This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Needs some attention. Am I right in saying that as Y chromosome has been identified it must have a human father? See this diff [1]. The Royal Holloway investigation is sourced not from an official report but from an interpretation in powerpoint form on the Starchild website [2] 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. [3] dougweller (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[4], 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 (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)

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. ([5]) <eleland/talkedits> 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this on the NPOV board [[6]]. There does seem to be a problem here (see the talk page) although the publishing house seems to pay royalties [7] 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [8].

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.[9] 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 [10]. 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.[11] 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,[12] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• This needs more eyes. The term isn't "controversial": it's dead, apart from as a synonym for white. The lede says first one thing and then the other, thanks to BindingArbitration (talk · contribs). Moreschi (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The term is still very widely used, and is not a synonym for "white" (except in context of the US police force). It is still widely used in anthropological literature of Indians etc, and is often used interchangeably with "Caucasoid". There is too much confusion here because of rather pointless agendas. The term is used to describe a human phenotype, which was one of the main functions of the "race" concept. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

this is true, but how does that make it different from "white"? "white" has exactly the same function and describes an entire human phenotype, not just a skin type. Care needs to be taken not to have the scopes of white people overlap with that of Caucasian race. The latter should focus on the historical concept only. Caucasian should disambiguate to white people for all usage that isn't part of the historical notion in scientific racism. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

If the article said that this was a philosophy written by Jane Roberts, there might be an argument that it is not fringe. But it doesn't, and the Jane Roberts article says publishing the Seth Material " established her as one of the pre-eminent figures in the world of paranormal phenomena." I don't agree that you can just separate the Seth material from its creation in this way. Jane Roberts didn't claim to have had a religious revelation. dougweller (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure . . . Jane herself doubted the material, she accepted some of it, but I am not sure how much. Not trying to compare the two but Einstein and his ideas are often separated. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Seth Material may be considered "fringe" - although I would still like to see some objective yardstick for that classification. My argument is (i) it is not fringe science and (ii) it is notable (as defined by WP:NOTE) as a topic in its own right, separate from Jane Roberts. And I would still like to hear more about whether the definition of "reliable source" for fringe topics is different from WP:RS, and, if so, how it is different. Oh - and how and why would the approach to this article differ if Roberts had claimed the material was the product of "religious revelation" rather than channeling ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

← (Unindent) WP:FRINGE may need some clarification but (per ArbCOM) it does cover fringe material in history, sociology, etc. and not simply scientific topics. This is fringe in that it's a very small socio-religious movement, far outside the mainstream, with little written about it by people outside this fringe movement. Basically, to pass WP:NOTE, there needs to be papers/books/etc. written about the subject from people outside the movement itself. Otherwise, we're looking at a walled garden of self-referential material. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Seth material books sold more than 7.5 million copies and had a major influence on the New Age movement of the 1970s and 1980s. There are multiple third party sources about that in the article now (someone added them last night), and some of those sources are published by Yale and Oxford presses. It's not a walled garden, because it's linked from the New Age article. That article, as an aside, should have the new sources added to it to show the importance of the Seth Material to the development of the whole trend in channeling that so many people followed during those years. I'm not a believer in channeling, or Seth, or any of that stuff, I'm looking at this as a matter of historical interest and religious or spiritual philosophy.

Regarding ArbCom, if you have a link where they clarify the use of WP:FRINGE in non-science topics, please provide that. I would be interested in learning about that decision. There is another ArbCom decision in which they refer to words such as "psychic" as cultural artifacts, and in that regard they specified as follows:

Paranormal as an effective tag: 12) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose. passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems to cover the situation in the Seth Material article directly, in other words, as long as the article is introduced and linked as required by that ruling, the topic is "framed" in a satisfactory manner to indicate it is not a fringe theory or scientific claim, it is a cultural artifact being described. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Seth Material is notable, I agree. The real problem is an editor who openly asserts that it is his religion (and see my talk page, where another editor says that ironically Jane Roberts wants to avoid this) and although he denies it seems to have serious ownership problems and, I believe, wants to use the article as publicity for his religion. dougweller (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And this is also fringe. And a mess. Also see the talk page. dougweller (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have wielded the knife. Based on past experience I expect a revert to follow shortly -- I'm not going to edit-war to defend the changes because that's against my policy, so it will be up to others to take a hand here. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Moreschi (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spillover from the Obama birthplace "controversy" seems to have sent the Natural-born citizen article into cuckooland. A couple of months ago the article was clean, concise, and reasonably free of bias; today it's a morass of fringe theories that are distinguished from mainstream thought inadequately or not at all. Please help. —phh (^t/_c) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution: Restore version from a couple months ago, then incorporate in what changes make sense. Gah... Could someone please direct these lunatics to Conservapedia? --GoodDamon 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty good article after the changes from the past couple of days. I actually found it very informative. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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 [13]. 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 [14]). --Davémon (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a fringe theory, as we have all agreed. Therefore discussing that fringe theory is not giving it undue weight. There is no fallacy of composition (!!?). Also, the god is the essential feature of this theory. It makes no sense to separate the god from the theory. I really don't have the faintest idea what you're on about. Fuzzypeg★ 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify the fallacious argument being put forward:

• Murrays history is a fringe theory.
• The Horned God appears in Murrays history.
• Therefore The Horned God is a fringe theory.

This confuses the "part" (Murrays history) with the "whole" (the Horned God). The Horned God is a cultural artifact about which many beliefs, many theories, many stories and many concepts circulate. One of these happens to be Murrays pseudo-historical fringe theory. To claim that the whole Horned God is a fringe theory is based on faulty logic whereby a charactersistic of a part is attributed to the whole - fallacy of composition. Exactly the same logic could be used to say:

• Slaine is a comic book.
• The Horned God appears in Slaine.
• Therefore The Horned God is a comic book.

Hopefully this example is more obviously false and it should be clear that it is exactly the same faulty logic which is used to reach a similarly incorrect conclusion. Treating the whole article as wp:fringe makes as much sense as treating the whole article as wp:comic. Apologies if I'm being pedantic, but it should give some idea of why I disagree with your assumption. --Davémon (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always been at pains to make it clear that the Horned God theory doesn't rest just with Murray and Gardner, but with many people who similarly argued for the existence of a historical Horned God worshipped across large areas of Europe and the Near East, and possibly further. The Horned God is the deity popularised by those thories, and he has continued on in neopagan worship and fantasy literature. Although there has been some support from a few respectable sources for the historical connection/amalgamation of the various horned gods, as a whole the theory is not well regarded amongst academics. You're losing the forest for the trees, here.

You're also losing track of what I opened this discussion for: to determine whether "undue weight" is a reasonable justification for wholesale deletions from an article about a fringe theory. Your deletions have largely been rationalised so far by complaints about "ignorant, out-dated and thoroughly debunked pseudo-history and post-jungian new-age mumbo-jumbo", but seeing as this is article is about that "mumbo-jumbo", surely we're allowed to describe it? Fuzzypeg★ 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You say you opened this discussion: to determine whether "undue weight" is a reasonable justification for wholesale deletions from an article about a fringe theory.. The point I'm making is that the article is not about a fringe theory. There are many theories about the subject, some are fringy, some are mainstream:

• 1 That "The Horned god exists" is a fringe theory (held to, I suppose, by Wiccans).
• 2 That "The Horned god has historical origins in the paleolithic and can be traced through to the modern period" is a fringe theory (created by Murray, believed by her followers).
• 3 That "The Horned god has historical origins in the 1920's" is mainstream academia (Cohn, Hutton, et al).
• 4 That "The Horned god has historical origins in romano-celtic crossculturalism" is a fringe theory (created by Luck, I assume).
• 5 That "The Horned god is a useful image in Humanistic Psychology" is a fringe theory in psychology (carried out by Rowan).
• 6 That "The Horned god is a recurring character in literature" is mainstream academia.
• 7 That "The Horned god is an archytypal amalgamation of disperate cultural ideas" is a fringe theory we both seem to agree exists (but can't source!).
• 8 etc.

As far as I'm concerned all of these theories have their place in the article. Where wp:undue comes into play is that laying out every single piece of evidence related to point 2 is putting far too much emphasis on that fringe theory, to just one aspect of the subject. Not only that, but it gives emphasis on a rejected historical theory rather than the accepted historical theory. Obviously describing the accepted theory will require some description the rejected one, as that is the origin of it.

The second part of the argument "this is article is about that "mumbo-jumbo", surely we're allowed to describe it?" is problematical. Firstly, we need to define our terms. By "post-jungian new-age mumbo-jumbo" I specifically mean theories 5 and 7.

• Point 5 (Humanistic Psychology) is based on Jungian psychology (ie. "post-jungian"), was formed as part of the self-help movement (ie. "new age"), and applies religious imagery for it's effect rather than a spiritual cause (ie."mumbo-jumbo")
• Point 7 (Archetype) has not been sourced (still working on it!) but is based on the idea of archetypal forms (i.e. "post-jungian"), is used in neopagan writing (ie. "new-age") and it misapplies Jungs rather technical termonology (ie. "mumbo-jumbo").

Point 5 is described in the article, and point 7 will be described if we can ever source it.

To attempt to use these views, as you suggest, as a rationalisation or framework for adding information (such as the evidence Murray proposes in her pseudohistory) simply fails wp:npov. --Davémon (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You previously agreed that the article was about a fringe theory. This was the first of the points we all agreed on: "1. We all agree this is an article about a fringe theory." You may wish to change your mind now, but that's another discussion, and before we get onto that I want to determine whether "undue weight" is a reasonable justification for wholesale deletions from an article about a fringe theory.

After we've figured that out, we can revisit whether or not Horned God is such an article. The trouble is, you keep changing your position before we can fully nut out what your actual problem with the article is. You've mentioned several problems, but I'm fairly convinced none of these actually reflect WP policy. If we methodically work through these one by one then we'll rapidly simplify the argument and all know where we stand. Otherwise we're just chasing phantoms. Fuzzypeg★ 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed with your assertion that "This is a fringe theory". Your link goes to your summation of what you thought was agreed, not mine. The assertion is a misrepresentation. We have methodically worked through the problem and the argument being put forward has been shown to be entirely fallicious. We can disregard that argument and move on. The article Horned God is not about a fringe theory, and one theory should not dominate the others.

Editors can not add material to an article that is not cited to reliable sources which directly address the topic, regardless of whether the topic has fringe elements or not. wp:syn:"if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research". Any such content may be removed, but really we shouldn't be adding it in the first place. --Davémon (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. This isn't necessarily typical of the articles brought to attention on this board, but Newport Tower (Rhode Island) wouldn't be in the horrible state it is if it wasn't associated with fringe theories. Feel free to take a look. ClovisPt (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Horrible state? It looks to me like that article demonstrates exactly the right way to deal with fringe theories: explain them clearly, explain the evidence against them, and don't advocate for them. What strikes you as wrong with the article? Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article might be ok if it were called the "Newport Tower Controversy". The way it is written seems entirely organized around the possibility it was built by Native Americans before the arrival of Europeans. Since there seems not to be reliable sources for a rather remarkable claim, that is problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vikings, not Native Americans. I don't see this as a problem because (a) that weird theory is the main reason the structure is notable, and (b) the article doesn't advocate the theory, only describes it. Looie496 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I think it would be notable even without all the fringe theories... A windmill that was built in the mid 1600s (which is the non-fringe view of the tower) is a very notable structure by US standards (it is probably one of the oldest structures in Rhode Island). But it's claim to fame is definitely the number of Fringe theories that are associated with it... I am surprised no one has tied it into UFOs and Space Aliens. The key is that all of these theories have been noted and commented on by the mainstream (often to debunk them)... which means that they are notable enough for us to talk about them. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of unsourced material in the "Alternative hypotheses" section (unsurprisingly). I think this needs to be cut down considerably. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut down, or sourced... either will do. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning a recent block 2 days ago by Administrator Protonk & censoring of pertinent reference links by user: Mosedschurte

Protonk,

I appreciate your acknowledgement that user Mosedschurte was edit warring too, but you are mistaken to say that I did a revert from IP address (69.22.221.46). That never was my IP address and I don't know how you've come to that conclusion it was ever my IP address. All my edits so far should have been from the exact same IP address as the account from this edit. If there are other accounts from this IP address, I am unaware of them and they are not sockpuppets. At least 2 other people share the current IP address which this message is being posted.

I also appreciate your acknowledgement that what I posted was not vandalism.

I was not aware of the three revert rule and see no reason why I would want to revert more than 3 times after a 24 hour period.

If you find it in your administrative duty to agree these childish, stubborn and combative persistent demands by Mosedschurte that those references be removed, all I ask is a better explanation far more scholarly and rational from a seasoned professional, arbitrator and moderator rather than parroting Mosedschurte's combative, stubborn, outlandish, juvenile, childish, infantile, and mentally retarded boldfaced lies and condemnation that this reference John Judge at ratical.org, is all about espousing the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources. The Black hole of Guyana by John Judge names pertinent names and roles to the subject of the article as far as I can see and even if it is espousing some strong accusation, I see no reason why that fact discredits the valid information pertinent to the article. The alleged extremist fringe theory is entirely up to the party responsible for clicking on this reference to decide whether it is fringe or not. The purpose of this reference is to give interested readers information who Deborah Layton was in Jonestown and a clue who George Phillip Blakey was by mentioning he was her husband/consort was while in Jonestown. People like Mosedschurte clearly have an agenda to prevent people on wikipedia from knowing about this information. My2sense2wikip (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if that article is considered "extremist fringe theory" by wikipedia guidelines. It's even worse that Mosedschurte would continuously censor this reference:

Deborah Layton is the daughter of the late Laurence Laird Layton[1]. Why an entry for "Deborah Layton" automatically re-directs to "seductive poison" makes no sense.

