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!

Colloidal silver‎

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It ain't over yet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They must be real scientists. They can't tell the difference between 'principal' and 'principle'. Paul B (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, what does it matter? Whether or not they are scientists seems totally irrelevant. They may be pig farmers, and the criteria for inclusion of their work or thoughts is the same, so shouldn't it first be determined if they are a source or if they are notable? So far as I've seen, these guys look like obvious cranks and I doubt they've got anything relevant to say. Anywho, just my opinion. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to fight "all infectious and degenerative processes" by using collodial silver to make these naughty processes "inoperative in highly organized and energized colloidal milieus catalyzing highly evolved redox reactions." Can't argue with that.--Δζ (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

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

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

No, it's not fringe. It's currently discussed in leading scientific journals by respected scholars (for example, see this series from early 2009 in the journal Nature: doi:10.1038/457786a, doi:10.1038/457788a, [1]). --06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I tend to agree with dab on this one: the topic isn't really fringe, but one of the positions really seems to be going contrary to mainstream thought and be in the fringe department, as some of the following refs demonstrate:[2][3][4][5] [6][7][8][9]. This last one is more specific to Pioneer Fund-related research: [10].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is bizarre, and just an example of how one needs to be particularly wary of people like Mathsci who throw around the fringe epithet without supporting documentation. 52 notable psychologists who have been involved in this research signed a letter supporting The Bell Curve. The research there is controversial, but the people who promote it are not fringe in the field of psychology - anything but. I happen to be reading Richard Nisbett's book Intelligence and How To Get It. Nisbett argues that the environment accounts for the widely-recognized differences in IQ test results among ethnic groups. Nisbett recognizes that many, and perhaps most of the people studying this area disagree with him, and also recognizes that there's substantial room for disagreement. He starts Chapter 2 by saying "not so long ago, scientists who study IQ more or less agreed that intelligence is mostly heritable...". Calling an entire block of researchers fringe is highly disrespectful POV-pushing. II | (t - c) 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Except that the book The Bell Curve was fringe, POV-pushing, from the people who brought you Mankind Quarterly — the Pioneer Fund. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• You're asking me to buy into a conspiracy theory that all of these 52 psychologists (and many less notable scientists; those are all highly notable) who've done this research are just secret racists trying to keep the black man down. I don't buy it. I don't think Paul E. Meehl (or Nisbett) is twisting facts and falsifying data to make people think racism is OK. These people are actually taking a big risk to stick to the facts as they've found them. Personally, I've always been more of a fan of the Carol Dweck model of flexible intelligence, but the fact remains that there is data supporting a hereditarian view that one can pull up. I don't like the fact that intelligence tests have found that blacks score about a standard deviation below whites any more than you do (The_bell_curve#American_Psychological_Association_task_force_report - see page 93 of the APA report). I think there are ethical issues with spreading this information and saying it is genetic (I largely wrote the stereotype threat section of stereotype), but I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest, as you are, and start trying to malign the names of eminent psychologists with emotional fallacies. If you bring anything concrete to the table, I'm happy to see it, but I highly doubt you can bring more than Richard Nisbett has already brought to bear. UPDATE: Having finished Nisbett's book last night, I feel like I should revise my remarks - he doesn't think the hereditarian position is tenable. However, I still think it's far from a fringe view. II | (t - c) 06:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• When you're done beating up that poor old straw man, try reading "The Bell Curve#Criticisms", then "The Bell Curve Debate", and try to find a copy of The Bell Curve Wars. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

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

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

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

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. The contribution history[11] of Zanze123 needs heavy scrutiny, especially at Arnold Ehret, Viktoras Kulvinskas, Ann_Wigmore, (it keeps going) Morris Krok, Norman W. Walker, Walter_Siegmeister, (wait, there's more!) Carlos Brandt, Hilton_Hotema, and Kenneth Hsu. This is one of the worst (if not the worst) walled gardens of fringe I've ever seen here. Wow. Just wow. These articles are almost exclusively cited to self-published books and websites, and largely consist of glowing praise for the subjects of the article. I'd nominate many of these for AFD if the climate there wasn't so... unreasonable. I'm going to start tagging the articles for cleanup and notability. Skinwalker (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You misunderstand. The history of fruitarianism is relevant, but must be cited to independent reliable sources. On the second point (notability), we have guidelines to follow, so it's not simply at editor's whim. Yes, there is some leeway, especially when the notability is borderline; but it's not as mercurial as you seem to be portraying. Next, we don't strive to "balance" articles, but to provide a neutral point of view. That means mainstream science is the primary focus, with things outside the mainstream (aka fringe) being pointed out as such. Finally, please remember to assume good faith. We're not out to destroy the fruitarianism articles, but to make sure they reflect neutral, encyclopedic articles. Wikipedia doesn't allow promotional material, and strongly discourages first-party publications as they've not been fact-checked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fruitarianism : Continued

