Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

It is in practice convenient to work on these topics together, & this does not necessarily represent an agenda. I notice that every group/tendency/school/direction/POV in wikipedia tends to feel that it is the persecuted minority here. The left think the right dominate, and vice versa; the atheists the christians, etc etc. In truth, there are individual articles dominated by one POV or another which need to see the general light of day. OWN is the curse of all community content projects, and needs continual attention. DGG (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The LGBTers are often over-eager to claim historical figures for their cause on the flimsiest of pretexts. On the other hand, we currently have someone arguing there is no evidence that Marcel Proust was homosexual (!). File under: "I thought I'd seen it all". --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about a potential violation of WP:CIVIL and should, in my opinion, be moved to Wikiquette alerts.--Ainlina--Speak to me--Ask a question--Praise and criticism 14:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

There seems to be some kind of effort to promote this chain of limestone shoals as actually being an ancient megastructure, built no doubt by the same hyper-advanced Hindu civilization that built an enormous civilzation in the Gulf of Cambay. Or, alternatively, the shoals are clearly Allah's handiwork. Um, yeah. Textbook case of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. <eleland/talkedits> 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very dubious, but apparently a significant POV among Hindu fundamentalists. I've worked on the article before, so I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said on this has already been said back in October. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done there, thanks. I remember when all this NASA nonsense first started. Doug Weller (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for an expert in geology. Since it is (should be) an article about a geological feature, the geological knowledge about it should be more clearly presented. Of course there is always the issue of the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed development, but there is a sub-article to carry the detail of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get one for the article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for hijacking the thread, but eyes are also needed at Dwarka_Discovery. I'm not an expert on Hinduism, but it seems to go against various policies to assert that a particular (now sunken) city was founded by Lord Krishna. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone

Reich's theory was regarded as pseudoscience when it was published and has been labeled as such ever sense. There is a ton of psychobabble and other issues with the article but I am trying to move one step at a time. I am just trying to get the fact that this is pseudoscience into the lead. I have collected way more references than are needed yet a single user is constantly reverting.I have attempted a RFC but that doesn't seem to be working out. I am not sure where best to post this so I am trying here. I don't think it is at the stage yet that requires formal mediation but maybe it is close. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

you've come to the right place. Category:Orgone Science and Technology is highly dubious as a category name, too. --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there, you're both so far over WP:3RR that it's not even funny. The RfC is the way to go - seek outside input, because if either or both of you keep reverting it'll end up in a block. I suspect experienced editors will tend to agree with you on the content issue. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, re: Dbachman's comment, I agree: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_11#Category:Orgone_Science_and_Technology. ::MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am here to stop the edit war, the threats really aren't needed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not threats, really. You've hit about 8RR, and you could both justifiably have been blocked for egregious edit-warring, which is disruptive in and of itself without respect to who's "right". I chose to warn you both instead, because I think you'll be able to work it out. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A statement. I am currently engaged on improving articles relating to medical and biological thought in the early 20thC. I have worked substantially on Hans Driesch, Teleology, Vitalism, Alexander Gurwitsch, Morphogenetic field, Biophoton, Hans Spemann, Paul Alfred Weiss, Wilhelm Roux, Theory of recapitulation, Ross Granville Harrison, Harold Saxton Burr, L-field.

I am particularly interested in how Theosophical thought was influenced by and influenced thinking at that time, so have also contributed to articles such as Energy (esotericism), Astral Body and so forth, usually in a bid to introduce historicism and secondary sources.

However I note that a few such pages, such as this orgone, are included in some kind of gospel of pseudoscience, and hence are under persistent edit-attack. Wiki requires a solid reference for a consensus of pseudoscience. This has been requested by me time and again. I have introduced into the lede all kinds of compromises (Journalists call this pseudoscience, vitalism is considered superseded etc) and all have been removed, citations and tags discarded to be replaced with identical improperly-sourced "pseudoscience" statements by a string of different editors. I have several times explained the need for a proper historically-aware overview, but my interlocutors simply do not know anything about the history of biology and psychology. Since there has been no constructive discussion or editing from the other side, and since all editors represent the same dogmatic POV, all repetitive unsourced edits, having been removed to the talk page, are now being reverted without notice since this cadre is clearly intent upon damaging the prospect of any coherent user-understanding of this aspect of 20thC thought. Redheylin (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

excellent, with a pragmatic approach like that, I am sure a fruitful compromise will be possible. Vitalism is only pseudoscience when it pretends to be science. In its spiritual or philosophical aspects it is not, of course, pseudoscience, since it doesn't even attempt to make scientific claims. I agree this needs to be taken into account. dab (𒁳) 06:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as currently written has significant problems, but maybe it's just a work in progress. For example, the article says things like: "Some recent research has, however, supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone." This is both untrue, at least as far as I understand the term "research", and unsourced. The reason that orgone energy got such a bad name, as a pseudoscience, is that Reich marketed it as the cure for just about everything, absent any actual evidence. Eventually the FDA shut him down as a purveyor of fraudulent medical devices marketed with false claims. Of course, the FDA somewhat overzealously destroyed Reich's devices and burned his books, which feeds into the conspiracist or civil libertarian mindsets. Anyhow, some of this probably belongs in the orgone article. Incidentally, there's an interesting picture of an orgone accumulator on the FDA website ([1]), which I believe should be public domain and might be useful for the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

dab - vitalism is a name given to a biological approach that, from two to one centuries ago, set us free from divine preformationism - creationism. Vitalists include Galvani, Berzelius, Mesmer, Goethe, Reichenbach, Wallace, Haeckel, Driesch, Spemann, as well as, explicitly or implicitly, most psychological theorists, including clinical psycho-analyists. All of these people are "pretending to be science" so it's hard to see what you mean.

Perhaps you may believe that the approach has been superseded in many respects by the grand biological synthesis - that it has been effectively so from 1945, particularly since 1953? That's a valid standpoint, assuming you are a black-box Skinnerian. That's not a consensus though. And even in biology it remains to be seen exactly how much will be explained by molecular signalling and ionic channelling - whether we will end up ticking all the boxes in the systems analysis. There's still a mind-body problem, so there's still room for fringe vitalists today in serious biology. Basically, if Jung can say it, why can't Sheldrake? Or, at least in 1950, if Gurwitsch could say it, why not Reich?

There's no room for rip-off artists though. That, for instance, is why I just asked for ionized bracelets to be deleted. But this obsession with pinning the label "pseudoscience" shows me one thing - that the labeller does not have the knowledge and ability to insert a chronologically-aware rebuttal that draws upon specified trials and reliable popular scientific writers of the Gould variety. It is mostly some kind of religious war-cry. It shows no respect for style but often seems to seek to disrupt understanding. It is generally uncivil and inarticulate. It is a pain in the arse. Desist, please. Just take one thing, maybe, come to grips, do a proper job. Less of the gang-disruption and answer invitations please.

"Some recent research has, however, supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone." The reference is to de Meo's work, mentioned below. Has someone removed yet another reference? It's vandalism, isn't it? If you can find any peer-review, I'd be very happy. Or we can put "Reich is disliked by many wiki editors"?? How about "Reich neglected his pet hamster and failed to return library books?" Seriously, I do not think your claims about "marketing" stand up, but why do we not just put the FDA in the lede??? It does seem to be the only study that took place in Reich's lifetime. Personally, if Einstein thought Reich was on the level but a crap physicist, that's the line I take too. Redheylin (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1953 Irving Langmuir dubbed Gurwitsch's ideas pathological science. However his daughter, Anna, continued his work and, shortly after his death, contributed papers that supported some aspects of her father's work on "mitogenetic" rays. This is from Alexander Gurwitsch. And you know what else I put? You guys really need to refute this claim that some American guy thought he knew it all, but some Russian guy was right all along. It's demeaning. Fools!!!!!!!!!! Reich is but my sockpuppet. INSIDIOUS ideas have been worked into the entire account of 20C life sciences! How comes nobody round here KNOWS anything? Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS BWHAHAHA!! or words to that effect. Come on guys, get on the case, before a doctor comes. Redheylin (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone medically classed as putative vital energy.