This is an undisputed well recognized mainstream link to her father's background. There is no sane explanation why Laurence Laird Layton's obituary link can't be included either and I don't appreciate the continued liberty that you as a wikipedia moderator and all your responsibility would continue to allow such a bigoted and obtuse individual like Mosedschurte to run rampant censoring the free thinking flow of information of notable people VERY PERTINENT to the article. My2sense2wikip (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are looking for here. If you have biographical information about Deborah Layton, with reliable sources, then you can replace the redirect that is currently at Deborah Layton with article text - there are plenty of precedents in Wikipedia for separating biographical articles about authors from articles about their books. If you want to initiate a wider discussion on whether the John Judge book is a reliable source, you can raise this question at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss anything with Protonk, you can do this at your talk page or at Protonk's talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this quote by My2sense2wikip: Mosedschurte's combative, stubborn, outlandish, juvenile, childish, infantile, and mentally retarded boldfaced lies and condemnation that this reference John Judge at ratical.org, is all about espousing the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources.

Perhaps most humorous about that attack is that it was nowhere near a "boldface lie" -- all I did was cite a direct quote from the exact internet source page by conspiracy theorist John Judge you cited and attempted to include in the Seductive Poison article. This was it:

Also, just for information's sake, your repeated conduct reverting to this extremist fringe source caused me to have to take it to the ANI board, after which an administrator blocked you.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The most humorous part is cowards afraid of truth and the lengths they go to show what a bunch of cowards they all are. My2sense2wikip (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We had reached a stage today where even Caleb was working on the subpage on improving the article, however now Jac-A-Row is edit-warring the poorly sourced and dubious material back into the page - and claiming he has consensus for this. Can more editors pleas, again, have a look. The summary section is hugely bloated and needs to be changed into summary form (which has started), and the subsections either removed, summarised into the summary, or via RS sources given their own sections when shown to be important or central. Verbal chat 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about what needs to be done. Why not work on a new version in the sandbox and then propose it as a substitute for the whole thing? BTW I would expect "content" rather than "summary" for what the "material" is made up of. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, lay off the "edit-warring" accusations.

If someone were to review the history of that article to explore for edit-warring, they would notice that you removed that same content at least 7 times, and you've been reverted by multiple editors - none of whom did anything near the number of reverts that you did:

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

In the meantime, while you were deleting information and arguing, several editors have been adding sources. When I first saw the article a week ago (following a report here at FTN), it had 15 footnotes, now it has 50, including sources published by Oxford, Brill, Yale and other major publishers, several of which were written by university professors.

So far, I have not seen you add even one reference.

Generally, I avoid commenting about individual editors rather than content, but this comment is needed because you have posted (in at least two places), personal attacks accusing me of edit-warring, with absolutely no foundation.

Please retract your accusation. Let's get back to the work of making the article better. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jack-A-Roe. More editors are working on improving the page, but the majority just don't happen to agree with Verbal's "edit in a sub-page" approach. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the new version, which is what I was arguing for all along. Jack-A-Roe's personal attacks are unfounded as I have improved the content multiple times. There aer still many problems on the page that need addressing, and this would have been much easier if Jack-A-Roe hadn't barged in in such a confrontational manner supporting Caleb's repeated attacks on multiple editors. I'll ask for the subpage to be deleted as it's job has been done. Verbal chat 09:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

These claims of "the majority" are also not supported by the talk pages of the Seth Material page and the Roberts page. Verbal chat 09:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is begining to pop up in all sorts of articles related to Obama (or US Presidents in general). Unfortunately, the theory has been recieving a fair amount of coverage in the press recently (most, but not all, of it dismissive) ... so it probably counts as being "Notable Fringe". That said, we should be ready for a lot of questions and complaints about it being added to articles. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're way behind. This has already been here and given rise to a really long thread. Let's not do it again, please oh please oh please. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar is not suggesting we "do it again", he is saying the problem persists. Previous discussion is here. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my comment was meant as a heads up to say that the problem continues in other articles, and a warning that we might have to "do it again" because of this continuation (sadly, some Fringe topics end up being discussed over and over again, no matter what we might want.) That's all. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a Barack Obama citizenship controversy article? Considering the degree of coverage the issue has raised in reliable mainstream sources, it certainly seems notable enough, even if the claims are fringey. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be written in the form of a list. Particularly notable incidents (if any) could then be spun out into their own articles as necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That approach seems unlikely to work. From past experience, I'd say it's best to have an article dedicated to the controversy and minimal references - i.e. links and very brief précis - elsewhere. Think of it as a way of corralling the fringiness in one place to make it easier to manage, rather than letting it metastize through multiple articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is enough material to merit an entire article, I would definitely prefer ChrisO's approach. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Having Googled around reliable news sources, I believe there's easily enough material. I'll have a go at starting the article, then we can work on reducing the birthcruft from other articles. Could you possibly list which articles are being affected by this? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In one month, will this proposed article still be worth maintaining? --GoodDamon 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Three reasons: 1) It's already noteworthy and the subject of a large amount of press coverage; 2) the proponents of this fringe theory seem to be extremely persistent and well-funded - it looks like we'll be hearing about this for a long time to come; 3) we have a clear, present need (per Blueboar) to have somewhere to put this stuff so that we can keep the fringiness in one place. If someone wants to put Obama birth-related material into any number of other articles we can simply direct them to this one. It should improve our ability to keep the fringe-pushing under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can accommodate a Siegenthaler incident article, it can certainly accommodate a Barack Obama citizenship controversy article. --dab (𒁳) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is more than enough material for an article, although I think it should carry "conspiracy theory" rather than "controversy" in the title. At this point the courts have tossed it, and organizations like factcheck.org have gone to significant lengths to discredit the claims and prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no controversy, but rather a small band of angry partisans pushing a fringe conspiracy theory widely discredited by reputable organizations and the media. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? I notice that quite a few reliable sources (see e.g. [22] describe the anti-Obama campaigners as conspiracy theorists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories would be the correct title. These matters are the subject of active litigation, including even the US Supreme Court. It is expected that political operatives will show up here to attempt to legitimize their conspiracy meme. I support blocking any such tendentious accounts. We should have less than normal patience for "newbies" who come here advocating such memes. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that approach. This business seems very much like the conspiracy theories about 9/11 or Terri Schiavo (and indeed involves some of the same people), so we should not be surprised if we see similarly disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started the article at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as suggested. Take a look and see what you think. I've merged in the litigation sections from Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes; I've reduced those sections to stubs and pointed them to the relevant parts of this new article. It's still very much a work in progress, but please feel free to jump in and start editing it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(added) Donofrio v. Wells was up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donofrio v. Wells. I've taken the liberty of closing the AfD and merging a condensed version of that article into the conspiracy theories article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ‎

Wow, there's actually quite a bit in there I didn't know. I guess it does stand up as a good article on its own merits. The Indonesian school angle is certainly...ahem...special. --GoodDamon 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice job on this, ChrisO. I think this is exactly the right approach to dealing with all this stuff.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the article ChrisO. I can't believe how well detailed it is after being created only a short time ago! Brothejr (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I work fast... ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, great work, and bold also. Some of us watching Barack Obama have fought these kooks for months, with new accounts showing up almost every day to put these various internet memes back in the article. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, ChrisO.... for the rest of us, if you are working on an article related to Obama, and are dealing with POV pushers who are spouting this stuff, point them to Chris's article. Let them rant, just not "here", Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

← Yup, I agree it's probably best to have a place to send them. But the title change that is being pushed - "Barack Obama citizenship challenges" - seems to me to be legitimizing this nonsense, and therefore POV. Keep the title as Chris set it up. Tvoz/talk 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Thank you, ChrisO.

2) The recent history of Natural-born citizen should probably be scrutinized. I am surprised to see that the child of American citizens (or citizens) born on foreign soil apparently might not be a natural-born citizen...so, say, if I were an army brat born in Panama, would I not be a natural-born citizen? Just to ask an academic question. Apparently, the answer is if I were born on an army base, I would be a natural-born citizen. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• American military bases and embassies are the property of the federal government and are therefore considered part of the United States. However, the real reason I dropped by was to strongly endorse Chris O's solution to the problem and applaud his boldness. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, American bases are American soil, whether they be in Panama, Cuba, or Qatar. But I would hope (I'm an American citizen) that my son or daugher would be a natural-born American citizen, regardless of whether my spouse were a citizen, no matter where my family happened to be when my son or daugher was born. Let's say I was backpacking through Mongolia when my child was born (in Mongolia)--does that mean my child isn't a natural-born citizen? I want my child to be president, dammit!

But yeah, kudos to ChrisO. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article is currently being disputed. Anyone wishing to offer some input, following the discussion about naming above, is welcome to join the new discussion at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Retitle. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the tracts described in the Chick tract article mentions the claim that condoms do not protect against AIDS. The mention was qualified with a parenthetical "falsely" but that has been removed as "editorialising". I believe that the claim shouldn't stand alone without some sort of qualification as it's pseudoscientific, CliffC disagrees. What do you think? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspect destined for WP:LAME. Consider it not to be editorialising to clarify and distinguish truth from falsehood. If claim less potentially harmful if believed by a reader (e.g. Earth flat, moon made from green cheese, etc.), would be more inclined to let it slide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with inclusion per Sheffield. To reinforce the "avoid potential harm" over "editorializing", link it to Condom#Effectiveness. Even if we found tons of WP:RS explicitly supporting this rebuttal, this section could be reworded to avoid feeling as WP:WEASEL. Make it clearer that it's this doctor character in the cartoon stating this as his claim, not confusable with his merely relaying generally accepted information. DMacks (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... a person who looks to Chick tracts for health information will probably not be swayed by a pseudoscience disclaimer. Skinwalker (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we all know what we are discussing... The passage at issue is the discription of Chick's "That Crazy Guy" and is currently worded:

• A physician appears and notifies Suzi that she has contracted an STD. The particular STD depends on the version – in the 1980 version, it is herpes, while in the 1992 version, it is gonorrhoea. In the 1992 version, he then informs the victim that she also has AIDS and that condoms are porous and do not provide adequate protection against the virus that causes AIDS.

This is an accurate discription of what appears in the Chick Track.