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

If we don't have a solid definition, where does it end? Any article that mentions fruit in your diet? That's why these things need to be narrowly defined. Also, we don't simply name-drop anyone who has a relation to the subject. They need to have works primarily about fruitarianism to be relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article rawfoodism features many many different definitions. Therefore, there is no reason why the fruitarianism article should be any different. It ends when all main definitions, such as now, are included in order to be comprehensive. Or, have a biased, one-sided definition, that readers will simply laugh at, and scorn Wikipedia for being so narrow-minded. Since fruitarianism is a sub-set of veganism, there are few books only on the subject. Therefore it is not unreasonable nor irrelevant to cite books in which fruitarianism is significantly mentioned but where the book is not wholly about fruitarianism. A book about nutrition which discusses fruitarianism cannot be said to be irrelevant, for example. Zanze123 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not need to be solely about fruitarianism... but they do need to discuss the subject in some depth (ie a passing comment in a diet book is not enough... but a section in a diet book on it would be.)... and we need to maintain a proper context when we use sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If the history of fruitarianism is relevant, the quoting prominent advocates of fruitarianism in history is relevant. Should an article about Thomas Edison never quote from any of Edison's published writings because although reliable, such quotes would not be independent. If so, all quotations from all figures mentioned on Wikipedia, should be deleted as being not independent. The guidelines for notability are not an editor's whim, but a group of editors who can club together in the name of 'consensus'. Balance is a synonym of neutral point of view, of course. If you believe a neutral point of view means having a greater emphasis on science, then that's not neutral, because science is only one system of thought. Even so, listing various kinds of sub-diet is not a scientific phenomenon but a cultural one. If fringe articles are not allowed, delete all fringe articles on Wiki- there seem to be several hundred thousand depending on the definition of fringe. If you refer to fringe points, or quotes, discuss them on the talk page for discussion, amendment and or removal, rather than deleting entire sections without discussion, in the name of 'neutrality' as has been happening. "We're not out to destroy the fruitarianism article" - those campaigning for the reversal of the article to September, clearly are - as then, all points in the article in support of fruitarianism e.g. Alan Walker, South African Journal, quotes by prominent fruitarians, quotes by doctors like Gabriel Cousens M.D., can be destroyed. So, if you are not out to destroy the article, don't revert it but improve it, through discussion. Enough people have commented already on the article being lacking in neutrality. First party publications can be fact checked just like any other source. Wiki is not the place for promotion. Quoting a first party or indeed third party publication does not automatically equate with promotion. But it can and often is. It depends how promotion is defined. Wikipedia is full of promotion. An article on General Electric or General Motors, is in itself a form of promotional material. Where is the 'good faith' when editors of this article have deleted entire sections without any reason or discussion, and where contributions in favor of fruitarianism are deleted is not good faith. Those who delete or campaign for deletion, don't appear to ever contribute besides deletions. Zanze123 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When a noteable person who has written a book about fruitarianism e.g. I Live On Fruit by Essie Honiball is quoted, then it can be said that the person is fringe, and therefore the person is not notable, or the person wasn't a scientist, or it wasn't a 3rd party source. So Wiki's guidelines and the approach of editors, can be circular so that nothing aside from science (1 system), is ever included. That is not neutrality. That is mass bias to 1 system of thought based on the artificialistic fallacy. Zanze123 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

sigh First, I suggest you drop the "all quotations from all figures mentioned on Wikipedia, should be deleted as being not independent" stuff. You're mixing up quotations and sourcing facts. Also, you may want to condense your comments. Such long spiels aren't likely to engender folks.

As to, "First party publications can be fact checked just like any other source," Wikipedia is not the place to do the fact-checking itself. That's why we prefer secondary sources, as they can draw the conclusions we are not allwowed to.

Finally, if you're so determined that bias rules Wikipedia, I have to ask what you hope to accomplish here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No spiels, just answers. Facts must be supported from reliable secondary sources (academic, media etc). Quotations from notable figures should be sourced from primary or secondary sources, depending on context. Secondary sources can drawn conclusions. First party sources can also. Bias may not rule, but can exist, where articles are not neutral. 'Fruitarian' article needs more focus on history and culture, like at Rawfoodism, as well as science. 'Fringe' articles should be considered for notability on a case basis, not just 'consensus' basis. Neutrality is paramount. Zanze123 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiplicative calculus and Non-Newtonian calculus

A couple of articles set off some redflags for me: Multiplicative calculus and Non-Newtonian calculus. Actually, it's mostly multiplicative calculus that I am presently concerned with. User:Smithpith (also moonlighting as an IP), is (admittedly) Michael Grossman, the author of a book on so-called "non-Newtonian calculus" (essentially an obvious and fairly common idea repackaged as though it were a fancy new "non-Newtonian" idea). The articles, and their proponents, seem to have all of the hallmarks of a fringe theory. In particular, there is the question of how these articles should be categorized. (Should they be in Category:Calculus? Does that violate WP:ONEWAY?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get Non-Newtonian Calculus deleted a while back. It's not wrong; but it's a change of variables that any first year calculus student could do, presented as if it were a major piece of new research. See the embarrassing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus. Other articles associated with this garbage are Multiplicative calculus, Product integral, and List of derivatives and integrals in alternative calculi. I've just gone through and de-linked them from, well, just about everything. I have to do that periodically, because he (Michael Grossman) keeps coming back. Ozob (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that the discussion was embarrassing. I was involved in that discussion, and I don't find your conclusion self-evident, and you don't say what is embarrassing about it. I reviewed the discussion. You claimed that the article was POV and the topic was non-notable. I agree that it was POV, but that is not a reason for deletion. It seemed to me then that the topic was at least marginally notable, under the Wikipedia notability standard: the topic had received significant coverage in reliable sources that were independent of the subject. I am quite open to the possibility that the case was wrongly decided, but I don't think you have presented any cogent argument that it was. I wish you would try, and I wish you would realize that your personal embarrassment at the outcome is not sufficient to discredit the result.

