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:

John Traynor (Royal Marine)

I am not sure if he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Problem with the article is that his alleged miracle of being cured is presented as factual. Only religious or fringe books endorsing miracles as genuine seem to mention this guy. Seems to be a serious lack of reliable sources. Any suggestions? HealthyGirl (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

HealthyGirl: Did you notice this WP:Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine)? —PermStrump(talk) 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Article is in serious violation of WP:Fringe. I can't be bothered to deal with this anymore. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd posting. Traynor is believed by some pious Catholics to have experienced a "miracle cure" in the waters at the shrine of Lourdes. Article is reliably sourced to mainstream book/articles that discuss the cure as something that some of the faithful believe happened. I am not claiming that taking the waters at Lourdes cures anyone, only that bringing this particular article to WP:Fringe is decidedly odd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• The sources are not all reliable, for example Paul Glynn is a priest who argues miracles are real. The Guardian piece which has a single line dedicated to Traynor also treats the miracle as factual. There is no evidence this 'miracle' ever occurred. Traynor was probably a fraud. No critical/skeptical coverage of his claims exists. The article is endorsing his fringe claims as factual. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the sources is a book by Paul Glynn, a Catholic priest noted for his post-WWII reconciliation work with Japan. But the book I was referring to was is Lourdes, A Modern Pilgrimage by the noted travel writer, journalist and biographer Patrick Marnham. I am at a loss to understand HealthyGirl's odd position on sources in re: the John Traynor article, or why she has dragged it to this discussion board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, belief in literal miracles is clearly fringe in the sense that, for example, literal bilocation is physically impossible and only fringe theorists propose otherwise. That's not to say that the entire religion is "fringe". Only one literal interpretation of it. jps (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying 'its physically impossible' is not an argument for fringe material when the counter is 'God can do it if he wants to'. Miracles are *miracles* and not subject to earthly explanation or evidence. If you could evidence a miracle, it wouldnt be a miracle, it would be science. So in that aspect they are not 'fringe'. People who try to explain miracles with scientific methods are clearly fringe or pseudoscience, but very few religious people actually do that. Miracles are not put forth as any sort of science. I suppose there might be miracles which would be considered 'fringe miracles' even amongst the religious (bilocation would probably be one). But given Catholic belief states that every Catholic is the recipient of transubstantion (a literal miracle) multiple times in their lives... To get back to the original post: a book written by the religious that claims a miracle of healing is factual is not fringe. Healing miracles are one of the most common and widespread miracles there are. Millions and millions of people in various religions trek to sacred spots to pray for healing, and (allegedly) some are answered. I would expect someone who claims to the be the recipient of a healing miracle to show up in religious books. Because those are the people who believe in it. Now if someone was suggesting there was a scientific basis for a man regaining the use of his legs, that would possibly be fringe. But that is not the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, not wishful thinking. If the counter to a point that bilocation is physically impossible is that God does what God wants to, then the claim is fringe because no WP:MAINSTREAM academic (be they secular or religious) seriously makes that claim. People who believe that miracles literally happen are adopting pseudoscientific arguments, we have no disagreement there. The fact that millions and millions of people may believe in fringe theories is immaterial. Millions and people believe the Earth is the center of the universe, for example.

If a religious person claims that faith healing is occurring, such claims are subject to skeptical inquiry. The best that has ever been done is to point out the vague and unsubstantiated aspects to such claims. However, most true believers in such nonsense tend to go one further. It is at this point that they start to engage in wishful thinking and pseudoscience. Honest practitioners of faith do not fight the plain contradiction with physical fact, they let the mystery lie. Dishonest believers argue that God is a literal presence with physical powers that can be measured. See creationism and related religious-based pseudoscientific arguments. Belief in literal miracles to the extent that one claims that, for example, measurable supernatural action is the only possible explanation, is necessarily a pseudoscientific enterprise.

Also, to be clear, transubstantiation is couched in Catholic theology by association with unobserverable Aristotlian "substance" and therefore it is not a literal miracle in the physical (or the Aristotlian "accidents") sense. No Catholic believes that the particles of bread if examined under a microscope would turn out to be literal human somatic cells.

jps (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death has this exactly right: "All catholic priests argue miracles are real. Arguably all Catholics believe in them. It's a bit of a reach to declare a religion 'fringe'." As do all believers in all faiths. User:HealthyGirl was incorrect to categorize (the question of whether a miracle took place is separate) that a miracle took place at Lourdes as a Fringe theory. The belief in miracles by the world's large, ancient, and mainstream religions is by definition mainstream, not fringe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Faith healing via magical action of Our Lady of Lourdes is just as much pseudoscience as is any other faith healing claim. WP:MAINSTREAM refers to experts, and experts in the natural, physical, and medical worlds are basically in agreement that literal miracles of the sort argued for by true believers in many faiths simply do not happen. To argue otherwise is necessarily in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Just because major religions accommodate beliefs in fringe theories, doesn't mean that they are insulated from the injunction to write a serious encyclopedia. jps (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Time slip