I seriously doubt that anyone reading this article is looking for information on preventing AIDS... instead they will be looking for information on what Chick says in his tracts. If consensus is that this really is something that needs to be commented upon, I think the key is to phrase things neutrally, in terms of contrasting opinions... I would suggest simply adding: (This last comment relfects Chick's view on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS transmission. The view of the majority of Scientists, Doctors and other health professionals is that condoms are in fact very effective at preventing the transmittion of AIDS)... all properly sourced of course. Blueboar (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This report is in regards to literary criticism vs non-scholarship in an area that is talking about a "genre", which falls within the science of literary criticism. Over at Ludovico Ariosto, two fringe theories are being pushed here. The attempt is to remove the term "Christian" and replace it with "Romantic". Within literary scholarship, Romantic is reserved for Romantic poets. Romance is the proper adjective for works that incorporate Romance. As pointed out on the talk page, genre scholars use the term "Romance Epic", and this was provided to show how the term is prevalent. The only ones provided as evidence of "Romantic Epic" was a work produced by a translator, not a genre scholar, and an "encyclopedia" about Spenser, a field that is very large and not everything is thorough. This use of "Romantic" (not the correct term, "Romance") is used to replace Orlando Furosio as being described as a "Christian Epic", a term that means that the epic is based on the forces of Christianity fighting against an enemy, which is the common descriptive within scholarship (the plot is God favors the Christians under Charlemange against the "pagan" Saracens). Thus, we have two fringe theories being produced: 1. that Orlando Furioso is not "Christian", and 2. that it is a "Romantic Epic" and not "Romance Epic". If anyone needs any books verifying any of this, please ask and I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Romantic goes to Romanticism, and "Romance" is at Romance (genre), which shows that even Wikipedia has already reflected the major difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is a case for WP:3O, not this noticeboard. Nobody is pushing anything fringe; if anything, your persistent denial of Ariosto's irony and refusal to therefore separate OF from, say, Gerusalemme liberata is the way-out claim here. Now please try to find a better forum. Moreschi (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Irony, as Clenath Brooks points out, is not the opposite of a meaning. It is the blending of an opposite with a truth. Even if the work was "ironically" supporting Christians, its lead figures are still Christian, which denies any argument that you could introduce. Now, this is the proper forum, since this deals with genre science and there is an attempt to push an improper term across multiple pages. Moreschi, I needed remind you that the community hasn't really appreciated your views on policy or propriety as of late, so please knock it off. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to actual consider Moreschi as correct, just look at this for an easy to find search that shows that his view point is the minority. But it would be ridiculous to claim that a work whose heroes are all Christian is not a Christian work. Hence why we are here at fringe, the place where the ridiculous is normally removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's rich coming from you: I seem to remember blocking you indefinitely at one stage. Carry on like this and we'll be back that way again. Now, where were we? Oh yes. Lead figures being Christian does not make a work "Christian" if this (Christianity) is not the main theme. And Christianity is far from being the main theme of OF (unlike, say, Tasso's work). References for "Romantic" have been produced. Now where are yours? And I'm sorry, linking to google books doesn't cut it. Particularly when a couple of those links seem to argue against your point...Your claim that any work which has Christian protagonists is "Christian" is, well, silly. This would make "Christian" The Merchant's Tale, which is related to Christianity yes but the main point of which is relations between the sexes. Moreschi (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember DGG removing your indefinite because it was completely inappropriate. I also remember you up on the chopping block because of your understanding of blocking policies. In terms of epic genre, the type of epic is based on the nationality/group of the hero. The Aeneid is a Roman epic because Aeneas is seen as Roman. The Iliad is Grecian because Odysseus is seen as Greek. Tasso and Ariosto wrote about Christian heroes. Christian Epic is a classification. This is about genre science. Your lack of understanding on the issue is apparent in your attempting to classify "The Merchant's Tale" within epic terminology. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother, is this still going on? I suspect the difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" is miniscule, but I've already cited many occasions where English-language scholars use the term "romantic epic" and it's the one I'm most familiar with. In fact, it's used by Barbara Reynolds as the subtitle of her translation of Orlando furioso for Penguin Classics, perhaps the most widely read modern version of the poem in English. Reynolds was Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University (among other academic posts) but that hasn't stopped Ottava Rima trying to smear her reputation on the Ludovico Ariosto talk page (after all, "anyone can be a lecturer at Cambridge"!!). As for "Christian", well Ariosto was no doubt a Christian and the poem contains Christian elements, but "Saracens versus Christians" is part and parcel of the Carolingian subject matter anyone writing about Roland/Orlando would inherit. Ariosto hardly puts much emphasis on this theme. He's not that reverential either as a comparison between Dante's journey to the moon from the Earthly Paradise in the Divine Comedy and Astolfo's in Orlando would demonstrate. So, no, if you're going to use one adjective to modify "epic" when describing Orlando furioso then "Christian" doesn't really fit the bill. Likewise, Tristram Shandy was written by an Anglican clergyman and it contains a sermon but I wouldn't necessarily define it as a "Christian novel". --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If Tristram Shandy included God sending down Michael to battle for the Christians or St John the Evangelist guiding the hero towards truth, then it would be a Christian novel. Furthermore, Epics are defined by religion/culture because epics have divine action, which is an essential component to the epic tradition. Furthermore, any work in which Christians battle Muslims taken from the point of view of Christians would be a Christian work. Just as the same work taken by the point of view of Muslims would be Islamic. These are actual, rigorously defined genre classifications. This is science. And for everyone's knowledge, Cambridge is very large and has had non-notable politicians lecture. It also doesn't require everyone to be specialized in a field to be a lecturer. Furthermore, none of this verifies Barbara Reynolds as a literary critic that specializes in genres, let alone in epic as a genre. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is science". Don't be ridiculous, nothing in literary studies is "scientific". Critics have debated epic theory for centuries (indeed this is one of the major differences between Ariosto and Tasso - the latter was very self-conscious about which type of epic he was writing). Your continued attacks on Reynolds' expertise in Italian studies don't sit well coming from someone who didn't know the difference between basta and bastardo. As for the episodes you mention, Saint John occurs in the satirical episode of the flight to the moon and God's sending Saint Michael to the house of Sleep is based on an episode from Ovid's Metamorphoses. Ariosto was imbued with the spirit of Italian Renaissance humanism before the Counter-Reformation arrived. It's obvious to anyone who reads Orlando furioso then compares it to Gerusalemme liberata by the devoutly orthodox Catholic Tasso just how much more deserving the title of "Christian epic" the latter is. --Folantin (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not science, how could anyone call literary studies 'science'? Ottava is wrong there, just as she is wrong in somehow assuming a consensus about the community's attitude towards Moreschi. dougweller (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug, genre classification is an important aspect of not only literary science but library science. You can't even get my gender correct. Furthermore, don't kid yourself. The ArbCom was very clear about Moreschi's behavior as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the gender, but 'can't even' is wrong. The current ArbCom doesn't represent the whole community (and you didn't say ArbCom, you said 'community'. And library science is not 'science' which in a worldwide context means physical science. dougweller (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"nothing in literary studies is "scientific". This is clearly spoken out of ignorance. Anyone with a basic understanding of literary theory would understand how it became scientific, especially in approaches dealing with linguistics, psychonanalysis, and the rest. Later, with the addition of various political theories, it only increased in its scientific approach. However, this is about genres, which falls under Philology, which Wikipedia even makes clear is a science. This is about the language and linguistic classifications of a poem. This is scientific. It is astounding that two people attempted to weigh in without such knowledged. This is why it is important for the Fringe Noticeboard to stop the addition of non-scientific and fringe information from being introduced. The very fact that Folantin's argument is "it cant be Christian because someone else is more Christian" shows the absurdity of the attempts to remove the classification by rigorous scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary studies, psychoanalysis, and philology are not sciences. Genre classification is definitely not scientific at all. I wonder if there's some difference in Anglo-American and Continental attitudes towards this? In any case, classifying a poem as some subtype of epic is a subjective enterprise, and what matters is how the work in question is usually classified by reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis not scientific? Oh please. I think you just dismissed a large portion of WP:MEDICINE which has fought hard over many issues here on this forum. Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about this. This is about linguistic patterns and is a science. After all, Philology "is a branch of the human sciences". Furthermore, WP:FRINGE is not limited to just science anyway: "Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." History is part of human sciences just like philology. So either way the claim above fails. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So Jacques Lacan is a scientist? News to me. Obviously, WP:FRINGE applies to non-scientific fields; however, since Folantin has supplied ample references (that are in no way fringy) that support his viewpoint, I don't see why this discussion is happening at this noticeboard. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Human sciences" has no clear meaning - at Oxford it's a non-traditional course including genetics, but note that it is within the Social Sciences division. You won't, or at least won't often, find philology, literarcy criticism, etc taught in University science departments. Linguistic patters are a social science - in English speaking cultures. Not, so far as I know, on the continent, etc. dougweller (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)"Folantin has supplied ample references...". And just to knock any further potential BLP violations from Ottava on the head, this is from the bio of Barbara Reynolds in her Penguin Classics translation of Orlando Furioso (subtitled "A Romantic Epic by Ludovico Ariosto", sic): “Barbara Reynolds is Honorary Reader in Italian at Warwick University. A graduate of University College, London, she was for twenty-two years Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University and from 1966 until 1978 was Reader in Italian Studies at Nottingham University. Her first book was a textual reconstruction of the linguistic writings of Alessandro Manzoni. The General Editor of the Cambridge Italian Dictionary, she has been awarded silver medals by the Italian Government and the Province of Vicenza, and the Edmund Gardner Prize for her services to Italian scholarship and to Anglo-Italian cultural relations. She was appointed Visiting Professor in Italian at the University of California, Berkeley, for 1974-5.” That’s from the 1975 edition. I imagine she’s acquired even more credentials since then.--Folantin (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Genre classification is definitely not scientific at all." Yes, as a simple comparison between languages will tell you. English makes a distinction between the "romance" and the "novel", in French they are both roman. --Folantin (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the off topic posting

Stop the off topic posting. It does not belong here and is a violation. This is for Fringe theory discussion. Fringe theories is not limited to biology, chemistry, etc. Furthermore, as the directions even state: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on Fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus."

This is about academic consensus versus the wanting to insert a minority opinion on a topic. The fact that people want to attack philology, one of the oldest fields, is disturbing. To do so in order to derail this process? That is a violation. Stop it now. Any further off topic posts that do not deal with academic consensus versus a fringe view will be reported to ANI as disrupting a process and a point violation.

Now, we have three things to consider: 1) the use of the term "Romantic" versus "Romance". As pointed out, Philology has determined that "Romantic" is reserved for the Romantic poets and a type of poetry that is similar. The term "Romantic" even links to "Romanticism", which is this subject area. 2) the use of Christian, whereas this is a work that deals with a Christian protagonist, involves a Christian God, and pits Christians versus Muslims. 3) The contrary evidence coming from someone who specializes in a field of linguistics (aka, Italian), as opposed to those who specialize in genre classifications. The third will determine the legitimacy of the claims of the other two. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, get a grip, please. Go and find something else to do like sue the Romantic Novelists' Association for misappropriation of a "scientific" adjective. --Folantin (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stop the off topic posting." Yes, I quite agree. The sources that Folantin has presented aren't fringy at all, so this isn't a dispute for this noticeboard. Further discussion should take place at Talk:Ludovico_Ariosto. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that someone who teaches Italian is qualified for genre classification and has the right to negate tens of thousands of scholars? I really don't think you understand this noticeboard and I am asking you to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You really don't understand what being a Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University involves, do you? It's not just about teaching kids which verbs take avere and which take essere. And ZOMG!!! other scholars apart from Reynolds have used the term "romantic epic" (note the lack of a capital "r") including Graham Hough, who also wrote a book on the Last Romantics, which was about late Romantic literature in English. Somehow, he managed to cope without getting confused between the two uses of "romantic/Romantic". I suspect the difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" is about as vital as the distinction between "ketchup" and "catsup", although no doubt you have scientifically determined the latter debate for all eternity too. --Folantin (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"You really don't understand what being a Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University involves, do you?" I am 100% sure that it does not give the individual a highly qualified background in genre classification, let alone is able to grant them greater weight than world class scholars who specialize in the field. Furthermore, there is no little "r" here. This is a discussion of the appropriateness of classification. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Wikipedia is not based on an argument from authority, nor do we limit editing Quantum mechanics to just physics professors. Your argument is a non sequitur and quite off-topic, Ottava. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read WP:FRINGE, it makes it 100% clear that non-authorities have no right to speak unless they have a notable view point, and then only given a minority say. The very fact that you claimed the above is contradictory to WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Right now, there is an ArbCom case on reliable sources and fringe. I would direct you to the wise words of another literary scholar on the subject: Geogre's evidence. As stated above, one translator who is not a specialist does not have the right to contradict thousands of professionals. The definitions are agreed upon in the field. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE protect the specialists. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: an argument not from authority is called original research. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not allow that. Your comment goes directly against community wide consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Reynolds is an authority on Ariosto, despite your assertions ad nauseam to the contrary. As I suspected, this is an argument about nothing because The Spenser Encyclopedia uses the terms "romantic epic" and "romance-epic" interchangeably. A real "fringe" view on this topic would be your assertion that "Christ is a major figure in Orlando furioso" when, as far as I can see, he doesn't appear as a character in the poem. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument really cannot continue any longer on this board. If a literary translator and literary scholar uses one terminology while other scholars use other terminology then this is a run-of-the-mill argument within scholarship. It has nothing to do with fringe theories, so there is nothing more to be said here. Surely there are expert editors in relevant WikiProjects who would have wise opinions on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I say, this is a non-argument. Orlando furioso is described as a "romantic epic" in Cassell's Dictionary of Italian Literature (p.20), to take one of many examples. I can find no appreciable difference between "romantic epic" and "romance-epic". --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Channelling is definitely fringe, I can give you a number of references that call it pseudoscience. Dp a Google Books search on 'pseudoscience psychic channeling' and there are a lot of reliable sources there. So is paranormal. What you are doing now is WP:OR, redefining a defintion to claim that Jesus etec. were channelled. dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm doing so called WP:OR, I'm doing it while discussing, not in an article. I suppose at least this is allowed, as the similar discussions might have been made while defining what is pseudo what is not for wikipedia. If there is such a statement "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.", I should be able to take advantage of it.--Logos5557 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the definitions are vague. How channelling can definitely be fringe? By the way what is fringe? WP:FRINGE redirects to WP:Fringe theories. As I stated before, the source of this particular topic does not throw theories out to the attention of scientific community, or has no claim of using any scientific method. This seems to be explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE#Evaluating_scientific_and_non-scientific_claims . How wide is the consensus on channelling's being pseudoscience is another question, because majority of the material presented by channeling is spiritual in nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs .--Logos5557 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put it up for AfD, Logos says the article isn't about the books, which is one perspective I guess. Still doesn't seem notable dougweller (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In recent discussions about the Seth Material, several editors argued that claims that the text was written by a supernatural being through channeling made the Seth Material ipso facto a fringe topic, because channeling is a fringe topic (it is listed in the list of pseudosciences). Does this therefore mean that other texts for which a supernatural origin is claimed, such as A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God or The Book of Mormon, are also fringe topics ? If not, why not ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(Note that the term "fringe topic" is not used here in any perjorative or disrespectful sense. Also, note that this question is about "fringy-ness", not about notability - for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that any topic mentioned is notable as defined by WP:NOTE.)

There is a fuzzy boundary between pseudoscience and religion. A supernatural origin is claimed for the Qur'an, and this is dealt with in our articles on Islam. I said above that if someone felt strongly that the Seth Material was a religious topic then they might find help on Wikiproject Religion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The term channelling replaced 'mediumship' to a large extent, sources say, because of Jane Roberts and Seth. As A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God are channelled texts (according to their category at least) I would say they are fringe, in this case fringe within a major religion. dougweller (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf, you are assuming that there is a definable rhime and reason behind what is considered fringe and what isn't. This is not always the case. Fringe is a very subjective determination. That established...

One difference is that the mainstream does not believe in channeled spirits, while it does believe in God. This may be a logical disconnect, but then religion is not always logical. What this difference means is that claims that a text that was dictated by God (or an angel speaking for God) are generally less likely to be considered fringe than claims that a text was dictated by a channeled spirit.

That said, there is such a thing as fringe religion (often dubbed "cults" by the mainstream)... and the beliefs of such fringe religions and sects are considered fringe topics. A good example of something that is right on the dividing line between fringe and non-fringe is Scientology. Ten years ago, Scientology was resoundingly considered fringe by the mainstream. However, with all sorts of Hollywood stars converting, and the general public becoming more awair of it, Scientology is becoming more accepted as a legitimate religious movement by the mainstream (and hence less fringe). It isn't quite considered a mainstream religion in its own right... at least not yet.

