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

I’d like to ask for opinions on the Gaia hypothesis article. There are various statements which have been called the Gaia hypothesis, which range from uncontroversial to fringe to complete pseudoscience – my concern is that the article doesn't sufficiently distinguish between the various statements, and I think it gives far too much weight to the fringe/pseudoscience side.

A bit of background, to the best of my understanding. The uncontroversial statements of the hypothesis are along the lines "the Earth/the biosphere can be analysed as if it is a single complex system" or "the Earth is affected by the activities of living organisms." There's a lot of research for this, but most of it doesn’t specifically invoke the actual term. AFAIK the rest is fringe, e.g. that the biosphere is self-regulating (although one can of course always find examples of negative feedback loops); the basic objection to this is that natural selection cannot produce organisms that act "for the greater good of all life" except by coincidence. At the extreme, there are claims that Earth itself is a living organism (superorganism).

Most of the scientists supporting these further statements are James Lovelock and a few others, although he seems to have toned down his views more recently (or according to him, clarified that his statements about e.g. "Gaia acting intentionally" and being "the world’s largest organism" were metaphorical). To be fair, he did publish a Nature Commentary in 1990 (1) and in other peer-reviewed journals, but most of his arguments seem to be presented in his two books (2, 3). He lists a number of "predictions" by the hypothesis in the Nature pdf, but they don’t seem to support more than the general statement that life is able to affect the planet, e.g. he predicted that Mars was (at least mostly) lifeless based on the lack of atmospheric methane (he calls it a "strong confirmation of the hypothesis"), but this only seems to support the statement that if living things were present in large quantities they would produce detectable methane levels. A few responses are 4, 5, 6.

Anyways, I wanted to ask for advice and/or help on how the article could be improved. It’s quite detailed, so making subarticles are one possibility, though I’m not sure how I should proceed if that's the best option. (I originally asked IRWolfie- on his talk page (7, 8), and he gave his opinion but recommended that I ask here. I’ve also left a note at Talk:Gaia hypothesis). Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree the article needs many new references added, perhaps I will get round to it at some point but the view that the earth is a living organism or system is not that extreme becuase many recent system biologists hold that view as well as many scientists from Lynn Margulis, Brian Goodwin, Stephan Harding and Tyler Volk to Elizabet Satouris etc. The problem is, is that newage/metaphysics people have misunderstood and cashed in on the Gaia hypothesis often proposing that the earth itself is conscious and can think etc and mixing it with spiritual/metaphysical views. I removed original research from the article, for example the link to the "Omega Gaia" is an occult/metaphysics not a science website. Also Teilhard Chardin did not propose the Gaia hypothesis (this is a common confusion) and neither did Oliver Reiser (Reiser was a philosoper who proposed pantheism) so they have been removed from the article. Guy Murchie proposed that the earth is a conscious being but he certainly did not use the term "Gaia" perhaps he can be added on the spiritual evolution or Gaia philosophy article but it is not suitable for the Gaia hypothesis article. Just leave out the metaphysics from the article and keep the scientific views and there won't be a problem with original research. 86.153.42.156 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The view that the earth is a living organism is about as fringe as it gets. The view that there are complex systems which are studied in biology which have complex feedback etc; not so much. i.e these are distinct topics. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article (Reincarnation research, current version - [1], current talk page version - [2]) has already been mentioned here four times (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Reincarnation research, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Reincarnation research, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Reincarnation research 3, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Reincarnation research an attack page?). I suppose that the current dispute might be worth mentioning here too...

I have looked at this article after noticing that some questioner at the forum of "Catholic Answers" ([3]) used this article as supporting the claim "There is overwhelming evidence that reincarnation is real." (not a good sign, given that the article describes a fringe theory). And I did find what looks like some problems (some of them described in edits [4], [5], [6]).

After that I have tried to do something with this article, but, unfortunately, it looks like I have reached the dead end at the point where I'm trying to make the badly written non-neutral article to a somewhat better written article - even without really trying to make it more neutral yet (actually, I didn't expect this step to be controversial)... Looks like almost all the arguments have been ignored (Talk:Reincarnation research#Lead and plan, Talk:Reincarnation research#Section "Conclusions and criticism" - undue weight and the like...) and the edits reverted... Now, repeating the arguments or waiting indefinitely for an answer seems unlikely to result in a real discussion and I don't want to edit war, so, er, would anyone have some ideas about possible ways to proceed..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For starters, it all appears to be centred around Ian Stevenson. I suggest a merge and a trim until the section reads neutrally. Much of the rest belongs in Reincarnation IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why reincarnation research should be treated as a distinct topic from reincarnation itself? It looks to me like a straightforward POV fork, in its current form at least. Mainstream views are presented only in the form of a criticism section. That clearly shows that the actual topic of the article is the beliefs of Stevenson and Tucker. Most of the content might be OK in an article whose title and lead clearly reflect that scope. --Amble (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an obvious case of overlap and unnecessary duplication of Reincarnation, Ian Stevenson, and Jim B. Tucker. Also AFAIK, investigation/research into reincarnation originated in India roughly around the 1920s, yet for some reason the article narrowly focuses on these two contemporary Americans...but that's another matter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also not sure why Stevenson/Tucker's book titles are being promoted in the lead of Reincarnation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of it was already covered in other articles, I merged a bit into Ian Stevenson, although it may overlap with what is already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My merge is being reverted without discussion (as "vandalism"). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that if removal of some obviously "offtopic" statements was reverted without a real discussion, then anything more bold could have been expected to be reverted as well...

Anyway, the problems of duplication of content seem to happen because the article has been "expanded" by copying content from one article to another. Unfortunately, sometimes the attribution doesn't seem to be provided - for example, [7] and [8] can be compared... That is one case - I suspect that it might not have been the only one...

Also, reading the talk page archives and the article history I get an impression that there is a group of editors (some of which have already participated in the edit war) who seem to think that reincarnation research is not fringe - one of the most obvious pieces of evidence seems to be an edit summary "Take it up with the University of Virginia medical school, if you think they are sponsering pseudoscience." ([9])... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the merge Talk:Reincarnation_research#Merge_proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This article uses an extreme fringe source - Roy Spencer, Creationist and AGW denier, to sum up he scientific position and how it differs from the fringe in the sidebar. (References 22 and 23 at time of writing, The Great Global Warming Blunder, ad Spencer's private webpage Global Warming 101.) I doubt the book is a WP:RS, the website clearly is not. Worse, although no page numbers are given, so I may have missed it in the book, the comparisons being drawn don't even seem to be in these sources explicitly, but, since the source isn't reliabl in the first place, let's move on.

Further, this is placed under a graph from an unknown source (the file name says it is not an official NOAA graph, but does no say what context it was used in, or if NOAA even made it - and, indeed, the image should probably be deleted as potential copyvio due to lack of a proper source. Even if it is not copyvio, we don't know how it was used and interpreted in its original use. For all we know, it was stated as out-of-date and now known to be inaccurate in the original document it appeared in. The description of the graph is apparently Original Research - there is no evidence that NOAA or any reliable source interpreted it as claimed - and it certainly lacks the same validity of the well-sourced graphs it is meant to dispute for all these reasons.. The description of said graph is also compltely unsouced, andd appears to be original research, and the filepage itself notes NOAA do not draw the conclusions beng made from the graph. Further, the red and blue lines on the graph are rather questionable: The two lines would not appear to match very well were they removed, which is never a good sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.65 (talk • contribs)

Context is important... This is primarily an article about the views of those on the fringe. Sources that might not be reliable in some other context (such as the main Global warming article) might well be reliable in this context (as they reliably verify what the views of the listed scientists are). The graph and text in question is attached to the section on "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes"... which includes Roy Spencer. Given this context, I think it appropriate to briefly outline what the typical view of those in this section believe, and if a user created graph will help illustrate their views, I have no problem with it. However, this gets us to a second question... is Spencer a good representative of the scientists in that section of the list, or is he is an outlier within that group (I don't know the issue well enough to determine that). If he is representative, then basing the text and graph on his views is appropriate... if not, then we should choose a more representative scientist, and base the text and graph on his/her work. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a list, not an article about the views? If it's a list, I don't think any of the graphs belong in the article. Why should they be in a list? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug is correct; if this is a list, it should be a list. If it is to be written as an article, then it would be a POV fork violation. Graphs etc have no place in a list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, looks like topic creep. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "list" is overused in Wikipedia... many of our "lists" are actually articles (they are "articles presented in list format"). This seems to be the case here... this is more than "just a list"... In each section, the article outlines what the various scientists listed in the section believe. I don't think it is inappropriate to include graphs to illustrate those beliefs if they would help the reader to understand them. The key is to make it clear who's belief a particular graph is illustrating. That is done by clearly linking the belief being illustrated to the person who holds the belief (which should be done in the caption). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be a list because the content is already covered elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where? Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's already covered by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate_Change, climate change denial etc. The specific content might not be mentioned, but articles already exist which it would fall under. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This shouldn't be another article listing the "Arguments against the mainstream assessment of global warming" which is what it appears to be. If it's left like this, then we should be able to add a criticism of each person's view where appropriate, right? Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, any summary of arguments for the mainstream assessment should just be done in a section as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about their views it is a list, using FRINGE guidelines, of scientists outside the mainstream. The basic structure does the following:

1 Clearly establishes the mainstream view for contrast (in the lead) as WP:FRINGE expects

2 Articulates criteria for inclusion on the list (also in the lead) as the list guidelines expect

3 Lists the names

4 Includes the quote on which inclusion is based (because of a strong belief among some climate editors that this is necessary to not run afoul of WP:BLP. Personally, I'd be satisified if the quotes went in footnotes or references. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, the Roy Spencer sources, dodgy graph, and OR text are presented as mainstream views, not part of the list of fringe opinions. I agree the article has many other issues, but it also misrepresents the mainstream by letting an unattributed (outside of the footnotes) Roy Spencer (and the OR and dodgy graph) state what the mainstream is. Check how the references I noted are used in context.

Yes this is also unsuitable. You can confirm it in WP:RSN as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping?

Naked WP:CANVASSING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since the OP has never edited the article nor commented on its talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that would make it canvassing or forum shopping. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, secret complaints on noticeboards before attempting to talk, and without notifying article editors or even attempting to discuss the issue with them is wrong.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that consensus on any changes would still need to be reached at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure to notify article editors of noticeboard postings is either a rookie's mistake, or an attempt to gather supporting forces before appearing at the talk page (with your big club). Please see

Notification is not required at FTN or RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly me, here I thought the the nutshell summary of WP:DR actually meant something. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FTN isn't part of DR. There doesn't have to be a dispute to use a noticeboard. It's useful in DR though. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true when a person has a genuine question, but in this instance the opening comment is a condemnation by a made-up mind, without the slightest effort to discuss at the article talk page. As one of the resulting comments said "context matters". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't look like forum shopping to me. This is a matter of genuine and general interest to those interested in tracking fringe articles - I'm glad it was brought up. I would have hoped that the OP would have mentioned this post on the list's talk page and posted notifications to the main authors of the article...but that's not actually required for FTN. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind that it was brought up but secretly bitching here first, before talking on the article's talk page, stinks. If results are all that matters, bear in mind that one of the results was that the OP demonstrated contempt for fellow editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is actually beneficial to raise an issue at a noticeboard first... it can be a sort of reality check when you think there might be a problem, but are not positive (essentially asking: "does anyone else think X is problematic, or is it just me?"... If we respond with: "nah... X is fine" the editor who asked the question knows it would probably not be productive to raise the issue at the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes — if someone had an honest want-know kind of question. The anonymous initiator of this thread is not asking a question (except rhetorically); he is arguing a position. And if he knows "it would probably not be productive to raise the issue at the article", it may be because it is someone who has been around and knows what the answer would be. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a secret noticeboard. Scientific opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is very much a fringe position, and as such entirely within the remit of this noticeboard. As for the suggestion that it is only appropriate to make 'neutral' postings to noticeboards, while in an ideal world that might be desirable, it is certainly not the norm on any other noticeboard, and as such it is unreasonable to expect this one to be any different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to discussion

As a neutral observer, I am detecting a hint of "maintream bias" here... a sort of "Heritics! Burn them" reaction by editors who feel strongly about the topic. So... here is a question to encourage everyone to step back a bit and take a second look:

• Would you have had the same reaction if we were discussing List of historians opposing the mainstream historical assessment of the death of Richard II? Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of disparate threads cast hither and yon in NBoardland, why not consolidate on the articles' talk page? I'm outta here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would. In general, List of people who disagree with any aspect of the mainstream view of X is just a bad idea for an article. Any academic so averse to independent thought that they accept an established consensus wholesale isn't worth the space the occupy, but to cluster everyone with any quibble as an opponent to the consensus is a problem on many levels (WEIGHT, OR, BLP, etc., and yes, FRINGE). Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also have objected to List of historians opposing the mainstream historical assessment of the death of Richard II...and on the same grounds. However, the BLP concerns are much greater in the case of a highly controversial opposition-to-mainstream than they are in cases where there is no great controversy. For example, I doubt that a historian who disputes how Richard II died but who otherwise supported other mainstream historical views would be ostracised by fellow historians and prevented from getting a job in his field...but that is exactly what happens if you're (say) a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution or a physicist who believes in cold fusion. So it's a dangerous business to be putting up lists like these. SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And it should be noted that this list in question isn't just "A list of scientists opposing...". It is "A List of scientists meeting Wikipedia's criteria as to what constitutes opposition...". Wikipedia is effectively imposing its own arbitrary definition of 'opposition' onto the content - violating WP:OR. Any list where we have to invent criteria for inclusion is inherently suspect, and when we do it regarding controversial issues that have the potential for serious consequences for those included on the list, the problem becomes grave. Such lists simply don't belong on Wikipedia, on WP:BLP grounds alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I came across a BLP of a sociologist who has some interesting ideas about social deviance. The article claims that her theories are well received but in fact they are fringey in sociology, as evidenced by the fact that the article uses the New Oxford Review, the Discovery institute and The Washington Times as sources for the reception. I tagged the section and started a discussion at Talk:Anne_Hendershott#Reception_is_not_NPOV and if no one fixes it before I do I will get it done in the next couple weeks. Posting here because I am not a sociologist and will have to do research to find good sourcing, whereas someone here might be familiar with her work and the reception already. Sædon^talk 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick search for The Politics of Deviance discloses that it is an important work that is cited in many books. My impression is that it is something of a minority view (and one must also remember that the field is heavily politicized: one ostensibly scholarly work citing the book refers to Hendershott as a "Catholic fundamentalist") but not fringey. The Politics of Abortion on the other hand seems to have been largely ignored. The set of reviewers cited obviously represents a one-sided assessment. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There's about 40 citations to The Politics of Deviance, it would be interesting to see how many are peer reviewed or academic, and what sort of mention they give. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the current contents of the reception section should be replaced, or just removed if better sources don't turn up. a13ean (talk)

I found four or five references in books from scholarly publishers. I do get the impression that there is less interest in deviance than there was a decade ago. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is probably true. Regarding your previous post, I should have used more careful language. The author herself is probably not fringey, but some of her ideas are way outside the mainstream of deviant studies. Essentially, she argues that deviance should be redefined to refer to acts that are "absolutely" wrong. In response, Erich Goode in Social Deviance writes "again, the sociologist takes note of this view but does not agree with it" - he doesn't even bother to argue against it because it's so at odds with the purpose of sociology. My personal OR statement is that she is conflating ethics with sociology, but that's not really my place to say. Still haven't had the time to do the necessary research to fix the section but I'll get to it soonish™. Sædon^talk 00:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This slow-news-day UFO video is now up for deletion but may survive. Right now it is rather coy about the opinion that it is simply a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ectoplasm_(paranormal) appears to give parapsychologists undue prominence, and appears to describe them as though their work was scientific including listing their "Ectenic force theory". Most of the fringe material was added by a banned sockpuppet and I came across it as part of Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse. Any comments on what should be done with it? (Also if anyone is able to make sure the additions which made it violate WP:FRINGE [10] contains no copyright violations mark it as done on the investigation page) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding the notability of fringe companies, organizations, products, etc here. I made a minor change to the policy wording but I don't feel it makes things as clear as they should be. Your comments and collaboration are welcome and appreciated. Sædon^talk 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks very much fringey and questionable. Other opinions? Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be more reliable scholarly sources available: [11]. I would recommend having a look at what they say. The article is actually all about the Pujo committee and could probably be redirected. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at WP:FINANCE for some assistance. There seems to be some content forking here. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with that stuff, but it doesn't seem all that problematic. The basic assertion is that before the Federal Reserve existed, there was a group of bankers who collaborated to form an unofficial entity that performed similar functions, but with no transparency or accountability. That seems entirely plausible. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, looking a little further it looks as though the main problem here is a pretty incomplete article. Filled out it would sound less loopy. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is only about the Pujo committe, and seems to duplicate most of it. I suggest a merge/redirect or perhaps even a PROD. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion out there which goes beyond the committee, particularly comparing it to recent banking bailouts in the US. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP Finance member here. Money trust is not really a fringe thing, at least not primarily. It was an entirely mainstream belief in the first half of the 20th century that a small number of financiers controlled the money supply. Frankly, there was considerable evidence tending to support this belief, although I understand that modern thinking is that the money trust did not in fact exist in a meaningful sense. In the post-New Deal and post-Bretton Woods world, the functions that supposedly were filled by the money trust are now filled by governmental entities (in the United States, the Federal Reserve Board), so belief in the money trust as a current thing has become very much a fringe belief. But there still can and should be an article about the historical belief in the money trust.