In contrast, putative energy fields (also called biofields) have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. Therapies involving putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy. This vital energy or life force is known under different names in different cultures, such as qi.., and elsewhere as prana, etheric energy, fohat, orgone, odic force, mana, and homeopathic resonance.3 Vital energy is believed to flow throughout the material human body, but it has not been unequivocally measured by means of conventional instrumentation. Nonetheless, therapists claim that they can work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm

"Vitalists include Galvani, Berzelius, Mesmer, Goethe, Reichenbach, Wallace, Haeckel, Driesch, Spemann, as well as, explicitly or implicitly, most psychological theorists, including clinical psycho-analyists. All of these people are "pretending to be science" so it's hard to see what you mean."

yes, I see, my optimism was premature. You indiscriminately link to 18th to 20th century authors. I am keenly aware of the distinction of pseudoscience and obsolete scientific theories. So Newton was an alchemist. Does that make alchemy "science"? No, at best proto-science, since its study in the 17th century may have been serious, but there has been progress in the history of science, and anyone advocating it today would be a fraud. Your claim of authors being vitalists "implicitly" is problematic. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to discriminate on historical grounds citing sources. Libido, for example, is implicit vitalism. Redheylin (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Libido is implicit vitalism"? You appear to be trying to blur the distinction of Energy (psychological) and Energy (esotericism). I'm happy to review your WP:RS, of course. You may also be trying to generalize the notion of "vitalism" to the truism that "life has self-organizing properties". Here is one quote: "Carl Gustav Jung’s position [...] involves an energetic and vitalistic extension of Freud’s libido theory".[2]. This would go to a discussion of how Jungian psychology reconciles materialism and "vitalism", at the same point establishing that libido is by no means "vitalistic" from the outset. It may be. through the filter of an esotericist's view of Jung's views. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(Superseded vitalism) - I invite you to discriminate on historical grounds citing sources. "You appear to be trying to blur the distinction of Energy (psychological) and Energy (esotericism)" I invite you to draw a distinction, citing sources. (Newton's alchemy) Please, if you think it worthwhile, explain an instance of a modern-day alchemical claim that would be pseudoscientific - for example, is the use of Arabic terminology like alcohol and alkali to be deprecated?. Please quote the pay-site reference above in full. The self-organising properties of life are fundamental to vitalism in Embryology - see my bios of Driesch Spemann and Weiss. Redheylin (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This would go to a discussion of how Jungian psychology reconciles materialism and "vitalism", - yes it would. You need to visit all these arguments in full before passing judgment on Reich, who was trying to do exactly that. Redheylin (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not passing judgement on Reich, I am judging your behaviour on Wikipedia.[3] I don't pretend to know whether a beneficial therapeutical method can be derived from Reich's ideas. Be that as it may, the notion of orgone as "a massless, omnipresent medium for electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena, a Luminiferous aether from which all matter arises" and stuff like the "cloudbuster" are obviously textbook pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You will understand that your failure to discuss, and your continuing edits unrelated to the discussion, accompanied by changes of name, will tend to cause other editors to doubt your good faith, and that we cannot very well write "dbachmann says it is obvious". Since you say you are "judging my behaviour", apparently simply because I question your unsupported POV, I think we will have to go to arbitration. Redheylin (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will, or should be, accepted for arbitration. Editors on the page have not given the RfC a chance yet. You need many more uninvolved editors on board. There are plenty of people around who do not know anything about Reich or vitalism but do know about sourcing and writing a neutral article. If you don't succeed in attracting them to this article then the next step would be mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea in what way I am supposed to "fail to discuss" the matter, much less "change my name", or what my "pov" may be. I have the impression this is a weak attempt at wikilawyering. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Itsyoujudith. I have not heard from you since I invited your comments after you joined dbachmann in the gang-destruction of another related page. I was sorry not to hear from you. I take it that you do not, then, include yourself among editors who know nothing? - as a matter of fact, though, we have rather a lot of that kind of editor already. Do you happen to know anybody who DOES know anything? By the way, I did mean the entire process, beginning with informal mediation. As you so rightly remark, a notice was applied and I immediately ceased to edit - but destructive edits continued from the others represented on this page - would you care to pass an opinion on that? Redheylin (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea in what way I am supposed to "fail to discuss" the matter Please just answer the points, continue the dialogue, support your views, provide the requested citations. Particulary, discuss changes as advertised - do not make changes unannounced to one part of a page while ostensibly discussing another. Redheylin (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redheylin. Sorry if I didn't follow through on an intervention. I haven't been editing much recently. If you want to know my state of knowledge on these issues, I would assess it as being in the top 99% of the population, but that is far from making me an expert. I had previously heard of Reich but knew more about his Mass Psychology of Fascism than about the orgone concept. I try to help out on many pages that I am not at all an expert on but nevertheless I can improve the encyclopedia. That's why I contribute to the Wikification wikiproject and would encourage you to join in. I don't engage in mass destruction of pages. I frequently come across dab's work; sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, always I learn from the exchanges. I was interested in what you said about history of ideas, but don't want to follow it into an edit war. Some editors seem to be turning the encyclopedia into a war on pseudoscience, but that is not my particular vice. My approach is to try to find a resolution through a search for the most reliable possible sources.Itsmejudith (talk)

Thanks for your courteous and quick response. I accept your estimation of your own account, and your good faith shines forth. I have to say, I think your actions in respect of that other page were ill-advised, and that they were indeed undertaken as part of a group, not one of whom added anything of worth, took notice of the talk-page or added tags. I left your changes for one week and then reverted them when you did not appear to defend them as they appeared to me, as I say, ill-advised, discourteous and over-hasty. I do not want an edit war either, I want knowledgeable editing from consensus. Anything else leads to a messy, unreadable article and, I have concluded, in some cases that is the main idea. "Pseudoscience" tags, unaccompanied by authoritative and historically-presented refutations, are polemic and should be represented as such. Top 99 per cent is already very good, so let us say no more about the past and, if everyone will kindly agree to proper sourcing, there's no need for any war.

dbachmann, I note that you have some interest in IE anthropology? Could you be so kind as to search out an authoritative derivation of the word "prana"? And how dyou fancy a quick shufti at the delightful vitalist page "Awen"?! Now THERE's pseudoscience for ya! Have you read Taliessin? Dear O dear, planets, climates, elements - he talks like a damned mediaeval!! Ah well - but you know "areith awdyl eglyr/ awen tra messur" Scuse me, quoting from memory, but this is obviously a self-aggrandising claim to a non-existent power in the interests in making a living, for gosh sakes. Let's GIT him!! Redheylin (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, you are clearly intelligent and eloquent, but somehow you seem to insist on making a fool of yourself, or at least to show adamant determination to pose as a condescending jerk. I am not sure if you mistake someone else's edits for mine, since my entire participation in this dispute has been a single revert of your blanking of a referenced paragraph.[4]. dab (𒁳) 12:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

People who talk like that are going to feel condescended to. I mean, anybody could rise above that kind of talk even if they was falling down a lift shaft. Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get over it. Just try to behave in the future. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

update 6/23

The war on Talk:Orgone is continuing to rage, albeit in a somewhat more civil manner than before. The problem I have is that fundamentally, orgone can be objectively shown to be a pseudoscience by virtue of the fact that its observations remain unconfirmed in the broader scientific field, yet its proponents continue to present it as a science. Others, particulary User:Martinphi, have been insisting on attribution under WP:OR and WP:V; under the circumstances, I feel this is like requiring someone to reference a multiplication table to prove that 2*3=6, and that the continued insistence on a reference to something that is, by definition, obvious on its face, is against the spirit of WP:POINT and WP:IAR. Haikupoet (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the page, and popped over to see if it had been mentioned here. It's a page of gobbledygook. Due weight is totally violated. I thought these claims had been falsified or disproven over fifty years ago.

I'm actually afraid to look at the N-ray and Æther articles now... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi

Have a look here, if you like. There's lots of Proof by assertion that ScienceApologist is a problematic editor, no evidence at all being provided. MartinPhi seems to be getting ignored in favour of a massive "I a-hate him!" against SA. Can someone step in there and add some sanity? Either provide actual hard evidence against SA, or try and pull it away from the "Bash SA" hour? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the proposal applies to both parties, and should be seen as preventative, trying to get away from who did what to whom, an approach which has gotten nowhere. all it requires is the same behavior every editor should show. DGG (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If "every editor should show" this behavior, then you should make it a policy page that applies to every editor and does not single out me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All policy pages apply to all editors. None of them single you out. I'll have a look SA, but I won't be automatically either for or against you but will try to think of the interests of the 'pedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins seem to be handling it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good editors are extremely problematic. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sukyo Mahikari

Article on a Japanese new religious movement has had multiple problems for a long while. There are some scholarly accounts but I don't have access to them. Now a newbie has arrived to add unsourced or poorly sourced material from a Christian debunking POV. He has decided I am a supporter of the NRM. I have been very civil, honest! Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I am a supporter also. Looking at his source, I've found that http://www.letusreason.org appears in a number of articles where I'm not sure it's appropriate. Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument has continued. I have stubified the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I loved the bit where he told us his main source wasn't accessible to the public. Thanks for stubbing it. Doug Weller (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This "newbie" included a reference to the Goseigen, the Sukyo Mahikari bible of teachings for its founder, where the quotes were lifted from. If you go back to the reference list you deleted, you can look up the ISBN number. The exact same books are used as legitimate references on the general Mahikari page, so why delete mine? I can understand that you may disagree with the original likne to letusreason.org -- that is NOT my site. I sent the link as a way to keep the text shortened on the page. After I posted that link, everything else I posted was deleted -- even when properly sourced and referenced. Yes, I may be new but frankly instead of just deleting topics my understanding was that Wiki editors actually took the time to DISCUSS before changing? I didn't delete previous author's entries to the very biased, pro-Mahikari SM page when I first posted--I just added on. Why did these editors not single out previous authors for their bias?????Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that wasn't your site. But there's a serious problem about whether the book is verifiable in practice. I've raised the issue of the book on the RS noticeboard [5] Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there as I think it turns out the book is available. The page was dreadful for a long time, mainly because there were scholarly sources cited but nobody editing could obtain them and check they were used properly. If some people wanted to keep the article on watch it would be good. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW the reason no one criticised previous authors for their pro Sukyo Mahikari bias is just that that bias had already been added before we came to the article. I think I added to the Intensive Care Unit because it was so bad. I would have discussed my reversion of Honesty's first edit had I not done it in a bit of a rush. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