Finally, there are fringe topics and theories within non-fringe religion. The claims of the Chabad Lubavitch sect within Judeism is a good example. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say I am quite disappointed with the responses so far to my question. Since the term "fringe" is used so frequently and with such confidence on this noticeboard, I hoped that more than three editors would be interested in clarifying its usage in this particular genre of texts. And I hoped to see logical thought and reasoned arguments. Instead, I see opinions that the boundary between fringe and mainstream texts is "fuzzy", "very subjective" and without "rhyme or reason", and claims that a text is more likely to be mainstream if it claims a divine or angelic source, or if enough Hollywood stars support it. That all seems very mystical - completely the opposite of the rational and objective approach that I hoped to find here. Is this really the best that we can do ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of "texts that claim a supernatural origin". Per policy, we have to treat them neutrally according to a scale of how numerous and how significant their adherents are. A text that claims supernatural origin, but has only a handful of proponents in the entire world, does not get the same due weight for notability, as a text claiming supernatural origin, that a quarter of the world pays attention to, for instance. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am asking about the attribute of fringy-ness, not about the notability of a topic - they are separate attributes. But if you are indeed proposing "a scale of how numerous and how significant their adherents are" as a yardstick for distinguishing fringe from mainstream, then that is a step towards an objective benchmark. So where would you put the threshold ? How many worldwide adherents must a concept have to be classified as mainstream rather than fringe ? And what does that rider about "significant" adherents mean, exactly ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for such issues depends upon the consensus of the community, which is established per article or category of articles on talkpages and via policies, guidelines, and noticeboard discussions. Verbal chat 12:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Papyrus Verbal, and also, the threshold must depend on the number of published secondary and tertiary sources there are to cover a 'supernatural text' in question. Fringe-to-notability is a sliding scale full of subjective grey area, and we don't have to get into exactly where it lies. If there are few sources, we just report that, and if there are many sources, we just report that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you have transitioned from number of adherents to number of sources. And I do think you are conflating fringe/mainstream with notability now. WP:FRINGE says "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner ...". In other words, the existence of a large number of reliable sources does not establish that a topic is mainstream, only that it is notable - a topic with many secondary and tertiary sources may be a notable fringe topic.

Obviously I know that the benchmark for separating fringe from mainstream depends upon community consensus. I am trying to determine where that consensus lies in the specific case of texts that claim a supernatural origin. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't exactly 'transitioned'; the number of sources is often our best indicator for how significant or numerous adherents are, so those are parallel scales. As for consensus, it may be variable from article to article; it would be near impossible to establish a project-wide consensus of all editors. Because as other answers above indicate, the very term 'fringe' is somewhat subjective, then like I said, all we have to do is report on what sources say and what those sources are, on a case by case basis, not determine whether all things are black or white according to some self-imposed nomenclature. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that "fringe" may be defined for different purposes in this encyclopedia. As far as this noticeboard is concerned, we will try to do something helpful with every point that is brought here, even if that means re-posting the enquiry somewhere else. For example, if someone thought that a very small sect in Islam was over-represented to the detriment of mainstream Islam, then I would try and direct the enquirer towards editors who are experienced in Islam-related articles. I would not worry about whether the epithet "fringe" applied or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdenting, and amplifying Itsmejudith's statement that fringe means different things in different contexts. The Old Testament is a good example: it's very hard to call Islam/Christianity/Judaism a fringe belief, because believers constitute nearly half the world's population. Still, when it comes to the origins of life, creationism is considered a fringe belief. The book may not be a fringe text, but relying it to the point of denying evidence to the contrary is a fringe belief.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who accept a theory, concept, idea, etc (ie its adherents) goes to whether a theory, concept, idea, etc. is considered Fringe or Mainstream... the number of sources that discuss the theory, concept, idea, etc goes to whether we can talk about the topic in Wikipedia and, assuming we can, how we talk about it. These are two overlaping, but not identical determinations. Chances are, the more mainsteam something is, the more likely it is that reliable sources that are independant of the subject will talk about it; and the more fringe something is, the less likely it is that independant reliable sources will talk about it. However, since there are exceptions (ie Fringe topics that have been discussed by lots of independant reliable sources), we have stated that the key to inclusion in Wikipedia is not how Fringe something is, but how Notable it is.

That said, WP:FRINGE is both a Notability guideline and a Content guideline. The part that is a Notability guideline is in sync with WP:NOTE... if there are reliable sources that are independant of the subject that talk about it, then it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Once that determination has been made, however, we move to the part of WP:FRINGE that is a Content guideline takes over... we have to figure out how to talk about the Fringe theory (which includes sub-questions such as how much we talk about it and in what contexts we can talk about it). The Content part of the guideline focuses on other Policies and guidelines... especially WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand all of that. But the step in the process that is missing here is how do we determine whether the Content part of WP:FRINGE should be applied in the first place - once we have agreed that a text that claims a supernatural origin is notable, how do we decide whether it is a notable fringe text or a notable mainstream text ? Some editors are suggesting that the distinction is subjective - is that the consensus view  ? Gandalf61 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To start, I would say the steps are reversed... first we determine if the topic is Fringe or Mainstream, then we determine if it is Notable or not. But that still leaves your basic question unanswered... What makes something Fringe or Mainstream? I would say that this is determined by whether it is accepted or rejected by the mainstream. Unfortunately, we can not define why a particular theory or idea is accepted or rejected. That is the part that I think is subjective and has no rhyme or reason. Especially when you start to ask why one particular theory is accepted but another, similar theory is rejected. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest sort of ducking this question. A Wikipedia article can say that members of a religion believe that a certain text has a supernatural origin, but should avoid any wording that suggests that such a claim might be valid. The best approach is not to say "Members claim that X, but critics do not accept this", because that wording implies that there is a legitimate controversy -- it's better to just say "Members believe that X" and leave it at that. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from defining "fringe", defining "mainstream" could be challenging enough - especially where there is no one "mainstream", more than one "stream" or competing schools of thought, or multiple claims to be the "mainstream" when in fact there really is no such thing. This was more apparent in Cold War times -- when, if academics in one country had established one "accepted outlook" on a philosophical question, it wasn't necessarily so at all in another country. We can't pretend there is any more unanimity of thought in the world today, in fact, far less so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that depends on the topic under discussion... sometimes there is a clearly identifiable mainstream view, sometimes there isn't. Yet another reason to leave this all undefined, and if there is disagreement or questions about whether WP:FRINGE should apply to a particular article, raise the issue here and see if a consensus can be reached. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the original question about "...text was written by a supernatural being through channeling made the Seth Material ipso facto a fringe topic, because channeling is a fringe topic..."; it frequently seems to me that what we might regard as "main stream" is really the fringe. Virtually all the important Attic and Hellenistic Greek and Roman philosophers consulted oracles directly, or indirectly, and took such advice seriously. It would seem that the president of the US said (if this is reported correctly) that God told him to invade Iraq [23]. The wall of rationality sometimes seems very thin....certainly much thiner than I would wish. Under the circumstances, I do not think that it will help to spend time trying to get sharp focus definitions of "fringe" and "main stream." A soft focus definition of the terms will do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What Attic and Hellenistic Greek and Roman philosphers thought some two thousand years ago is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about what is considered Fringe or Mainstream back then, we are talking about what is considered Fringe or Mainstream by today's society. As for the idea that "God told Bush to invade Iraq", that certainly would be categorized as a Fringe theory... even if Bush actually believed it to be true (which is doubtful), the mainstream does not. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth pointing out that there are lots of people today who believe that the Bible was written by people who were channeling a supernatural entity (God). Wikipedia shouldn't be expressing credence in that theory, but it shouldn't treat the Bible as fringe, either. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This section relates to a section above where I pointed out an ArbCom ruling, but the discussion there faded out, so I'll post part of that info here that's relevant to this discussion. It's from the arbitration on Paranormal-related topics. ArbCom described terms such as "psychic" as cultural artifacts, and specified as follows:

Paranormal as an effective tag: 12) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose. passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom finding appears to indicate that as long as the article is introduced and linked as they specified, the topic is "framed" in a satisfactory manner to show that it is a cultural artifact being described, not a fringe theory. The resolves the WP:FRINGE issues cleanly since it takes the content of the article out of the area of a "theory" being claimed, instead showing that it is simply a report of certain beliefs or ideas as expressed by certain people.

That does not address the WP:Notability aspect of course. Notability must be established in any case for all articles. But if the (so-called) supernatural texts can be found culturally notable per WP:V / WP:RS, those texts can be described without contravening the fringe guideline.

On the other hand, if those beliefs were not supported by science, and were used in a science article, they would be considered fringe theories. An example of this is that if discussion of the religious belief of resurrection were included in the article about biological death, that would be treated as a fringe theory. Yet, there is no place in the article about resurrection where it states that it is a fringe theory or that it is scientifically impossible; appropriately so, that statement is not needed in that article because the article is not about a theory, it's describing a religious belief. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Paranormal tag works well for articles about paranormal concepts... but not all Fringe topics relate to the paranormal. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about that. And channeling, the starting topic of this discussion, is included in the List of paranormal subjects. Also, to clarify, the ArbCom finding did not limit the framing of the topic as related to paranormal by requiring a formalized use of that term. The finding describes the use of regular inline wikilinks in the article intros to perform the function of tagging the article as paranormal-related, of that term, or of other similar indicators they also listed as effective tags: "psychic, new age, or occult". The Seth Material and similar channeled texts like Ramtha's or A Course in Miracles certainly fall within that purview.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This additional paragraph appears in the "principles" section of that same arbitration:

Adequate framing: 6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing. Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above may also be of use for reference in this discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On the comments made by blueboar: Blueboar seems as extending fringe theories to cover FRINGE as well. WP:Fringe theories does not mention any of the "ideas" stated by Blueboar as to which subject can be considered fringe or not. I see WP:FRINGE just as an abbreviation and redirect in order to save up some characters. We don't need an interpreter, who would translate what some wikipedia policies mean to us. If WP:FRINGE has such a miraculous mission to be a joker for these type of dicussions, then this should be stated in [WP:FRINGE]] as a solid wikipedia policy in a solid manner as blueboar stated above, not by a just redirect to WP:Fringe theories. Blueboar seems even as not comfortable with arbitration committee decision as well.Logos5557 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There has recently been a debate at Talk:Iraq War about what constitutes a fringe theory.

The following sources have been provided in support of an issue:

• Bloomberg quoting Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, as saying the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was a very large factor in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March."
• The Times Online quoting Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, as saying "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
• The Seattle Times quoting Vladimir Putin, former President of Russia, as saying "I believe one of the goals is to establish control of the country's oil reserves."
• The Washington Post editorializing in an article by Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway that "a U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq".
• The Stanford Daily quoting Thomas Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winning op-ed contributor to The New York Times, as saying “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that.”
• BBC: When a poll by the BBC asked why Britain and America wanted to attack Iraq, the most popular response was: "To secure oil supplies"
• UPI: A total of 32.7 percent of the 6,909 U.S. respondents to a Jan. 16-18 Zogby interactive poll said Iraq's oil was a "major" concern and 23.7 percent said it was not a factor
• Washington Post: Forty-three percent of Baghdad's residents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil" while only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people."

That being said, the issue has also been denied:

• MWCNews quoting Robert Gates as saying "I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators."
• The Herald Sun quoting Howard Johnson as saying "We are not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil. We don't remain there because of oil. Oil is not the reason."
• The Guardian quoting Tony Blair as deriding as "conspiracy theories" accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil

If anyone could provide there input as to whether this is a well-sourced political debate or a fringe theory, the input would be appreciated.--Nosfartu (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to differentiate between the theory that the war actually was really just about oil, and the opinions of notable individuals that the war was really about oil. Blueboar (talk) The first assumes that there is truth behind the assertion, the second mearly reports the assertion. 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly a notable theory, discussed in multiple reliable and independent sources. It may, of course, be a notable fringe theory. That is a subjective judgement, because we don't seem to have a benchmark that distinguishes fringe from mainstream outside of the areas of science/pseudoscience. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The item is currently included in a paragraph about rationale for the war:

It has also been claimed the U.S. invaded for Iraq's oil reserves, although this has also been denied.

So I guess future direction is being sought. Given these sources, may it be mentioned as an ongoing debate about one of the causes of the war? Or, is it a fringe theory which is inappropriate for mention in Wikipedia? Thanks for all the input, --Nosfartu (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've also stated in my arguments below, I don't think this material is inappropriate for mention in Wikipedia. The dispute you and I have is over if we should make mention of this theory in the lead section, and only that is what I am against. Grey Fox (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There may have been a misunderstanding then. It is an entire section of Rationale for the Iraq War and clearly has a notable debate, so it certainly should be mentioned. That being said, it appears this may be the wrong noticeboard for this issue.--Nosfartu (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to post my arguments here as well so I will: The dispute mostly involves around the inclusion of, how 'some' allege that US officials invaded Iraq for Oil, in the lead section of the article Iraq War. I don't mind this issue carefully worked out anywhere else in the article, but feel that the inclusion of this theory in the lead section is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, and believe that it might qualify as a fringe theory.

First I'd like to point out that the above statements are from people of which none are US or UK officials, they are foreign officials, opposition figures or journalists.

• Sir Jonathan Porritt is a writer and not a UK official, any advice he has given to Tony Blair has nothing to do with Tony Blairs policies.

• Alan Greenspan later retracted those comments saying that his quote was taken "out of context"[24] Furthermore he also said that oil is not the administration's motive,"[25] and "that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil"[26]

• Vladimir Putin's personal theories do not make a theory more believable, his comments are as good as those of, for example, Robert Mugabe.

• The washington post editorial is speculation

• Thomas Friedman is not an official either, and an outspoken critic of the Iraq War

• The 3 polls listed are not good enough for determining if we're dealing with a fringe theory or not. For example, take these polling results that also seems to deal with something that can be regarded as a fringe theory: "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.

January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.

September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.

October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.

June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

The allegations from some press that the US/UK invaded Iraq for oil has always been disputed by officials, and Tony Blair called it a conspiracy theory[27][28]

I believe that we might be dealing with a fringe theory, because any allegation on what the "true motives" are for US officials to have invaded Iraq are impossible to determine, unless you were able to read their minds.

