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

User:Doug Coldwell aka User:Douglas Coldwell's WP:OR fringe theory, the Petrarch Code, has been known to me as a problem affecting his edits & thus the encyclopedia at least since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1 in March 2007. (Please see the links in that AfD nomination for some further information.) They continue to be an apparent issue with Doug's edits, an issue I have raised today in a new section of Talk:Africa (Petrarch). I feel really unequipped to deal with the vast tide of questionably motivated material that ends up in an article like this one. I believe it is a very fair test of Wikipedia, to ask how long this user's long campaign of editing articles about whose subject matter he holds such extreme fringe views will be allowed to continue. Recognizing that the real work of unentangling the OR from the real history of literature etc. is a thankless and complex task, I bring news of this particular problem to the watchers of this board in the hope that some editors who have the chalcenteric toughness for such jobs may take it up until there is a real solution. Wareh (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through Africa (Petrarch), and I am unable to spot anything that appears to be fringe. Everything of importance in the article is attributed to sources, so I think you have to either show something in the article that is not supported by the sources, or show a source that is not reputable, or leave it alone. Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As User:Doug Coldwell I am trying to improve the article Africa (Petrarch). Wareh has now teamed up with User:Akhilleus (as he solicited his efforts) and together they are censoring what material I can put in the article (mainly lists of Romans), although neither of them are making contributions to the article. I am the major contributor and have improved it from a stub a couple of weeks ago to what it is today. Wareh's first objections were that I was putting a slanted viewpoint into the article, then his objections were this was OR, even though it is well correctly referenced. Then he finally said a list of characters was a "fringe theory" and gave the above issue. Their objections are not to prose or to the references I have provided, but just to a list of Romans I would like to add to enhance the article. Since they are not even working on the article, I don't see why they are so concerned of its contents other than they wish to censor material I would like to enter. The article as Looie496 above saw it on 00:10, 24 February 2010 contained a list of 32 characters in Petrarch's poem. They removed the list at 01:17, 24 February 2010. Yesterday at 21:56, 25 February 2010 I entered a list of only 8 Romans, however they will not allow that either (even though well referenced) because they personally don't like lists (so they claim), however it looks to me to be censorship since they are not even working on the article. They are all well referenced, however they are making up the Rules as they go along to prevent me from having a list of Romans associated with the poem. References are not the issue. Apparently the final Rule they have made up that do not allow any such lists as they themselves don't like lists. Keep in mind they are not even working on the article and they both admit they have not even read the poem. Its just censorship! Could Looie496 as an unbiased Third party take a look at this again and look at this version with the 8 Romans to see if this is a "fringe theory" or OR or has a slanted viewpoint. The Romans are in the poem and are well referenced with detailed references showing this. I want to enhance the article so it will pass to become a Good Article, as I have nominated it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources are old, but then again you are talking about a document that was published in the 14th century. I might take issue with the wording and find it a bit hard to see the relevance of some of the information on the page, but the information itself is certainly sourced and to quite reasonable, if not solidly good sources. I would suggest contextualizing the section on Romans a bit better (right now it floats in a rather inexplicable section) perhaps renaming "characters" and including all significant people mentioned in the poem, but I really don't see any issue here unless there are sources being actively misrepresented. I don't think this is a FTN issue, at best it may be a RSN issue, if in fact the sources are being misused. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input WLU. Based on your input, I'll put back the original list of 8 "characters" I had originally and add to that list. Others are certainly welcome to add whichever characters they feel are important to Petrarch's poem. IF anyone sees an issue with any references, please point out the reference and I'll certainly address the issue and perhaps be able to point out where I obtained that reference and with its text I used as the reference. Many I have already given the text where I obtained the information. I certainly wish others would contribute to the article, however it looks like I am the only one that is improving it and making major contributions to it improvements.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Akhilleus has removed the list after I expanded it as was requested. I was about to add Syphax, but had an "edit conflict" with him since he removes the list faster than I can expand it. Will somebody add the list back for me please so I can expand that Section. I have a half dozen or so more characters to add. I believe it enhances the article and will help bring it up to a Good Article status. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the point of my original posting hasn't been taken. As manifested in Africa (Petrarch), the result of the fringe theory to which Coldwell adheres (that Petrarch's texts contain secrets magically hidden in their English translations) is an issue of WP:UNDUE. I brought it up here because the offense against WP:UNDUE is apparently caused by the editor's adherence to a fringe theory, but apparently people here aren't interested in that background, since this is not an example where the fringe theory has been directly stated in the article space. The list of Romans includes a lot of material that is utterly accidental and insignificant to the subject of the article (Petrarch's poem Africa). It is exactly as if I were to visit Hamlet and fill half the article with all the lines of that play that mention body parts ("out of joint"), and rationalize this emphasis only with sources showing that Shakespeare was interested in the body (while posting in my userspace an exotic theory on how to "decode" the references to body parts in Shakespeare's plays based on a German translation of them and elsewhere claiming Shakespeare wrote the New Testament). The difference, of course, is that everyone knows about Hamlet whereas almost no one has heard of Africa (Petrarch), so it's a pretty lonesome struggle to oppose the WP:UNDUE emphasis of the only editor truly motivated to develop the article. Wareh (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wareh, please keep focused on the issue at hand. The Africa (Petrarch) article has to be taken on its own merit and references. Not allowing a list of characters that are in the poem then is censorship.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree that believers in fringe theories should be welcome to make positive contributions, but I also think it would be foolish not to apply caution when the fringe theory directly relates to the subject matter of the editor's edits. You still haven't responded, here or at the article talk page, to the complaint that your list is not helpful or appropriate because of its WP:UNDUE emphasis. I only point out your utterly impossible and fringe ideas about Petrarch because they can help the uninitiated see that there is a plausible reason why you would lay such undue emphasis on your (meticulously sourced) list of Romans. I still think the discussion is appropriate here, because it addresses the difficulty that arises when apparently positive contributions distort the encyclopedia's treatment in ways subtle enough that they get by many editors (especially on obscure pages like Africa (Petrarch)). In this case, it's obvious how WP:UNDUE the emphasis is, to anyone who actually goes to the poem, say, to double-check the list's assertion that L. Papirius Cursor is important to Petrarch's Africa. The problem is that such editors are few and far between. When Akhilleus went to the poem to check that assertion, he found that the long epic poem did not even name L. Papirius Cursor once, but alluded to him in passing in three words! If you want to give a better reason, besides your fringe theory, for why you want to emphasize people like L. Papirius Cursor who are in fact unimportant to Petrarch's Africa, in an article on Petrarch's Africa, I'm all ears. Wareh (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Wareh, please keep focused on the issue at hand and that is the Africa (Petrarch) article. I don't see this character of L. Papirius Cursor in my latest list I had before it was removed again. IF you don't like this character, then I'll keep him out. There is no WP:UNDUE because I am inviting you and anyone else to add (or subtract) whomever they wish to the list. Of course, they have to be related to Petrarch's epic poem Africa and referenced accordingly (similar to what I have done). Otherwise this is censorship, since it has been correctly referenced. All I am doing is adding a list of characters to enhance the article to a Good Article status.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the important characters will be mentioned, and linked to, as they occur in the synopses of the various books? Or am I missing something? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the only English translation of Petrarch's Africa (first one in the Secondary sources) these is no listing of the important characters of the 9 Books to the epic poem.
Would someone please add back the "Characters" Section and I will be glad to expand it as is requested. Otherwise this is censorship!! Anyone is welcome to add or subtract any of the characters. IF they add, then they must be referenced to the poem. I don't want to be accused of breaking the The three-revert rule.
Keep in mind that Wareh has now come up with 5 excuses not to allow a list of characters.
IF there is a problem with any of the references, I have to be notified which one so I have a chance to correct it or back it up with another reference. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus people. The list of characters is appropriate. Wareh, please replace it but edit it accordingly - include the relevant characters and their roles in the poem, take out any "mystical" stuff you see that is unsourced and ideally someone should include information on how the character relates to the poem as a whole. Frankly, based on this version I can't see anything objectionable - it looks like a lot of factual claims that are sourced to appropriate books. It's not censorship to remove this, it just seems like bad editing. I frankly can't see any "magical claims" in the characters section except for literary devices I would expect in a poem. Even in Hamlet you'd talk about Hamlet, his mom, his uncle, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern, Fortinbras, etc. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't see anything objectionable about including characters that are mentioned in a single line of the poem? In Hamlet Act III scene 4, Hamlet mentions Jove, Mars, and Mercury; should they be included in a list of the play's characters?

And hey, does the article on Hamlet include a list of the play's characters? There's one in the infobox, but there's not one in the text. That's because the text of a good article on a work of literature doesn't need a list of characters. (It doesn't need one in the infobox either, but presumably the infobox has one because of the longstanding tradition of listing characters at the beginning of a play, like this.) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, people seem to have been misunderstanding Wareh's post. It's not that Doug is putting fringe material into articles (although that remains a possibility), but that his belief in fringe theories like the "Petrarch Code" leads him to overemphasize irrelevant or marginally relevant material. This seems like a good explanation for whom Doug chose to put into the list and whom to leave out; why else would he give such a place to people like L. Decius Mus,, L. Papirius Cursor, Cicero, and Caesar, who play no role in the poem, while leaving out Syphax, who is a major character? Well, it's because biographies of Decius Mus, Papirius Cursor, Cicero, and Caesar all appear in Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus, and if you read these biographies according to the Petrarch code, you get...well, I don't know what, but it certainly looks exciting! Maybe this explains it...

Actually, this is probably the best place to look. Here's another good place.

Anyway, even without the suspicions about fringe theories, the list overemphasizes people who are not important characters at the expense of characters who are important. And, as I've already said, I don't think a good article on a work of literature should have a list of characters. Most FAs seem to lack them; those that have them are either plays or have "character" sections that actually analyze the characters, not just list them (e.g., The_General_in_His_Labyrinth). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between incredibly minor characters and the major ones - the latter should be included. If you look at Hamlet, there is a list of characters in the ((Infobox Play)). Their involvement in the plot is included in the summary. If you really don't like the list, then embed the characters in the Books section. And trim minor while adding major. Since the page lacks an infobox, use a section instead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the Hamlet infobox. The plot summary mentions major characters. Therefore, there's no need for a separate list of characters. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wareh and Akhilleus. Putting some of those names in the list are like including Julius Caesar among the characters in Hamlet because Horatio refers to the portents around Caesar's murder in the first scene and Polonius later says he once acted the role of Caasar in a play. Being mentioned in passing does not make you a "character". --Folantin (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another single purpose account is advocating for the reality of satanic ritual abuse on the talk page again. Input welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP is hitting this, changing the article to make it look as though these are real. Needs some eyes, thanks. (didn't sign this last night, sorry, but the IP seems to have stopped) Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, people, it's time to tackle the big one!

There are a number of articles on UFOs which fairly drip with X-files-type credulity. I'm not saying that we shouldn't acknowledge that such believers exist, only that right now our articles relating to UFOs are almost exclusively filled with believer-based text and seem to lack any understanding of how fringe the topic is. I'm planning on working on the following articles over the next coming weeks:

• Unidentified flying object
• Identification studies of UFOs
• Project Blue Book
• Condon Report
• Project Grudge
• Project Sign

I would appreciate any help you all can give. In my mind there are three things that need to be done:

1. Remove the citations to UFO-organizations except where we are actually referencing them. For example, the link to the USAF Project Blue Book fact sheet was to MUFON's Computer UFO network rather than to the military site. I fixed that.
2. Include the mainstream explanation for UFOs and give them more WP:WEIGHT which they actually deserve. Right now, we have nary a word to say on weather balloons, birds, lenticular clouds, etc. All these phenomena are known to be associated with UFOs. All deserve some explication in relevant articles (especially the first two).
3. Remove irrelevant POV-commentary. For example, at the end of the Project Blue Book article there is this screed about how terrible the USAF was at evaluating UFO claims made by J. Allen Hynek. While criticism is okay to note, this kind of source impeachment is essentially serving as a soapbox.

I know that there are a few UFO-enthusiast editors still around that may not like this project, but I really think it's high time Wikipedia become a bit better in its editorial coverage.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As you look to find reliable sources to cite, you may find my reliable sources search engine useful. The URL is http://www.google.com /cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en Google search engines are black listed for some reason so I had to include a space between ".com" and "/cse/". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the main UFO articles are in decent shape, relative to the poor condition of dozens of UFO sightings articles like Falcon Lake Incident, that report the claims of UFO books verbatim: ("...Despite the surprise, he discovered a colourful glass around the UFO. It was very well-conserved, with no cracks. He attempted to touch it, but his glove simply melted, the heat hurting his hand through the glove's protection. Quietly, a metallic box full of holes got off the UFO..."). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a noble goal. We must make sure as Lucky mentions that this views are in no way presented as true or the mainstream view.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of this is fringe but I think there are editors here who might know about this. Sinharib99 (talk · contribs) is rapidly editing articles where he seems to be adding an Assyrian spin, eg changing 'Iraq Christians' to 'Assyrian Christians' and changing a lot of historical articles - usually using Wikipedia articles as references, often adding OR. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I also rv'd a couple of his edits, because they are definitely pushing his pov without any proper refs - but I'm not sure this is the same as "fringe". He's still rather new, and I've seen other new editors like him tame expressing their own pov here over time as they adjust to how we work, and learn how to add good refs attributed to published opinions from external sources, instead of simply writing in their own opinions. So he may well show progress in this regard. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion about the use of fringe primary sources in this article, the large amount of text supported by only primary sources, and a significant portion of text which has no support at all. There is also a dispute about the neutrality of certain wordings which assume the reality of Seth as a ethereal being, etc. Please take a look, thanks. Verbal chat 08:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, her work is used beyong acceptable in the article. Probably all ths could be removed, since we may just as well copy her work here than using it abusivally. -RobertMel (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New user Vedicsciences (talk · contribs) rapidly creating new articles, deleting text in old ones, etc. Not sure if he is actually new or if we've seen him beforeDougweller (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We've seen others like him before. He seems to be yet another ISKCON loony, wreaking havoc in articles related in one way or another to Vaishnavism. Going on past experience with similar cases, the chances of him becoming a constructive contributor are somewhere between slim and none. The usual trajectories are that either he will lose interest after being reverted all the time, or he will edit-war himself into a block/ban. rudra (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

there is VedicScience (talk · contribs) who just recently got a sockpuppet warning placed on his account (and was a bit of a troll, if I remember correctly, on certain religious articles). might be the same user. --Ludwigs2 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution histories to articles: Vedicsciences [1] and VedicScience [2], the existing SPI and the similarity of their names, there is certainly enough to suggest raising another SPI; see WP:SOCK for more details on this. -- TerryE (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The page on Ashkenazi intelligence has several problems. The most important is that the theory (that Ashkenazim are more intelligent than average and that this is because of having been under an evolutionary pressure to develop because of antisemtism in the dark ages) is somewhat well known because of publication in media - but it is of course far from mainstream. The problem is that the mainstream has dedicated little if any efforts to argue against it. This means that the theory can be said to be notable because of multiple mentions in reliable sources - but that there is not enough reliable sources to introduce the contrary viewpoint prominently in the article. In short we have a conflict between the principle not to give undue weight to a fringe viewpoint and the notability criteria of multiple mentions in the media warranting an article. Untill recently this has been dealt woith by having warning tags on the page suggesting that the page may be including too few viewpoints and may be unbalanced. Currently a user is removing the tags "because they have been their for a long time and nbothing has happened". If this is accepted it is going to mean that we will have a page explaining in some depth that there is a theory that Ashkenazim have developed superior intelligence due to persecution, but without noting that this theory is a fringe theory - and it will have no tags to warn readers that that may be misleading. Comments appreciated at the talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguing against it is part of the criticism which goes in the article. Notability is notability as long as the subject is covered in notable published materials. -RobertMel (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I must not have expressed my self clearly. The problem is that while the theory has coverage, that coverage does not include enough critical commentary to build an article that presents the theory as fringe. This means that because the sources are biased in favour of the theory, we cannot write a sufficiently neutral article based on those sources as the article can only turn out giving undue weight to the pro-Ashkenazi intelligence theory viewpoint, but no weight to the counter viewpoint. It is in fact a corollary of the sword wielding skeleton theory: the theory was stupid enough to get a lot of coverage from media, but too stupid for being criticised by academia.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The following AfD might be of interest to the regulars of this noticeboard: WP:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam. I don't recall ever seeing so many !votes based only on the current state of an article, with no consideration whatsoever of the subject's notability itself. Hans Adler 08:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was readin Black Death and I came across this in the overview: "Yersinia pestis and spread by fleas which primarily made use of highly mobile small animal populations like that of the black rat (Rattus rattus). Once infected by the Yersinia pestis bacterium, it is estimated that victims would die within three to seven days.[1] However, this view has recently been questioned by some scientists and historians,[2] and some researchers, examining historical records of the spread of disease,[3][4] believe that the illness was, in fact, a viral hemorrhagic fever." This smells of WP:FRINGE to me, can an expert take a look at this? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be a legitimate scientific discussion. I read somewhere that "the jury is still out and is likely to be for a long time". In the meantime most academic sources still assume that the Black Death was caused by Yersinia Pestis either because they were written before the alternative proposal was made or because they do not wish to discount the YP assumption unless/until there is better evidence. The relatively brief mention in our article would seem to be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some recentism going on here. I would tend to guess that since the matter is not proven beyond doubt, speculations and reservations will continue to be expressed. I also see that a single article (said to be controversial, though I don't see justification of that claim) is really the central source in this. Given what we have to work with I think the degree of doubt being expressed is excessive. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ran across this article about a supposedly notable astronomer who is much heralded by the UFO crowd. I can't find anything reliably-sourced to validate the "observation" or its Fortean interpretation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article does continue a link to a copy of the original L'Astronomie article. I guess to be absolutely certain it was legit you'd have to dig up an old paper copy of the journal, but it hardly seems worth the effort. I'm unable to find much that seems harmful in this article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a small entry in "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" for it and did some cleanup...but reverted after I found that the source was citing the Wikipedia article itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, really? This is an article ripe for AfD. I've sent it over. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article uses writing style that encourages reader to think that the resurrection of Jesus Christ had indeed taken place, and only the details are the subject of ongoing debates and research. A large collection of unreliable sources with supposedly authoritative names of scientists and universities are brought in an attempt to substantiate the variety of theories concerning the dematerialization of the body, with no scientific evidence provided for the latter. The primary contributor to the article, User:Brandmeister, seem not to understand the core principles of scientific method, verifiability of knowledge, etc even after numerous and thorough explanations on the talk page. The criticism section does not cover explicitly the resurrection itself as well. --Barvinok (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin)