Unfortunately, the current article talks almost entirely about the Pujo committee, with no indication that this was something in which people continued to believe for decades. But I think the solution is to expand the article, not to merge it. John M Baker (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a RSN action on this virulently antisemitic congressman, but behind that is some conspiracy theorizing that his death was not accidental (see for instance this edit). Sourcing on this article is not great (in particular reliance on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) but it's clear that decent and not-fringey bio information is out there). Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy stuff is really, really fringe, basically being pushed today by the more extreme anti-fed groups/sites out there. I think I've seen one possible source mentioned from around McFadden's time and it was a pretty bad source. There's been some discussions in the archives of the McFadden page on this. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories wherein an outside reader complains that the conspiracy article has gotten bigger than the main moon landing articles. Regulars here way want to chime in; I can see arguments both ways for this disparity. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The section "Conspiracists and their main proposals" could probably be spun off as a separate list. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since "Third-party evidence of Moon landings" already has it's own article that section could be trimmed a bit. But none of this will make any big impact. The only remaining option is to split the hoax claims into one or several separate articles. But it seems to me that a summary is of little use. The arguments have to be countered in excruciating detail, or not at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough problem - finding weird things about the moon landing videos and artifacts is ridiculously easy - so as fast as these claims are demolished, new ones spring up. The article should be expected to continue to grow for some considerable time to come.

That said, I don't think that the length of the article (and it's spin-offs) needs to be compared to the length of the main moon landing articles - what does it matter if it's longer? By all means compare it to the limits in WP:SIZE - but saying that "this topic is more mainstream than that - so it should be longer" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Consider other conspiracy theories...the JFK article is 13,000 words - and the article about his assassination is 8,000 - the article about the rifle used to kill him is 4,500 - his autopsy adds a further 5,500 grisley words - the Warren Commission and HSCA investigations consume 1,200 and 1,300 respectively - 2,300 more words are lavished on the "dictabelt" recording of the event - 2,300 more words go into discussion of the Zapruder film...and so forth for another half dozen articles. In total, we have something like three times as many words covering the last ten seconds of the man's life - mostly focussing on the conspiracy theories - than the whole of the rest of his life and presidency put together.

Wikipedia's article sizes reflect much more on the level of public interest than they do on the "relevance" or otherwise of the subject matter. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the size comparison is important. But the article is getting to the length where some forking should be considered. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in a merge discussion taking place at Talk:Plant neurobiology#New page title?. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this group of articles for some time and there is a significant amount of duplication in them. They are all closely related. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The article on the Journal of Scientific Exploration has just been rewritten in what looks like an attempt to make it appear to be more respectable than it is. I just restored some criticism that was removed but it could use other eyes. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

added to my watchlist, I'd notify wikiproject journals as well maybe. I've reverted to an earlier version, it's apparent that the edits were made to make the journal appear more legitimate, it's claims to meaningful peer review are doubtful, I would treat that as an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim considering it's reputation (and some of the articles I've read from it). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems the editor is edit warring to remove everything that mentions fringe science and any mention of CSICOP saying that press releases aren't reliable, for some unknown reason. The editor appears to be wikilaywering with a rather dubious interpretation of WP:RS and WP:V. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor was blocked, I see headbomb has done some tidying up, but it still needs plenty of work to get what the reliable sources say about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors here might have to have a look at this article also. Note one of his sources is the Canada Free Press. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see JournalScholar has also been through this article removing material. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Whole medical systems doesn't appear to put the mainstream perspective into focus at all and appears to unduly legitimize "Whole medical systems" like homeopathy. I'm also dubious as to whether the topic is truly notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems almost like a WP:POVFORK from alternative medicine or the like... a13ean (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is probably a legitimate term, but the article has lost the one fact that makes it legitimate: that the term was invented by the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (a branch of NIH). See http://nihseniorhealth.gov/cam/wholemedicalsystems/01.html for a brief overview. That fact was included in the very first version of this article, back in 2008. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's essentially a neologism? See WP:NEO IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the question comes down to whether a department of the US government constitutes a usable source. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine for saying the term exists; but if its their own or a recent invention its a neologism. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the term does seem to be a commonly used synonym for "alternative" medicine (1.2 million ghits - and at least the first 40 pages of hits are "real" uses of the term). It fails the test for a neologism at WP:NEO because "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". We have the first Google hit being an article at NCCAM (a part of the National Institutes of Health at the US Department of Health & Human Services) that does indeed discuss the term rather than simply using it ("Finally, whole medical systems, which are complete systems of theory and practice that have evolved over time in different cultures and apart from conventional or Western medicine, may be considered CAM."). That paper was published in 2008. So I guess we have here an acceptable WP:RS that is a secondary source that supports this as a non-neologism.

That said, I'm not sure we need a separate article for this - it's not really separate from Alternative medicine - and WP:NOTDICT should apply here. Either a mention in that article or a redirect to it seems more reasonable here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Just an observation: It seems narrower than alternative medicine. The latter can include any ooga booga whatsoever, as long as someone says something is good for one's health. A whole medical system is a traditional system that has evolved over time, even thousands of years, and is multifaceted. It's not really a synonym because it's a complete system of theory and practice, unlike the person I know who's developed her own system for treating illness with flowers. TimidGuy (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You might be right about it being narrower than alternative medicine - but that also means that the description of it can be contained entirely within the alternative medicine article - especially since the current description is little more than a stub. (And as for treating illness with flowers - this is a typical case of a disturbing and growing trend in the mentality: "I wish this were true - so it must be true" - which underlines a heck of a lot of fringe theories.) SteveBaker (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The article on Saint Joseph of Cupertino says that one day in 1630 he "suddenly soared into the sky, where he remained hovering over the crowd". It reports that he repeated this astonishing act several times, once after kissing the Holy Father's feet. I'm sure that the lives of saints aren't normal topics for this noticeboard, but aren't claims that monks can levitate fringe theories? 109.145.138.73 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah: this sort of hagiography has to be recast in the "it is claimed that" voice, at least. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of it is irrelevant details to add to the miraculousness of a claim that some he flew around the place when he was excited. I've trimmed it down to the basic contentions, which are also unsourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is actually a copyvio of [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Using PWM to enhance the electrolysis of water beyond unity is a common claim of fringe theorists - especially those of the water-fuelled-car fraternity. A new article Water electrolysis by Pulse Width Modulation has appeared, been deleted and reappeared. It is currently being re-WP:PROD'ed...and it certainly deserves to go away.

I wanted to note here that User:ibraw (who is an author of that article) took the unusual step of sending me personal email asking me to "contribute" to it (presumably in the hope of avoiding deletion...*FAIL*).

The article (as it stands) is complete junk - and the theory behind the idea is also obvious B.S. But on reflection, I'm not sure what to do about this. It's been a frequent claim by such notables nut-jobs as Stanley Meyer and the guy who is currently causing such controversy in Pakistan: Agha Waqar that by vibrating the water molecule at some "resonant frequency", or by using radio-frequency energy or by otherwise messing around with the waveform of the electricity - that you can cause the water molecules to fly apart while using less energy than you'd get back by burning the resulting gasses.

So I'm starting to wonder whether we should centralize all of the discussions of this nonsense into one place in order that a proper article, expressing the mainstream view can be written and avoid fragmented discussion on a variety of other article pages. We could then simplify a number of other fringe articles by simply referring to this one centralized, mainstream-oriented explanation.

Thoughts? SteveBaker (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the current article for deletion as non-notable: as far as I can see, this is just an electrochemical "over-unity" idea, with no coverage in WP:RS that I can find. Until we have reliable sources for its proponents' assertions, we can't write about it even as a fringe theory.

Pulse electrolysis, on the other hand, is a real non-fringe thing (see this Google Scholar search), and is certainly article-worthy: I've added it to various wanted-article lists, and also red-linked it from the see-also section in electrolysis. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the present article needs to be deleted. (Thanks for spotting it and PROD'ing it BTW). I'm just wondering whether we do actually need some central place to explain that this process for changing how electrolysis happens is actually well understood by the mainstream and that it's known not to give over-unity results. I agree that pulsing the power during electrolysis has value for some sorts of electroplating and other applications - but we need to be clear that it's not some means to violate the laws of thermodynamics and get something for nothing.

I also agree that an article on the non-fringey thing would be a good idea - but it's not usually a good thing to have one article that attempts to explain both the non-fringe idea and the crazy whack-job version - so some coordination and careful choice of article titles would be required. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've found what appears to be some plausible research into pulsed electrolysis for the electrochemical production of hydrogen from water, talking in terms of a modest increase of energy efficiency from 9.6% to 11.88%. See [13]. This is, however, completely different to the over-unity "run-your-car-off-tap-water" stuff that you find in places like this -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This 1994 paper also seems to be real research. Again, it's a paper showing gains in process efficiency in an already energy-inefficient process, not the over-unity stuff claimed by the fringe theory supporters. -- The Anome (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The logical place for putting the real stuff is clearly Electrolysis of water. By the way, I've just read the Free energy suppression article: excellent stuff on how the fringe theories manage to survive in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. -- The Anome (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is logical to keep the 'real stuff' together. That paper would also be useful reference material if we did want to centralize the discussion of this particular fringe concept. It's a thin line between promulgating yet another crazy fringe idea and pulling together criticism of many people who hold/held the same fringe theory. (John Kanzius, Stanley Meyer, Agha Waqar, Bob Boyce, etc) SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY linking to the mainstream articles from the fringe articles is also encouraged. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor appears to be adding material to Anthroposophical medicine which appears to advocate not taking vaccines. It appears to use non-MEDRS WP:FRINGE sources to make vaccines appear more risky than they are and to justify not taking particular vaccines [14] in a "Teach the controversy" style approach. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with medical fringe theories take a look at Weston A. Price Foundation? The article needs a clean up but I am not familiar with the resources necessary to do so. Thanks!-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a superficial look shows at least one 'fringe' claim getting too much emphasis: the quote about the effects of pasteurization on milk enzyme. Yes, enzymes are denatured, but the stomach breaks almost all proteins down into their constituent amino acids anyhow so unless someone is mainlining the milk, the statement is both completely true and completely irrelevant. Perhaps if it could be rewritten to avoid the formulaic claim-criticism-rebuttal presentation that in every case gives the Foundation's views the final word. Agricolae (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential sociology/demography Fringe Theory. Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The material is far outside of the scope of this board. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the more specific claims in this article, but I can't find any evidence that this alleged phenomena is anything more than a legend told to impress tourists.

What's the best way of saying that without it just simply being original research? APL (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This should probably be merged into raining animals. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No - there is no evidence that this is truly a rain of animals. If you read the two working references, it's clear that the local people are guessing that they fall from the sky. The fish only ever appear in temporary pools and streams on marshy ground soon after heavy rain. It's overwhelmingly likely that the fish migrate there from elsewhere when these pools and streams appear. Nobody there claims to have seen the fish actually falling from the sky - and there aren't even any claims of fish being found on rooftops, in trees or even on the ground! They find them happily swimming in these temporary pools! Some people have claimed that the fish are blind - and that would lend credence to the hypothesis that these are some kind of cave-dwelling fish that are able to escape to the surface after heavy rain. The article could benefit from having some more critical thinking skills applied to it - but with only these two sensationalist news items as references - the whole story is shaky as all hell. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems it happened three times this year. Pretty much the same story as older reports, long heavy rainstorm, when it's over, they find fish in the street or fields, one report saying something about a flood of water and fish coming down the street (my interpretation of google translator). Few if any witnesses have seen them fall from the sky.

I would vote for the flooding underground stream theory. It's mentioned a few times but no obvious river or lake that could be the origin. Would fit with the observation that these are freshwater fish. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a persistent idea that National Geographic mounted an expedition in the 1970s and verified the raining fish. However, I can't find any evidence that they ever mentioned it in their magazine. (And it seems like they would!) Nobody ever cites it, and their search function doesn't turn it up. APL (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't hear about water running down the streets - that sounds more like maybe a small flash-flood. That could wash fish from many miles away. The fact that the people stay home during these storms underscores that they are pretty serious weather events. This really doesn't seem like there is anywhere near enough evidence for "raining fish". SteveBaker (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

According to discussion on the article talk page, the Nat. Geo. TV show had a segment on raining fishes, but it did not mention this particular tale. I think we may be off to AFD. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I just figured it out. Nat Geo did indeed send an expedition to study raining fish in 1974 - but it wasn't to Honduras, it was to the Australian outback. The report they brought back from there was that the (blind, white) fish were brought up from underground streams by the flooding. They didn't fall from the sky as rain. Anyway, it looks like a guy by the name of Arthur Shwab visited the village in Honduras as a part of his student internship program - and when he came back, he reported the story - including the part about Nat Geo being involved:

http://www.seattleu.edu/IDIP/Inner.aspx?id=26360&linkidentifier=id&itemid=26360

Evidently he got mixed up between the fishy rain story in Australia and the one in the Honduras and reported that Nat Geo had visited Honduras. This explains why we can't find evidence of an expedition...it never happened there! This throws grave doubts on the fact-checking of the other reports that we're using as references who report the Nat Geo expedition as fact. SteveBaker (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

nominated for deletion Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FTNB contributors might be interested in an ongoing debate concerning the article Jerome Corsi. The debate concerns whether the subject can be called a "Conspiracy Theorist". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a matter for WP:FRINGE - the topic has already been brought up at WP:BLPN, which is a much more appropriate venue for this type of question. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Some more eyes on this article would be good. There are some fans of various religious miracles adding unsourced opinions sometimes in a way that gives the appearance that the statements are sourced. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

added. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to me to be representing the results of particular experiments into supposed 'telepathy' in an unduly positive manner - and is in any case reporting largely on 20+ year-old investigations. The 'Contemporary research' section is sourced to the European Journal of Parapsychology, which describes a particular experiment, rather than supporting the claim made in our article, and to a meta-study in the Psychological Bulletin which seems to have been cherry-picked for particular data, rather than for its conclusion - "Instead of parapsychologists’ giving the null hypothesis a chance..., skeptics should give the alternative hypothesis a chance. In spite of the relatively limited pool of literature, we argue that consistency has been demonstrated in the data and that there is good evidence of replication by a range of investigators". A reasonable enough conclusion given the analysis, but not an assertion that telepathy is real. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be worse than you say. The conclusion doesn't seem reasonable at all. The null hypothesis holds unless there is good evidence to the contrary. It's like "innocent till proven guilty". Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. Like I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Basically, this article is based on a fringe theory, and I am concerned about its promotion on Wikipedia. Concerns were already expressed on the article's talk page by a registered editor. See Fringe written as fact, and now editors of the article are discussing creating spin-offs of this theory and the possibility of giving more weight to it in other articles, such as the Human sexual response cycle article. See The orgasm reflex discussion. One editor stated that he had not even heard of the human sexual response cycle,[18] despite the fact it is mentioned often in sources when detailing sexual stimulation/arousal and orgasm and is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). I responded with this comment:[19] I'm not even sure that "orgastic potency" should have a Wikipedia article. And if it should, certainly, given the concerns about this theory coming across as fact or otherwise legitimate, it would be better to name it Orgastic potency theory. So please have a look at this article and comment on this in one or both of the linked article talk page discussions above.

