Practical Kabbalah

This article has no real sources, and may contain nothing but original research. It is difficult to know what to do with it because, if I started to delete problematic and unsourced material there would probably be nothing left aside from the Gershom Sholem quote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of potential sources though, as I've noted by adding them as "Further reading". I've also fixed the existing refs, though I'll agree page numbers are needed. I didn't write the article though, but, say, are you stalking me now? Bob (QaBob) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This article does seem to have huge problems. Googling produces two radically different sets of results: Jewish results which take a completely mystical approach (particularly connected to one Laibl Wolf and to chabad websites, and esoteric sites which seem to understand it as Jewish practice of magic. I do not see this reflected in the article at all, especially since some of the first type of sites emphatically rejects the legitimacy of the second type of site. I see significant fringey problems here. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am attempting to improve the article, but was not the original author. It needs significant organization and expansion from someone who actually has the sources at hand, though it is clear that they exist and present varied viewpoints as you suggest. Bob (QaBob) 02:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue I see is that it's questionable whether there really is such thing. The Jewish sources don't seem to think of it as a thing unto itself, and the fringey talk seems to be making a claim about the Jewish qaballah that isn't true. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no question whatsoever that there is such a thing. The Hebrew term is Kabbalah Ma'asit and Gershom Sholem writes that it actually predated what is simply known as Kabbalah. The real question appears to be what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Bob (QaBob) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are profound differences between religious Jewish Kabbalists and academic historians of Kabbalah (not to mention Hermetic Qabalah). To many of the religious students to Kabbalah, any publicly available information on Kabbalah is a source of worry, and Kabbalah Ma'asit is considered far too dangerous for any person but the most saintly:

Does any of this sound dangerous? Yet countless times I have heard from people and scholars that this area of study is both deadly and dangerous. Sometimes these scholars bring evidence from scattered souces in the practical tradition of Kabbalah. Again, we turn to Rabbi Moshe Miller in the introduction to his new translation of the Zohar: “The practical tradition of Kabbalah involves techniques aimed specifically at altering natural states or events – techniques such as the incantation of Divine Names…. However, Kabbalah ma’asit [practical Kabbalah] is meant to be employed by only the most saintly and responsible of individuals and for no other purpose than the benefit of man or implementation of G-d’s plan in creation.” Rabbi Miller goes on to point out a very important fact: “Even in the era of the great kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the holy Ari (mid 16th century), there are indications of these techniques being abused by unfit practitioners [as they are today]. The holy Ari himself admonished his disciples to avoid [in fact he forbid it] the practical arts of Kabbalah, as he deemed such practice unsafe so long as the state of ritual purity necessary for service in the Holy Temple remains unattainable.” [1] (This site is the site of a very religious publisher, and after sundown today it may be unavailable until sundown tomorrow.)

Interestingly, it is frequently the people least qualified who think they are most qualified. In any case, having spoken to many religious Kabbalists, I can assure you that they consider even the best academic historians of Kabbalah to be mistaken in the extreme in their views of Kabbalah. In a way the differences remind me of the comment by Walt Disney that "first we do it and then the critics tell us what we have done." Artists, like Kabbalists, tend to think the academics who analyze their work are unqualified to understand, and the academics tend to think the artists do not really understand their own work. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, the weight tends to go to those scholars who are academically notable, and the standard for inclusion in articles is verifiability not truth. I suppose nothing else is possible under the circumstances...but it is not difficult to see the limitations. However, in the case of Kabbalah, there are highly notable religious scholars (frequently rabbis), and their views do need to be included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that the rituals of Aleister Crowley are 10 times more dangerous than anything practical Kabbalah may have to offer. Orthodox Hinduism also condemns Tantra, which itself is a rather mixed bag of spiritual techniques mixed together with trashy sex manuals. What can one do but pray in whatever way seems right to us. Bob (QaBob) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edit summaries

Please look at the last 50 contributions of Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be back on his campaign no remove qualifiers whenever "psychic", "mediumship" or "parapsychology" is mentioned. Two illustrative examples of things he's done in the last 48 hours:

Looking at his contributions over the last few days, it seems clear to me that Martinphi is back on his a campaign to remove verifiable caveats associated with parapsychology, psychic powers, and mediumship from across this encyclopedia. This is the type of disruption he was sanctioned for by arbcom. However, I need to get some outside opinions as to whether this is enforcement-caliber problems.

SA, would it help if I tried to broach the subjects with him? NB that I might agree about removing qualifiers, as I don't think this is usually the right way to distinguish science from non/science topics. (I do think they should be distinguished, however). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
My main issue is not with removing the qualifiers (sometimes the removal is okay, sometimes it is not), but him assuming the mantle of arbcom to do so. He uses this as a form of immunization from legitimate discussion about single words. There is nothing in any arbcom ruling that says we cannot describe someone as a "self-proclaimed medium", and yet, according to the summaries I have above, Martinphi seems convinced that arbcom has given him some sort of mandate to waltz across Wikipedia removing words at his whim. Please have a word with him. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look through his contributions (especially those which contain the two edit summaries I outline above) and see if you see a problem. The history between him and myself makes it difficult for me to intervene directly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, these are WTAs or the equivalent. In a properly framed article, the reader will have ample opportunity to understand the the subject is controversial or discredited, without our having to use such weasel words. I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed. Perhaps my edit summaries should read "remove weasel wording," and then point the the ArbCom. See also, this, as it talks about framing. As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I've opened a request for clarification on the Three layer cake point: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not had the time to read the entire article, but I did do a few word searches in it, and I am surprised that there is no mention of Rudolf Steiner, his movement called Anthroposophy (an outgrowth of the Theosophical Society), or the healing branch of Anthroposophy called Weleda which is based largly on homeopathy. I can not recall an occasion, when Homeopathy came up in conversation, that there was not some connection to Anthroposophy. Steiner had big ideas, and developed within his movement an approach to virtually any important subject you can think of:

Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [4]

At one time I was fascinated by Anthroposophy, but have now come to regard it as a highly problematic cult. It seems to appeal particularly to people with good intelligence and high educational level (which is perhaps the reason I lost interest in it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that anthroposophy is sufficiently prominent outside Germany to warrant mentioning it in the homeopathy article. I mean this literally: I am not sure. In the UK there are Steiner schools in many cities, but I think they are generally less dogmatic, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that anthroposophic medicine is very marginal here. On the other hand, the EU regulations on medicine mention anthroposophic medicine explicitly and say that the rules for homeopathy apply. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Verbal, I was in fact going to bring this up as one other thing that needs resolving or an NPOV tag (although I don't know how to tag a category inclusion). I think we all agree that in the arbcom ruling described at WP:PSCI homeopathy fits somewhere between astrology and psychoanalysis. In my opinion it's obvious that it's much closer to psychoanalysis (which is also often called quackery) than to astrology. E.g. articles by psychoanalysts and homeopaths, but not by astrologers, do get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, occasionally. Psychoanalysis and homeopathy both are both still much closer to their protoscientific origins and a lot more plausible (I am not saying they are plausible) than astrology. Homeopathy and psychoanalysis are payed by public health systems in some countries; I don't think that's the case for astrology. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link (Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [5], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [6], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 'quackery' is unnecessary and prejudicial, and certainly doesn't even have the limited value of the pseudoscience label. I'd go ahead and remove it - I don't see that it will led to a cascade of criticism removal, and if it does it would certainly be easy enough to combat that kind of silliness. if you prefer, I'll remove it myself, and keep an eye out for anyone who tries to capitalize on it. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence, but I recommand that you don't remove the word "quackery". It would probably not get you blocked immediately, but only because nobody has given you the homeopathy article probation warning yet. If you don't believe me, you can find earlier discussions about the word in the homeopathy talk page archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a strong link from anthroposophy to homeopathy. It's probably quite a bit weaker the other way round. In all my literature research for the homeopathy the only place where I found anthroposophy mentioned was an EU directive that treats anthroposophic medicine in the same way as homeopathic remedies. Of course this could be because many of my sources were old books (from before Steiner), but still... --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure they are the "main group". In the US, HeadOn is probably the "main group". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So is it now official that you identify homeopathy with quacks who sell some of their products exploiting an exception for homeopathy? This kind of attitude would explain the insistence to use the word "quackery" in the homeopathy article. (I mean this literally, not ironically. I also don't remember whether you were among those who insisted.) Apparently the same company has also produced an itch remedy with 1 % hydrocortisone. From a homeopathic POV that's probably one of the worst things you can do. It's common but unfair to judge a country by its president, or an ideology by its most extreme proponents etc. But its even worse to judge a group by their black sheep, e.g. judge Belgium by its most famous pedophile serial killer. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how homeopathy as an idea in the age of atomic theory defies the simplest logical arguments, I fail to be able to see a distinction between some homeopathic "doctor" who shakes and dilutes to ridiculous proportions and some company that applies its shaken and dissolved idiocy directly to the forehead. This is just my opinion, mind you, but it isn't one that is solely mine. Wikipedia is under no obligation to distinguish between "black sheep" companies and those whom you or anyone else think hold the "legitimacy sceptre" of this nonsense we call "homeopathy". What is of the utmost importance is for us to describe, characterize, paraphrase, and mirror what independent sources say are the most prominently notable aspects of any given topic. That's the sense in which Wikipedia deals with topics ranging from the mundane to the sublime. That's how we are entrusted to treat homeopathy. I'm sorry if the fabulous Head-On campaign has commandeered and maligned your your pet pseudoscience, but we aren't here to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I take this as a "yes". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

VedicScience (talk · contribs)

Another round of regular "Vedic" quantum quackery for a change. This edit should make clear what is going on. It may be worth to keep on the lookout for the "reference" given,

--dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Moreschi (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
also performing at Rigvedic deities. And yes, it appears that they mean it :p dab (𒁳) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(s)he has added nonsense to quite a number of pages and is using the help of a sockpuppet/"friend" too. Special:Contributions/69.250.46.133. With his ego I doubt he will embrace Wikipedia's rules. GizzaDiscuss © 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've sent him to WP:AN3 now. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
He's back and complaining to Jimbo - User talk:Jimbo Wales about me, Dab, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avanduyn

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, but this editor is adding loads of OR (including a map he created himself, [7] "Known Emigration of Abraham's Children to Katura". Can someone take a look particularly at Xerxes I of Persia which he has heavily edited. I'm removing some of his OR but I expect he'll put it back. Is the map something that can go to AfD as OR? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He relies heavily on Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentaries, are they a reliable source? And an inerrantist website, www.studylight.org, clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
SDA commentaries would be reliable sources for the SDA point of view, no more or less. It is unlikely in most articles that the SDA viewpoint would be appropriate to include. As a general point, material of that nature would be more likely to be appropriate when drawn from a larger/more prominent viewpoint. For example, Catholic Bible commentary or Saudi Quran commentary would be more likely to be appropriate for inclusion (as larger/more prominent viewpoints) than Adventist commentary. Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you perhaps talking about Midian? I can't see anything more than slightly problematic in Xerxes I of Persia, but Midian definitely has issues. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And incidentally, the map at the very least has a bogus source description. He wrote that it is entirely his own work, which is obviously not true. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of almost all the articles he edited in Sept and July [8] . The rift valley stuff, the map, and his reliance on 7th Day Adventist literature (I see he is some sort of pastor in that church). The Xerxes edits rely heavily on 7th Day literature. I agree, the map itself is not his own work. But I'm not familiar with what we do about images like this. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence yet that van Duyn is not a reasonable person who can be worked with, and I don't like the fact that people are simply trying to bulk-delete his material without discussion. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
His rift valley claim has no source. It was removed from some articles in July and he's replaced it. I did do a quick search to see if I could find one and failed, so removed it. His map, besides possibly a copyright infringement, has a route with no source either. He may well try to claim Adventist literature as a source, but he needs more than that and in any case, despite frequent references to such literature, hasn't used it for the rift valley claim. I think the onus is on him to justify these edits. Doug Weller (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've posted to his talk page asking for sources to the rift valley claim. Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

it is a good sign to see him openly stating where he is coming from, self-identifying as a SDA pastor. We should encourage him to contribute to SDA topics and refrain from using SDA sources for historical topics. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Moustafa Gadalla

I'm not sure what to do about this. The guy is fringe, his books are self-published through his foundation (and at least one has been used as a reference elsewhere). I found this comment about him on a web forum " the modern pyramidologist Moustafa Gadalla, not really a scientist or historian but possessor of a B.S. in civil engineering from the Cairo University. He is author of the Pyramid Handbook. Gadalla's claims are wild in the extreme, the essence of which is that all of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 4 were in reality great energy collectors that attracted a mythical space gas called orgone to create an even more mythical substance called psi-org energy." Ah, now I didn't know this, evidently the bluehouse effect drastically increases when you laminate a pyramid. [9]. Fantastic! Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Gadalla. I agree. Moreschi (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Carantania, History of Slovenia

Several articles concerning the history of Slovenia have seen a lot of disruptive editing in the last few days. The problem involves fringe theories and improper, non-academic sources. The articles are putting forward a disputed claim according to which a Slovenian state existed in the Alps in 595 AD and that this was the same entity as the medieval Dutchy of Carantania. The idea has been taken from a non-academic historian Jožko Šavli.

The actual background is roughly as follows: when describing the fights between Slavs and Bavarians in 590s (595 AD being the year when Slavic-Avar army defeated the Franks), the Lombard historian Paulus Diaconus refers to the area populated by Slavs as "provincia Sclaborum" (for more on this see: [10]. J. Šavli claims that "provincia Sclaborum" means "the state of Slovenes" and that this was the same entity as the later Carantania, which in fact is a myth since Carantania is not mentioned in historical sources prior to 660 AD.

The affected articles are:

I have reverted many of the edits in the last few days, on the grounds that they involved distorting historical data, as indicated in the edit summaries, but believe somebody with administrator's rights should intervene here. Please note that the issue has been put on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before: [11].