(Double post)

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin) (article) related to pseudoscience and NPOV tagging. My summary:

1. Myself and User:Barvinok have challenged the neutrality of the article and whether this is science or not, while the article creator, User:Brandmeister‎, keeps arguing to the contrary.
2. Using the same references as the article creator, I've added the criticism there is in the article; including "None of the many theories that have been advanced to explain the image on the Shroud have found wide acceptance" and "...[Trenn] who admits that his theory is "terribly hypothetical", ... "
3. Brandmeister‎ first added the article to category Category:Theoretical physics; I removed it, so the same proponent instead added Category:Hypothetical processes, a category obviously not intended for pseudoscience.
4. Brandmeister keep adding other "sindonologists" to the section "Concurring hypotheses", again presenting them as "other scientists". And, because the article is now also stating that "[...] the energy liberated would be far less than that from disintegration of the heavy atoms in nuclear weapons. It would still be sufficient to move the stone at the entrance to the tomb...", Brandmeister argues the article is NPOV and that "from the epistemic theory of miracles point of view [weak dematerialization] holds water".
5. Today Brandmeister finally(?) claimed "sindonology is an interdisciplinary study" and thus there is no need for "merely physics publications".

I would appreciate some comments from several contributors. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the article needs to identify these theories as fringe. I see one of them cites as its source a book published on Lulu.com that touts itself as revealing the "shocking link between the resurrection of the dead and earthquakes". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lulu.com published sources should be removed at sight, unless the writer is notable (even then) and preferably used in the article about himself. The title of the article is problematic to begin with, at first when he created it, he named it Weak materialization, which obviously I moved to clarify it's about the Shroud of Turin. Personally, I think any relevant material should be used in an article on the controversy of the Shroud of Turin and this article deleted. My take on content is that it's essay-like and unencyclopedic, I'm not dealing here about whatever or not it is pseudoscience but rather the tone and the way the subject is presented regardless of the merit of the subject itself. -RobertMel (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lulu.com is essential here because it provides the relevant citations of other researchers, namely Little and Tipler. If there is a better source with the same citations, the book could be replaced. I agree with LuckyLouie because labelling the disputed theory as fringe means that there is a scientific consensus on Shroud’s forgery while there is not. The main article on Turin Shroud is already huge, such issues are normally dealt within WP policies by splitting into new articles. The article features a scientific approach to weigh the disputed plausibility of the theory and should not be treated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT on sight. I've also provided critical notions of Hedges and Wiebe, if skeptics think this is not enough they are welcome to search for more criticism of the theory in question. It also worthy to emphasize that since the authorship of the First Corinthians is undisputed Wiebe's critical notion falls short amid 1 Cor. 15:5-8. Brand[t] 19:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is not about authenticity or dating the Shroud of Turin, as you're trying to suggest to divert this discussion. It is about the consequences of the supposed sudden phenomenon of clearly divine nature. I pointed out (countless times!) that the basic premise of Jesus' resurrection is contradictory to the mainstream academic consensus (that corpses do not dematerialize) and has no proof whatsoever, even among your cited sources. This very fact make the theory fringe and unscientific. Until this issue is properly (scientifically) addressed, everything else has no value. --Barvinok (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Lulu.com published sources is, that there is no reviewing process and that there is no way to confirm the info is accurate. It is in fact unacceptable to add a lulu published source. If we were to allow it, what prevent you or anyone to just publish on lulu any position you want on Wikipedia, to use it as reference? Also, another problem, is that there is I think no article on the Shroud of Turin controversy about its dating. I would have been more logical to have that created prior to creating this. -RobertMel (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting for that reply by Brandmeister. Lulu.com is not not the main (or single) problem, as far as I can see. Brandmeister is repeatedly insisting that everything not explicitly proven wrong is scientifically accurate and consistently using Bible quotes and whatever PDFs available produced by Shroud-proponents to prove this. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I dare to archive the following discussion thread to Brandmeister's user talk page. Please continue all non-procedural matters there. -- Barvinok (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just point out the final decision of Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and the alternative theoretical formulations within it in particular. Brand[t] 08:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion. It has received no third-party notice and so is not notable as an idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Amerike seems to be biased in favor of supporters of what as far as I can tell is an ahistorical fringe theory. Anyone feel like taking a look? Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cut some of the more speculative bits and started discussion on the talk page. From what I gather about the facts the Amerike theory has to be fringe. Is there any actual criticism of the theory or is it ignored in historical circles like fringe theories tend to be ignored by scientists? Auntie E. (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found criticism in a reliable source yet, but I'm still looking. Thanks for your interest in the article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see similar WP:SYNTH problems in another article by Brandmeister. "Christian influences in Islam" is essentially an originally-researched collection of architectural, artistic and cultural details from various Islamic examples that, in his opinion, constitute Christian influence. Will tag it appropriately and see what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The article title looks great and even interesting to me. However. having read the article, it is SYNTH and I think it should (1) be marked as NPOV and UNDUE and (2) it should at least contain a link to something like Islamic influences in Christianity. Ideally there should be an article detailing how influence have passed back and forth across cultures rather than religions. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I think there's the idea of a good article here. I don't think there's any doubt that a lot of Muslim architecture and artistry was adopted from Christian Byzantine Empire influences, but I have to think there's a lot more substantial sourcing for this material. Just a glance at the refs on the Byzantine Empire article demonstrates that. unfortunately, it's way outside my knowledge base. maybe we should placard a few requests for assistance over at projects dedicated to Islam or the ancient world? --Ludwigs2 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree, the present article might have been a fork of Christianity_and_Islam#Artistic_influences that lost its way and fell into a mire of SYNTH? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam is, of course, a reaction to Christianity. The Quran itself contains various comments and criticisms of Christianity. This should be extremely easy to reference. But the article for these things is Christianity and Islam. People should focus on fixing the existing crappy articles instead of creating yet more crappy articles. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I think that is a somewhat facile viewpoint. Islam is partly a response to Christianity - partly to Judaism, Rahmananism, Hanifiism. Islam, in its own terms, is an attempt to respond to and reconstruct what appeared (to the Prophet) to be a perversion of primordial monotheism - the religion of Abraham - whatever one wants to call it. I am not attempting to espouse a polemical viewpoint. No doubt, there are Christian (and Jewish, and other) influences on Islam, and vice versa. Christianity is particularly referenced in the Islamic rejection of the trinity, for instance. Nevertheless, to say that Islam is a response to Christianity is a combination of facile and offensive. Assuming Islam is a response to "its monotheistic predecessor" is one academic viewpoint, and it is offensive in that it assumes Christianity is the predecessor of Islam. Christianity is one starting point, but Islam is both a rejection and response of a certain brand of Christianity, not the faith itself.

(No definitive evidence has been able to show that Muhammed was Christian, or even had intimate knowledge of Christian theology. Additionally, the 'history' is quite clear that the first person to recognize the 'signs' of Prophethood in Muhammed was a Jew - a relative of Khadija, who died shortly after speaking with Muhammed and Khadija. The point is there were multipled monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions and to say that Christianity is the previous evolutionary cusp is a point of Judeo-Christian modern reviosionism (i.e. Judaism (initial monotheism) -> Christianity -> Islam). The reality is far more complex in pre-Islamic Arabia - where Muhammed spent the majority of his life.)

If you look at <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur%27an>> you'll see that this article primarily examines "deviations" of the Quran from the Bible. This presupposes something that is not held as valid by most Muslims - which is that the Quran uses the Bible as a source. I'll note, as I did in the discussion page, that the article is primarily concerned with telling the Biblical story and showing where the Quran differs. My broader point is that Islam considers itself the reconstituted reality of an "original" faith, not a response to a previous religion - as is often seen by many as analogous to Christianity's relation to Judaism. In this case, a particular person (I'm not trying to be offensive) of a particular faith was directly responding to points of contention in Judaism 2000 years ago. No doubt, the Quran contains elements of criticism of both religions - and other religions.

Nevertheless, to assume or say that Islam is a reaction to either ignores how Islam considers itself. It considers itself the superlative (again, this is not my attempt to be polemical) reconstitution of primordial (monotheistic) religion - i.e. an ancient belief in the one true God. I have tried to not make this a polemic, but it is kind of offensive for religious outsiders to take points of assumption as points of truth about an 'alien' faith. An illustrative example is that Islam considers all prophets - from Abraham to Jesus - to be Muslims, whereas other faiths would consider them in other lights.

The idea is that Muslims are those who practice the true religion - after Muhammed that religion was codified... or formalized, but the idea stems back to something that well predates Judaism (going directly to Abraham). Whether or not these people were real is irrelevant. Islam, from primary sources (to simplify), is the reconstitution of all previous trends of that primordial religion. To hold it in another regard is a form of "reactionary revisionism." Michael Sheflin (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has been deleted in the past, but it was recreated by Special:Contributions/Stanovc and Special:Contributions/Jazhinca . See talk page there are no reliable sources (some forum links are given) for such a claim as the Illyrians themselves are first mentioned at 4th century BC their ethnogenesis at 1000 BC and there was no such king at 1225 BC. Stavonc removed the Deletion template for no reason diff . This Hyllus the Illyrian 1225 BC fairy-tale has been circulating in Albanian nationalist websites for some time now.Megistias (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in keeping this article around, properly referenced. We have lots of articles on fictitious characters. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can trace this "Hyllus the Illyrian died in 1225 BC" to 1914[3], but I don't know where the claim originates. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Acrajan (talk · contribs), who has taught me the true meaning of "FRINGE" back in 2007 (Devaneya Pavanar) is back after more than two years of absence. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... the existence of a book is not a Fringe theory, even if the book itself pushes one. But the book itself Definitely does not pass WP:Notability (books)... Amazon says it is out of print. Google scholar search shows next to nothing. About the only think in its favor is that has some popularity on pro-Tamil fringe websites... Suggest AfD. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have listed it. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Blueboar, "the existence of a book is not a Fringe theory"? To paraphrase Mustrum Ridcully, this observation is either extremely deep, worthy of a lifetime of reflection, or else it is just hogwash. --dab (𒁳) 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The existence of hogwash is not a fringe theory either. :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Zecharia Sitchin article could use more editors. At the moment, an editor is disputing the neutrality of the article's coverage of Sitchin's fringe ideas, and more than one editor have raised concerns about the sources being used to explain why Sitchin's ideas are considered fringe. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be more correct, there is no dispute regarding the fact that Sitchin's theories are considered pseudoscience. I don't dispute that. My concern was about "SitchinIsWong.com" a personal self-published site (not third party) that uses Sitchin's own name in order to discredit Sitchin. How would you feel if someone would set up a website called "ClovisPtIsWrong.com"? (you can answer on the article talk page). John Hyams (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, StitchinIsWrong.com is in the tradition of Stop Sylvia Browne, not an independent source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're saying this isn't independent of Sitchin? Because of the name of the website? I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:Fringe which I read as encouraging us to use sites like this (ignoring the name of the site). Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to say it wasn't an "objective source." Depending on what else is in the article, parity could apply, but a third-party's coverage of StichinIsWrong.com would be even stronger than quoting the primary source. Besides, the article seems to be only using StitchinIsWrong.com as a source for the sentence "Sitchin's translations...are generally found to be incorrect". If so, I bet there's a higher quality source for that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is typical, few academics can be bothered to publish anything. This is why WP:Fringe says we can use sites like this on articles like this one. Hyams by the way is at the notability and BLP boards discussing this as well as here. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

SitchinIsWrong.com generally cites their sources quite well. Please use it as a jumping-off point much as clavius.org is used as a jumping-off point for Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of recent threads on ANI and at RFC/U have been related to this fringe theory which really should have got a mention here. As a result of discussions at ANI, I have created a merge discussion at the above page. There appear to be a number of sockpuppets operating at the page and other proponents of the fringe theory have been mistating policy for example "Now, could we please go back to NPOV, equal time, impartial data, and live-and-let-live -- which is what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia is not censored."

A New York Times article on an anonymous survey of American Shakespeare academcs gives results such as block

18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?

2% Has profound implications for the field

3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship

61 A theory without convincing evidence

32 A waste of time and classroom distraction

2 No opinion

which I think formly pouts it in the second category of fringe theory/pseudoscience as given at the top of this board.

Is there an admin here willing to lay down the law?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an admin. I closed the trainwreck of the discussion. Proceed forward. There are enough editors who will support you. I would recommend sandboxing your idea first and then give fair warning before going live, replacing the main article and redirecting the POV-forks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator please clarify the merge decision. Is it to merge the two Oxfordian articles into one? Is it to merge all authorship articles (Oxfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, etc. ) into the one main Authorship article? And what is meant by "redirecting the POV forks?" Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

More work editing and less discussion is needed. I encourage you all to collaborate at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox where you can create a parent article. If it looks like content forks and spinout articles are needed, it will be clear that way. Once a decent article is up, then let it go live an redirect all the relevant articles to the main article unless/until you get the appropriate spinouts. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SA, since the draft of a new article is started, get it ready to replace esentially everything else, and then see what needs to be spun from that into it's own article (my guess is not much). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shashki (talk · contribs) has been adding several statements and links sourced to Jan Lamprecht to the article Hollow Earth. Gabbe (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't know who Jan Lamrecht is, or why adding this material might be problematic... perhaps you should to expand. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok folks, I think that the Sinclair Method is a fringe theory/practice and that wikipedia has been for years used to promote this "method" to readers when it was referenced on the main alcoholism page before I deleted it today. There are zero hits from pubmed searching in quotes for "Sinclair Method", has no mainstream medical backing that I can see. A single peer reviewed secondary source does mention the "Sinclair Method" but it is by Sinclair himself. Please have a look at the web site for the "sinclair method" and see what you think of it. The drugs used in this "method" are used to treat alcoholism to encourage abstinence, to reduce relapse etc but this method seems like an advert to me and the Sinclair Method is not a mainstream use of the drug and it is not a notable subject matter deserving of an article. I have nominated the article for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinclair Method if anyone agrees or disagrees, feel welcome to oppose or support deletion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A discussion with Silver seren on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinclair Method page has persuaded me that the subject is notable enough for an article and I think that it is just a not very well known method rather than fringe so I have struck my comments above accordingly. I jumped the gun when I saw no pubmed hits and not the most professionally designed website combined with a very high success rate, I smelled a rat when there wasn't a rat it seems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New article on a geologist who made various fringe claims about Atlantis, the Garden of Eden, etc. Also known as a biblical UFOlogist. See also Kharsag Epics. I can't find any critiques but I've only been home a few hours from our Venice trip. I'm trying to find out if Dianthus Publishing who published his books is just a small fringe press or self-publisher.