There's also many experts and respected journalists who have debunked such theories, as they make little sense:

• David Ignatius wrote: "These oil experts also dismiss an Arab conspiracy theory, that the Bush administration's real goal in toppling Saddam Hussein is to transfer the U.S. energy lifeline from a shaky Saudi Arabia to a robust, pro-Western regime in Baghdad."

To get back on what I said earlier, and quote Gideon Rachman again "it is an unprovable thesis". I think we're dealing with a fringe theory mostly because of this. Most of these allegations claim that they know the "true motives" of US officials' to have attacked Iraq, but it's impossible to prove, unless those who launched the invasion would all publically state that their reason for invasion was oil. You would need to be able to read their minds to find out any hidden motives, and given that's impossible, we're only dealing with gossip theories.

I DO however believe that, fringe theory or not, all this debate is notable (we all agree on that it seems), however, I think it needs to be worked out in the body of the article of the Iraq War, as well as on pages where it's already partially done such as the Criticism of the Iraq War and Rationale for the Iraq War articles, and that it should be excluded from the lead section of the main article for the Iraq War, and only that is what this dispute is all about.

(btw sorry if my reply is too long) Grey Fox (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to provide my side, I would be fine with updating or removing the Greenspan quote. I believe that the contrary sources provided further illustrate that there is a debate though.--Nosfartu (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

There is apparently now a consensus that the debate is notable. I thought there was an argument that a fringe theory didn't belong in Wikipedia, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Besides the article's talk page which has degraded in to a back and forth, is there somewhere this could be discussed? Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that in the lead you should simply mention that debate over the rational for the war exists, without going into any details... and leave the details as to what the various sides say in this debate to the section devoted to discussing the rational. In other words, the lead should mention the debate without including any "some say..." statements. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything here to indicate a fringe theory. It may not be the consensus view, but it is a notable viewpoint. There should by now be articles in academic journals (international relations, political science) that discuss the origins of the war and it would be preferable to cite these. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster is doing an extensive rewrite of this which I haven't had time to follow, although I just reverted one edit as it appears to be OR (although it may be just something he found elsewhere and didn't bother to source). If anyone is familiar with this conspiracy theory, could they have a look? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just noted Eurabia and related. Essentially a walled garden surrounding a consipiracy theory best merged to Islamophobia and/or Bat Ye'or (or Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, a 2005 book by this author). "Eurabia" gives me 90 hits on google news, and 276 hits on google scholar, apparently all related to the 2005 book. Eurabia apparently has never been up for deletion, and a dedicated Category:Eurabia is a joke. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that we are being too lenient in relation to the notability of these political books (left and right)? Independent reviews will normally exist, but I don't think that is sufficient. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a merge discussion on the Eurabia talk page. You could put your proposal in there, Dieter. We need to make sure that there is not a separate discussion on the talk page of the book article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

on reflection, I suppose that the "Eurabia" topic is a fringy take on Islam in Europe (or more precisely Muslims in Western Europe). We can merge it there, and state that there were a few panic-mongering books on the topic, and link to the most notable titles. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the article name is a neologism... WP:NOT discourages that. So a re-name at minimum is called for (but a merge sounds like the best approach.) Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia is a notable subject. Just do a Google search. You can't get just get rid of an article because you think its premise is incorrect, or is defective. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since everything in the article apparently relates to the book, and the article on the book itself is quite short, wouldn't it make sense to merge the relevant content into Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis? Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree... merge into the article on the book. Where applicable, mention the book and link to the article on the book in other articles. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • "everything in the article apparently relates to the book" (Looie496) The second § begin with "The meaning of Eurabia has since expanded and shifted."...89.2.243.42 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The book seems to have generated a good deal of additional literature, and the term is widely used. I have not looked at the article in a long time, but any defects can be edited out. It is not a fringe theory, and does not belong here. It is certainly controversial, but since main stream conservatives like Dennis Prager and Daniel Pipes take it very seriously [34]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

as Blueboar points out above, the thing that is "taken seriously" is discussion of Islam in Western Europe, not the neologism. "Eurabia" was in the "conspiracy theory" category even before I noticed it. So even if there is enough notability for a standalone article, a rename would seem to be in order. --dab (𒁳) 21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. "Eurabia" is notable as a subject, but it needs a different name. How do you figure that? Why not use the notable name that names the notable subject? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Eurabia need to be listed as a conspiracy theory? I have my doubts. "something"-phobia isn't necessarily always paranoia of "something". Timeo Danaos et donam ferentes. What seems to be clear, however, is that Category:Eurabia is a repository into which gets thrown any old thing that someone deems remotely related to Islam and Europe, where Islam is understood as a Bad Thing. Unless and until "Eurabia" has entered common parlance as a label for that notion, such a category is premature.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • "Does Eurabia need to be listed as a conspiracy theory? I have my doubts." (Goodmorningworld) Several variant of the Eurabia theory claim that european elite don't care about, or are intentionally supporting, the coming of several million muslims during last century, and coming of several tens million muslims in the next decades, or gave mandate (to rule Europe) to some Muslims, or will do soon in near futur. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
          • "What seems to be clear, however, is that Category:Eurabia is a repository into which gets thrown any old thing that someone deems remotely related to Islam and Europe, where Islam is understood as a Bad Thing." (Goodmorningworld) Category:Eurabia is currently including 11 articles (America Alone, Bat Ye'or, Michael Burleigh, Defeating Jihad, Eurabia, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, The Force of Reason, Richard Landes, Londonistan (book), Menace in Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too, The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?), most of them about books or people supporting the Eurabia theory and/or claiming that Europe will soon become Muslim, so stating that they are "remotely related to Islam and Europe" is irrelevant imho. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it a mistake to categorize Eurabia as "conspiracy theory." There may be some of that to be found, but with serious consideration coming from respectable sources such as the Hoover Institution [35], that accusation is unjustified. As I have said, I do not think this subject belongs on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The piece by Niall Ferguson that you reference is thoughtful and nuanced, as one would expect. What it isn't is a serious consideration of the Eurabia thesis, which it only mentions in passing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have started a thread concerning this noticeboard here [36] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated three of these articles on fringe books for deletion, on the basis that they do not have third-party reliable sources and thus fail WP:V. I also think we should minimize the use of terms like "Eurabia" except in a relatively few articles on the meme itself or the people who created it. No serious scholar of the Middle East or Europe uses such terms; they are bandied about by right-wing ideologues only. *** Crotalus *** 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • "we should minimize the use of terms like "Eurabia" (Crotalus horridus) Why? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • "they are bandied about by right-wing ideologues only" (Crotalus horridus) So what? Do you want to delet from WP "Zionist Occupation Government" and any article about things "bandied about by right-wing ideologues only"? 89.2.243.42 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • please use your account. I frankly do not think you aren't understanding what is being said here. We need to distinguish (a) the bona fide topic of projections on Muslim populations in Europe, including pessimistic ones from (b) the populist noise surrounding the topic. "Eurabia" is a topic of (b). If the term has notability, we can have an article about it just like we have one about "Zionist Occupation Government". What Malcolm Schosha is saying is that (a) should be discussed under (b), or deny a distinction between (a) and (b), which may be the method of choice at Conservapedia, but not on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

what I do not understand is, if we have "toughtful and nuanced" discussions which contain soundbites like a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a senescent Europe -- what point is there in bothering with cheap Islamophobic pamphlets of the Bat Yeor type? We can and should implement all these scenarios into Islam in Western Europe, balanced and WP:DUEly. "Eurabia" can then just bea redirect to such a serious discussion of the problem. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuanced and thoughtful xenophobia then, but Ferguson is not at issue here and we agree that one passing mention by a historian and a handful of mentions by US shock-jocks do not a commonly-recognised term make. I agree with you about the urgent need to merge, except that Eurabia should redirect to Bat Ye'or rather than to Islam in Western Europe. By all means mention her book in that article, but there was more to it than dire predictions about demographics. There was also a narrative about secret EU deals with the Arab countries, which is where the conspiracy theory comes in, as it was completely at odds with the mainstream discussions (right and left) of EU foreign policy objectives. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

not necessarily xenophobia. demographic aspects of Europe do look somewhat bleak, and it should by all means be possible to discuss them, including their implications for religious demographics. The question is whether this should happen under the inflammatory title of "Eurabia". Fwiiw, I have begun to expand the Islam in Western Europe article, where imho would be the proper place to discuss the topic. "Eurabia" can be about US conservatives who despise Europe as they hate Islam. That may or may not be "notable", but it isn't helpful to the discussion itself. --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "demographic aspects... look somewhat bleak"? What? I'm not sure what this is pointing at. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Median age.png, File:Population growth rate world.PNG. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Yeshu#Jesus_Connection.3F section of the Yeshu page, Gerald Massey makes up about half the section. I think this should be reduced significantly, if not removed entirely, because:

1. he is not a reliable source even in Egyptology as per the consensus established on the reliable sources noticeboard, much less in Jewish history

2. There was no mention of him in any contemporary scholarly sources given in the article, in fact, there was no mention of him or his ideas in any sources at all, other than his own book he wrote which was quoted in the article.

3. The notability of his view in the subject was not established at all. He, an unreliable source, could have been the only person in the world with that view at that time, from all we know from the article.

For 1.,WP:Undue weight requires "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source...(emphasis mine)

For 2. and 3., WP:FRINGE states: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. (emphasis mine)"

The Massey quote included in the article satisfies none of these requirements. Madridrealy (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Massey's not the only modern author who thought that ben Pandera was the "real" Jesus, so the idea's worth reporting. But there's no reason to have a gigantic blockquote from Massey there. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

so it appears for once I am being accused of pushing fringe science. I have been struggling to compile a main overview article of our populated Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. This is a hairy topic, and academic sources aren't exactly ubiquitous, but I have started on our trusty first stop the CIA Factbook, and then actually dug up some recent academic publications (notably Pan & Pfeil 2002). But behold, I am "WP:OWNing" the article, pushing obsolete 19th century racialist scholarship. This is the opinion of a couple of editors who aren't so much working on the article, but who seem to think it shouldn't exist at all. Did they up and AfD it? No, they just try to impede any work on the article by unsourced hyper-skepticism. Samples

I am saying that in 1914 any discussion of ethnicity was nationalist because back then concept of ethnicity was understood in the same way as nation. Ethnicity isn't used like that anymore by most social scientists (except those few ones who ascribe to the essentialist/naturalist primordialist viewpoint) [37]

As for the map you put in, is "Portuguese" really an ethnic group? White Russian? Where are the Jews (there were millions in Europe before WWII)? Roma? Kashubayans? It seems more like a map that links languages with nations or nationalist (all I mean are, groups aspiring to self-determination or sovereignty, nothing negative) groups in Europe

• Ethnicity is often said to involve language, culture, religion, and ancestry. I doubt that these four variables are ever isomorphic. Part of me feels it would be very interesting to have four maps (races of Europe, Religions of Europe, Languages of Europe, Cultures of Europe - not sure how that would even be compiled - and juxtapose them precisely to show how the different axes so often do not line up perfectly.[38]

and so on, and so on, for pages, without as much as referring to a single source. The upshot is that these editors allege it isn't possible today to talk about "ethnic groups", or draw maps of their distributions, that "ethnology" doesn't exist any more (in spite of our article on it, and in spite of the current OED's definition of ethnology as a "science"). Then, in reply to idle questions like is "Portuguese" really an ethnic group? White Russian? I have gone to the library and taken out the 2002 monograph on ethnic minorities in Europe, which lists 87 "peoples of Europe" with population figures as well as maps showing their territorial distribution. Yes, this is "original research", on the part of the authors of the academic monograph cited, duh, as with any other reference cited on Wikipedia. What was the reaction to that? Any citation of references that would discredit my reference? No, it was a posting to my talkpage that I am trying to "OWN" the article with my "vandalism" and "home made original research"[39], and that "consensus" wants me to forget about my references and submit to the fuzzy feeling that the article cannot be written because its subject doesn't exist.

To me, this seems like a case for User:Durova/Reality check: "a few people's idea of useful can't trump the law". So we have four editors on an article talkpage who think the article shouldn't be written. Never did they cite any sources, or present any evidence of why the sources used were inappropriate. But hey, they have "consensus". --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not doing "fringe" but neither are the other editors on the page. We all know it's a complex topic, a minefield even. Can you just keep discussing with them, or perhaps put out an RfC? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say (for being one of the "four editors on the article who think the article shouldn't be written" - not true) that a RfC would probably be a good idea. But seriously, the dispute is based on dab drawing up a map of European ethnic groups based on a map for population density, where all French people are monolithically "French" whereas the Spanish people are diversified as Valencians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques, Galicians, etc. Does this mean that Breton, Occitan, Alsacian or Corsican ethnic groups don't exist? I think the objection is based more on how the ethnic groups are operationalized on a map and what kind of map is used than on the mere existence of such a map. If we are to illustrate the ethnic groups of Europe, we need a map which is relatively recent, and has a consistent cutoff as to which ethnic groups are represented and which aren't, and also something that gives the territory occupied by each ethnic group. Currently, these are lacking.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing you have to get into that article is a discussion of what constitutes a people. It seems to me that language, religion, and ancestry come into it (not sure what "culture" is other than these things), but perhaps at bottom it comes down to self/other identification, i.e. the answer you would give to "What group of people do you belong to?", or the answer somebody else would give to "What group of people does he belong to?". These are of course my own thoughts and you need to rely on good sources, mainly what I'm saying is that a discussion of this issue should come before anything else. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no beef with Ramdrake, his criticism is constructive and I am willing to act on it. What really got my goat this morning is, I spend hours with hairy and complex sources to draw up a survey, and this guy comes to my talkpage calling me a vandal. What really got my goat was being treated like some ethnic crackpot, after my three years of service of protecting Wikipedia from ethnic crackpots. Slrubenstein & Cie. simply do not want this topic discussed. They want to obfuscate it behind a cloud of postmodernism and pretend it doesn't exist. And they do this without bothering to cite any sort of source, and without respecting any source cited at them, with the vexing implicatin that anyone drawing ethnographic maps is a racialist. I know this is a "minefield". This is why I insist on sources. I don't ask anything I am not willing to produce myself. I have compiled the ((Ethnic Europe)) overview map, to 100% based on an academic source (Ramdrake, I thought the population density map, also from a reliable source, would be a nice touch, because after all the topic is the geographic distribution of population, but if you find it unacceptable, we can also use a blank map, you only need to ask). I am willing to review other sources as they are presented, this is just the best source I could find so far. What I will not put up with is being shot down as "vandalising", "unhelpful" or "OWNing" by people who have yet to cite their first WP:RS on the topic.