In my opinion, particularly the article on Carantania should be kept on administrator's watchlists as the issue is a popular topic of Slovene nationalism. Regards, Jalen (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don´t agree with you Jalen, pease read [[12]], and you can see that your opinion is discussed there. You can disagree with Dr. Jožko Šavli, but I´ll not allow you to offend him. And please stop reverting my editions without answering in the discussion page first.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

fringe theory promotion at Psychic

See for yourself. I've reverted for now, but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This won't be resolved unless editors from both sides are able to have a reasoned discussion about it. Really ought to be possible since all concerned are experienced Wikipedians. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If each side would refrain from overly strong statements which cannot actually be supported, and allow the other to make more limited and qualified statements backed up by sources, it seems to me that the problem would be quickly resolved. The talk page shows certain editors hold extreme positions and seem intent on inserting them using sources that don't actually say what they are being represented as saying. Bob (QaBob) 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
QaBobAllah, which editor are you referring to as more reasonable? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about any editor being reasonable. I did say some editors seem extreme. Your edits seem perfectly reasonable, though. :-) Bob (QaBob) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ADvaitaFan

Could this user be a sockpuppet of User:VedicScience. They both like to reveal the "truth" to "uneducated" editors. GizzaDiscuss © 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, both need careful scrutiny. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

clearly not the same user, but clearly one with a similar set of symptoms. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He might be the same actually. He's from the same metro area. Look at his knowledge of Wiki and his talk style. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not just you, my friend dbachmann, I've been watching the new account on the block too! I'm blocked right now - courtesy of Dougweller! What is notable is he (or she) seems to have the same impression of admin Dougweller. Doug's latest rv note says "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" - go figure! I am wondering why Wikipedia would make this guy an admin! But I got it - how this whole thing works and is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. I was going to contribute a lot more on so many topics but I am going to stay put until Wikipedia fixes this "bandit ring game" which includes mainly POV dimmies who contribute nothing but are undo addicts tripping up good faith editors into 3RRs. What's really dumb is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor, and even a few admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff!!! All this would be clear to anyone who can barely go through edit histories. I wonder why all the smart people of Wikipedia haven't realized this yet. Wikipedia definitely needs to look closely at revising rules on admin monitoring. There should be an automated score for each user based on edit warring history and admin privileges controlled based on score. With so many who are in for "my way or highway", all this will ultimately and most certainly lead this nice project to a disastrous "dimipedia" over a period of time, not an encyclopedia! It's a shame, but hard truth! My 2 cents. VedicScience (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, stop this. Seriously, quit trolling. Final chance. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pretty funny. I didn't block him, and he's made up the rv note "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" -- how about a diff for that, VS? And now he's complained to Jimbo. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Constantinian shift

Won't the Constantinian shift article be considered conspiracy theory or fringe theory? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it seems to be a concept used by some small religious groups. The article needs a lot of improvement/stubification/merge/deletion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I would agree. The problem is that I thought what you just defined the article as, is what makes it into a fringe article. Specifically via the Jimmy Wales criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Just asking. It is a shame that the group pushing the idea make terrible mistakes in their handling of historical figures and events. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protoorthodox

Isn't the Proto-orthodox Christianity theory, too another conspiracy theory or fringe theory? One to counter the ante-nicene term as it is used by academia? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it seems to be a term used by one scholar. It is not worth an article if it is not now used by other scholars. Proposing new terminology is bread-and-butter scholarship, but most new terminological proposals fall on stony ground. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've googled some other usage. A definition is given here:

The type of Christianity that ultimately became predominant was neither Judaic nor Gnostic. It developed out of Pauline, Johannine, and related forms of Christianity and consisted primarily of Gentiles. [...] Scholars call this type of early Christianity "Proto-Orthodoxy" or "early Catholicism," because it was the forerunner of the types of Christianity that developed later, known as Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Another passage I found here associates it with Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. The term seems to be legitimate; the problem with the article is that it deals almost entirely with Bart Ehrman's fringy theories. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The theory and in specific Bart Ehrman's use of it are often discussed as a conspiracy theory.[13] Google it for fun. You know that wikipedian editors use the term in the wikipedia article Early Christianity. This rather then the more common term ante-nicene. Also note there still is no ante-nicene article per se, while there is a Proto Orthodox one. that is alittle uneven. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do is to redirect it into the appropriate point in Early Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mordvins (and subgroups)

Another "ethnic" mess. Note that we get ethnic mysticism mixed with valuable (as in difficult to find) bona fide information in broken English here. Lots of patience and good judgement is needed. Still, the epic "history" added since July is quite clearly mostly bogus. See also this note on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh god. Some of this is ((essay-entry)), some of it is OK, some of it is fringe, and some looks like plain lying. It's going to need a lot of careful picking apart as was done with the equally obscure Hungarian prehistory business. Moreschi (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Some good sources are cited. Is Finnic peoples good enough to use as a reference point? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

when I was getting my bearings in this topic back in July (it came to my attention via Mastorava before--after) I found that most encyclopedic sources mention the existence of the Erzya and Moksha but without any further differentiation between them. I.e., we have no quotable sources at present to justify two separate Erzya people and Moksha people articles, even though it is undisputed that they are two real subgroups of the Mordvins. The problem appears to be that some diaspora Mordvins have come to object to the term "Mordvin", but it is difficult to make any sense of this since the contributions are mostly in English so broken as to be near-incomprehensible. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Learning from you how to be bold, Dieter. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like some good trimming and re-ordering has been done. Thanks to whoever it was that got rid of the section attempting to link the Mordvins with the Scythians and Amazons of Herodotus! Now, what's all this weird business of railway listings? Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the dubious material to Talk:Mordvins/workpage. It may contain valid facts, but we cannot keep the live article in such a state until somebody manages to sift through this. Also take a look at the huge amount of text at Talk:Mordvins. Somebody appears to be using Wikipedia as a dumping ground. It will be difficult to handle this, since these are obviously contributions in good faith, and there seems to be a significant language barrier that will make it difficult to explain to the user what we are trying to do at WP. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please dab do not remove sourced facts from that article Mordvins in the future like you did with the last edit [14]. Feel free to remove anything that has not been sourced, I'll get to the History part ASAP and clean it up according to published secondary sources.--Termer (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about?

What about say Martin Bernal's (who listed as a American classical scholars) Black Athena and Afrocentrism? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Are you making a specific suggestion? Black Athena is certainly a notable book. Afrocentrism is a notable topic. I'm not sure what you are asking. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Hey Paul I mean like what Mary Lefkowitz and Zahi Hawass have to say about them. What about it? Is there something wrong with Leftowitz and Hawass' work? Black Athena has been discredited and is listed as psuedo-history so is wikipedia saying something different about that now? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not asking a clear question. They are notable as subjects for articles. The relevant articles should include the criticisms of academics, including Lefkowitz (and maybe Hawass), indicating the extent to which the views in question are accepted or rejected by the mainstream. Bernal's position is ambiguous. His writings are certainly discussed within academia. I hope, for example, to attend this forthcoming conference [15]. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. That looks to be an excellent event but I wonder why Bernal is still allowed to dissiminate as he has been discredited. I wonder how he will address this [16]. It is a shame that he teaches a conspiracy theory that the Greeks are liars and thieves. What a shameful thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admirer of Bernal, but I don't think he called Greeks liars and thieves. However, your question has been answered. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey please repost the answer you gave me again. I seem to have missed it. If someone else posted it clarify if their answer is also your answer.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At a guess, are you asking about Bernal and Afrocentrism in relation to WP:FRINGE? Obviously both are notable: Bernal is discussable as a partisan and non-mainstream author on classical topics. Notability is key here, as Bernal's academic qualifications in ancient history are pretty limited - by training he's a Sinologist/political scientist. Rather like Bernal himself, a few Afrocentric claims are perfectly sane, most are fringe, and the rest range from bizarre to lunatic. Bernal himself, however, is more moderate than figures like Diop and James, although he does at times endorse their work. Moreschi (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hit the nail on the head Moreschi. Again I wonder how the link above- [17] will be discredited and or discarded since before even that the above subjects where discredited but yet they persist in academia.LoveMonkey (talk)
Please stop soapboxing immediately. If you have a question about how the encyclopedia presents an issue, then ask it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Itsmejudith then are these subjects fringe or not and if they are why are they not noted as such? If the subjects are not then why are other articles which show the same characteristics treated as fringe? Now don't dodge and dont defend political correctness. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Itsmejudith please answer the question.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not to dodge, I'm not to defend political correctness and I'm to answer questions relating to a range of articles within three minutes. I think you'd be better off dealing with a different respondent to this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No you interrupted. You just dodged too. Just answer my questions. Your the one requesting immediancy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I will leave stating this. Considering my experience I am not going to engage those articles. I have been editing enough to tell from the way this was handled here I would be walking into an edit war. An edit war I would by sheer entropy- lose.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

User KVDP (talk · contribs) is making some changes to the alternative medicine page that I think require a review. They are also creating new articles (such as "Healing therapy") which they are then adding to the lead of the alt med article. A few more eyes on this would be great. Verbal chat 12:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Breathing therapy, Psychologic therapy, Body therapy, Healing therapy ... all new articles created by the same user, consisting of a list copied from CAM for dummies (copyvio?). Verbal chat 13:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
and Relaxation therapy .... Verbal chat 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Africa

Oh dear. I have long shunned taking a closer look at this article. Now I have, and I see there's practically everything wrong with it that can be wrong with a non-stub article. Apparently it has been a paradise for unchecked Afrocentrist rambling for a long time. Anyway, this is unacceptable. This is an article about a continent and should get top priority. So, before we invest more time in petty disputes over Macedonia, Indian antiquity, the nationhood or race of Egyptians, we should see our way to fixing this shameful state of affairs. It is bad enough that the real Africa is neglected by the rest of the world, there is no need to duplicate the trend on-wiki... --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the articles on the continents is particularly good and there is no consistency about sections or ordering. Should we raise this with Wikiproject Geography? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
true. We should try to initiate a "continent cleanup" process acting in concert. The Africa article also isn't quite as bad as I first thought, the problem is mainly the insanely long "History" section, which could be trimmed with comparatively little effort, since all the sub-articles are already in place. There are few articles that are better suited to WP:SS than aricles on entire continents, and it is appalling that they aren't in excellent, terse shape yet. What these articles need to give is concise overviews over key facts organized by main sub-topics, not rambling prose. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, History of Africa is in poor shape with its insistency on separating the continent into regions within a flaky periodization. Makes it hard to summarize. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
um, "separating the continent into regions within a flaky periodization"? Would you object to the "separating of Eurasia" into history of Europe, history of India, history of China etc.? Or call "flaky" the periodization of history of Europe into Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early Modern period, Modern period? I'm sorry, but in my book that's the only valid way to go about this. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's discuss this on the article talk page. I already made a suggestion there about periodization. Did I really say "insistency" above? ;-( Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the fringe? Agreed the articles need work, but this is the fringe theories noticeboard. Better discussed elsewhere methinks. Vsmith (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not actually true if Afrocentrism is involved. Moreschi (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Or Eurocentrism, the opposite fringe. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Very true. Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree. Or how many eurocentrist trolls have you met? Eurocentrism as "fringe" died out more than 50 years ago, and before it did, it wasn't "fringe" but mainstream. Nobody says mainstream is correct or even fair, but its still what we're aiming for. Granted, we get the occasionaly "reformed Eurocentrist", but these usually troll our articles on the Neanderthals, and pose nowhere near the problem we get from "second world" nationalist enthusiasts. Puerile nationalism in "first world" Europe (notably excluding the Balkans) has been cured for good by WWII, I would say. --dab (𒁳) 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, although I guess our Stormfront-type white supremacists could arguably be classified as Eurocentric. This isn't much of a stretch, although it is rather like Hitler beginning "Adolf Hitler was a painter of the 1920s and 30s..." - that is, true but completely secondary. Moreschi (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so Afrocentrism is "fringe", but evidently Eurocentrism isn't "fringe", because Europe really is, after all, the centre... therefore all else must be "fringe"... Talk about a "point of view"... Everything else seems so far away from where we stand, eh, dab? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is pure character assassination. That is not what Dieter said at all. His point, and it's a good one, is that before Eurocentrism drastically fell from favour it was academically mainstream. Obviously it isn't now - now it is fringe - but now it's pretty much dead! Afrocentrism, on the other hand, is a going concern that is also academically fringe. Please read what people are actually saying before posting sarky replies. Moreschi (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
And I have NO idea what is going in with this section. Who on earth wrote that little ((essay-entry))? It doesn't even accord with the section heading! Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. The first paragraph seems OK (up to the citation), then it goes haywire. --Folantin (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the bulk of the flaky, off topic stuff from that section. Thanks for pointing it out, Moreschi. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I cut all the unreferenced stuff because it was too speculative (venturing into counterfactual history) and essayistic. Also, it didn't focus on the period at hand. It might be possible to salvage some of the material but this section needs reworking properly. --Folantin (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory

User:Self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) intends to take the pseudo-science tag off this, saying "Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category.". Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to follow general discussions of the pseudo-science topic, but as far as I can tell this source [18] is reliable and says that Ancient astronaut theory is a pseudo-science catagory. Is something more needed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd think not, but on the other hand, I provided several good sources and he (1) said he couldn't access Google Books, and (2) didn't like the authors (one an archaeologist) of the one where I didn't provide a link. Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that there is a big difference between "ancient astronaut theory" and things like astrology or palmistry. From a scientific point of view, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that there are millions of other civilizations in this galaxy, that some of them are millions of years older than ours, and that Earth might have been visited by them or their machines sometime during recent history. Looking for traces of "ancient astronauts" is no more unscientific than SETI, in principle. The problem is with the way people go about it in practice. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reddi

At Pseudoskepticism (almost a POV coatrack for anti-pseudoscience), I just saw this little gem:[19]. Looks like Reddi (talk · contribs) is branching out from his normal stomping grounds[20]. NJGW (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My, but that article is poor. It's mostly vast cut-and-pastes from a small handful of articles. I counted (and condensed) over 10 separate references to a single article from Truzzi, which made the article seem better sourced than it actually is. MastCell Talk 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
priceless :) dab (𒁳) 06:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason Reddi is not banned yet? It seems that every 2 months we find him engaging in some astoundingly poor conduct. Or is it that he makes good contribs that I'm not aware of? Moreschi (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Myron Evans editing his own BLP

This BLP was reduced to a stub about two years ago and has stayed fairly constant since then. The subject has proposed a so-called "Einstein-Cartan-Evans" theory, which has been rejected by the physics community. An editorial by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft dismissed articles published in Foundations of Physics Letters by Evans. Evans himself tried to blank his own BLP (as User:Carrot18, revealed in an edit summary). According to his blog, he has contacted wikipedia to demand changes to his BLP: this might explain the recent actions of User:Nihonjoe and User:Daniel. Since the article only survived an AfD because of the notoriety of the subject's claims in fringe science, I am posting this alert here. Personally, I would be happy to see the BLP deleted. Apart from the claims, the subject does not appear to be notable. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you nominate it at AfD, I'll happily support. We really don't need this article, I think, and given the problems it's causing, maybe it's better just to delete. (My edit was to remove an external link from a website which was very anti-Evans and didn't qualify as a reliable source nor an appropriate external link under BLP.) Daniel (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community and it has not been presented by the mainstream press, so I guess it's not notable enough. bogdan (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. I have nominated the article for deletion as you suggested. Here is a link to the deletion page. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added my thoughts there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ritual abuse-torture

