact "object" to the use of the word pseudoscience, it would be helpful to me to see that quote, thanks.

As to whether parapsychology is generally considered among scientists to be pseudoscience, I think the preponderance of the evidence (meaning in wiki terms the prepoponderance of expert opinion as reflected in reliable sources) would be found to agree with Science Apologist, and certainly my personal observations in academic circles support Science Apologist on this point. But of course my word on the subject isn't useful, so just out of curiosity I idly opened the book that happened to be sitting at my elbow, which my son brought me several weeks ago and which I'm reading for my own interest, not in conjunction with anything I'm doing or looking at in Wikipedia. It is "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The Six Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking" by Thomas Kida, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts. It is an excellent readable and accurate summary of the research in the area (I can say this since I know this literature well) and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the ways we fool ourselves into thinking things that aren't so. At any rate, in the chapter on Pseudoscience, Kida writes, "One of the foremost examples of pseudoscience is parapsychology." and then he goes on for a couple of pages to explain why parapsychology qualifies as pseudoscience. If this reference would be helpful to editors working on the article, they are welcome to it.

As to the citation above that describes parapsychology as "the scientific investigation of ...paranormal mental phenomena" that seems like quote mining (is that the right term for this?) because the abstract as a whole suggests that parapsychology has yet to produce any evidence to back up its claims, and they consider their results the strongest evidence yet against the claims made by parapsychology. If this is the best you can come up with in support of the idea that parapsychology is "scientific" then I'd say that's not very convincing, and to give it undue weight would be to bias the article. Someone said, though I can't find it here (maybe it's on the article talk page) that parapsychology has to be considered science because it uses the methods of science. No, it could only be called science if it produced replicable findings and theories that can reliably predict outcomes. Something that has the appearance, or takes on the trappings, of science without producing the results of science, is the textbook definition of pseudoscience.Woonpton (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is/was written as if "parapsychology" is a field of investigation, not a set of assertions. If so, I don't see how any of that is relevant. What matters is whether reliable sources claim that that field largely follows scientific methods. (If they do, it is not surprising if all the results are negative, surely?) -Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arguing over that single word seems to have been continuous since I've been at WP, and its gotten totally boring except to the parties caught up in the argument. If one calls it pseudoscience, it still makes a little more claim to scientific method than most of the even less likely pseudoscience; call it science, it's still considerably less rigorous than almost anything else that has any right to the term. So just include one quote each from the best place that says it is, and that says it isnt, and then describe the field, and people will call it what they like. WP is not obliged to decide, we can just call it a field of study. Arguments over labelling are about the worst thing to spend time over. DGG (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the dispute wasn't over whether it should be included, or even whether it is a prominent opinion, or even whether it is the majority opinion. It's always been there as a prominent view. The dispute centered around whether it was the sole opinion and ScienceApologist wanting to word it as the consensus, regardless of multiple notable examples to the contrary including publication in mainstream journals, current Master's of Science level courses at reputable universities, many of the principle detractors saying "failed, deprecated, or useless science" over "pseudoscience", many many sources saying "scientific study of the paranormal", and a recent third-party neutral Nature article (Feb. 2007) examining exactly whether it was science or not and presenting three different reputable views from science on the topic. Clearly it is not the consensus that it is pseudoscience. The consensus is that it is "fringe science" failing to produce anything conclusive, worthwhile, or compelling enough to be accepted by mainstream science. That's what the majority of neutral, third-party sources say (not skeptical sources and not parapsychology sources). The dispute, at least from my perspective, is whether fair is fair, or whether as soon as the skeptical consensus is that the topic is pseudoscience then the topic is taken through the ringer. Anyone who reads the article can see that parapsychology is not presented in a positive way, is fully denigrated, without going overboard (and yet still more critical than Britannica, Encarta, or even James Randi's own encyclopedia [43] or the Skeptic's Dictionary [44] -- neither of which contain the word "pseudoscience" and in fact say "science"). The dispute is over when is enough enough, if not FA status. After two plus years of working on the article, I personally say enough is enough, at least for me. In fact *gasp* I'm turning this off and going outside : ) Dunno when I'll be back, so have fun. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Woonpton's point above: one of the basic features of true believer thinking is finding confirmation for one's beliefs everywhere - including in rejections and refutations, while simultaneously explaining away or ignoring all contrary evidence. For example, if someone (maybe with a name like Austin) writes an article exposing as worthless several reasons for thinking parapsychology is a pseudoscience, the true believer might only see those reasons and, ignoring the fact that they are being roundly rejected, conclude that the article IS ACTUALLY SAYING that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Alternatively, if the rejections are seen, the true believer may view them as "tongue-in-cheek", and so may still think the article actually supports their view - even if it does look the other way to the "untrained" eye. Similarly, if a parapsychology article which reports the negative findings of a parapsychology experiment begins with the words, "parapsychology is the scientific study of...", the true believer might not notice that first line - they might not even notice that the article itself IS AN EXAMPLE OF parapsychology (and by not noticing this, the true believer avoids the self-refuting point that parapsychology has scientifically demonstrated that it is a pseudoscience). Alternatively, the true believer might see the first line but dismiss its importance since it is clearly quote mined - or perhaps again it is simply tongue-in-cheek. In any event, only the negative result will be of interest to the true believer since that result (evidence against the existence of psi) is indistinguishable within their true belief system from the belief that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The true believer might also cite other article in support of their view (written by people with names like Lamont, Wooffitt or McDougal) without even noticing that the word "pseudoscience" doesn't even appear in them - and in one case the word parapsychology doesn't appear either.