I was referred here by User:AndyTheGrump.[20] 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, a brief look at that and related articles suggests that this will take a long time to sort out... a13ean (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, major issues, particularly that the mainstream isn't put into perspective. I see in the merge history it was redirected to Orgone but this was reverted. Seems to me Wilhelm Reich, Orgone and Orgastic potency could be merged, most of the sources are about Wilhelm Reich. Half of the in line citations are actually to primary sources; 21 out of 40, much of the rest are unreliable fringe journals etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thank you two for your input, and this editor[21] also. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that these are primary sources and fringe journals - but notice that all but two of the references are older than the 2/3 years recommended by WP:MEDRS - and even the two that are from 2010/2011, one is not actually used in referencing anything in the article and the other is only used to back up the statement that some guy wrote three books...which didn't need a reference in the first place! Because this is a medical topic - I'd have to say that it has no valid references whatever...not a single one. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does this article go now? Discussion has slowed down again, and it seems that the article won't be improved to where it needs to be...as outlined by SteveBaker. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest stubifying and starting over from scratch. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In the "Fringe written as fact" discussion, SteveBaker suggested that as one of the options. But the creator of the article, Gulpen, is obviously against it. And an editor in the Merge discussion specifically disagreed with turning it into a stub. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Gulpen recently removed the ((fringe)) tag from this article. I replaced it, but I think we need some experts in WP:FRINGE issues to weigh in on why this template is still required. Actually, the entire article is a horrible mess - but I don't have the time to fix it right now. IMHO, it should be either deleted or merged into Wilhelm Reich - but there isn't a consensus for the merge right now. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Memetics. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's that stupid list again! The editors there don't have the guts to make "List of pseudosciences" since finding sufficiently solid references for that is tricky - so it's watered down to merely a list of things that someone, somewhere said was pseudoscience - whether or not it was actually true. Memetics isn't pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It might have pseudoscientific elements, though. I agree that the article is really problematic. It confirms or upsets all our prejudices. I loved seeing anti-aging creams in there. I hated seeing qi, a concept from ancient Chinese cosmology - it hasn't been observed, you don't say! Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is not truly falsifiable but claims to be scientific; if it it is not pseudoscience it is close to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. All it takes is for one WP:RS to say "XYZ is pseudoscience" and it qualifies for the list because we can show that it has indeed been "characterized" as pseudoscience. If someone finds a source from someone saying "Relativity is pseudoscience" then relativity belongs on that list - even though it's widely agreed that it's not pseudoscience. The list is broken...I've been saying this for *years* - but still we're stuck with the darned thing because the editors there are too lazy to make it be "List of pseudosciences" with all the requirements for due-weight that this would require. It's much easier to find just one source and say "Look! It's been characterized that way, so it makes the list!" ...bah! SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We could make a separate article for just that, with the extra requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...and if we did that, why would we need/want the present article? That's why I believe that renaming and then pruning the present article is the correct approach. SteveBaker (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the alternative could be made separately in userspace, rather than something drastic. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of the article about the fringe Christian Science system is based on a single primary source, written by the founder: Eddy, Mary Baker (1934 [1875]). Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. United States of America: The Christian Science Board of Directors. It doesn't appear to put the fringeness of the prayer healing beliefs into perspective, for example: "Christian Scientists who choose to rely on medical treatment for a specific problem normally give up Christian Science treatment for the period of treatment. This is because one treatment approaches healing from a material and the other from a spiritual perspective. Because the method of prayer includes denying the reality of matter and affirming the perfection of the individual – while medicine is used to fix matter and a person with a problem – these two means are seen as incompatible and indeed as tending to work against each other when used simultaneously." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If this bit is unsourced, that is a problem. But the wording is not too in-universe and it doesn't seem to be making any extraordinary claims. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age" is being used to say: "There are cases of individuals who have died following their choice of Christian Science care over medical treatment; however, defenders of Christian Science counter that no similar burden is placed on medical science to explain those who die each year under conventional medical care, nor those given up as incurable by medical practitioners, some of whom recover after seeking Christian Science treatment". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of improvement; I didn't like the fact that the first main section is headed "Introduction". There must be good academic sources for the topic. The sentence you quote above is tendentiously worded. "Defenders of Christian Science counter..." is poor wording - what cases where people have died, which defenders counter? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I called it introduction because I couldn't think of anything else to call it, it was originally in the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I ended up just breaking up the intro and throwing things into the relevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice a SPA is removing the mention of Christian Science as pseudoscience form the lead: [22] with "I see advocacy here.". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As the SPA in question my objection is to what I see as a disingenuous approach to improving the article on Christian Science. While it started as a legitimate complaint about the article based entirely on a single primary source, which I agree with, almost immediately the old (to me) saw about pseudoscience crept in. This leaves me in the tenuous position, for fairness, of having to defend or prove a negative, which cannot be logically done. One can only refer back to the primary sources which state, explicitly, that Christian Science does not claim to be a science (and thus not a pseudoscience or at least not any more so than any other religion.)

Too, while there are many secondary references which state, in effect, "Christian Science is a pseudoscience" there are few that discuss Christian Science even outside the purview of the Church as such that say, explicitly, "Christian Science is not a pseudoscience" or discuss pseudoscience at all. Is it required to cite those sources, though the may be irrelevant to the question at hand, to mediate the assertion? What is the "mainstream" thought here? Is Christian Science a pseudoscience? Is it fringe? Both are likely, but I do not believe they are universally held belief even outside Christian Science. How do I prove this in the sense of not being able to prove a negative. Digitalican (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Other sources contradict the claim (they also include quotes of Eddy and Church members to highlight the claim). The assertion that it's a pseudoscience is quite prevalent in the secondary sources; currently the article doesn't explain why it's called a pseudoscience, which is more than just the name. Further, beliefs that don't claim to be scientific can still be pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest people also look at Mary_Baker_Eddy#Distinguishing_between_Eddy_and_Quimby_and_other_criticisms. The secondary sources say she was heavily influenced by Quimby, but this section says the opposite. Problematic wording like "In 1903 Mark Twain published a satirical diatribe attacking ..." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of Mind control in New Religious Movements, an editor is arguing that Benjamin Zablocki's Mind control theory has general acceptance within the academy, except in Sociology of Religion (the only field of Academia specifically dedicated to the study of social processes within religious groups) which he characterizes as fringe. He argues that the reason Zablocki's theory has not received any credence or even attention the past 10 years is because a group of scholars led by James T. Richardson (this group is otherwise known as "the mainstream") has taken control of the journals, handbooks and encyclopedias about the topic of sociology of religion. Attention is requested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·'s description of our debate. Zablocki's theory of brainwashing has received much attention within the academy, even in the lat 10 years; it just so happens that his theories or the theories of any scholar in favor of the brainwashing hypothesis have not been published in the primary journals within sociology of religion; they have been well-published in well-respected journals outside sociology of religion, mind you. This seems to be because Richardson and other scholars sympathetic to his views are the editors of the primary sociology of religion journals. Handbooks and encyclopedias of sociology of religion do often contain an article or two written by Richardson or another scholar sympathetic to his view; such articles are often critical of the brainwashing theory. But to say that entire handbooks or encyclopedias don't respect Zablocki, his theories, or those scholars sympathetic to his views is unjustified. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Then please produce evidence to the contrary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are these secondary sources in that field? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sociology of religion mentions Marx, Durkheim, Weber, but it seems that nowadays sociologists of religion's main area of interest is New religious movements ("a neutral alternative to the word cult") and how these are misrepresented in the media. Seems they say very little about "destructive cults" like Jones temple, Branch Davidian, Solar temple etc. They are mentioned in relation to Aum Shinrikyo, where two of them flew to Japan to hold press conferences announcing that the group was not responsible for the Sarin gas attack. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, especially since John Gordon Melton is one of the leading "sociologists of religion", and has been an expert witness in court cases, testifying that hostile ex-members of "new religious movements" would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents turning them into major incidents. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No way does current sociology of religion mainly concentrate on new religious movements. Look at any introductory sociology textbook. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed that the names I came across represented sociologists of religion as a whole. Anyway, I can understand the point Nietzsche123 is making (not that I agree on the brainwashing issue). Looking at the names involved in the debate: (added abbreviations for clarity)

• David G. Bromley was editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), and is currently the editor of Religion and the Social Order, an annual serial published by the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR). He's on the editorial board of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society.
• Anson D. Shupe has held office in the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• Eileen Barker received payment from the Unification Church for expenses for a book and eighteen conferences. She was President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• Massimo Introvigne is vice-president of the Catholic movement Alleanza Cattolica, he taught courses at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, an institute run by Opus Dei. He has written books and articles criticizing The Da Vinci Code and a documentary on pedophile priests.
• Lorne L. Dawson, Canadian, served for six years on the editorial board of Sociology of Religion: A Quarterly Review, the journal of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR).
• John Gordon Melton was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist church and worked for six years as a pastor.
• Irving Hexham is on the Editorial Board of Studies in Religion.
• Jeffrey K. Hadden's website The Religious Freedom Page doesn't exactly read like the work of an objective, uninvolved sociologist: Covenants are sacred arrangements between God and God's people. Covenants transcend social contracts, and are believed to endure for all time. The heavy hand of tyrants, as well as "ordinary" man-made institutions, may deny the promise of a covenant. That does not alter the Truth that believers share regarding special arrangements with God. His take on Jonestown: Jonestown serves as a lesson in how a combination of media, government, and citizens can create a climate of persecution and fear.

Others mentioned as sociologists of religion and specifically new religious movements:

• Douglas E. Cowan was ordained to the Christian ministry.
• Benton Johnson has been editor for the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and president of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR). He once received the annual book award from the SSSR.
• Rhys H. Williams was editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), was President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR), and President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR).
• Marie Cornwall is the editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), she previously worked for the "Priesthood Correlation Program", a department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• James A. Beckford served as President of the Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR), and as the President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion. He has suggested that "latent xenophobic and anti-American attitudes have contributed significantly to the extremity of European anti-cult positions."

The Association for the Sociology of Religion (ASR) used to be the American Catholic Sociological Society (the name change "reflecting changes in the Vatican's policy"). Catholic sociology doesn't sound like a very objective science.

The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR) is a publication by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR). Ssscienccce (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Originally I was posting this to ANI but this user just had talk access revoked so there's not much point to that, instead I'm posting here so everyone has a heads up that there may be a large influx of astrology SPAs, so keep an eye on your watch lists and read on if you want the background.

Dave of Maryland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor who, over the past 3 years, has posted long walls of text to multiple talk pages regarding astrology, how WP is unfair to pseudoscience, as well as fringe takes on mainstream subjects (for instance, recently he argued on Talk:Moon#The_Moon_is_not_a_moon._Nor_does_it_have_impact_craters. that the moon isn't actually a Terran satellite and that there is no proof that impact craters on the moon were caused by impacts!). He has generally skirted under the radar because he doesn't really engage in discussion, rather he just posts the walls of text and then disappears. In his 3 years of having an account, he has made one article space edit to Antikythera mechanism, and it was basically all WP:OR attempting to claim that this ancient computer was for astrological purposes.

He was recently indefed by 23B³ for WP:NLT per this edit, where he essentially threatens to report WP to his congregation of astrologers who I guess will then take legal action.

He is now claiming that he meant no legal threat, but if you read through this wall of text you'll see that it's not clear what this person is even talking about.

However, he claims to have a large email list and to be one of the largest publisher of astrology related books in the world (I did some googling and this claim appears to be true at first glance) and he claims to be canvassing off wiki to attract attention from astrologers. So yeah, just keep an extra eye out but hopefully nothing will come of this. Sædon^talk 22:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I recently dealt with him on one of the astrology articles, and came to the conclusion that he seriously needs his meds adjusted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

O mai. This user's newsletter is... interesting. No that's not the right word... batty perhaps? Wikipedia has "a malign 9th house, Neptune-Mercury-Uranus making a stellium". Predictions of gloom and doom follow, as well as self-comparisons to Linus Pauling. This is not the first time astrologers have canvassed offsite, nor will it be the last. I think we have enough sane eyes on the articles to prevent any major damage. Discretionary sanctions have worked well in the past. Skinwalker (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that a number of potentially-canvassable astrology editors were banned after the last round of canvassing, so at worst we'd still only have an influx of very new accounts, which is a bit easier to deal with. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Has he "gone live" yet? Where's the firestorm? Anyone has a link?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the call to arms. I don't think many astrologers pay attention to this guy. Skinwalker (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per NPOV, I've included the criticism at Criticism of Wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's undue material based on a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That's amazing stuff! Between claiming that Evolution and Global Warming are just "fads" - and providing Wikipedia with it's own, free astrological chart...it's hilarious (if a little confused) reading: "Wiki, or someone like Wiki, is going to use pseudoscience to go after us, it’s just a matter of time.". I've checked the Wiki weapon-rack and I call dibs on the N-Ray gun with the SMOT-based perpetual power supply. SteveBaker (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to close wikipedia down guys, according to the link we we think like the enlightenment leaders (in a bad way). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No signs of trouble on my watchlist yet. If fire does actually break out, I'm sure somebody would come back here and raise the alarm. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely. On his talk page, he names today (Monday, 24th) as the day of action - and in his "AstroAmerica" newsletter, he says "3pm" but doesn't mention which day (or which time-zone for that matter) as the critical moment for Wikipedia. Presumably the astrologers who read his newsletter have already predicted the time *and* date, so this shouldn't be an issue for them. SteveBaker (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is the wikiproject watchlist as well for those who are on the watch for vandalism etc [23]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That was a horrifying reign of terror! The astrology article was...um...not edited at all...but the related Talk page was...well...totally unchanged. Wikipedia seems to have survived the "current Jupiter station on Wiki’s ascendant, along with the long running opposition to Pluto" more or less untransformed. I don't think User:Dave of Maryland has quite the fanatical following he thinks he has. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"opposition to Pluto"? Never argue with a cartoon dog. Or does he mean the ex-planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most astrologers area probably not as irrational as that, just limited to a non-scientific discourse which lacks and undervalues critical thinking (reminiscent of what is discussed here: [24]). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess jupiter exited the crazy house. a13ean (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On the upside, Larry Sanger will be drowning in a sea of letters. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit one-sided to remove speculation about it's use for astrology from Antikythera mechanism#Speculation about the mechanism's_purpose when the whole section is unsourced at the moment. Astrology seems a rather obvious possibility, the history of astronomy is inextricably linked to it. And if you read the article by Derek J. de Solla Price upon which part of the section seems based:

• It might have been held in the hand and turned by a wheel at the side so that it would operate as a computer, possibly for astrological use. I feel it is more likely that it was permanently mounted, perhaps set in a statue, and displayed as an exhibition piece. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced speculation from articles sounds like a good practice to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable scientist that seems only to have an article because peopl like his fringe views on climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.65.107 (talk • contribs)

