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!

Fringe theory: Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ortega (genealogy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ortega surname has a connection with Aragon, where Asin is located, see [1]. Aragon is one of the regions of Spain that historically had the most Basque people, Basque people who have the surname Asin (Latin urtica, old dialectical Spanish ortega). A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the way this website works is you type in the surname and it tells you how a particular family shield looks. For Ortiz it lists three different shields, three different lines [2]. Now if someone puts one particular shield for Ortiz in the Ortiz article and claims they are one line, he is wrong. For Ortega the website lists a shield, a line from Aragon[3]. That is not to say all Ortegas are of that Aragonese line. And I think the Ortega (genealogy) article doesn't even deal with the Aragonese line although Aragon is mentioned in the infobox and the shield is the shield described as Aragonese. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've looked into it. It appears that the name Ortega can be traced to two Aragonese lineages of lower nobility, with two different coats of arms. Apparently they are attested from the 16th or 17th century. The 10th century stuff appears to be due to a lady Ortega Ramírez (given name), illegitimate daughter of king Ramiro II of León (r. 931-951) [5]. This medieval lady Ortega as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to do with the surname. Also, the "Fortunate" etymology pushed by the anon is due to Mexican eccentric Gutierre Tibón, which means we can cite it as a curiosity, but it certainly doesn't have any philological credibility. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dbachmann is excellente by the way :) On point. Excellent and quick research, he's so quick it almost surprises me sometimes :) It will take me awhile to discover the etymology of Asín/Asín (name) (whether it is in fact from the Basque word asin/osin/asun, meaning "nettle"), it's late here and I'll save that for tomorrow. Another point I will look into: when not ultimately derived from a toponym, maybe the reference was to some "stinging", "prickly", "antagonizing" quality of a person, reminiscent of the nettle. The Latin word urtica besides meaning "nettle" also had developed those figurative meanings [6], based on the prickly/stinging qualities of the nettle. A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This looks so much like vandalism, I call it vandalism [7]. The anon came back. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Past life regression

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

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

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

Past life regression is a New Age therapy that seems rather problematic [8][9], and is being marketed to people who are too naive to understand the risks. I have talked to people who encountered serious problems from this form of therapy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Placebo

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

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

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

Thai traditional medicine

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

NPOV tag on Chemtrail conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Booth Escaped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fractal time and Fractal cosmology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

update

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

More UFO listcruft

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

Weekly World News lede

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

Sniffex

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

Riley Martin

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

Saqqara Bird and possible COI

See the recent history [10] and User talk:Dawoudk. It may well be that he is an architect, but his own web site descrbes his father differently than he is doing now. At least he has responded to me and I'm happy to accept that he is an architect. He clearly has a COI problem and I'm not sure how best to handle it. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian ufology

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

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

Unidentified submerged object

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

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

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

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

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

Covert incest

Our article on covert incest is currently a travesty of unreliable sources. The concept is treated as though it were a notable theory in psychology, but it contains only three citations to studies published in actual peer reviewed journals. [11] merely observes the existence of the concept, but does not assert it. [12] describes a supposed symptom of "covert incest" while critiquing the characterization. And of course [13] doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all, but only the views of a critic of "covert incest". It appears that the existence, and supposed harmful effects of "covert incest" have only been asserted in pop-psychology literature not subject to peer review, which the article cites extensively. While these books are reliable sources as to the views of "covert incest" proponents, they hardly support the claim that "Covert, emotional or psychic incest is an alleged type of psychological abuse" with which the article on covert incest begins. Thus, if described at all, "covert incest" should be treated as a linguistic or cultural phenomenon -- or perhaps even a notable pseudoscientific concept -- not as a serious theory in psychology. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Colon cleansing redux

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

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

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

List of languages by first written accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important RfC: Criteria for List of pesudosciences

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

Starchild skull

Needs some attention. Am I right in saying that as Y chromosome has been identified it must have a human father? See this diff [14]. The Royal Holloway investigation is sourced not from an official report but from an interpretation in powerpoint form on the Starchild website [15] although it isn't clear it isn't the official report. For some reason this article from the New England Skeptical Society doesn't seem to have been used in the article. [16] dougweller (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stylometry

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

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

Obama family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of languages by first written accounts

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

Negative Health Effects of Olive Oil?

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

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

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

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

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

By far the most-cited source is:

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

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

I have just checked the talk page for this article. Since an editor is looking for sources[17], and since there has been a fair amoount of activity on this article in tha last month or so to improve sources, NPOV language, this notice would seem to be somewhat premature.(olive (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

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

Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery

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

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

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

Contactee is probably the most appropriate article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Obama birthplace controversy in footnote of Ann Dunham article

There's a small, fringe controversy about where President-elect Barack Obama was born. Reliable sources say he was born in Hawaii, but some people claim he may have been born in Kenya or some other place outside the United States (a foreign birth would raise questions about his eligibility for the presidency). Obama's mother was Ann Dunham, and so I mentioned this fringe controversy briefly in a footnote there. I was reverted by another editor, and talk page discussion ensued [18].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And my grandmother says Ann Dunham burned her bra in college. That does not a reliable source make. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was obviously addressing the issue of relevance that Tvoz raised. Relevance is a separate issue from reliability of sources. If the most unreliable source in the world says that a fact stated in a Wikipedia article is false, then the unreliable source is clearly relevant, while also being unreliable. If I had been addressing reliability of sources, I would have mentioned the many reliable sources listed here. But you knew that, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are contextual. Are the sources reliable for an Dunham biography? No. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

See? I tole y'all about it but you wouldn't listen. The WP:FRINGE guideline needs to be axed. Its inconsistencies with senior WP policies such as WP:UNDUE doom it to being exploited by fringe advocates (not that I think Ferrylodge is one.).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Would it matter whether the New York Times had a front page article about it, identifying it as a fringe theory but nonetheless reporting about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the story is about the fringe theory, not about Obama himself. You really must differentiate between reporting on a nutball's lawsuit against Barack Obama, and reporting on Barack Obama. The two are not the same, and putting information on one in an article about the other is like adding information about elephants to the article about apples. Sure, the information may be verifiable, reliably sourced, etc.... but is it in the right article? --GoodDamon 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly legitimate and sensible position, except that it does not seem consistent with this section of Wikipedia policy, which says that a fringe theory can be mentioned in a non-fringe article. If you're correct, GoodDamon, then maybe the policy ought to be modified?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That particular exception -- which, by the way, is only an example of where a fringe theory could be mentioned in a non-fringe article, not a requirement thereof -- is not describing a WP:BLP article. There is a much higher standard before negative/fringe/accusatory material can go into a BLP article. --GoodDamon 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist wrote: "We are a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia..."