I have a recent scholarly monograph on ethnic minorities in Europe right in front of me. I am trying to base the article on it. And believe it or not, these authors are fully aware of the uncertainties and terminological ambiguities. That didn't stop them from writing a book about the topic, and that shouldn't stop us from building an encyclopedic article. Anyone who has RSes to contribute is welcome. Anyone who is just trying to make me jump through hoops because they feel like it should stand down, or be made stand down by the community. It works like this: (1) I cite a scholarly source. You don't like it? (2) You cite a scholarly source which contradicts mine. After this, (3) discussion towards a compromise solution may ensue. There is no way you can jump from step 1 to 3 omitting step 2. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. Let's take it step by step and include everyone in the discussion. Postmodernist or not (let's hope please, not), SIrubenstein is an established editor. Season of goodwill and all that. What's your scholarly monograph? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it is healthy for us anti-crackpot-types to be accused of being crackpots ourselves once in a while. It keeps us from getting too self-righteous. I recently was accused by OrangeMarlin of advocating quackery, and found it to be an educational experience. One is forced to realize that defending oneself is sort of like proving that you're not a communist. (Old joke: How do you tell whether somebody is a communist? Answer: Just ask. If the answer is yes, they're a communist because they admit it. If the answer is no, they're a communist because communists always lie.) Looie496 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

dab, I am not familiar with with the monograph. Having just stopped to take a look at this noticeboard, I have gotten the impression that you are frustrated that some opposing editors have not sited opposing sources to back their views, and that is understandable. But, how notable is this monograph, and has it attracted much published comment...either for or against? If there is a lot of notable comment backing the view of this monograph, and little or nothing opposed, then you have nothing to worry about, and you will certainly get the article you want. But, if that is not the situation, you may need to find a more reliable source to base the article upon. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

the term is cited, and I am not worried, just annoyed over the delay this sort of disruption causes. I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have found this article that has turned into a horrible POV fork and a battleground. I am not sure if it qualifies as fringe but I would be happy if someone could have a look (there's an ongoing AfD as well). Thanks. --Tone 08:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A discussion at templates for deletion hinges on whether an idea about transwomen's motivations for transitioning is a fringe theory. As I understand it (and I am not an expert), the idea is widely (but not universally) accepted among sexologists and vehemently rejected by (nearly) all transwomen. (This article from The New York Times explains things fairly well.)

The navbox has been proposed for deletion on these grounds:

• The template connects only articles about this (allegedly) FRINGEy idea and ignores all the other (i.e., "better") ideas.
• Excluding all unrelated ideas is inherently a POV violation: FRINGEy ideas are never allowed to have a template that lists only the articles about the FRINGEy idea.

In discussion, we appear to have determined that (1) Wikipedia has no articles on any of these "other ideas" (although some older ideas are briefly mentioned in Classification of transsexuals) and (2) that nobody even knows what those hypothetical other ideas are called, although those who favor deletion are certain both that such ideas exist and that these other ideas are universally accepted by all right-thinking sexologists.

I generally avoid fringe theories in my editing, so I don't actually know much about what constitutes a fringe theory for Wikipedia's purposes. If you have an idea about sexuality that is used in current medical research (See, e.g., PMID 18299976, PMID 18956626, PMID 15803249, PMID 8494491), but which is rejected by the "patients" as being demeaning and politically dangerous, is it a fringe theory? What matters more: the views of the affected community, or the views of the psychologists, physicians, and other researchers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a very difficult question and requires considerable judgment and evidence to examine, especially in the kind of cases you've mentioned. There are many things that obviously are fringe theories, like Time Cube and whatnot. There are also many fringe theories which are widely believed and even promoted by some sources which should know better, like Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and Intelligent design.

Sometimes it's possible to identify a specific scholarly discipline, and then examine how seriously a theory is taken by that discipline. If somebody has an idea about who built the pyramids, but it is dismissed by egyptologists, then it's definitely fringe.

In this case, we appear to have a theory which is taken seriously by a scholarly discipline, but is dismissed by a relevant community on the basis of personal experience. That can't be considered fringe. It is a question of differing perspectives and methodologies. Mind you, that doesn't tell you whether the template should be deleted or not, but the theory itself doesn't seem fringe. <eleland/talkedits> 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Heja_helweda has used Mehrdad Izady to claim that two thirds of Kurdish tribal names are of Hurrian origin. See here for example: [40] where she quotes:"M. R. Izady (1993) identifies two-thirds of Kurdish clan-names and toponyms (such as Buhtan, Barzan, Mardin, Ziwiya and Dinawar) as deriving from Hurrian". The actual article that quotes Izady is here:[41]. Note this is Izady's quote: "Nearly two-thirds of Kurdish tribal, topological and urban names are also likely of Hurrian origin: Buhtan, Talaban, Jelali, Barzan; Mardin, Ziwiya and Dinawar, to name a few." and User:Heja_helweda deleted Talaban and Jelali from it and named only "Buhtan, Barzan, Mardin, Ziwiya, Dinawar". The reason she deleted is that Talaban and Jelali are both actually Arabic and have nothing to do with Hurrian, but Izady who is not a linguist claims them to be Hurrian. The other names have different etymologies but there is no proof they are Hurrian.

After reading these articles, I am convinced that Izady is more on the nationalistic fringe[42](the complaint is towards this article here: [43]) on some of his theories and this:" An Appendix essay by the historian Mehrdad Izady charts the complex origins and history of the Kurds, which stretches back eight millennia"[44], rather than an actual academic source.

So how should this source be handled? Specially give the rather folk etymology where even Arabic names that have entered Kurdish are claimed to be Hurrian? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate to get feedback on two other things: 1) Corduene specially the overwhelming reliance on outdated sources like Rwalinson and lots of non-sourced claims written by the same user. 2) The user claims contacts between Sumerians and Kurds based on an erroneous entry here[45]. dab responded to this well: "this is a non-issue. The various toponyms mentioned are indeed found in Bronze Age sources. They have, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the Kurds.". I believe it is the same with Hurrian stuff of Izady which seems like pseudo-linguistics.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an anon ip subverting strengths and weaknesses of evolution. This article appears to have been used by User:Ed Poor in one of his many efforts to write creationism into Wikipedia. I first saw the ip's version and wondered what the hell it was still doing here, but the previously stable version is less objectionable (I do think it ought to have some other title, though). In any case, I believe the article needs some attention from the fringe noticeboard denizens. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

that "anon" editor would be me. I challenge the neutrality of the entire article, and put a neutrality challenge on the article, which Nunh-huh removed. The entire article as it exists is an argument in opposition to the topic, not a neutral explanation of the topic. This article is the most egregious violation of neutrality and POV I have seen yet on Wikipedia.24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The anon-editor has raised no substantive POV issue (hence the deletion of the POV tag). The overwhelming scientific opinion is that the purported "weaknesses" have no scientific basis. The article therefore gives WP:DUE weight to this viewpoint. The anon-editor has not cited any countervailing evidence to support modifying the weighting of this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to violate WP:NOT in that the article tells us nothing about actual strengths and weaknesses of evolution (although that probably makes no sense anyway), but is all about the phrase, what it calls the "language" "strengths and weaknesses of evolution". We're not a dictionary, and the encyclopedia does not perform at its best when it tries to deal with concepts that are disputed as concepts. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't see a problem with this. The article seems appropriately framed as relating to the Texas educational row and the notability of the phrase as a result of that. Moreschi (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I think that Itsmejudith may have a point on the title versus content of the article. Would "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" in science curricula be a more accurate title? Or is that too long-winded? Conciseness versus clarity -- always a tradeoff in titling things. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Or Texas education evolution controversy? Something similar, at any rate...Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Another idea would be add a ((about)) template at the top explaining that the article is about the use of the phrase in particular context. See Gay for example. 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that much of the current problem would be solved by a new title that indicates clearly that the article deals with the (actual) creationist attempt to introduce unscientific objections to evolution into public school science classes rather than some (non-existent) scientific debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. - Nunh-huh 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be done without exacerbating the POV issue (e.g. by introducing 'Creationist' or similar into the title). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'Texas education evolution controversy' is both too vague and general (in that this isn't the only controversy over evolution that there's been in Texas) and too specific (in that it leaves out other attempts to get the language into curricula). Really the focus isn't on Texas so much as this being the latest mutation of Neo-Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hows this for a novel idea: Why not simply DEFINE THE TERM in the lead before engaging in scorched earth warfare against it's legitimacy as a concept? The lead is completely without any explanation of the term, sans what is self-evident in the term itself. It is simply "an examination of the credibility of certain elements of the science of evolution." That definition does not lead credence to one or the other POV. It simply DEFINES THE PHRASE which is the subject of the article. Define the phrase in a neutral way before engaging the entire rest of the article in debunking it. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to try and get the titles of this and related articles just right. I'd also urge some restraint in the creation of new articles around this controversy. We don't need to follow every single twist and turn of the argument and we should avoid falling into recentism. Incidentally, have people seen the book on Intelligent Design by John Bellamy Foster and coauthors? My impression is it discusses some recent aspects of the controversy in a way that is perfectly consistent with mainstream science and could be a useful source for the anti-ID position. On the other hand, Foster is the editor of the left-wing journal Monthly Review and not long ago someone was arguing that he must therefore be an extremist. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to give a clearer definition in the lead, per 24.21.105.252's request, whilst avoiding giving credence to the Creationist viewpoint. Per "recentism", I would point out that this phrasing has been in the Texas SBOE curriculum for about 20 years. The recent controversy merely means that we now have sufficient RSes to write about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While your edits have improved the lead incrementally, Hrafn, it is, to be brutally honest, still a train wreck of an introduction to the topic. It's a challenge to a fight. Simple as that. At least you've backed off your intransigent denials that there was even room for improvement. I'll give you credit for that anyway. My new catch-phrase: "Neutrality. Neutrality. Neutrality. If you fear it, you have an agenda you hare hiding." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some articles may give the impression of truthful and believable information and facts, while in reality nonsense is being brought forward. The article Veljko Milković makes "free energy movement", by using that name, credible sounding, while it actually refers to the conspiracy theory free energy suppression. Calling a local hobby group of 20 people an "Academy" gives it undue status. Joing three different "words" (articles) together: [[impulse]]-[[gravitational]] [[machines]] makes it look like "impulse-gravitational machines" do exist and contribute positively to humanity (NOT). Some (?) readers may even believe that this person actually built a "perpetuum mobile", as mentioned in the article, which is of course ludicrous. A while ago I cut out a lot of nonsene already. Maybe someone here could also have a look at this. Thanks. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... another perpetual motion claim... clearly needs work. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my second opinion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veljko Milković (2nd nomination). ScienceApologist (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD of several subpages of draft content that relate to fringe theories. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the issue of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been discussed here before, I thought it would be worth mentioning here that there is currently an RfC ongoing concerning whether the article should be renamed to remove "conspiracy theories" from the title. Please see Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#RfC: Is the phrase "conspiracy theories" accurate for the article title?. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting case, perhaps? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the above, same editor, same lack of reasoning. See Talk:Brieselang Forest Light. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I filed an AE report about Eric Lerner: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pseudoscience. If you are an admin, please consider helping. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold spot. Is this really article-worthy? Should we merge it into ghost hunting? Shouldn't a cold spot just be the opposite of a hot spot?

Pretend I'm not here, I'm on wikibreak. When I get back, I expect to either see a brilliant article or a brilliant merger or a deletion.

You have your assignments.