All this is separate from the ongoing problems with these articles, which are that Michael Grossman has been inflating the importance of the topic, creating a walled garden, linkspamming, and so on. That is a separate issue and should be addressed separately. —Dominus (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You and I still disagree, then. I agree that I didn't make a very good argument to start with—I assumed that the non-notability was obvious. I still believe that my study of MathSciNet, Zentralblatt, and Google Scholar show that this topic is not notable. And I still believe that keeping non-Newtonian calculus around is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

My disagreement is really very mild. It would not take much to sway me, but you have not provided much. For example, you pointed out that the topic does not appear, or appears very thinly, under the name "Non-Newtonian Calculus" in Zentralblatt. This is a good argument if you are proposing a rename, but not if you are proposing a delete, since all it shows is that the name is wrong. You keep mentioning your embarrassment, which does not weigh on the issue at all. —Dominus (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it appear in any non-trivial fashion on MathSciNet or Google Scholar. I just now tried it in CiteSeer, and I found nothing at all. If the work were notable it would have non-self citations. It doesn't. I think I have amply demonstrated that their work has received no reception at all from the professional mathematical community. Nor has it received recognition from the recreational mathematical community, nor even from the crackpot community. It is entirely insignificant, and by having an article on it at all I believe we are granting it a notability which it has not earned. As regards the name, I am using the name that Grossman and Katz gave to their own work. I looked for citations to their work and for other work using the same name. What else should I search for?

As regards the issue of embarrassment, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not personally embarrassed by the presence of the article, because I have consistently fought it. No, I believe that the rest of Wikipedia—and in particular those who have argued to keep the article—should be embarrassed. The article is mathematical snake oil, and every page view shames those who would keep it. The only honorable path is to delete it. Ozob (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, User:Charles Matthews has pointed out that product integral is classical mathematics. The other three articles are not. Ozob (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Charles Matthews' suggestion to merge the relevant material into product integral is a good one. —Dominus (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really fringe, just unimportant. It's basically a pretty simplistic application of the idea of functional transforms. Looie496 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a fringe theory, but using the encyclopedia to promote a non-notable idea could be an issue relevant to this board. A solution needs to be found that accurately reflects the consensus view of mathematicians. The "no consensus" verdict of the AfD left open the possibility of merger(s). Any mileage in it? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Multiplicative calculus. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A consensus needs to happen somehow. This silly nonsense has a way of creeping across the rest of our articles on basic undergraduate mathematics, and suddenly Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat starts to look relevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough they've stuck their book into wikipedia, I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but it annoys me that every so often he starts up again sticking linkspam into a whole pile of articles like average and exponential growth which are just not relevant enough. Does this really have to crop up again and again and again? Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The right solution to a problem editor, I think, is to see if we can encourage productive edits instead of destructive ones. Unfortunately, User talk:Smithpith suggests that he's a single-issue editor who doesn't communicate well. It's possible that the IP editor is a different person who will be more communicative, so someone should try talking to him. (I don't think I would do a good job.) If he doesn't respond, then the next step is to sanction him somehow. I don't know what would be appropriate in this case. I read about what to do with vandals last time non-Newtonian calculus came up, but it didn't quite seem to fit. The edits aren't the usual kind of disruption. Ozob (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts

There is currently a lengthy discussion (and edit war) at Sexual orientation change efforts over the inclusion of position statements by Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality. Gabbe (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Devraha Baba

Another siddha who supposed lived for several hundred years before his death in 1989. Personally, I'm dubious. Article is up for WP:DYK review at this time. Mangoe (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* What's to be dubious about? I myself have also lived for several hundred years before my death in 1989... and quite some years afterward as well, you may have noticed. Gads, people can say anything and expect it to be taken seriously, there's no linkage to "truth" or "fact" in their minds, nor apparently in their believers'. Flavr-ade with an almond-y bite to it, anyone? There's a comet to catch! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this is footnoted to the "Journal of Environmental Peace" which claims an awesome list of Nobel laureates among its editorial board [12]. It's rather difficult to take this at face value. Paul B (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Throwing in the towel... but which way?