I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, so I've put it up for AfD. He has attracted some mentions, but nothing like significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Template:Scientific method - it appears to be original research, and given that it covers 'fringe science', is clearly within the remit of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw this popping up as well. It's been unsourced for a long time, and turning it into a template doesn't seem like a great idea. Using my own OR, it's also wrong, pre-scientific disciplines were protoscience, but they didn't use the scientific method. Something can be a superstition and pseudoscience at the same time. Fringe science is a large umbrella term that covers a lot of things. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What makes something "fringe" is simple... lack of acceptance by the mainstream. "Fringe science" has nothing to do with whether adherents of the theory or idea actually use (or attempt to use) the scientific method (sometimes they do, sometimes they do not). Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I think the confusion is from "pseudoscience" (which isn't synonymous with "fringe" - although the two often go hand-in-hand). Pseudoscience is when the adherents don't use the scientific method. Fringe is when the vast majority of mainstream science does not believe in it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've nominated the template for deletion due to the above concerns. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Article with no references about one single episode shown on Discovery Channel in 1999. Something about black projects, antigravity, and Nick Cook. Does not seem notable. Redirect to Nick Cook? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, redirect (or delete). For a TV show to merit its own page, it (not the stuff that the show was about - the show itself) must have received significant coverage in the secondary literature. I see no such coverage here. My only argument against redirecting is that the term is broadly used to relate to all kinds of costly 'secrets', and I am not sure that sending anyone who does a search for this term to Nick Cook's site is necessarily the best thing to do, but it is certainly the easiest way to make the page go away. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected it per WP:NOTPLOT. If someone can dig up some secondary sources and make it something beyond a plot then it can be considered again. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire section on Parapsychologists' rebuttals appears completely undue Parapsychology#Parapsychologists.27_rebuttals to me. It would be similar to having an entire section on Astrology rebuttals in astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I renamed it "Response to criticism" since it didn't seem like a rebuttal and one of the "rebutters" is a physicist not a parapsychologist.Bhny (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian Josephson is also a parapsychologist, as well as a physicist. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I see my change has been reverted by Dominus Vobisdu anyway Bhny (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert your change. I deleted the entire section. Your change was irrelvant, and nothing more than putting lipstick on a donkey. The problems do not lie with the title of the section, but with the contents of the section itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here, there are two different sections at issue, one is called Parapsychologists' rebuttals, the other was about parapsychologist "theories". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It was a mistake on my part. Thanks for readding. Sorry, Bhny. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For me, this illustrates the problem with Criticism sections. It seems to people from the opposite viewpoint that there are possible rebuttals to the criticisms. And there could be rebuttals to those rebuttals ad infinitum or definitely ad nauseam. The criticisms should be integrated under the different headings and the mainstream scholarly view should be clear throughout. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's a bit about it in WP:CRIT here-> [[25]] Bhny (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, though I'm not going to edit further until the SPI clears, there is an obvious WP:DUCK editing the article and it looks like it'll be a headache to edit. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie has claimed the edits by "GreenUniverse" is copyrighted, yet provides no evidence. Note how "GreenUniverse" wrote both the "theory" and "evaluation" section. IRWolfie claims the "theory" section is copyrighted but when it came down to "GreenUniverse's" section the "evaluation" IRWolfie is all ok with it becuase it concludes parapsychology does not exist. This is cherry picking bits based on personal beliefs and not neutral editing. If you believe the information is copyrighted then please provide it, you can't claim just some of it is and then keep little bits, it all goes or it all stays. At least point out your so called "evidence" that it is "copyrighted"... please explain where it was "copyrighted" from. Ghosts Ghouls (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Like magic the WP:DUCK appears. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the posts by this blocked sockpuppet of a banned editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We really need some people from here to weigh in on this topic there at the template discussion, especially since the related WikiProjects have not yet helped out on the issue (aside from WP:MED referring us elsewhere and one editor from WP:LGBT thus far weighing in). Since the discussion has gotten a bit long, I will summarize here what is going on there: Basically, we have kept pansexuality and polysexuality off Template:Sexual orientation because they are not considered distinct from bisexuality or sexual orientations by any authoritative source, and because authoritative sources are what we are supposed to follow on this topic. We recently agreed to let these two concepts stay on Template:Sexual orientation as long as they are not listed as sexual orientations or listed in a way that they are perceived as sexual orientations. That isn't enough for one editor who is arguing that pansexuality and polysexuality are distinct from bisexuality and are sexual orientations, despite no authoritative source on sexual orientation and sexuality, such as this authoritative source and this authoritative source, stating that they are, and is now arguing for a redesign of the sexual orientation template so that heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are not called sexual orientations. I have maintained that we don't go by what one or a few researchers state, which is why the WP:FRINGE guideline exists. Going by what one or a few researchers state leaves the door open for anything to be defined as a sexual orientation, including zoophilia. Editors have tried more than once to get zoophilia listed as a sexual orientation on the template, for example. And, from what I see, the Polysexuality Wikipedia article shouldn't exist at all, as it is completely non-notable/fringe. We don't get to define sexual orientation the way that we won't to. We are supposed to follow scientific consensus. Like I stated at Template talk:Sexual orientation, if the editor arguing for us to go against scientific consensus wants a Sexualities template, where zoophilia and many other types of sexualities can be included, she can create one. But the Sexual orientation template will remain. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here willing to weigh in on this at the template discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here. The template as it is at the moment seems fine. I don't have much patience for people who edit-war over navigational templates, which are there to help readers find the information they need, not there to make statements about reality. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but polysexuality seems notable enough- 14,000 google results and "fringe" isn't a reason to delete a page. I'm not sure why you think this template is a science template and not a general template. Bhny (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would consider it a science template as well, as the classification of sexual orientation is a scientific/medical topic, and we would require peer-reviewed sources for any classification system. Very few such sysems treat pansexuality or polysexuality as sexual orientations, so to state that they are would definitely fall under WP:FRINGE, and probably under not very notable fringe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not being very familiar with the topic - I'd have to say that the issue isn't with the navigational template. If these are truly non-notable terms or neologisms or synonyms that should be merged into existing articles or whatever - then the articles should be WP:AfD'ed - and then there is nothing to put into the template and the problem is 100% solved. But if the terms are in fact legitimate and need their own articles - then it seems to me that they also need to be easy to find, and this template seems to me like the right place to put them...so again, the problem is solved. The whole issue hangs on the articles themselves, not the template that navigates to them. Expressing dislike for an article by refusing to let people navigate to it is "A Bad Way To Proceed".

That said, this is really borderline for WP:FTN SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie and especially Dominus Vobisdu have summarized my feelings on this. It's not only about helping readers find the information they need. They can find the information they need on this template without inaccurately describing the information on it. I believe that templates are supposed to be reality-based when it comes to topics such as these. No matter that it's a template, it is still categorizing sexual orientation and therefore is still subject to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I am fine with sexualities that are related to sexual orientation being on this template, but this is a Sexual orientation template, not a template for all types of sexualities such as the paraphilia zoophilia. I brought this discussion here seeking help because it is within the scope of this noticeboard...because we are not supposed to give WP:UNDUE weight to minority views, especially WP:FRINGE views, and labeling anything a sexual orientation that is not recognized as a sexual orientation by scientific consensus is doing just that. As for polysexuality, despite the recent expansion of that article (see its revision history), I still don't believe that the topic is notable and I never stated that an article on it or any fringe topic can't exist because it's fringe, but that is a matter for that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker, merging the Pansexuality article into the Bisexuality article was definitely addressed, and implemented, before. See the discussions about this and how pansexuality compares with bisexuality at Talk:Pansexuality, and how it is currently covered at the Bisexuality article (although, as stated on the Bisexuality talk page, I feel that it should instead be covered in the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section of that article). However, despite pansexuality being seen as a subset of bisexuality by most experts in these fields, it has gained a bit of notability; this is because "pansexuals may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others" and because pansexuality "deliberately rejects the gender binary, the 'notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations.'" So those are the only reasons that I have not pressed for this article to be merged with the Bisexuality article. What has also been suggested is that the Polysexuality article be merged into the Pansexuality article; again, refer to Talk:Pansexuality and also refer to Talk:Polysexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The most glaring problem with the template is that it is called "Sexual orientation," which should be an organizational subcategory under Sexuality. Nothing fringe about that. Most of the articles in the template are not strictly about sexual orientation, they are on Sexuality and related topics. Further, there is debate on a number of phenomena which some experts consider sexual orientations or alternatives to the concept of a fixed orientation. If the template were called Sexuality, then there could be a section on sexual orientation as well as a section on other sexuality topics. Flyer22 forum shopping rather than working for consensus because she has a very specific way she thinks this material should be presented. The problem is that there are many published sources which disagree with her. According to one textbook on child and adolescent psychiatry, "Youth today are rejecting the labels that have served to help identify community in the past, and those who need or want to affix a label to themselves are sometimes choosing broader categories such as queer, polysexual, heteroflexible, and polyamorous." All of these should be in the template to assist with navigation, not just the ones Flyer22 likes. This is not fringe and does not belong here. I encourage anyone interested in further discussion to join us on the template talk page. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The only glaring problem is that you don't follow scientific consensus. You never do, for whatever personal reason. There is nothing wrong with having a Sexual orientation template, since, as noted above, sexual orientation is a mainstream scientific topic. "Most of the articles in the template are not strictly about sexual orientation" because sexual orientation has a lot to do with gender and partially some other sexual topics. I told you, "Related topics are included as fields in most templates, such as Template:Rape, as I'm sure that [you know]." What you don't like deferring to is the fact that most scientists differentiate between sexual orientation and sexual identity (for example, a gay man identifying as heterosexual). As you well know, scientific consensus does not recognize pansexuality or polysexuality as distinct from bisexuality or as sexual orientations. That is the point. The fact that some people use the terms pansexuality, polysexuality, heteroflexibility or others instead of the mainstream terms to describe their sexuality does not negate that. I was not "forum shopping rather than working for consensus because [I have] a very specific way [I think] this material should be presented." I've been discussing the matter on the template talk page, noting why we should not categorize sexualities as sexual orientations unless there is scientific consensus for such categorization or at least significant enough scientific support for such categorization, such as in the case of asexuality. This discussion belongs here for the reasons I and Dominus Vobisdu stated above -- because you were/are insisting that pansexuality and polysexuality are distinct from bisexuality and are sexual orientations, which is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I agreed with you adding pansexuality and polysexuality to the template, as long as they are not categorized as sexual orientations or listed in a way that they are perceived as sexual orientations. As noted above, that wasn't enough for you, so here we are now. This has nothing to do with what I like, as my comments at Talk:Bisexuality, Talk:Pansexuality and even a bit at the template talk page and above show support for pansexuality being somewhat distinguished from bisexuality. And at that template talk page, I recently stated:

[I]f the Sexual orientation template were to be abolished in name, only after WP:Consensus is achieved for abolishing it, I would of course be okay with there only being a Sexualities template covering sexualities, including sexual orientation...as long as it distinguishes between sexual orientations (per scientific consensus) and sexual identities, like the Template:Gender and sexual identities does, and identifies paraphilias as separate from these areas. While being a zoophile is a sexual identity, it shouldn't be placed beside concepts such as pansexuality, polysexual, and similar. It should be listed under "Paraphilic sexual identities" or something similar to that wording. The others should probably be titled "General sexual identities" or something similar to that wording because titling them "Non-paraphilic sexual identities" and having them come before the paraphilias, which they should, seems "off."

If we continue to include primarily gender topics, such as third gender and Two-Spirit, on the template, then "Template:Gender and sexual identities" will need to be abolished as redundant. If we don't, then "Template:Gender and sexual identities" needs to be made into a primarily gender-based template as the sexual orientation and other sexuality topics it includes will be redundant to the Sexualities template. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw of the talk page discussion, Jokestress wants to change the structure of the template based on a single article, which is contradicted by many high quality reliable sources. This sounds very WP:FRINGE/POV to me. Or now there's another suggestion to get rid of the sexual orientation template completely? One source that speaks about identification doesn't erase a multitude of sources that discuss orientation and identification as separate concepts. Again, WP:FRINGE/POV issues. Siawase (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This minor fringe evolutionary theorist has been the subject of edit wars before. An IP is declaring that one source (viz. Pharyngula (blog)) is unreliable and is deleting criticism. Comments and views would be appreciated. He's also tryig to delete the statement that "Pivar attempted to sue Seed Media, whose ScienceBlogs hosted "Pharyngula", for describing him as 'classic crackpot'", which is cited to a legal textbook. Paul B (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One or two editors (IPs) insisting on keeping fringe sources in this fringe article. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a revert-happy editor at iatrogenesis who asserts that a white paper written by Gary Null is a reliable source. Skinwalker (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, isn't WP:MEDRS relevant here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure. This edit fails numerous policies and guidelines, including MEDRS. Skinwalker (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some editors who are focussed on Christian Science are trying to insert weasels into the article and water down any statements of the mainstream position by attributing them to "critics". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Any specific articles? 15:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just Christian Science, some independent editors keeping an eye on it and joining the discussions would be welcome (it helps with giving me a sanity check as well). The rest of the articles are in a pretty bad state in terms of how it treats the mainstream, (see my previous FTN about a related article), but I haven't looked at them in detail. The main issue was editors inserting weasels. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And of course there is the massive walls of OR they drop. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue puffery and POV wording is being added to Deborah Houlding to give her the appearance of being a legitimate academic, and to make astrology look like a legitimate field. These conclusions are not present in the most reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nils-Axel Mörner is full of a lot of poorly-sourced attacks on global warming. 86.128.254.254 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone look over Linda Moulton Howe? In my opinion, this bio soft pedals the subject's role as a conspiracy/alien/crop circle fringe author and advocate. Until I recently fixed it, the article lead was identifying her only as an "investigative journalist", "filmmaker" etc. I haven't touched the article body, but I think it places undue weight on pre-1990s journalism and filmmaking awards and activities that occurred before she gravitated to the alien/crop circle/conspiracy fringe scene. Creates a false impression that all of those awards and activities apply to her fringe works (they don't). Other problems include paragraphs referring to her topic area as "science, medicine and the environment", referring to her website as a "news" site, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the article body was added in a single IP edit which geolocates to the subject's home town. Assuming it's sourced I think we could rebalance this to give a more accurate narrative. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

She's definitely notable, however she's only notable as being a UFO/conspiracy person, not as a science/environmental reporter. There are no published biographies of Howe, except those provided by Howe herself or places like Coast to coast AM. Re the long list of unsourced awards, someone on the talk page explains that "A lot of journalist articles on Wikipedia do not provide refs for Awards." - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Howe regularly reports on other science topics besides fringe, as evidenced by this index on her site: http://www.earthfiles.com/headlines.php?category=Science. A lot of journalists out there are assigned to the offbeat and weird news field. My problem with the article are all the "Linda this" and "Linda that" lead ins. Too personal. She's 70 years old. It's not like the networks are calling her. 5Q5 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Below are just the first 3 "science topics" found at the link given:

Science Reports

• 09/27/2012 — Ancient Foreign DNA Found in Modern Human DNA

• 09/24/2012 — Updated: Why Is NASA Faking Gale Crater Images On Mars?