When evidence which contradicts the true believer's true belief is brought forth, for example: affiliation to organizations such as the AAAS; the roll-call of eminent scientists who are/were involved in parapsychology (see for example the presidents of the SPR): the fact that parapsychology is taught at a number of the world's most prestigious universities; and the statements of many a scientist and some hard-line skeptics, these can all be dismissed by the true believer with a simple wave of the hand. This may be because (seemingly completely unaware that these same people/organizations are appealed to by the true believer in every other case) the true believer does not think that any of these people or organizations are notable or knowledgeable enough to speak with authority on the matter. In this particular case the true believer prefers to appeal to the authority of an obscure author who, in a pop-psychology book, has supported their view. The true believer might even just pretend this other evidence doesn't exist and focus on just one example (an example that is only being discussed because they claimed that it supported their view) and claim that "if this is the best you can come up with" then it's not very convincing to me. In such a case, the true believer, who is an expert in the field, has clearly already swept all of that other evidence right out of their mind (as true believers do)- how else could an expert possibly come to make such a statement. And finally, the true believer may not even notice that nobody was objecting to their view being in the article in the first place (the us-and-them syndrome) - all that was being objected to was the presentation of their view as the view of every right-thinking man, woman and child on the planet.

My question, then, is this: Does the world-renowned Kida have anything to say about true belief? 76.76.15.167 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, what are you trying to say? If you're saying that those arguing that parapsychology=pseudoscience are demonstrating the mentality of "true believers", why bother? We all already know that. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same three editors (including one who is banned, but posts using an IP) seem to exist solely to defend Parapsychology with persistent, lengthy and elaborate arguments (such as above). Ironically, these editors claim to have no special interest in Parapsychology -- yet they edit only Parapsychology and related articles! 66.30.77.62 (talk)

Bosnian pyramids

Someone keeps deleting a section of this, see[45].--Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that should be rollback-able. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. I have rollback, yes, but I worry about WP:3RR. They've stopped anyway(more or less, now tried to remove 'so-called' from the article).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I mean is, this is anonymous vandalism, and should be dealt with by rollback, and if necessary semiprotection. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnaism

Let me state up front that the topic of Krishnaism is valid and encyclopedic. But, with the recent WP:KRISHNA project, the objective seems to be to "own" as many articles as possible, never mind how stubby, never mind WP:CFORK.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It appears that "Krishnaism" is the term for Gaudiya Vaishnavism when discussed in comparison with Christianity in particular. It gets around a hundred hits on google scholar, and its notability as a standalone term (with what definition?) seems somewhat questionable. The Krishnaism article doesn't establish anything else, but is content to replicate selected material from Krishna, Bhakti movement, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am really in doubt whether this is the way to go. Wikidas (talk · contribs) also enjoys to create as many stubs on "aspects of Krishna" as he can, armed with a quote from Klaus Klostermaier's 2005 Survey of Hinduism, and generally displaying considerable belligerence (criticism of his approach apparenty amounts to an insult to his religion on principle). Thus, we get Bala Krishna, Vasudeva Krishna and Radha Krishna, Govinda, liberally sprinkled with {{underconstruction}} tags.