I have removed some of the POV (such as describing his last book as his "masterwork", and saying that he presented "overwhelming evidence" etc.)... and added a few citation requests. The article could definitely use some critical commentary on how others view his ideas and theories. He seems notable, but what the article really needs is to establish that notability... though reference to reliable third party sources that discuss him and his theories. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think his books are basically self-published by Christian Brann's Dianthus Publishing, whose only other output seems to be a cricketing book - even the website devoted to his ideas described them as 'printed', not published. I can find nothing even close to a reliable source discussing his fringe ideas, and I've taken the Kharsag Epics article to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics as it seems to be a non-notable fringe concept. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This line "O'Brien published The Genius of the Few describing his survey and discovery of the first Natufian, sedentary, agricultural settlement" is wrong, he didn't discover the first Natufian sedentary agricultural settlement. He may claim to have done so, but if he had we'd have some good sources for it. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at WT:NPOV about possibly moving the WP:PSCI section (which is highlighted at the top of this noticeboard) from NPOV to WP:FRINGE. Please stop by and share your views. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like help with this, created by a well meaning person with a COI and still struggling with our policies and guidelines. There is no such thing as the Kharsag Epics, this is a grouping of some ancient Babylonian texts and given this name by the geologist Christian O'Brien. I can find no academic sources making such a grouping, let alone suggesting that the texts relate to the Garden of Eden or that some 'Shining Ones' created humanity.[4]. Dougweller (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone here looked at the article and the AfD? I thought it was obvious that a cherry-picked group of Sumerian texts, some of which O'Brien translated after teaching himself cuneiform, by a fringe writer who just squeaks through notability, shouldn't have its own article (but would be ok in his article). I seem to be wrong. Perhaps I've misunderstood our policies, or maybe it's just a situation where almost the only editors paying attention to this don't understand or agree with them. It also shows our weakness in ancient history. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opined. We need to distinguish between the texts themselves and O'Brien's Fringe theories about them. Those parts of the article devoted to O'Brien's theories should be merged into the article on O'Brien. That said, I would think that ancient Babylonian texts would be considered notable a simply for their rarity and age ... The question is what to call that article (or articles if they are better discussed individually). If the name "Kharsag Epics" is associated with O'Brien's Fringe theories, then we need a different article title (or set of titles) for articles on the text themselves. Question... are these texts ever discussed by legitimate scholars (individually if not as a group), and if so, how do the scholars refer to them? Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago I've spotted two references (Evan Colins, A Question of Evidence. The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O.J., 2002 and Peter D'Adamo, "Blood groups and the history of peoples" in Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia which claim that the AB blood group had not existed before 700 AD. While I agree that this group could be a genetic blend, the dating seems controversial (ABO blood group system#Distribution and evolutionary history currently does not clarify the situation). It is interesting, that the relatively recent origin of AB group ("only a 1,000 years old") is also mentioned on one of the nationalist websites, the [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14407 Storm Front]. Is there any mainstream view on when the AB group has appeared? Or the consensus is 700 AD? Brand[t] 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the 1000 years claim comes indeed from a fringe theory: Blood type diet#Blood type evolution issues. Hans Adler 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. Peter D'Adamo is an authority on how to market a diet book, but probably not someone we should cite as an authority on the science of RBC antigens. It should be fairly obvious that individuals of blood type AB will exist in any population which contains both A and B types in any significant number, as any pairing between an A and a B has a chance of producing AB offspring. The closer the A to B ratio is to 50/50, the more common type AB will be, as a matter of basic population genetics. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a reference to co-dominance would suffice here, I have not read it before actually. Brand[t] 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Two editors are arguing that Reincarnation research is not fringe and is part of psychology, and that critics that aren't experimental psychologists are not qualified to comment. Please have a look at the talk page and recent edits. Verbal chat 08:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The above is not an accurate portrayal. I have referred to research published by psychology professors in prestigious psychology journals as "psychology" in a general sense, and said that the only source describing reincarnation research (and therefore their research) as "fringe" is a reporter for Time magazine reporting at a convention. Mitsube (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is now highly POV and Mitsube has continued with his campaign despite his edits being disputed. This needs attention to fix, with removal of highly relevant text supported by quality RS. Verbal chat 11:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal's use of the passive hides the fact that he is the only one disputing anything, while falsely accusing three other editors of personal attacks. He has not made the POV claim on the talk page. And he has failed to come up with the RS's. Mitsube (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this statement from Stevenson's obit (note 8) should settle the matter: "But with rare exception, mainstream scientists -- the only group Dr. Stevenson really cared to persuade -- tended to ignore or dismiss his decades in the field and his many publications. Of those who noticed him at all, some questioned Dr. Stevenson's objectivity; others claimed he was credulous." If this ref is RS for the article it should be RS for the determination of whether the topic is a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to inclusion of the language above in the article, provided it is balanced with the positive reviews he received in prestigious journals and elsewhere from those few fellow researchers and philosophers who took his work seriously enough to evaluate it, such as these: [5], [6], [7]. But the word "fringe" is loaded. It has connotations of being extreme and unreasonable. Its use would have to be sourced to an RS, and Verbal has not come up with the necessary sourcing. Mitsube (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is your idea of balance that each side of the argument be presented as if they had equal status? Because that's not my understanding of how fringe topics are to be handled. And the above quote from Stevenson's obit is the necessary RS for its status as a fringe theory. If the source is RS, it's RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the fringe theory you are referring to? The article is about very thorough research done by professors, and published in prestigious journals, about cases that are suggestive of reincarnation. The criticism does not rise to the same standard. For example, the article opposes the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases with the self-published skepdic.com. I think the whole problem is that Verbal believes that reincarnation itself is a fringe theory, hence the inappropriate post here. This would line up with his edit-warring at the intro of reincarnation, where he repeatedly inserted the information that the NSF has called belief in reincarnation pseudoscientific: [8], [9], [10]. His claim in the first edit to have been revering an IP is not true, he was reverting User:Cenarium. Mitsube (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets be clear on what we are talking about... reincarnation is not a fringe theory (it is a relatively mainstream religious belief)... but the idea that you can research it is. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"reincarnation is not a fringe theory (it is a relatively mainstream religious belief)" Well, there you go! Open and shut. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, or if you wish a response. If you are being sarcastic, I'll point out that there are many religious beliefs more deserving of scorn than reincarnation. But I would like to take this opportunity to stress again that the research described in the article is not reincarnation research per se, though that is the most convenient way to refer to it. The first part of the article, which describes the most interesting material, is research on children who have memories of past lives, and birthmarks coinciding with life-ending wounds they claim to have had, along with the verification of their claims about their past lives. For this reason Stevenson only titles his books Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation and European cases of the reincarnation type. I'll point out that research of this kind cannot possibly prove that reincarnation exists, because (I would argue) it doesn't. Reincarnation as a belief presumes the existence of an unchanging entity that reincarnates. Proving the existence of such a thing would be quite a different (and, I would argue, impossible) project. Stevenson's research is highly suggestive, however, of the Buddhist belief of rebirth, which is only that there is mental continuity beyond death, to one of many different planes of existence. The analogy used in Buddhist thought is that of a burning candle lighting another; it is not exactly the same flame, but it's not entirely different either. Mitsube (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you know, I wrote out a reply, but these boards are not really for discussion of that type. Suffice to say I'm very conversant with the topic of reincarnation and I was having a laugh. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts in an e-mail. Mitsube (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with that. We currently have the problem that we are having basically the same fights between fringers and pseudo-sceptics at articles like reincarnation and at articles like reincarnation research, as if the two topics had the same status in society. Both sides don't seem to see the difference. If it wasn't so disruptive it would be funny. Hans Adler 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

eh, let it be funny anyway... --Ludwigs2 20:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. This issue is still being kicked around, the page is now protected but there is resistance to the use of sources that criticize Stevenson's research in detail such as the Skeptic's dictionary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

here yet another RM. Nefariousski (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Reiki#Reviews Editors don't appear to understand how to summarize WP:MEDRS sources, or simply don't want to do so. Someone with more time and patience than I have would be of great help. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Godawful mess. Notably, spent two paragraphs describing a single study in a fringe journal with positive results before finally going to a metaanalysis. First word of Criticism is 3/4ths of the way through the article.

Horrible. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a big improvement. The problem with summarizing reviews remains, and now there are similar problems with how to properly summarize the Catholic Church's perspective as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, this has all the earmarks of a non-notable fringe theory, but I could be wrong, so a few more eyes might be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to have some fun with a fringe conspiracy/UFO theory, Dulce Base could use a little work. ClovisPt (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this article is being used to put forward a possibly Creationist viewpoint, I just deleted a paragraph from the definition section which was actually an argument and pure OR. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold/Archive for an explanation of which users added some of the shitty less than neutral content to the article. Now that they're both blocked, a little poking around in their edit histories for more edits that ought to be reverted might not be such a bad idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some elements are maintaining denial of the qualification of the biographical subject for membership in Category:Confidence tricksters on the basis that he makes object appear out of nothing. Yes you heard that right. The direct and indirect patronage he attracts for these "displays of divinity" fund aspects of his ashram and wider activities and contribute to his general notoriety. The experts Sorcar and Narasimhaiah, referenced in the article, the latter of which "held the fact that Sathya Sai Baba ignored his letters to be one of several indications that his miracles are fraudulent" found a prevailing view (from non-devotees) that the 'miracles' have a fraudulent basis. Seeking to have that non-prevailing view formally here declared WP:FRINGE, thanks.ResignBen16 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the view that his miracles are real be declared WP:FRINGE? If so, you're wasting you're time on this noticeboard, because that's certainly not their job. You should take your claims to the RS Noticeboard, asking if Sorcar is a RS, and is acceptable as justification for adding a controversial category to a BLP. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I ha e to admit I am having a hard time parsing the original post, but in general I would agree with the above advice and try to source the content there impeccably, especially if it is a living person. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Since this is a highly contested article that has had numerous debates about neutrality and fringe theories, I am announcing this on the relevant noticeboards to get wider feedback on the draft. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here.

Please discuss changes at the mediation page rather than trying to correct issues in the article directly, at least for the time being. The topic is sensitive, and the best hope of achieving a stable article is to begin from this draft and talk through any revisions needed to create better balance and more complete coverage. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point of information the article has been changed in mainspace and editing is not quite happening as Ludwigs2 envisaged. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to do anything more than flag this article right now -- it is very credulous, conceivably bogus, and if nothing else contains quotations too extensive to be fair use. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact the author has written more articles with similar issues, including Clara Germana Cele and Robbie Mannheim. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of those articles need a closer look. They seem to be almost all sourced to something called Strange Magazine. Which, although I haven't looked closely into it, sounds like it fails WP:RS just from its title. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put Schulze up for deletion. I think the article on Anneliese Michel is OK. I'm still looking at the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Neil-Smith is also at AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user has unfortunately put Christopher Neil-Smith for deletion. By searching Google Books, one can see that this individual is covered across several pieces of literature. The individual is a notable figure in the Church of England because he is an appointed exorcist in that Church. He is similar to Candido Amantini or Jeremy Davies (exorcist) in the Roman Catholic Church. If this article is deleted, there will be no other article on an exorcist within the Anglican Communion. On the other hand, the Catholic Church's exorcists are well represented with 30 articles in ''[[Category:Catholic exorcists]]''. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You have stated here that "mainstream references which it is clear, in context, deny the notability of this person as an expert." Why do you ignore Barnes & Noble published literature that states that "The Reverend Christopher Neil-Smith is a leading British exorcist and writer on exorcism."? The Roman Catholic Church has thirty exorcists represented in the "Category:Catholic exorcists". If you somehow misrepresent the notability of this individual and succeed in deleting the article, you will have deleted the only article on an exorcist in the Anglican Communion. Please reconsider your decision. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote in reply on my talk page, the cited book is a collection of Forteana, not a serious reference. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Exorcists in general

Following Anupam's suggestion, I've taken a look at Category:Exorcists and its subcategories. It seems to me that a lot of these are either not really notable or are WP:ONEEVENT guys. the sourcing seems a bit thin too. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The entire cat needs attention. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anagrammatic dispersion is an article about a cryptographic technique which exists, but it describes at length how it was used in the Bible to add extra messages. It is not my area of expertise, but I have the impression that it is presenting things which are generally considered to be fringe theories as if they are undeniable truth, with many examples that seem at first glance rather farfetched. A critical review of the article by editors more familiar with such "cryptography in the Bible" theories would probably be beneficial. Fram (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have any legitimate connection to cryptography. It's apparently a dubious and perhaps obscure to the point of lacking notability deconstructive lit-crit notion used by maybe three people in the world and seized upon in a bordering-on-self-published "truth about scripture!" tract. The hard part here is whether there would be anything left if the fringiness were all cut out. I think it is possible that it is a term used in passing out of a textual crit theory which is better known but which goes by a different name. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the fringe stuff from a non-notable and apparently self-published writer named Hadfield (note the article's creator is named Kanucape, the book is published (the only one published so far in fact) by Capabel Press whose name is also on the author's website as the owner. A lot was clear copyvio - the fact that the article asserted permission is irrelevant. We've got a new user, quite likely associated with the book. But now that I've got most of it out (and maybe Saussure should have been in there, see [11], but not the way he was used), I'm left with a stub that says it's a tool of cryptography. I'm not sure what to do now, AfD? Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reactions. Looking a bit further, it seems to have some notability as something used by (or discussed by, that's not yet clear) Jean Baudrillard, who is quite important. I would redirect it to his article, but for the fact that it doesn't mention the term... It's one of those bizarre terms that get nearly as much Google Books hits as actual Google hits, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it any further. Fram (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

After further looking I've decided to send it to AFD. It appears to be an artifact of one person talking about Baudrillard; I've not found any evidence that the latter used the term or that this one reference has caught on at all. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently a real episode, but is written rather credulously. I mean, is that really Asmodeus's signature? Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Kharsag Epics AfD ended in merge with Christian O'Brien, now we have an article on the word Kharsag, which is found only in a translation of some Sumerian epics by a scholar named Barton in 1918. This again is an attempt to put forward O'Brien's fringe views. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected it to O'Brien-- no sense in arguing it out again. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And that was immediately reverted. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN. If he reverts again, refer to WP:AN3. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case you were wondering, "kharsag" is normally transliterated as hursanu or hursag which means "foothill" in Sumerian. It is not a place. See Ninhursag or here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only Barton has ever used the 'word' on its own.

My apologies, as I understood it, Wikipedia only requires one verifiable source so I only listed Barton. It seems I must be wrong, so I have cited plenty of other notable non-fringe scholars such as Charles Boutiflower^[1], William F. Warren^[2], Morris Jastrow^[3], Arthur Bernard Cook^[4], G. A. Wainwright^[5], Robert William Rogers^[6], Professor A.H. Sayce^[7] to support the existence of the word, which I do not feel suitably merged on a fringe scientist's page. Any assistance splitting the article back would be most appreciated. I didn't want to start an edit-war or anything, so thought I'd post here in the hope that common sense prevails. The dictionary cited lists sag as "head" here, which should highlight the Kramer confusion. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my latest revisions of this within the Christian O'Brien page. I would be grateful for help, opinions and assistance to gain agreement for Kharsag's own page. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on this for a couple of days, we have an editor who despite the content of the article keeps adding to the lead that there is no confirmation that it is a hoax (you'd think men riding dinosaurs would be enough, but the articles makes it clear it's a hoax). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And he's put it back, with an edit summary saying there is no evidence they are faked and it would be impossible to fake them all. I've done 2 reverts, so I have to leave it now. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, also left a 3rr warning on the users page, plus a request to take it to the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has modified the lead, I've tweaked it a bit but I'm still not sure. Out for a while now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a disagreement about the origins of John Hunyadi (Hungarian Janos Hunyadi, Romanian Ioan de Hunedoara).

The text from the current version of the article is this:

I think the correct text would be:

Motivation:

1. Vlach/Romanian origin ("Vlach" was in the Middle Ages the exonym for "Romanian")

Medieval chroniclers state clearly that his father (Voik) and his mother (Elisabetha) [12] were Vlachs/Romanians. Also there are "numerous documents in which Hunyadi's by-name appears as János Oláh. (Oláh is the Hungarian word for Wlach.)" [13]

In addition there are tens of modern sources accepting the Vlach/Romanian descent (I listed only neutral and Hungarian sources, in order not to be said that the Romanian works are biased). Even Britannica and Britannica 1911 state that he was Vlach/Romanian and he came from Wallachia (Romanian medieval principality) and his family migrated to Hungary (so he was an alien, not an ethnic Hungarian)

2. Hungarian/Magyar origin (Magyar is another term for Hungarian)

It doesn't seem ok to me to take in consideration a theory (Magyar descendance) supported by a single source [14], which in addition is a book about literature (and not about history ) and where it is only presumed that he was a Magyar. In this work it is discussed mainly his representation in epic poems, not the historical reality. Below i offered the exact quote from the book

3. Cuman origin

Also his Cuman origin is supported by a single Hungarian source [15] (possibly biased on this subject, like Romanian sources too, so we must be at least circumspect about its reliability) , where is not written even a word about the alleged Romanian origin which was asserted even in medieval texts (Umumu (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

4. Slav origin

The Slav descent has 3 references in the wiki article, and in all of them the Romanian origin is presented as being the most probable, while the theory of Slav origin is presented as being only an alternative theory:
- Source 1 (Hungarian source): [16]

- Source 2: (Neutral source) [17]

- Source 3: (Hungarian source) [18]

See talk page of the article, all theories have their reliable sources. The article also does mention that the majority of sources supports the Vlach descendance, the alternative sources are not overemphasized at all.
According to the Cambridge University Press source: From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I think that's pretty much OK as a reference. A couple of English books also state that his mother was Hungarian, which makes John Hunyadi at least half-Hungarian.
Plus, in the above points I don't see that some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins, although this is probably more notable than any of the alternative theories. Squash Racket (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins" - False statement

From the definition of Fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study"

Aren't 33 valid sources enough for considering the theory of the Vlach/Romanian origin a mainstream view?