I'm of the opinion that ritual abuse-torture is a fringe theory, essentially an extension of the satanic ritual abuse/false memory syndrome moral panic but sans satan. All four sources are from the same two authors. I've consistently been of the opinion that it should be a redirect to the SRA page, and that it's undue weight to give it a separate page with support only coming from two scholars who are probably closer to advocates. Any opinion from the noticeboard? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

agree, already because it's a mere stub that conspicuously doesn't even link to satanic ritual abuse. --dab (𒁳) 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
agree Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to request a checkuser on a couple of the new accounts at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse. Skinwalker (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Various have posited that there's a suspicious slew of new editors with the same agenda as the banned User:ResearchEditor. I'm unconvinced, my guess is that it's closer to meatpuppeting, but a RCU can't hurt and you'll definitely get support from a couple of the talk:SRA regulars. In the meantime, could someone post a message to back this up on the RAT talk page? My assertions have fallen on deaf ears. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A reason why I'm not too worried about the page is because there are multiple regular editors watching the page who know the history. There has yet to be an unreasonable edit that has stood more than a day. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
WLU is probably correct since keeping the POV pushing out of the entry has been relatively easy since RE was topic banned. However, I am unable to AGF to the same extent he does regarding sock/meatpuppetry, and ResearchEditor is not the only candidate for this in my view. Either way its probably a mute point at the moment since things seem under control.PelleSmith (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:self-ref has now moved to Talk:Ancient astronaut theories questioning the pseudoscience tag

After shifting the ballgame from a discussion of whether individual authors were good enough, self-ref now is asking for references from an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science', quoting the ArbCom decision, and has moved the discussion from Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory (but without mentioning the earlier discussion there). Is his claim that the ArbCom decision requires that sort of reference rather than the usual reliable sources (which he seemed to be looking for until I gave him quite a few). Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a similar issue with AIDS denialism. He raised the issue at Category talk:AIDS denialism; I thought we reached agreement; and then he opened at brand-new thread at Talk:AIDS denialism making essentially the same points about an "Academy of Science" without reference to our earlier discussion. Sigh. MastCell Talk 17:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites

Could someone take a look at this (and the bottom section of the talk page). Was I wrong in tagging the article? And should it even exist, don't we already have several articles covering the same topic? The same editor had added a huge amount to Promised Land which I stubified and probably needs merging. Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the best solution would be to put all the material in History of ancient Israel and Judah and redirect Israelite there. Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
To any one who doesn't remember, this editor's actions came up on this board very recently Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Dating_the_Bible. I knew I remembered the name, but didn't remember from where exactly. NJGW (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe not all the material, the bit about "According to the Bible, the Israelites is an English language name given to that group of people" maybe shouldn't be moved. Unless English is a lot older than it is usually thought to be. :-) The editor doesn't seem to understand at all our policies on NPOV, etc. Some of the material before he started could be moved, but I think he'd move with it. I don't see a good rationale for the existence of the article. Doug Weller (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That sentence caught my eye too. I would have rewritten it had I found some decent sourcing for something more, um, accurate. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried suggesting a few different ways to split up the topics to keep religious and historical separate, but he's not biting. NJGW (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Trying one last thing before RFC. NJGW (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If you're working on a logical division of material between the series of articles please include Archeology of Israel which seems to overlap with Pre-history of the Southern Levant. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Who would dare take on the task of sorting out all these overlapping articles? Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I did do some work on Archeology of Israel - it was once worse. Would you agree that were the articles to be sorted out, the first priority should be to present the prehistory of the region (i.e. the prehistory as it is known to academics)? Also in such a case, one might want to do this at the widest geographical level first, e.g. Middle East, before coming to Levant and then, if necessary, southern Levant? "Archeology of" articles are problematic from the start, as it is not clear whether they would deal with the practice of archeology or the findings (i.e. the prehistory). (Except that archeology doesn't only deal with prehistory ....). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. In any case, I don't think 'Archaeology of Isreal' is a very useful title - what Israel when? Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic anarchism

I came across this in an attempt to create a stub at indigenism. The claim of the existence of a specifically "Celtic anarchism" appears to rely entirely on reference to http://celticanarchy.org/ -- ah yes, and 18 subscribers at some mailing list. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. Fails WP:ORG Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl Jung

I have come to think that Carl Jung founded a cult rather than a school of psychology. This was the view developed by Richard Noll in the two books he wrote about Jung, but Noll is not really mentioned in the Jung article. In fact, it seems to me, the article reads more like a promotional piece for Jungian psychology than like an encyclopedia entry. But, perhaps, I am being unfair. I would be interested in reading the views of others. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit unfair. The article is lacking in that it fails to make the point that most modern psychologists don't take Jung's ideas very seriously (he's similar to Freud in this respect), but the information that is in the article looks accurate and neutrally presented to me. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have my doubts about your claim that " most modern psychologists don't take Jung's ideas very seriously". That's a bit like saying that modern physicists don't take Newton very seriously. Being a pioneer in a field isn't the same as being a fringy crackpot. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
[21] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The Bair book reviewed in the NYT is surely a reliable source and a represents a notable POV (among others). Why not add some material from it to the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I am more interested in adding material from Richard Noll; but, after the nine month fight involved with the Alice Bailey article, I am not sure I want to take on another article with cult followers willing the fight all and any additions that question the perfection of the cult founder. I am trying to make up my mind about initiating such an effort. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(responding to dab's comment) I'm won't claim familiarity with every aspect of his work. He did some fundamental work on personality that is still taken seriously, but he's better known for mystical stuff such as synchronicity and the "collective unconsciousness", which don't get any mainstream support. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Noll's perspective seems to be highly influential and important to include in the article. I note though that our article on Noll says his book was not "a definitive account" of Jung. I'd be sad if we found ourselves arguing "for" and "against" this complex figure. Arguably practising psychologists need to have a consensus view on whether he is "a pioneer" or "a debunked charlatan", but the social sciences are not a monolith. Students of, say, cultural studies or theology might read his work in a very different way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Venetic theory

Slovenian indigenism, see diff. See also Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Has anyone seen, or been treated to, this warning yet?

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. --Elonka 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I had this warning placed on my talk page after that wonderful administrator, Elonka, blocked me for 24 hrs for 3RR, although I had not violated 3RR. (Not that I deny sometimes using an agressive approach to editing, and to having POed a fair number of administrators by explaining at length why I thought they happened to be wrong about something or other.) My assumption is that if I continue to edit the type of article that is discussed on this page, I may soon be returned to permanent wiki-exile. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's very personal interpretation of these guidelines does not seem at all in sync with other editors or administrators. It is odd that, having volunteered to "police" pseudoscience on her own initiative, she has chosen not to participate on this noticeboard. That might be because it primarily addresses content issues, which seem so far not to have concerned her. One recent comment to an administrator [22] about the article Orgone, elicited this reaction from another administrator [23]. The "softly, softly" approach of administrators, like User:Tim Vickers on chiropracty, seems to work well: it does not rub wikipedians up the wrong way; it takes into account the opinions of expert contributors; and it shows no favouritism to POV-pushers. Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Same thing happened to me. Neither myself nor anyone else editing during the same day thought an edit war was happening, but suddenly I was blocked. The next day I got the warning (from Mangojuice). Just how "uninvolved" is she? For the record I just had to page watchlisted because of disturbances which had spilled over into other articles... so at least in my mind I was on the side of neutrality and order (2/3's of my block came from reverting two editers who opposed eachother). Shows what I know. NJGW (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The funny thing about those "sanctions" is that (other than the one about giving that huge warning and linking to the case) those are the normal rules for blocking someone. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
From the couple of arbcom cases I've looked over or followed, that's how they role. In this case the reiteration also served to empower Elonka to block people at will. NJGW (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

this will not do. These "restrictions" clearly do not allow admins to jump out of the woodwork and block editors engaged in some conflict out of the blue. First of all, users need to be repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. Being involved in a dispute on its own doesn't qualify as such, disputes being very much a standard vehicle of article progress. Secondly, the restriction clearly states the admin needs to warn before blocking. I.e., the admin needs to say "stand down or I block you", and only if the editor then does again what they were just warned against will it be permissible to block them. I might also note, with Nihonjoe that we don't need any arcom restrictions to block users repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, this is what WP:BLOCK stated all along. The mountain (arbcom) has yet again given birth to a mouse. Restating policy is not going to miraculously impart good judgement to admins who have none. Elonka going around issuing bogus 3RR blocks and pouncing on people involved in perfectly bona fide disputes is a sad case of an admin acting far out of line. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


(Requested to review and give an opinion "from scratch" on the block and policy):
Edit warring - Wikipedia has a policy on edit warring, a non-collaborative and often combative and disruptive editing approach. Users on both sides of a dispute, are expected to collaborate rather than edit war, and are expected to learn this early on, and abide by it. "No edit warring" is the principle - an administrator may address edit warring even without 4 reverts being counted. 3RR is just a point where an automatic block is almost always merited.
Topic area and general sanctions - This is a dispute in the Psychic article, which is important because all our normal rules on edit warring are in essence, strengthened there due to the presence of a general sanction. The Pseudoscience topic area generally has been so disrupted and troubled, that administrators are given a green light to sort out user conduct and disruption issues there more forcefully than they might in other cases, and to use additional tools ("general sanctions") if needed to help them do so. The priority here is to stop editors acting improperly, and return the article to good quality collegial editing - by forcible addressing of unhelpful behavior traits, if needed. The focus of administrative action is therefore behaviors and unhelpful editing, and (where deemed unhelpful) their prevention/deterrence.
Activities of editors - I have not looked into the behavior of others in this incident. I have merely checked Elonka's basis of blocking. user:Malcolm Schosha has been an editor since January 2008, and has almost 2000 edits at the time of this incident.
  • Malcolm was warned in detail by RolandR, about 3RR, and linked to that policy, on August 23.
  • On October 6, Malcolm Schosha posted five reverts to Psychic in the space of 1 1/4 hours (16:01 - 17:15). Three of these were the same revert, removing the wording "outside the small field of parapsychology" three times 16:42...16:46...16:52, the other two were substantively the same revert twice 16:01...17:15.
  • By any standard, any administrator would be appropriately judging this to contravene the bright line of WP:3RR and apply a 24 hour block. Elonka did so at 19:23, posted a talk page note at 19:24, and delivered the formal required notification per RFAR/Pseudoscience (in case it might be applicable in future) to Malcolm shortly after.
  • Malcolm's unblock request was declined by a reviewing admin, Jayron32. None of the unblock reasons held much water:
  1. "Only 3 edits were the same" (3RR contemplates all reverts, not just "the same revert", as revert warring generally is bad. There were 5 total, and even if one was a "glitch" it was still 4... and edit warring only holds 3 to be a limit, not a requirement.)
  2. "I did not get a warning" (user knew all about 3RR from previous warnings elsewhere)
  3. "I'm nice and I can't believe you'd do this" (actions are based on conduct, not niceness)
  4. Later described the block reason as "a combination of vague generalities, wiki-lawering, and platitudes" (inaccurate; both the reviewing admin and myself, see edit warring in his history, which Elonka identified both specifically and accurately with diffs.)
Comments by others (above) - user:Mathsci describes Elonka as having a "very personal interpretation" but in fact on inspection she acted precisely and exactly in accordance with norms and policies. It is true some admins are "softly softly" and others are not; the expectation is that each will abide by high standards, and that is what this incident shows. user:Dab is quite correct that admins have that job regardless and that extra sanctions basically endorse doing what they can do anyway for the most part, but is incorrect in his labelling as "bogus" or the like. It is valid and appropriate, and hundreds of admins would probably have given the same opinion if asked.
Summary - This was a case where an editor repeatedly failed to adhere to communal norms they knew well and had been warned about previously, and were blocked for it under completely routine 3RR by an admin who correctly applied that policy as hundred of admins do. While disputing may be legitimate, edit warring is prone to blocking. This is why Wikipedia has such a range of dispute resolution processes - exactly because reaching agreement is hard sometimes. I hope the users involved will use them in future, even if others might not.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Another star chamber wiki-trial, in which the "editor" (me) was not informed of the proceedings.

The main problem, leaving aside from the problematic secret wiki-trial, is the complete misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make in my discussion with Elonka. The problem I see is that blocking users when no user has complained, and when the editing process is in fact making progress despite some abrasiveness, frequently is more disruptive to the editing of the article than the abrasiveness or possible violations of 3RR. I was not complaining about my block (a minor personal annoyance), but using that block as an example to explain the actual problem: the general problem of disruptive administrative intrusion in the process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, policies and norms on blocking do not support your view. Administrators may warn if they feel it's appropriate. For example if a user genuinely may not know something is a problem (which doesn't apply here). They may block without prior warning, if that's appropriate. The communal norm is well established and it is that both have their well-established place in the community, because it is harmful to the project if users get the idea that edit warring is a legitimate means of involvement. It isn't. What you may be used to will probably apply well in the places it's used, but here we have strict views on edit warring: "Don't do it". You were completely normally blocked for it. The administrative involvement was completely usual and routine. What would be a better approach all around, for future, is, "don't edit war". Let others do that instead, which may help limit administrative involvement to the kind you would like.
If you feel a matter is being disruptively edited, ask them to take it to the talk page and discuss it there. if they don't, and you have asked twice, post on WP:ANI that you are trying to resolve a dispute and would like to avoid edit warring, could an administrator watch the situation and help ensure a level field and that no tendentious editing is going on. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
My remarks were not intended to apply to the particular case of Malcom Schosha. Elonka seems to have a problem in finding the correct tone with which to address fellow wikipedians. I cited in particular Elonka's outspoken criticism of User:KillerChihuahua, where I provided diffs related to the Orgone article. Elonka in general (not necessarily just in the sphere of pseudoscience) seems to treat POV-pushers [24] [25][26][27][28] quite differently from editors or administrators of long standing[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. It is becoming increasingly harder to detect any hint of the "softly, softly" approach of more seasoned and even-handed administrators. Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Mathsci. I've read your first 5 diffs ("pov pushers") and what I notice in all of them is that Elonka is putting a lot of effort and goodwill to try and educate people. Those diffs are almost entirely passing along commonsense - how to avoid being seen as an SPA, that people will value it if you refactor your own angry words, de-escalating disputes, what Wikipedia's about, asking to start again from a clean slate, encouragement to work it out, and so on. These are good things and need saying, and are helpful. I've seen her be direct with people at times, but most of those diffs are actually well spoken, and need to be heard more; they would help editors avoid disputes a lot.
I also looked at the first 10 diffs to seasoned editors and again, they all seem well within normal bounds - reasonable discussion and comment, some advice seeking, a few routine admin matters, a request to supply a diff to back a claim [44], and so on. You highlighted her "outspoken criticism" of KillerChihuahua, yet the diff you provided [45] show her simply saying in a perfectly reasonable tone, that she was surprised to see an administrator describe a user as "really obnoxious" [46] and would they be willing to refactor it, or would they allow her to remove the wording. I don't know if that helps, if you feel there is a concern I'm glad to discuss if it'll help. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The full exchange between KillerChihuahua and Elonka over Orgone, over a month old remark, was later criticized by Guettarda [47]. He makes some good points about how to go about reducing disruption. Tim Vickers' way of asking other contributors what should happen on chiropractic, i.e. acting as a sort of low-profile mediator, seems to have worked fine and makes optimal use of the expert medical editors there, like Fyslee and Eubulides. The jury is still out on the desirability of nurturing POV-pushers. It didn't work with Jagz. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
But this is the point. You cite Guettarda's quote, but most of that short comment is to say simply "you can be more soft about it" and to gently give good advice. We all could gain by others' input, Elonka can too. Admins have different styles and yet, everything in this case suggests Elonka followed a quite good and careful standard in her decision to block for 3RR, even given Guettarda's view on approaching disputes. It could be that you favor a soft approach, and Elonka may gravitate to a more direct "hard" one... people vary. But her actions were well within norms and reason. Not one thing in this thread suggests the 3RR decision was wrong. Review shows that she gave accurate precise evidence and applied well established norms correctly. The diffs you gave to show bias of some kind actually are her helping others and well worded inquiries, they broadly reflect well on her and show behavior that I honestly wish more would do in the way of taking time to coach, help, advise others.
All I can say is, edit warring is bad. If people don't do it, then they will be fine. If people do, then they run the risk of meeting an admin with a harder approach who acts on it. If the experienced editor does not edit war, then the POV warrior is at risk of that instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look into my case, where I was unaware of going over the limit because I had reverted two editors at odds with eachother (one dif of which is me removing an incorrectly used CN tag from the see also section, but my edit summary said "revert"). I have no history of editing the content of pseudoscience and I don't think I have any history with any of the editwarriors that brought on the RFA. I was even discussing one editor's actions on his talk page and and the article's talk page. We were having a working dialog, and then 40 minutes after my last edit to the article Elonka (who had not been active on the page or the talk page) blocked me with no warning. There was so much of an issue brought up around it that Elonka unblocked me early (but for some reason she didn't take off the autoblock she knew was in place [48], then some strange bug in the system made me unable to edit my talk page i after the unblock, and Elonka didn't answer the email I sent her until over 12 hours later even though she was editing Wikipedia at the time). The whole series of events was extremely odd and uncalled for, as several other admins (not to mention editors of the article that day) agreed. NJGW (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't. As I commented I was purely addressing the request I'd had: Malcolm Schosha's 3RR. I can clear up one thing for you. Autoblocks are a law unto themselves, and work automatically. They are hard to fix sometimes. Elonka's post was the best one can do, namely "I've unblocked you, this might happen, if it does let me know and I'll fix it". They are hard to fix until they actually happen (if they do). It wasn't an omission, indeed many admins wouldn't have thought about it or said anything as it's not that common. I'm not sure about the rest - she may well have edited but not checked her email for most things, been doing some stuff not other stuff, I don't know, and I wouldn't like to guess. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2 wrote: "Unfortunately, policies and norms on blocking do not support your view."