Went to see 2012 last night, and witnessed cities collapsing into bottomless black empty gulfs while nearby supervolcanoes vomit endless magma and rock and ash into the skies to start a new Ice Age, and the superheated Earth's crust melts as floods cover the Himalayas, and 27 days later the survivors see sunny blue skies with pretty white clouds and a bright future ahead for them... WTF? And then I come back and look at the incredible stuff here that credulous people manage to cram down their credulators, and I think about giving up on reason. But I forget how the creed of unreason is supposed to run: is it "Everything is True, Nothing is Forbidden!" — or is it "Nothing is True, Everything is Forbidden!" — or should I just stick with the old traditional "Ia! Ia! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" for the ease of memorization? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So, to which actual article does this ejaculation of emotion refer? Paul B (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nibiru collision and friends, I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm ditchin' and hitchin' a ride
I got my Sitchin guide
He's my Nibiru guru...
Planet X Marks the Spot!
          —Doctor Steel           — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think the Lovecraft line is easier to memorize, though, go right ahead. In my, ahem, congregation, we just shorten it to "Cthulhu fhtagn". John Carter (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone tell the survivors that it will be sometime before they get a good wifi connection, and Wikipedia won't be available to fill their days? It is amazing how people comfortably use technology and fly over oceans, yet revert to voodoo for their personal beliefs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression they brought along a copy of Wikipedia, and maybe Jimbo too. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame

A new editor is editing the article to reflect a more controversial, fringe position than has previously been maintained and agreed. Could other editors please review and respond. Verbal chat 10:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Our article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident could probably use some watchful eyes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of watchful eyes. The article is being targeted by numerous ranting IPs, socks and general-purpose nutcases. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if the article had been slashdotted. But I checked, and Slashdot seems to be innocent. Hans Adler 09:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked this case specifically, but Google News frequently links to news-related Wikipedia articles nowadays. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Watching the article. One thing I noticed was that the George Monbiot piece in The Guardian is accurately quoted, as far as that goes, but the balance of his text was not reflected. From our article you would miss the fact that only one third of Monbiot's piece was about the incident itself and the remaining two thirds a scathing attack on climate change deniers. How do people think this ought to be corrected? I would say that Monbiot's view is notable, but we may be up against the news/op-ed distinction. This could also have BLP implications because the email authors are named; ought there to be a post on BLPN? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We need more watchful eyes on this article. Unfortunately, fringe theorists tend to be more dedicated in promoting their agenda than those who don't care about fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is already on the BLPN, though the response has been disappointing. In response to Hans, the reason why the article looks like it's being slashdotted is because right-wing bloggers are linking to it and denouncing it as an example of "liberal" perfidy. They want the article to be called "Climategate" or "Climate Research Unit scandal" (to which the article was moved before being move-protected), they want to call the scientists criminals and they want to hail the hacker as a heroic whistleblower, in contradiction of what all the reliable sources report; some don't even accept that there was a hack in the first place. It's a festival of OR, blatant POV-pushing and batshit craziness. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, still more eyes on this article. And more discussion on the talk page - and that includes all those who are battling to keep the article neutral. Article is racing out of control and suffering from rampant recentism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Socks of various banned users are swarming all over this one, so if it's new and unnaturally familiar with wikimarkup, policy etc, let us know or block on sight if you can. I've done a couple yesterday and some more today. Moreschi (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

84.72.61.221 around a week and arguing like a regular. To check out? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Type diets

A fairly new editor Jrgilb (talk · contribs · logs) seems intent on reverting any indication that blood-type diets are pseudoscience and unsupported by empirical data. Your input and participation are requested at blood type and its talk page, and at blood type diet. - Nunh-huh 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rom Houben

This new article, about the Belgian man thought to be comatose for years but now supposedly communicating, could use all the eyes it can get. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Super chimney

Super chimney appears to be a crackpot variation of solar updraft tower, the latter being a legitimate solar power scheme which at least has been tested in a pilot plant. It has been suggested to merge the former into the latter, but perhaps an AFD is in order. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, would be good to get this one deleted... Johnfos (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Not totally insane, just "inadequately informed" shall we say. Elementary principles of fluid dynamics show that it can't work (hint: the Darcy-Weisbach equation is applicable only for incompressible fluids). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Honest to goodness, I swear I read this premise, with illos, as a story in an old SF magazine (1940s-50s Astounding or similar), where the chimneys end up at least getting the smog out of city streets. I mean, it's that far from even being new. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Magnet therapy

Magnet therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in need of a little TLC from WP:MEDRS and WP:VALID. Please do not simply revert back to the last version by me, as some of the new editor's material is good. On the other foot, magnets do not have different mood-altering effects depending on which pole is facing your susceptibility chakra, MRI and TCMS are off-topic, and there is plenty of placebo effect in animal studies. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. Reverting to your last version might be necessary; we can then re-add the new (poor) cites in their proper context. To see how much this article has degraded, compare 2/0's version with the current one; the changes are supported by a handful of terrible cites, such as this one with 10 patients, cf Cochrane reviews. Phil153 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of channelled texts