For me it seems enough relevant only the fact that the medieval chronicles call him "John the Vlach" (Hungarian János Oláh).

Similar cases:

- Oláh Miklós (Nicolaus Olahus), whose grandmather, Maria, was John Hunyadi's sister was according to wiki articke of Vlach (Hungarian: Oláh) descent

- Mózes Székely and György Székely were Szekelys

The authors of the book which suggests a possible Magyar/Hungarian origin (point no 2) are H. Munro Chadwick and Nora Kershaw Chadwick

Hector Munro Chadwick (22 October 1870 –2 January 1947) was an English scholar. He is known as a philologist and historian of literature. With his wife, Nora Kershaw Chadwick, he compiled a multi-volume survey of oral traditions and oral poetry, published 1932-1940. In this he further developed the theory of a Heroic Age which he had previously stated in a publication of 1912.

I don't think the speculation ("He was presumably a Magyar") of a philologist is so valuable when talking about medieval history, especially when it is not supported (at least in the wiki article) by other sources. (Umumu (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Your original research about medieval chronicles is just that - original research (especially the strange part regarding names and nationalities, you very well know how misleading is that).

When a theory is supported by a Cambridge University Press source and is not overrepresented, then there's no problems with it. I repeat: some other sources consider at least his mother Hungarian anyway. Did anybody question the mainstream view here?

Plus, in the above points I don't see that some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins, although this is probably more notable than any of the alternative theories. Squash Racket (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a source where the editor draw a conclusion based on an Epic song. I don`t see what is there more to say? It is unreasonable to take into consideration conclusions based on an epic study, whatever that study is on Cambridge or not, it is still a study of an epic poetry and not historical facts. Just to remind everybody, this claim is based on a single obscure source that is a study of epic poetry(epic song) and this is not a Fringe theory ? Nothing else to say.iadrian (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from the talk page of the article:

When the author draws his conclusion, he clearly doesn't talk about the epic song, but adds his own verdict. I won't repeat this once more even if you still don't understand it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from the talk page of the article:

Yes, he clearly draws his conclusion from an Epic song(poetry) not historical data. I don`t see how can you even argue about this when the book is called The growth of literature and the "fact" is found in the second part of the book Yugoslav oral poetry in the section called Heroic Poetry. It looks like you are the one who doesn`t understand, or you just don`t want to. Please wait until the thread on the Fridge theory reach to a conclusion to remove the dubious form. Please read the WP:DISPUTED.iadrian (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

. iadrian (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are incapable of understanding one simple sentence: From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in his verdict. Squash Racket (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The text Others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins does not exist in the text presented as reference. The exact quote is "Legend made him an illegitimate son of King Sigismund of Hungary (1387-1437), western emperor, but this is doubtful". It is already written in the wiki article about the possible royal descendance. (Umumu (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Written under a section called "legendary origins", although reliable secondary sources like the one above present this theory and/or refer to the obscurity. (Or how else would you interpret "this is doubtful"?) Many other sources also mention this theory. ::::For some reason, we decided to base the structure on the Catholic Encyclopedia (a tertiary source) disregarding what many secondary sources say about the origins of Hunyadi. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As Hugh Seton-Watson put it: "The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucarest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians." Squash Racket (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

*Bucharest . Historical fact is that they considered them self Hungarians but that doesn`t change the fact about their Romanian origin and by the way. i don`t see why did you say that at all when we already ruled out Romanian/Hungarian sources.iadrian (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Hugh Seton-Watson begged to differ regarding the "fact" about his ethnicity.

He's a British historian, I've linked his name twice already. Squash Racket (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a dozen other begged to support the fact, in fact the mainstream theory is that John Hynadi was of Romanian origin. iadrian (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody really knows who his mother was in the first place. She was either Hungarian or Vlach or neither.

The theories regarding his father are presented together with the mainstream view. With references of course. Squash Racket (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First you must understand that Vlach was in the Middle Ages the exonym for Romanian and one single source, that "presumes" based on epic songs doesn`t have a historical relevance. As i said on the talk page, please find another source, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin? And we can leave the Epic songs out from historical facts. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited in the Fringe theory thread the Hugh Seton-Watson.iadrian (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This mess is incomprehensible, try it once more. Squash Racket (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, i will repeat it. First you must understand that the word "Vlach" was in the Middle Ages the exonym for the word "Romanian" and one single source, that "presumes", based on epic study doesn`t have a historical relevance. As i said on the talk page, please find another source, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin?? And we can leave the Epic songs out from history. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited the Hugh Seton-Watson "The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians.".iadrian (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You STILL don't understand this, but the cited sentence is not based on any epic songs. You just keep repeating this.

"The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians.". Hugh Seton-Watson said "we will decide this debate for you"? So we must delete ALL Hungarian and Romanian references from the article? Squash Racket (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to respect the WP:FAITH and try to verify the source you are defending. Read the whole page (316-317).iadrian (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket, you must accept that a book about literature where a philologist issues an assumption is not the most scientific and trustable source when we talk about historical facts. Why don't we also take in consideration travel guides or the opinions of historical films directors?
On the other hand the Cuman origin is supported by a single Hungarian source. It is needed at least one more (preferably neutral) reference(Umumu (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

H. Munro Chadwick is a British historian and philologist, probably the IDEAL source here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On his wiki page it was written that he was historian of literature...(Umumu (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia is a reliable source since when? Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources so, by transitivity, it itself should be a reliable one, but If Britannica tells he was "a historian", probably that is the truth. I have read on wiki article that he was "a historian of literature" and that is why I had mentioned wikipedia, but the notability criterion isn't still fulfilled. Also the source for the Cuman origin is still questionable (Umumu (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

The source about the epic study is a unreliable source if it stands as a single source supporting the Magyar origin ,and it also qualifies as a Fringe theory. To remove any doubt, as i said before, if that is really one of the alternative theories there should`t be any trouble to find atleast one more source that states the same fact.iadrian (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the Cambridge University Press reference written by a British historian with his own Wikipedia article?
There are other sources suggesting at least his mother's Hungarian origin, so even without this source his Hungarian ethnic origins couldn't possibly be considered a fringe theory. Squash Racket (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannca talks clearly about his Wallachian origin, while Britannica 1911 tells "JANOS HUNYADI (c. 1387-1456), Hungarian statesman and warrior, was the son of Vojk, a Magyarized Vlach who married Elizabeth Morzsinay.". I think we should write that Vojk/Vajk was undoubtedly Vlach/Romanian.

Aside from this, the single source for the Cuman remains questionable

From the definition: 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.
(Umumu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I think a Cambridge University Press book by a British historian is a major publication, right?

Vajk was either Vlach, South Slavic (three references), Hungarian, and a number of sources refer to the obscurity surrounding the Hunyadis' origins. As you very well know. Besides, Romanian editors themselves do cite Hungarian sources but only when Hungarian sources fit their views. Why is that? Squash Racket (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it

The John Hunyadi article stinks all over; it's not just the ethnicity that's a problem, but pretty much every single sentence in the first section. I've removed one almost certainly untrue claim, but I'm skeptical that this fellow is anything like as important as he is being made out to be in the first section. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is to maintain a NPOV because John Hynadi was a important person for both Hungarians and Romanians. A big part of the article is "stinky" because of various nationalistic inspired edits by both sides.iadrian (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some nice work by a student for a class project. However, one section of the article entitled God Watches Over His Workers seems to be promoting the idea that an avoidance of injuries during construction was the result of miracles. The sources referenced aren't accessible, so I'm not sure how to correct it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Daniel David Palmer and this edit. See Talk:Chiropractic history#Patricide controversy and this edit. See Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism and this edit. Please discuss on talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with this fringe book? The article is one-sided at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack, no sources at all? This is not good. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an obscure book published in the 60s that's sometimes mentioned by sociologists and writers as a kind of shorthand to signify "the origin of wacky concepts". Should be a lot more coverage from reliable sources, all I see online are occasional personal reviews such as here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually driven to use that, in desperation, although I'm still looking madly. Please do let me know if you locate anything more reputable, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's certainly an improvement. I couldn't understand why the French title but I was too tired (bad night) to actually think it through. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much, but maybe [19] and [20] might help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Louie, you're a doll. I'll see what I can do with those, thanks. Please do feel free to pitch in and Be Bold. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) My local library system does not have The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture By Jason Colavito - can you two check yours? That looks to have some excellent content on this book. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I had come across references to the book when working on the The Nine Unknown article. At the time, I wasn't able to locate the text itself (at least online), but did find that it was discussed in Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius by Gary Lachman. Apparent;y it was a very influential book in the 60s. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking for that one as well - you happen to have either of these, or access to them? :-) Hopeful puppy 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly readable on Google Books. Haven't checked my library yet. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 1st chapter is devoted to The morning of the magicians and is readable on Google books. Abecedare (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Darnit, that didn't work for me before. Its Teh Interwebz, it has it in for me. Thanks, Abe - I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Or you can dig in now - that would be lovely. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fabulous reference. But alas, it's the weekend, and I must quit this place til Monday. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember this came up in the context of The Nine Unknown . I tagged it back in October. I don't know if it meets WP:BK, but I think you have done a decent cleanup job and I don't mind the article staying around in its present form. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been struggling to convince a few other editors that this marginally notable author of cancer curing recipe books is being given undue weight by attempt to list every paper, article, letter and foreign translation of work discoverable. Most of these references are entirely non-notable and act merely to WP:PUFF. Wise heads and assistance would be very useful. Twiga Kali (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment necessary. Also see the wider opus of Math920 (talk · contribs). It's been a while since I've seen this level of racialist crackpottery. --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

now blanked by author. I'm not sure we should keep this stuff around even buried in the edit history. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

this is also interesting, the author appears to be signing "Otenor" in racialist internet fora. "Gender: Male, Age: 30, Race: Caucasoid, Phenotype: Nordid, Ethnicity: Russian Politics: Liberal[sic!]" Probably himself a member of the exalted Paleoeuropean race, who are, as we learn in the article, "characterized by meso-brachycephaly, short and broad face, high prominent nose and light pigmentation of eyes, hair and skin." --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of removing the stuff from the edit history. Good look to ru.wiki in dealing with this guy. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

it's interesting to follow this in ru-wiki a little bit. They had ru:Участник:Исправитель перенаправлений and ru:Участник:Volkgar, both trolls touting racist nonsense, and both permabanned, but a lot of their work persists in live articles. I found ru:Палеоевропейцы, it turns out that Math920's article was essentially a failed attempt to translate this article. I tried to create Paleo-Europeans as a stub based on that. Perhaps this Soviet angle on things should just be merged into Nordic race. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I also figured out what Math920 means by the "reference" Image is taken from the book-A.Bayar, Sectet history of the Tatars for about two dozen images he uploaded. This translates to "image ripped from http://bayar.ws/ ". The full title of the website would be "Алексанр Бояров. Тайная история татар и Великого переселения народов" ("The secret history of the Tatars and the Great Migrations"). Apparently a "book" self-published online in 2007. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What this episode does for us is point out a few missing articles. We definitely need Soviet anthropology. And then we also seem to be missing a number of races or "types" proposed in the early 20th century. These can probably all go under Caucasian race, but we seem to be missing all mention of the Borreby, Brünn (lol, Daniel Craig) and Falish (Faelid, Dalofaelid, Dalonordic) types. I have never heard of them, but the racist websites are full of them. The Russians also have lots of other types unknown to en-wiki, see ru:Шаблон:Расы.

--dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there good sources for writing an article about Soviet anthropology? I know of some sources about the ideological slanting of Soviet archaeology which bears on the question of racial/ethnic classifications, but I haven't read anything about anthropology per se. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

you are right, perhaps this could be stashed under Soviet archaeology, a stub which I created some time ago. --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, this has supposedly been used to clear murder suspects via written messages from the dead. Seems like a redirect that escaped from Automatic writing by mistake. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Priceless. It seems we are dealing with Renata Ventura (talk · contribs). Emmanuel (spirit) is a WP:FRINGE gem, I resisted the urge to slash-burn it so you can enjoy it too. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuel (spirit) has zero sources. I'm redirecting it to Chico Xavier. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And redirecting Psychography to William Stainton Moses due to lack of notable coverage for the term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out-of-place artifact might be of interest to watchers of this board. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I closed it as nomination withdrawn yesterday. Anyone should feel free to open a new discussion if you think the sources presented merit further discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Til is at it once again (or rather, as ever). The Book of Enoch was apparently written by Enoch himself in Ethiopian in 3000 BC. Of course, if this fact has only ever been published it in an untractable obscure journal or memo, it is due to the conspiracy of Eurocentric western pseudoscholarship trying to hide the truth. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this edit [21] about a 'Queen of Sheba' University, [22]. So what is this 'University'? All I can find is that it was "Incorporated by Bernard Leeman, Rutis C Clytus, Sergey Kotelnikov, Queen of Sheba University Incorporated is located at 15 Ferguson Rd WESTBROOK, QLD," in 2008 in Florida.[23] I doubt anything about it belongs on Wikipedia. The editor who added this is also complaining at the talk page, Talk:Kamal Salibi‎ about the removal of stuff about Leeman. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a BLP violation, as a poorly sourced possibly defamatory statement about a living person. I removed it. Hipocrite (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has hitherto proposed that the Quenn of Sheba University itself should be treated as notable, but if Salibi has accepted a position as its Chief Academic Adviser, it's correct to record that fact in the article about him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, if we can find a reliable source. I remember the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation making claims about people being official advisers for them who when contacted denied any affiliation. Saying that he is affiliated with what looks like a non-accredited organisation which may not be much more than a web site is not a good idea without a reliable source. I've removed it again for that reason. Please don't put it back without a discussion at WP:BLPN and let us know if you do that. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Salibi's blog includes his words "Dr. Bernard Leeman was perhaps the first scholar to encourage me in my work, and we have been in regular contact since 1985, I believe. I found his last book extremely interesting." I have seen several other indications to the same effect, and nothing to contradict the clear impression that the relationship between Salibi and Leeman is one of mutual respect. In any less controversial context in wikipedia this would be taken as more than adequate evidence for the genuineness of this appointment. I cannot help feeling that your judgement in this case has been affected by your fairly obvious dislike of Leeman, certainly, and Salibi, probably. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave out for now. If it's important to Salibi he will blog about it and IMHO that would be a good-enough source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is now mainly about 'Kharsag'. Besides issues such as WP:UNDUE which may apply, I'm not at all sure about the claim that Kharsag is actually used by all these authors. It's partially a language issue, is using 'kharsag' as an element of a word the same thing as that word meaning Kharsag? Because that seems to be what's being done here. First we have co-ordinates, maybe implying they actually pinpoint 'the' location, then the claims "Kharsag; also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da" - which I think is OR. The cited quotes after this seem to treat all these words as indicating a single location. Then there are various sections, including an archaeology one with no archaeology and a geology one. I don't think it would be at all clear to readers that this is a fringe concept and a minor one at that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why ths word is a fringe concept any more than Mount Olympus, made highly notable in the 'Clash of the Titans'. A large proportion of the notable sumerologists and assyriologists ever to study the subject have cited Kharsag as a notable word or part of a phrase describing the Sumerian equivalent of Mount Olympus, or as later temples dedicated to the location. The Kharsag page for this word has been deleted and merged with Christian O'Brien despite my appeals regarding it's confusion with the Kharsag Epics, which is clearly a completely different subject. It doesn't bother me if fringe parts of the page are trimmed or moderated, but it seems utterly ridiculous that a subject of such great importance to the understanding of human history is marginalised and deleted without even an AfD discussion. The epics lost on a very narrow margin (6 to 5 against) due to editors with little expertise in the subject, admittedly without the overwhelming number of notable, non-fringe cites at that time. I would request again for the Kharsag page be re-created, before I take this to appeal the deletion. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As you agree, I believe, no one except one author has ever translated a word in a Sumerian text as 'Kharsag'. All other authors have it as part of other words referring to places or people, and there is no reason I have seen to think that when it is used as part of a word indicating a place it means the same place, mythical or real, or temples dedicated to the same place. Have I missed some research that makes such a case (other than perhaps O'Brien, who is fringe). What, other then original research, makes you think it is the same word? I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word 'notable' by the way. As for 'losing' by 6 to 5, you misunderstand the AfD process. The closing editor (usually but not always an administrator) is supposed to weigh up the policy and guideline based arguments, not count heads, which is why we talk about !votes. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are understandable problems with language about a location only known to be famous from say 3,500BC to 700BC and then rediscovered in the early 20th century. George Aaron Barton, who is not fringe or OR translates kharsag in 3 seperate Sumerian texts as the same place that I have now cited. Gerald Massey, Morris Jastrow, Jr. (Barton's predecessor) and his school, which includes Boutiflower clearly understand to be the same place, as I would argue does the great sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer when his use of the word hursag is put in context. The other cites are perhaps of a more cosmological nature as the texts deal with the Sumerian view of the world but still deal with the same place mythologically. Even the great Stephen Herbert Langdon who was quoted against me by Kevin in the deletion discussion DID mention the word in context as "gar-sag-da" translated "netherworld mountain" and I have included a few cites showing later temples dedicated to this site, such as at Nippur and others extending into Assyrian times. I have gone outside Barton to research this and firmly believe that in the time that these great scholars lived, Kharsag as the Sumerian Olympus was well noted and well deserves mention in Wikipedia as due note to their accomplishments in this field. You can rip the O'Brien out of this entirely if you like Doug, but hope you will help me create a balanced and informative page under the guidelines required. Thanks again for informing me of necessary rules, I'm very much in favour and grateful for your weighing up of this article. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuneiform is not "picture language." It's a writing system that uses signs derived from pictograms, but this doesn't have much relevance for the meaning (i.e., the actual words) that the writing system conveys. You seem to be making a huge deal out of the word "Kharsag", which seems to be a common noun meaning "mountain." It can be part of a phrase referring to the cosmic mountain where the gods live in several NE mythologies, fine. If you want to write an article about NE mythology, that's one thing, but if you want to write an article based on bad philology that privileges O'Brien's ideas, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you have made it pretty explicit that you are doing original research. You say 'clearly understand', 'I would argue', 'firmly believe', etc., but not 'this reliable sources says that these are the same place', etc. which is what our policies require. I think I've asked you to read WP:OR. 'Undeniably'? Where is your reliable source for this? None of that belongs in Wikipedia. And as Akhilleus says, this is bad philology. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are various forms of Cuneiform of which Barton's is the most archaic and similar to pictograms. I cannot even find Kharsag used as a common noun meaning simply "mountain" anywhere. Please show cites of this if there are any. I think I have mentioned enough reliable sources now to possibly even take Ninhursag to AfD requesting name change due to WP:UNDUE given to Kramer's translation, when the weight of the majority of sources refer to her as Ninkharsag. Akhilleus is correct that the article should be about NE mythology and I hope I have expressed my agreement with this and intentions to create a kharsag page based on the ground rules. Now where to start? Paul Bedson (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what Paul has said on the article talk page. "I will indeed take all these reliable sources to WP:DRV and start spreading these 10-12 professors research (not mine) around all the NE Mythology articles applying WP:UNDUE to the Kramer translation. What you have done is an insult to their work."