Love, from beyond the wikigrave, ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should redirected to CMB_cold_spot. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Or made into a disambiguation page. Cardamon (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool Spot. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's scary paranormal.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected to CMB cold spot in deference to Ruslik0's suggestion. I also think Cardamon's suggestion would work well too. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. If you want to effectively delete the page take it to AFD. Artw (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These articles are tripping my bullshit detectors, particularly the bits about hafnium bombs. They seem to be an earnest and overly credulous attempt to explain a series of nuclear isomer experiments that DARPA canned in the 1990s. Less fringey, more pathological science IMO. I suspect the articles are drawing unsupported conclusions from reputable sources like Phys Rev C, etc. I'd appreciate if someone more physics-minded than me could take a look. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Could hafnium (pictured) one day power an aerial vehicle?" Sheeesh. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A co-opting of a perfectly legitimate term from Catholic philosophy by the paranormalists. I first AfDed it, but then after being made aware of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, I tried to fix the article. See the Talk:Bilocation for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What?! No mention of Santa Claus? Looie496 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus has other problems associated with the Laws of Thermodynamics which essentially make him a perpetual motion machine. I think, however, that there isn't a verifiable source which indicates that Santa Claus is necessarily in two places at once: only that he's really, really fast. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This report is in regards to literary criticism vs non-scholarship in an area that is talking about a "genre", which falls within the science of literary criticism. Over at Ludovico Ariosto, two fringe theories are being pushed here. The attempt is to remove the term "Christian" and replace it with "Romantic". Within literary scholarship, Romantic is reserved for Romantic poets. Romance is the proper adjective for works that incorporate Romance. As pointed out on the talk page, genre scholars use the term "Romance Epic", and this was provided to show how the term is prevalent. The only ones provided as evidence of "Romantic Epic" was a work produced by a translator, not a genre scholar, and an "encyclopedia" about Spenser, a field that is very large and not everything is thorough. This use of "Romantic" (not the correct term, "Romance") is used to replace Orlando Furosio as being described as a "Christian Epic", a term that means that the epic is based on the forces of Christianity fighting against an enemy, which is the common descriptive within scholarship (the plot is God favors the Christians under Charlemange against the "pagan" Saracens). Thus, we have two fringe theories being produced: 1. that Orlando Furioso is not "Christian", and 2. that it is a "Romantic Epic" and not "Romance Epic". If anyone needs any books verifying any of this, please ask and I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Romantic goes to Romanticism, and "Romance" is at Romance (genre), which shows that even Wikipedia has already reflected the major difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is a case for WP:3O, not this noticeboard. Nobody is pushing anything fringe; if anything, your persistent denial of Ariosto's irony and refusal to therefore separate OF from, say, Gerusalemme liberata is the way-out claim here. Now please try to find a better forum. Moreschi (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Irony, as Clenath Brooks points out, is not the opposite of a meaning. It is the blending of an opposite with a truth. Even if the work was "ironically" supporting Christians, its lead figures are still Christian, which denies any argument that you could introduce. Now, this is the proper forum, since this deals with genre science and there is an attempt to push an improper term across multiple pages. Moreschi, I needed remind you that the community hasn't really appreciated your views on policy or propriety as of late, so please knock it off. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to actual consider Moreschi as correct, just look at this for an easy to find search that shows that his view point is the minority. But it would be ridiculous to claim that a work whose heroes are all Christian is not a Christian work. Hence why we are here at fringe, the place where the ridiculous is normally removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's rich coming from you: I seem to remember blocking you indefinitely at one stage. Carry on like this and we'll be back that way again. Now, where were we? Oh yes. Lead figures being Christian does not make a work "Christian" if this (Christianity) is not the main theme. And Christianity is far from being the main theme of OF (unlike, say, Tasso's work). References for "Romantic" have been produced. Now where are yours? And I'm sorry, linking to google books doesn't cut it. Particularly when a couple of those links seem to argue against your point...Your claim that any work which has Christian protagonists is "Christian" is, well, silly. This would make "Christian" The Merchant's Tale, which is related to Christianity yes but the main point of which is relations between the sexes. Moreschi (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember DGG removing your indefinite because it was completely inappropriate. I also remember you up on the chopping block because of your understanding of blocking policies. In terms of epic genre, the type of epic is based on the nationality/group of the hero. The Aeneid is a Roman epic because Aeneas is seen as Roman. The Iliad is Grecian because Odysseus is seen as Greek. Tasso and Ariosto wrote about Christian heroes. Christian Epic is a classification. This is about genre science. Your lack of understanding on the issue is apparent in your attempting to classify "The Merchant's Tale" within epic terminology. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother, is this still going on? I suspect the difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" is miniscule, but I've already cited many occasions where English-language scholars use the term "romantic epic" and it's the one I'm most familiar with. In fact, it's used by Barbara Reynolds as the subtitle of her translation of Orlando furioso for Penguin Classics, perhaps the most widely read modern version of the poem in English. Reynolds was Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University (among other academic posts) but that hasn't stopped Ottava Rima trying to smear her reputation on the Ludovico Ariosto talk page (after all, "anyone can be a lecturer at Cambridge"!!). As for "Christian", well Ariosto was no doubt a Christian and the poem contains Christian elements, but "Saracens versus Christians" is part and parcel of the Carolingian subject matter anyone writing about Roland/Orlando would inherit. Ariosto hardly puts much emphasis on this theme. He's not that reverential either as a comparison between Dante's journey to the moon from the Earthly Paradise in the Divine Comedy and Astolfo's in Orlando would demonstrate. So, no, if you're going to use one adjective to modify "epic" when describing Orlando furioso then "Christian" doesn't really fit the bill. Likewise, Tristram Shandy was written by an Anglican clergyman and it contains a sermon but I wouldn't necessarily define it as a "Christian novel". --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If Tristram Shandy included God sending down Michael to battle for the Christians or St John the Evangelist guiding the hero towards truth, then it would be a Christian novel. Furthermore, Epics are defined by religion/culture because epics have divine action, which is an essential component to the epic tradition. Furthermore, any work in which Christians battle Muslims taken from the point of view of Christians would be a Christian work. Just as the same work taken by the point of view of Muslims would be Islamic. These are actual, rigorously defined genre classifications. This is science. And for everyone's knowledge, Cambridge is very large and has had non-notable politicians lecture. It also doesn't require everyone to be specialized in a field to be a lecturer. Furthermore, none of this verifies Barbara Reynolds as a literary critic that specializes in genres, let alone in epic as a genre. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is science". Don't be ridiculous, nothing in literary studies is "scientific". Critics have debated epic theory for centuries (indeed this is one of the major differences between Ariosto and Tasso - the latter was very self-conscious about which type of epic he was writing). Your continued attacks on Reynolds' expertise in Italian studies don't sit well coming from someone who didn't know the difference between basta and bastardo. As for the episodes you mention, Saint John occurs in the satirical episode of the flight to the moon and God's sending Saint Michael to the house of Sleep is based on an episode from Ovid's Metamorphoses. Ariosto was imbued with the spirit of Italian Renaissance humanism before the Counter-Reformation arrived. It's obvious to anyone who reads Orlando furioso then compares it to Gerusalemme liberata by the devoutly orthodox Catholic Tasso just how much more deserving the title of "Christian epic" the latter is. --Folantin (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not science, how could anyone call literary studies 'science'? Ottava is wrong there, just as she is wrong in somehow assuming a consensus about the community's attitude towards Moreschi. dougweller (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug, genre classification is an important aspect of not only literary science but library science. You can't even get my gender correct. Furthermore, don't kid yourself. The ArbCom was very clear about Moreschi's behavior as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the gender, but 'can't even' is wrong. The current ArbCom doesn't represent the whole community (and you didn't say ArbCom, you said 'community'. And library science is not 'science' which in a worldwide context means physical science. dougweller (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"nothing in literary studies is "scientific". This is clearly spoken out of ignorance. Anyone with a basic understanding of literary theory would understand how it became scientific, especially in approaches dealing with linguistics, psychonanalysis, and the rest. Later, with the addition of various political theories, it only increased in its scientific approach. However, this is about genres, which falls under Philology, which Wikipedia even makes clear is a science. This is about the language and linguistic classifications of a poem. This is scientific. It is astounding that two people attempted to weigh in without such knowledged. This is why it is important for the Fringe Noticeboard to stop the addition of non-scientific and fringe information from being introduced. The very fact that Folantin's argument is "it cant be Christian because someone else is more Christian" shows the absurdity of the attempts to remove the classification by rigorous scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary studies, psychoanalysis, and philology are not sciences. Genre classification is definitely not scientific at all. I wonder if there's some difference in Anglo-American and Continental attitudes towards this? In any case, classifying a poem as some subtype of epic is a subjective enterprise, and what matters is how the work in question is usually classified by reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis not scientific? Oh please. I think you just dismissed a large portion of WP:MEDICINE which has fought hard over many issues here on this forum. Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about this. This is about linguistic patterns and is a science. After all, Philology "is a branch of the human sciences". Furthermore, WP:FRINGE is not limited to just science anyway: "Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." History is part of human sciences just like philology. So either way the claim above fails. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So Jacques Lacan is a scientist? News to me. Obviously, WP:FRINGE applies to non-scientific fields; however, since Folantin has supplied ample references (that are in no way fringy) that support his viewpoint, I don't see why this discussion is happening at this noticeboard. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Human sciences" has no clear meaning - at Oxford it's a non-traditional course including genetics, but note that it is within the Social Sciences division. You won't, or at least won't often, find philology, literarcy criticism, etc taught in University science departments. Linguistic patters are a social science - in English speaking cultures. Not, so far as I know, on the continent, etc. dougweller (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)"Folantin has supplied ample references...". And just to knock any further potential BLP violations from Ottava on the head, this is from the bio of Barbara Reynolds in her Penguin Classics translation of Orlando Furioso (subtitled "A Romantic Epic by Ludovico Ariosto", sic): “Barbara Reynolds is Honorary Reader in Italian at Warwick University. A graduate of University College, London, she was for twenty-two years Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University and from 1966 until 1978 was Reader in Italian Studies at Nottingham University. Her first book was a textual reconstruction of the linguistic writings of Alessandro Manzoni. The General Editor of the Cambridge Italian Dictionary, she has been awarded silver medals by the Italian Government and the Province of Vicenza, and the Edmund Gardner Prize for her services to Italian scholarship and to Anglo-Italian cultural relations. She was appointed Visiting Professor in Italian at the University of California, Berkeley, for 1974-5.” That’s from the 1975 edition. I imagine she’s acquired even more credentials since then.--Folantin (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Genre classification is definitely not scientific at all." Yes, as a simple comparison between languages will tell you. English makes a distinction between the "romance" and the "novel", in French they are both roman. --Folantin (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the off topic posting

Stop the off topic posting. It does not belong here and is a violation. This is for Fringe theory discussion. Fringe theories is not limited to biology, chemistry, etc. Furthermore, as the directions even state: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on Fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus."

This is about academic consensus versus the wanting to insert a minority opinion on a topic. The fact that people want to attack philology, one of the oldest fields, is disturbing. To do so in order to derail this process? That is a violation. Stop it now. Any further off topic posts that do not deal with academic consensus versus a fringe view will be reported to ANI as disrupting a process and a point violation.