This article is full of non notable texts and unsourced statements. Please add to your watch list and contribute to discussion on the talk page. Verbal chat 11:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god. Not Jane Roberts again. Does this list even need to exist? I'm very tempted to AFD: there seem to be no clear grounds for inclusion, no verified material, etc. Moreschi (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... at best this should be retitled: claimed_to_be_channelled (cmd-click)">claimed_to_be_channelled (ctrl-click)">List of texts ''claimed'' to be channelled... but that does not resolve the issue of what the criteria for inclusion is. There might well be some notable texts in the list... but if so, that notability needs to be established. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Koran is most certainly a channelled text, as indeed is the Bible in various places, but in no way do they then belong on the same list as this New Age stuff. Moreschi (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, on account of being old and well known. I wouldn't say there's that much difference otherwise. That's neither here nor there though. The fringe has responded though: it's been de-prodded and defended as useful information which should never be deleted. Apparently even when it's utterly unencyclopedic and questionably useful.Hatchetfish (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Not a library catalogue. Yuk. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• prodded, this would seem to be sufficiently clear to make AFD unnecessary. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And here I was expecting to see: Archives of TV Guide; How to Irrigate Your Farm; Early Maps of Mars; Digging Across Panama!; A Little Swim to Calais; The Suez Project; By Train from London to Paris?; Faces of Age; A Dentist's Manual to the Treatment of Caries; my diary; yours too. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprodded now and likely to stay, so it needs to be cleaned up. I don't see why there is a section Entities and mediums in what is supposed to be a list of texts. Red links to take out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleiadeans

Full of original research including original synthesis between mythology and this UFOlogical fantasy. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PRODed, removed some pretty blatant synthesis. We'll see how that goes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Prod now removed and article in very poor shape. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• See Talk:Billy Meier#Suggested merge. Moreschi (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Vimana#In modern science and UFOlogy

Violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONEWAY. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that section was a mess. I've removed the whole thing as WP:SYN based on some rather fantastic claims. A story of Alexander the Great that was only published in modern times? Yeah, right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This dates to Dayananda's famous claims about Vedic steam-ships and flying machines. I don't think deleting that section was necessarily the right way to go since a lot of it was useful: material on the sources of these claims and debunkings of them. Paul B (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT isn't really appropriate here, because the Dayanandian nonsense is really the entire reason for the topic's notability. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I didn't think the deleted section was too terrible either. This Vedic UFO is very much notable material: quite apart from anything else, this noticeboard's existence is fairly good proof of that. If it's distorting the balance of the main article a separate child article under WP:SS might be a good idea? Moreschi (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of major phenomena captured on Ghost Adventures

Long list of phenomena ("Unseen forces lift and hurl a brick across a room" etc.) "captured" on a reality TV show, all of it being taken at face value. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodded and warned creator. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the same author, Electromagnetic fluctuation appears to be a POV fork of EMF meter? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Update: Solution was a redirect to Electromagnetic field. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

This article needs to be fixed. I have left a message on the talk page. An IP has done some whitewashing and uses primary sources to promote this pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for notability. See what you think about whether it's notable and if not, then I suggest AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clearly non-notable to me years ago. I WP:PRODded it and it was deleted, but the original author restored it (which is his right). He got mad at me for having it deleted, I felt guilty, and I guess I never took it to AfD. Anyhow, probably worth revisiting. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A search seems to indicate it is notable in the alternative medicine world. As a fringe practice we'll have a hard time finding MEDRS quality sources, so we'll just have to document the practice, describe it, and if there's anything that violates scientific laws, the MEDRS guideline applies and we can comment on that. Here it is claimed that over 4,000 individuals have been trained. Scott Walker's website is quite informative, and reveals that several forms of quackery and pseudoscience are used in this method: chiropractic, AK, homeopathy, vertebral subluxations, meridians, the 5 elements law, etc.. It clearly qualifies for inclusion in the Pseudoscience and Chiropractic treatment techniques categories. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the previously much larger version, I am hesitant to open that can of worms. I think I'll let believers try their hand at it and we can then try to tame it to wiki standards and policies. It mustn't become a sales brochure again. I'll just keep it on my watchlist. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A tip, dunno if it will work, but try searching google books for criticism of NET. Sometimes it can take years before critical reviews appear in the medical literature. It wouldn't surprise me if the studies into NET have methodological problems or even COI issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

COI problems are there. Some of the researchers are on the board of O.N.E. Research Foundation. In describing NET, we can highlight the fact that it builds on many pseudoscientific ideas. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As there is a lack of secondary sources and critical primary sources, citing quackwatch might be an idea.[13] and [14]. I wonder if it is worth citing the source that you have found, saying in studies conducted by members of the chiropractic profession,,,,.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this book,(page 132-133) written by a medical doctor and a phd author from a Christian perspective as well as scientific perspective saying that there is no scientific evidence to back up kinesiology used in NET and that it is new age ideology which likely works through the placebo effect. I can't find any other books on google books that can be cited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Demon Cat

"Because those that see the apparition have to worry about keeping a security clearance, sightings are not always well publicized to coworkers, the outside world, or at all." Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia ; - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Humm, this reads like a joke article. The "Demon Cat", which foretells the future of Washington DC, is repeatedly abbreviated to "D.C." and lives in the "catafalque". Paul B (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, googling "Washington Demon Cat" does actually get some results. I'd be surprised if this was genuinely notable but the story doesn't seem to have been a joke thought up in school one day. Moreschi (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[15]. Seems like not hoax. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Capitol Demon Cat" gets even more results, including the "Monstropedia" entry here using the book above as a reference. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's in the book alright. It's discussed among several other wonders of the age such as "James Garfield's Psychic powers". The question is whether this is a joke made up by the author of the book. Can we really have an article soley cited to a book with chapters on the following?:

---THE WORKERS WHO NEVER LEAVE, JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ETERNAL SPEECH, THE NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY IN STATUARY HALL, A DOUGHBOY'S SALUTE, THE RETURN OF GARFIELD AND HIS ASSASSIN, UNCLE JOE CANNON AND CHAMP CLARK, FISHBAIT MILLER'S CHICKEN GHOSTS, GENERAL LOGAN'S CONSTANT CONCERN, THE INVISIBLE GUARD, THE SLAIN LAWYER, BISHOP SIMM'S SONGS, BOISE PENROSE CATCHES UP, HENRY WILSON'S PERPETUAL TUBBING, BLOOD ON THE HOUSE GALLERY STAIRS, PIERRE L'ENFANT'S SORROWFUL VIGIL, THE LIBRARIAN'S LOST CACHE, A CONTINENTAL SOLDIER PAYS HIS RESPECTS, DEMON CAT, THE CURSE ON THE CAPITOL. Paul B (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Washington capitol ghost cat" produces several google books entries, at least some of which directly mention this alleged phenomenon, here. I acknowledge that cannot prove, one way or another, that someone did not make up the story sometime, but it does seem to meet notability criteria. Exploring the evolution of the idea is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is folklore, I don't think we need to worry about whether this "demon cat" actually exists ... What we need is evidence that a legend about a "demon cat" actually exists and is notable. Compare this to say the legend of the Headless Horseman... While that is purely a fictitious tale created by Washington Irving, what makes it notable is the fact that it has been discussed by other sources, and has been made into movies, etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the real thing but the book in the article is the only book published by the Washingtonian Book Trading Company. However, [16] Here's an old (1892) news story from the Chicago Tribune, or rather a snippet [17], a recent free story (most aren't free) [18] and another book "demon+cat"+catafalque&ots=fl-6oz5SON&sig=LsXNBAVL8XTr9Skt0uqkF8Zwc3o#v=onepage&q=demon&f=false. I can find some other 19th century articles you have to pay for. I'd work on the article but I really want to fix Queen of Sheba so it isn't quite so certain there was a historical Queen and king(queen?)dom. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I admit the reality of the Demon Cat. The truth can be supppressed no longer whatever it may do to my security clearance. All who tamper with Queen of Sheba will draw down the wrath of the Ethiopian true believers in the Queen. Dare you tackle Race of Jesus? Paul B (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Answering "yes" would probably count as a suicide threat, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that "Race of Jesus" isn't just a redirect to Jewish. That would be funny. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be reverted due to virgin birth of Jesus & immaculate conception, meaning one could argue that, at best, he was one-quarter Hebrew. (And then there is the subject of Christology, which arose due to Greek scientific thinking that carnal & divine were absolute qualities & could not exist in the same matter -- or living person.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a half decent ref from CNN.com for the folklore angle and trimmed to reflect the absence of other WP:RS sources, though its likely there are some out there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European to Dacian sound changes

Is this proper linguistics or just something made up? dab, you would know. It needs to be merged with Dacian language, but what to keep? Anything? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wow. Reading Centum-Satem isogloss, this mess would appear to be proposing a thesis (that Dacian comes under the Satem concept) that is possible but very difficult to verify. That's a wild guess, though, but I venture to predict we won't be keeping much of it. Moreschi (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be proposing that Romanian was descended directly from PIE rather than from Latin. Page has been tagged for merge for a long time, so that can just be done, but obviously not so as to dump rubbish onto the Dacian language page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Or the separateness of Thracian and Dacian. Which is supposed to show...oh, I give up. Linguists - ahoy! Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would retain the edit history, it contains useful raw material, but the title should be redirected to Dacian language. --130.60.142.37 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox paranormal creature

Why is there a section on "data" here that does not include any reference to actual scientific data? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to play devil's advocate... the word data does not necessarily mean scientific data. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to raise the question on the talk page. There are two issues: (1) whether the word "data" is appropriate, and (2) whether there is any sensible way to include information about scientific data in an infobox. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call it "anecdotal data" or "rank speculation"? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go for "Characteristics", but then I think the taxonomy offered under "grouping/subgrouping" is a lot more problematic. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Frank Kotsonis) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the paranormal creature infobox template isn't half as onerous as Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms. I haven't checked lately, but in the past it's been used to do an end run around NPOV. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't subscribe to "burn all infoboxes", this particular one should definitely be burned with extreme prejudice. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am amused that it lists "Habitat" ... that one should be easy to fill in: "Habitat: The fertile imagination" Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The theories of Dr. Bernard Leeman

Just a head's up about the edits of Ntsukunyane Mphanya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is adding material about the theories of one Dr. Bernard Leeman. (This appears to be all Ntsukunyane Mphanya is adding to Wikipedia.) Yes, Leeman has a Ph.D., & last I checked he is a member of the faculty of some accredited university (IIRC, in Brunei). However, the man's field of study is political science -- he was an armed activist in South Africa -- & he has published an book of dubious value which incorporates a number of other fringe theories in an Afrocentric framework. These edits have been popping up in articles relating to Biblical studies, Ethiopian culture, & other tangentially-related articles. (I've left the material in Kebra Negast only because I have encountered a lot of difficulty in finding works which actually discuss this important work, rather than mention it in passing, or in summarizing Ethiopian history/culture, & Dr. Leeman's work has led me to the only monograph I've found written solely on the Kebra Negast.) So far, I have been reverting these additions based on POV-pushing & undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I've also been reverting them for a few days. I can't remember if I contacted the editor. If you haven't, could you do so since you know about Leeman's background? Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks to Llywrch and Doug, I enjoyed that immensely. As a side-note, I wonder if the ideas of Yosef Ben-Jochannan, a (supposed) Ethiopian Jew and radical Afrocentrist, might have been an influence? Moreschi (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, yes you have: a (IMHO) diplomatic request for pages to the source N.M. was citing for his edits. (I'm wondering whether a more stern message is needed.)