Perhaps you have forgotten about this. It is hard to see why an article about one is notable, but not the other. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

this thing is treated at Alan_Keyes#Obama_citizenship_lawsuit. That's good enough. WP:FRINGE says it's ok to cover fringecruft, at the appropriate place, but avoid spilling it to articles that aren't dedicated to fringe topics. Alan Keyes is probably the only article where this is within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is enough material, there is no reason for it not to have its own article. There is stuff nuttier than that on WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter whether the fringe material stays in the Keyes article or goes into a separate new article, the question remains whether a non-fringe article like Ann Dunham can appropriately wikilink to that material.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If it can not be linked to the Ann Dunham article, it will just be a separate article about the controversy. The problem is overcoming the resistance of editors who will fight to the end to keep Obama's public image as spotless as possible. You can try, but it is probably hopeless. (It worries me that so many people want to believe this man is special, when he is just a politician.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

unlike Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery, this is a topic of WP:BLP. But sure, if we can have Seigenthaler incident, we can also have Obama citizenship lawsuit, that's not ruled out in principle. We just need to be clear that linking it from Barack Obama would be about as WP:DUE as linking Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery from the main Psychological trauma article. Instead, it will be a WP:SS sub-article with a {{summary in}} Alan Keyes. --dab (𒁳) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as the theory is printed in major sources, IOW heavily sourced, I see no reason why it shouldn't go in. At least, that's the standard for the Sarah Palin article. Should the standards on both articles be the same? Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it usual for someone to get a major party nomination for president without releasing birth certificate information? I do not know. There is a constitutional requirement that a president be born in the USA. Why was Obama not required to provide this information to the government, and to the people of the United States before he ran for president? I do not see that as something fringe, and I am very puzzled that we have reached this point without seeing proof. I know for a fact that when someone applies for social security benefits, Social Security will not even begin to process the applications without first seeing long form birth certificates. Could someone explain why Obama was not required to do the same to meet a constitutional requirement? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to have a commission in charge of elections to vet candidates so we don't accidentally get a non-American. Perhaps the state of Hawaii should be required to produce an official statement on the validity of his birth certificate. Look... Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no question whatsoever about it. The short-form birth certificate is a legal document, issued by the state of Hawaii after validating that they have his long-form on record. In the utter, complete, and total absence of any evidence whatsoever that the state of Hawaii is lying, we must assume that they are telling the truth. Case closed, end of discussion.

Since we're on the topic, can we get a final verdict here that the idea of Obama's foreign birth is absolutely, positively, without question a fringe theory? --GoodDamon 18:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just a fringe theory, but an extreme-fringe, tiny-minority view. Obviously Kim Il Sung would never have picked a foreign-born person to be his Manchurian Candidate for turning us all into communist vegetables, it would have been far too risky. I'm surprised nobody pointed this out yet.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that this argument is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote about suspicions of trolling, and I would urge that the topic simply be allowed to rest. looie496 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why AGF goes out the window when it comes to Obama. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The obviously fringe theory Paul is dead is linked by an enormous number of non-fringe articles, including BLPs. Therefore, it's odd that the present fringe material cannot be wikilinked in any non-fringe BLP. But, it appears that no one's opinion will be changing any time soon, so Looie496 is probably correct that it's best to let it rest for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

it's about notability, not truth. Once the "Obama is from Manchuria" theory becomes a popular internet meme, I'm sure it will be possible to link it from more articles about urban legends. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always said that the Obama-was-foreign-born idea is probably not true, but is notable. Have I been unclear about that? As I said in my initial comment, this Obama-was-foreign-born meme has been reported in many reliable sources, such as Cincinnati Enquirer, Washington Times, Associated Press via Hartford Courant, NBC, and Forbes.[19] People here would still want to quarantine it even if it were reported on the front page of the New York Times.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that this idea is floating around the public imagination of uber-conservatives is more-or-less notable, but we have this thing called WP:WEIGHT at Wikipedia. Give us an idea of how much coverage this idea has gotten in relation to the subject of the article. In other words, when considering all the sources about Ann Dunham, what percentage of the verbiage is devoted to this particular idea? In all the sources about Barack Obama, what percentage of the verbiage is devoted to this particular idea? That percentage should be the percentage of the article that is devoted to this particular idea. It's a good rule of thumb, and it is difficult to apply rigorously, but my casual glancing at the sources in those two articles indicates to me that most of the reliable sources that are devoted to those two subjects do not even stoop to mention this particular conspiracy theory. Therefore, I say neither should Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. The sources you are linking to seem to be mentioning this conspiracy theory as part of a general discussion on uber-conservative reactions to Barack Obama's candidacy. This is a related topic, but it is not directly about Barack Obama or Ann Dunham. Indeed, it looks ot me to be more-or-less about the conservatives. On the other hand, the news media has been particularly vicious when it has come to bashing Sarah Palin. Is there a double standard? Perhaps. But it's not Wikipedia's place to fix this. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's most amazing how you can acknowledge publication in numerous reliable sources (Cincinnati Enquirer, Washington Times, Associated Press, Hartford Courant, NBC, Forbes, et cetera), and deduce that the subject warrants zero weight in Wikiepdia's large number of Obama articles. Zero is a very small amount of weight. But, if that is the consensus then that is the consensus. I'm sure that "uber-conservative" has nothing to do with your deductive reasoning.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those sources are not the most reliable for an Obama biography, nor are they actually, in point of fact, positing that they themselves are about the Obama biography. You can discuss this at WP:RSN if you want. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is surprising. The AP isn't an RS for a biography? Since when? Is it because it's Obama? Is the AP somehow inherently biased against him? Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the AP isn't in the business of writing biographies. The subject of an AP wire story about conspiracy theories surrounding Obama's birth certificate seems relevant to articles about conspiracy theories surrounding Obama's birth certificate. However, I do not see that source asserting that it is somehow reporting reliably on Obama's biography.