FT2, you still don't get it. What I was talking about is a reconsideration of policies and norms on blocking, because they are often more disruptive to the editing process than some abrasivness (ie incivility), or possible incidents of 3RR. I would not have brought what was just a personal complaint to this noticeboard. capisce? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's complete validity in having a view that blocking policy and norms should change. The issue here is a specific block and current norms. What i have done is checked carefully if Elonka's action on your block accorded with current norms. It does, and she acted to a high standard (though you may not appreciate the result). If you feel the norm itself needs to change, then the best place to discuss is at the blocking policy talk page. That's a separate question. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is aimed at FT2: Having watched quite a number of disputes play out by now, I think the real issue is a bit different from what is going on here. As far as I can see, when an editor prepared to edit-war gets into a content dispute with an editor who isn't prepared to, the edit-warrior wins every time. If there is no edit war, administrators won't help. Therefore, refusing to edit-war amounts to unconditional surrender. Until this dilemma is solved, problems of this sort are going to keep coming up, and people who are fundamentally good editors are going to be keep being blocked for edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Aware and if I ever see a place to put a hammer and chisel and gain communal consensus to something that would likely fix it, I would do so. That hasn't happened yet, though I have some ideas..... FT2 (Talk | email) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotion of fringe by POV-fork

Bioacoustics therapy. by mixing material from Bioacoustics with extreme fringe material about using frewquency analysis of the voice to diagnose disease, throwing in some fringe self-published internet "journals", and such, this article attempts to put the science of Bioacoustics, and extreme fringe on the same basis, by switching between them a few times a paragraph and thus using descriptions of the science to bolster the fringe. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I worked it over some... see what you think. The history section I ran out of patience with, but I got rid of the "research" section (no research was cited, aside from one ref which said there is "little validity" to the science it claims). "Bioacoustic therapy" and "bioacoustics therapy" get zero hits on google.scholar. NJGW (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Functional medicine

I removed the prod on this article because this is known pseudo-science; see [49]. Someone more interested in this topic (or pseudo-medicine in general) may want to further balance the article. VG ☎ 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to deal with it by AfD, that might be the way to go. The ref above does not show it to be notable, just that one company used the name in their advertising. I am not sure other occurences of the phrase are the same thing. DGG (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple FTC news releases cited at that link, all about the same person and his various companies and products; it's not just some other M.D.'s claims, otherwise Quackwatch could have easily been sued by now. Other editors have since worked on the article. VG ☎ 11:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It still needs a lot of work. It's basically an advert and a coat-rack for attacks on modern medicine.Verbal chat 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

more Assyrian trouble

The "Assyrian" nightmare shows signs of being revived, this time by "Assyrianist" Suryoyo othuroyo (talk · contribs) (possibly a sock) vs. "Aramaeanist" The TriZ (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) (as usual, most of the involved accounts make clear even in their username that they're just here to edit-war), also featuring some spectacular admin failure. This has all been thoroughly discussed, to and past the point of nausea. It's all at Names of Syriac Christians. This should mostly be a matter of trying to enforce basic policy with editors who Do Not Want to Get It. I don't have time for this atm. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I be offended by this? It is you who are making disprutive and controversial changes without anything to back it up with. Also, maybe you should mention user:Am6212 and user:Trippss(possible sockpuppets). And the admin failure? Are you kidding me? It is you who have made major admin failures since the beginning of this "war", since you're not familiarized with the subject and still making controversial changes without seeking consensus with neither of the "both sides". Maybe it is YOU who should "familiarize yourself with the history of the debate and seek consensus on talkpages.", [50]. The TriZ (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

nonsense. If you claim that I should "familiarize myself with the history of the debate" you fail to recognize that I have actively participated in this sad excuse for a "debate" between teenage nationalists, and actively tried to get it on a construcive level, actively creating the article Names of Syriac Christians, etc.
You are welcome to bring up new evidence, but you are certainly not welcome to just keep going as if nothing of this had taken place. Wikipedia is well aware of the shape of this dispute now, and it is futile to just keeping up attempts to present one side as "the Truth". I will insist to revert this recent outbreak of edit-warring to the status quo ante unless new material is presented, or a new consensus has formed. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"in this sad excuse for a "debate" between teenage nationalists, and actively tried to get it on a construcive level"

Yes, that was indeed very constructive. To proving my point, let ous analyze your recent edits. You redirect the page Syriacs to Syriac (disambiguation)([51]) which you redirect to Syria (disambiguation)([52]) in which you redirect Syriac people and Syriac ethnic group to Syriac/Assyrian ([53] & [54]) which if course, you have redirected to Assyrian people [55]. This is the way you contribute. And you haven't been contributing to the debate constructively in a positive way, I can dig out diffs from where "both sides" clerly show their unsatisfaction with your involvement (because of that you're making edits that only aggravates the situation).

Recent? Where have you been the last halfyear? After that user:EliasAlucard been blocked, the two sides has in a better way co-operated with eachother which have resulted in a much better balance and a more objective picture of reality. Lately though, users like user:Am6212, user:Trippss and user:Suryoyo othuroyo have been starting edit-wars without discussing and ruining months of work and co-operation from both sides (also the absence of user:Chaldean has probably played a part). The TriZ (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit harsh on Dab in my previous statement, and I apologize for that. But these users, user:Am6212, user:Trippss & user:Suryoyo othuroyo, have not been contributing in a positive way to the Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean articles, which are the only articles they've been edited. The TriZ (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Great White Brotherhood

Perhaps I am just being negative about it, but it seems to me this article has a major problem with original research, in the form of synthesis. It lists as examples of the Great White Brotherhood

  1. Karl von Eckartshausen's "council of light"
  2. the Great White Lodge of Theosophical literature
  3. the Secret Chiefs of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
  4. the "Brotherhood" of AMORC
  5. the "Universal White Brotherhood" of Peter Deunov
  6. the "Fraternité Blanche Universelle" of Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov and
  7. "Immortal Saints and Sages" of Guy Ballard

all brought together under the same heading, without any reliable source cited to support that implied claim. (Might as well have included the Tzadikim too.)

It seems to me that this article should be limited to the Theosophocal related groups that actually used the term Great White Brotherhood. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

An anon-IP/new user is objecting to the term "conspiracy" being used in the Chemtrail conspiracy theory page by repeatedly removing it. Should be an easy problem to solve, unlike others that often turn up here :) Verbal chat 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion conflict of interest report

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor Pierre Carbonnelle. Relates to cold fusion and therefore also to this noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been closed as not adequately asserting that edits contrary to the mission of the encyclopedia have been made by this single-purpose cold fusion promoting account. If anyone would like to try to explain that the 2004 DOE report said to stop this nonsense and that no one except diehard proponents think that anything has changed, be my guest. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

This article is 45k in length, and barely mentions its status as a highly speculative idea with little following or interest among the cosmological community. It may take people with a solid grounding in astronomy and cosmology to make this a neutral article without undue weight, so I am bringing it up here. I did remove material from this article that was copied into Twin Quasar, but don't have the inclination to jump into the MECO article myself. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc decipherment claims

This article (Phaistos Disc decipherment claims) includes quite a few decipherment claims, many of which are fringe theories and which have been published only on personal websites or vanity press. A notability check for each of these claims is definitely needed. bogdan (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'game board' section should probably be drastically reduced, and the only usable source is the archaeology article - hopefully I can get a copy. The pattern maze should be removed unless a RS can be found. Fauconau can be used and I've got the Duhoux article reviewing him. I'm removing a few authors whose work is self-published. Doug Weller (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

since there is no commonly accepted decipherment, all these alleged decipherments fall under WP:FRINGE (which doesn't automatically mean pseudoscholarship, just fringe scholarship), and standards for inclusion should be lowered appropriately. Of course we still shouldn't include random personal websites, but self-published books and similar should be ok. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is the threshold then? Can just any fringe writer add their stuff? I'm not sure what 'and similar' above means. I'd like to see some evidence that other people have noted an idea before it can stay or go in. Some of the stuff is in academic journals, etc and clearly has a place. And should it have the category history of board games? Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted those of the claims which are clearly self-published - consideration as to their merits is besides the pointLeContexte (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, Doug, that the entriess should either be bona fide academic ideas (however speculative) or notable in that there is a third-party mention. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Applied kinesiology

Are the "scientific" viws represented really typical, or is there cherrypicking going on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that a lot of work has gone into that article, and it seems to make a strong effort at neutrality. Perhaps you should start by raising your concerns on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Looie496 :). I think I have not checked that article since before Anthon01 was banned, so there is a good chance that the article oversells the practice. There have been some studies (even a couple funded by other than the NCCAM or AK organizations), but no one has ever proposed a rational mechanism for action or demonstrated validity (or even reproducibility) of diagnosis or any of that good stuff. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnosis

This article is in bad shape and has POV problems. I did some editing of it a couple of days ago, which all got reverted this morning by and editor who seems to have a dislike of other editors working on the article [56]. Attention from some additional editors might help with getting a more balanced article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the problem with this article brings up once again the problem discussed above [[57]]. I have a choice between leaving a very problematic article with fringe problems alone, or I can revert unwarranted and unexplained changes, and see if the other editor, becomes willing to talk about the problems before Elonka, or some other administrator pops out of the woodwork and blocks me for giving a POV pushing editor a hard time. (You know, this situation really sucks...and I am not entirely sure WP is worth this sort of agrivation.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point -- if nothing else, the Hans Jonas quote is so long as to constitute a copyvio. However, I also think the views of Voegelin (which you seem to be advocating) are overweighted by at least an order of magnitude. I wouldn't want to get involved here if it comes down to a matter of competing POVs. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not advocating Voegelin, and have read nothing by him. I do not know much about Gnosticism either, and am not involved with the subject. But Eric Voegelin is an important 20th century scholar who wrote on Gnosticism, and therefore belongs in the article. If you look at the talk page you will see there was a long argument over including him. The editor who opposed his inclusion in the article has just added more material that is intended to discredit Voegelin, which is okay as long as it does not sidetrack the article (but at this point about half of the article is taken up with criticism of Voegelin). It is things like the problematic statements that connect Gnosticism with the Sufis, and with Buddhism and Hinduism that make the article fringe, as well as whole POV sections, like this [58], that need attention too -- although the section is so badly written it is difficult to understand what it says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Atomidine

Most of the article consists of unsourced speculation by an editor - query if it should be pared down to a stub, deleted, or merged with Edgar Cayce.... LeContexte (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted this back to the version of June 2007, which I think is not too horrible. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to even more boldly merge it into iodine trichloride, which is what it chemically really is. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Manuel Rosa

Appears to be a fringe writer with a lot of hype on the page. I've raised an AfD but in the fiction and arts category, which I think was wrong as it purports to be history (why can't we have a clear AfD category for history and archaeology, by the way?). What category should it be in? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