I am certainly glad to see an effort towards a good coverage of "Krishnaism", but it seems some editorial assistance at least is needed here. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC) See also:[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikidās -ॐ 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's another 60 hits. As I said, the term is valid. This is a good overview. The Krishnaism page still needs to be cleaned up to make clear its scope. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be moved from this board as this particular board is not for this purpose. Project talk page WT:Krishna provides such space. Goals and scope of the project are clearly discussed and outlined there. Also issue of the name of the project is being discussed there. Just like a last time with you and me, you keep puting it here, instead as an appropriate place.

Once again - Scope is defined by the link below and the discussion that happened on WikiProjects board and is kept for record on the project talk page.

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography Clearly This discussion is moved to an appropriate place: Wikidās -ॐ 13:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I recognize that Krishnaism can be a valid sub-article of Vaishnavism and Krishna, and a WP:SS summary article of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Sri Vaishnavism, Shuddhadvaita and possibly other articles. It also clearly needs some sort of supervision and a cleanup effort towards a clean presentation of its scope. I don't know why you keep linking to your "bibliography" page, Wikidas, since nobody ever disputed that there are books on Krishna. The appropriate place for this discussion would be Talk:Krishnaism, this section is just to draw attention to the problem for the benefit of potentially interested editors. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive fringe theories in talk page discussion

Hi, i really wasnt sure how to do this, i wanted to avoid some of the more viewed notice boards to avoid the usual drama. There is an editer "CadenS" who is promoting a fringe theory on talk pages that is actually quite offensive. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world". I have listed just ten examples below, there are many many more edits like this by the user. He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality?

If this is the wrong place for this report i apologise and would appreciate it if you could redirect me. Cheers. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, as long as it's just talkpages, this falls under WP:TALK (Wikipedia is not a forum), but it's not "dangerous" as in "harmful to the project". --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would there be somewhere better to take this, i mean he cant do this forever and expect to get way with it, firstly its disrespectful to homosexual editers, secondly hes making unfounded person attacks. I understand that theres probably nothing you guys can do about it, it just seems that hes protected by the fact that hes keeping most of it to the talk pages. Im stumped, this shouldnt be allowed to continue though. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a soapbox, advocacy of any political views on talk pages is inappropriate, whether they're fringe or not. But it seems to me there are more serious policy violations in the edits you point out. Calling another user "heterophobic" or starting a comment "You must be BLIND to not see..." is fairly clearly a personal attack (see that page for guidance on responding). The information that the user claims to have received from a school district employee includes unverifiable and contentious material about living and recently deceased people, a should be removed from talk pages per this policy. EALacey (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill go and clean up the talk page(s), per BLP. Regarding the personal attacks etc, should this be moved to another noticed board. The editer that received the "Heterphobic" comment was quite upset and contacted me about it outside of wikipedia, thus i got involved and looked through his edit history. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is the appropriate forum for this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, cheers folks. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell him to try out Conservapedia, assuming he's not there already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

telling a user "you must be blind" in the context of a dispute isn't a personal attack, be reasonable. I agree that homophobic rants have no place on Wikipedia, but that's already by virtue of being rants (WP:SOAP). This isn't urgent. Warn the user to get his act together, and if he persists, block him. There is really no need to compile a legalistic case from varied guidelines: if the user clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, well, he has no business editing. Jesus, I am really tired of "Wikiquette alerts" and people giving me grief over WP:CIVIL because I told them they are wrong. Which results in nice venomous messages such as this one, chastising me for reacting with sarcasm in the face of a user who exploded in ungrammatical rants over my using the term "Transcaucasian highland". I wish all the Wikiquette and CIVIL vigilantes would remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, this means we should block people who are here for homophobic ranting. But it also means that our serious contributors shouldn't be expected to keep smiling and babysit confused single-topic accounts.

On the content side, I meekly submit that Wikipedia could do with a little bit of moderate ~~homophobia~~ criticism of the homosexual agenda. "LBGT" topics have a very strong lobby on Wikipedia, and this often results in rather surreal presence of "homosexuality" links. The Ancient Greek topics are littered with them. Yes, the ancient Greeks practiced "ephebophilia". No, this doesn't mean the fact needs to be featured prominently in every article on Ancient Greece. Links to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies are found in the most unlikely places. I mean, ok, so Viktor Rydberg once had a male lover. He was also a philologist, a poet and a scholar. How does he qualify as a subject of "LBGT studies" any more than your average boring married-with-children biography qualifies for "hetero sexology studies"? I am saying, I can muster a degree of understanding for the people rolling their eyes at "gay Wikipedia". I have issues with the very concept of "LBGT" categorization. How is it WP:NPOV to treat female (L) and male (G) homosexuality implicitly as "the same topic" as bisexuality (B) and "transgender" (T)? "LBGT" is a political term that deserves its own Wikipedia article, but which shouldn't be used for categorization any more than, say "ACF" should be used to categorize "Anarchists, Capitalists and Fascists", or "SPR" should be used for "Satanists, Pagans and Roman Catholics". dab (𒁳) 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRA, again