If AP comes out with a story about people who believe in creationism, we do not automatically jump to the conclusion that this source is reliable enough about evolution to include a footnote on the evolution page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A note about the Paul McCartney death urban legend... In my mind, it's all about BLP. That particular urban legend impacted Paul McCartney's life many years ago, prior to Wikipedia's existence, enough to carry a modicum of weight in his BLP. But -- and this is important -- it would be against Wikipedia policy to incorporate that hoax into his BLP if the hoax had sprung up recently, since we can't be party to affecting someone's life by lending credence to what is obviously libel and slander. The claims of foreign birth, on the other hand, have the potential to impact Obama now, through Wikipedia, even though they are absolutely unquestionably false. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia cannot lend these claims credence, because even as reliable sources report on the claims, reliable sources agree that they are utterly lacking in merit. --GoodDamon 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It obviously does not lend any credence to say in a footnote: "Alan Keyes and various fringe characters doubt the birthplace." How does calling something a fringe theory lend credence to it?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It does lend credence. The footnote is a number of words devoted to the subject. Count them. Figure out the percentage of the article (including footnotes) that this represents. Then compare it to the percentage of words devoted to exploring this fringe theory that are found in reliable biographical sources about Barack Obama and Ann Dunham. That's the WP:WEIGHT argument right there. Simply acknowledging the existence of a fringe theory "lends it credence". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If acknowledging the existence of a fringe theory lends it credence, then Wikipedia should immediately ban all articles (and sections of articles) about fringe theories. Is that really the policy?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For theories that are sufficiently lacking in WP:PROMINENCE. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to do this in every case there is a fringe theory out there? Are we going to attach footnotes to articles advising the reader what fringe theorists claim? A few examples: The moon landing hoax, the chemtrail theory, the claims about all kinds of conspiracies etc. Are we supposed to update the affected articles with footnotes carrying these theories? Are we going to update the bio of Neil Armstrong with a footnote claiming that he taped the moon landing in a tv studio? If so we have a lot of work to do. Dr.K. (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we "do this in every case there is a fringe theory out there." There are notable fringe theories and non-notable fringe theories.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr.K. (how come you're not, ahem, special?), the Moon landing article devotes an entire section to the "moon landing hoax" claims. My proposal -- to eliminate it, save for a Wikilink pointing to the article on the hoax claims -- was shot down months ago.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. Therefore, at this time, I would like to propose that we have reached a consensus to close this discussion and not to waste available bytes in Ann Dunham's -- or anyone else's -- biography with this claptrap. As the one proposing this, I:

• Agree - Haven't we wasted enough time on this already? --GoodDamon 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - The Keyes article is not being discussed here, and so I do not comment on that. Likewise, McCain (though I could see myself arguing for removal of the tidbit about questioning his eligibility due to birth in Panama -- if it were brought up for discussion here.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to except the Keyes article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing, but only if a good argument could be made that his fringe theory is of sufficient impact on his own life. --GoodDamon 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The section speaks for itself.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the unanswered questions involved here fascinate me. For instance I had no idea of this [20]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of McCain's parents were American citizens, and therefore very very few people disputed that McCain was a natural born citizen. And yet, that issue is covered at length not only in the McCain sub-articles, but also in the main article about John McCain: "McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, would if elected have become the first president who was born outside the current 50 states. This raised a potential legal issue, since the United States Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. A bipartisan legal review[214] and a unanimous but non-binding Senate resolution[215] both concluded that he is a natural-born citizen, but the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[216]" The issues were more legal than factual with McCain's birth, but the number of people advocating he was ineligible were comparable to the number of people advocating that Obama ought to release his original long-form birth certificate. Anyway, I'm sure the other commenters here can find lots of other profound differences with the McCain citizenship issue.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Washington Post article, which seems fairly balanced, it seem clear that McCain's legal qualification is not entirely clear. Your last edit (above) finally makes it very clear that you are pushing a POV. So continuing this long in the discussion has resolved that, if nothing else. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the WaPo article: "The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States...." When 100 U.S. senators agree about anything, it's pretty clear that the defeated position is rather fringy. WaPo cites a grand total of one person (Sarah H. Duggin) who thinks the 100 Senators might be mistaken. How this supposedly proves I am a POV-pusher is difficult for me to understand.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing upstream here. I don't anticipate that we will be able to convince you of anything. That's pretty much one of the major hallmarks of WP:POVPUSH. You might find conservapedia more your style. Oh, wait.... ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people who you cannot convince are obviously POV-pushers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Other way round. When you can't convince others... ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