He has taken it to DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 20#Kharsag. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But Kharsag wasn't taken to AfD(that was Kharsag Epics where the decision was merge), it was turned into a redirect and has just had the redirect removed by an editor who claims it is a different article, so now it may have to go to AfD.

I agree that the current Kharsag article is a blatant attempt to evade the AfD determined merger of Kharsag Epics, and as such, I think the first AfD should govern. If this goes to a separate AfD, let us know... so that we can settle this once and for all. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm letting everyone know. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP is editing the articles Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and Abu Bakr II in a manner that, to me, seems to be promoting an ahistorical fringe theory. However, I'm starting to feel that both articles could use some work, but I'm not sure how to go about editing them. I would appreciate any interested editors taking a look at the IP's edits, or just editing the articles in light of Wikipedia policies. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm slogging away at them, but I'm starting to wonder if most of these articles about various subsets of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact are mostly made up of undue weight and synthesis/original research... ClovisPt (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call fringe has nothing to do with accurate representation of the sources you cite as the vast majority is weasel worded original research whose only purpose is to discredit a theory, as opposed to providing a neutral report of the facts surrounding the controversy. Statements like "most scholars believe", or arguments against a theory drawn from sources that have nothing to do with debunking the theory only proves this point. My aim was to limit such original research. I contributed to these articles some time ago and tried to present them in a neutral fashion. What you consider "fringe", has no source, it is YOUR opinion. I will keep my opinions to myself but insist on accurate representation of the sources you cite, and not keeping them there or without tags for the sake of simply debunking a theory that you don't like. The Abubakari's success is considered fringe is obviously false since most people don't specifically deal with Abubakari and most who do, come from Mali. When we speak of a "majority of scholars" they must be included, not just European hard nosed academics from the west. They hold no monopoly on facts.

Also, none of what was posted carries undue weight since the articles are about contact theories and the theorists make up a vital portion of the topic. Original research is when you go outside of those dealing with the controversy, and using your own research data to discredit the claims made, as with the botanical data and others. Also the end statement in the section for the Cocaine mummies is simply put there to udnermine the findings. No scientists have even taken up this issue because it's such a mystery. What "conventional explanations", who? It is nonsense, people are writing anything just to discredit a theory that they don't think is popular. Has nothing to do with probability, possibility, or plausibility, they harp on popularity. But even this bespeaks an agenda since most of which is attributed to popular opinion, comes from blog posts (one from a graduate student) and 2 or 3 sources who only dealt with Van sertima. Nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.154 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 April 2010

There is work needed on the article as with most of our articles, but I find it ironic that you've added your own personal commentary to Abu Bakr II, ie " highlighted by some scholars in academia more open to the question." while at the same time complaining about original research. That's your idea of neutrality? In any case, the article is not meant to be neutral but to have a neutral point of view, you do need to read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I think your real gripe is with our policies. I've removed one link to a student paper, what are the blogs? Also, if you are going to tag for OR or weasel words, you need to then post to the article's talk page with your specific complaints. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:DUE holds for every article on the project, but in the case of these articles, seeing that they are about fringe theories beginning to end and not about real scholarship at all, WP:DUE means assessing the relative weight of fringe theories among themselves, not the weight of fringe theory wrt academia.

That said, any editor complaining about "European hard nosed academics from the west" (i.e. playing of the race card in place of presenting actual evidence) is extremely likely to be misguided about WP project fundamentals and extremely unlikely to contribute anything of value. --dab (𒁳) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in an article about a fringe theory (or a group of fringe theories) we do give more weight to the theory than we would in some other article... however... this does not mean we should ignore the mainstream academic view, or not give the the academic view its DUE within the context of the article topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

it means exactly that. We don't mention the "mainstream academic view" in Pokemon, simply because there isn't any mainstream academic view on the topic. The same holds for lunatic fringe stuff like this. This is a topic of "Afrocentric" black nationalism. If there is an academic view on that, it will be found in works discussing Black nationalism, not works discussing Pre-Columbian history. If we find scholarly discussion of these ideas in the social sciences, so much the better, but we should stop giving them credibilitly by "debunking" them as if the question was even on the table. --dab (𒁳) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments. I'm looking at merging Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, in part to deal with undue weight issues and the like. Looking back at the article's history, it was created as a POV fork anyway. Cheers to all, ClovisPt (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this one; stones move by themselves and "no one can explain it"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've heard this, it's a genuine scientific mystery. Nobody thinks there is anything weird or mystical going on; they just haven't figured out what moves the rocks around, though it is pretty clear that it has to be the wind, somehow. It's not the best written article but the topic is "fringe" only in being peculiar and unexplained. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the "fortean" style writing in some areas a bit confusing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What the article actually says is "The force behind their movement is not understood and is the subject of research" - here is an example of this research. The phenomenon is well known - the USGS has carried out a detailed survey of the rocks and their trails. There are various competing theories about the cause of the rocks' movement - see this geology.com article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian O'Brien's ideas about Sumerian mythology have attracted some attention on this page already; if you've looked at those debates you should note the existence of Kharsag, which looks like an attempt to sneak the material of Kharsag epics into a different article. Comments welcome at Talk:Kharsag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag. This is noted up above, but unless you clicked through it might not have been apparent that there was an active AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we have someone else's suppositions that Christianity rites come from somewhere besides Christianity. This has been festering for years. It's at AFD but it should be looked at nonetheless. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

hm, what do you mean "someone else's"? It is completely undisputed that Christianity absorbed lots of older traditions.

It would be very easy to write a valid article on the topic. That said, I agree that the article as it stands is flawed and under-referenced, even though it contains much valid material and lists relevant sources. It just needs cleanup. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps merger with Christianization? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of where to put the contra-orthodox theories of Christian origins is thorny. I'm not convinced that there is a reason to lump all of the theories about origins of rites into one heap, because as far as I can see the only commonality those theories have is in denial of Christian originality. I think it makes more sense to either talk about individual rites in the articles on the rites themselves, or in a general article about contra-orthodox origin theories. My real purpose in bringing up the article here, though, is more to point out that if it survives in some form, it needs to be monitored. If you look at the parent Christianization article, it started out as a very fringey theory about essentially denying any aspect of orthodox origin stories and asserting that Christianity is only a composite of other religions. This article has gradually been hammered down over the years to address how Christianity shoved aside pagan religion, so that the content now represents a much more consensus view. The rituals article got left behind in this because it was split out as a subarticle and then neglected, so it still represents the original fringey view that all the rites of Christianity are purloined from other religions. I think the AFD ought to go through and that the matter should be discussed under other headings (and it should be discussed); but whether it goes or stays the fringiness needs to go and the discussion needs to stick with what is documented. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Recently a few new editors have arrived at the Christ myth theory page and have tried very hard to demolish the article's focus and clarity through tendentious policy objections, "teach the controversy" type tactics, and plain old sloppy writing. It would be very helpful if some of the editors who have experience dealing with this sort of thing were to drop in on the talk page and help rebuff the agitators through adding to the consensus. Eugene (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Christ Myth Theory article has been a problem as the definition has is no clear consensus in the literature; There are those who say quite clear that they define "Christ Myth Theory" as the idea Jesus never existed while there are others who define it in such a way that is clearly not what they are saying.

"Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17

"This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..."[Bromiley (1082 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J]. The first paragraph of the related material tells us about the Christ Myth theory, second tells us what it is (using story of), third line talks about the supposed parallels, and the fourth uses Apollonius of Tyana while using Lucian as an example, and the final sentence gives us the examples of Attis, Adonis, Osiris and Mithras. The next paragraph mentions ONE work by Wells and two counterpoints to his arguments. The paragraph after that starts "These examples of the Christ-myth idea..." please note the plural. The paragraph after that talks has the lead in Bertrand Russel leave the question open and the very next sentance says "This negative attitude is shared by P. Graham, The Jesus Hoax (1974)" NOWHERE in any of this are any of the greats (Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc) of the non historical concept mentioned. What we get instead is, in order, are Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russel. Hardly a cross section of the non historical idea as Akhilleus has tried to claim in the past. Troy and Vinland are also part "old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes". Last time I check Troy and Vinland (ie North America) existed.

"The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions (1951) by Pike, Royston

"At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have)." Wells, G.A. "A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus" (2000) Please note this post dates Jesus Myth which Wells himself accepted a possible historical person being involved but few if any of the Gospel accounts were historical.

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." Doherty "JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard"

"The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History", New Brunswick: Transaction, , p. 58 No WP:RS explanation of how the first part does not fall under Wells' current mythic Paul Jesus + Historical teacher = Gospel Jesus has been provided nor how Meed's 100 BC Jesus does not fit the second part.

"When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." Wood, Herbert George (1955) Belief and Unbelief since 1850 I asked again if the Christ-myth theory is an either/or than how do you toy with it?! Never mind the "the gospels give us no reliable information" could fit within Pike's and Dodd's definitions but are excluded by those of Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman.

WHile this is a little long it shows the problems with the deviation being used in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on this would be very helpful. Anthony (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted this page as being "pure nonsense", and my deletion has been challenged. It is now located at User:Int21hexster. Can people look and tell me if I was hasty?—Kww(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This clearly is not fringe science. It is nonsense, and i.m.o. meant as a joke (if not as vandalism). It was rather well prepared, as can be seen from the author's log, after he had created his username, he had to wait a few days before he could begin uploading his images. Have a look at the images, specially at this one and at the spelling of Einstein (twice). See also this comment. DVdm (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See also my reply to that comment here. I am not 100% sure whether this is a joke, vandalism, or sincerely believed, but it is certainly nonsense. It contains bits and pieces of notation and language from various branches of mathematics, but there is no substance to it at all. For example, names of branches of mathematics and mathematical methods are thrown out at random, such as "Imaginary Numbers ", "lambda calculus", "Hilbert Space", etc. None of these is part of a sentence or explained or followed up in any way. Nothing else in the page has any connection with the lambda calculus at all; nothing else has any connection with Hilbert space, and so on. Then we have "Four axises [sic] can be defined in terms of tangents.

z= (Tan(x^2) + Tan y^2))^2

y= (Tan(x^2) + Tan z^2))^2

x= (tan(z^2) +Tan(y^2))^2

Z*pi=(tan(x^2)+tan(y^2))^s".

This does not define axes, nor anything else. There is no explanation as to what x, y, z and s are, nor why they should satisfy these equations, or what connection it has with axes. Nor are these equations used in any way or referred to anywhere else in the page. The whole thing is like this: it consists of fragmentary remarks, equations, and diagrams taken in an apparently random way from as many different aspects of mathematics as the author can find, strung together without any system or meaning. The equivalent would be an article claiming to be about history which said:

First world war.

The Roman empire.

The comparative method.

(then a photograph of Winston Churchill)

Mo Tse Tung, chairman of the party.

(then a map of Portugal in the 15th century)

Columbus's first voyage.

and so on.

This is such complete nonsense that I think it may well be intended as such. However, even if the author of it sincerely believes that it means something then it does not belong here because it is original research (stretching the meaning of "research" considerably: in any case it is original). The author's message on my talk page indicates quite unambiguously that he/she regards it as original research. I have been a graduate mathematician since 1973, and I have never heard or read of "Holographic Metaphoric Mathematics". When I searched for it on Google I found nothing at all other than Wikipedia. In conclusion, (1) this is complete nonsense, and (2) it has never received any coverage anywhere, so by Wikipedia's standards it is not notable. To answer Kww's question, no you were not too hasty at all: you were absolutely right to delete the article. In fact in my opinion even having it as a user page is not consistent with our guidelines: it is nothing to do with editing or preparing any legitimate contributions to the encyclopedia; it is written by an editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia; it may possibly be vandalism, and if it isn't then it is original research and published here in order to promote the author's work. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I didn't think I had missed anything, but felt it was my duty to ask.—Kww(talk) 14:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, I understand that your correct in that the page does seem totally uncorrelated. I meant to flesh it out as I went along. I do agree it is original research... if it could be called that. I agree with that statement as well. I'm skeptical of the results my self, and that is why I wanted as many eyeballs as possible. Is it still an issue to keep it on my user page to continue to flesh it out?

I know the topics look random, but to me they make sense. You use imaginiary numbers as an index into hyperbolic space, then from there use the indices as matrix operations. So things don't get crazy messy, you use an inverted DWT so it's no longer time variant. that is were the euclidean and non-euclidean space reference comes in along with hilbert space. The space itself is a representation of a 5 dimensional square. I am working on more concrete examples as QED. I might be a crackpot... who knows. It wouldn't be the first time an idiot figured out the next big thing.

Regardless I thank you for the review. At least I know it still looks like nonsense

Just double checked all the comments from everyone and it's true, this doesn't belong on here. I will remove everything once I get it copied down.

Thanks Everyone, I hope at the very least you got a laugh out of it.

oh, just for the record, if your indexing into hyperbolic space and see that imaginary numbers act like a binary(well trinary)system, you can use a k-map to simplify the operations into matrix multiplication. The way I look at it is putting a several hyperbolic places together and into a box, then looking into the box through several hyperbolic planes that are semi-transparent.

Anyway Thanks!

Sorry for the continual updates, one last thing. Schroedinger cat is alive/dead/ and something imaginary...

Can someone check to see whether this is an appropriately weighted addition?

I'm recusing myself from any and all edits to such articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - In case there are any questions on this, references 2 & 3 in the above edit were recently determined to be mainstream RS by the RS noticeboard [24]. The first reference is to a recent Newsweek article. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My view is that when one is dealing with a subject like this, where there are innumerable reliable sources, minority views need to be remarkably well represented -and not merely in those works which support them - in order to be included. This is footnote-fodder at best, perhaps not even that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of people who doubt Shakespeare's authorship and have no place in a chronology of his plays. TFD (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like those here at Fringe). Here is the latest draft that I am seeking help on: [[25]]. Can some of you give me input on any issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an RfC on the question of whether the Christ myth theory can legitimately be categorized as pseudo-history. Please comment. Eugene (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again? We have only been over this a measly 200 times over the past three years. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. If you could comment as a part of the RfC it would be helpful. Eugene (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been recent major publicity about a claim that Noah's Ark has been discovered (with a really pathetic video). There's an entry cited to a blog with a statement that it's a hoax. An IP removed it, and I replaced arguing Wikipedia:PARITY#Parity_of_sources allowed it, but I used what WP:Fringe says is a shortcut, WP:PARITY but typed it with lower case, WP:Parity, and the IP summarily reverted again with an edit summary saying just 'red link'. Now although the newspapers reporting it are reliable sources, their source is clearly not, so I think we can use the blog. I'd like some comments on this and maybe an eye on the article in any case, as it's hot news now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta dash but a quick Google search now shows some better sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Elf School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you think? Is this school notable? How should it be discussed? What is its context in relevance to hidden people and the oft-reported (though perhaps not verified) claim that the majority of Icelanders believe in elves?