Moreschi, that's quite interesting that Ben-Jochannan claimed to have been born in Gondar in 1918. At the time Gondar was, if I may say, very isolated from the rest of the world, & hardly the place the average Puerto Rican of any faith would find his/her way to -- it was difficult enough for credentialed representatives (i.e., legates, ambassadors, etc.) of a major power to get there. -- llywrch (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Gondar was very difficult to get to at that time... it was in the middle of a war with the Wainriders. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait... I was thinking of Gondor... never mind. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit, though unsourced, indicates that the user can also contribute (very) non-fringe material. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

However, "this revert" (see edit summary of reverter) indicates that it's not just the Afrocentrism/Leeman stuff that needs attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot of citations to Leeman, mostly to his book "Biblical Scholarship and the Queen of Sheba". Google turns up no other books published by Queensland Academic Press. If it's not self-published, then I'm the... Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely self-published. And free on the web. It's a bit hard to tease out his background. I find him teaching Business Administration [19] "I also set up a scheme in two UK ESL colleges so students could get a very cheap BA in Business Administration. They took between 14 and 18 exams of the Association of Business Executives (available on 2 to three disks for about 65 pounds). Exams, registration etc came to less than 800 pounds. This gave them two years exemption at several British universities. The final year could be done by distance from the University of Sunderland for about 1500 pounds." [20] "I am involved in MBA, MA and BBA online courses at an Australian university.". [21] "Khanyi and Kellie. I originate in Songea Tanzania but my home since 1968 has been in Kilimanjaro. I became involved in Lesotho in 1970 and served in LLA and APLA. I am nomadic. I am in Australia at the moment but will go back to Indochina soon. My PhD is on BCP/PAC, my mathers in Applied Linguistics, my BA in African History, my present PhD in Cultural Tourism. (Jul 24, 2007}" and his Amazon profile [22] "was raised in Tanzania and South Africa. I took a BA degree from London in African History and returned to Taznania. From 1970 until 1986 I was involved in political and military work for the BCP of Lesotho and the PAC of Azania (South Africa). Since then I have been an academic in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Australia and Morocco and also a language consultant for the Australian Army's UN Rwanda Force. My interests and publications concern the Chagga language of Kilimanjaro, the Queen of Sheba and Old Testament history, The Latos of Eritrea, Southern African history, the East African Campaign 1914-18, the Berber language and establishing an Afghan Women's University." Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[23] "I have recently published a book “Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship” (Queensland Academic Press) free as an email download, which sought to provide a solution to the bitter struggle within Biblical archaeology as to whether the pre-586 BCE account is fantasy or a true story. My work, which took me 19 years, utilizes Arabian and Ethiopian evdience to conclude that the Old Testament is a true historical account or events that occurred in western Arabia not Palestine. In short, Modern Israel is in the wrong place." Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Good digging. That would appear to be an almost impossible number of academic jobs spanning far too many countries. The inevitable suspicion has to be that most of these employments are simply passing associations with degree mills. The BA in African history might well be true, I suppose, and if he did that at London University, that surely means SOAS. Perfectly checkable if anyone feels the urge. I notice we're not told where the masters and PhDs come from, but none of them seem to relate to political science, which is what Doug tells us he actually teaches. This is highly entertaining, although not quite yet on the level of Dr Boubouleix-style lunacy, and it's interesting as well in that here we actually have something of a bona fide African Afrocentrist, which is really quite rare, Diop and the little school surrounding him apart. I wonder where this guy got his ideas from.