About the Senate resolution the article says, The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks. What makes clear that you are pushing an anti-Obama POV is how quickly you jumped to defend McCain. It does seem that both were constitutionally qualified, although I think it unfortunate that both seem to have dodged elements of the issue...but then they are both politicians. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Senate is not a court of law, but it is an excellent barometer of opinion. And that opinion is virtually unanimous that McCain was eligible. Not even Sarah Duggin advocated the opposite position, and those who advocate that McCain was ineligible are fringy---perhaps not quite as fringy as Keyes, but fringy nonetheless. If stating that simple fact is defending McCain, then so be it. I didn't bring up McCain here, you did Malcolm. I haven't advocated for removing info about his citizenship from any McCain article. And what POV is it that I'm supposedly pushing; that Obama is not qualified? I have said numerous times on this talk page that I do not advocate or subscribe to that position. I've about had enough of this discussion, but I thank you all for participating. And I would heartily recommend you study WP:AGF, at the very least.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Have you ever considered becoming a politician? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The McCain parallel doesn't really apply. Assuming the non-fringe facts of that case (McCain was born in Panama Canal Zone), there was still a legitimate if academic (in the sense that it was never in doubt that the political and legal establishment was behind McCain) question about whether he was eligible. That's what we included brief mentions of in our articles. There was also a conspiracy theory that McCain in fact was not born in the PCZ, but in regular Panama. That we kept out of our articles, on grounds of lack of RS and total fringiness. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi WTR. I did not bring up McCain here, and I responded above by saying that people who believe McCain was ineligible are "perhaps not quite as fringy as Keyes." But they are still a miniscule minority, as evidenced by the 100 U.S. senators who unanimously rejected their claim. It's also worth noting that there are legitimate questions involving the Keyes suit against Obama, such as whether he has standing. In any event, I still find it absurd that --- even though numerous reliable sources have reported about this Obama birthplace issue --- none of Wikipedia's Obama articles are allowed to breathe a word about it even in a footnote. Mentioning something, and explicitly characterizing it as a fringe theory, are not the same as endorsing it or giving it credence. As far as a conspiracy theory about where McCain was born, I have not been following that; has it been mentioned in any reliable sources? My understanding is that the rationale for McCain's eligibility was that both parents were citizens, rather than where he was born.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Some rationales used PCZ as part of their logic, while others depended solely on parental citizenship. Similar legal issues had been raised on a similar level with Weicker, Goldwater, and others, about whom the facts of birth were never contested. Again, I'm drawing a distinction between serious (if arcane) legal arguments that acknowledge accepted facts, and conspiracy theories that contest those facts and invent/propose others. That seems a reasonable distinction to make in this context. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reasonable distinction that should help determine how much weight to give the information. It's not a reason to whitewash. The McCain article includes lots of fringe views about him: "The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a 'Manchurian Candidate' who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days." But when it is suggested to mention one such thing about Obama (in a footnote in an obscure Obama sub-article!), I'm accused of trolling, POV-pushing, and sent packing. I have no problem with the quoted sentence in the McCain article. I just think we ought to be evenhanded, is all.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those smears are mentioned because they were historically important, as they directly contributed to McCain's defeat in the S.C. primary and subsequent loss in the nomination race. If the Obama birthplace theories had led to Obama losing the general election, then most definitely they would have to be mentioned in the Obama articles. If Keyes' lawsuit succeeds and Obama doesn't get inaugurated, then yes we should mention them in the Obama article, in the lead in fact! But if Keyes' lawsuit gets laughed out of the court system, whole different story. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The McCain citizenship issue did not affect any election, nor most likely will the Keyes lawsuit. To me, it's just a matter of following the reliable sources. If the issue of Obama's birthplace has been covered in reliable sources, then it should not be unmentionable in Wikipedia's Obama articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources doubt Obama's eligibility (as that law professor did McCain's elibility), yes. If reliable sources are just reporting on nuts out there who doubt Obama's eligibility, that's a different matter. It should be covered somewhere in WP, yes, because The Paranoid Style in American Politics lives on and on. But to get back to the subject header, the worst possible place to put it would be the Ann Dunham article, because nothing in her life as she lived it had any connection to the oddball conspiracy theories that would one day surround her son. (That's why I kept both the PCZ eligibility issue and the Manchurian Candidate crap out of Early life and military career of John McCain, for example. It had nothing to do with his life as he lived it at the time.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the law professoriate will be glad to know that each and every one of them is now a reliable source.  :-) Anyway, if you have a suggestion for a more appropriate Obama article, I'm all ears.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A different birth certificate lawsuit (how many are there? I've seen three now) is currently included in Public image of Barack Obama#Religion, actually. It's next to the Muslim rumor there, which I guess is sort of the logical place for it. (But I'm not familiar with that article's history or contents, so don't quote me as endorsing or supporting its inclusion there.) Or in a dedicated article, American political culture as expressed by the determination of some to portray Barack Obama as The Other. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'll be sure to say that you support inclusion.  :-) Incidentally, Camille Paglia has expressed doubts about Obama's citizenship.[21] But it's in an op-ed piece rather than some news reporter quoting her. She seems like a fairly reliable source, for whatever it may be worth. Just on general principles, I would not mind if Obama forked over the 1961 document, if he wants the keys to the kingdom.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

She's not, actually - unless you also think Maureen Dowd is. No reporting or journalistic standards, just biased opinion. Tvoz/talk 03:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Paglia is a (sometimes) talented provocateur, not a reliable source. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You both may be right about Paglia, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion (as WTR did above) that the law professor who doubts McCain's eligibility is a reliable source. That Professor (Susan Duggin) wrote the first of her three law review articles about the Qualifications Clause,[22] and I don't think that would necessarily qualify her to be an RS who is authoritative and neutral. Same with law professors Geoffrey Stone and Steven Calabresi.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The professor who wrote the paper I was referring to is Gabriel J. Chin, who's got an endowed chair at the University of Arizona. That doesn't mean his legal theory is correct, of course, but it does mean that his view carries more weight than the average malcontent with a blog. If another law prof of equal stature writes a paper saying that Obama isn't eligible, then yes we should include brief mention of that in an Obama article somewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, endowed.  :-) Here's a fairly high-powered law professor quoted in a fairly reliable source about Obama's eligibility. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving everyone, even Tvoz.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I hardly know what to say. Tvoz/talk 04:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Novelty Theory

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

That load of gibberish is about cosmetology? ;)

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

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

Der... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a "criticism" section in that article which quoted the documentation of a piece of Novelty Theory calculator software saying in effect "This whole thing is intended as a parody of scientism, reductionism, and the use of charts and graphs to add gravitas to claims which are ultimately not empirical." It was deleted as unsourced. ([23]) <eleland/talkedits> 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, help

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

it's ostensibly part of the topic of UFO conspiracy theory -- I don't think anything more needs to be said. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I first read a debunking of MJ-12 when I was about 12 years old! The documents were crude forgeries, riven with errors of formatting and jargon, with signatures photocopied from other memos. The article does, eventually, make this clear, but you have to scroll all the way down to section 7, after a whole raft of UFO-conspiracy braindumping. <eleland/talkedits> 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Are the main sources in the article reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. They are to fansites, fanbooks, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I must find my copy of Deus Ex, then I can infiltrate MJ12 and find the truth. Ah, college memories. Verbal chat 11:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, this source will work for you. Zagalejo^^^ 08:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

English Qabalah

I found this on the NPOV board [[24]]. There does seem to be a problem here (see the talk page) although the publishing house seems to pay royalties [25] the article is clearly fringe and POV. dougweller (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got to love how all this stuff links up. This particular article connects to Hermetic Qabalah, which in turn goes back to Hermeticism (which reminds me: Hermetism still needs to be merged into Hermeticism).

I think the section detailing Mr Vincent's remarkable discoveries of 2008 can just be removed - then we'll see how it looks. Moreschi (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And why does English Qaballa exist too? Surely this can just all be merged into one. Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently "English Qaballaa" (spelled with two Ls) is a specific variation of English Qabalah (spelled with one L) - see: English Qabalah#James Lees' system. That said, I am not sure that a seperate sub-article is called for. The two articles seem to repeat eachother. Merge them.