• 08/17/2012 — Arctic Ice Melt Shrinks At Record Pace, While Greenland Also Melts

...the rest include equally questionable "science". Not sure WP should be calling her a "science reporter" when she's accusing NASA of faking evidence to hide aliens on Mars, etc. Fringe science reporter or conspiracy theorist perhaps, but not science reporter.- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly defending Howe, but it seems that she is the highest credentialed mainstream reporter ever to cover the fringe science field and she deserves some respect with regard to her earlier body of serious work. The problem with being a TV reporter is the lack of printed citations available. Newspapers of the era or any era don't write about and promote the work of competitors. Personally I think all the detailed travel stuff in the article is not encyclopedic other than to say generally that "she has traveled the word to cover stories" or whatever and that's it. Maybe other journalists' articles should be looked at to get some editing ideas. She probably has citations available and if asked could probably scan them to pdf and email them to any Wikipedia editor who want to reference the serious stuff in her career. Unfortunately, I'm too busy to do this. I have emailed her in the past and she has always responded politely. 5Q5 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources now in the article do not give Howe any credibility whatsoever as a science reporter or objective 'mainstream journalist'. Our sources actually say the opposite, naming her as an alien conspiracy advocate and placing her among top UFOlogy 'gurus' such as Whitley Strieber. That's why I think the vast (self-sourced) list of irrelevant past credentials is WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the article on Howe: Ms. Howe has received local, national and international awards, including three regional Emmys, a national Emmy nomination and a Station Peabody award for medical programming. The photo in the infobox is for one of the Emmys. The article is flagged at top for additional citations needed. Go ahead and add line flags to certain things if the general flag is not enough. In doing a Google search for other Journalist articles: site:en.wikipedia.org journalist -journalism I chose the top five on the results list, each if which has many citation problems: Jason King (journalist), Mark Levine (journalist), Gary Wolf (journalist), Dave Green (journalist), Ben Smith (journalist) (note all the self references). See also Buck Wolf Article quote: In 2009, Wolf launched the Weird News section at AOL News. After AOL purchased Huffington Post in 2011, Wolf and his core reporters formed HuffPost Weird News. Howe's article needs the travel stuff shortened per WP:AUTOPROB, WP:NOTRESUME. 5Q5 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added two early mainstream newspaper references and a "Criticism" section giving a sourced description of Howe as a "credulous journalist" by noted skeptic Joe Nickell. You ought to see the article on Art Bell if Howe's article seems too fringe science promoting and too detailed of yearly activities. Finished: I think this discussion post has played out and I am not going to contribute further. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

People here might want to take a look at this. It appears to be a book and TV Forteana series; notability is being questioned. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In trying to sort out the catechism category, I came upon this. Here's the problem: there are exactly three book references to this supposed document, all of them in the mid/late 1800s, and all of them in footnotes, as follows:

• The main passage is from St. Paul in Britain or the Origin of the British as opposed to Papal Christianity by Richard Williams Morgan, who to put it bluntly was a religious crank. He quotes an extended passage from this supposed work but gives no idea of where it came from.

• In Royal Captives by Clara Corfield, published in 1874 [26], there is a story in which the following lines appear:

The sacred scrolls of our sages say, "The state of happiness cannot be regained without knowing everything; and we cannot know everything without suffering every evil and every good that can come; for the state of happiness is perfect liberty, choosing the good and forsaking the evil, with open eyes."

This is cited in a footnote as "From the Coelbren Rhodd, a Druidic Catechism, of which a small part only is extant." The book appears to be a set of amusing/edifying tales, not a history or perhaps even historical fiction. In any case the quote corresponds to part of Morgan's transcription.

• There are a couple of references in a section on Druidism (written by "The Rev. A. H. McKinney, PhD., New York") in this survey from 1892. It's pretty clear he is also dependent upon Morgan.

Google Scholar gives nothing except Corfield's book. I am concerned about the notability of this work, or for that matter, whether it ever really existed. You would think, at least, that it would have a Cotton number or something like that. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good discussion. I suspect the document may be forged as Richard Williams Morgan was influenced by notable forger Iolo Morganwg. Problem with Morganwg is that he was a major manuscript collector in the 18th and 19th centuries and not all of his MSS were forged and finding out what manuscripts were used when and how over two centuries ago to produce his works and works based will give you a headache, I've looked at it and if there's a way of telling, it's beyond my research capabilities anyhow. Still, people liked his work, it became very notable and people started neo-druid movements based on this very flaky information. The article probably needs some sort of notification about it's limited reliability with regards being a genuine pre-Roman druidic document. I have no way of telling due to the limited sources of the catechism's origins that you have correctly identified. It would be cool if it was genuine, but some reservation should be made about it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why just not prod it or take it to AfD? It lacks reliable sources and there is no evidence of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking AFD but I wanted other opinions first. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything myself. The sources are old enough to be considered primary sources. We should be looking for a more recent academic response (if it's not a forgery, or establishing that it is a notable forgery). I can't find anything source-wise. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge it with the Rchard Williams Morgan. Itsmejudith (talk),

Before that I would suggest assessing the reliability of the content; if it is a forgery. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't received substantial coverage in multiple recent scholarly sources, it's difficult to justify it either having it's own stand-alone article, forgery or not. Forgeries can be notable, too. Think of the Donation of Constantine or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

As for merging, I wouldn't do that unless there were significant evidence of noteworthiness from modern scholars. After all, without that, it's just a trivial detail buried in a footnote in one of his many books. It would be hard to argue that it had any more significance than the rest of the content of his books.

As of now, I haven't found any recent reliable sources for this document, either. And I agree with IRWolfie that the sources used are too old, and qualify more as primary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting in an inquiry with Ronald Hutton to see if he can provide some guidance. Mangoe (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Smart move! Keep us posted! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hutton's reply has arrived. Short form: it is indeed a Iolo Morganwg fantasy. He has provided a book reference which I'm hunting down now. Mangoe (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hutton's comment

(which I'm paraphrasing since I wasn't able to ask him directly for permission to publish it) It's essentially something dreamed up by Iolo Morganwg and published by his son Taliesen Williams in Coelbren y Beirdd; Williams Morgan ran with it and expanded it, but it's completely bogus.

Hutton has a brief section on St. Paul in Britain in his book Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain; I have been able to read the passage, and it doesn't mention this specific spurious subwork by name. I've checked further, and I appears that almost all the web references to "Coelbren Rhodd" are either to us, to the primary source, to the other two 19th century references, or to search traps. Given what we have to work with, unless we get Hutton's email to me taken as a legitimate reference, there doesn't seem to be any other path to take but deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coelbren Rhodd Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted, but Paul appears to have effectively recreated it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is written far far from NPOV, and contains a lot of badly sourced undue fringe material. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most undue fringe material and most egregiously unreliable sources, but it still needs cleanup. There are plenty of decent references around. Cheers for the linking IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to ask for advice on the chiropractic page, namely about the sources. The article has lots of them, but many make vague statements that normally wouldn't be acceptable for statements in Wikipedia's editorial voice; some are also directly from chiropractors or people associated with chiropractors (e.g. sources 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 out of the first ten), and I'm not confident in my evaluation of whether they're being used appropriately or are reliable sources. I'm still thinking about how to approach this, so most of my edits have been relatively minor thus far.

Also, I think that the page Chiropractic controversy and criticism is a POV fork. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone bringing this issue up. I'm not sure why this page even showed up on so many watchlists. You're right that those sections are extremely biased. I think the fact that the article is on the agenda of several users on wiki has everything to do with why the article is so biased against chiropractic. If you would like some sources that may be less biased, check out pubmed and chiroaccess. Chiroaccess has a compilation of articles from many different journals, not "just" chiropractic journals. I think that sources that are obviously biased like the book "trick or treatment" should not be included in this article. Textbooks by leaders in the profession of chiropractic should count as valid sources. Information on hours of education should come from the chiropractic accrediting agency (Council on Chiropractic Education).

I think you bring up a really important issue. I do, however, think it's silly to not consider sources from chiropractic doctors to not be valid, although I understand the reasoning behind finding other sources too. I'd like to point out that this is an article about chiropractic, not about what other professions think about chiropractic. Does that make sense? Why don't we just keep the page about chiropractic instead of getting into a political war that has already been beat to death in most other forums?

Akdc14 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the points behind my questions. Any proper answers would be based in Wikipedia policy. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think something by the name of "Chiroaccess", would be something I would imagine has a lot of cherry picking. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think It looks a lot like a POV fork. I think it should be merged back in. Can you add a diff of a specific version of the article if you are using reference numbers, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The fringey LGBT fantasy of Jonathan and David hooking it up is heating up again, this time with a reference to a self-published website/book. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Panchakarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ayurveda-related 'detoxification processes', e.g. "Virechan is a process where bad doshas are brought out by the way of anal canal". Not exactly encyclopaedic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I redirected it. It was an unmitigated disaster of an article. I couldn't find any reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG/WP:FRINGE requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

Ectomorphic, Endomorphic and Mesomorphic are pretty much completely pseudoscientific, with sources made up of online weight-losing guides, body-building magazines and similar. They are presented as being genuine scientific concepts, while they are probably of more interest described as cultural phenomena. We already have Somatotype for this, so I personally think an outright deletion with the pages being replaced with redirects to Somatotype would be a proper solution. Autharitus (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing is a complete disaster. It also seems to be acting as some sort of Guide as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you and another editor removed the guidelike parts of the articles; I wonder, however, if there is any merit in keeping them at all. They represent what is thought of as nonsense by most (all?) of the modern scientific community, are completely void of reliable sources (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) and present the subjects in an inappropriate manner. I don't think they are salvageable. Should I mark them for deletion? I'm a very new editor, which is why I came here to discuss the issue beforehand. Autharitus (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar for these three terms brings up 1,300 results.[27] We may not be successful at AfD. TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is true, and a search for "somatotypes" [28] yields 10,6k results, with 5,5k from 2000 and onwards. Some of the articles are published in (presumably) notable scientific journals such as American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Journal of Applied Biomechanics. However, it also seems that somatyping is not widely used in the mainstream scientific community, and thus that the somatotypes are not of enough importance to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, the current articles have no credibility at all. Autharitus (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to redirect them all into somatotype. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes just redirect them all Bhny (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There's no benefit in having four separate articles when one can do the job nicely. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and merged these yesterday. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a section on arithmetic in Eye of Horus which seems to be complete numerological bosh. Searching 'Eye of Horus numbers" in GBooks produces two hits, both of which look to be misses. I'm inclined to delete this and another section which refers to it, but I want to bounce this off of others first. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, It is unsourced numerological bosh... tagged as potential OR since last March. I am removing. If an editor objects to removal, let them come up with a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The section deleted is more detailed than what I know, but it is consistent with what I've read. The ancient Egyptians used parts from the hieroglyph of the eye of Horus as symbols for fractions, but only as 1/2, 1/4, etc. as the section explained. The section actually gave extensive references to various important papyri, so it was sourced. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the kind of sourcing it needs - it needs references to modern scholarship that reaches the conclusions being presented, not references to papyri that contain fractions. Agricolae (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a genuine an important aspect of the topic [29]. I'm no mathematician, and I really couldn't make much sense of the section as it was written. It was also unclear how the fractions were related to the eye as such. But we should have at least something there. This is not the best source for mathematics, but at least it's clear! [30] Paul B (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So fix it... I doubt anyone will have an objection to the article including a section on mathematical use of the eye, if such can be reliably sourced (see Agricolae's comment above)... but what was there either improperly relied on primary sources or was completely unsourced... ie Original Research. Add to that the Fringe numerological ideas and the best solution was to remove and hope someone will replace what was there with something more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't "numerological bosh" that's for sure. I'm no mathematician, as I said. I am not best placed to fix it. I was merely trying to find appropriate evidence that it's not fringy nonsense. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources abound for some of this material MathWorld, nrich, a search for "Eye of Horus fraction" yields many more. The section does need a lot of work . I suspect the original author may well be Milogardner (talk · contribs) who has a Community Ban preventing him from work on Egyptian Mathematics. He does have a particular style evident here. There is lots of basic things right in his work but he does tend to spin things greatly.--Salix (talk): 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have been a major contributor. The version before he came along is easier to understand (pace spelling), if equally uncited [31]. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The older version also has the advantage that it actually says something about the Eye of Horus -- the newer (now removed) version seemed to be entirely about the fractions without making any connection whatsoever to the Eye itself. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found a good reference "Professor Stewart's Hoard of Mathematical Treasures". I've now added a very brief section on the mathematics.--Salix (talk): 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I think we've got this covered. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been adding a theory about "The Electric Universe" to the article on the Tunguska event. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Tunguska_event#Electric_universe_section, and I'd appreciate other editors' input on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not support including the section,[32] because (a) it is supported by only a primary source published on a website suggesting that it does not meet WP:IRS (b) the source is speculative, but is written as fact, suggesting that it fails WP:SYNTHESIS.--Iantresman (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Element 115 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vague waffle about a fictional 'element' (not to be confused with the actual Element 115) supposed by conspiracy theorists to be involved somehow in UFO propulsion. I'm tempted to go straight to AfD, but is there actually any real 'popular culture' (beyond the tinfoil-hat brigade) actually referring to this, or is this just a coatrack for a non-notable conspiracy theory? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just a coatrack for Bob Lazar. I'm for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is the conspiracy of one person (Lazar) and is already mentioned in his article. Bhny (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to change the lead to something readable and informative, but it keeps getting reverted Bhny (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Each of these articles focus in several places on reviews or comments by J. Mutter and collaborators, who have argued [33] [34] [35] that dental amalgams are not safe. Several large scale studies and national health groups have came to the opposite conclusion, FDA World dental federation ADA Life sciences research office, although their use is currently banned in some nordic countries. Does the current version of the article give undue weight to the Mutter studies? Similarly, there's a few other outstanding issues such as questionable primary sources [36] and they could just use some general cleanup. Would appreciate more eyes. Cheers a13ean (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If a bunch of serious scientists say that they believe it to be true - then even if the majority think it's not - then it's hardly a fringe matter. Controversial, yes - but I don't think this is fringe. Mercury is a nasty poison - but not in it's pure, elemental form. However, toxicity from small amounts of mercury compounds builds up in the body over time. Elemental mercury is what is held in a silver amalgam in a tooth filling - not a mercury compound - so on the face of it, it's safe. However, there are a large (and rapidly increasing) range of chemicals passing through people's mouths all the time - and if any one of them happens to react with mercury to form some kind of compound - then amalgam fillings could very well leach toxic mercury compounds and would be dangerous. So it's not at all unreasonable to at least suspect them of causing problems. I don't think this is a fringe matter. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unaware of the specifics, as far as I am aware it was a fairly fringe view. The problem is in quantifying the size of the "bunch of serious scientists". YI suggest asking at Wikiproject medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience, someone at Rejuvenation Research appears to be removing sourced explanation of its fringey nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a WP:SPA for that article. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor, Iantresman (before anyone asks, he recently had topic ban removed), is arguing that a book on the plasma universe is not fringe at Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration and that it should be listed in a non-fringe article. More opinions welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a "fringe suggestion" to call that a non-fringe item. It is what WP:FRINGE was designed for. And you can quote me on that. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken things to arbitration enforcement since this civil POV pushing has occured so soon after his topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think requesting arbitration enforcement is exceedingly premature. Additionally, I think the failure to alert Iantresman that his conduct has been mentioned here is rather telling. Give the user a chance to participate in the discussion before assuming bad faith is at core. My76Strat (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up of this discussion from the WP:AE. I have not edited the article in question since 2006. I don't think we need to have yet another discussion here. --Iantresman (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is at Dusty Plasmas Strat, not here. Iantresman watches this page (scroll up). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Coelbren Rhodd and Saint Paul in Britain were immediately recreated following the discussion here and AfD. I've put it up for AfD again; as I don't get what has changed in the interim. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "King of Fringe" statement made by Paul above may have indeed been a valid proclamation. Even if you Afd this one, it may come back again... But experience tells us that these reigns have a 6-12 month cycle. So long live the king, for the next N-months... ... (N < 12).... We all know where this will lead in the end. It will take time, but the destination is clear. This is much less of a content issue that a user activity issue. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that it was Mangoe's (the proposer's) suggestion to create and merge the page that way after a result of a very narrow 4 to 3 vote. Now if you'll excuse me, N is probably < 32, so I have to get back to the Temples of the Beqaa Valley for now. Will be back soon after. ;-)

Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood me. It would be nice to lump all the bardic/druidic catechism stuff into a single article which ties it all together. I don't see how we can do that, though, without getting Hutton or someone else with creds to write that book or those journal articles first. I have obtained Hutton's book, and it treats the subject at too high a level to help us: it discusses both our two fictionalizing authors, but it doesn't tie specific works to each other. Personally at this point I'm inclined to merge this stuff back to Richard Williams Morgan and specifically state him as the author of these texts. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I read Hutton's book too, agree and get your point. However, I think it would be in breach of Wikipedia notability guidelines to do that as the book was a major work in the development of Neo-Celtic Christianity and the Ancient British Church, which needs it's own article and I will create to expand these discussions. The consideration of reincarnation as one of their central doctines is notable somehow, and that's what I really care about keeping. The reference to the Coelbren Rhodd is to encourage the Welsh to dig it out of the original text where it was mentioned and start studying it again as I am sure this debate has inspired some curiosity into a fascinating subject. I am not too bothered where it fits, as long as somewhere. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no role to play in encouraging the Welsh to do anything. As I pointed out in an edit summary, this is not a major part of Morgan's book on St. Paul and British Christianity, and does it receive any significant attention in mainstream sources (and little elsewhere). And looking at an AfD discussion and deciding that there was a vote which was narrow and thus can be ignored is wrong in at least two ways. There could be more keep !votes than deletes and a decision to delete could still be valid if the policy issues pointed towards delete and the keep !votes didn't have policy on their side. When you can find some significant discussions of this "Coelbren Rhodd" it might have a place in an article, either Morgan's or some other article. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In light of that info, it will be interesting to see how that decision goes on the Hugh Montgomery (historian) page after the new Serbian sources added tonight. Thanks (again) for all your guidance and help Doug. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Koolokamba (talk · contribs) has a website macroevolution.net which includes a self-published alternate theory of evolution. The website has been added to a number of articles as an external link, and occasionally as a reference, although not necessarily to the alternative theory portion.