• Bates method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I never got any response for my request for help on this article (See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Bates_method). We're making some good progress, but we still need lots of help as the majority of editors working on it are WP:SPAs with little experience on how to deal with problems common to such articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to anyone who wants to help: See my suggestion here regarding four independent sources which are best read through before reviewing the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Views of Alexander Dyukov in the article The Soviet Story

It seems this fringe historian's views (his last book apparently had a print run of around 700 copies and unknown in the West) is being given undue weight in the article The Soviet Story. The article already has sections "Positive assessments" and "Negative responses", so it is fairly balanced already without the addition of the section "Disputed points of Alexander Dyukov". Martintg (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this is much too much weight. It would also be good to merge all the positive, negative, scholarly and Dyukov views into one section "Responses". See how this has been done in the case of Bat Ye'or, a writer with controversial views. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Judith. There should be some attempt to group them by subject being discussed. DGG (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Bat Ye'or is a great example to follow. I've tried to explain on Talk:The_Soviet_Story#Undue_weight_per_WP:FTN that Alexander Dyukov's view point should be confined to a single paragraph, in keeping with the other view points, but the message doesn't seem to be getting across. Martintg (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved now. Martintg (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

The situtaion here is becoming derganged beyond words. User:RajivLal, User:Jookti and User:Padan keep reverting my edits. I have no doubt that they are sockpuppets, certainly of RajivLal, who has already been convicted of socking.[6] Most likely they are all avatars of User:DWhiskaZ who seems to have been fringe-bombing this page and others (eg Mahound) for months with his proof that Muhammad was predicted by all world scriptures. What is most bizarre is the fact that the reversion started when I cleaned up the prose of this editor. I didn't even change the meaning, but raised it for discussion on the talk page. The various users keep reverting to the incoherent version, apparently being too stupid to realise that my initial intention was simply to improve their edits. I guess they just assume that any changes must be designed to conceal The Truth. In a few minutes I will be away from Wikipedia for several days, so can't pursue this further. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt belong here this should be posted at the WP:Sock puppets with supporting evidence --RajivLal (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

not an expert on the subject, but it seems clear that Paul is trying quite successfully to clarify the article. Acting just as an editor, I've reverted to his latest version because it reads better. DGG (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of picking up where User:Paul Barlow left off (and I hope Paul will pick this up once again when he returns from his trip). I've been wrestling with the User that Paul mentions (i.e., "Rajivlal/Padan") for a few days now on this issue. As Paul mentions, this user is obsessed with linking Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana, which is a fringe theory at best (and this user has been pursuing an edit war over this). I'd like to add some additional information here that I've added elsewhere but perhaps can consolidate in this space regarding the fringe theory that "links" Mohammad and the Bhavishya Purana.

I should add first and in passing that User:Padan aka Rajivlal is pretty clearly the same person as (or is linked with) user:DWhiskaZ (who was similarly obsessed with Mohammad and the Bhavishya Purana and similarly posted from Univ of Toronto under a variety of sockpuppets and was subsequently banned for that, see here for details on DWhizkaZ's history). In the last 2 days I came across two dozen wikipedia articles (including the Bhavishya Purana article and articles related to topics in Hinduism and in the Bible) where User:Padan has inserted the paragraphs about Mohammad/Bible and the Bhavishya Purana, either citing nothing or citing only the missionary/activist Abdul Haque (see below), and presenting the "link" as if it were an uncontroversial or authoritative statement, giving no indication of the fringe nature of the interpretation. He also seems to have a poor understanding of what "scholarly sources" means. I proceeded to revert them only to find that he promptly undid my reverts and launched an edit war (which Paul also experienced before I came upon the scene) which culminated in my reporting User:Padan to WP:AIAV and his reporting me to WP:ANI. This edit (and admin reporting) war aside, some details on the fringe theory in question follow below.

First, the question of fringe politics: User Padan aka Rajivlal (aka DWhiskaZ) is promoting the views of a certain Muslim Ahmadiyya missionary named Abdul Haq Vidyarthi ( aka Dr. Haq; google him) and indeed User Padan produces Haq's (decidedly political) book as the only "source" for this repeated insertion in these and other articles. Abdul Haque argues that the Bhavishya Purana "foretold" the arrival of Islam, of Mohammad the prophet, (and even foretold the Genesis story, and foretold Queen Victoria and the arrival of the English). Abdul Haque promotes this view for a variety of reasons that have to do with his particular missionary activism, to argue that in foretelling the arrival of the Prophet Mohammad the Bhavishya Purana (taken as part of "hindu scripture") thus validates Islam as Hinduism's successor religion, and also to argue that "every religion has been already warned" of abandoning idolatry.

The Bhavishya Purana itself has an interesting manuscript history which makes such politicking possible (even if on the fringe margins of fundamentalist interpretations). It was a politicized document from the moment it was discovered since it was never found in an untampered manuscript. It was found with a host of obviously modern insertions into the ancient text, such as mentioning Queen Victoria and the arrival of English traders along with an extensive and detailed summary of the story of Genesis and mentions of Mohammad. There has been considerable theorizing in academe about who made these insertions and what their motives (political, religious, etc) might have been. As Nagendra Kumar Singh in the "Encyclopaedia of Hinduism" suggests, there were apparently multiple sources of these accretions in the text, some by Hindu attempts to coopt or respond to western threats, others by Christian missionary attempts to coopt Hindu texts (compare with the invented text, the "Ezourvedam", of the Jesuit Roberto de Nobili), and Muslim missionaries (like Haque) motivated similarly by attempts to coopt Hindu texts: suggesting multiple sources and moments in these accretions, as opposed to just one person or group being responsible.

However - and this is the point - no modern scholar disputes that these are in fact modern and recent insertions and not part of the historical text (Winternitz, who is often mentioned and quoted in this regard, and is a bonafide scholarly source, dimisses that notion out of hand as the current Bhavishya Purana page itself mentions and sources in footnote 11). Nagendra Kumar Singh similarly in the Encyclopaedia of Hinduism mentioned above, readily acknowledges the modernity of these insertions in analyzing the Bhavishya Purana.

And this is not what User:Padan (and Abdul Haque) would have the reader believe.

So my point is simply this: If a discussion of the manuscript history of the Bhavishya Purana is to be inserted (why would it be? and why only for this Purana? etc) then above all else it would need to properly contextualize the different interpretations in the politicization of this manuscript and not simply pass off one particular fringe interpretation as if it were either authoritative, or mainstream, or scholarly. It would also have to bear the burden of proof that it is not a fringe interpretation and as such be inappropriate for this wikipedia article.Jak68 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean up the cult fringe, please.

Look at my last two diffs [7] [8] for some garbage I just cleaned up. There is likely a lot of this crap. Start with Guru or Category:New religious movements and you'll find a plethora of cults POV-pushing or uploading false information. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA)

Category:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA) and subcategories are an exceptionally bad idea that can only be explained by innocence of any knowledge of population genetics. So the English people are a "nation belonging to haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)". Source?? Source, not so much for that "fact", but for the meaning of the notion of a "nation" "belonging" to a haplogroup in the first place? Categorization hell looms. Probably belongs on CfD. If not speedied as blatant racialist (or just blatant) nonsense. dab (𒁳) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with dab 100% on this, and also agree these cats should be speedied; we should strenuously avoid these kinds of "experimental" categorization schemes, and stick with the more traditional and encyclopedic ones. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the OR problem it's as useful as Category:Paperback books with a red cover, and likely to have quite an impact on the size of WP:ANI. But I suggest WP:CFD to minimise drama, unless the creator of the category can be convinced it wasn't a good idea. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on CfD. Please comment. dab (𒁳) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bathini Goud Brothers

This article seems to have some huge neutrality and conflict of interest problems, as well as being in need of a good copy edit. Anyone care to help? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I think this article could use a few more sets of eyes on it. It has several regular single-topic editors who are evidently fans of the theory, and want to relegate any mention of it being mostly ignored by physicists—despite Scientific American saying exactly that—to a long-winded opinion section. (That section is, possibly, original research in and of itself.) Thanks! -- SCZenz (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be a section on how the paper has been received but it should be written in prose, not like this chronology. The fact that the paper has been discussed in science blogs is notable but it should be summarised. More weight should be given to the articles in the Daily Telegraph and Scientific American than to the blog comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, personally. If you can look at the article and help out, it would be much appreciated. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Too worn out after intervening at Bathini Goud Brothers. Might have a chance to look tomorrow. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Started to put it into prose but I don't have the physics background to decide what should or should not be included. Hope you can carry on rewriting the timeline as prose. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) - no human history before 800 AD!