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked it up on Google Books and added a few more sources to the article. It seems notable enough for an article but I hardly think that it can be taken as a reliable source, per se, on the prevalence of the belief in elves. Eugene (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the "prevalence of the belief in elves" in contemporary Iceland is a very complicated, and interesting question. It involves tourism, ethnic clichés and autostereotypes, the feedback loop of globalized popular culture and local folklore, and the "Jedi phenomenon" type of response to surveys and polls on religious beliefs.

quoth Björk: "you have to watch for the Nordic cliche. 'Hello! I am a Viking! My name is Bjork!' A friend of mine says that when record-company executives come to Iceland they ask the bands if they believe in elves, and whoever says yes gets signed up." Alex Ross, New Yorker, 23 August 2004

another acute observation: "'This is a very, very, very delicate question,' Ms. [Hildur] Hakonardottir, a retired museum director, said. 'If you ask people if they believe in elves, they will say yes and no. If they say yes, maybe they don't, and if they say no, maybe they do.'" Sarah Lyall, Building in Iceland? Better Clear It With the Elves First, New York Times (23 July 2005)

One could probably write a book about it, but of course not on-wiki. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my previous request, we need someone who can patiently describe how to properly interpret andd present systematic reviews on Talk:Reiki. The talk page is now filled with discussions on this, but we're making very little progress. A brief, clear explanation would could then be used to start a subsection in WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A user is claiming that democracy has its roots in the Bible, using 19th century sources to do so [26]. See also related the related talkpage thread Talk:Democracy#Erroneous_rationale_for_deleting_.22Biblical_foundations.22. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the same user was pushing much the same content also at Moses (and is now edit-warring to keep in large passages I felt needed removal [27]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a new editor on these articles -- see also [28] where he is looking forward "to the reaction of the mob". Both articles could use some eyes on them. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been pondering what is the best way of tackling reviews of fringe works. The problem I'm finding is that fringe works usually tend to be reviewed enthusiastically by fellow travellers on the fringe but are ignored by the mainstream. There are a few cases where fringe works get mainstream attention - the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People is one example - but for the most part you end up with a completely one-sided set of reviews. The trouble is that this gives a distorted impression of where the balance of the debate lies. You would naturally expect creationists to respond enthusiastically to other creationists' work, but the total absence of any reviews from a mainstream stance makes it seem, misleadingly, like the creationist viewpoint is the only game in town and fails to convey the mainstream viewpoint.

I'm not sure what the best solution is to this. Any advice? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are no mainstream reviews of a fringe work, it likely does not belong in Wikipedia. That's the crux of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. A creationist reviewing a fellow creationist's work is not an independent review. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. The examples I'm thinking of are works that have been covered in mainstream outlets by reviewers with a bias towards a fringe POV. The sourcing is good, but it's entirely biased towards a POV outside the scientific mainstream. Sources that reflect the scientific mainstream have ignored the works in question. It's something of a closed loop - the only reviews are by people seeking to promote their own favoured POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe giving the specific example might help. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories" (WP:PSCI) section of WP:NPOV has been moved to WP:FRINGE (a guideline), and was removed from NPOV (a policy) (see its April 30 version).

PSCI has been temporarily restored to NPOV and there is an RfC at WT:NPOV which may result in its removal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think PSCI is more appropriately placed as part of WP:FRINGE. It relates to a specific sub-group of Fringe theories (articles and statements about pseudoscience). As for the status issue... I think there is a good argument that WP:FRINGE should be promoted. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some edit warring going on here with IndigoAdult (talk · contribs), an SPA, involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do people ignore warnings they are going to be blocked if they continue to edit war? He's been blocked by another Administrator now. The article still needs work though. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone with an interest in fringe theories needs to look at this RfC as it could greatly affect how these articles can be edited. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Note... the material in question was in WP:NPOV, but was moved to WP:FRINGE in March ... so the issue now is whether we should move it back into NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article Ten Indian commandments seems to be utter horse shit. The single source, though inaccessible to me, seems to fall short of WP's standards of reliability. The 'commandments' themselves can be found all over the Internets but nowhere with a credible source. This sort of facile stereotype (we have so much to learn from these noble savages) ought to be killed with fire. 75.147.24.105 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it escapes being WP:PRODded it should head straight to AFD. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, don't delete!!! We can easily turn this into an article that proves a cultural exchange between the Near East and America more than 3,000 years ago! Hans Adler 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It actually looks like another "Desiderata" case. If we can find a good source for its origin we can probably have an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely the problem. I got as far as a PhD thesis which says it is "of unknown origin, mass produced on posters by Joe Vlesti (1989, 1993)". [29] And of course plenty of forums where people asked the same precise question and got no answer. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that several other editors have had exactly the same experience. Most likely it was simply invented by someone in the 1970s or later. Hans Adler 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

that's at least something. If it's notable, so is Joe Vlesti Associates. --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ahem, that should probably be Viesti Associates.[30] --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Viesti Associates" appears in photo credits for images such as File:Chief Good Boy smoking.jpg. Perhaps in the original poster the text of the "commandments" was overlaid over such a stock image? --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

here is a version sporting this very image. I am therefore quite sure it should be Viesti. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as though we aren't getting anywhere unless Uncle Cecil or Snopes.com takes it upon themselves to hunt this thing down. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Noble savage or delete it. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like FRINGE, NPOV, etc.). Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [[31]]. Can some of you give me input on any issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

These are generally awful. But I dared to look into Category:Modern human genetic history just now, and I see that the ethnic pov-pushers are now beginning to create one "genetic history" article per group on top of the (already awful) "origin" article. We thus have now Genetic origins of the Turkish people and Genetic origins of the Kurds (the latter on top of Origins of the Kurds. Mind you, I wouldn't complain if these articles were solid and well-written, bona fide WP:SS spin-offs. But they are invariably tendentious WP:SYNTH crap. It appears that nobody is looking after Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History these days. --dab (𒁳) 07:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose them for deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the result will be "keep and cleanup". I don't AfD articles which for which I wouldn't myself vote "delete". WP:TNT may be best, however, reduce to a stub, and then merge that to a section. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Article almost entirely sourced to publications by Rupert Sheldrake, no mainstream perspective found, and not sure if it meets WP:GNG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose it for deletion and see who shows up. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's barmy but notable; not likely to be deleted. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Studied heavily by many people with different results"? I'll make some fixes for WP:UNDUE when I have time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they meant to say studied by many heavy people? Anyway, one of the Shadow people refs discusses this. Perhaps both could be merged into the paranormal article. This article seems to repeat much of the same information found there. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made some fixes. It should probably be merged to Rupert Sheldrake since any notability for the idea originates from him, or by those talking about him. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A long-standing embarrassment sourced to radio talk shows, about.com, and ghost buster web sites, complete with purported photos, drawings, and originally-researched "scientific explanations" (as if science has recognized and commented on such a thing). One brief mention in a book on folklore, otherwise completely ignored by reliable sources. It may be time to put this out of its misery at AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be a Crapedia for these types of articles so the people who edit these things could edit to their heart's content. The Shadow_people#Scientific_explanations section contains some good information and is well-sourced, though. Perhaps it could be shortened and merged with the paranormal article. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than some sourcing issues this article doesn't seem to be that bad. We have articles on paranormal subjects that are less notable than this and the article itself is written to be fairly neutral. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's a neutrally written synthesis of WP:OR. However it'd be nice to avoid having the Wikipedia article exist as the only reliable source on the subject, as presently shown by web searches. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing is a bit interesting. One link to WP itself, several links to about.com, link to coasttocoastam.com, the travel channel(?!) and a few others that caught my eye on a quick glance. Ravensfire (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A classic WP:FRINGE author, he essentially claims that Darwinism is a Masonic/Zionist conspiracy responsible for terrorism. Article coverage tends to suggest that this author "contributes" to the "creation-evolution debate". The reality is that this is an all-out fundamentalist crackpot and the article badly needs to move away from relying on primary refereneces self-published by the subject towards a representation of third party assessments. The article is possibly affected by COI, at least Oktar has taken the pains to compile an extremely detailed critique of his Wikipedia article, at http://www.replytowikipedia.com/ --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a new one... so the Masons and the Jews are responsible for all of evolution now? Wow! (Silly me, I thought God was behind that idea).  :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I would say the subject is a nutcase... but he seems to be a notable nutcase. The article does a fairly good job of placing what it talks about in context... i.e. it discusses the material as being what the subject believes to be true, without stating that it is true. We could probably use more in the way of criticism (if it exists), but otherwise it actually looks fairly good. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

well, his notability is undisputed. You may have looked at the article after I edited it, but it is true that there does not appear to have been too much pov-pushing about it in the past. Which I frankly find surprising in the light of the replytowikipedia.com page. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the open question remains, who is financing this? This is not just a nutcase, it's a nutcase with many millions to burn. He is giving away thousands of free copies of his 800-page, full-colour, glossy-paper "Atlas". He is atm plastering the billboards in my neighborhood[32], paid for in Swiss Francs (which is how he got my attention). This hints at an astounding financial potency for a schizophrenic jailbird from Istanbul. --dab (𒁳) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case here but the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi gov't/royal family have been known to fund this type of bullshit. There are also some wealthy families in the middle east that will kick in money for a good anti-Israel conspiracy, although my money would be on one of the first two. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Money does tend to be able to purchase notability. Such is life. As I said, the article does need more in the way of criticism from reliable sources (if any exist... if not, oh well.) Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the descriptions of personality types by sleeping position in the article Sleeping position pseudoscientific? Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes... but connection between sleeping position and personality is properly attributed to the professor who made the study, and was reported on a very reliable mainstream source (the BBC). This may go under the category of "pseudoscience - but note worthy". Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it should be necessarily be deleted, but isn't there anything that can be done about the weighting? Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do other sleep researchers say... Are their contrary opinions? Has any reliable source said that this is pseudoscience? etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has finally gotten around to trying to put up sources for the claim that bells are rung at noon in support of Hunyadi's defense of the city of Nándorfehérvár. Unfortunately, there are big problems: one of the sources is from the 1860s, and the other is a modern translation of a work that doesn't give me good scholarly vibes, to say the least. And over in the article on noon bell, we find some comments in the talk page that suggest that this is essentially a Hungarian legend; unfortunately one of the links given there is in Hungarian, which I can't read, and the other leads to a page which my virus protection blocks out absolutely. The CE article on Callistus III states that he established ringing of bells in support of the crusade, but doesn't mention Hunyadi or any particular battle (see here). Another page [33] doesn't specifically say "noon". There are other articles that doubt that he ordered any such thing at all. In any case I see no sign that this translates into any modern practice.

Could someone who reads Hungarian take a look at some of this? Or for that matter, can someone pull up the original papal decree? Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

An RFC has been opened on the recent merger into the Gavin Menzies article of two other articles, 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Menzies is a promoter of fringe theories, specifically in the two pseudo-historical works (1421 and 1434), which when they are not ignored are roundly dismissed. The RFC is here: Talk:1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_the_World#RFC:_Merger_of_a_notable_book_into_the_author.27s_article; the discussion that lead to the merger is here: Talk:Gavin_Menzies#Forthcoming_book_on_Atlantis, as are the angry responses the merger generated from (so far) a single IP account. I would quite honestly appreciate any input; while I support the merger I'm happy to change my position if that's what 'pedia policies and guidlines indicate is the proper course of action. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article about French occultist which is basically a textbook on his ideas, eg:"Guénon's writings encompass a wide range of metaphysical themes, yet these works as whole evince a unity and organic coherence which Guénon always saw as a critical part of his work. As a result, each topic is integrally related to many others. For that reason, in this section is presented an overview, intented at presenting René Guénon's writings to someone discovering them, leaving a detailed exposition to the following sections."

It weighs in at exactly 100Kb, and I think much of it may be plagiarised directly from his books. Possibly copyvio, I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

certainly has ((tone)) issues, if nothing else. --dab (𒁳) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As his works are in a recent translation, I think they are still in copyright, and a lot of this has been lifted from his works. I've asked MoonriddenGirl if I'm right, and if I am, the only alternative seems to be to turn it into a stub. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will be a stub, we have to be a bit more careful than that, but I agree, it is possible that the article may go from 100k to 30k or so.

it doesn't matter if the translation is recent, as his works are not in the PD even in the original. Whatever verbatim quotes the article will use will be "fair use" verbatim quotes with attribution. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotes, ok, unattributed text copied directly is my concern. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost (talk · contribs) recently put a fact tag on a statement at Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories that read ""These theories are generally not credited by mainstream historians, however." I removed this with the edit summary "please take this to the talk page and show how this is really contentious - do you really think it's wrong or are you making a point?". He has now as asked started a discussion at Talk:Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories writing ". Insofar as I was making a point, I seem to have succeeded by showing that the statement concerned was not easily to be sourced. As I (very imperfectly) understand it, the theories concerned have simply been ignored by mainstream historians. On the face of it, there is evidence which requires examination. My question is: has any "mainstream" scholar examined the documents concerned, if not, why not, and if so, what was their conclusion? At the moment we have the unsupported word of wikipedia editors that the documents are effectively to be treated as worthless. This is not a satisfactory way to leave it, and my addition of the tag was drawing attention to that fact.".

I think he is reading 'generally not credited' as 'discredited'. My problem here is that I'm not convinced that this is contentious enough to require a fact tag, and we have the old issue of fringe theories which have been ignored by mainstream scholars. This lack of attention has, not surprisingly, not caught the attention of mainstream scholars, so we could be left in some cases with an article that appears to have mainstream approval if not read carefully. It's made a bit worse in this specific article because the article is so specific, being a small sub-article of the general topic Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. In fact, a merger proposal was made last month but no one has replied - I meant to, but forgot. So, if we can't source this specific statement, how can it be handled so that it meets our policies and guidelines and still shows that these suggestions enjoy no mainstream support? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be phrased better. I have learned to dread "however" clauses on Wikipedia. Prove a positive instead. Say something like "'Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact' is the topic of a number of pseudohistorical theories" and cite a source stating that they are all bunk. Then you won't need to prove that they are "not, however, generally credited by mainstream historians". --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"However" clauses always (to me, at least) convey veiled injustice or tragedy, e.g. "Bongo-Bongo Juice researchers noted for their scientific rigor have published evidence of efficacy in over 30 trials, however this evidence has been ignored by mainstream scientists". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed this and find this is simply a merge candidate, to be de-puffed. I also found a little walled garden surrounding Hisham Kabbani if anyone feels like looking into that[34]. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now merged Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I also removed some material from the relevant section in the main article, since the sources were poor and the notability couldn't be established. I hope this is an acceptable outcome. Thanks again, ClovisPt (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA, most of which is, yes, from me, regarding whether certain sources currently included in the article in their own section deserve that much weight and attention in the article, or even whether they deserve any attention at all. It might be worth noting that at least one party in the history of that page had been earlier topic banned from related content for a year regarding his edit warring to include material referenced to Eisenman and Tabot, the two primary sources for the section in question. Any input regarding the works themselves, and on the material referenced to those works, is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like FRINGE, NPOV, etc.). Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [[35]]. Can some of you give me input on any issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this seems based on a personal web page [36] and the Majestic 12 documents. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the lead a bit, but yeah, it's definitely written to push a "unexplained mysterious mystery" POV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Did further needed clean up and restructure. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not hurt to take a look here, here, and here. ClovisPt (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn. And I thought I was done.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having some problems dealing with a non-standard cosmology promoter across various articles:

173.169.90.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Any and all help would be appreciated.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone is a distinguished former South African judge who is generally regarded as a leading proponent of human rights and a key anti-apartheid figure who played a major role in undermining and dismantling the apartheid system. A handful of editors want to add material to the biographical article on Goldstone that portrays him as a bloodthirsty "hanging judge" and supporter of apartheid, based on claims published 12 days ago in a tabloid newspaper. This is obviously a clear "red flag" issue, a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons". I've highlighted the BLP problems with this fringe theory at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. Some input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fools rush in... so here I go. This is a really difficult one. You're right to raise the red flag, but it isn't really a fringe issue, just a further twist in Israel-Palestine relations. First, it isn't appropriate to have a "criticisms and controversies" section, so it's right to take that out. At the moment the article discusses the question of Goldstone's conduct as a South African judge in the correct section. It seems that there is ample evidence to identify him as one of the most liberal judges of the apartheid regime, and that is the impression that should be given in that section. There was a report to the contrary in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The status of that newspaper has been discussed. I don't see any evidence at all that it is "at the high quality end of the market". Its circulation figures are neither here nor there; even if "tabloid" is a moveable feast these days, we still all know that the best selling papers aren't usually the best quality ones. And this story may simply be factually incorrect. We have Goldstone in a good source, the Jewish Chronicle (possibly also Haaretz), giving a totally different figure. There's one reason that the story could be notable enough for this biography, and that is because it was discussed in the Knesset. So what I think needs to be done right now is to add a few words more, probably still in the section on Goldstone's South African judicial career, sourced to the JC, saying that there was a story that he had ordered 28 executions but that Goldstone says there was only 2, also that these were in the context of appeals not upheld. And then watch the quality Israeli and Jewish press for updates that ratify one or the other figure. I wouldn't mention Dershowitz or Sher because neither of them have added anything to the story. If it is the case, as mentioned on the talk page, that they are campaigning to have Goldstone kept from visiting the USA, then that should be written from independent press sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Discusion now continuing on WP:RSN and other noticeboards too. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Past Lives (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Souls