It seems everyone but the most die-hard SRA apologists have lost interest in this and the information establishing that this is to 99% a topic of "anti-cult" moral panic is being unconspicuously shoved out of the article... dab (𒁳) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ KSGV: Objectives
"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."
^ Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4
^ "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Apr 2, 1975; pg. 6A
^ "FIRM LOYALTY" MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 12, 1979; pg. A1
^ "Soe feel the youth is a fraud" Long Beach Press Telepgram, Dec 10, 1972, p. A27
^ "There are many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji" September 26, 1973, Greeley Tribune (Colorado) p. 5-A
^ Time Magazine, 2 November, 1972. "Junior Guru"
^ DuBois, Ellen Carol (1999). Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Smith, Harold Eugene (1990). British feminism in the twentieth century. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-705-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Whitney, Sharon (1984). The equal rights amendment: the history and the movement. New York: F. Watts. ISBN 0-531-04768-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Voet, Maria Christine Bernadetta (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5860-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Buechler, Steven M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States: woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1558-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Chapman, Jenny L. (1993). Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01698-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1] KSGV: Objectives
"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."

[2] Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4

[3] "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Apr 2, 1975; pg. 6A

[4] "FIRM LOYALTY" MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 12, 1979; pg. A1

[5] "Soe feel the youth is a fraud" Long Beach Press Telepgram, Dec 10, 1972, p. A27

[6] "There are many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji" September 26, 1973, Greeley Tribune (Colorado) p. 5-A

[7] Time Magazine, 2 November, 1972. "Junior Guru"

[8] DuBois, Ellen Carol (1999). Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[9] Smith, Harold Eugene (1990). British feminism in the twentieth century. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-705-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[10] Whitney, Sharon (1984). The equal rights amendment: the history and the movement. New York: F. Watts. ISBN 0-531-04768-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[11] Voet, Maria Christine Bernadetta (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5860-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[12] Buechler, Steven M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States: woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1558-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[13] Chapman, Jenny L. (1993). Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01698-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

@@ Line 1,087: / Line 1,087: @@
 ::::My question, then, is this: Does the world-renowned Kida have anything to say about true belief? [[Special:Contributions/76.76.15.167|76.76.15.167]] ([[User talk:76.76.15.167|talk]]) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Anon, what are you trying to say? If you're saying that those arguing that parapsychology=pseudoscience are demonstrating the mentality of "true believers", why bother? We all already know that. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
+:The same three editors (including one who is banned, but posts using an IP) seem to exist solely to defend Parapsychology with persistent, lengthy and elaborate arguments (such as above). Ironically, these editors claim to have no special interest in Parapsychology -- yet they edit ''only'' Parapsychology and related articles! [[Special:Contributions/66.30.77.62|66.30.77.62]] ([[User talk:66.30.77.62|talk]])
 == [[Bosnian pyramids]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 14:00, 26 May 2008

"$ETHNIC warfare"

Pseudohistory

Barry Fell

Prem Rawat

Differences in perception

Cultural differences US-Europe

Crossing the line

Conclusions

Comments

Take back to Criticism of Prem Rawat?

Armenian update

Categories

More Amazons

UN Security Council Resolutions: Are they binding or not?

The origins of the Hyksos - more Ararat arev

Mondo MOND madness

Laz

AIDS reappraisal redux

Input requested at Dysgenics

Particular attribution at parapsychology

http://phoenicia.org as a source

Pseudoscience and alternative science

Three users persistently deleting EL to Skeptic's Dictionary

Reddi (talk · contribs)

Rokus redivivus

Is this distortion of a source (reddi again)?

Stalin apologist

Hermetism template

Oera Linda and associated stubs

Pungent vegetables give you anxiety.

Lead line of feminism

Debate at WT:V

Share International

Watchlist

Anon on Heisenberg

Aids denialism

Goddess movement

A bit too many pederasty articles, perhaps...

AfD on Dysgenics (people)

Turkey Mountain

Parapsychology

Krishnaism

Offensive fringe theories in talk page discussion

SRA, again