Look at this [59] and see if you don't think there is something fishy going on. I keep coming across sections on this tiny little faith. There seems to be a huge push to promote it, but they are smart about it. Just insert it wherever there is any relevance at all. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted this before. In any article that has an "in other religions" section, there will be an "in Bahai" subsection -- something any serious encyclopedia would never do. The attempt here is to extend the "Abrahamic religions" list from "Christianity, Islam, Judaism" to "Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Bahai", which when you compare the historical significance of the first three to that of the latter is simply amusing. It's not quite as bad as the ubiquitous "in Marvel Comics and World of Warcraft" additions, but it's comparable. World of Warcraft has twice as many subscribers as Bahai has adherents. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
And yet... Bahai passes our test for inclusion (well documented by secondary sources). It may not be as large as the "mainstream" religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism... but I don't really see any justification for removing such additions. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Am I missing out on something here? The site you linked pegs Baha'i at 7 million. A healthy, respectable number, to be sure, but it's barely half of Judiasm's 14 million. I mean, I guess anything is "comparable" to anything else numerically - problem being that said comparsions may not always be equal. Badger Drink (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Those numbers have a similar order of magnitude. The big three are clearly Christianity, Islam and Hinduism with a billion or so adherents. Then there's Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism with hundreds of millions of adherents. Judaism and Bahai are both third-tier religions along with Sikhism, Spiritism and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This tier system is clearly OR. You can strictly talk about number of subscribers, but not that's not number of believers/practioners and not a ranking of importance (historcically, politically, socially or otherwise). NJGW (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE uses the term minority a lot and this is mostly a matter of counting. Your concept of importance seems more subjective. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Within reason... Some of these insertion are based on self-published sources, and the inclusions into completely general topics aren't justified. I would suggest taking this up at WP:WPBF, because I know there are Baha'i contributors, who respect Wikipedia's content policies and would respond responsibly. Vesal (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If Christianity is about 1/5th (??) of the world, Bahá'í would be 6 million is 1/1000th of the world? I'm bad at math, but really is it notable enough for inclusion in many of the articles it's in?
"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
In religion articles like [60] it is the first one on the list. Do you really think it should be mentioned at all, in most of the articles where it is? (and BTW, I picked the Hell article at random and then went to look.) ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That one is in alphabetical order, but if it is the smallest religion among those listed I think it should be in 'others'. Bringing it up at WP:WPBF sounds like a good idea. Someone has been pushing it hard, do we know who? Doug Weller (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was watching WP:WPBF, and thus commenting here. Much of the Baha'i content in some of general religious pages has been included by anonymous users; the editors who are active on Wikipedia and who are Baha'i have noticed this and have been aware and vigilant about undue weight. For example you can see this page which documents some of the problems (it's there because the wikiproject did not exist at the time) that have been noticed. Thus some editors have gone through and reduced in size the length of the Baha'i sections (such as [61], [62], [63]) that were too long. At the same time, there has been an effort to use secondary sources to cite the material. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Hell's entry is too long. Please do bring these my project page. The WPBF page is a bit fallow, so I'll be able to address this sooner.
I don't buy the argument that Baha'i in Hell is UW. It's a general survey article. Christianity is obviously larger, which is why it has its own article on the subject: Hell in Christian beliefs. I'd like to be the first to delete any Baha'i reference in that article.
We do care about WP:Undue, but also please note that the point of WP is to develop a broad cross-section of topics. In the face of WP's anti-expert bias its a somewhat redeeming feature.
So, if good references can be found and the entry kept in line, I'll insist that it go in in general articles alongside Zoroastrian, or Mormon, or Tao, or Mayan, etc. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need a little perspective here... At least we are discussing a real religion. Wikipedia gives extensive treatment to less than real religions. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(on principle of full disclosure) As a Christian, I am completely sympathetic and fully tolerant towards Bahá'í. As a editor of an encyclopedia, I too remain skeptical. Justification for its inclusion in the religion and science article has been made by an article in the Zygon: Journal of Religion of Science, which is definitely a big plus. A big minus, however, is that many readers are often going to be confused by the lack of popular explanation. And when I have provided the best brief explanation I believe exists by a leading theologian Hans Kung, I recieved a nasty-gram [64] (by editor who may very well be Bahá'í).--Firefly322 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, Judaism is extremely notable not in terms of number of adherents, but because it has been around for some 2500 years, and has indirectly spawned the two religions now dominant, viz. Christianity and Islam. Bahai has few adherents and is a new religious movement. Of course it deserves its own article, but you can not assume that it is worth mentioning in any article not directly addressing Bahai topics. This is a matter of WP:DUE: inclusion of Bahai factoids into non-Bahai topics needs a justification every time. --dab (𒁳) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is a good place to make it central. Just list it there first. You think? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that, if based on nothing else, the difficult situation of Bahais in Iran [65] justifies cutting them plenty of slack in the WP articles. It does not seem to be the only such case either, because the followers of the Dalai Lama get attention on WP way beyond what is justified by their numbers. Have a heart, guys. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as commentary: Bahá'í (which has been around since the 19th century) is one of the few faiths that makes a point of being explicitly trans-denominational. I'm not up on the details, but as I understand it, their view is that all religions are the same religion, so they would naturally think that they have a place in the discussion of any religion. that can be taken to ridiculous extremes, of course, so some concern is in order, but I wanted to point out that these weren't necessarily idle additions. --Ludwigs2 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL- I'll bet that is the very first time "have a heart" or similar sentiments have come to this noticeboard. I don't have anything against them, of course, but I've seen so much mention in the most strange places. But I really very much doubt that inserting them in all sorts of articles is doing them any good. If you want to do some good, put a "religious persecutions" box on all the religions articles, separated into nations- list the faiths being persecuted in the various nations.

Ludwigs, their doctrines are quite different from other faiths. So that's funny. But I know nothing about them really. I never heard of them before all the mentions in WP, and that's significant: I just don't think they are that notable. Jews would not be either, if they didn't have such a huge place in world history. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well, I don't mind being the voice of compassion. If that's lacking here, all the more reason to add it. but yeah - if editors are just throwing its name into the mix to have its name in the mix, that does need to be reigned in.
but please be a bit careful about matters of faith: you can't really judge one by the number of its adherents, and you'll get a lot of noses out of joint if you do. Baha'i (or Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Wicca, Scientology, or whatever) may have smallish numbers compared to the Big Boys, but mostly what that means is that the big faiths have hordes of 'in-name-only' followers. really, not that many people in the world are honestly religious. I'd give odds that the number of Christians in the world who really understand and practice their faith isn't that much larger than the number of Baha'i people out there. but I digress... --Ludwigs2 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I did some scouting around in the "links to" list, and didn't spot anything that seemed very obnoxious. A substantial number of the links come from the ((religion topics)) template. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not obnoxious. Yes, and what are they doing among the Abrahamic religions part at all? "Bahá'í Faith · Christianity · Gnosticism · Islam · Judaism · Rastafari · Samaritanism" it says. Read this, and the TOC. It just isn't quite right. Anyone coming here would think they are a major world religion. They get more or less equal billing. The Mormons are much bigger. Look [66]. Spiritism Juche and Sikhism are all much bigger.
If people here think it a) not worth bothering with, or b) is fine the way it is, then that's fine. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I never judged them at all Ludwigs. Not as good or bad. Just as inserted in a lot of articles where it doesn't really belong, or doesn't belong in an article which is complete, since the other faiths should also be there. Having Bahai and not the others makes it look like one of the big 3. I'm sure they did it in completely good faith. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to become mindful that the Baha'i Faith is an actively growing religion - in the top two for the last 35+ years according to Christian associated statistics - see Major religious groups#Trends in adherence - and as such is active on many issues on many levels. We have representation at the UN - Bahá'í International Community and participated in a number of global forums. Baha'is have many associated projects some of which are detailed per country in a growing list of articles Category:Bahá'í Faith by country and there has been in the news coverage and governmental actions in America and Europe especially in a variety of ways often associated with the situation the Baha'is are in in Iran and Egypt - see Persecution of Bahá'ís. None of this is meant to dismiss the issue of undue weight. It is however to share some ways in which there is, indeed, weight to be noted. As for comparison with other groups, consider and please be reminded that groups like Mormons are already members of Christianity. People seem to pretty casually mix denominations and independent religions. I would also note some articles order the headings alphabetically and some not. Therefore in some of these places they are alphabetically first and others not. Smkolins (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - speaking as an outsider, I don't see how Latter Day Saints can be considered Christians. Doug Weller (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
LDS identify themselves as Christians. But my understanding is that they are almost never invited to participate in ecumenical activities by other Christian groups. So a lot of different denominations of Christianity were involved in the conferences that resulted inScientific Perspectives on Divine Action, but I don't think there were any LDS involved. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not a Bahai, but I definitely find something disturbing about the fact that we are discussing this subject as a "fringe theory" in the first place. From the beginning of wikipedia, I have noticed a tendency among certain editors to try to appoint themselves as the Council of Nicea, and declare on everyone else's behalf, whose ideas are valid and 'approved', while also declaring whose are heresy. We should not do this by any means; Wikipedia is NOT the Council of Nicea. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, that is not what is going on in this discussion. There was a question about the large number of articles linked to Bahai, but no one said that the religion is fringe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Then please tell me, why are we discussing these things on the page for "fringe theories", Malcolm??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This topic should not have been brought up on the fringe message board. It's disgusting that few editors realize how offensive doing truly is. (and I am most certainly not a Bahai nor I ever become one.) --Firefly322 (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
excuse me? disgusting? We are trying to fix a problem, and we are doing it in the open. Unless you want to protect this board from becoming unduly cluttered, I fail to see your point. There isn't a dedicated "Bahai hyperbole noticeboard" yet, sorry, so you should be glad the problem is being addressed at all, never mind the title of the page the discussion happens to be taking place. We could have the same discussion on IRC, via email, on user talkpages, or wherever, and none of that would be "disgusting". --dab (𒁳) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

guys, this has gone way off track. Nobody here has (or should have) anything against Bahai, or for Bahai for that matter. The problem is that Bahai factoids are often, systematically, added to articles in violation of WP:DUE. We are here to fix it. That's all. As pointed out here, hyperbole helps nobody, least of all the reputation of the faith whose representation is being pushed unduly. What exacltly is "due" is a matter of case by case discussion, on article talkpages. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Where things went was the moment people started to talk about number of adherents. WP:DUE has nothing to do with number of adherents, or else we must rewrite evolution/creationism to reflect popular opinion. The way to deal with this issue is to demand academic publishers for inclusion of factoids, and if you do this equally for all religion, you will get due weight because mainstream religions are discussed in OUP quality monographs. Vesal (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would dispute that "WP:DUE has nothing to do with number of adherents". Any religion with more than, say, 500 million adherents can be considered of global notability, and its take on things hence will be "due" rather easily. True, it does not follow from a small number of adherents that a religion is not notable, as evident in Judaism. Bahai clearly fails to be a "major world religion" and languishes on second or third tier with Confucianism or Jainism. It also clearly falls under "new religious movements", and it is certainly notable as the largest NRM, and discussing it is "due" whenever "various other religions" or NRMs are being discussed, but not otherwise. We seem to agree that mentioning Bahai in every possible and impossible instance has been overdone on WP, and we should just judiciously fix that. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Confucianism was long the dominant religion in a country of unsurpassed importance. The teaching seems to be resurgent in contemporary China. It would be almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of Confucianism in China and in a number of surrounding countries (although the Confucists themselves did not regard Confucianism as a religion and spoke of Taoism and Buddism as "the two religions". [Malcolm]
Dbachmann said, "The problem is that Bahai factoids are often, systematically, added to articles in violation of WP:DUE." It isn't clear to me that that has been demonstrated. Let's either drop this or get specific, please. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably the fairest way to handle this is look at other encyclopedia articles from Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica. Also look at the main sources for an article. If there are a lot of tertiary sources (well-respected survey books, other well-respected encyclopedia, etc.), which all fail to mention bahai in regards to a certain topic then it's almost certainly fair to say that Bahai simply doesn't belong in the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues here. Vesal (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Howshua Amariel

Some amazing nonsense and self-publicity here. Not sure what to do about it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you read the talk page if you can bear to do it. This all looks self-published, eg [67]. The main author of the article and the family make a big thing of it being in the Library of Congress, claiming that the LoC says this and that about it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Should go straight to AfD I fear. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Google finds no usable sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I opened the AfD debate, please comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrosociology

Someone please have a look at astrosociology. It managed to survive an AfD rather tenuously two years ago. I'd vote delete again, since the article fails to establish any significant scientific notability of the subject, but I thought I would bring it up here first. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The only source I see is to their own site, which was last updated on 09/30/2006. There is nothing at all to establish notability in the article. I don't see anything on the talk page about an AfD, and it is hard to see how one would fail for this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I gave the link to the AfD in my post: here it is a second time. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. But it should be on the top of the article talk page, and I do not understand why it is not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood you. I think I will just be bold and nominate it again for AfD. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to move it to Sociology of outer space. We have a lot of other "sociology of" articles, and there is a recent contribution to this sub-specialism from a leading academic publisher: Dickens, Peter and Ormrod, James, Cosmic Society: Towards a Sociology of the Universe, Routledge, London 2007. This has been reviewed in several places, so there is a chance of expanding the article with additional good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Ayurvedic tradition

Can some people have a look at this and see what they think? It's not very good, but it's probably salvageable. While we're at it, Ayurveda needs a cleanup again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Maharishi Vedic Medicine.

Expanding Earth theory

I just came accross the Expanding Earth theory article today... some of you may be familiar with the idea since it seems like an old one, but I noticed that there are several problems. Most importantly it is named a theory, though I don't see any indication that it is any more than an out-dated hypothesis, and the terms "fringe" or "pseudoscience" appear nowhere in the article. I worked on the lead some, but I wouldn't want to make any huge changes without some other eyes on the article as well. Suggestions for moving forward? NJGW (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a crappy old theory, but I still think it qualifies as a theory. People have gone to great lengths to explain the historical record using it, it makes testable predictions, and it provides an explanation for observed facts. Why don't you think it qualifies as a theory?—Kww(talk) 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The article reads "The primary objections to Expanding Earth Theory centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase and on the inability to find an actual increase of earth's radius by modern measurements," not to mention the problem that (to explain how dinosaurs could have been so big) the concept implies that either Earth's mass is growing with its volume OR the gravitational constant of the universe has been growing over time. NJGW (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How about just Expanding Earth, similar to Flat Earth? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make some adjustments including some points that the idea was never really entertained. There is quite a lot of original research going on in that article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Your efforts have been reverted by User:Cygnis insignis, I've asked him to comment here. Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is badly written, and does not have a neutral tone in the lead. I tried to rewrite it, but got reverted. The most important thing about it is what it says, obviously. The second most important thing is what people say about it. See what you think of this diff [68] ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest revision is better, it's important to say right off that the idea is obsolete. Doug Weller (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic help needed

Talk:Chiropractic#General_comments_and_observations. That pretty much sums up the problem. Apparently people are using "consensus" to try to feet-drag, drive-by-revert, tag-team, etc. We need neutral, outside parties who are willing to wield clue-sticks in defense of Wikipedia policies and guidelines other than WP:CON. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been following that from afar ever since Elonka blocked me for not even editing that article... pretty treacherous waters. Would it make sence to bring the foot-draggers before Arb-com, or some similar intervention? NJGW (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggested as much on the talkpage. I think it may be the only reasonable solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration will not solve content disputes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a content dispute, I see a POV pusher who won't give in. Arbitration should give guidelines for dealing with those who refuse to acknowledge consensus, and can label them as disruptive (see also the essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing).
Hey, and that last link lead me to a new one (for me)... wp:PARITY. Looks like a good one for excising the fringe from the wheat: "For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject... Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects." NJGW (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

biogenetic structuralism

This article is problematic. I believe that the topic is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, but the current article is full of cruft and lacks inline references. I can't see any way of improving it without hacking out major portions, and I wonder what others think. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. Essay. Wouldn't be surprised if there were a copyvio in there. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the primary author is who he claims to be, he added the material based on one of his publications -- see here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree

Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.

Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?

Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right place. If discussion hasn't worked, you should do an RFC, and if that doesn't work, you should take the problem to wp:ani. If he is editing against a consensus of several editors, though, you will probably find it simpler to just revert on sight—always using an edit message like "reverting edit that ignores talk page consensus—until something gives one way or another. Just make sure that it is he who violates 3RR instead of you. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! Jwri7474 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's right, and it seems to have worked, too. He needed editors used to dealing with fringe stuff. And please do not recommend edit warring. What Looie496 is advocating is against both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy and the best parts of its culture. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, if it's cut and dry refusal to accept consensus, then more of the same consensus isn't going to help. Revert when appropriate, let others do the same, help the block process if they go over 3rr, open RFC/ANI if they don't stop. That's the normal process around here. This noticeboard is for more complex issues. NJGW (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Absent administrators with courage (which is definitely the case here at Wikipedia) it is impossible to do otherwise. NJGW and Looie are right. If it truly is consensus then the disruptive editor will find themselves on the wrong side of a continually reverted article by a wide range of people. The sad thing about Wikipedia is that tag teaming is the only way to get anything done since dispute resolution is essentially a joke. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of courage --I've seen admins show great courage on a number of occasions (not always well-directed). It's mainly a matter of disfunctional mechanisms. Ultimately what is needed are things like (1) a mandatory dispute resolution process simpler than RFC-followed-by-ANI, (2) a mechanism for moderated editing of highly controversial articles, and (3) a mechanism by which a given assertion can be officially designated as a "fringe hypothesis" per wp:fringe. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good system to me. I suppose we could try to invent it and make people follow it. That might ruffle enough feathers to get people to start noticing the issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of Australia?

Not really competent in this area, but an edit summary like clarify that scholars regard all this as nonsense always catches my eye. Any opinions?—Kww(talk) 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the original view - that native Pacific and Australian people are part of the African diaspora - is worth mentioning. In which case the rebuttal would go too. Lefkowiz is a reliable source on Greek studies but not on this - never mind, delete the whole section. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion help

There is a REALLY BIG problem with WP:OWN at cold fusion. I am the only editor there who has not drunk the Kool Aid, it seems. Outside eyes would really help. I have made some removal of obviously POVPUSHING material in the lead and in the "evidence for cold fusion" sections, but we really need to clean house there. These SPAs are dedicated and coordinated by NET and other outside websites to drive the Wikipedia article on cold fusion into a state where it is unrecognizable as reliable, verifaible, or neutral.

PLEASE HELP!

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Large chunks of the article give far more credence to the fringe claims of cold fusion advocates than is merited. The perspective needs altering to that of "history of (pseudo) science" article. Basically, bringing into line with WP:FRINGE is required: that fringe theories are written about as such. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggested elsewhere reverting to the last definite GA version, which was in May 2008, and proceding from there. Any thoughts on that? NJGW (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that there is one really good expert editor we have that could revamp the entire article beautifully: Kirk shanahan. Unfortunately, he has not been treated so kindly by the usual suspects. The GA version itself is not ideal and even though Dank55 had the best interests of all in mind, he really took the "write by committee" aspect of Wikipedia too far and ended up with an article that he wasn't happy with while the cf-proponents could CROW about their accomplishments. I think the best thing to do is to delist the GA, start excising the material that is sourced solely to cold fusion proponents (which is a bucketload), and begin to reposition the article as Moreschi suggests. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I despair of both sides on this one and I think that we should find out what User:Seicer, who was around to moderate, thinks about it. SA's been critical of his input and I don't know why. Kirk shanahan has been very useful, I agree, but he's still a relative newbie on WP, and it needs some care when someone researching in the field is editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Seicer has driven professional scientists off of Wikipedia through his refusal to accept that people may know more than him about certain scientific subjects. He sent me one of the meanest e-mails I've ever received in my life regarding cold fusion. That he's an admin is absurd. He's one of the worst moderators I've ever come across. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Experiment

I watched the film The Philadelphia Experiment (which wasn't as bad as I was expecting), and in trying to find out who some of the actors were I came across the page "Philadelphia Experiment" which seems badly in need of a reality check... For example, not sourced and in the lead: "It is said, though not proven, that the ship was dismantled and the crew placed in an insane asylum to keep these events secret." At least it says "not proven" :) Verbal chat 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow: "said but not proven". If the bar for inclusion is simply that a thought has been uttered verbally, we're in trouble. :) MastCell Talk 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't utter nuffin :) Verbal chat 10:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No OR policy discussion

I have a question up at WT:NOR, so I noticed a long post commenting on a desire to change the policy. I didn't read it closely (and I didn't see any obvious problems) but then I saw that the same editor is canvassing the likes of Reddi (talk · contribs)[70] (an occasional "friend" of this board). If that's the kind of people being contacted (I didn't recognize the others), then people here might be interested in watching how the discussion plays out. NJGW (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be pretty much above the board. User:Slrubenstein, I think, is just covering all the bases: there doesn't seem to be an ideological party-line he's towing. I don't know why anyone would solicit Reddi for input, but there's nothing in principle wrong with it, I suppose. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

Seems designed to push the view that all research refuting claims that aspartame as it's usually used is dangerous, are funded by the sugar substitute industry and thus corrupt, plus other language designed to push the theory. I think it's been like that for years. I tend to avoid these sort of articles due to the unpleasant rows involved, but thought I'd bring it here for your attention. Sticky Parkin 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:POVFORK of aspartame. I redirected, and we'll see if it sticks. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Longstanding disaster area. I wish luck to anyone interested in fixing it. For an encapsulation of the problem, look no further than the external links section. The links are divided into "pro-aspartame" and "anti-aspartame". The "pro-aspartame" link is to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The "anti-asparatame" links are to www.holisticmed.com and www.thetruthaboutstuff.com. But hey, who's to say one is more credible than the other? Let's just put them on a completely equal footing. MastCell Talk 16:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it months/a year ago and tried to NPOV but I was reverted, so gave up. At least the huge flakey bibliography and external links, which weren't in an encyclopaedic style, have been cleaned up since then. I think theres some WP:OWN going on, and not by people you'd expect. Wow you've done loads of work! Thanks.:) Sticky Parkin 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you know that if you put a single grain of aspartame in twenty gallons of water, then drink a cup of the result, you'll cure cancer? Pretty awesome, if you ask me. Badger Drink (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Werner Gitt's Biography

Werner Gitt's biography has been edited to suggest his pseudoscientific ideas on information theory are well founded.

I have reverted the recent edits. I'll watchlist the article and speak up if the cruft comes back. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Baron von Rothschild as Hitler's grandfather" claims

Since I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia I could use some help here.

The matter at hand concerns the following articles:

Alois Hitler
Maria Schicklgruber
Salomon Mayer von Rothschild

In all three articles, a tiny-minority view as referenced in WP:UNDUE was given inordinate weight and very likely should not be included at all (also per WP:UNDUE).

I removed the inappropriate text in the first two articles and left one paragraph in the third.

Two editors then challenged my actions and reverted my edits: User:Joyson Noel and User:MichaelCPrice. The first editor immediately barked at me, "Dont ever delete sourced info again" (see the edit history of Salomon Mayer von Rothschild), the second is also incivil and telling me "DO NOT REMOVE" and "You are not listening" (Talk:Alois Hitler).

I don't mind the incivility so much, but the fact is that yesterday I spent more than three hours in the library looking up sources and writing a detailed explanation, with numerous citations, why the "Rothschild as Hitler's grandfather" claim is a tiny-minority view that does not merit inclusion. Earlier, I also offered as a compromise proposal to let stand one paragraph (equipped with proper qualifications) on the claim.

Since then, User:MichaelCPrice has claimed that just because he called the information notable it must be included in the Article. User:Joyson Noel has been quiet since yesterday but neither has he indicated his agreement to the changes made by me.

Since I am unable to visit Wikipedia daily or monitor these articles on a regular basis, I am asking anyone who wants to help to please add them to your watchlist. Feel free also to let me know what else I could do and how I could improve my handling of such matters in the future. Thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What I also find troubling is that the nonsense was introduced more than a year ago on 1 Aug 2007 by an IP in the Lao People's Democratic Republic diff who on the same date inserted similar b.s. into a different WP article (now corrected by me). It seems that until now, none of the many editors who were involved spotted the problem. You can bet that Nazi and Islamist websites all over the world have been happily linking to the Wikipedia and claiming it as an authority. I don't care about the official WP disclaimers, to the average Internet user they make no difference.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea why Nazis would want to "happily link" to the claim that Adolf had a Jewish grandfather. I can't see Islamists being thrilled either. That suggestion (which dates to Hans Frank) is fringe enough, but probably notable. However this one is fringe of the fringe. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether the Rothschild theory is bullshit (as Goodmorningworld claims) is beside the point, as I have repeatedly explained to Goodmorningworld. It is a notable theory by virtue of the extensive discussion it has engendered in the literature; hence it merits inclusion here. If it is bullshit I have no objection to why it is b.s. being explained in Wiki also -- along with sources of courses. --Michael C. Price talk 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Goodmorningworld, you neglected to say where the "detailed explanation" you wrote can be found. I looked at the Rothschild article talk page, but it isn't there. Looie496 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh? If you went to Talk:Salomon Mayer von Rothschild, you should have seen this:

For the sceptical: see Talk:Alois Hitler for an exhaustive discussion, with numerous citations, of why the Rothschild idea is a fringe, tiny-minority view.

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that there is no "extensive discussion it has engendered in the literature". Biographies of Hitler do not mention it. At most they mention the generic Jewish grandfather theory mentioned by Frank. There were lots of rumours flying around before and during the war years. They are not notable enough for detailed discussion unless they continue to be the subject of discussion. Paul B (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals have jumped on Alois Hitler and Maria Schicklgruber. If an admin is reading here, could you grant me rollback so that I can rollback the damage, or perform the rollback yourself? Thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP edits are not vandalism. The ones at Alois Hitler seem to be corrections of name spellings and the like). They may be incorrect (I would not know), but they are not vandalism. The edits at Maria Schicklgruber relate to the issue you have raised here over the Rothchild theory... thus the edit is simply a continuation of the content dispute, not IP vandalism... however, I have reverted the edit as giving Undue Weight to the Fringe Theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Increase the Reliability of Wikipedia through Enforcement of Existing Policies

There is an interesting proposal being discussed on WP:AN of relevance to people here. Yours, Verbal chat 12:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

Recently there have been repeated attempts to add unverified and unverifiable crap (ahem) to this article. It's not out of hand but could use a little more watching. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could be worse. Sorry, couldn't resist.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. MastCell Talk 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Water ionizer

There's an account known as Water Ionizer Research (talk · contribs) who is charitably adding neutral, accurate information to the water ionizer article and valiantly defending it from the horrible editors who would sully the page with the suggestion that claims water ionizers can cure cancer are ridiculous quackery.

Just kidding, there's a slow-burning edit war on the page, much of it centering in an external link that calls water ionization claims bunk [71]. Looks like classic fringe - extreme claims, minimal proof, gross over-reaching of what research exists, and lots of promotion and spamlinks continually inserted. Anyone have any expertise? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the acid-alkaline theory of health. It never ceases to fill me with a sense of shame for the failures of my country's public-education system. I'm always tempted to explain that the most effective (and cheapest) way to "alkalinize" your body is by hyperventilating - though even then, your kidneys will eventually adapt and excrete more bicarbonate over time, plus you look silly. Sigh. MastCell Talk 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention collapsing, unconsciousness, theoretically wouldn't it also lead to osteoporosis? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lumania: mythology or fringe?

The article on "Seth's" (that is, Jane Roberts's) Lumania claims it as an "ancient mythological civilization". This strikes me as grossly misleading (especially since the article tends to be written "in world", as it were), but I thought I'd bring it up here first before mauling it and identifying it as pseudo-history. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mythology article says mythology "refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." Since Lumania is a fabrication of the Seth books, it does not seem to have a basis in any traditional culture. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Throw an
This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
tag on it and rewrite =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Or just change it to "mythical ancient civilization", which is probably what the author meant anyway. Looie496 (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've thoroughly rewritten it to emphasize the suppositional and pseudohistorical nature of the thing. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

Could some of you have a look at this page. This is a self-published book which is purported to have received one review in a scientific journal (not verified, see talk page), and for which I have found one review in a newspaper[72]. There are some 24 Google hits for it[73], so its notability can be questioned as well. In general, it reads to me like more fringe science than anything else, proposing a new diagnosis and so on. It is not extremely outlandish, but it does look all dubious to me, and certainly hasn't received much attention in mainstream or scientifc publications. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: it also is heavily spammed in Concept of death and adjustment. Even if not fringe, the attention it receives there is certainly removable per WP:UNDUE (and WP:COI). Fram (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should probably be deleted; even if that review is eventually published, it doesn't seem notable enough. Vesal (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Note as well that the article was almost entirely written by the author of the book. Please AfD it if you want to. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Now nominated for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And what do we think of Concept of death and adjustment. At a first reading it seemed to be an essay assembling lots of disparate ideas, and the title is awful. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ugh! the first page is pointless, the second page taps into something that's been kicked around psychological circle for ages, but doesn't do it very well. If I were to work on the second, I'd retitle it Death (psychology) and and then add a psychology section to the death page and link it up. the mention of religion in this article, though, opens up a whole new kettle fish (because religious perspective on death are myriad). either way, it needs some serious work... --Ludwigs2 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me on a quick glance as one big bundle of WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
well, I'm busy for the next couple of weeks, but after that I'll try to take a look at it. I have enough knowledge of the topic to start straightening it out, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you made it invisible to readers, it might be worth saying visibly that the article you nominated is Concept of death and adjustment. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Authorship of Dreams from My Father

Kauffner (talk · contribs) and Mikedelsol (talk · contribs) wish to use this source, from The American Thinker, in Dreams from My Father, to include the claim that the book was ghostwritten by William Ayers. I think that a) The American Thinker is not a sufficiently reliable source for a claim this extraordinary, and b) the claim is a fringe theory, and one not sufficiently noted in mainstream sources to be included in the article. Editors who are familiar with fringe theories in political contexts are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We should use the American Thinker, but only if we can use this source too. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Watch it — somebody's going to take that seriously. (One editor on the talk page is currently claiming that the repetition of the American Thinker claim on Rush Limbaugh and WorldNet Daily means that it's reached the mainstream.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt the POV-pushers know about this noticeboard, but I'll watch the page. Right now it looks like you have things under control. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted, and I took a look at our article on The American Thinker as well - which is actually not too bad. MastCell Talk 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Incidentally, on his blog Noroton (talk · contribs) has, flatteringly, used this dispute as an example of how political POV-pushing on Wikipedia should be handled. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been further developments on this front. The Times of London has reported that a Republican congressman (Chris Cannon) and his brother-in-law offered to pay an Oxford don $10,000 to "prove" that Ayers wrote Obama's book. The don declined, and later ran an analysis himself, which led him to the conclusion "...I feel totally confident that it is false." The story of the congressman's involvement has also been covered in The Salt Lake Tribune. My feeling is that these sources are reliable enough to merit a brief mention in the article, but other folks at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Fringe think that it's still best left out. Any opinions are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist logic

I ran across this one during routine article cleanup. I'm honestly not sure if it's a fringe theory or not, but it certainly looks like it could be. I don't really know anything about the topic, and it's enough of a mess right now that I wouldn't even know how to start improving it. hbent (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't necessarily be fringe, depending on how it develops. The article was massively expanded by an IP editor two days ago, and if that editor continues to work on it, there is a possibility it will turn into something valid. If not, it isn't a very useful article. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Should perhaps be merged with Indian logic. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There used to be an upper division psychology class at U.C. Berkeley called "Buddhist Psychology", so I'd hope there would be some useful sources somewhere that they drew on. NJGW (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