I've never understood why people take this seriously. Anyway, here we have an editor adding OR (and pov) nonsense about Egyptians needing steel saws. I've reverted it, he's put it back saying of course that I have a clear POV reason for reverting him. The article could use some attention. Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

that would seem to be a case for silently rolling back obvious nonsense. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Article starts off OK but gets tedious towards the end so can probably hide more nonsense. Is the Otto Rank quote relevant? I didn't like the list format for Fomenko's theses. BTW have you seen the quality of the dovetail joints on little ancient Egyptian boxes and chests of drawers in the Louvre? ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Low Level Radiation Campaign / Second event theory / Chris Busby

Resolved

This trio of related (yet unlinked) articles are in desperate need of some attention. Second event theory appears to be a self published theory of Chris Busby, championed by his organisation: The Low Level Radiation Campaign. The articles are a mess of un-encyclopaedic writing and self published references, with poor style throughout. The Chris Busby article has definite BLP problems, while the LLRC article is massive, but mostly seems to be about Chris Busby and Second event theory. The second event theory article intro is huge and poorly written, and doesn't give any idea as to whether this theory is even remotely entertained by mainstream science. I'm not even sure that the LLRC meets the notability criteria for inclusion, and the same can be said for Second event theory. This might be a big job - any takers to give me a hand/advice? I'll look again tomorrow. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(update) I've proposed Second event theory for deletion. I've also found that Chris Busby's page is almost a direct lift of several paragraphs from one of his lobby groups webpages, so I've tagged that page as a copyvio. Maybe it should be speedy-deleted, as outside of his own organisations (spin offs from the green party), he doesn't seem to be notable. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the awful Low Level Radiation Campaign, it also transpires that large parts of this page are lifted from the LLRC website and it's sister organisations... --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the red links above, this has been dealt with. The articles were mostly copyright violations, and didn't have any good sources for notability. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More input needed

Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV - this really needs more voices, at the moment it's just MartinPhi/ScienceApologist and a couple friends. I don't know the merits of the case, I haven't had time to look into it. I did see that Martinphi - consciously or unconsciously, I don't know - included text in his version that bolstered his view in an ongoing dispute. It needs sane heads to look into the problem and come up with good policy, which isn't going to happen if it becomes a front in the Martinphi/ScienceApologist war. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

if I may, the problem is more difficult than Shoemaker has presented it (no offense intended, please). There is a fairly serious flaw (IMO) in the lead of the guideline that is causing a ton of conflict in fringe topic articles and their talk pages - you can see my argument for this flaw here - and a general bias to the article (again, IMO) that proved resistant to basic, civil discussion. you can find beginnings for that here and here (sections 21 and 25) but the debate is really peppered through the last 14 or 15 sections. But as Shoemaker said, sane heads and fresh perspectives are what is needed. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity

This seems to consist mostly of fringe theories. Peter jackson (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity. Jehochman ^Talk 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Soy milk

There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis, part 624

Could someone drop by Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis#Euhemerization and offer some outside input? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been there before, so I'm familiar with the basic arguments. I'll stop by and take a look. --Ludwigs2 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease and biowarfare

Can I request some outside eyes on Lyme disease? There have been a handful of agenda accounts, at least one with a real-life COI, intent on inserting material suggesting that Lyme disease resulted from a biowarfare experiment gone awry. Of course, there are no reliable sources supporting this conclusion being cited - just evidence that some people who have researched Lyme have also worked in biodefense - but this is apparently an ongoing issue which could use additional eyes. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme, Connecticut is just a few miles from Plum Island. Could this be a mere coincidence? Jehochman ^Talk 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

yes.DGG (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

after a prolongued period of peace, we have a few Hindu zealots raising their heads once again (remember autumn 2005 anyone?)

As you can see on Talk:Hinduism, the matter at present revolves around WP:LEAD (Wikipedia:Lead fixation -- and WP:ENC I suppose). Some pious editors insist hook and crook on presenting the frequently-repeated pious sentiment that "Hinduism is the oldest religion" in the lead of Hinduism, as a fact stated in Wikipedia's voice. As a compromise, I offered mentioning the notion as one "often held by Hindus". Of course, blanket revert warring ensued. This is one of an increasing number of "Hindu incidents" under way at present. The cast at this moment are Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) and Wikidas (talk · contribs), but these accounts come and go over the months of course, and in my experience it doesn't pay to separate the meat from the socks.

I will insist on resolving this by the letter because (a) Hinduism is a top importance article and we cannot allow its very lead to become a platform for muddle-headed hype and (b) the case is exemplary for constant, unidirectional (pro-hype) degradation of hundreds and hundreds of lesser-watched articles on Hindu topics. dab (𒁳) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This note is not supposed to be on this board. It should be on reliable sources board and is connected to Dbachmann (talk · contribs) not accepting reliable academic sources. As expected this note was placed here without any notification on the articles Talkpage or any other users pages, as to avoid consensus, which is present at present at the Talk:Hinduism. Dbachmann (talk · contribs) appears to have a difficulty in accepting some of the reliable sources in favor of others, this should be dealt by means of building a compromise or consensus. This board is not for this purpose. --Wikidās ॐ 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything this response made me more interested in having a look! --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas is wrong. I am not rejecting any academic source. But just being academic doesn't buy a factoid tidbit the right to figure in the WP:LEAD of a major article. The zealot revert warriors refuse to discuss their stuff at the appropriate place, the article body of history of Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 10:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about one source. The description of the antiquity of the religious tradition of Hinduism has its place in the lead and always was part of the lead and will be part of the lead. You keep misusing this board to discuss things that are clearly do not belong here. Your own edition that you keep reverting to for a number of times is clearly stating this yourself. You however choose to quote only a part of the source and avoiding second part of the same source (Klostermaier 1994, p. 1), I hope you can understand that this is WP:SYNTH. In this context, please also note that your article on oldest religion is being treated as OR - WP:SYNTH. You just can not adjust what sources say to advance your position (supposed synthesis of published material to suggest that Hindusim is a different tradition to Vedism or the earlier religious traditions of India). Wikidās ॐ 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

yep, historically, Hinduism in the wider sense includes Iron Age Brahmanic Hinduism. Normally, "Hinduism proper" is taken to begin in the Mauryan period. This is according to the current EB, I am happy to state as much in the intro, and I am also happy to mention Vedic religion as the immediate predecessor of Brahmanical Hinduism. What is your problem? This board has been created because of editors like you who tend to google a phrase and then heap up their "sources", half of them random religionist blogs, without any idea of content or background, just to push their "truth". This whole discussion is due to semantic confusion surrounding the extremely wide exonym "Hinduism" compared to the much finer-grained terminology used for Near Eastern traditions (Babylonian polytheism, Canaanite religion, Judaism). Hinduism isn't closer to Vedic religion than Judaism or Christianity are to Babylonian religion, hence it is perfectly misleading to call it "older" in any positive sense. Hinduism has its prehistoric roots in Vedic religion, just like every religious tradition has roots in prehistory. There is really nothing special about that. What does make Vedic religion special is the large amount of text preserved in oral tradition. That's a topic for Vedas, not for Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "Hinduism isn't closer to Vedic religion than Judaism or Christianity are to Babylonian religion" IS the reason for this board. Its clear to others and you have to accept it as a statement of obvious pseudoscience or provide a clear and verifiable source that specifically states this ridiculous notion. The majority of encyclopedic sources does not support this notion, and that includes your sources such as last edition of EB. You yourself confirmed at the Talk:Hindusim that Gayatri mantra of Rig Veda disproves this notion for yourself. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you for elucidating the "reason of this board" to me. I've only been an active participant since its inception and I've always wondered why we created it. It all makes sense now. It is intended for you as an opportunity to waste people's time by requesting sources for statements made on talkpages intended to give you a clue of the topic you choose to troll. "Hinduism" (in EB's "narrow" sense): post-Buddhist traditions (1st century BCE to present); Vedism: pre-Buddhist (1500-600 BC) sacrificial cults. "Christianity": spin-off Judaic sect, 1st century AD to present. "Babylonian religion": Mesopotamian religion, ca. 1800-600 BC. Any questions? dab (𒁳) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the "obvious pseudoscience" and "ridiculuous notion": I have provided enough references to establish that Vedism and Hinduism are considered separate religions, just like Judaism and Christianity are considered separate.

• transition from Vedism to Brahmanism: review of Oberhammer, Gerhard (ed.), Studies in Hinduism. Vedism and Hinduism. (1997), in Indo-Iranian Journal 45 (2002), 59-75.
• transition of Brahmanism to classical (Pauranic) Hinduism: Vijay Nath, From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition, Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50.