Examples:

• addition ahead of Science magazine
• as a reference
• linking to own annotated edition of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

Based on the site supporting a self-published "alternative theoretical formulation", to what extent should it be discouraged as an external link? Novangelis (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like self promotion, I suggest cross posting at WP:ELN as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done[37] I did everything but flip a coin, prior to posting. It is cross-listed.Novangelis (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It should simply be removed where ever it appears, it's not reliable, it advocates a fringe position and so it's not suitable as an external link. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting information:

User talk:Raeky#The macroevolution edit that you undid.

Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Macroevolution.net

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_32#Darwin was Nearly Right (Click on the show link to see collapsed "Off-topic discussion of work by Eugene McCarthy")

Also see [ http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf ] pages 239-244 (page numbers on the pages) or 262-267 (Adobe Reader page numbering):

"Like certain ankylosaurs, some of these giant armadillos had tail clubs. In both ankylosaurs and armadillos, these clubs could be armed with long, bony spikes. These observations suggest that paleontologists have created an artificial distinction by classifying Mesozoic 'ankylosaurs' as reptiles and post-Mesozoic armadillos as mammals."

"The modern giant armadillo is so similar to the ancient ankylosaurs that it is only reasonable to suppose it is descended from them. The same is true for pangolins and stegosaurids (although the case is somewhat weaker because the exact external form of stegosaurids is a point in dispute). These similarities strongly suggest that two of the most common 'dinosaurs' of the so-called Age of Reptiles—ankylosaurs and stegosaurids—were in fact mammals, and, even more remarkably, that their direct descendants exist even today. So in their cases, it seems, there was no 'extinction of the dinosaurs' - there was merely a reconceptualization and reclassification (both may be cases of residual dwarfism; see p. 221)."

So the Armadillo and Pangolin are direct descendents of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus, which, by the way, were mammals. It doesn't get much more WP:FRINGE that that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though I couldn't actually find him listed anywhere in UGA's website as facelty/staff, and I did find someone by his name as a recent Ph.D. graduate there, his views are so out there on things I find it hard to believe he's under the employ of UGA... I was just confused by the whole thing, he was trying to treat me as a no-nothing-typical-undergraduate who should respect his authority and believe everything he says. But what he says is against everything I've read about, and seems to ignore just buckets of facts about these fossils, and tries to fit them into his own version of evolution... WP:FRINGE to be sure. — raekyt 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been removing criticism of BLP and adding supposed peer-reviewed papers. Bhny (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm exhausted defending the page. It could do with some help. There's some online journals that an editor thinks are peer reviewed, but I can't see how any BLP paper would pass any kind of peer review. Bhny (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to have a lot of energy, using Blacklight power... kidding. I reverted him. Seems like an ISP. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this kind of thing is strictly in the spirit of WP. I would have thought that you shouldn't be defending the page at all, but looking to improve it. You asked for a peer reviewed article, I provided two. There are more. I also provided you with this: The International Journal of Energy Research operates an online submission and peer review system... (from here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-114X/homepage/ForAuthors.html) and [Int. J. Green Energy] uses ScholarOne Manuscripts (previously Manuscript Central) to peer review manuscript submissions. (from here: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ljge20&page=instructions). Perhaps we might make more progress if people weren't trying to freeze and protect a version of the article. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I agree with the other editors that WP:Fringe applies here. It is another one of those "free energy" situations. History2007 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly you appear to have fallen into the same trap as "the other editors". This is an article about a company, not a theory. The company is very real, and by various accounts, very well invested in. Please point out to me where WP:Fringe endorses the use of an emotive term ("bullshit") sourced from a blog in the lede of such an article (fringe or otherwise). Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Harsh criticism should be attributed" WP:ITA, (which seems to be saying we should put the professors name before his quote). It's not up to us to censor criticism Bhny (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am absolutely against the use of profanities in Wikipedia or in real life. But I am also against the use of fringe. And that a company is well invested in has no bearing on the fringe nature of the claims. Many people invested in fringe ideas that never flew. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

e/c

Have a look at WP:ITA and explain how this version:

Several prominent physicists have been extremely critical of the underlying physical theory, calling it "extremely unlikely", "bull shit" and "fraud" and suggesting that their investors are fools and dupes, while IEEE Spectrum magazine listed BlackLight as a "loser" technology."

demonstrates a careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone AND that this version does not do that:

Several prominent physicists have been critical of BLP's claims and IEEE magazine listed BlackLight as a "loser" technology.

And while you're at it, please explain when prominent physicists opinion about investors ever mattered? Are you willing to change anything??? Perhaps you could offer up a version that would address the tripartate concerns of i) maintaining a neutral tone, ii) not confusing personal views of physicists outside their area of expertise with their professional publications inside their fields of expertise, and iii) accounting for the fact that there has been considerable activity in recent months - from the article as it stands a new reader reader would have absolutely no idea about the claims relating to validation etc. NOTE that I AM NOT saying the validation claims are published, true, valid, or anything else - however if someone was to be informed about BLP purely from this article they would come away missing a HUGE part of the story. Suggestions? (other than "let's leave it exactly as it is") 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So who are the 'experts here then? The "investors with deep pockets and shallow brains"? 'Blacklight Power' is bullshit, and Wikipedia isn't going to suggest otherwise just to enable more pocket-mining. WP:FRINGE is entirely clear on this - if someone comes up with a bullshit theory, we will say it is bullshit as long as science does, regardless of how much money the bullshit is raking in. Find somewhere else to publicise this scam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Blacklight article has a LONG history of being attacked by proven COI editors from the company itself and various paid shills. They are desperate to get a less critical article posted here on Wikipedia so that they can continue to pull in gullible investors before it becomes clear that they can't deliver on their claims and the bubble bursts. It is our responsibility to prevent them from doing that and to express only the pure, unvarnished truth - which WP:RS's demonstrate is that their theory is bullshit and that they are actively defrauding investors. We can't repeatedly dilute the message here. We're an encyclopedia for chrissakes. This kind of behavior is precisely why the WP:FRINGE policy exists. SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I get it, you're protecting the gullible and the hapless. Terrific. Great. Now, how about we abandon the conspiracy theories and self styled investment advice and get back to the very simple issues I have raised. How EXACTLY does the version I am suggesting - of the lede mind you, not the entire article - how can you claim that is NOT a disinterested tone and the version you are defending IS??? How about a bit of honesty here - I'm not advocating any kind of whitewash or beat up, I'm just trying to make this article better and more encyclopaedic. WP isn't about protecting people, it's about providing accurate information so that people can protect themselves. And while some of you seem to have some sort of inside quasi-divine knowledge about BLP, I don't. I'm just trying to use WP:RS's to make the article better. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Given nobody seems overly concerned about such a poor quality lede, perhaps someone is at least willing to entertain the idea of making some of the body accurate and up to date. The Patents section is currently devoted to BLP failing to secure a patent for the power production process, however this is no longer the case and should be rectified. Does anyone object to such a change? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What 'power production process'? Given the complete lack of verifiable evidence that BLP does anything other than extract money from the gullible, we certainly aren't going to allow any patents that may have been granted (source?) to be misrepresented as evidence that anything works - this isn't what patents are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, could I suggest we just stick to the basic facts rather than getting into a debate about verifiable evidence, money extraction, and what WP is/isn't for. I'm asking a simple question. The current section on patents is factually in error. The bulk of the writing talks about a failure of BLP to obtain a patent for the alleged energy production. This is out of date - or at least only of historical interest now. Here [[38]] is the patent. So my question is, would anyone object to updating the Patents section to include this fact? Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The link seems to be to a patent application. It is also a primary source. Even if the patent has been granted, we'd need a reliable third-party source to tell us whether it was of any significance. A patent is no indication whatsoever that the invention claimed either works, or is of any commercial utility. Without any indication of the patent's relevance, there are no grounds for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm somehow not making myself clear. There is already a section in the article about Patents. Much of it talks about how BLP did not get one. There appears to be a consensus that this is of some significance. If it is significant that they did not have a Patent, then it is at least as significant that, now, they have one. So the article ought to be updated accordingly. That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting any of the things you then have gone on about - I'm not suggesting it isn't a primary source, or that it is in some way significant beyond the significance already attributed to the lack of a patent in the article, or that the invention works, or that it has utility. It is a simple point that Patents are already there, so current Patent information is relevant. How controversial is that? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The patents section currently uses secondary sources to indicate the significance of the applications. You have neither provided a source which states that a patent has been granted, nor one indicating that this patent is seen as having any significance by anyone other than BLP, who may very well wish to imply that it does. Find such sources, and inclusion can be considered - we aren't going to make such assumptions for ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I helped to rewrite that section) Secondary sources give a great amount of importance to the rejection of the 2000 patent. Now Mills has made a new 2012 application. It's months, even years, away from rejection or acceptance, and there are no secondary sources assessing its importance. I wouldn't oppose adding one sentence to point out that Mills has submitted a new application, just to keep the reader up to date. But we shouldn't imply that a new application somehow voids all the previous trouble over hydrino patents. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If all that has happened is that there has been a patent application (which isn't what the anon IP was claiming), and there has been no comment on this in secondary sources, I see no reason to amend the section at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the big picture here. Energy is a big deal. We drill down miles for it, we expend a huge effort splitting atoms for it, we move mountains to get at it. And sometimes we go to war over it. There are literally thousands of individuals and corporations that all claim to have something that can sit on a tabletop and produce large amount of energy without needing any pesky oil wells, coal mines or nuclear reactors. If any of them could actually demonstrate such a thing, we would know about it from it being on the front page of every media outlet, followed by a Nobel Prize, the collapse of the Saudi Arabian economy, and Japan shutting down all of its reactors. And we would have no problem finding citations to reliable sources. Also see: [ http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/free_energy.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good GOD!!! I had no idea I'd stumbled into such a moral panic!! I am amazed that so many people seem to think that making an article more accurate and encyclopaedic would be seen as akin to trying to set up some kind of paedophile ring! I get it. Protect the innocent. If it were true we'd all be in hover-cars. Randall Mills is probably evil. Currently accepted scientific theories are TRUE and INVIOLABLE!! Ok, ok, I promise to repeat this litany of faith each and every night before I go to sleep. NOW can we get back to making the article better? And by better I just mean two simple things: as accurate as we can, and as encyclopaedic as we can. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:BlackLight Power. BTW, there is no need to call me "God". "Guy" will do. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having seen your nifty work on the lede I'm not so sure!! 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really my area, but this BLP has virtually no sources that aren't directly related to the subject or by the subject, and is mainly a long list of publications. He seems to be a "Master interviewer, writer and consciousness explorer" Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It will never end: they have all figured out (not hard anyway) that the price for putting subtle advertising in Wikipedia is pretty low.... It will take huge amounts of effort to fight them all off. And I am not sure what can be done about it, given the commercial incentives they have. He can just take 3 days of your life before it is over. Then another one will show... I will comment there anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jay Brown Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This section Sex_magic#Samael Aun Weor appears to give a lot of weight to a particular modern fringe theory from primary sources, which also invokes terminology that sounds scientific. Opinions on what to do with it? I would have thought this article would cover the topic from a historical perspective. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd just delete it as untrliably sourced. Looks like (self)-promotion. If anybody disagrees, they'll have to come up with reliable independent secondary sources, which I doubt exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree... I would probably keep the first sentence: "According to Samael Aun Weor, Arnold Krumm-Heller taught sexual magic without ejaculation." (cited to one of Weor's books). It could be argued that Weor is an expert on Kromm-Heller, and if so I think this sentence and citation may be acceptable... Weor would be an independent secondary source in the context of discussing Krumm-Heller.

The rest of the section, however, is about Weor... and for that we need to base what we say on an independent source... someone who might qualify as expert on Weor (in this context, Weor is a primary, dependent source for his own thoughts and ideas). Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Weor is an widely recogized expert on anything outside of his circle of fringe admirers, at least not one that's notable enough so that his statement about Krumm-Heller carries any weight. The source in question, in any case, is self-published without anything resembling editorial or peer review, and that would disqualify it being used for statements about third parties. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well... context is important. The sentence isn't actually making a claim about a third party... Because the sentence attributes the opinion, it is actually making a claim about Weor (what he thinks about Krumm-Heller's teachings). But that raises a WP:UNDUE issue... Does mentioning Weor's opinion about Krumm-Heller give Weor's opinion undue weight? I don't know enough about the topic to judge that question, and so will defer to those who do know the topic. I certainly don't insist on mentioning Weor... just presenting it as a possibility. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A notable fringe topic, in that Wicca believers and similar assert that the Celts, Anglo-Saxons or both divided the year into 8 sections marked by festivals. That doesn't make it true.

Our article was already full of unsourced juxtapositions but now someone has added even more supposedly linked festivals to the table. I'm minded to take the table out completely. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just removing the funniest overlinking ever. All things. Do we have a collection of these foolishnesses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house and my own contribution to this vitally important and in no way fringe area of research, User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. I hope this helps... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article also doesn't seem to distinguish between historical pagan practices and the current wiccan ones. It seems to give the impression that there is an unbroken tradition, rather than wiccans arriving much more recently and essentially just adopting what they believed the ancient festivals to be. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well at least we have the Chinese festivals out of the picture now. Quarter days (roughly coinciding with the solstices and equinoxes) are for real, and so are the Scottish term days. Add together four anglo-saxon calendar points and four Scottish (=Celtic) ones, equals 8 in some sort of Germanic-Celtic pagan twilight. In any case all these term dates are quite variable, and any pre-Christian survivals would take a lot of expertise to disentangle from centuries of Christianisation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A mix of sourced criticism and crazy quackery - like claiming sticking a red LED up your nose will effectively treat you.