A deletion review OK'd the article to be recreated without the poorly-sourced "paranormal phenomenon" content, but now Time_slip#Paranormal is back. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Retrocognition, it is the same as Time Slip but only has fringe sources. I believe we should redirect retrocognition to Time Slip. HealthyGirl (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the Time slip article now correctly focuses on the fictional narrative device. Retrocognition seems to be a subset of Extrasensory perception, so should be merged to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also see the discussion on the talk page for the Time travel in fiction article, there is a possibility of merging Time slip into that article, I think it is about time we made some progress on this. Users are voting on the talk-page [1]. HealthyGirl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment

• Brainwave entrainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Binaural beats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I-Doser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While brainwave entrainment (BWE) does seem to be at least a legitimate concept within RS, the topic area is also rife with fringe claims and our article on it seems full of OR. Anybody familiar with this topic area? Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Esoteric astrology

• Esoteric astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not actually a tautology, it seems. Replete with Truths stated in Wikipedia's voice. Formerly a merge and redirect to Alice Bailey, I'm unsure if anything is salvageable from the more recent content. CIreland (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed all the content which was sourced only from Bailey's own books, basically as an unsourced plot summary. Doesn't leave much. I wonder if this is notable bollocks after all? Guy (Help!) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The book by Bailey might be notable, I don't know, but I have been through a few reference works relating to the occult, new age, etc., and don't remember seeing this mentioned even as a separate article in any of them. I haven't checked any specifically astrological reference works, however. At this point, though, I tend to agree that there is probably sufficient cause to maybe AfD this article based on the lack of sufficient coverage to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment

• Edits from problematic IP address who wants to insert into the lead the opinion that only skeptics have a problem with Ganzfeld experiments and that they have been replicated. Claims in his edits that it is "vandalism" and pseudo-skeptic POV to assert otherwise. TreeTrailer (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

There's been some disagreement over adding the term scientific consensus to part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. More eyes from folks here familiar with scientific consensus and fringe theories would be appreciated at the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

DNA teleportation

doh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I cleaned up the opening couple sentences, but still needs work. -ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog and ThePlatypusofDoom: The original creator of that article has significantly expanded it since your discussion three days ago. I question whether this article should even exist - isn't this just about a hypothesis that is only put forward in two papers that nobody else agrees with? --Krelnik (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krelnik: Yes, possibly. You can put it up at AfD if you want. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this have any notability outside Montagnier? Guy (Help!) 21:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Potentially, I'm not sure. Are you going to nominate it for deletion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Stumbled upon the article for Answers in Genesis a few weeks back and noticed giant sections that rely almost entirely -- or entirely -- on primary sources. I removed a big section, but it's been restored. I'd welcome additional eyeballs to gauge the situation according to best practices. Talk:Answers in Genesis#Big sections with only primary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In related news, the WP:RNPOV-violating brigade does not like it when you identify the facts about the age of the Earth/Universe and common descent at both this article and Ken Ham. Help at those two locations would be appreciated as it seems that there are a number of conservative Christians convinced that these ideas are just "opinions" and not facts. jps (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And so it goes. jps (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Gilbert

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Gilbert.

jps (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Khader

Dr. Khader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Homeopathy, laetrile, diets to cure cancer. Would appreciate some other eyes on this article as I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing this week. Kolbasz (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And listed at AfD, as notability is dubious. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Khader ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Randolph Stone

Criticism of this guys quackery being deleted from the article. User claims there was a "consensus" to remove criticisms from the article on the talk-page, but there wasn't, because these new sources were added in April.HealthyGirl (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And Lo, the other editor restored your text, but down in the body instead of in the lede. Seems like a fair compromise. --Krelnik (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice there are multiple references (18,19,20,21) to criticism of Stone's polarity therapy, but the article text presents them in as few words as possible. I wonder if anyone has access to some of the books cited, and could they check to see if these are in depth critiques or passing mentions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have read two of those books. They do not mention Stone in heavy detail, only a small mention on one page but they do mention Stone in name. Jack Raso for example basically lists Stone's therapy as containing pseudoscientific claims that are unproven. One of the other sources basically says his therapy is untestable (the stuff about vital forces etc). I am having a difficulty finding other sources that strictly mention Stone's name, so I think those will just have to do. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Heart is not a pump is plausible and has a scientific basis

At Talk:Anthroposophic medicine#Heart Hgilbert claims that "the heart is not a pump" is plausible and has a scientific basis because there is one book of one MD supporting it and one positive review of the book has been published with peer-review.