Both essays I just cited are unequivocally academic, and give a fair picture of scholarly thinking on the matter. How about you (gasp) read them. And how about this:

ancient religions such as Vedism, Confucianism, Daoism, ancient Greek religions, and Judaism [...] contrast to more recent religious traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, which tend to have undergone more systematic unification by political authority. [9]

Vedism and Babylonian polytheism are pre-Axial. Hinduism and Christianity are post-Axial. Our Hinduism and History of Hinduism articles will reflect the fact. The Gayatri mantra is a pre-Axial verse that was adopted into post-Axial Hindu liturgy. Just like the pre-Axial Pentateuch is still considered a sacred text in post-Axial Christianity. The fact that bits of the Christian Old Testament may date back to the Early Iron Age doesn't make Christianity a religion of the Early Iron Age. Just as survival of a Rigvedic verse into modern Hinduism doesn't make modern Hinduism part of Rigvedic religion. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at the Hinduism talk page, saw how lengthy the discussion was, and came back here. No one's suggesting it's simply "the oldest religion in the world" are they? Obviously there are older religions, for example in Ancient Egypt. There'd have to be substantial context. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, nobody there suggest that its the oldest religion in the world as for example of Egypt or Mesopotamia. Its just a statement of commonly accepted fact, that out of world religions or religions tradition its the earliest, which is obvious as it is obvious that majority of researchers include Vedic religion in the religious tradition of Hinduism, while reserving the 'classical Hinduism' term to a later period. Sorry to disappoint dab, but both Vedism, Brahmanism are included the religious tradition of Hinduism. Dab can you give ANY support to your view that "Hinduism isn't closer to Vedic religion than Judaism or Christianity are to Babylonian religion"? None of your cut and pastes provide any clue to this notion. Wikidās ॐ 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have a point there, although it isn't necessarily required to provide sourcing on discussion pages. And there is substantial academic literature out there which indicates that the Hinduism which exists today is substantially different than that of earlier eras. It could rreasonably be said that, but for the introduction of intervening individuals, Judaism and Christianity are substantially similar to the religion of the Ancient Middle East, and, in fact, at least one edition of Encyclopedia Britannica's article on that subject makes that statement as well. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

John, you do realize that I have accepted from the beginning a version that said the idea is expressed "often"? The problem is that Wikidas insists on presenting it as a fact (the Truth) in Wikipedia's voice. Logically, the citation of RS that oppose the notion are sufficient to preclude such an approach. I have no issues with a phrasing along the lines "Hinduism has often been characterized as the oldest thing since the Big Bang", but of course that wasn't enough for the fanatics. dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will assume that you are just trying to annoy at this point, in order not to insult your intelligence. If you can show that the "majority of researchers" include Vedism as part and parcel of "Hinduism", the problem will be solved. But then not even Britannica does that, much less the academics I have just cited, so I suppose the rest of your "argument" simply collapses along with that claim. The reference to Babylon is a simile to make you understand the problem (assuming that you are actually trying). Obviously Vedism is "in religious tradition of Hinduism", the very same way that Babylonian religion is "in the religious tradition of Judaism and Christianity". Does that make Christianity 4,000 years old? No. And now, by the miracle of human cognition, you might understand that neither is Hinduism aged 7,000 years just because it is in the "tradition of Proto-Indo-European religion". The burden is on you to show there is any mainstream consensus on such a ludicrous idea. I have shown a number of academic and encyclopedic sources that do not take that view as a matter of course. Hence the case is closed. You are still free to point out that "some authors" have claimed this or that quaint notion regarding Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that I should prove anything here, the references to Hinduism as the oldest tradition were given. It is you who should prove that this is a non-scientific fringe theory. We have reached a consensus on the Hindusim page as you have noticed. Of course WP:consensus can change. I am not going to go 'counting' all the academic sources just to satisfy you and to show that since 1995 majority of people writing on Hinduism have used Hinduism as a religious tradition, and according to the consensus we refer to this in the lede as per this quote ' it is the oldest living major religious tradition on earth with root reaching back into the pre-history '. Previous reached consensus was to refer to it as Religious tradition, rather then a religion, unless you feel dissatisfied with it being a 'religious tradition' let us know. In this sense many social and historic phenomena called "Hinduism" is properly addressed. See also: "Vedic religion is seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest extant form." ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.) It is however is not extinct, on a current sect in Hinduism that follows the same rites see: Śrauta. Wikidās ॐ 09:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Dysgenics

There's a new RfC at Dysgenics which might interest some of the editors here. It is related to the RfC that took place at the same article a couple months ago.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to discussion section. Looks every bit as much fun as the rest of our race articles, but I will see if I can dig through it. This might require a trip to the library. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about race. One statement that is always used for support by editors against the theory of human population genetic deterioration is that those who believe it are racist. Although many people who advance dysgenics is racist, the article is not about that at all. Verwoerd (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not about anything, since there is no scientific concept of "dysgenics", only the adjectival form "dysgenic" and then not in the same sense as the purported subject of this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for input and guidance regarding disputed edit

Please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong location. I am looking for suggestions and input regarding an edit I have attempted to make and defend. I attempted to place two sentences in the Nietzsche article, in the section entitled "Nietzsche's Reading". The sentences read as follows:

"It is also possible that he read and was significantly influenced by Max Stirner. However, this theory has a long and controversial history and, while such influence cannot be ruled out, it appears impossible to conclusively establish."

One editor on the page suggested that these two sentences gave undue weight to the theory of Stirner influence on Nietzsche and removed them. He or she also suggested these two sentences constituted support for a Fringe Theory. I provided some 20 citations on the talk page. These citations showed that the theory has a long history, a controversial history, and that it has been debated in both popular and academic settings. At least of six of these references showed clearly that the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner is still current, though it is a view held by a significant minority (including such well known figures as Deleuze).

I do not feel that the inclusion of one sentence mentioning the possibility of influence, and another providing caveats about controversy and the fact that it cannot be established conclusively constitutes undue weight. I also feel that the suggestion that this is a fringe theory is disingenuous. Can anyone provide me with suggestions or guidance here regarding determining whether or not these two sentences constitute undue weight or if they are improperly endorsing a "fringe theory"? Thank you. --Picatrix (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be sorted as a sensible and well-sourced sentence has been added to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Giza pyramid complex

Someone added a large new section on an argument put forward by an Italian professor which if true reverses the sequence of two Pharaohs. The source is an online archive at Cornell University [10] where anyone registered can deposit a paper, it is simply a storage facility and the article has not been published (it's also described in the Great pyramid complex article as inter-disciplinary although Magli seems to be the only article). In other words, it hasn't been published. I've seen some casual dismissal of it in various forums as ignoring almost everything we know about the Giza pyramids. I don't think it even deserves a mention, but it is now over 1/3 of the article. I removed it, with an edit summary saying " (this is only published on line, not yet significant, let's wait until it is formally published to even mention it, take to talk page if anyone disagrees". It was then replaced from an IP address with the edit summary "rv edit by Mr. Da' goal, la' Key. rv back to edit by Kelvin Case". (is that just gibberish or does it mean something?). I removed it again. Another IP editor (again, no history of contributions) replaced it with the edit summary 'rvv'. I don't know if these are the original editor (see his talk page, he seems to think he should have special exceptions), or what, but obviously I will run into 3RR if this continues. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chimpanzee spirituality

Resolved

I've created this myself, and in spite of the catchy title, the claims made in the sources discussed do not seem extravagant to me. But WP:FRINGE has been called upon the article (if by a notorious problem editor), and I would like to offer the status of the article for review. Merging is a possibility, of course, but I think the article could be expanded and would quickly become too heavy for a section at origin of religion. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

never mind, I think I found a good home for this. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe POV being pushed on Midewiwin

Fringe editor Marburg72 has added something here that includes "A prominent feature of the pictorial art of the Algonquians around Lake Superior and Michigan is the use of an hourglass shape to portray the human form. There are many examples of it on birch bark records and in drawings made by Indian Informants. They seem to be derived ultimately from the upper paleolithic figures."