Article seems ok to me. It doesn't say it's a medical procedure or claim that it cures anything Bhny (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing looks reliable to me. Whether you think the therapy itself is crazy or not, all we care about is having properly sourced articles. Fringe or not, if the sources are good and the article is written neutrally, then that's all that matters. Silverseren^C 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

pulls string of LEDs out of nose I agree with Silver Seren, neutral, well sourced articles are the goal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is a bizarre mess. I've tried to clean it up a bit, but it needs more work. It reads like a fan page. As far as I can gather this guy is an engineer who in his retirement wrote a bunch of "Jesus bloodline" books arguing that there was some sort of conflict between competing Jesus Dynasties that played out in medieval Europe. Or something. He seems to have died, but I can't locate any obits giving birth and death dates. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. I think he died very very recently. The article is apparently written by someone who knows him personally. User:Paul Barlow (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• That someone would of course be the King of Fringe. Perhaps I should change my name to Paul Ulvungar to disambiguate us if we are to be working in similar fields, or possibly Sigismundus. Thanks for your help on this article in any case. You are correct in that I did share a dinner conversation or two with Monty in 2007 and have all his wonderful books, history and genealogies in my head if you need any factual specifics. I have heard through a friend that he died (as well as noting his absence from the Fleur de Lys charity board) and will try to make some enquiries to get better biography specifics now the page is made. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But why is his page called "historian" given that it was by and large a late life hobby for him? The page title already 'telegrams a credential he never had'. The page should say Hugh Montgomery (engineer) in any case. His book is published by "The Book Tree" - not exactly Oxford Univ Press. Does he even pass WP:NOTE? If he passes NOTE then at least the page should make it clear he was an engineer, not a historian. History2007 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as a side note to Paul Barlow, the "King of Fringe" joke may just ring true now that Brucie is no longer with us. That position is now open, but let us hope it remains as such. Who knows, by combining this with the thread above on dental fillings, Bruce would have had a field day, and proposed a new theory... But seriously the less fringe, the better. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so sure on the engineer subtitle, I judged his work as a historian to be his primary reason for notablilty according to the sources, even if he trained in engineering. Alexander Thom is notable for work in Archaeoastronomy rather than in engineering, and that's what most sources would likely say too. Sources also say he lectured in history and was a professor and former president at the Megatrend University, so I would argue it is the primary reason for notability. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, call him Hugh Montgomery (author) then to avoid the debate. Historian is certainly no qualification for him, given that he never trained in that field, and is an honorary title bestowed by this article. And the article has statements like "advanced the scholarship of the likes of Dan Brown" Since when is Dan Brown a scholar? He was a singer/songwriter and taught high school before becoming a novelist. Did Brown's Wiki-page miss his tenure at Stanford or somewhere? These are popular writers with no claim to scholarship in these fields. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, deal. But Hugh Montgomery (historian) should redirect there until a better historian by his name comes along. I thought he was an awesome historian. You could throw anyone in medieval history at him and he'd know who their mom was. And well noticed, I'll change "scholarship" to theories. I thought I'd blasted them enough with Monty's "vehement debunking". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the "You could throw anyone in medieval history at him and he'd know who their mom was" seems based on your single dinner conversation with him, and as such is original research as an over dinner assessment of him, not a WP:RS situation. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As a historian, genealogist (and author in those fields), he utterly fails notability - his works are all self-published, and for the history and genealogy section, most of the references are to his own books. The only three exceptions are a page of a charity documenting his involvement, a newspaper story about a visiting princess that contains none of the quotes it is being cited to support, and an on-line newsletter of a private society of no great note that contained a review of his work (which, by the way, was not written by the person given credit for it in the footnote). In the scholarly historical community, he has received no notice whatsoever outside of the insular 'everyone descends from Jesus' fringe crowd, and the majority of his works are so fringe as to fail to even merit comment. As to his career as an engineer or academician, I see nothing to support notability. The only possible claim would be as a local politician, but I don't see him meeting the notability standards for that either. He is being given a page to memorialize his fringe genealogy, and that is utterly non-notable. Agricolae (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed the Cambridge University reference. As for notability, I count multiple (5) reliable newspaper sources along with that and the charity. Plus the Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia said he is "well known" and I don't argue with princesses. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A local interest write-up in the hometown newspaper, circulation, what? 500? No. What determines notability for a historian is recognition by historians. As to the 'princess', Yugoslavia doesn't have any royalty, nor has it for over half-a-century, while 'her highness' has to go back to 1858 to find an ancestor who ruled any part of Yugoslavia. A dynast who doesn't recognize the last 150 years of history and who has a clear conflict of interest is hardly a judge of historical notability. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae's analysis now. If you want to Afd it, I would support it. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Mangoe did the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian) Afd for it. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There are over 30 local and regional notable, reliable sources on there now after a lot of expansion. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of his notability was never really on-topic here, just the extreme fringiness of his oeuvre. Now that an AfD has been opened, it is really time to close out the discussion here and continue it there. Agricolae (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The fringy nature of Montgomery's work has come up in the AfD, and this is really the better place for that discussion. In summarizing his work on the so-called House of Ulvungar, the article states, "The First Ulvungar dynasty he describes as being descendants of Sigfred, who he calls Harald Hythetan or Herioldus Brocus". Sigfred is known from two references - one simply calls him king. A later king is then called the nepos of Sigfred. How about Harald. He is known historically from a single reference in the same chronicle, which calls Sigfred's successor the nepos of Harald. That is the sum total of the historical record. Unfortunately, the situation is made more complex by the much later sagas, which build Harald and Sigfred into the legendary Harald Hildtaand and Sigurd Ring, uncle and nephew, who fought an apocalyptic battle. Scholars are divided based on whether the sagas, in general, are to be used as the underpinning of a historical reconstruction, or instead if this account is just a highly distorted representation of the historical rivalry between the dynasties of Harald and Sigfred which was fought out over the next half-century. One view makes the two relatives, the other makes them unrelated rivals. Montgomery, flying in the face of both the scant historical record, saga tradition and scholarly principles, decides to make them the same person. That is not historical research, it is fringe. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting the 'proof' to take the form of an RS saying "experts have dismissed his ideas as <fringe>" (or any of its synonyms)... not a bunch of YOUR research we're supposed to follow to arrive at that assessment; and unfortunately I found the linked article Sigfred was even more confusing and not too helpful or compelling in terms of proving any points. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, au contraire, if an idea is far out fringe respectable scholars do not waste their breath discussing it. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, so then "fringe" often isn't even something that can be defined using sources - you just gotta know it in your heart when you see it, when something really deserves to be marginalised... which also makes it so much easier to dismiss, reject and ignore any sources that do discuss it as well, by association... Hmmm, I'm learning... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is straightforward actually. If I write a blog tomorrow that promotes the theory that hydrogen has in fact 3 electrons, but two of them are always cleverly hidden by an unusual gravity effect that can never be observed due to constant variations in Plank's constant, you will probably not find a single physicist who will even address that. History2007 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What you write on your blog could be complete junk, but let's say you got 160,000 followers to sign up and say they believe it... then I'd say it's at least as notable for coverage as Dudeism, even if it is all bogus. The threshold for notability seems to be a significant number of followers, not how right or wrong it is, which is supposed to be a separate question from notability. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Fringe (not equal to WP:NOTE), the number of lay people matters not on scholarly issues. But I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I am not responsible for your expectations. Of course experts haven't called him fringe - he took distinct people with different names, documented by both the primary record and the saga tradition, every record that exists, and decided to pretend they are the same man, and self-published it. He might as well have decided that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the same person. No expert has called him fringe because they can't be bothered. It is not MY research. I could cite scholarly works that discuss the evidence as I have laid it out, but none of them will satisfy your expectation, so I won't bother. As to the Sigfred article, on that we agree. It is vague, misleading, inaccurate and incomplete. One could argue that he is not notable, given that he has not received significant coverage. Agricolae (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to show this is not MY research, see the following. Note that while simply posted on-line to a site that falls well below the standards of reliability, the author is arguably an 'expert' by Wikipedia standards, being a fellow of the American Society of Genealogists (the premier body of American genealogists, comprising fewer than 50 fellows, and by my count he is one of only two continental medievalists among the current fellowship). [39] Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"One could argue that he [Sigfred] is not notable, given that he has not received significant coverage." - exactly - which would be even more obviously wrong, since laying out what precise references there are for figures from obscure 9th century lore is precisely what wikipedia is useful for IMO. So where do you draw the line? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't mean the information cannot be laid out, just that giving Sigfred his own page may not be the best way to do it. One could better justify putting what little there is for Ongantyr, Sigfred, Harold, Gottfred, Sigfred (II) and Anulo on a single page that summarizes 8th and 9th century Danish history, rather than creating what can never be more than stubs for each person called 'king' by a chronicler. (I leave out the earlier 'historical' king Chlochilaicus, because the substantial body of scholarship identifying him as the historical basis for Beowulf's Hygelac confers a greater notability on him than would be justified by the historical record alone.) Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're hypothetically speaking, that would be a far stricter standard than currently imposed; and most of the major languages also happily give separate pages for quasi-historical monarchs, which all interwiki-link to each other. Sigfred's articles in Danish, French, Greek and Russian all seem to be in a slightly better referenced state than ours. I know that's neither here nor there and we are digressing from the original analogy, but just had to say it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard in English Wikipedia can basically be summarized as 'significant coverage' - if you will never be able to write write more than a stub, then you shouldn't make a page. At least in English one has to look pretty hard to find any serious scholar who has dedicated more than about two sentences, if that, to any of these 'kings'. Agricolae (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been here to back you up on a few points Til. Good going though. I'd point out firstly that History2007's frequent comparison of the fields of History and Particle physics are a rather poor one in context of comparing two fields of study. History and Genealogies are much larger fields of study than the basics of a hydrogen atom. In my opinion, what Monty's done is laid down the genealogies as best he can, with a few spelling mistakes I am sure, and made little "fringe" comment about it that would get him picked up for negative review. I guess no-one will ever hear about the three out of four sources Monty examines in his books. We only have details of the Gospel of Phillip on Wikipedia, so could be considered 75% in the dark on the whole subject. The Liber Burgundiorum manuscript Monty gleaned from the collections of William Montgomery (1633-1706) (also in the collection of Hugh Sinclair that says "Jesus and Mary produced Mary", along with another he calls Document 1, again from the collection of William Montgomery, who was an ancient languages grad from the University of Leiden translated it from Latin translation of what he considers may have been a Syraic or Hebrew original to read "Yeshua begat on his wife Miriam of Bethany (of the house) of Saul, a daughter ...and on Mirium (of the house of) Ethiopia a son ...and (a daughter)... and Joseph of the House of Arimathea begat on ...". He also cites the The Legend of Mary Magdalene, a 13th century source about Jesus being a married King. I do wonder sometimes why we're so involved in discussions sometimes and not busier getting on making intersting content for our Encyclopedia about those red links I, for one find fascinating for incorporation into my world view. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And here is the difference between scholarly genealogy and what Montgomery and others (e.g. the likewise self-published David Hughes, cited across Wikipedia until I purged it all) practice - 'ancestor collecting'. A scholarly genealogist knows that a document written in the 13th century cannot possibly be considered a reliable source for events that happened in the first century. Playing magpie collector of names, stinging them together without any thought to evaluating the relative reliability of sources is what genealogists in past centuries practiced. Genealogists and antiquarians of the past were not above jumping to conclusions, allowing biases to infect their work and even forging sources, but the goal was an interesting tale, not a reliable account of the past. Modern scholarly genealogy is different - it relies on contemporary and near contemporary documentation, evaluating the reliability of the sources and the motivations of the writers, with the goal of reflecting what can be documented reliably or rationally deduced, and nothing more, even if that means concluding that the pedigree cannot be traced as far as one might want. One approach is anathema to the other (both ways, Hughes has publicly decried the application of scholarly analysis to pedigrees, as it deprives the reader of interesting stories by eliminating the nonsense). The two, while producing works that are superficially similar in appearance, share a similar relationship to that between police detectives and psychic crime-solvers, with the former dismissing the latter as cranks, and the latter the former as closed-minded by-the-numbers plodders. Wikipedia, in aiming to be scholarly, favors the closed-minded plodders over the cranks, unless the cranks manage to make their fringery notable in the popular media. Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But the reality is this Agricolae:

• By virtue of the decade old nature of Wiki culture (may I say that it borders on gluttony?) it is pretty hard to stop users from adding fringe items - all that can be done is to spend effort discussing it, do an Afd as above, discuss it again and again until the page is deleted, the item is determined to be fringe and removed, etc. The Montgomery page is already on that train and will reach the destination in a few days.

• The types of users who have a natural penchant for fringe then typically focus their efforts elsewhere and add other fringe items that they find interesting, and the cycle continues elsewhere for some time.

• After a long while most of the fringe will go away, and a pattern gets established with respect to the user behavior.

• The rest is well known, per policy.

My guess is that this is just part of that trend, so it will just have to take its natural course. So need to worry about it too much. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. That is why I haven't even bothered to remove the genealogical fringe from the article - it will go away on its own when the page goes away (unless the closing administrator gets hoodwinked, in which case I will start editing the article). I just wanted to go on record to explain why it is fringe, as there is a rather poor understanding of what distinguishes good vs bad, reliable vs unreliable, due vs undue, and mainstream vs fringe genealogy on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that. Dougweller has e-mailed Megatrend and we are hoping to get a reply after the weekend to confirm or deny Montgomery as the first or second president of that institution. I'm still standing fast that thisisstaffordshire.co.uk + Serbian sources = WP:POLITICIAN on the grounds of being a major local figure with major press coverage. I really want WP:SCHOLAR though as that might imply RS on non-fringe stuff and you would be amazed what I could pull out of the bag with that. I totally agree that the Legend of Mary Magdalene is of limited reliability, as does Monty. His only comment on it is a suspicion that the Golden Legend version was written to cover up a 17th century translation of a different version known to be around southern France at the time of the Albigensian crusade in 1209 CE. Far more important is the Pseudo-Abdias that Montgomery's work has inspired me to write. You can compare that to our current Abdias of Babylon article that is hopelessly trying to cover the subject from a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia. It has a succession of translators and suggested authors and different versions which is the subject of much scholarly conjecture, a bit like a genealogy and perfectly valid here. I don't even have time to tell you about the differences Montgomery found in the Abdias Manuscript from the Norris Collection that inspired me to write the article. I'll have to leave you 99.9% in the dark on that one for now we'll have to stick with the goldeney legend, Pseudoey type stuff. As you say though, the useless material will go away with time, I like to think we agree on that in a way. Hopefully someone can please make a start though and delete half the Catholic stuff on the Abdias of Babylon page for me as being hopelessly unreliable and fringe in comparison to my modern sources. I don't like deleting stuff, even if it's wrong and out of date. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