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the existence of these articles. The books have marginally passable notability. However it's disturbing that the articles appear to go out of their way to omit any mention of the majority scientific view on their subject. The majority viewpoints are readily available, sometimes right from the horse's mouth: "Dr. Tucker acknowledges that no known scientific phenomenon could explain how such people might recall a previous life. "It conflicts so much with the over-arching materialist view of the world that the scientific community, by and large, just dismisses it or ignores it," he said."National Post article, archived - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely intractable area that we could use more credulous editors on. Reincarnation research has been protected for two months while reincarnation has caused so much strife as to scare away a number of neutral editors. It is staggering that there is such a large and organized community of editors who will support the notion that there is a large body of scientific evidence for reincarnation. The quote mining, the ignoring of mainstream sources, the appeal to credentials, and the conspiracy theorizing is breathtaking. At the same time, it has become almost impossible to figure out what is legitimate to write about and what is not. I like User:DGG's suggestions at those AfDs of merging book articles under the authors, but it looks like we've got enough true-believers committed to keeping this walled garden walled that it will take more than just myself to be effective. If people think I should back-off for a bit, I'd be willing to, but judging by how much back-and-forth there is at Talk:Reincarnation and Talk:Reincarnation research, I'm not sure what the right approach is. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support merging them to the authors. It's unlikely that any of these titles are going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant their expansion from stubs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated this page for what I think are fairly obvious reasons. Comments are invited. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A request for a redirect has just popped up for this article:[37] Deconstructhis (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this source count as a fringe theory source or not. The article as is mentions a positive review, but other reviews which can be found cited at Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA are rather pronouncedly less favorable. There are three other reviews mentioned there which I haven't myself yet gotten, but I would welcome any information about them which can be found, as well as any opinions on the fringe/non-fringe status of the work in question. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is either a minority scholarly opinion or perhaps beyond the academic pale in fringe and/or populist writing. The best way to get consensus about its status is to seek out more reviews in scholarly journals. If it wasn't reviewed much in the academic press then that points towards fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the source is fringe, simply because the author holds a respectable academic position, but it's certainly not mainstream either, and the article shouldn't present it as such. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a lot closer to fringe than real scholarship... and definitely pop history if not outright fringe. I would place it in the same category as as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"... a fun read but don't take it seriously. The author's theory is built upon suppositions, which are then used in later chapters as if they were proven fact to support further suppositions, which are then used in further chapters as if they were proven fact to... well you get the idea. The book itself is notable because it made the best seller list (which tells you a lot about marketing and nothing about scholarship)... but it is definitely NOT a reliable source for anything but a statement about the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviews I've read characterize many of this book's conclusions and themes as "speculative" and/or misinformed (as with his earlier characterizations of the East Talpiot tomb, which he continues to push). Even respectable academics can veer into fringe territory, either to liven-up a stale field or from other motives. As you noted on the discussion page, it would be WP:Undue to use this source to turn the article into a platform advancing this author's PoV, which seems to be highly controversial in the academic community. I cannot see using this book to back up anything other than a minority view, and then only if there are other, backup citations which make this a "minority" of more than just one author. If and when this author's conclusions become the majority view, the article can be changed to reflect that. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most edits by Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to aim to make his own research about iodine, lipids and evolution feature as prominently as possible in Wikipedia. There are some indications that the whole thing may be fringe science, such as a low number of Google hits for "iodolipids", and most content about this topic being associated with Venturi himself. My question to editors of a more scientific bent is, is there a fringe science / WP:UNDUE problem with these edits, apart from the obvious WP:COI problem?  Sandstein  10:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone care to take a look at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus? It's mostly a collection of fringe speculations, given that Columbus is widely recognized to have been Italian (or Genoese, if one prefers). In particular, an anon editor has been pushing changes to the Portuguese section that could use some outside review. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The newly-created article Catastrophic Geology could probably use an overhaul. At present, it implies that plate tectonics is a form of Catastrophism. Gabbe (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the article has been deleted since Gabbe posted this (as it is now red-linked)... that said, we should also take a look at Catastrophism#Catastrophic Geology. It seems to have the same problem... and at minimum is very confusing and disjointed. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... we do seem to have a persistent POV pusher at the page. I tried cleaning it up, but was reverted. More eyes are needed. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a little edit war going on at Pseudoscholarship. Editors who frequent this board may be able to help sort out what kind of page/article this is, and what the definition of "pseudoscholarship" should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is courtesy of our pedant demographic who have their faces glued to the letter of our guidelines. I have given up negotiating with this type a long time ago as they do not much damage in proportion to the nerve required to have a coherent conversation with them. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of strange activity on articles devoted to obsolete racial categories. user: JoseREMY is adding weird stuff to the Nordic race article, which is now in a bad way [38]. User:STUTTGART is creating or altering a number of articles on obscure racial categories which are presented as though their existence is accepted scientific fact:

• Oriental race (which apparently comprises Arabs)
• Balkans-Caucasian race
• Pontid race
• Northcaucasian race

Some of these should probably be redirected and others rewritten. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. His cites (when he provides them) are usually a pair of Russian webpages, and the English source I've spotted is Carlton Coon(!), and doesn't even say what he claims it does. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, these categories are not quite as obsolete as you would suppose in Soviet, and even post-Soviet Russian, academia. I think this recent activity was some sort of spill over from Russian Wikipedia. But I cannot judge just how serious Russian anthropology is about this. These categories are evidently just labels. It is never either "scientific" or "unscientific" to just put label on things or categories. The WP:FRINGE question arises only in relation to claims of the ontology (historical reality, uniqueness, truth etc.) of such categories that may or may not be made. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may interest you. Eugene (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This pertains to the section "#Pseudoscholarship" above. Just WP:POINT in my book. The disambiguation page did its job. Along come the hair-splitters from Christ-myth and the Wikiproject Disambiguation wikiguideline-scholasticists, and suddenly there is a problem. Sheesh. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, and realised it should have been here. What I posted was:

Hi. Could I have some help dealing with an anon editor over at synthetic telepathy. The article is currently filled with fringe conspiracy theories about mind control, all of which is original research because, apparently, the real sources are classified information. GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added it to my watchlist and will await developments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently I don't understand the technology behind intercepting fluctuations in the human magnetic field. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a potentially serious science article, but has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists who think that synthetic telepathy can be used for mind control and that governments have already conducted secret experiments confirming this as confirmed by the fact that they are legislating against its use. That's just one argument that's going on. The anon is intractable and it's getting into edit war mode. Please could someone help? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar problem some time ago with an article called Telepathy and War. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Views from another editor would be appreciated because my edits are being quickly reverted.

GDallimore is quite correct. After a little reading I see that the topic of the article is entirely serious and worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Unfortunately, the topic also invites speculation about thought reading and mind control, and the article has been entirely diverted from what should be in an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources like "io9.com" appear to treat the subject satirically and are likely not reliable sources for a serious encyclopedia article. No time at the moment, but first thing I'd do is clean out those. PS: I wonder if your IP might be a sock of Frei Hans? He was certainly dedicated to getting the same brand of paranoia into WP. -LuckyLouie (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To add to Johnuniq's comments, some of the sources are marginalized in favor of the military aspects, when some of the topics should be mentioned. *shrug* Keep the IP discussing things, remove bad material and if they hit 3RR, warn then report. Ravensfire (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There weren't many people editing the article, so getting to 3RR was tricky without hitting 3RR myself. Thanks for the help, people. GDallimore (Talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent an hour cleaning up the article. Further observation reveals that "synthetic telepathy" is a term popular with mind-control conspiracy theorists [39]. If no significant coverage by academic sources can be found for the subject, I recommend the article be deleted or merged with brain computer interface. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any significant coverage from serious sources that didn't already exist at brain-computer interface or mind control, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and commented on AFD. The IP, as would be expected, isn't too happy. May end up needing some salt here. Alas, we're all meatpuppets! Wait - I think it's just THEM using synthetic telepathy to control our thoughts and actions. But how did I break free? This needs to be revea ... <end carrier> Ravensfire (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you page protect an AfD discussion? The IP has a number of rotating addresses, and has just posted links to his own hate site ranting about how he's been mistreated at this article and some general abuse directed at editors involved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need. This will run its course soon enough. Anyone who claims his ideas are being suppressed is best ignored. GDallimore (Talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to agree wth you, when ---it happened!. Yikes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a "fringe theory" in the best sense of the term, respectable scholarly minority view, for a change, but nevertheless the article suffers from WP:FRINGE/WP:DUE issues. Content should be no means bulldozed but tweaked for proper perspective. The problem is that the article addresses items from the whole scale of "consensus status", from mainstream to very fringy. The mainstream part concerns a number of undisputed substrate influences of Welsh on English. The "respectable minority view", or perhaps WP:RECENTISM concerns an apparently "emerging" view that Welsh substrate is significantly responsible for the transition from Old to Middle English. If this view has any credibility, it should be given proper coverage at Middle English creole hypothesis (and history of the English language). Finally, the "very fringy" material concerns the views of Theo Vennemann that English via Celtic 'transitively' experienced a Semitic substrate. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A user called Jembana is currently rampaging around the pages on Tartessian, Lusitanian and anything related zealously advocating the Atlantic Celtic origins theory of Koch as if they are established fact (this is the idea that the Celts originate with the Atlantic Bronze Age, not with the Hallstatt culture) I've tried being nice about it, as have a couple of other users, but it's looking as if there's a fanatic at work. Can someone have a word with this user and/or would it be a good idea to create an article discussing this theory in more detail, to which much of this stuff can be moved? Paul S (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Celts originate with the Atlantic Bronze Age"? No scholar who isn't steeped in nationalist chauvinism to their eyebrows would consider this seriously for more than five minutes. But apparently Wales is not so different from Bulgaria or Armenia when it comes to state-sponsored nationalism brewed at universities. I suggest this should be treated on a par with reports of Neolithic Pyramids in Bulgaria. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No nation is immune to crankery of this kind. A long, hard, edit warring slog lies ahead as the above mentioned user cuts and pastes big sections from his favourite authors in support of the fringe theory. He just can't seem to "get it"... Paul S (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cunliffe is an advocate of this, however. Or at least he was at one time. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he advocated the idea that Celtic was introduced into Britain via this route, but I'm not so sure he advocated overthrowing the Hallstatt model completely, nor the reading of Tartessian as Celtic. Paul S (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You may remember a fringe theory that was floating around a while back about "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" (supposedly a condition that Muslims are susceptible to). An article on that subject was deleted some time ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Jihad Syndrome. A similar fringe theory, "Jihobbyism", appears to have emerged in certain quarters and has duly been "documented" - with a plethora of blogs being used as primary sources - at Jihobbyist. Editors with an interest may wish to see the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I find these terms hilarious and would be unhappy to see deletion. Surely they can be merged into Jihad? --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend we add the term "jihobbits", obviously used to refer to Tolkien fans who make the ideological switch to engaging in Islamic holy war? ClovisPt (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbitism would then perhaps refer to the recruitment of people with dwarfism as suicide bombers :oP --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This term popped up in Religion in the United States, where in discussion the claim was made that this is one person's phrase and not in wide use. Please take a look if you would. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA and Pseudo amino acid composition seem to be based on the primary sources of just a few authors. The articles are a mess anyway so could clearly do with some help if they are actually notable. Verbal chat 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alleged political conspiracy theorist. Someone more interested in this kind of stuff might want to take a look at it. Does seem dubious re notability. Misarxist (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable to me. I took the Amazon links out, as we don't want an article that spams his books. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A theory which has been postulated by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh in The Temple and the Lodge concerning Robert de Bruges, has recently been added and defended as having a high probability in that article (at AfD), and in Lambert I, Count of Leuven and Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale. I have explained my arguments about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert de Bruges. Some additional input about whether this is indeed a fringe theory or whether I am on the other hand, like the other editor claims, a "paranoid administrator", is welcome. Fram (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All Baigent's work should be regarded as pseudohistory. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could people come back to this again? It seems to me to be veering back into original synthesis. I dipped my toe in the water a while ago, but have been put off by the volume of blather on the talk page. I think I can identify at least 3 quite separate things going on. 1) Bruno Bauer and others - very old, completely superseded scholarship, to be treated as history of ideas. 2) Freke & Gandy - recent fringy writing that theologians have dismissed in contemptuous terms. 3) Hitchens and Dawkins - turning the tables and demanding positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. No logical link between these, but is that just me? Anyone else have a view? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is poor WP:SYN. "Christ myth theory" has been used to mean "the hypothesis that Jesus, the man, did not exist" since about 1910 by a number theologians and New Testament scholars. The editors of Christ myth theory are crafting an essay about authors who claim to have proven this. They have a number of authors who make the case that he may not have existed because the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is dubious, and that he need not have existed because all the Christian traditions could have arisen out of traditions current in 1st c. Roman empire. But I don't think one of those authors claims to prove the CMT: that he did not exist. It's useful as a time-sink, though. While this perpetually unstable article exists, Eugene's ability to smear this[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] kind of filth around Wikipedia is reduced. Anthony (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your view of the synthesis chimes to a certain extent with my impression. I don't have, and don't particularly want to have, a view on the behaviour of editors on the page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Anthony's characterization is at odds with my experience. After all, there are writers who think they have proved that Jesus didn't exist. This is an absurd claim to make, but the article is about a fringe theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to have your comment Akhilleus. I do see that there is a consensus of scholars - in theology and biblical studies - saying that CMT is fringe. But surely they are mainly writing about the material in my category 2, books by late 20th and early 21st century popular writers, perhaps also to theologians whose views they regard as constituting a small minority. Perhaps we ought to distinguish "weak" CMT and "strong" CMT. Strong CMT would include suggestions that it is proved that Jesus didn't exist, or that it is possible to identify how he was constructed in myth. Yes, that has been argued, and yes it is fringe, and labelled as such in scathing tones by mainstream scholars (in theology and biblical studies). Weak CMT would include all attempts to argue that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak. I don't see that as being necessarily fringe at all. Especially not when it is espoused by someone like Richard Dawkins, a well qualified scholar in his own field, scourge of pseudoscholarship in all its forms. Still at the back of my mind is whether we need this article at all. Couldn't it all be covered in Historicity of Jesus? We don't want to give too much space to pseudoscholarship or get involved in its debunking. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, merging the article into historicity of Jesus has been proposed from time to time, but it since the CMT is a fringe theory, it would merit no more than a paragraph or two in an article covering mainstream theories. Even though the CMT is a fringe theory, it's a notable one and has received significant academic coverage, so I think it merits a standalone article.

On your proposal to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" forms, I don't think that's the way to go. There are a lot of scholars who say that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak, such that we can't have any certainty about what he was really like (e.g. Rudolf Bultmann), but that doesn't mean that they're in any way advocates of the CMT. On the other hand, there are some people such as Robert M. Price who say that the historical evidence for Jesus is weak, and therefore it's more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus, and it's this last step that means he should be included in an article about the CMT. He also refers extensively to Wells, Doherty and other advocates of the theory, making it clear where his intellectual sympathies are.

On the distinction between old academic writing and current popular writing, I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the CMT—it's first proposed in academic writing in the 19th century, and at the time is a shocking and dangerous idea, in the early 20th century causes a huge public uproar, and then is rejected by academia and becomes fairly obscure. The last few decades it's been the province of outsiders to biblical scholarship—G.A. Wells is an academic, but in German literature; Robert M. Price has a Ph.D. in New Testament, but teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary; other writers are self-educated in various ways. The CMT seems to be gaining in popularity, so that in the last few years a number of popular and scholarly refutations have been published.

As for Hitchens and Dawkins, I don't know enough about what they say to comment usefully, except that smart people can still make mistakes. If you don't know much about the New Testament, I think the CMT looks plausible on its face. But once you start finding out more about the New Testament and the history of early Christianity, that's when the claims of the CMT start looking ridiculous. Perhaps Hitchens and Dawkins haven't bothered to look past the surface, because I think both men only mention the theory in passing (and therefore, it's somewhat doubtful that they should be mentioned in the article at all). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That helps me to clarify where you stand. The paragraph recently added on "atheist polemic" was what made me anxious again about the article, and it's good to know that you don't think it particularly appropriate either. My distinction between "strong" and "weak" was mainly to make sense of it all in my own mind. The distinction between the old academic and current popular writing, on the other hand, is an important one to make in the article. Half the problem that we have about poor representations of fringe theories stems from a lack of understanding of how scholarship moves on by rejecting what went before. I also have a nagging concern that the mainstream of scholarship is being equated with the mainstream of theological scholarship. While theology is obviously highly relevant here, the views of historians and comparative mythologists would also be useful to know - I doubt whether they have expressed them much though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the wide range of opinions about the historicity of Christ due to the very poor evidence of his existence, it may be inaccurate to even consider CMT to be a single cohesive theory. CMT is not a single theory that has developed over time, like the theory of evolution. It is just a philosophical position on the historicity of Jesus that some people have arrived at through an objective evaluation of the poor empirical evidence for Jesus' existence. Some of those people have published articles and books on the subject. It is misleading to slap together a collection of paragraphs about some of these people and their ideas and then present CMT as if it is a single cohesive theory. The article ends up saying, essentially, "This crazy anti-Semite said 'this' and this godless communist said 'that', and hey, look at what this Nazi thinks. The goal appears to be to impune those who question the historicity of Jesus with guilt by association.