Here is the review. It should be noted that O'Leary is Furst's co-worker and they co-authored an article on the subject "the heart is not a pump", so support from O'Leary seems a walled garden and does not pass WP:FRIND. Do note that even according to the mentioned review, it is an axiom of medical science that the heart is a pump, so my claim is that "the heart is not a pump" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh brother. I thought I'd seen it all, but this takes the dog biscuit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. You think "How can someone come up with something more crazy and wrong than this", then it happens. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, more Steiner bollox advanced by our chief resident POV-pusher in this area. Exceptional claims needs exceptional sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen that editor before somewhere. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion on the article page.

First of all, Steiner claimed merely that the heart did not act merely as a mechanical pump; that its mechanism was more sophisticated than this.

Second of all, I am merely suggesting that the article should not completely deny that there is some scientific thought (Furst presents very extensive sources and research that make it evident that this is not merely his idea) that supports this idea. Springer is not a fringe press, and the The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia is a respectable peer-reviewed journal. HGilbert (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just say that there is no mainstream scientific basis for the theory. That is still true, even if you want to bring in such fringe sources, Hgilbert.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Imho, now Furst's view is fringe. As noted by WP:FLAT any new insight which starts as fringe could become minority view, mainstream view, majority view and consensus view. But according to WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not the place for advancing such speculations. So, there are two problems with using Furst as a source: first is that it is still a fringe, or if you do not like that word, provisional research, which has yet to be recognized as valid by peers. Not everything that passes peer-review is valid, see Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. So, Furst as a source is either fringe or marginal view. The second problem has been noted by Shibbolethink, namely that Furst's view does not coincide with Steiner's view. About Hgilbert's argument, there is a difference between "the heart is not a pump" and "the heart is not wholly a pump" (or "the heart is more than a pump"). I'm not sure that it can be verified that Steiner supported the later, instead of the former. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with works that pass WP:RS with flying colors -- a book published by an academic publisher (Springer) and an article in a fully mainstream medical journal -- being termed "fringe". Fringe would seem to be that which is not accepted into the mainstream. Or, otherwise expressed, by WP standards, the fact that these publishers deem this work mainstream enough to publish makes them WP:RS, not fringe sources. This remains a minority view, of course, and I do not suggest that it should be presented as anything but that.

Since you apparently did not read it there, I copy below my response on the article talk page to the claim that Furst's work does not support Steiner's idea. @Shibbolethink probably had not looked at Furst's actual work when making this claim, as quite large sections of the book (including several whole chapters) are devoted to exactly this.

• Actually, Furst discusses the capillary circulation in detail from page 13 on. For example, he mentions that De Langen further suggested that “the capillary is like a tiny, incomplete heart, which exerts pressure on the blood passing through it, hereby propelling it and furthering and regulating the filtration,” and that the sum total of the placental capillaries act as a “peripheral heart” which drives the circulation (p. 28; cf. pp. 67ff). Chapter 15 includes a rich discussion of the history of theories of capillary pressure which makes it evident that the idea has been given empirical support by various researchers. On page 176, Furst proposes that the conflicting observation can be resolved only when the blood is assumed not to be an inert fluid “pumped” around the circuit by the heart but a “self-moving” agent with flow directly coupled to the metabolic needs of working muscles. HGilbert (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Georges Lakhovsky

This is the only radionics proponent on Wikipedia that I cannot find any reliable references for, any ideas? HealthyGirl (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@HealthyGirl: You could AfD it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You could also combine him into the radionics article itself. But it'll still need /some/ reliable refs!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New fringey editor off to a running start

• X-Men_Xtreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Netta Fornario
• Eleonore Zugun
• Pollock Twins case
• Van Meter Visitor
• Laetitia Toureaux