Note the shape 'hourglass' is key to this. Now I have the entire article from Current Archaeology which includes a number of rebuttals (probably the reason Greeman's arguments in 1963 rarely ever surfaced again accept in fringe media). The hourglass argument is specifically refuted, and I added that refutation. Twice he has removed my addition, saying "take the argument against the to the hourglass page. Your argument against Greenman is irreleveant to this topic and so is hourglass.)" (I have no idea what he means by 'against the to'.). Maybe someone can explain why the hourglass shape is relevant when it is used to prove cultural connections with the European Upper Paleolithic, but when I point out that the same article says "A detailed analysis of the comparisons and the accompanying illustrations show Greenman to be even more incorrect. I shall only discuss some critical facts on rock-painting and engraving. The hourglass shape has nothing to do with palaeolithic art," an argument that the hourglass shape shows no such thing is irrelevant?--Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note (and I'm not sure if this is pertenant to this discussion or not, but...), among the reamaining few readers of Mide-wiigwaasabak use the hourglass shape to denote a unifying power, such as a thunderbird or a powerful midew. This is briefly mentioned in Mallery's Picture-writing of the American Indians (New York: Dover Publications) Vol. 1: ISBN 0-486-22842-8. Speculation on my part, but it seems hourglass shape has nothing to do with palaeolithic art, but rather a common theme that developed around the world due to its ease in it representation. Also, because Midewiwin is not just Great Lakes tribes' faith system, but also including those in the Wabanaki, a blanket statement about a specific region's expression without its balance in the rest of the practitioners' expression, do come off as POV. CJLippert (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72 is not a "Fringe Editor". Doug, on the other hand has a website about Fringe Theories that he tries to "push". The stated suggestion from a reliable source states that the hourglass motif has origins in the upper paleolithic - a point that is discussed by Schuster and Carpenter in thier comprehensive study on the subject. Again, Schuster is not a "fringe" writer - and prooves this fact through numerous examples of tribal art. The thunderbird symbolism is surely connected to the hourglass shape - which is relevant to Mide birchbark scrolls. Several examples of the thunderbird and hourglass symbol can be seen from The Midewiwin of the Ojibwa, Kwa-yăk´-in dī´-sha in-dâ´-yaⁿ : I am going into the medicine lodge. Here is another good source for this topic: Hoffman's "The Midewiwin of the Ojibwa". Marburg72 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. However, as an added note, even Hoffman needs scrutiniy. For example, the "Kwa-yăk´-in dī´-sha in-dâ´-yaⁿ." example you give is Gwayak indizhaa endaayaan. (Straightaway, I go to my home.) and not "I am going into the medicine lodge."... though in this context the midewigaan is the "home," but that urgency of doing it so "straightaway" is missing from the translated text in Hoffman. The core of the discussion seems definitely need expansion in the hourglass article and not with the Midewiwin or the Wiigwaasabak articles, though it would seem perfectly fine to link the two together (in the Wikipedia way). As for the specific symbolism found on the Wiigwaasabak, I think the article is too much of a stub and any current addition would look out of place. A better home for now, if setting up for an eventual linking it to the Wiigwaasabak may instead be Ojibwe writing systems under the section stub Ojibwe "hieroglyphs". CJLippert (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The hourglass article is about hourglasses, not motifs that are vaguely shaped like an "hourglass". It's no more appropriate to include this material than to include a discussion of Marilyn Monroe because she had an "hourglass" figure, or to have a section on Hourglass drums because they are also shaped like hourglasses. It would be like discussing crow's feet in an article on crows. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't think Hourglass history is related to the history of hourglasses? How about symbolic use?Marburg72 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An hourglass shape has nothing whatever to do with the history of hourglasses. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saturniancosmology? Who in the world has copied an old version of my site? My website is [11], and at the top says "Archaeological/Skeptical Resources, Critiques of cult archaeology, Roman Britain links". It deals with fringe stuff, but does quite the opposite of pushing it, it hosts articles debunking cult archaeology. I don't want to get into a slanging match, but come on, you support Barry Fell, Gloria Farley, the Davenport Tablets, etc, and by Wikipedia standards that's fringe. Doug Weller (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire hourglass discussion is moved to hourglass page upon recommendation of CJLippert. Dougs attempt at a personal attack in his comments stating "come on, you support Barry Fell, Gloria Farley, the Davenport Tablets, etc." are also completely false. I never stated any such "support" and only support the truth. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.Marburg72 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul is quite correct. None of this discussion has anything to do with the hourglass article. It was CJLippert's suggestion, and while I'm sure it was made in good faith, I also think it was mistaken. This is not to disagree with any of the other points that CJLippert has made above. The symbolism in Native American art should be presented using good sources on pages relevant to that art tradition, i.e. where readers will look for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

This article is in a bit of a state. There is excessive peacockery of anyone that supports PK, while the scope of Psychokinesis has been enlarged to encompass almost any non-physical phenomenon or fringe belief (for example, levitation, miracles, and resurrection (eg. of Lazurus) are included.) There is also a dispute as to whether scientific criticisms should be referred to as "skeptics" and whether their views should be prominent. I think this article could do with more educated eyes on it - especially the list of references, which is longer than the article itself. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Papez Circuit

This article has been messed up by an unregistered editor who seems to be fanatically devoted to the idea that the Papez circuit (a set of brain structures) was actually discovered by somebody else before Papez. It would be okay to mention this, but since it is a minority viewpoint only supported by a single publication, it shouldn't dominate the article. Attempts at discussion has been ignored. Looie496 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? The talk page has no relevant content? I think it needs to be determined from reliable sources what is the standard name, or perhaps refer to it more as the visceral brain. The appropriate sources for medical nomenclature are the subject headings used in medline, in authoritative reviews, and, especially, in the medical dictionariesDGG (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am a relatively new editor. (I have written most of the content of the current "hippocampus" article.) I have now added a brief explanation of the issues to the discussion page for "Papez circuit", including citations. "Papez circuit" is a standard term that has been used in the titles, not to mention the text, of numerous papers dating back at least to the 1950s, as a search in Pubmed or Google Scholar will show.

Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"False prophets" and "false doctrines"

I see an incipient edit war over Philadelphia Church of God, where anonymous users are asserting that Herbert W. Armstrong is proven to have been a false prophet whose beliefs were proven to be false doctrines. I would hate to be blocked for edit warring when I am simply saying (repeatedly) that these types of statements are inherently not verifiable and therefore cannot be presented as factual statements. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, actually, such a statement might be verifiable, if it can be sourced by reliable sources. Having looked at the page, I have trouble figuring out exactly who would be making those statements, and welcome a bit of clarification, which would help in trying to find an NPOV way of adding such a statement to the article. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was merely talking about unsourced statements like "Former followers have called Herbert Armstrong a false prophet," I would not have bothered to come here with my concern. What I am concerned about is unsourced Revealed Truth: "This group traces its roots to the Worldwide Church of God, founded by false prophet Herbert W. Armstrong. It was founded by former Worldwide Church of God ministers to continue Armstrong's false teachings, which were repudiated and proven to be false doctrines by the Worldwide Church of God after its founder's death in 1986." My first revert of the "false prophets" and "proven to be false doctrines" language (with an edit summary saying "statements about "false doctrines", etc., are not WP:V verifiable (inherently)") was reverted with the statement "WWCG has proven doctines to be false"; the anonymous user who reverted my revert did not see fit to leave an edit summary.

In any event, information on the repudiation of Herbert W. Armstrong by the Worldwide Church of God is most appropriately presented in the articles about Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God (where the repudiation is discussed) than in the stubby article about the splinter denomination Philadelphia Church of God. --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question has received a block warning regarding edits on another article. I've watchlisted both pages. Should the activity continue, I may block the IP myself. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

{{tone}}, WP:TRUTH. The classification as "false prophet" can never be neutral, already because it implies that there is such a thing as a "true prophet". --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor at Petroleum

Discussion at Talk:Petroleum#Abiogenic_Petroleum_Origin.

An editor (Wikkidd (talk · contribs)) has begun a campaign to expand the section of the petroleum article which discusses abiogenic oil. He claims that other editors are vandalizing his attempts to push his POV, and will not accept that this issue has been badgered to death many times before (some threads listed at the discussion above, but also at Talk:Peak oil and Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin, among others).

The abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis is fringe (some of the most important evidence includes the facts that all oil so far extracted has biomarkers which are assumed to prove a biological origin, and the progression towards petroleum is clearly visible in bogs->methane->peat->coal->petroleum). Scientific consensus clearly supports a biological origin of petroleum, and this is what the petroleum article presents, using sources which state as much. Any assistance would be appreciated as folks at wp:AIV don't want to touch this (Wikkid has removed sections of sourced content from several articles during the past 24 hours). Thanks, NJGW (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's almost impossible to prove a negative, all I can say is that a search of articles about an organic abiogenesis is far outweighed by the articles that say petroleum results from dead plants. This isn't quite WP:FRINGE, but giving more WP:WEIGHT to it than what's there is not appropriate. The tendentious editing of the article and of the discussion section here and here is getting disruptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Solved for 31 hours... user was blocked for edit warring and wp:TEND. NJGW (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Massively POV fringe theorist biography

Lyn Redwood - the very model of fringe theory propoganda. Presumes that autism causes mercury, and isolates the subject from any and all criticism. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this lady proposes that mercury causes autism. :-) Autism causes mercury, now that would be fringe. Seriously, this a BLP. It needs a bit of toning down, that's all. The "over 25 years" should go from the first sentence ideally in favour of dates when she qualified and where she has worked. We neither endorse the subject's opinions nor debunk them. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a case of WP:COATRACK to me. Much of it is a retread of material already at the Safe Minds and David Kirby (journalist) articles. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed a disputed tag on the Safe Minds article, but an IP editor wants to edit war over it. Can we please get more eyes on the article ? I don't think the article is neutral, but it would be nice to get a third opinion. Plvekamp (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Safe Minds is an awful, awful article. I've gone in and stubbified it, adding sources to make it clear (per WP:FRINGE that the claims are not evidence-based. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oil pulling

A real dustbin of "how to", unreliable sources, irrelevancies, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do any sources say it is used in alternative medicine beyond Ayurvedic medicine? Or is it just a traditional Ayurvedic technique that a small handful of people are promoting today? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now stubified; good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership issues at cold fusion

Hi all.

Currently there are a number of editors at Talk:Cold fusion actively working for New Energy Times to try to get our Wikipedia article to conform to a position that treats the subject with more favor than mainstream secondary sources give it. They are writing articles about editing Wikipedia and publishing them on-line, glowingly praising themselves for getting the article into such a state.

Now the article is protected right now by an administrator who sees the issue as a contest of equals (which it manifestly is not, but I digress). The current version up I think is better than previous versions, but there are some issues.

1. CF-advocates want to remove the pseudoscience category even though that is how it is generally considered.
2. CF-advocates are interested in repeating the claims of various CF researchers as fact and are willing to go into some detail to do it. For example, they want to include an enumeration of all the "successful" cold fusion experiments. Of course, we do not have any secondary sources confirming the analysis of how many experiments were successful, only the articles and books written by CF-proponents. What's more confirmation bias means that we cannot easily characterize how meaningful such enumerations are.
3. CF-advocates want to include "evidence" that has not been independently verified. For example, there is one experiment where a researcher used a mass spectrometer to determine the isotopic abundance of certain atoms. He reported a "non-natural isotopic ratio" that neither characterized its significance nor the confidence level to which this is accurate. No one else has reproduced his results. Nevertheless, the CF-advocates think that this "amazing result" needs to be reported in our Wikipedia article. WP:CBALL does not seem to phase them.