But there is a larger problem here. Wikipedia's definition of a "fringe theory" pertains to ideas that contradict scientific scholarship and the focus is on pseudoscience. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to label a theory as "fringe", simply because a majority of people who have been schooled in a religion that is threatened by that theory do not agree with it. The evaluation of the theory should be empirical and based on evidence (or lack thereof). It is certainly relevant to let readers know that a majority of theologians have great disdain for the theory. However, an evaluation of it's qualification as a "fringe theory" should be based on it's acceptance in the scientific community not a particular religious community that holds belief in the existence of Christ as a matter of faith, the questioning of which puts one in danger of eternal damnation in Hell. (Yes, I know not some of the Bible scholars that are quoted in Eugene's infamous FAQ #2 claim to be agostic, not Christian, but they almost all obtained their degrees from institutions that hold belief in an historical Jesus as a core principle and an unquestionable matter of faith. Few if any are scientists.)

If the majority of Book-of-Mormon-scholars reject the theory that the Book of Mormon was a hoax document written by John Smith, is the hoax theory a fringe theory? Of course not. The standard of evaluation is empirical evidence, not faith.

If the majority of astrologers reject the idea that astrology is false, is disbelief in astrology a fringe theory? No, of course not. Again, the standard of evaluation is empirical evidence.

The reality is that most scientists find they have better things to do than try to evaluate every religious theory and apply an empirical standard to religious truth claims, so there may be limited research that uses the objective standard of empirical evidence to evaluate the truth claims of a particular religion. To freethinkers who objectively evaluate the empirical evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Christianity is the fringe theory.

Should Wikipedia have articles for "Anti-astrology Theory" and "Book of Mormon Hoax Theory"? Probably not.

Should all of the articles in Wikipedia pertaining to Christianity be held to the fringe theory standard? That would be the counterpart to what the current WP:OWNers of the Christ myth theory are doing with their unreasonable "three-theological-scholarly-journal-reference rule" to allow anything into the CMT article. But note that treating Christianity as the fringe theory is using empirical evidence as the standard, whereas treating the CMT as fringe theory is using appeal to theological 'authority' as the standard.

The Wikipedia standard of evaluation of theories is evidence-based, not faith-based. CMT does not fit the Wikipedia definition of a fringe theory. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your starting to convince me, although it's too much of a battle for me to be of any use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PLH, the Wikipedia standard of evaluation is what reliable sources say about a topic—and on this one, the reliable sources largely say the theory of a nonhistorical Jesus is fringe. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Akhilleus, interesting perspective. For a similar defense of Mormon scholarship and its truth claims, please see here: Countering subversive attacks on Mormon scholarship PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one talking about Mormons, PLH. Are you still assuming that every scholar of Christianity is a Christian? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I like to use analogies. That's when you compare things.

X = Bible

Y = Book of Mormon

If your agreement with any of these statements differs depending upon if X or Y is being substituted, then you have some 'splainin' to do:

1. The most reliable sources of information about the veracity of the [X|Y] are [X|Y] scholars.

2. Mainstream thought on the veracity of the [X|Y] is defined as the majority opinion of [X|Y] scholars.

3. People who are not [X|Y] scholars who disagree with the majority opinion of [X|Y] scholars are pushing a "fringe theory".

4. Published authors whose research has not been referenced in at least three journals of [X|Y] scholarship are not reliable sources and there ideas should not be allowed in a Wikipedia article.

5. Even though [X|Y] scholars have devoted their lives and their careers to the study of the [X|Y] and most of them have obtained their degrees from institutions that believe in the veracity of the [X|Y] as an article of faith, it is the height of arrogance and prejudice to even suggest that this would have any bearing whatsoever on the ability of [X|Y] scholars to objectively evaluate the empirical evidence for and against the veracity of the [X|Y].

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What happens when you substitute "physics" or "evolutionary theory" in your analogy? And are there departments of Mormon studies or peer-reviewed journals on Mormonism I don't know about? As far as I can see, you believe that the study of early Christianity is entirely theologically driven and think that any scholar who studies it cannot be trusted to write impartially or think rationally about its history. That's bunk, of course; religious studies and theology are both legitimate academic fields (and they're different fields, too), and they're the kinds of sources you want to use to write a Wikipedia article about the history of religion. If you want to write an article about the Book of Mormon, you should do so based on academic work by experts in Mormonism (and, hint hint, these experts will not necessarily be practicing Mormons, just as many scholars of Christianity are not themselves Christians). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) When you substitute any branch or theory of science into the analogy, then #5 is not applicable, because science is based on empirical evidence and logic, not faith. Items 1, 2, and 3 would fit the Wikipedia standard for reliable sourcing. Item 4 would not, because to have an article about a "fringe theory" you should at least be able to describe the fringe theory and provide references, with the caveat that you indicate in the article the questionable reliability of the references. One's willingness to agree with the statements would not change based on one's particular scientific specialty. (Notice how science and religion are different?)

(2)You ask are there departments of Mormon studies or peer-reviewed journals on Mormonism I don't know about? I don't know have you heard of these?

Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

Claremont Graduate University - School of Religion

(3) Your statement "you believe that the study of early Christianity is entirely theologically driven and think that any scholar who studies it cannot be trusted to write impartially or think rationally about its history" is a straw man argument. I never said that, but labeling my argument with this statement and dismissing it as "bunk" is easier than addressing my actual argument.

(4) Just out of curiosity, does your agreement with the statements differ depending upon if X or Y is being substituted. If so, why?

--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the Mormon studies programs. Claremont is a well-regarded school, and I would think anyone who got a Ph.D. from that program would be a great source to use in a Wikipedia article. A journal published by BYU and a school at BYU, on the other hand, certainly fall in the "use with care" category, and if claims published there differ significantly from scholarship produced and published elsewhere, editors would need to pay very careful attention to where the balance of scholarship lies.

I don't understand your objection to #3. You clearly think that biblical scholarship is based on faith, rather than "empirical evidence and logic"—you say so right there in your post. Your item #5 in the original post above also assumes this—"most of them have obtained their degrees from institutions that believe in the veracity of the [X|Y] as an article of faith" indicates that you think people who have Ph.D.s in religion/theology are getting indoctrinated. But, you know, this is at odds with what actually happens in religious studies—plenty of scholars study religions that they themselves don't believe in, including Christianity, and in any case what we care about is expertise, not creed. So, no, nothing in your statements changes regardless of what gets substituted for x or y, be it 19th century european history, Shinto religion, biomechanics, gift-giving in Melanesia, the linguistic classification of the Hungarian language, or any other topic covered by an academic specialty—you look for experts on the topic, who are usually found in university or college departments.

PeaceLoveHarmony, you commit a number of blatant errors in your understanding of the CMT and the academic field. As you have made clear on other parts of WP, your opinion is based on an erroneous assumption that defending the historicity of Jesus (as all ancient historians I know of studying the period maintain) do so because they are ideologically threatened by the hypothesis. That is false, especially when we make account on the fact that ancient historians and New Testament scholars from all backgrounds have evaluated the hypothesis, and see it lacking substance. I am thinking of non-Christian scholars such as the late Michael Grant (Classicist) and Bart Ehrman (NT Scholar). But that said, there is also no reason why those serious academics, utlising sound historical criteria and publishing in the peer review should be excluded because of your personal distaste for scholars with religious affiliation. You go on to claim that "The evaluation of the theory should be empirical and based on evidence (or lack thereof)." That is the basis that ancient historians and related scholarship has dismissed the CMT. The theorists consistently fail to account for the evidence, utilise ancient historical method and are left with outrageous theories to explain away the evidence we do have. These reasons are evidenced in many of the works that deal with the fringe theory. And by the end of your comment you make it clear that you are here only for the sake of agenda pushing. "To freethinkers who objectively evaluate the empirical evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Christianity is the fringe theory." I would love for you to explain why there are no freethinkers in the academy speaking in favour of CMT? Non-Christian historians dismiss it as pseudo-historical, non-Christian NT scholars dismiss it as pseudo-history - and we have scholars who pride themselves on not being religiously affiliated writing entire books on what we can know about the historical Jesus (specifically, I am thinking of Maurice Casey's forthcoming book where he brands himself "an Independent Historian"). Unless you can provide RS in the relevant field that say the historicity of JEsus is defended only because of ignorance by everyone except PeaceLoveHarmony who sees the light, your criticism is meaningless. WP is about verifiability - that CMT is a fringe theory is attested to by everyone in the field. --Ari (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your edit summary Ari, ("Why are we having this debate again?"), look to the article. It poorly addresses the points you eloquently make in the above, and is dressed in dismissive, derogatory ad hominem. When the case against CMT is well made the article will stabilize. Anthony (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for contributions, which have helped me understand the state of the debate so far (in a way that the 35!!! archives of the talk page haven't). It seems that a crucial phrase is "the field". Which academics have expertise on which topics here? There is academic theology and biblical study. I will defend this as fully scholarly. We can judge the standing of the scholars in the normal way, by the status of the universities they work in, which journals they publish in, etc. Its research questions include interpretations of texts of the early first millennium CE, reconstituting the belief systems of that period. Then there is ancient history, with at least as good a claim to know what happened during that period. Then from way over in left field we have Richard Dawkins, a biologist. It's not his field, we can agree. But he does know a thing or two about research methodology, and has established a reputation as a public intellectual who ranges right across what you might call "knowledge policy" - his notion of "meme" for instance. If this article is about a pseudohistorical notion, then Dawkins fits into it extremely awkwardly or not at all. Then what do we do with the description of the evolution of the CMT from the C18 into the first half of the C20? One writer, Weaver, has covered this in detail, not using the term CMT, but tracing the history of non-belief in Jesus' existence. Is this writer an expert on the thought of those centuries? Sort of. There is detail that he would not be expected to cover well, for example the relationship of Marx to the Young Hegelians, on which there is a vast literature, mostly by Marxist philosphers, but also by non-Marxist philosophers including no less a figure than Karl Popper. At the moment, the article closely follows Weaver's account, with the important distinction that we treat it as the history of a pseudohistorical notion while Weaver doesn't. What does Weaver's account actually tell us about the evolution of the non-existence hypothesis? There are antecedents in the French Revolution, and then Bauer. Bauer was not a pseudoscholar of any kind but an important figure - in establishing the very right to undertake biblical criticism that the mainstream liberal-Christian theologists now depend on! His antisemitism did not disqualify him from the scholarly community of the time - the reverse if anything, whether we like it or not. Then Drews, also of his time. Minority scholarly opinion, probably. Then Wells, writing outside his main field; someone who has elaborated and modified his views over time. Not part of the mainstream but not an out-and-out pseudohistorian either. Allegro, described as a "scholar" in the article. Is his "magic mushroom" notion really relevant here? Then Freke and Gandy, pseudohistorical. I'm still seeing an article that is essentially original synthesis, putting disparate ideas together and going beyond what can be argued on the basis of Weaver. How do we take this forward, though, without producing even more verbiage to put non-involved editors off? Mediation? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its quite clear that there is no single agreed definition of CMT. The CMT label is used primarily to refer to the range of people who variously believe that the Biblical Jesus never existed at all. Unfortunately, some writers also use the label to refer to a different range of people who are prepared to accept that a historical Jesus may have existed, but that some/many of the gospel claims about him are not historical. This then overlaps with and conflicts with the large range of scholars who agree that a historical Jesus did exist, but that some/many of the gospel claims about him are not historical. I think this article would be more stable if the lead section could make it abundantly clear that there is no firm agreement on what exactly the label refers to. Wdford (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the article is not about a label ("Christ myth theory"), but about a topic (the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and Christianity originated without a historical founder).

Itsmejudith, another good source to look at is Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus, chapters 22 and 23. This was written in 1913, of course, so it only covers the history up to that point. But certainly we can write a history of the idea from Volney-->Bauer-->Drews-->Wells with no synthesis, we have plenty of sources for that. I'd be perfectly happy with an article that covers these guys and leaves out recent popularizations. But there are always editors showing up insisting that their favorite author be included—Acharya S, Freke/Gandy, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, Tom Harpur, etc. We have no (or almost no) secondary sources discussing these authors and their relationship to Bauer, Drews, et al. But most of them say they're following in the footsteps of Bauer/Drews/et al., or refer to a different line of "Jesus is a myth" thought, found in authors like Gerald Massey. I don't think it's synthesis to put them in this article, when they're placing themselves in the same intellectual lineage.

Mediation might be helpful, but it's been tried before. What we need is a solid core of editors who will actually read the scholarship in the area, rather than ideologues with an axe to grind. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This thing is beginning to rival the Shakespeare authorship debate in terms of fruitlessness and futility. IHS, guys. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It has not been fruitless. [50] What do you mean by "futility?" Anthony (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found it very fruitful, and I think it passed into WP:LAME territory years ago. I really don't understand why it's such a problem, though; we have plenty of academic sources that discuss the topic specifically; all we have to do is summarize them. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that I am an intelligent, reasonable, open-minded person. Assume the same of several others in this thread. Ask yourself, What are they up to? Why are they spending their time here? If, as you, Eugene, Ari, dab, Bill and one or two others assume, we are mad or stupid or Christ-haters, the answer is self-evident. But if you can imagine, just for a moment, that we are intelligent readers acting in good faith, what parsimonious theory could explain this thread? Anthony (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I assume that you're intelligent and reasonable, but I can't stand leading questions like this. What are you getting at? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is flawed. It fails to convince reasonable, open-minded readers. Anthony (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the article is flawed (we might disagree about what those flaws are). But the purpose of the article isn't to convince. It's to document what's said in reliable sources. If people are trying to make the article argumentative (rather than descriptive) that's a recipe for failure. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

who is "we", Anthony? Was that the royal we? I don't see any "Christ-haters", I just see geeks obsessed with an extremely shoddy fringe theory. --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, dab. I'm trying to get you to imagine all this froth is not the product of flawed readers, but of flawed writing.

Akhilleus, the article at least must be plausible, otherwise what is the point?

It is dubious from the start because the very definition is illogical: How can you believe "Jesus never existed" while allowing that an actual first century teacher/rabbi may have articulated some of the sayings or performed some of the acts of Jesus and these were appropriated by the authors of Jesus? Can you believe he never existed, while allowing half of Q came from an actual 1^st century individual? three quarters? all? Can you believe there was no historical Jesus but some rabbi stormed through the temple overturning tables? Can you believe there was no historical Jesus while allowing that the table turner and Q might have been the same person? Can you believe it and allow that the table turning Q might have been crucified? Where do you draw the line?

It fails to convince reasonable, intelligent, open-minded readers of its neutrality and veracity because it is riddled with derogatory ad hominem implications.

As for the arguments against, the first refutation of contemporary CMT is Bruce's assertion that, according to the apostle Paul, Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham. His proof is Gal 3:16

¹⁶The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

but at the end of the letter (Gal 3:28-29) Paul says

²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

making it clear that one doesn't have to be a genetic descendant of Abraham to be his seed. This is sophistry. Should I go on? Anthony (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of missing the point of much of your post, Anthony. If you think there was no historical Jesus, you probably think most of those events never happened. (In fact, if you think there was a historical Jesus, you can still think most of those events never happened...) With your questions about Q, are you talking about G.A. Wells, or someone else? I'm confused. It would help if you stopped asking leading questions, because they don't make your meaning clear... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pointing to three problems. You have asked me to be clearer about the first, the definition. Were my points about the snarky tone and unconvincing argument clear? I'll try to articulate my criticism of the definition more clearly. Anthony (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think I understand what you mean about the snarky tone and the unconvincing argument. I agree that snark ought to be avoided, if only because it's a turn-off for the reader; on the other hand, many scholars find this theory absurd, and react to it in snarky ways. I think that's worth reporting, and one way to do it is through the words of people sympathetic to the theory—e.g. in several places G.A. Wells says it is customary for biblical scholars to dismiss the theory with amused contempt. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm as guilty of everyone of logorrhoea here, but it's getting clear that we aren't going to move any further towards consensus editing, so I feel a bit bad about starting the thread and suggest that we should probably draw a line under it for now. Thanks to all for your expositions of your positions. The discussion can continue on the talk page. 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it fringe? Is it notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It screams ((vanity)), doesn't it. However intelligent the concept may or may not be, this is a neologism from some recent book being touted on Wikipedia and as such we should have very little patience with it. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is based on a single paper by Anatoly Kondratenk lodged in an economics journal or two (and possibly later printed by a Russian distributor as a monograph). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a (very) small number of people who have tried to apply quantum physics to economic modeling, aside from this fellow Anatoly Kondratenk: see quantum economy. This looks more like an application of buzzwords and hazily understood concepts than a serious attempt at understanding the economic system through analogy with subatomic physics. Intellectual validity aside, I have doubts whether any of this is notable; there certainly shouldn't be two poorly written articles about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

we should probably reduce it to a brief mention at quantum quackery. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've prodded it. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)