POV fork, walled garden, owned by alt medicine fanatic

Orthomolecular psychiatry should probably be redirected to orthomolecular medicine and properly content forked. However, we have people like User:Alterrabe making threats like this. Please help combat WP:OWN, WP:POVPUSH, Wikipedia:Walled garden, etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merging back to orthomolecular medicine, there seems to be enough here for Wikipedia:Summary style to validly apply: that said, a merge with Histadelia looks reasonable, and this edit is a definite improvement on the previous quackery-pushing mess. Moreschi (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria also needs to be considered carefully. Does Wikipedia make it a habit to report on invented diseases for which the only sources are people who believe in the disease? Seems to run afoul of WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Already a number of keep votes in the Pyroluria article AfD, but it is highly problematic. I can't tell from it where the real science stops and the fringe stuff begins. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You can thank my legions of fans who like to peak at my contributions page for that. In any case, the real science doesn't seem to enter into that page, as far as I can tell. It's a "diagnosis" made by practitioners who reject evidence-based medicine. WP:MEDRS certainly needs to be invoked heavily. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take it that pyrroles are real, but our article tells me nothing about their function, if any, in human metabolism. I suggest stubifying the article. We do have to cover topics in alternative and complementary medicine, even if we don't believe they have any validity. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

pyrrole looks to be a fine article to me, but Pyroluria... not only is it already a stub, but it really does need a reference cleanup according to WP:MEDRS. I tend to also be suspicious of articles that short, but with that many sources - I wouldn't be surprised if there could even be some WP:OR there in bringing the statements together. LinaMishima (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Pyroluria can just be merged back into the main article, orthomolecular medicine. A sentence or two somewhere will do. There's little helpful information here or useful sourcing outside of the CAM community. Don't be too quick on the AFD button, SA. Merging works better: the page history is preserved and useful content can be more easily kept. Redirects are cheap. Moreschi (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny. I used to be told I was too quick with the merging. People were like, "you should take it to AfD". Now, I guess, the pendulum has swung back. I'll gladly start merging. I think AfD debates are stupid anyway and tend to be populated by less than reputable encyclopedists. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you did the merging too quick, SA? Merge tag, inform article creator and major contributors, and then wait for comments is the procedure. Really good to see you bringing problems here to get further ideas and spread the workload. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I observed the merge tag but found no discussion at the destination of the link. The onus is on the merge proposer to start the discussion per WP:MERGE: "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page". It is my usual practise to remove tags which have no supporting discussion and so I have done so here too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your "usual practice" at all helpful in this case, especially since I just told SA what the procedure was without mentioning the need to start the talk-page discussion. I'll put the merge tag back. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He removed the tag just over an hour after it was placed there. That seems unreasonable, and if that is your usual practice, CW, I suggest you reconsider it. dougweller (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Linking to this discussion from the talkpage would have been helpful. What you did, CW, was not. Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Merge too quickly and there's a complaint, post to AfD and there's a complaint, place a merge notice without posting on the talk page and there's a complaint, ignore the false consensus that is trumpeted when various fringe proponents complain loudly about their pet articles being "decimated" and there's a complaint, remove unreliable sources and there's a complaint, impose reliable sources and there's a complaint.... ....and I'm the one that's supposed to have the problem! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

you are doing well, SA -- cases like this are why we have this noticeboard. Remember that there is no deadline. Our system is tedious, but it ensures that solid arguments float upwards while mechanical pov-pushing will sink, even if it takes some time. --dab (𒁳) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Though there is no WP:DEADLINE, this principle is OFTEN abused by feet-draggers who try to keep an article in a shameful state for as long as possible. The longer an article is in a bad state, the more likely it is that people will read it, take what it is saying at face-value, and write a paper on the subject with a curious bent that can be traced directly back to some fringe-proponent who is feet-dragging. I've had my fill with eventualism. Decisive action works well when we hang together (rather than all hanging separately). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually trying to express my sympathy. We are in the same boat, trust me that my ethnic zealots aren't above any tactic embraced by your medical crackpots. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep the faith, SA. Most things around here work themselves out in the end. It may take years of tedious consensus-forming and awareness-raising, but same process of edit, discuss, edit, discuss, argue, reason, etc usually produces the right result. With merging, have patience. Letting the merge tags sit there for a couple of days before proceeding is good form. Ditto with disruptive users. Argue your case carefully and well, avoid misconduct yourself and if you can show X to have no case and still to be pushing nonsense, the admin corps will usually swing into action sooner or later. Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the "bad" end of the "usually". Eventualism in the defense of Wikipedia is vice. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

sheesh. It is a vice if you sit back and let others do the dirty work. It is a virtue if it reminds you that your efforts aren't all in vain. Both Moreschi and I have done our share in making it happen. We're just saying that now Pyroluria is getting wider attention, it's going to be fine. I know you do important work, SA, but man, are you on a high horse today. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to what we are going to do with the Pyroluria article, where the merge proposition has both for and against votes. I'm particularly unhappy with this sentence "However, other pyrroles have been implicated, and what literature exists on this topic is unclear." Both halves of the sentence are dubious. "Have been implicated" - in the sense that passive smoking has been implicated in the causation of lung cancer? I doubt that. And is the literature unclear because different studies show different things (i.e. there is no real phenomenon here) or are we making a value judgement about the quality of the papers? Would be good to get this rewritten ASAP but I can't immediately get access to the journals. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

This veers on hagiography. Even though the PRC persecution of Falun Gong is horrible, the article is really overly complimentary. Some of our pseudoscience debunkers might like to have a look at the "academic perspectives" section. Can we please balance this up a bit? Moreschi (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

People from the Epoch Times get paid to promote Falun Gong. Wikipedia should be aware of that. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sources to be of much help. One thing I can say is that the section that was formerly labeled "academic perspectives" was not "academic perspectives". Instead, it was simply "Teachings of Falun Gong". That was the only change I made. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"People from the Epoch Times get paid to promote Falun Gong." -- where'd you hear this? I've never heard that.--Asdfg12345 01:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are presumably aware that the Epoch Times was founded in order to promote Falun Gong? looie496 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

An improvement?