This new user has only been around for 6 days and has created at least 6 articles already. These four are definitely very fringeworthy and seem of dubious notability to me. At least one of his articles appears to have been created by taking an article from Romanian Wikipedia and running it through Google Translate. Would appreciate some extra eyes. --Krelnik (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, it's mentioned in the first edit that it's taken from Romanian wikipedia. --X-Men XtremE 01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedias do not have the same standards. What works at one language version of Wikipedia doesn't work at another. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Previously, I couldn't reply due to edit conflict. Why he calls me fringey editor? X-Men XtremE 05:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's an absolutely terrible translation. Even the month of her birth in the very first line is translated incorrectly. Google translate is not a mehtod I would recommend to create articles. --Krelnik (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pollock Twins case might have to go to afd, the sources are not reliable at all (Chris Carter for example is not reliable [2] and the other sources are all fringe books advocating reincarnation. Eleonore Zugun is notable, I will improve this article shortly. I am not sure about the others, the Pollock one is the worst though. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pollock Twins case is an absolute disaster, nominated at AfD. Van Meter Visitor and Netta Fornario aren't that good either, I don't know how notable they are, possible AfDs for both of them. All of these articles are terribly written, as shown by the blizzard of tags. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Added another article that the same editor made. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netta Fornario. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom go ahead nominate all articles, but don't notify me on my talk page. Enjoy yourselves. X-Men XtremE 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the editor seems to take offense with being gently reminded of WP:FRINGE, and notified of Articles that were deletion. @X-Men Xtreme: it is considered good form to notify an editor of an article that they created being nominated at AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@X-Men Xtreme: Also, Krelnick calls you "fringey" because your edits do not comply with WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by "fringey" I was refering to the topic and content of your articles. It's a term we use here on this board constantly, I neglected to consider how it might sound to someone coming in here from elsewhere on the site. Sorry. And as for notifying you - my reference to you above obviously pinged you, because you appeared here to respond a mere 3 minutes after I posted. At that point it's up to you to follow the conversation wherever it leads, such as to AfD or elsewhere. --Krelnik (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And this case has exploded into a long, hard, annoying semi-edit war, but I'm trying to avoid edit-warring. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will entirely re-write the Eleonore Zugun article, I will attempt this in the next few hours. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tynong North serial killings, there seems to be a pattern here. HealthyGirl (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UGH! After repeatedly complaining that we weren't notifying them of stuff, that we were tagging their articles faster than they can fix them, they create another stub? How about fixing the current ones at AfD first? Okay, I don't feel so bad for calling attention to this now. --Krelnik (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

HealthyGirl said that she will improve Eleonore Zugun article. I have done my part. Two of the AFDs will end in delete. So, why should I waste my time improving those articles. The 1937 murder case will survive but some sources are in French and German. If you can read French then improve it. PlatypusofDoom is already warned by other editors. I am not going to make the same mistake of creating articles like Netta Fornario. X-Men XtremE 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor writing these fringey stubby articles seems to be lacking some wp:clue, and ability in english. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation Museum

The Creation Museum article could use attention from people knowledgeable about creationism promotion. The article does not appear to be neutral, with the content geared towards promotional, almost reading like the Museum's web page. Additional eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of the religious leaders who were quoted criticizing the museum were referred to as "theistic evolutionists" or something like that, which I removed because I only saw it in the creationist sources as a way to describe other people. Is that some kind of dig or is that something people would call themselves? —PermStrump(talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's that much of a dig, it's fairly descriptive. A number of prominent advocates of the scientific consensus on evolution (e.g. Richard Dawkin, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, etc) are also atheists. So this term distinguishes people who are not atheist but are pro-evolution. Many Roman Catholics would fall in this category. --Krelnik (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The use of term "theistic evolutionists" in a creationism-themed article struck me as odd, as if the article was attempting to create "shades" of evolutionists. It seemed like an intricate detail and not easily understood by the general public (i.e. readers of Wikipedia). I'm not well versed in creationism, but any attempts to qualify "evolution" as "scientific consensus on evolution", "Darwin's evolution theory" or overusing "scientific consensus" in general seem like obfuscation to me. Similar theme came up on the article about the man behind the Creation Museum: Talk:Ken_Ham#Scientific_consensus_wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The term "theistic evolution" is sometimes used in self-description. Francis Collins uses the term to describe his own ideas in The Language of God. However, it can be ambiguous, since it can sometimes simply mean the idea that evolution and belief in God are compatible, and it can sometimes refer to a stronger claim that God is directly involved in the evolutionary process. If the critical comments are from religious leaders or authors, I would think the more relevant information would be their position and religious affiliation, field of work, etc. --Amble (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

In response to a comment on the talk page from an editor who couldn't adds category I added it for him. It was "Fictional languages" and almost immediately removed as being a PoV category. A bit odd as that seems the mainstream PoV so seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For anyone else who didn't already know (like me), apparently this was the language on the golden plates with god's message that Joseph Smith found and translated into the Book of Mormon. I don't know about that category I guess. WP:RNPOV gives this example: Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else." But you wouldn't really be able to present both sides with a category, so I'm not sure. —PermStrump(talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Because some consider the language non-fictional and some consider it fictional, I feel the "Fictional language" category is inappropriate. It is properly discussed in the article, but the category is controversial and adds nothing to the article. These kinds of characterizations are common in religious articles and ultimately found to violate WP:NPOV. Bahooka (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Randall Fontes is back

Randall Fontes was deleted, it is now back at User:Valoem/Randall Fontes. HealthyGirl (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)