☒N Lots of scholarly sources so definitely not fringe. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Fringe theories

There's been some edit warring at Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Elonka has already gone after SA for it (many of you may know this already for having his page watched). Some of the ones pushing against him are some usual fringe suspects will be familiar to those who watch this board regularly. NJGW (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am cautioning multiple editors, not just ScienceApologist. Major changes to guidelines should be discussed at the talkpage first. ScienceApologist in particular has been edit-warring to force through major changes at the guideline, but hasn't posted a single message at the talkpage since August. --Elonka 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the normal editing process supposed to begin with being bold? What I notice is that those who reverted him have for the most part not stated their issues with the changes he made. NJGW (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I was the first one to revert the edits which ScienceApologist made. That presumably means NJGW is referring to me when he speaks of "some usual fringe suspects". I stated my reasons in the edit summary, briefly but comprehensibly. I object strongly to NGJW's ignorant and unwarranted description of me, which is a clear breach of WP:AGF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict reply to NJGW) See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This is an ongoing situation where Wikipedia is being used as a battleground, so certain topics (and editors) are on a shorter leash. --Elonka 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I too take objection to NJGW's characterization. As I was one of the "reverters", I assume that he is labelling be one of the "usual fringe suspects". I am not a supported of the fringe POV. I am a supporter NPOV and CON, both of which were ignored by the edits which I reverted. Being bold is one thing, but once an editor sees that their boldness is contested/reverted, the next step should be to engage in discussion. Instead - in this case - the editorchose to edit-war and make personal attacks. We cannot tolerate such poor behavior. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Usual fringe suspects" means people that have come up on this board before. I thought that would be obvious. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get away from discussing editors, and back to discussing content? --Elonka 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I would encourage Elonka to follow her own advice concerning fringe theories, particularly for Race and intelligence. She has invited Ludwigs2 to edit this article (he declined) and has characterized the editors on the talk page, which have for some time concentrated on locating mainstream academic sources, as "bickering". Elsewhere she has repeatedly and unapologetically described them as a "lynch mob". Not once has she commented on content. Meanwhile the article has been recently edited by an indefinitely blocked user (Muntuwandi - aka User:Shambalala) and by User:Captain Occam, also a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. I hope that no administrators are actually sympathetic with those pushing the ideas of eugenics and dysgenics, two of the main proponents of which are Rushton and Lynn, both of whom have actively involved themselves with the far right group American Renaissance. Their ideas and the way in which they have been received by the mainstream academic community (in book reviews, for example) should of course be reported dispassionately and neutrally in this encyclopedia, if the need arises. Mathsci (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This is also being discussed here at ANI. I suggest the behaviour issues are dealt with (if still needed after Elonka's warnings) at ANI, the wording of the guideline is discussed here at WT:FRINGE, and this discussion closed as there is no specific fringe theory being discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The main page WP:FRINGE has now been locked by seicer. User:Ludwigs2 has taken it upon himself to revamp the guidelines "from head to tail" at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox. I wonder whether Elonka can appreciate the irony in this particular editor preparing a completely new version of these WP guidelines? Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Low level edit war at Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Needs an eye on it, but I'm travelling right now. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clouds, and thus contrails, consist of liquid and solid water, not vapor. - Atmoz (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't that particular edit I was referring to, but there does seem to be a lot of activity and this has now been mentioned on ANI. Verbal chat 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update A user is making what I believe are fallacious arguments on this page. Any help appreciated as he thinks my dismissal of his list of complaints isn't good enough. (tongue in cheek: Apparently the article isn't neutral as the only sources against chemtrtails are either governmental (gasp) or skeptical (by definition...?)) Verbal chat 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else interesting, see [74] - the IP is also participating on the talk page, but it obviously not new. I'm not sure if there is an issue here to be raised elsewhere or not. dougweller (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The IP claims to have edited the page previously in edit-wars, and has been blocked recently for vandalism. Verbal chat 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

There's been a lot of rewrites and additions to this recently, and many of them seem to encourage fringe theories to be described credulously. I think that the last week's changes need some review. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The page has been protected, so edits are limited to talk page discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The protect is a good thing. Discussions continue at the talk pages... those who participate at this noticeboard should get involved in those discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Financial astrology

Could somebody take a look at this? I'm totally flummoxed on how to deal with it. I came to it recently because of spam like references, including one supposedly published by "the Harvard Business School Press." Just to be sure: astrology has as much place in finance as it does in computer science.

Any help, rewording, etc. appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not nominate the article for deletion? Guidance on how to rewrite it so that it conforms to the rules was given a long time ago on the article's Talk page, if the defenders of Financial astrology can't be bothered to do the work, then that's their fault.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that Financial astrology is a part of Mundane astrology, i.e. involved with predictions. Since it has the astrology template on it, I don't think it is trying to deceive. I am not recommending it, just saying that it is a notable astrology subject. An Amazon search shows a number of published books on the subject, so the sourcing is there if someone wants to improve the article (I am disinclined to spend time on it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
…And cruft leads to more cruft. Take a look at William Delbert Gann, which is linked from this article. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with the Syriac kids please?

The problem as it presents itself to any sane observer: Some Syriac Christians think they are "Aramaeans" and reject the name "Assyrians", while others think they are "Assyrians" and reject the name "Aramaeans". Both endorse the name "Syriacs". This means we get lots of WP:CFORKs on the same group, one copy under "Aramaean-Syriac", the other under "Assyrian", and we get a lot of edit wars by both factions claiming the term "Syriac", which recently has meant piping "Syriac $ISSUE" to "Aramean-Syriac $ISSUE". This is a pure naming issue, the group discussed being the exact same. These kids have the bad taste to go and create a fork of Assyrian genocide at Syriac genocide just to make a WP:POINT.

The proper way to treat this as a bona fide dispute would be ((move)) discussions based on actual sources. Instead, we get a fork orgy by angry young men spewing vitriol at one another and any bystander. As if this wasn't bad enough, we now also have textbook "clueless admins" stepping in in weird ways, refusing to grok even as much of the issue as summarized right above (look at the history of Aramaean-Syriac people and this diff).

Only a zero-tolerance on content forking, and reward of valid and coherent renaming requests can help in this. I have been doing this with angelic patience for a year now, but I cannot work against the "clueless admin" population as well as against the teenage patriots, and I shouldn't be required to babysit admins as well as pov-pushers. Help is appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

note, this problem would be on-topic on the "nationalistic feuds" noticeboard, if that was active. I take it this board is the de facto nearest thing we have. Perhaps I should cross-post the problem somewhere else? --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you try AfD? I may be wrong, but I think if an AfD on Aramaean-Syriac People ends with "merge", and there is a clear closing comment saying that this is because it's a content fork, then you should be in a good position to ensure the page is, and remains, a redirect. Perhaps you could even protect the redirect in this case, or someone else would do it for you. (Of course you may have tried similar things before. In that case sorry for bringing it up.) --Hans Adler (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that [75] is almost entirely written in low-grade broken English. If this hasn't sorted itself out when I get back from a break (Friday, that is), I'll do something about it. Moreschi (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
A longstanding problem. Years ago I even created a user account on German Syriac web forum to explain Wikipedia policy and make their community leaders influence the angry young men. Shortlasting results didn't exactly reward the efforts taken. --Pjacobi (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

trying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Rudgley

This article raised a few red flags with me, especially the glowing praise in the unreferenced parts. Needs verification, although I'm not saying this is necessarily a "fringe" author. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look now. dougweller (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Half of the text in the article is now devoted to one negative review. That feels way out of balance. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
well, it's the only review we know about so far. It's only "out of balance" if you can show that there do in fact exist more positive reviews to put against that.
it appears my suspicion wasn't unfounded. I am now beginning to wonder whether he does really have all these fancy academic honours the article claims he does, without any sort of reference of course. dab (𒁳) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The source is clearly this. Since it basically describes him as a graduate student, I don't see anything all that "fancy" about it. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
And you might want to look for other reviews of other books, although I think that's his best known book. It needs a bibliography, I'd hoped I could find one easily but failed. dougweller (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean that the article needs a bibliography? Yes, definitely. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realized where I had come across this chap before -- Pagan Resurrection, which I cleaned up two years back (now made a redirect as failing WP:BK). This author seems to have written a good book on psychoactive drugs in the early 1990s, and since then has ominously lost it, and is now writing crackpot literature on confused ideas about prehistoric occultism. I have now become aware of this article because Rudgley is mentioned in a hilariously nonsensical post on Talk:Runic alphabet. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

There have been discussions here about problems with articles on ancient Persia and Babylonia (specifically Cyrus cylinder and Battle of Opis). I've been reviewing this topic area and have found numerous problems, in some cases amounting to a walled garden of bad articles. I've posted some review notes at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. Feedback would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea which part of Wikipedia policy is supposed to require us to even put up with blatant nationalist pov-pushing. This is simply something that does not belong here, not a matter of "debate" or "consensus". People who come here to abuse the project as a campaign platform should be duly warned, patiently pointed to policy, and if they persist, shown the door. It is difficult enough to work with people who are trying to write an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

Is an article I've just come across. It seems to be very positive in its descriptions of alternative medicine terms, but I'm not sure what policies would apply here. Could probably do with some copy editing, reduction of some terms, and expansion of others with scientific information. There are a lot of things like "therapy x cures y by principle z" which I'm not sure should be said in wikipedia's voice. More eyes, attention, etc. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it violates WP:NOT for one... Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, and what is a "Glossary" if not a form of dictionary? Transcribe any term definitions over to Wiktionary and Delete the article? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is in fact an official-looking list of glossaries, with many entries. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! How in the world do we justify having all those glossaries... is there some sort of subtle difference between a glossary and a dictionary that I am missing? (Probably a question that is better answered at WT:NOT, so I have posted a querry about this there.) Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, one difference is that a glossary may be organized by topic, whereas a dictionary is alphabetical. Looking through the list, some are very nice, others could well be deleted. It would be a real shame, for example, to lose this. looie496 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I could a glossary for say, physics, but Alternative medicine is a diverse field with each type having its own jargon. I'd support its deletion, or at least a ground-up copyedit. For one thing, it constantly uses the word theory, in ca context where "scientific theory" would be presumed, when it actually means "guess". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It actually means 'belief' imho as I consider most forms of CAM a form of religion. This article was use wierdly by wikiproject alt med in the past. See Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Alternative_medicine#Core_Project_Articles "The following lists/articles/categories are considered important to our WikiProject. The entire point of our Wikiproject's annotated lists is to write a short teaser that will entice the public to read the main article on the respective subject. Every CAM article in Wikipedia needs a teaser added to one of these master lists. Otherwise, people may not be able to find our articles." (!!! from me) Sticky Parkin 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't stop all the alt-med mavens insisting on reverting alny attempts to enforce WTA in that article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medical systems

An editor made a category "Category:whole medical systems" which is what he says they're called by the NCCAM which some of the alt med category follows. I would appreciate your views on the talk pages as to whether it should be called Category:Alternative medical systems or should be renamed Category:Whole medical systems. I've asked at any wikiprojects that might be interested too. Sticky Parkin 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Placebo

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

I have responded on the talk page, and removed the objectionable line from the lead. Can I suggest that you try to ignore the incivility and focus on getting the desired result? In my experience making a point of an editor's incivility hardly ever gets positive results, unless you are trying to create a paper trail to justify a block. In this case, since it's an N-vs-1 situation, it should be possible to solve the problem most easily by gang-reverting. looie496 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the accusation of bias is a very strange thing on a placebo page when I'm arguing it exists :) I'll need a calmex or something ... Verbal chat 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thai traditional medicine

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

NPOV tag on Chemtrail conspiracy theory

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

If, as you say, "the article is written from the point of view of chemtrails being a conspiracy theory," then he's right to have the tag there. We're supposed to have a neutral POV, not take sides. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Per wp:fringe, we are allowed to take sides when it comes to fringe theories, and chemtrails is fringe to the point of being very close to "tiny minority". looie496 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Last night the tag was being readded by a drive-by IP twice, same range, different IP address each time, probably the same editor as is unhappy on the talk page. Probably to avoid 3RR. dougweller (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Asked for those proxies to be blocked at WP:PROXY. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Booth Escaped

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

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

If there are numerous books and documentaries about this, then it sounds like you can make a case that the theories are notable (read: not necessarily true, just well known and often propagated), but this really depends on the scholarly quality of those sources. What it comes down to is what the consensus of professional historians is--do they claim by-and-large that there categorically was no conspiracy? do they often claim that there may have been one? etc. etc. If the conspiracy theories are extremely notable and have not been reasonably debunked, then they may merit a detailed discussion. But if it's not an avenue of research pursued by serious historians then it would be hard to argue for the inclusion of the argument details in anything but an article called Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to comment on whether the inclusion of the "Booth Escaped" theories (or "theories") meets WP:UNDUE policy, i.e., is the space it takes up in John Wilkes Booth adequate or excessive? Should it be excluded altogether as a "tiny-minority view"? An opinion on that would require a familiarity with the relevant history and scholarship which I do not possess.
However, if I understand the discussion on the Article's Talk page (please correct me if I am wrong) there appears to be concern that the inclusion of "Booth Escaped" is an attempt to push a fringe theory. That is not my impression. From what I can see, the wording in that section is scrupulously neutral and could serve as a model on how to do it right.
In my experience, Fringe advocates always (always!) give themselves away; they cannot resist from advocacy. I see no sign of that in the contested section.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The section, as it was when I looked at it, about 5 minutes ago, looked great. It neutrally presents the theory, who advocated it, public response to it, and avoids fluffing it up as some sort of deliberately repressed 'great truth' or as 'some crackpot's nonsense'. This would ,as others have mentioned, make a solid example of 'how to handle a theory which while a minority, has recieved durable interest and numerous investigations.' I don't understand why there's fighting over it at all, the wording as it is this evening is cited, and factual. ThuranX (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal time and Fractal cosmology