There are more issues, but this gives a decent overview. Basically, there are a number of users asserting ownership over an article which needs to be carefully vetted lest we mislead the reader into thinking there is more to Cold Fusion than meets the mainstream eye.

Thanks in advance.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, do you know of any current mainstream evaluations of CF research? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 DOE report is the best. However, many CF proponents are claiming that their research has "moved beyond" this. This is a claim that has received little to no outside attention. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Money and time are spent chasing cold fusion, but I can confirm at least anecdotally that the international physics community does not take the current research seriously. So far as I have seen, there is no "new physics" theory with any rigorous testing or explanatory power beyond ad hoc postulations. The "no new physics" explanations that I have seen are about as flawed as the claims that hydrinos conform to known laws of physics. If I may dredge up painful past experiences, the degree of paper-cruft in this article reminds me of the recent homeopathy wars - non-notable journals publish weak, irreproducible, uncontrolled, and insignificant results from biased authors, which are trumpeted as representing the full weight of the scientific community. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now the new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion! Amazing. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs to be brought here since there has been a successful mediation that SA chose not to participate in and now the article is going through GA review. There are plenty of editors of all sorts of viewpoints around and virtually no scope for ownership by a clique. If it's true that people have been boasting in publications outside WP of their success in slanting the article, then that is out of order and should be pursued, perhaps through an editor RfC. Re Eldereft's point - it is not at all the same situation as with homeopathy. Articles have been published in some very serious scientific journals - at least I have requested comments already on the status of two of them (founded by Albert Einstein and Max Planck!) and no-one has been able to say that they are minor journals. We have already been told anecdotal evidence about the physics community not taking the hypotheses seriously, but anecdotal evidence is no good to us. As far as I can see there are two reasons why this should be seen as an "alternative scientific hypothesis" rather than pseudoscience. 1) there is a US navy team actively researching the field and publishing papers and 2) there is a recent book that overviews the whole subject, issued by a reputable scientific press. Homeopathy can get nowhere near as close to respectability. Please note that I am not pushing this topic. I have no opinion on it whatsoever since I do not have the necessary physics background. My only concern is for accurate representation of scholarly sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The mediator was pretty bad. We should try to get more competent people to become mediators. Anyway, mediation is not binding at all unless the users agree to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough people agreed to the mediation for it to proceed. Perhaps you might offer the mediator some constructive feedback to help him improve his skills. What do you suggest we do to try and get "more competent people" to become mediators? And do you mean "more people who are competent" or "people who are more competent"? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to mediation, I'm only objecting to the claim that somehow because I was not involved in mediation I'm somehow unable to comment on the state of the article. I have made my opinions known to this mediator and from his responses I'm not expecting him to improve any time soon. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Akhilleus's question: yes the DOE report is a very important source. Some research has continued since 2004. There is a 2007 book (by Edmund Storms) that appears to be a reliable source that could be drawn on alongside reviews of the book. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storms' book is not exactly the best source we can get per WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's published by World Scientific. Our article says that is a top scientific publisher. My main concern is for consistency in defining reliable sources. Do we have any basis to discount this scientific text? One major advantage of it being published by a mainstream academic publisher is that it will be reviewed by other scientists. I already said I thought reviews of the book also constitute good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific publishers are wont to publish a variety of niche-market books that are not under strict editorial control. I'm not saying that Storms isn't a reliable source for explaining what cold fusion proponents think about the "current state of cold fusion research", but we should not view this book as an unbiased source of information on the subject just because of who the publisher is. Publishers are ultimately out to make money, and if a market can be demonstrated for a book, they will publish regardless of content. They do not vet what they publish unless they think it will affect sales. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So no, you cannot give me any reason why we should discount this scientific text. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just gave you a reason. You have to consider the author. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That whole article is a bit messy... the lead doesn't even say what cold fusion is (see this old version for an example of what would be a more informative lead). That should probably be followed by a section on fusion in general and why the scientific community generally doesn't accept cold fusion, followed by a section on the arguments for it, and then the history (as it's virtually a trivia section in this case). Just my take on the layout to help it approximate the scientific consensus. NJGW (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, SA, I agree that it is the author and the publisher that make a scientific text a reliable source. Storms has a PhD in a relevant subject and a career researching with the US Navy. That tends towards acceptability, doesn't it? On the other hand something that weighs heavily against the book is that the publisher's blurb is an excerpt in a review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. I am going to be guided all the way by general principle. I do not want to see this article establishing a precedent that will weigh against a scholarly attitude to sources in other articles. It is not up to us as WP editors to rule that World Scientific are in error publishing this book, even if that is our private opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about it being an "error", it's about it being a parochial and intentionally one-sided presentation of Storms' ideas. I'm not saying that the source isn't "acceptable". I'm merely saying that it is not the best source for basing the article's text. Wikipedia editors are supposed to keep WP:REDFLAG in mind when considering sources. I'm afraid you haven't really taken that to heart. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. The cold fusion article is true to the DOE report. The DOE did say that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, whatever the "average scientific lab" thinks. It is against policy to represent the views of non-expert that don't publish in reliable journals: there is no reason to represent the views of the average lab. Unorthodox scientific theories deserve fair representation on wikipedia as this ArbComm decision makes clear. Let's judge edits on the ground of behaviors and policies, not on the ground of intent and opinions. It would be an issue if I wanted that the article show cold fusion as demonstrated scientifically, as I believe, but I'm not asking for that. I only want wikipedia to present what reliable sources are saying, as we all should.

Also, what evidence is there of "article ownership" ? There are so many editors who contributed to this article, and I've always encouraged them to do so, provided that they follow wikipedia policies. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again re the Storms book: I don't think there is any precedent for a scientific book to be deemed unreliable even in the circumstances of WP:REDFLAG. If you can prove me wrong, fine. I really do not want this case to set a precedent that we can judge for ourselves what is or isn't scholarly simply on our impression of a book's contents. BTW, "one-sided" is to be expected in the context of academic disagreement. The usual remedy is to balance with an opinion on the opposite side. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

This fringe theory article is being hijacked by a user who insists that the article is slanted due to the scientific view being presented as the majority view. He is now tagging the page as POV, without giving any justification, while he accuses all editors who disagree with him of being the same person. He refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page, and is increasingly rude to other editors. He appears to be a single purpose account, apart from one recent edit to another article that was vandalism [12]. Could a few people have a look at the page and weigh in with their thoughts on the discussion page? Thanks. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah

There is currently a discussion on the talk page of the above article as to whether the article should be exclusively devoted to content regarding the Jewish perspective on the books in question, or whether it should deal with the books from the perspectives of all interested parties. As the subject relates to basically deal roughly with the idea of undue weight, which is the primary interest of this noticeboard, I thought that some of the editors here might be interested in offering their opinions on the article's talk page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Pentateuch has also been recreated as a POV fork. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yamna culture

To dab et al. user:Barefact continues his old pan-Turkist campaign, this time on Yamna culture, discarding the Kurgan hypothesis as a specimen of "19th-century European nationalism". My edits are summarily reverted. The guy has the habit of content forking which results in such pages as Kangly (alongside the better-established Pecheneg) or Turkic Khaganate (alongside our traditional page Göktürks), so it's only reasonable to anticipate similar developments in this case. Please keep an eye on the page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Below is my response on Talk:Yamna culture

My dear Ghirlandajo, please do not assault me, and all all the scholars who do not support the infamous Kurgan theory, with your "pan-Turkist fringecruft". You should not call scholars like Colin Renfrew, Bruce Lincoln, Mario Alinei, G. Erdosy, Meinander, Nuñez, and many more "pan-Turkists". As a scholar said, "After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980)." You should not use calling names as an argument. I will gladly attend the WP:FTN, "Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", and this theory've got plenty of the mainstream discussions. The conserns of the article bias must be discussed, referenced, and resolved, not steamrolled with soundbite declarations. Barefact (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As the number of scholars and theories on IE origin subject inside the mainstream keeps growing, the subjects are being discussed, and the different attributions of Pit Grave Culture do not fall under Fringe theories. I suggested [[13]] to bring unbiased balance to the article, and seconded the editor [[14]] and [[15]] observation that the article, as it is, is a primitive propaganda of Gimbutas theory. Instead of advertizing exclusively Gimbutas viewpoint, the article should attend to what makes an archeological culture a culture: a complex of traits that make it unique and different.