Some months back, I was involved heavily in a dispute surrounding List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Out of this dispute, a curious consensus emerged (even supported by some of those who seemed to dislike certain subjects that they believed in being labeled pseudoscience) that there should be one list on that page. I have just today implemented that change, but it would be good if we got some people to go through and make sure everything came out okay. The first quasi-objection also came through with a homeopath stating that he is worried that some "pseudoskeptical" organizations are being used to source claims of pseudoscience. You can see what I think about such sentiments here. However, as with most of these kinds of articles, the more eyes that are attached to the heads of people without specific fringe-agendas, the better.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was the only editor who has responded so far. I consider being called a "homeopath" extremely insulting. Since I am editing under my real name this kind of mischaracterisation is also potentially detrimental to my career as a mathematician. (If you have any doubts about this, I invite you to discuss this on my talk page.) ScienceApologist, we need people who fight against anti-scientific POV pushers. We do not need people who fight against those who try to keep (or make) articles encyclopedic and neutral.

I agree that the article could do with a few more eyes from this board. Its neutrality is currently under attack from ScienceApologist, who is apparently trying to represent statements by sceptical organisations as if they had the same weight and reliability as statements by scientific organisations. More details on the article talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on defending skewed characterizations of homeopathy. It often looks extremely pointy to me. Your insistence that there is some sort of difference between "skeptical" and "scientific" organizations has not been sourced to anything but your sayso and (apparently) a tried technique of POV-pushers in the past to make sure that their pet pseudoscience didn't get sullied by other pseudosciences by association. You still haven't offered anything in the way of an explanation for this, instead preferring to make a complete revert of the entire article without addressing the fundamental concern. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to insist that universalist organisations which are formed because of a common interest in pseudoscience, and in which non-academics like Randi sometimes play a leading role, have as much authority when calling a certain field pseudoscience as do scientific organisations, which normally only make statements about their subject. If this is an accurate characterisation of what you are doing, stop this bullshit now. If not, explain why I am wrong. I am not interested in your conspiracy theories, and especially not if you make me one of the conspirators. You are not going to convince me that you have valid arguments by telling me that I am a pseudoscience POV pusher, or whatever. But I am one of those rare people who sometimes find that they have been wrong and consequently change their opinion about something. (Has this ever happened to you? If not, you should ask yourself if you really are a scientist; or if you are the Pope.) Therefore you have a chance to convince me by giving me valid arguments for your POV.

One more insult, and I will go to ANI to ask for an educational block. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia you must learn to cooperate with others and to engage in meaningful dialogue. Burning bridges is trivial. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific organizations rarely can be bothered to deal with pseudoscience, so the skeptical organizations are often the best sources. And if you think you're going to get anywhere by reporting SA to ANI for something like this, you're not up to date on recent history. In fact, given the belligerence of your statements, it's more likely to escalate into a situation that ends with you getting blocked. looie496 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, "educational block" is kind of funny, given that SA has probably been the subject of about 30 ANI threads by now. He is as thoroughly educated as it is possible to be. looie496 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That scientific organisations rarely can be bothered isexactly the point. With scientific organisations it's not as easy as one guy getting a bit heated, writing something up, and then it gets rubber stamped. They have a higher standard, and SA is apparently trying to blur the difference. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please guys, calm down. Threatening each other with blocks is not productive. I've interacted with Hans before and he did not come across as POV pusher. Pcap ping 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hal Huggins

I'd appreciate more eyes on this article about the mercury amalgam controversy ex-dentist, as I'm about to go to bed and it's currently being edited by someone with strong opinions about this guy. So, if people could watch to make sure he and others don't get too carried away, that would be great. Good night, Verbal chat 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alterrabe (talk · contribs) again? This is also the chap responsible for the orthomolecular mess a couple threads up. Moreschi (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material

A POV spinoff from Jane Roberts, as credulous as you can get. dougweller (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. Redirected back to the Roberts article quick-smart. She may well be notable but that spiel was totally unencyclopedic. Good for a laugh, though...Moreschi (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And it's back. Take a look at the talk page, evidently this is not Fringe. Psychic stuff isn't fringe? dougweller (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted the redirect. Reasons on article talk page. Let's continue the discussion there. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the redirect here. Verbal chat 12:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded at the talk page... but I have suggested that the first step should be to merge Seth Material into Jane Roberts, then redirect. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, merge for sure as her article is just a stub type thing and could contain a bit more about the teachings to make it more comprehensive. Sticky Parkin 11:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a serious case of WP:OWN here -- eg some changes reverted with the message "Sorry, I'm not permitting 2 years of work to be erased.) (undo)". dougweller (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

... so let's work with Caleb Murdock in a constructive and collaborative way to improve the article further. At least he is participating in constructive discussion on the article's talk page. Surely an improved article is the most desirable outcome from anyone's point of view ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

More editors would be very welcome here, to find external sources and integrate them into the article, and address the style and tone problems. This essay can probably be quick quickly turned into an article - and then we can decide whether it stands alone or should be moved into another article. Verbal chat 10:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then again, maybe not. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected, there seems to be nothing here not primary-sourced-based. Even if it wasn't fringy, which it is, that's the real problem. Jane Roberts can be expanded with some of the usable stuff. Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Usable material now moved over the Roberts article. Still more secondary sources needed, though. Moreschi (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that WP:NOR allows the use of primary sources provided they are used without interpretation - as they were here, as a source for a straightforward summary of the books' main themes. And, in addition, there were at least eight secondary sources referenced both in the lead and in the Criticism section. Replacing a well-written, informative, sourced and balanced article like this one with a redirect in no way improves Wikipedia - it is an entirely negative and destructive act. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it. At the moment neither the Roberts article nor the Seth Material one passes WP:NOTE. I don't want to AFD her bio, but I could do. Please somebody find some decent secondary sources at least for her bio. Moreschi (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the "Criticism" section, though. I've moved a chunk of that over, thanks. Moreschi (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've also redirected Lumania back to the Roberts article. Moreschi (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to find a decent bibliography. Most things will not be available online. I would suggest to anyone with some free time to dig up the 1978 Village Voice article, to fatten the biography; a lot of the books in the "c. other books" section would be available in a good library. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor with the ownership problem (what is the bit about 'not allowing 2 years of work to be destroyed', the article isn't that old?) keeps removing tags also, not sure what to do about that. dougweller (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've never edited these articles. After seeing this report, I reviewed the articles and the talk pages, I did some preliminary Google Books searches and I don't see any doubt about the notability of either topic - Jane Roberts as an author and the Seth Material (separate from Jane Roberts the author). There are so many books mentioning each topic, it should not be difficult to add multiple secondary sources to the articles, if someone wants to do the work.