At any rate, it's pretty clear this stuff about Western Arabia is totally unsuitable for the 'pedia, so that we can just revert on sight, and block if attempts are made to edit-war it back in. As for the rest? Deal with it as it comes. Moreschi (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Side-note: quickly checking Howe, it would appear that ben-Jochannan has also proposed a version of the "black Jews" meme, and, like Leeman, linked this to Ethiopia. Perhaps that's where this is coming from, although the idea has, I think, a longer history within Afrocentrism, and at any rate I would assume Leeman's work is mercifully free of the poisonous anti-Semitism found in the works of the Puerto Rican ben-Jochannan (and others, see Tony Martin, Leonard Jeffries, etc). Moreschi (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Leeman clearly has some connection with SOAS since he was using a SOAS email address as recently as 2006 [24]. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He also has a history of involvement in unaccredited institutions, though these debates suggest that he is keen to assert his legitimacy. [25] Paul B (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been googling him too - hours of innocent fun - and have pulled up far more biographical information than needs to go on this page (BLP policy). He was brought up in England, not Africa. First degree from SOAS, probably also a doctorate from there on South African resistance movements, although he boasts elsewhere of having obtained a doctorate in Germany with a thesis written in English. He taught at SOAS, probably as a language assistant or on courses in English for international students. He has also had lvement with at least one university in Australia. User: Ntsukunyane Mphanya is closely associated if not identical. All may be irrelevant unless we want to take up COI. The QoS book is definitely SPS and shouldn't be sourcing anything here. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He claims to have two doctorates, the second being the one on Cultural Tourism. It was not clear to me that the pro-Palestinian Australian Bernard Leeman was the same person. Paul B (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ooohh, please do email all the gory details, I love this kind of stuff. Makes me go all weak at the knees. Interesting to find out the SOAS association is genuine. I can't wait to see where this goes, could be hours of entertainment. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait for it Moreschi... It's me! Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cc me too on this, Judith? Your research on Leeman only confirms my suspicions about Ntsukunyane Mphanya's off-wiki identity. (He was the one who pointed me to David Allen Hubbard's thesis -- available thru ILL -- so I am willing to give him something of a break here. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to sign off wiki now and won't be around much next week either. I'm going to be too busy to email the results. Just try googling with "+Sussex" in the search and again with "+Songea". One, two, many Bernard Leemans. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is a real Ntsukunyane Mphanya, who is a former leader of the Basutoland Congress Party and who appears to have an ideological/historical alliance with Bernard Leeman regarding the history of Lesotho. [26] Paul B (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That probably explains a lot. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whole body vibration

I came across Whole body vibration just now. Seems pretty fringey. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps... but the fact that it was taken seriously by the Russian space program means that it is at least notable fringe. A case for review and clean up, not dismissal. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But the key thing here is "review and cleanup". Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree it needs cleanup and regular review and watching, because I think this topic title may well have an unhealthy appeal to certain females and/or generally sex-obsessed individuals in particular. Added it to my enormous watchlist to help fight the vandalism I hope doesn't appear too often. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

This trance medium's article is in an unbelievably poor. Needs much attention and trimming to bring it to any kind of reasonable status. Could people please lend a hand. Problems include poor sourcing, very poor and non-neutral writing, length, essay like writing, and overuse of quotes. Possible solution is stubbing and starting over, as it is a huge mess. Verbal chat 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub may be the answer. Lots of adulatory attention is lavished on her by fringe sources, but there doesn't seem to be any mainstream neutral 3rd party coverage of any depth to "start over" from. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted to engage on the Talk page with an editor who appears very much attached to the subject. A couple more eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Max Muller

I can't make sense of the demands from newly-returned user:Bharatveer on Talk:Max_Müller. Well, I can guess -- I suspect some Hindutva website(s) are circulating fringe assertions. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Bharatveer banned? If he wasn't, we're just looking at more wasted time, this is a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool ideologist with no interest in mere facts. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) was banned for one year by Arbcom on 24 November 2008, so the ban expired a couple of weeks ago. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer - first edit-restricted, then banned for a year. I think it's been conclusively proven we don't have to actually waste any more effort over this particularly member of the Hindutva brigade. Just ignore, and if he starts causing any serious trouble then I'll just ban him. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Bharatveer's recent edits on Talk:Romila Thapar, which seem to share the same ideological space with his edits at Talk:Max_Müller. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He has brought this up in June 2008,

Wikipedia article is not calling thapar a "marxist" ; it is merely reporting that in the book "A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" , her works are discussed under the chapter "the MArxist phase". This shows the scholarly perception of her works.

which was answered adequately by Akhilleus (talk · contribs),

Are you contending that a textbook written by a transit engineer is representative of the mainstream scholarly evaluation of Thapar's work? That's probably not the case.

There is nothing to see here. We aren't calling people Marxists who state that they aren't Marxists and that they are insulted by the epithet. Actual Marxists embrace the label "Marxist". "Marxist" is just a label the hardcore nationalists like to tag on any Indian author who is not staunchly to the political right of Attila the Hun. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with what you want to call her or not. See these references:1) George Thompson writing on Thomas McEvilley, says that the latter supports the view that Thapar's works were Marxist http://www.springerlink.com/content/jk216x2499w12730/

2) Daud Ali's review of A History of India: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=333711 interprets many of Thapar's views/ works as Marxist.

3) Economic and Political Weekly Jan (2000) Gopal Guru and V.Geetha refers to Thapar as a " Marxist Historian" in a discussion of Dalit culture.

4) Thapar is quoted as one of the marxist historians in the entry "Hinduism" of a "A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought"(Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard Univeristy Press, p.204)

5)Ronald Inden in his "Imagining India[1990:pp. 154-156, 197] refers to Thapar as a marxist scholar.

6)Shankar Goyal discuss thapar's interpretations of ancient india in the sections on Marxist Historiography in his book "Recent Historiography of Ancient India, Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur (1997)

7) Ravi Shanker Kapoor refers to thapar as a "Leftist Historian" in his book " More Equal than Others - A study of the Indian Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000)

-Bharatveer (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• My patience just gave in. I've asked for a community ban at AN. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)