And please, dear Ghirlandajo, please don't call me with this term "guy". It is not sweet Barefact (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

comment. Unfortunately this is not the first time. You can read the page on Ossetian Language or here: [[16]]. I think user Dab knows what is going on with these fringe theories best. --Nepaheshgar 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This [[17]] looks like another fringe pusher. --Nepaheshgar 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell's bells, but if this article isn't about the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia in some time. I think we need some extra eyes here. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh -- the spelling "Türkic" is a dead giveaway barefact's at it again. I suppose his unsourced stuff should be blanked without further ado. This would amount to about the same as programming a vandalbot to blank all additions that contain the string "Türkic". I guess that FACT NEEDED (talk · contribs) is just a sock of barefact's. It may be about time to escalate this and officially promote Barefact to "Ararat arev" status. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another barefact hotspot is Turkic alphabets, which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script. I had missed yet another revert of his back in June. See Talk:Turkic alphabets for the more than year-long history of this piece of idiocy. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done at this stage? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I appreciate your inconvenience to tolerate opposing facts and present unbiased positions, but the subject is fringe vs non-fringe, and the criteria is "theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream". Instead of discussing your personal feelings, I suggest that a necessity to limit Pit Grave to solely Gimbutas in the article be justified, and the views of the above listed alternate theories scholars be refuted with appropriate references. The same rule should apply to me or any other editor who finds the present Pit Grave artuicle biased in favor of exclusively "European colonialism of the 19th century" concept, see citation above. Barefact (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no such evidence in the edit history of Turkic alphabets to support the statement "which he keeps turning into a confused content fork of Old Turkic script". I see ONE edit by him to add the Turkic alphabets link, and that's it. Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face. You want to prove Barefact has a pro-turkish agenda, show the REAL facts, they're certainly clear enough on that topic. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to look through the history of Turkic alphabets, which is different than Turkic alphabet. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"the edit history of Turkic alphabets"? As in, here? ThuranX, if you see "ONE edit by him and that's it", you probably need to have your eyes examined. I do not remember we have interacted before, so I am somewhat surprised to be presented with vitriol like "Hyperbole, your favorite tactic, DBachmann, once again falls flat on its face." Would it be hyperbole to say that you have just made an utter fool of yourself by trying to take a cheap shot at me for reasons best known to yourself? dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another disruptive editor on an anti-Kurgan hypothesis mission? Sigh... - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

strange alliances, sometimes. Rokus01 is shooting at the Kurgan hypothesis because he wants the Dutch to be the Proto-Aryans, while Barefact is in the same game because he wants everyone east of the Don to be Ancient Türks. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

it appears that barefact has just lost the monopoly on the "Türk" spelling -- enter MagyarTürk (talk · contribs)! dab (𒁳) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence linked from this section will suffice to permaban barefact. His protracted campaign of edit-warring, dedicatied violation of MOS and CFORK by insisting to duplicate Old Turkic script at Turkic alphabets (well after he had been told that the latter clearly needs to redirect to Turkic alphabet), and the protracted and incorrigible insertion of fringecruft and Godwinian rants into article space,

after WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). -- note how the "reference" that Gimbutas is a quasi-Nazi is esentially "see her life's work, passim". In other words, "here's the 'canonic' academic mainstream. We at Wikipedia (i.e. User:Barefact) think it's colonial nationalist bullshit".

and finally, if that isn't enough, suspected sockpuppetry[18] (may require a RCU). At this point, this isn't a case for WP:FTN, but for taking admin action. Hence I suggest the case should be presented at WP:AN. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Over the years, Barefact has exhausted my plentiful resources of good faith and patience. I don't believe that Wikipedia benifits from his work anymore. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for those who may not know that, the above quotation on Gimbutas and the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors is taken from Mario Alinei. Please don't extend to me a credit for it, it is only a citation from a leading scholar. Barefact (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mario Alinei is as fringy as any scholar can get.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

M. Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory -- the place where crackpots of all creeds and races meet. dab (𒁳) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you recognize the name. Now all we have to do is to cite a professional, not even necessarily "mainstream", reference that calls him a crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic. That would justify the "Fringe_theories" label. Without a reference, sorry, it is just expression of an individual POV.

The other point that I was making is that there is a constellation of IE theories, a good indicator that there is no common view, as is forcefully (and primitively) expressed in the article. In addition, not even a mainstream in Russia, but the whole IE industry totally ignores the Gimbutas theory, in my opinion just because Baltics were a captured ethnicity and could not be allowed to lead the IE movement, and that situation has not changed since 1940es. So, an official doctrine in Russia is different, it is trodded by everybody in the RAofS and its institutions without any exceptions, exactly like it was in 1940es, but the Russian mainstream is a part, and a huge part, of the global IE mainstream. Maybe Russian concept is a fringe too, but where is a reference to Russian crackpot? They, in their encyclopedias, may treat the Gimbutas theory as fringe and crackpot, they have to trod the path, but what is the reason for WP to trod a path? Is not the beauty of WP that its motto is a respect, and unbiased tolerance, and abscence of racially-motivated coercion? We already - not always peacefully - rephrased some articles to bring a less radical discourse on IE theories, they are a good example for a consent, and that's what was called here [19] and here [20] on the Talk:Yamna culture page. No need fof exaltations and name calling. Barefact (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding an WP:RS statement that Alinei is a "crackpot, fringy or a similar charachteristic" presupposes that a WP:RS and mainstream source would consider his arguments for the Paleolithic Continuity Theory as notable or serious enough to mention. The way he refers to Chomsky (whose theory has notoriously failed to explain what it was made up to explain, i.e. word order), probably disqualifies his arguments for a serious discussion in the eyes of most linguists, but those are just my two cents.--Berig (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alinei is quotable, within WP:DUE, since he published academically. Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts. Alinei's PCT is notable enough for a dedicated article, I suppose, but it is far too eccentric to be even mentioned at unrelated articles, let alone mentioned prominently. PCT is bona fide WP:FRINGE, the guideline is intended precisely for cases like this. incidentially, the claim that Gimbutas was a Baltic nationalist would need some backup too. Notably, her hypothesis does not locate the PIE Urheimat in her own country, a feature which (understandably) is exceptionally rare among nationalist "theorists". In fact, Gimbutas' allegiance was to her sex, not her nation, and admittedly her later work is far too second-wave-feminist to be taken at face value. She is an icon of Wiccans and die-hard-matriarchs, not of Baltic nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what this phrase mean "Barefact, however, goes around touting soundbites from Alinei as facts." or what it implies. Note, I quoted the phrase on the discussion page, not in the article. That Pit Grave is associated with Turkic in PCT is not a "soundbite", it is a logical and inherent part of the historical sequence in PCT, and has nothing to do with Chomsky. The idea of earlier differentiation was floating around a century before Chomsky was born. Again, to deride any IE theory you do not like you need a reference. Not being a linguist, I do not qualify for a judgement, but I can read linguists' works, and use them as reference in WP. So should anybody else, it is a rule of WP, is it a problem of giving a professional reference instead of POV soundbites?

I do not think that this is a place to evaluate or resolve truths and unthruths of all confrlicting IE theories. The theorists certainly can't do it. I would not judge the demic theory of Renfrew, the point is that it does not allow for any invasion theory, including Gimbutas'. I did not hear any derision of Renfrew in this dicussion, but bunning demic from Pit Grave implies that demic is a crackpot or whatever is the other derisive terminology used in this discussion. Once again, I do not mind calling Renfrew a crackpot, as long as it is supported by means other than force, intimidation, and name calling. Please supply references for Renfrew crackpoting, and then deride him, Alinei or whoever else you desire to ban. Barefact (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime

The section "Statistics" seems to be one huge original synthesis. Article has been tagged as NPOV violation since March 2007. I found it in the backlog, where there are many other fringey articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It does have WP:N problems, but I wouldn't describe it as original synthesis. Some degree of editorial discretion is inherently necessary in determining what content to include and what to skip. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs a reference discussing "race and crime" head-on. Just citing various statistics and pulling a "race and crime" analysis from them is pure WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A good chunk of the sources do discuss the association between race and crime in general terms; it needn't be explicit in the publication title. Of course, as with any article, we inevitably must exercise some minimal discretion in deciding which statistics to include. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

um, yes? you just said that? The question is that of establishing notability as a stand-alone article. Once that has been established, of course also non-dedicated sources may be used to document a point. Just because someting "has been discussed" doesn't mean it's an encyclopedic topic in and of itself. Hence my suggestion to merge this into a wider discussion of Biological criminology. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the best thing to do would be to delete this article. The Statistics section is random junk, and there is little of value in the rest of it. The topic may deserve an article, although it would be quite difficult to write a good and balanced one, but the current version doesn't even provide a useful starting point.Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If we carry out the merger that dab suggests, we can add a tiny bit to the sections on the early schools of criminology in the Criminology article. Those sections will then need some further work. Currently, positivism is thrown around with abandon and Emile Durkheim is unsourcedly accused of social determinism. The stats section is just rubbish I agree. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

somewhat predictably, we get editors at that article emphasizing the dates preferred in medieval Talmudic philology, trying to tone down actual academic consensus by blatant editorializing ("the Talmud says 1200 BC, however, some confused modern scholars are unsure about it and find it difficult to accept"). Any article introducing academic mainstream position in a "however" phrase following some historical or eccentric minority position is clearly in WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE territory. Of course (as always in these cases), Talmudic philology should also be discussed, in proper terms, DULY, and at the pertinent articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A look at Special:Contributions/Meieimatai shows that this is not an issue isolated to a single article. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism wikiproject might be able to find an expert to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need an expert on Judaism here. We need an expert on WP:5P. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Stone

I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

complete nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit seems to be a view with sourced information. If the Hindus think its their temple or have some connection, nothing is wrong with adding views with sources. --BabaTabla (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)