"The Seth Material" is notable separately from the author, as a cultural artifact that was an element of the core of the new age movement in the 1970s and 1980s. "Seth" was not just one of the also-ran (so-called) "channeled entities", but was notable as one of the most popular ones that helped spark the whole trend of channeling-related ideas in the 1980s. The phrase "The Seth Material" gets more than 300 Google books hits - that's for books, not web pages (there are more than 100,000 web page hits). I'm not suggesting that the content of the Seth Material has anything to do with science or that channeling is real. It looks like religious beliefs to me. But putting aside the content of the writings, as a cultural meme of the time during which it was popular among new-agers, it is notable enough to have an article separate from the author.

Roberts is notable for a biography article because she wrote many books, several of which were major bestsellers 30 years ago and most of which are still are in print today and have been translated worldwide. In addition to books she authored, she is mentioned in books by others. I'm not familiar with the details, but there is a lot of information available about her for editors who want to research it. There is no doubt of her notability as a popular author - no matter how "fringe" her writings are, the books were widely popular and are part of the USA cultural history of the 20th century.

Her notability is further established by the fact that an archive of her work is maintained at the Yale University Library - Jane Roberts Papers - Manuscripts and Archives. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the argument being put forward at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories‎ that this has nothing to do with fringe or pseudoscience. I don't even care that much about the article being separate and tend to think it should be, but I do care about the way it is written, which at least was as though we were supposed to take it seriously. And the continual removal of the tags by an editor who shouts that he isn't going to allow two years of work to be destroyed really has to move on to serious discussion as to how to make the article encyclopedia and NPOV. I also think it is way too long and detailed. dougweller (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that the Seth Material article is not pseudoscience because it is not about channeling (which, I agree, is a pseudoscience) and it makes no claims about channeling. The fact that it was (supposedly) produced by channeling is irrelevant - not every book written on a computer is a computer science text. The Seth Material books contain spiritual/philosophical/religious instruction, and do not make any scientifically testable claims at all.

As to whether the Seth Material article is, nevertheless, a fringe topic - well, the jury is still out on that one, as I am waiting for someone to provide a useful definition of fringe and mainstream outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience. But if anyone wants to have a crack at this, please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Scope_of_this_guideline. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still dubious about the sources. New Age material is not itself a reliable source, and most of the material on Google Books looks to be, well, New Age. We need reliable sources here, and by reliable I mean mainstream. There's still little here other than justification for the claim that Roberts/Seth Material had a big impact on the paranormal scene. But yes, now we have more to work with. Moreschi (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as a New Age book meets the criteria of WP:RS - i.e. "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" - why would it not be a reliable source ? What exactly do you mean here by "mainstream" for a topic like this that is not in the field of science or pseudoscience ? Apologies for banging on about this, but the continued absence of a satisfactory answer to this very basic question is worrying me. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I found some Sources that may be of use, but haven't had the time to track the references works down, but they do exist. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles

I have started an RfC: RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles. Please comment on this important subject. -- Fyslee / talk 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the Category:Alternative medicine page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) Sticky Parkin 11:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Horned God

Hi, we're in a rather difficult and long-running dispute at Talk:Horned God over whether undue weight is being given to certain aspects of the Horned God theory — a disputed historical theory that a host of different horned deities from different cultures in prehistory and antiquity were historically linked or in some sense were the same god. The article itself is about that fringe theory, and we all agree that it must be couched in the context of modern critical viewpoints to provide context and make it clear that it is disputed and not established historical fact. The question we're currently arguing over is, how much of the theory can we legitimately describe without breaking WP:UNDUE policy? One editor there would like to delete material relating to the individual gods involved in this theory, while I hold that since this is a fringe article, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we should be able to discuss the theory in some detail without the threat of large-scale deletions hanging over us. I'd love some help.

I've also asked for help at WP:ORN on a related subject from this same dispute; advice seems to have petered out there and it's still unresolved, so if any of you have the patience to check that out, I'd appreciate it. Apologies in advance for the screeds of text, but I think the later posts contain most of what's relevant to this particular query. Thank-you kindly, Fuzzypeg★ 03:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The debate is actually quite simple. It's about the removal of a list of deities which are not related to the subject of the article in reliable sources. The sources (where cited) do not propose that the deities relate to the Horned God (the subject of the article), and therefore the article is misrepresenting those sources, and misleading readers. Much of the disputed content is totally unsourced. The sources which would be required to establish the links have not presented themselves over the past 6 weeks, despite frequent posts to the talk-page by several editors on the subject. It is highly unlikely that these sources exist at all.

Where the "historical origins" fringe-theories are discussed, they need to be summarised and not have all the evidence simply re-iterated in a list which makes no reference to them being part of a fringe-theory as article currently does. The fringe-theory needs to be explained, not restated.

I'll also clarify this at WP:ORN#Horned god in the hope that we can establish a way forward with this article. Davémon (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some discussion of specific horned dieties such as Pan is essential to the article. The article should avoid explicitly connecting them to the "horned god" unless there are sources that do so, but a reader would rightly complain about an article on this topic that contains no information about this background. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. These should be dealt with as they are in the subsections "Development" and "Influence from Literature". The problem is that the deities are listed without any context in the section "Horned Deities", which does not use reliable sources which make reference to the subject of the article. --Davémon (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

why, of course. Any number of horned deities can and should be discussed in the Horned God article inasmuch as they can be shown to have relevance to the "Horned God" theory. A generic discussion of horned deities in general is still a separate topic independent of the "Horned God" idea. There isn't a real problem here. --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only problem is that the list of horned deities does not show relevance to the "Horned God" using reliable secondary sources. Therefore the list should be removed, while other editors argue the list should stay indefinately without being sourced in any relevant way. Can we split the list into it's own article now? Because on it's own the list is totally acceptable (assuming "horned deities" as a topic passes wp:n). --Davémon (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you Looie496. I still need to clarify, could deletion of these sections on specific gods be required by WP:UNDUE? Davemon has been pushing hard to have them deleted, split into another article, or reduced to brief comments in a criticism section. The issues of WP:RS and WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources were only recently raised, and though I believe they would be easily resolved, I'd like to leave them out of this discussion and make sure we first understand WP:UNDUE, rather than dancing from topic to topic but resolving nothing. Davemon itemises why he believes the current list of gods breaches UNDUE in this comment; however I believe that since the article's subject is a fringe theory (clearly explained in the lead), those points don't apply. Please Looie, or anyone else, can you clarify this? Fuzzypeg★ 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, if the list were remade with recourse to second/third party reliable sources, it would look nothing like the current list, and is unlikely to have wp:weight issues (because reliable sources won't just lay out the false-evidence Murray provided). The issues of wp:syn and wp:or were raised from day one [26]. Sourcing is generally the way those problems are solved in articles - apologies if I didn't make that clear. FWIW I don't think the sources exist to support it and the burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep the content to wp:proveit. The whole article is not about a fringe theory, it is about a god. The historical-origins theory of that god is a fringe-theory. Much like how the The Occult Roots of Nazism is a fringe-theory of historical origins, that doesn't make Nazism a fringe theory. Aguing that the entire article is devoted to a fringe theory, therefore emphasis may be placed upon one rejected theory is a simple fallacy of composition. The way that Murrays antecendant-deity imagery is currently treated in the horned deities section gives wp:undue weight to a rejected theory (for reasons I've discussed elsewhere [27]). --Davémon (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Africa