Now, we have three things to consider: 1) the use of the term "Romantic" versus "Romance". As pointed out, Philology has determined that "Romantic" is reserved for the Romantic poets and a type of poetry that is similar. The term "Romantic" even links to "Romanticism", which is this subject area. 2) the use of Christian, whereas this is a work that deals with a Christian protagonist, involves a Christian God, and pits Christians versus Muslims. 3) The contrary evidence coming from someone who specializes in a field of linguistics (aka, Italian), as opposed to those who specialize in genre classifications. The third will determine the legitimacy of the claims of the other two. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, get a grip, please. Go and find something else to do like sue the Romantic Novelists' Association for misappropriation of a "scientific" adjective. --Folantin (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stop the off topic posting." Yes, I quite agree. The sources that Folantin has presented aren't fringy at all, so this isn't a dispute for this noticeboard. Further discussion should take place at Talk:Ludovico_Ariosto. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that someone who teaches Italian is qualified for genre classification and has the right to negate tens of thousands of scholars? I really don't think you understand this noticeboard and I am asking you to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You really don't understand what being a Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University involves, do you? It's not just about teaching kids which verbs take avere and which take essere. And ZOMG!!! other scholars apart from Reynolds have used the term "romantic epic" (note the lack of a capital "r") including Graham Hough, who also wrote a book on the Last Romantics, which was about late Romantic literature in English. Somehow, he managed to cope without getting confused between the two uses of "romantic/Romantic". I suspect the difference between "romantic epic" and "romance epic" is about as vital as the distinction between "ketchup" and "catsup", although no doubt you have scientifically determined the latter debate for all eternity too. --Folantin (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"You really don't understand what being a Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University involves, do you?" I am 100% sure that it does not give the individual a highly qualified background in genre classification, let alone is able to grant them greater weight than world class scholars who specialize in the field. Furthermore, there is no little "r" here. This is a discussion of the appropriateness of classification. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Wikipedia is not based on an argument from authority, nor do we limit editing Quantum mechanics to just physics professors. Your argument is a non sequitur and quite off-topic, Ottava. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read WP:FRINGE, it makes it 100% clear that non-authorities have no right to speak unless they have a notable view point, and then only given a minority say. The very fact that you claimed the above is contradictory to WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Right now, there is an ArbCom case on reliable sources and fringe. I would direct you to the wise words of another literary scholar on the subject: Geogre's evidence. As stated above, one translator who is not a specialist does not have the right to contradict thousands of professionals. The definitions are agreed upon in the field. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE protect the specialists. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: an argument not from authority is called original research. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not allow that. Your comment goes directly against community wide consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Reynolds is an authority on Ariosto, despite your assertions ad nauseam to the contrary. As I suspected, this is an argument about nothing because The Spenser Encyclopedia uses the terms "romantic epic" and "romance-epic" interchangeably. A real "fringe" view on this topic would be your assertion that "Christ is a major figure in Orlando furioso" when, as far as I can see, he doesn't appear as a character in the poem. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument really cannot continue any longer on this board. If a literary translator and literary scholar uses one terminology while other scholars use other terminology then this is a run-of-the-mill argument within scholarship. It has nothing to do with fringe theories, so there is nothing more to be said here. Surely there are expert editors in relevant WikiProjects who would have wise opinions on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I say, this is a non-argument. Orlando furioso is described as a "romantic epic" in Cassell's Dictionary of Italian Literature (p.20), to take one of many examples. I can find no appreciable difference between "romantic epic" and "romance-epic". --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Note, Folantin violated talk page guidelines by archiving a topic that she is involved in. This is especially improper when her actions were brought up within the topic. Regardless, - Itsmejuditch: a language expert is not a genre classifier. Your assertion is such that it would make it seem that a Computer Science expert would be able to classify animals or, more pertinent, talk about evolution, which has been shot down here before. One type of academic does not give rights to other types of academia. Now, I hope you know that, along with doug, just because you want to "help" Moreschi out, it does not count towards the guideline. The guidelines are clear. Reliable Sources are necessary. Fringe sources must be dealt with appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition note - Cassell's Dictionary, just like all of Cassell's works, is not a scholarly work in the field. This is equivalent of relying on Webster's for a Physics article. I am surprised that Folantin keeps providing these sources when Google Books was provided for her earlier and provided thousands of sources to look through by actual academics in the field of genre studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been obvious for quite a while that this is a behaviourial issue rather than a content dispute, given your long track record at ANI and elsewhere. I see your mentorship [46] has just finished and you are back to your old ways. As you said to one of your ex-mentors, the real motive for this controversy is because [47] "This deals with my user name, so its a matter that I am personally invested in." File under WP:DFTT. Oh, and by the way, "You can't even get my gender correct." --Folantin (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange coming from someone who posits a translator about thousands of genre specialists that one of the biggest content contributors on Wikipedia is a troll. I also find it strange that you would make such off topic attacks when the issue is very clear. But yes, I guess this is now a forum for improper procedure, rudeness, personal attacks, and other such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I don't have a clue where you are coming from in relation to the academic disciplines that are involved here. What do you mean by "genre studies"? Is it something you can do a degree in? A PhD? I do know that you can study for degrees in English Literature, French Literature, Italian Literature etc. And if someone teaches Italian Literature at Cambridge then they obviously know an enormous amount about the different genres in that literature. At least they know enough not to make pronouncements about topics outside their competence. But who are the experts in "genre studies" you refer to? If you could name just a few of the leading names then it will help people understand the point you are making. BTW I think we should simply move this discussion to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The dispute on the page itself has actually been resolved for 24 hours now. Simply in the interests of reducing further nonsense, Doug suggested we should refer to the poem as "an epic" (with no adjective modifying it). --Folantin (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For Itsmejudith to answer a question: A) "What do you mean by "genre studies"? " To give a brief history. Dating back (at least in written material) to Aristotle, genre classification has been a vital component of philology, i.e. the study of language and words. By observing charactersitics, philologists, in particular genre specialists, classify works according to various types (or genres) in the same manner that was adopted in practice to classifying animals. You take various components, details, characterstics and the rest. Then you can find commonalities between the groups. Thus, we have "Epic", "Tragedy", "Comedy", etc. B) "then they obviously know an enormous amount about the different genres in that literature" No, they would only know the language. When you receive your doctorate, you may take one or two classes in a genre. However, a genre specialist would spend their whole life in the field, immersed in the works, theory, background, etc. They would also write their dissertation on the subject, which a language specialist would not. Thus, this would be saying that a Chemist might know Biology, but they aren't an expert on it. An expert in the epic genre studies would be individuals like Thomas Greene, Andrew Fichter, Sergio Zatti (the leading Ariosto and Tasso expert), David Quint (the leading New Historical epic theorist - he believes that the epic genre is a political tool) and even Mikhail Bakhtin. There are many more. I produced a link to google books above showing just from a cursory look how often the term "Romance Epic" is used in books on the theory of "epic". C) This was a discussion on the talk page but this needs a wider discussion because there is very little activity on the talk page, and it deals with a need for consensus. The reason why this is brought to fringe is that there are thousands of academics saying on thing, and a handful of those saying something else. Fringe is what deals with such matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's very little activity on the talk page because most people would regard this as resolved. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article certainly reads OK without any adjective qualifying "epic". We are all agreed, aren't we, that Ariosto's epic falls into what Wikipedia calls Romance (genre). Can "Romantic" be used as the adjective relating to that genre? My guess is that some scholars are comfortable with that, others not for fear it might lead to confusion with later Romanticism or even with present-day romantic fiction. I note that Barbara Reynolds will be 94 this year, so perhaps her work may not reflect current usage on this very minor point. To say that she "would only know the (Italian) language" is laughable since she wrote a book on Dante published by IB Tauris. Nothing related to fringe theories here, some discussion still possible about weight. Ottava Rima should add some more relevant material to the article from Zatti and any other experts he mentions above who have specifically written about Ariosto. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's utterly bizarre to think that getting a doctorate in Italian (or Spanish, German, Japanese, Latin, etc) would involve only learning the language and nothing about literature and literary history. Just weird. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the term “romantic epic” is virtually interchangeable with the term "romance-epic" (or even "epic-romance") , which is why some writers in The Spenser Encyclopedia (ed. A.C. Hamilton, 1997 edition) use “romantic epic” and others use “romance-epic”. Ottava Rima has yet to prove that the distinction between "romantic epic" and "romance-epic" is an important issue or that any scholar who employs "romantic epic" is a "two bit hack writer". He also seems to have a strange conception of literary studies as some kind of 1970s UK unionised industry in which labour is strictly demarcated and only qualified engineers with a BSc in "Genre Studies" can determine what type of epic a poem is. No doubt only scientists with degrees in Versification Studies are permitted to decide on questions of metre. The word "romantic" is not the exclusive property of the Romantic Movement of the late 18th/early 19th centuries. In the same way, the adjective "Gothic" can apply to Wulfila's translation of the Bible, Chartres cathedral, Walpole's Castle of Otranto and (no doubt) Marilyn Manson. --Folantin (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - Fringe is a term used when there is a weight issue. So, please keep that in mind. Also, I was in the middle of cleaning up parts of the article when Folantin went ahead and started changing things. Hence why I came here in order to get the interruption settled. Now, about this: "is laughable since she wrote a book on Dante published by IB Tauris". She wrote the book because she knew Italian. She knows how Italian works within itself, which allows you to write a book on interpretation. This would be perfectly within her expertise. Genre classification would not.

Akhilleus - "would involve only learning the language and nothing about literature and literary history" As stated above, genre is not the same as language and interpretation in the same way that chemistry is not the same as biology. There may be cross over, but they are two very different academic activities that require different approaches. This is not a dispute about interpretation but about classification.

Folantin - "Ottava Rima has yet to prove that the distinction between "romantic epic" and "romance-epic"" As I stated before, a romantic epic would be The Recluse, Hyperion, or another such work. Normally, they deal with expressing ideals that are primarily focused around the imaginative process and an emotional/intellectual response to nature. Please see Romantic, which will send you to Romanticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of information to Ottava Rima. "Lecturer" = faculty member at the University of Cambridge. It is incorrect to say that anybody can be a lecturer at the University of Cambridge. Appointments are usually heavily weighted towards the candidate's research record. Ottava Rima seems to be in no position to assess Reynolds or her expertise. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, in the UK 'lecturer' or 'senior lecturer' is equivalent to US associate or assistant professor, the UK only has one Professor title. So you can be a tenured lecturer, for instance. Annoying that you don't get to be called Professor like your US counterparts. There was quite a rebellion of senior lecturers at Oxford and Cambridge a few years ago complaining that there were so few Professors compared to American Universities. dougweller (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"romantic epic/Romantic epic" (note capitals). Read the first paragraph here [48]. --Folantin (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nikolova essay you cite is about genre, it says that OF is often referred to as romantic epic. It's a reliable source, therefore unless Ottava Rima can cite chapter and verse for an equivalent scholar who explicitly says it can't be called that, then the matter is settled. If necessary refer also to Dean A. Miller, The Epic Hero. Also through Google Books I looked at some texts by David Quint. He seems to be an important scholar on Ariosto and OF. He seems to use "romance epic", but I couldn't find any reference to it being a big deal for him or anywhere where he says that "romantic epic" is wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"I couldn't find any reference to it being a big deal for him or anywhere where he says that 'romantic epic' is wrong." Likewise with Zatti's book (which is a translation anyway). This is a ketchup/catsup argument. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci - "It is incorrect to say that anybody can be a lecturer" Quite wrong. It does not require a doctorate. It also does not mean that honorary positions are not available. Furthermore, she would be a lecturer in Italian only, which does not qualify her as a scholar, let alone an eminent scholar, in genre studies. "Ottava Rima seems to be in no position to assess Reynolds or her expertise." You can ask SandyGeorgia, Geogre, or Awadewit for my credentials if you would like.

"is equivalent to US associate or assistant professor" And in many schools you do not even have to have a doctorate to become an associate professor. Furthermore, the difference between "associate" and "assistant" professor is enormous.

Itsmejudith "It's a reliable source, therefore unless Ottava Rima can cite chapter and verse for an equivalent scholar who explicitly says it can't be called that" Sorry, but thats not how Fringe works. Not only does it defy logic (citing a negative), it also does not prove that the majority of scholars do such. I have already quoted dozens of scholars on the topic. I can quote dozens more on the term "Romantic Epic" as defined as an Epic by the Romantic poets if you would want. You need only go to M. H. Abrams, Harold Bloom, Stewart Sperry, etc etc, for that information. The whole Yale School of theory involved themselves, and they hold more precedence in academia than Reynolds ever could. As for Quint: "but I couldn't find any reference to it being a big deal for him" You obviously never read his book, since his point is dealing with the types of Epic (those of the "victors" and those of the "losers"), and the difference between Romance and Epic, and their fusion in Romance Epic is extremely important in his critique.

Folantin - why would you cite a book called Romantic Poetry? But one need only read the paragraph to realize that she is conflating two completely different groups (the Romantics with the Rennaisance) and is wrong. The only group relying on the imagination was the Romantic poets. As she even says, its a response against neoclassicism, but she can't even keep her own terminology correct. So why provide a really bad article as evidence? I think the fact that it was published by "John Benjamins Publishing Company" and not a university shows a lot.

Now, here is the killer: "Here is an interesting line (p. 165) : "the Romantic epic lies in the fact that as much as this was 'a movement towards breaking away from the neo-classical commitment to established genres'" If that's so, then Ariosto cannot be a "Romantic epic" according to the source. Why? Neoclassicism happened a long time after Ariosto died. On p. 51, there is a list of Romantic epic poets. Among them are Byron and Blake. Notice how the term refers to Romanticism and not Romance (genre). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"romantic epic/Romantic epic". Read the first paragraph here [49] and note the difference between Nikolova's use of capitals. Orlando furioso (along with other Renaissance works) is often referred to as a romantic epic (the same thing as a romance-epic, i.e. an epic which draws many elements from medieval romance); Byron and Blake wrote Romantic epics (epics from the Romantic era). --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see that the capitals are there for a reason? Romance Epic is capitalized. If someone says romantic epic, then that is not a critical term. When you classify things in literature, we are supposed to classify them based on their critical terms. Anything else would fail under WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima this is utterly offtopic. All lecturers at Oxford and Cambridge are scholars. Anyone can be a lecturer is the same sense that anyone can be an astronaut, or anyone can be head of IBM. Anyone can be a professor too. All that means is that there are no rules that restrict appointments to people with green eyes or any other preconditions outside their qualifications for the job. This is a petty issue, and is wholly unrelated to "fringe theories". It's just a matter of scholarly and literary preference. Some authors are happy to use the term "romantic" to mean "of the romance genre", others are not because they don't want confusion with the Romantic movement. That's all. As for the "science" of genre classification, that's a red herring. No one is disputing that OF comes into the category of Romance are they? The question is simply whether "romantic" is a legitimate adjective in English to refer to that undisputed fact. Stick to the issue. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone who worked as an "assisstant" teacher and as a "lecturer" while working on my doctorate, I can tell you that many people like myself do just that. So title alone should not mislead anyone. Furthermore, there are honorary positions based on what you do, and a translation of a large work can easily lead to one. That would mean that it is respect for the translation, and not respect for a critical understanding of a field, especially not one that is disconnected to the field in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Stop rambling about irrelevancies. I know perfectly well how the UK academia works and two seconds looking up Barbara Reynolds indicates her scholarly notablity. Statements like "philology has determined that "Romantic" is reserved for the Romantic poets" are deeply unhelpful. "Philology" does not make determinations in any such way. "Romantic" is an adjective used in several contexts within and without academia. The only issue is clarity and coherence in the article and accurate representation of sources. Paul B (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states that Wikipedia only deals with the academic consensus. Reynolds does not represent such just as a biologist does not represent something in physics. This contradicts your assertion completely. Furthermore, I would ask you to stop with the personal attacks through negative characterization. These two combined with each other shines a poor light on what you have to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and academic consensus is not determined by your assertions. You have provided no basis for your claims about the acceptability of an adjective, just obfuscation. You have not even replied to the sustantive points. The personal attacks come from you, and are are returned by other editors because of your behaviour. Your antics here cast a very poor light on you. Indeed I would suggest that your dogmatism, evasion of issues, and repeated argument by assertion is the likely cause of the problems you have been having, since it simply produces resistance. If you want to have the last word, go ahead, but this debate is now pointless. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your comments absolutely absurd because you just agreed that you didn't understand the purpose of this board and that your previous entry was incorrect. Your characterization of me falling under "antics" and the rest is equally absurd. You can blame me all that you want, but it does not match such to an actual objective observer, of which, it is obvious, that you are not. So, next time, before insulting someone, make sure to get the basis correct then don't do it in such an obviously unfortunate way. I have provided plenty of documented evidence. I have been verified by other literary experts on Wikipedia, and there is no other retort except personal attacks, in which you yourself have indulged, and promotion of people who have not been stated to be experts in the area. So please, if you want to continue your off topic personal attacks instead of dealing with the issue, I would ask you to reconsider what Wikipedia is about. It is surely not what your actions suggest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I salute you for adding another 1,096 characters of "I am hurt and insulted" under your own heading of "Stop the off topic posting". It takes stature to do this. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, if we can stop making this about your EGO for one minute, I think we can settle on the simple outcome of this thread of replacing "romantic epic" with "romance epic", which I think everyone agrees is just as correct. case closed. --dab (𒁳) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked for that to be the case above and I was called a troll for doing so. Good luck, but if they are willing to accept it then there will be a great benefit to the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)