With all this talk of Megatrends and its high level of "scholarship", I thought of going for a second PhD there, but I could not find them on the Ranking list. Are they above Oxford, or below it? Among the top 100? Among the top 1000? I am not sure. Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably a lot higher rank than they were in 1996 when Monty started working for the Megatrend Business School and doing notable tenure there. Even if he only held the presidential post of a technically accredited University for around 27 days in 2003 during the handover to Jean Jacques Chanaron when it became a part of the Serbian Association of Universities. Well done on the PhD incidentally, what was that in? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify his political position, he is a local councilor in a tiny parish council (a civil not religious parish), getting 792 votes in the last election, and is deputy chairman. There are two wards electing members to the town council, and in this ward there were 5339 people eligible to vote and 2162 ballot papers were issued. In no way is this major. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let us face the reality here. Megatrend does not even appear on this world raking as far as I can see. What I see here (and in the article) is the exaggeration of this person: the exaggeration of the mostly unknown establishment he worked for, and the exaggeration of his comments about traffic between 10am and 4pm on the junction with Smithfield Road as some type of world news. I am sorry but however much decoration one adds to this person he is no Niall Ferguson in scholarship and no Ken Livingstone in terms of the office he held at an almost unknown town. And let us not kid ourselves that all of this is done not because the town is important or the semi-university has any relevance, but because as an amateur he wrote some very unusual items that most scholars have never even heard of. In Wiki-lingo that is called WP:Coatrack. That is the long and short of it. Montgomery is being decorated with exaggeration so his highly unusual amateur ideas look better, not because anyone cares about what he said regarding traffic between 10am and 4pm on Smithfield Road. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to tell you what Monty's got to say on the whole subject of Herioldus Brocus or Lothbroc as he calls him. Most of his information comes from a Bo-Gabriel Montgomery [40]. I cannot really even start arguing on this one until I've made a page about him. For that we'd probably have to accept Dr. B. G. Montgomery's work on genealogies as RS and a notable, unique contribution to science. I'll give it a go, even if I'm up for another beating. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO! Now Harald Hildetaand is also identical to Ragnar Lodbrok (who in legend is his nephew's son) in addition to Sigfred? Now James Madison is the same as John Adams/Thomas Jefferson. Please make it stop! Seriously Paul - you don't get to be a notable genealogist by making far-fetched claims that identify as the same individual legendary people with distinct names and roles. You get to be notable by publishing multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals or a prosopographical compilation of large scope, and then being recognized by your peers as having done so in a scholarly manner, usually by nomination to a selective body or by selection as editor of one of the prestigious journals. Just coming up with one 'unique contribution' or even several doesn't cut it because every quarter there are about a dozen genealogical journals that publish 10 or so articles from different authors containing unique contributions. You call his work a unique contribution to science, suggesting an analogy to science, so lets look at notability there. A unique contribution to science is not a new finding - it is a new way of finding or a new way of looking at a whole lot of findings, that is then accepted by the greater community - it is coming up with PCR or punctuated equilibrium, not hypothesizing that a placozoa may be a derived bilateral. Getting one paper published takes a 'unique contribution' as you are using it, but it does not establish notability or there would be millions of notable scientists who welter in the obscurity of their lives of quiet desperation. There is a novel finding behind every PhD, and they pass those out like candy at Halloween. Notability in science requires a substantial publishing record and recognition by one's peers as being at the top of their field. Genealogy is inherently less notable, so there are very few notable genealogists, but like in science, in genealogy it takes a sizable publishing record and evidence of peer recognition to demonstrate notability - a genealogist with over a dozen peer-reviewed papers and a handful of invited scholarly book reviews written for a prestigious journal under their belt still would not be notable, and you want to confer notability on everyone who draws a new line between two dots. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see you try and take down my new creation on notability: Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery. You wanted Oxford University... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A PhD from Oxford doesn't make one notable. You can't just call a book "widely-cited" just because you want to pretend the author is notable, and cite the book itself to document this wide citation. Compiling a list of an author's books is Original Research. You treat this like a game, seeing what policy violations you can get away with. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And while you are at it, when you cite a book or a journal, give the volume and page number. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Compiling a word from letters would be original research according to that silly logic. Compilation is what wikipedia is all about. There are thousands of compiled lists, artcles, paragraphs, sentences and words on here. Should we remove them all? Now, while I await your replacement of the external link to the UK's biggest family history website, where Bo-Gabriel's genealogy book can be found, which you have removed without explanation or reason as far as I can see. In the meantime, as for OR, you mention above the Harald can only be found in one source. Our own Harald Hylthetan page clearly reads two sources, both Chronicon Lethrense and Saxo Grammaticus, if you haven't read the Latin version you won't know that his name is Herioldus Brocus. Secondly, you mention Sigfred's successor the nepos of Harald, which logically makes Sigfred Harald - I don't need to source Monty at all for that as you just did, and called yourself fringe. Thirdly, how come Halfdan is listed on the Gudfred page as his brother, but living 2 centuries earlier than him? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The first part of this you already asked, and I already answered on the Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery‎ Talk page. Asking it again here in exactly the same words, while ignoring what I wrote in response, is just grandstanding. As to Harold, you are confusing concepts. Historical king Harald and the mythical Harald Hildetaand are distinct entities. One derives (sort of) from the other, but they are not the same and you are confusing them. Only one historical source names king Harald, the one that calls Anulo his nepos. However, later a tradition arose reported by Saxo that somehow managed to take a battle fought between Sigfred (II), nepos of Gudfred (and thought to have been of the family of Sigfred I) and Anulo, nepos of Harald, and confuse the $4!+ out of it. The uncle/grandfather's name was extracted from Anulo nepos Harald to become the legendary Harald Hildetaand, while Sigfred was mixed with Anulo to create the legendary Sigurd Ring (Anulo probably = Anlauf = Olaf, but it was interpreted as a Latin translation of his name and back-translated as Ring), and the conflict fought between the two became the legendary battle of Bråvalla (not a unique situation - the historical Battle of Monte Laturce (859) was similarly bastardized into the legendary Battle of Clavijo (supposedly 844), changing participants and outcomes). 19th century historians trying to harmonize both the historical and legendary records decided the Battle of Bråvalla must be the mechanism whereby Sigfred I succeeded, thereby adding to the confusion by creating a second battle and identifying Sigurd Ring, originally derived from Sigfred II instead with Sigfred I. It can be confusing, keeping strait the purely historical material from the legendary stuff, particularly given that the practices of scholars in the past were so much more accepting of the legends than modern scholarship. For starters, though, I would suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly knowledge. It aspires to that, but sometimes falls short. Your second point, your logical deduction, is illogical - I was using successor generically (not as 'immediate successor') in reference to Anulo, and he can certainly be Harald's nepos without Harald being Sigfred. For your third point, how am I supposed to know why a Wikipedia page would give a relationship with dubious chronology? That is why you shouldn't use Wikipedia as the basis for arguing genealogy. The most likely explanation is that someone intended to redlink the name Halfdan on Gudfred's page (under the mistaken practice of assuming everyone who ever lived is a Wikipedia article waiting to happen), not realizing that a page already existed for a Halfdan who was entirely distinct from the man being talked about. It looks like disambiguation is required (or just the removal of the link). Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about Harald. Our page says what I said. You are just harrassing and bullying again and I have no time for this. You have offered no explanation for Godfred having a 200 year old brother and suggest I don't use Wikipedia as a source of knowledge!! Perhaps you're right if it is written by people more concerned about the prestige they've gained being conned by a corporate university for a piece of paper, who would rather sit around here all day waffling instead of getting on and fixing the appalling, disgraceful mess that our history section is in. I'll certainly get on with the writing of useful information instead wasting my time reading your made-up legends, crazy fringe theories and false logic. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Less heat and more light, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I should probably just let this rant pass. . . . but I won't. You reintroduced Harald, confusing the man I was talking about with a Wikipedia page about a legend. Specifically, you made the statement that I had said there was only one record of Harald Hildetaand, while his Wikipedia page listed two. It seemed reasonable for me to explain that I was not talking about Harald Hildetaand at all; I was talking about the historical but obscure king Harald upon whom the legendary king Hildetaand was based. If you didn't want a clarification of what I was referring to, you shouldn't have paraded out a perceived fault in my description in a manner that made it clear you didn't know the difference. I also did explain the problem with Godfred's brother, even though I had nothing to do with it. Godfred did not have a 200 year old brother. He had a brother of normal age. Somebody sloppily thought they were redlinking Godfred's brother and ended up making a link to someone just who happened to have the same name and already had a page, an entirely distinct legendary king whose reign is placed 200 years before and who has nothing to do with Godfred. As to my "made-up legends, crazy fringe theories and false logic" I have been explaining the scholarly consensus. If you don't like it then research the question, write a scholarly paper, publish it in a scholarly journal, and convince the Scandinavian historical establishment that your solution is better than theirs. Then you can denigrate other previous viewpoint. Until then you are just pissing into the wind and making a mess on yourself. Agricolae (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

More light and less heat, please.

To both of you: statements such as "...wasting my time reading your made-up legends, crazy fringe theories and false logic" and "...pissing into the wind and making a mess on yourself" are unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia and violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I am going to assume that you just got a little heated and politely ask both of you to please stop making personal comments about each other. Focus on article content, not user conduct. Please don't respond, even to say you will stop -- that's not about article content either. Just stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the above editors stopped fighting here and moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain. Was it something I said? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall not too long ago that an editor was suggesting that people focus on article content, not user conduct. Perhaps the two of you should talk. Please don't respond, even to say you will stop -- that's not about article content either. Just stop. Agricolae (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We've had an odd bit of editing in the past couple of days in which, paradoxically, an attempt at perhaps hiding some fringe in the text has made for a much more negative article. The problem, unfortunately, is that we we have now is a very strong condemnation which is also completely unsourced. I don't really want to roll it all back because the previous version was a bit whimpy, but it also seems to me that the current text is indefensible as it stands. I unfortunately don't have time this week to do the research need for the references. I would invite review of the current text and some suggestions for going forward (or backward, as the case may be). Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say the current text is extremely balanced, if anything a bit on the soft side. Thimbleweed (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Somehow this managed to survive an AfD. Recently an editor has appeared requesting the removal of some potentially contentious content. Any remaining content about the subjects theories would need to be closely watched to prevent some pretty FRINGE claims from becoming too prominent.

This is not about anything specific, but just a request for experienced eyes and participation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See Ape. Some eyes are probably needed there. No need for a discussion here, discussion should happen at Talk:Ape. Just some additional eyes are in order. --Jayron32 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest people look at User:Historyhorror/sandbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous editor from a numbered IP address persists in adding links to a paper by I.M.Yurin to the pages on BCS theory and the Josephson Effect. They do not comment on the talk page or respond to requests for discussion on the article. While the article, 'Yurin, I. M. (2010). "Comparison of two interpretations of the Josephson effect". International Journal of Modern Physics B 24 (30): 5847–5860. doi:10.1142/S0217979210057559.' IS in a refereed journal, it is not cited anywhere else, and the author does not appear to be affiliated with an institution. This looks like someone flogging a pet theory, and the science appears dubious to me. (I'm a PhD student in physics.)

I've erased the link from the BCS page twice, and from the Josephson effect once, and in each case it was reposted without comment on the talk page. Assuming the link is crackpoterry, what's the next step?

• This happens to be my research topic, I will have a look now. Usually we should require a proof that the paper was cited sufficiently.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  As expected, sheer bullshit, removed. Btw the Josephson effect article badly requires cleanup which I will not able to do since I do not want to remove/add references to the articles of the people I know in real life, and also because my book is one of the standard references, which can be considered as a COI.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a COI unless you add stuff to promote yourself or your book. We need more experts here Bhny (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! When Mr. Anonymous crackpot person puts the link back tomorrow, what's the next step? (My area is beam physics, so I was only 90% sure that link was nonsense.)PianoDan (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would say to deal with him just as we do any edit warrior, but in this case your have missed an important step. You should have given him warnings on his talk page. Without adequate warnings, a complaint about adding unsourced material or about edit waring will get kicked back. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace has a nice list of warning templates you can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I added the explanation to the IP talk page, even though there is very little chance they should read it. (It was already in my edit summary, but they likely will not read it either).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But he doesn't have a talk page - it's coming from a series of bare IP addresses. PianoDan (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Even after I left a warning on the IP talk page, the editor, still refusing to communicate, continued to reinsert the fringe piece, using new IPs every time, so that I filed a WP:RFPP request.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Is being discussed at WP:NORN#The Urantia Book primary sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems almost entirely OR and undue material from the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also think way out primary sourcing, WP:SYNTH and undue amounts of WP:Undue. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, too much reliance on a primary source. The article needs considerable trimming.--xanchester (t) 11:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only a stub, but skeptical alarm-bells rang when I read that it's possible to 'modify the sub-atomic structure of spacetime and generate nuclear reactions as consequence'.

Is that with or without dilithium crystals?

I did a little re-write based on a Nature article. Bhny (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Added to category "Fringe Physics" PianoDan (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also changed name of page to "Piezonuclear Fission" PianoDan (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't appear notable. a13ean (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly non-notable. I suggest nominating it for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that it is 'notable' for being the subject of a petition by scientists who argue that it, um, er, isn't notable (or credible) enough to be worth researching into... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider this argument:

[1] Of all the non-notable topics that are not in Wikipedia, one of them must be the least notable of all.

[2] Being the least notable topic in existence is itself notable, thus removing that topic from the list.

[3] The previous second least notable topic is now the least notable, and by the same logic can be removed from the list.

[4] This process can be continued until there are no topics left on the list.

[5] Conclusion: all topics are notable.

Do you want to tell Jimbo about this unexpected result or should I?

(...ducks as everyone throws rotten fruit...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically true. However, the notability of the fringe theory is still mainly based on one event, so WP:NOTNEWS might apply here. A redirect to Italian National Institute of Metrological Research would work, but there's no article for it. If someone nominates the article for deletion, I'd support deleting it.--xanchester (t) 13:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion, so that it might be better to move the discussion there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. A clear case of WP:BMUS here. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An RfC in the wording of the guideline WP:FRINGE is underway at:

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

All interested editors are welcome to comment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

An RfC/U has been raised concerning Paul Bedson (talk · contribs). It can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment has been nominated for deletion due to a range of problems including being WP:FRINGE. It may interest some editors here.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. It seems to be part of the strange walled garden of non-mainstream science that developed in the Soviet Union and its predecessors. Not sure how we should treat it. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Treat it as a diluted soviet made manage the young answer to Erikson style yap-yap for ever item. It deserves an entry, but with loads of warnings that it is not science or mainstream. But then neither are 90% of the psycho-babble items that have books on them. But is interesting to know how the young comrades were being groomed. History2007 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand nothing in psychology, but Vygotsky is certainly a serious mainstream scientist.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found only one reliable source (i.e. a Playboy article) and one borderline source (i.e. two articles in OC Weekly by the same writer) who mention this person who claims to have information about assassinated JFK. The borderline source makes the assumption that Plumlee was what he said he was, a CIA operative. One prominent debunker has edited the article to state that there is nothing to support any of Plumlee's assertions (diff). Thoughts on how to handle this one? Location (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Crop circle#The Doug and Dave scam and recent edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Recently I've reverted some text in this article sourced to an anthropologist referring to atheism as a religion. Mentioning it here because as most of you know I'm not very active on WP these days due to outernet constraints and thus don't have the time to engage in a lengthy talk page discussion. My reasons are the same as they always are when someone tries to edit in stuff like this: 1. atheism is simply obviously not a religion and we don't publish things we know to be false (irrespective of the widespread misunderstanding of VnT), and 2. anthropologists are neither theologians nor philosophers and thus not qualified as experts on said subjects. In general though, this article probably needs some work to make it NPOV. Sædon^talk 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty common in the various fields to treat atheism as a particular subspecies of religion, so deleting out such statements wholesale (especially where cited) on the grounds that they fringe notions is not justified. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there is no reason to think that an anthropologist isn't an expert on religion. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Given the long and at least arguably fruitful history of the anthropology of religion as an academic subject, I'd place suggestions that anthropologists can't be experts on the subject of religion firmly in the 'fringe' category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As a "practicing" atheist myself, I would prefer to consider my atheism a philosophy rather than a religion, also given the fact I consider myself, in addition to being an atheist, to not have or to belong to any religion. But since atheism does deal with theology, which is a philosophical field that religions do relate to in general, it could be considered sometimes as a philosophy of religion. Not a religion in itself, however, since it would not have rituals or an established set of customs and institutions. All that just as an introductory note, before I really delve into the merits of the particular reference in the article in question. warshy^talk 14:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to make it plain that even those who categorize it as religion consider it a special case, and that the boundary is a bit indefinite. But to deny that altogether is against the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ramachandran's point that there are specific brain locations that create a "need to believe" in a religious sense may be relevant, i.e. that when the rational component overcomes the primal need, the need tranforms to believing that "there is nothing". Hence it is a belief/religion in any case - it is just that the subject of belief has changed. Einstein can often act as the father archetype in some cases, filling the gap in the search for meaning. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)