Above article was brought to the attention of this board a while ago as some of the content seemed to be fringy. I've made a number of edits, moving it into chronological rather than regional order, the logic being that if people want to know about the History of East Africa they can follow the link to that article. If anyone wants to take a critical look at what I've done, I'd be grateful. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good Itsmejudith. A nice improvement. Well done. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Of course article can still be improved quite a lot, and we identified a lack of consistency across History of Asia, History of Europe etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very well done. I'm afraid it's not an area I know anything about, but I agree about the lack of consistency. dougweller (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Well done. These "$TOPIC of $CONTINENT" articles are often in bad shape, and working on them is a rather thankless task, so - thanks! --dab (𒁳) 22:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the chorus of praise. Obviously the content can still get way better, but Judith's restructuring is very nice. Top stuff. Moreschi (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Torsion field

I recently removed a large swatch of text from torsion field because it was entirely based on the primary sources of proponents of this alleged "theory". Now I see that some other editors are removing pretty much the only sources which actually address this theory from a WP:NPOV (bearing in mind of course that this is a fringe theory par excellence). The question is whether this is a reliable source for some of the claims made in the article. Otherwise, if absolutely no independent reliable sources can be found (the article is quite thin on them as it is), then perhaps deletion should once again be countenanced. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well at the moment the link is to a dead page. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Humm... strange. It is the same as this link copied from the article, which works. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that is probably a good source. This page says, "In Sept. 1998, in order to conduct an in-depth investigation into the ongoing torsion fields fraud dating back to the 1980's, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) established the Commission Against Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research. The Commission published a collection of papers authored by Commission's Chairman, RAS Academician Dr. Edward Kruglyakov, disclosing numerous facts on the international torsion field fraud organized by a group of Russian swindlers in order to swindle the Russian and foreign governments and private enterprises...." If those statements are true, then the article should be usable. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ra (social memory complex)

Newly created (see editor's other contributions). Relates to Don Elkins, there was an attempt to place some paranormal stuff in Ra. dougweller (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I prodded this (article on a book, with no claims of notability) before seeing this message. I will watch the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Title has been renamed as Ra (channeled entity). I would like to quote from 70.186.172.75 's comment on Talk:Seth Material:

"My understanding is that WP:FRINGE applies to fringe science topics. The material referred to in this article presents a religious/philosphical/spiritual worldview, not a scientific or pseudoscientific one, so I don't see how it can possibly be fringe science."

I believe the same comment can apply for this article as well.--Logos5557 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How is "a group of entities that can be named as a positively oriented 6th density social memory complex" not obvious pseudoscience? If you use such remarkable strings of words without quotation marks (or clear irony markers) you needn't be surprised if the article is mentioned here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If editors feel strongly that an article is about a minority religion rather than pseudoscience, they could leave a note on WikiProject Religion where there are people who want to see good coverage of all religions. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been modified to have a more neutral tone. Pseudoscience is something different, is not such remarkable strings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience --Logos5557 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note, WP:FRINGE is not limited to only fringe science topics. The guideline covers fringe concepts in history, religion, pop culture, etc. as well. If it is on the fringe, WP:FRINGE applies. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of moot whether wp:fringe applies -- the article has no usable sources. Looie496 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion continues in article's talk page. This article should not be considered as fringe or fringe theory, because the source has no claim of using any scientific method or it possesses no argument or whatsoever that the information gathered through channeling should be considered as facts, contrary to most religions. I tried to modify the tone of article as it would strongly emphasizes these, still may need further makeup though. The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts begins with "This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community or by notable skeptical organizations. The existence of such expressed opinions suffices for inclusion in this list, and inclusion on this list does not necessarily indicate consensus for every entry.". It's no surprise that channeling is regarded as psudoscience by CSICOP. However, how about channelings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammed and other religious figures in human history? When the channeled entity identifies itself as Creator/God, it is not accepted pseudoscience but when the entity claims a "lower rank/level" it is pseudoscience. I believe there is a paradox/contradiction in this. --Logos5557 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian race

Anyone with an interest in this who doesn't have it on their watchlist, the lead is heavily rewritten (and looks awful in any case). dougweller (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Caucuses mountains". LOL. Am watching it now, thanks Doug. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made some improvements, mainly changing in-line external links to in-line references and moving new material from the lead to other sections of the article. I have restored the previous version of the opening paragraph, as I think it was clearer and more precise than its replacement, and it had useful references which were lost in the re-write. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This lead seems much better. I am concerned that the article in places appears to be making the point that the term is "valid". If it is possible to say that it is used loosely as a synonym for "white" then that would save a lot of space. I don't think examples are needed: the one from the Canadian popular science report could go, as also could the excerpts from medical research journal articles. In those articles Caucasian is clearly used as a synonym for White, to designate members of an ethnic group rather than a racial one. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gandalf, it looks and reads much better now (I was going to thank you on your talk page, but this is better). I also agree with Itsmejudith, there seems to be some confusion between ethnic group and race. dougweller (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ownership and neutrality issues on Seth Material

There are very big ownership and neutrality (and civility) issues on the Seth Material article. It currently has an essay style with an in universe perspective, and only primary sources. It also has one unsourced section which is far too long. It needs trimming down, sourcing and reframing, and then perhaps merging into the Jane Roberts article. Verbal chat 07:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since a discussion about the same topic is already in progress on this noticebaord in the above section at #Seth Material, maybe it would be a good idea to move this comment there so the discussion does not become fragmented. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)