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

Speaking of which, here is Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals. Several articles appear to reference Naschie's journal. Tom Harrison Talk 12:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we list them and check. Maybe the reliable sources noticeboard could help? Verbal chat 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I roundly agree with the opening comments of ScienceApologist at the top of this entry. The articles are both in need of work, or some critical review, and perhaps one or both should be omitted. As the primary author of the Fractal cosmology article, however, I would have appreciated a less hasty approach to redressing the issues raised than that taken by ScienceApologist. It seems rather a low blow to re-direct to a topic which makes no mention of Fractals in Cosmology, at the present. And doing so evades any sort of discussion that might have made the article more factually accurate, or less biased away from the mainstream. Nowhere did the article say the mainstream view was wrong, only that the scientists in various areas of Physics were coming to find fractals in their explorations, and that a growing number of them felt they were important to our study of the Cosmos.
So lets talk facts. SA stated above "The universe isn't a fractal." Does he have clear proof of this? Does he consider the SDSS review by Tegmark's group to be a 'last nail in the coffin' for a fractal-inclusive picture of the Cosmos? Mathematically speaking, SA's statement is shaky, though not totally unsound. If one removes the word "a" his statement becomes patently false, however, as it's easy to prove that nature exhibits fractal structure on various levels. So the question then becomes "On what level of scale is the universe not fractal?" One would have to dig deeper to know that statements by Tegmark and others are really shorthand, in that the hypothesis they feel they have deposed is the idea that the universe is fractal all the way out to the largest levels of scale. Proponents of Lambda-CDM do not rule out fractality at all, but merely adhere to the notion of a Cosmological principle which states that the universe is statistically isotropic and flat at the largest scale levels.
Remember the FRLW metric was a outgrowth of some simplifying assumptions, one of which is that the universe is statistically homogeneous. But numerous forms of Inflation do not conflict with this, and some still predict fractality at the ultra-large scale, beyond the observable horizon of our 'Hubble bubble." However, the subject of dimensionality itself deserves some mention. As a proponent of the constructivist view in Math, I am of the opinion that objects and spaces do not have a specific dimension, apart from the observations we can have of them, or interactions we might have with them. This is very much like empirical Science, in that statements about dimension cannot be made ad hoc. And each of the various theories of the microscale universe, or of gravity, from String theory and LQG to Causal Dynamical Triangulation all include the idea of different dimensionality near the Planck Scale (ranging from 2 to 10 or 11 dimensions).
So where is the universe not fractal? And why pass judgment so summarily when you could have marked it for deletion or review? I can find plenty of recent peer-reviewed article publications in serous journals, so the argument that Fractal cosmology died in the 90s doesn't hold water.
Therefore; it's my intent to resurrect the article as last revised before your re-direct, ScienceApologist, and I'm asking politely that you mark the article for deletion, if you think you have a clear reason, and take up the question on discussion pages, or by posting review tags with the article.
Thanks, JonathanD (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Regards,

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

update

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

More UFO listcruft

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

Weekly World News lede

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

Fringe theory: Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

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

Now this diff is a prime example of a major problem plaguing Wikipedia. New account, first and only edit is to this article, already spouting off about Wikipedia policies, removes link to the most devastating refutation of MECO, namely the Usenet posts by John Baez and Chris Hillman.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Being no stranger to the related usenet shenanigans, I have to laugh about this new account's debut. However, while it may be obvious to you or me that the previously linked usenet posts show the level of crankery of the subject of the article, usenet posts are not normally considered as reliable sources for wikipedia, and for good reasons. I see someone else has since added a quote by an astronomer from a news source, although it's just a sound byte saying the idea is "almost certainly wrong". It will be interesting to see how this plays out after the AfD closes. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So no usenet posts? OK. Grrrr.... But what if... I mean, there used to be this alien shipwrecked on Earth, working as a janitor in some Midwestern university... name of Archimedes Plutonium... there may even be a WP entry on him but I won't look, I got enough heartburn already... this creature spammed the usenet with a trillion crackpot posts, which just by sheer quantity alone made him notable... now how would you include "refutations" or "criticism" if not from the usenet... surely no scientist ever wrote a peer-reviewed article about his certified-in-Andromeda ravings... now Mitra is no AP and I'm pretty sure he's an earthling... but there's puff pieces in the Article, like from Rediff (big Indian media conglomerate) where he styles himself a martyr to truth... am I at least allowed to insert Baez' "crackpot index" and count off how many points Mitra gets? No?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
For articles about usenet phenomena, it's clearly reasonable to have refs from usenet. As I said, it's not normally considered a reliable source generally. You could make a case that Baez' post, coming from a notable figure with a reputation for physics exposition on usenet, could be reliable in this case. In fact, you may want to do precisely that, now that the reference has been reinserted, removed, and re-reinserted in the last five hours, after the MECO article has been (temporarily??) made into a stub. One problem with citing usenet is that headers can be forged, though I'd say there is almost no doubt that Baez actually posted this one. Further discussion of the merits of including this particular usenet post is best taken to the talk page of the article or even possibly mentioning on yet another noticeboard for wider input.
Oh, I took the liberty of changing your link to Chris Hillman above. His account here is User:Hillman; the confusion being that he signed with his initials, which form a different user's account. Chris is presumably gone from wikipedia, but left a ton of technical material which exists in some form - see user:Hillman/Archive for an overview. Tim Shuba (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sniffex

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

Ortega (genealogy)

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

Makes sense to me -- but the first step is to raise the point on the talk page of the article, and only take it to a discussion board if the result is unsatisfactory. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but who will read it there besides the contributor who continually reverted my changes without comment? :) See the edit history of Ortega. A is putting the smack down (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ortega (genealogy) may be Original research, not even qualifying as fringe at least. A is putting the smack down (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right on the issues, but you've been handling this badly. You've been edit-warring, you've been labeling changes as vandalism when they are not, and you've made no attempt to open communication. I'm personally dubious about the whole thing, given the general story that names of aristocracy are most commonly derived from place names, but in any case, it would be easier to help you if you would take a less violent approach. Looie496 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how many Ortegas there are on this planet? There are countless in Los Angeles alone, from the campus of USC to the Los Angeles County Jail. It's exactly like saying that all Lopez's are one family. The scenario is that the name existed before any such aristocratic line arose, and not all Ortegas trace back to that line. What evidence has been assembled for the claim that they all trace to one line? Annd the etymology from a place name then treats the examples in other Romance languages as irrelevant, when in fact the examples in other Romance languages indicate the historical reality. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The person's information was so bad he didn't even know about the examples in other Romance languages (Ortica, Ortie, Urzica) and he was promoting an imbecilic derivation of Ortega from the Latin word Fortuna, an obvious folk etymology. I suspect that all his information is basically erroneous. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Check this out, not just other Romance parellels. There are also parellels between Basque language names and Spanish names, such as Ochoa (see article). There is also a parellel here, I found the Basque surname Asin; Asin is the Basque word for the urtica/nettle. See the Basque name Jose Maria Asin. I'm telling you guys, the nickname/surname is old, much older than any aristocratic line, and not exclusive to such a line. It was popular among the Vulgar Latin people who became the Spanish. Before Romanization they spoke a language similar to Basque, and Basque naming practices survived. But leaving aside pre-Roman influence, the examples in other Romance languages are also there. I'm going to eventually get more information to back up my position. Till then I am letting you guys know that I suspect that Ortega (genealogy) is erroneous. A is putting the smack down (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I apologize for that edit summary, I regret it, especially because he was editing an article on his surname which is dear to him. However I had some bad experiences last year and a few weeks ago a friend of mine was murdered. When I was reverted twice without comment I felt like venting. That is very disrespectful to revert like that without comment (and to add to it, the same day I was having the same experience with another anonymous contributor at Vulgar Latin vocabulary). I hate it when I say or do stuff like that because it's hard to take it back, but if life was nicer with me, I would be nicer with others. And you guys should come up with a quick way to erase edit summaries and comments like that so we can forget all about them. A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ortega surname has a connection with Aragon, where Asin is located, see [76]. Aragon is one of the regions of Spain that historically had the most Basque people, Basque people who have the surname Asin (Latin urtica, old dialectical Spanish ortega). A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the way this website works is you type in the surname and it tells you how a particular family shield looks. For Ortiz it lists three different shields, three different lines [77]. Now if someone puts one particular shield for Ortiz in the Ortiz article and claims they are one line, he is wrong. For Ortega the website lists a shield, a line from Aragon[78]. That is not to say all Ortegas are of that Aragonese line. And I think the Ortega (genealogy) article doesn't even deal with the Aragonese line although Aragon is mentioned in the infobox and the shield is the shield described as Aragonese. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you, dab. And I was really in a bad mood or else I wouldn't have embarassed myself by such a show of anger and saying something that can be very hurtful. I checked the surname Lopez, there are several armorial lines [79]. This does not mean that all Lopez's are one line, and a person with the surname may not have ancestry from any of those heraldic Lopez lines. See Lopez. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See also Miguel Asín Palacios, middle name Asin, from Zaragoza, Aragon. A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it. It appears that the name Ortega can be traced to two Aragonese lineages of lower nobility, with two different coats of arms. Apparently they are attested from the 16th or 17th century. The 10th century stuff appears to be due to a lady Ortega Ramírez (given name), illegitimate daughter of king Ramiro II of León (r. 931-951) [80]. This medieval lady Ortega as far as I can see has nothing whatsoever to do with the surname. Also, the "Fortunate" etymology pushed by the anon is due to Mexican eccentric Gutierre Tibón, which means we can cite it as a curiosity, but it certainly doesn't have any philological credibility. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, villages? I did not take that into account. And I'm not very familiar with Spanish dialects and you're probably right. The Basque influence may have been just enough to make Ortega popular in Aragon (anyway doing research almost at random I found some possible correspodance between Asin/Aragon/Ortega), whereas Ortica, Ortie, and Urzica are not popular (although attested) among Italians, French, and Romanians. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann is excellente by the way :) On point. Excellent and quick research, he's so quick it almost surprises me sometimes :) It will take me awhile to discover the etymology of Asín/Asín (name) (whether it is in fact from the Basque word asin/osin/asun, meaning "nettle"), it's late here and I'll save that for tomorrow. Another point I will look into: when not ultimately derived from a toponym, maybe the reference was to some "stinging", "prickly", "antagonizing" quality of a person, reminiscent of the nettle. The Latin word urtica besides meaning "nettle" also had developed those figurative meanings [81], based on the prickly/stinging qualities of the nettle. A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
in the case of Asin, I wouldn't rule out a Basque origin -- the name figures in the Diccionario Onomástico Y Heráldico Vasco, but google books won't let me see the entry. --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not an admin, and I don't see it as clueless to say that no matter how right you are, it's good to make some attempt to communicate with your opponent. If you look at the history and contribs, you'll see that Alex plunged into an edit war without making the slightest attempt to communicate using anything other than edit summaries -- several of which incorrectly labeled his opponent's changes as vandalism. (forgot to sign when posting, signing now) looie496 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Alex has apologized for that. Your edits were not "vandalism", but they were misguided. You have now been told they were misguided, and I think we can expect you to get your act together at this point and build a proper case based on references. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That comment was by me, not the IP -- sorry for forgetting to sign it. looie496 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The person obviously does not like the established (and correct) derivation from Latin urtica. The other issue is establishing a lineage (a lineage for all Ortegas? this person should add its talents to Lopez) tracing back to Ortega Ramirez. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This looks so much like vandalism, I call it vandalism [82]. The anon came back. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Dbachmann stated that he could not find a source tracing a line back to Ortega Ramirez, but even if the Aragonese infanzones trace back to Ortega Ramirez, that is not evidence that all Ortegas are from that lineage. As I mentioned with Lopez, there are several heraldic lines, and most Lopez's today probably trace to none of them. And you will notice the Lopez article does not put all the shields (several different shields) in the infobox. A is putting the smack down (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Riley Martin

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

Saqqara Bird and possible COI

See the recent history [83] and User talk:Dawoudk. It may well be that he is an architect, but his own web site descrbes his father differently than he is doing now. At least he has responded to me and I'm happy to accept that he is an architect. He clearly has a COI problem and I'm not sure how best to handle it. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Past life regression

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

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

I haven't been watching any of the other articles, but as I said on the talk page, I feel that your criticism of Past life regression is greatly overstated. looie496 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Past life regression is a New Age therapy that seems rather problematic [84][85], and is being marketed to people who are too naive to understand the risks. I have talked to people who encountered serious problems from this form of therapy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If anything, I think my criticism is understated. That article was FAR from encyclopedic and used almost no third-party sources. It's a joke! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Just listed this at AFD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Luis Cordon's Popular Psychology:An Encyclopedia has two pages of text on it, and clearly states it's pseudoscience. I added some text and removed some bunk. Any claims of efficacy would fall under WP:MEDRS as far as I'm concerned, and per WP:FRINGE it should be easy to debunk with some half-decent sources. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian ufology

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

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

Covert incest

Our article on covert incest is currently a travesty of unreliable sources. The concept is treated as though it were a notable theory in psychology, but it contains only three citations to studies published in actual peer reviewed journals. [86] merely observes the existence of the concept, but does not assert it. [87] describes a supposed symptom of "covert incest" while critiquing the characterization. And of course [88] doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all, but only the views of a critic of "covert incest". It appears that the existence, and supposed harmful effects of "covert incest" have only been asserted in pop-psychology literature not subject to peer review, which the article cites extensively. While these books are reliable sources as to the views of "covert incest" proponents, they hardly support the claim that "Covert, emotional or psychic incest is an alleged type of psychological abuse" with which the article on covert incest begins. Thus, if described at all, "covert incest" should be treated as a linguistic or cultural phenomenon -- or perhaps even a notable pseudoscientific concept -- not as a serious theory in psychology. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Unidentified submerged object

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

Frankly, I've seen worse on these UFO articles. A mild cleanup would be nice but there's much nastier out there. Moreschi (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to get UWUFO into the woo lexicon (prn: you-woo--you-foo). Verbal chat 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As in .
Because the Einstein summation convention always tastes great with metasyntactic variables. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing redux

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

Just ignore him. You don't actually have to force yourself to read his tl;dr material on the talk page: he can post what he likes, that isn't a problem. Obviously, if he starts messing around with the article itself, then that's a much more serious issue. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
My concern is s/he has edited the main page a couple times now, with the result being a dilution of the main page. I don't want silence to imply consent but I'll try just ignoring for a bit and see what happens. S/He has posted sources (poor ones or reliable ones requiring original research if they were to be integrated) and I don't want to give the impression that they're OK. I'll try taking your advice and seeing where it gets me. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of languages by first written accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, he's wrong and is being disruptive, particularly with the edits to Caucasian race. Revert away. If more problems crop up with this user we can start thinking about being a bit firmer. Moreschi (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
He's also wrong about the concept of racial typology merely being "out of fashion". The concept is obsolete (as a biological construct - it is still very much alive as a social construct) and acknowledged so by a majority of anthropologists.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The ways that people thought about these things in the 1920s are obsolete, but the concept of people being divisible into geographically-structured groups with different characteristics is very much alive, based now of genomics. looie496 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
With the critical difference that "race" was based on a concept of discrete groups. We now know that human genetic variation is clinally rather than discretely distributed.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We always knew that. It's not a recent discovery. It's rwally a question of how this fact is modelled. Early race researchers were well aware that human types blended into one another, but wanted to model distinct categories in the hope of mapping ancestry and adaptation. Part of the problem with these categories is that the originators odf them never quite agreed whether they were best understood as aggrgations of adaptive features or as ancestral lineages. The Alpine race is a conceptual category that is no longer very useful. It was a way of trying to model difference in order to generate data. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

In any case, he is now back as IP 41.245.135.240 (I'm pretty sure) reverting me edits, which means removing information about references (I added some dates, volume numbers, etc), calling Carleton Coon 'Carleton' in the article rather than Coon, etc. dougweller (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He's been around for a while. I had a brief debate with him on the Alpine page a while back. He's a traditional 'believer' in race categories. Usually they worship Coon and are linked to White Nationalist ideas, but not always. It gets very tedious lookling after these pages. I've given up on the endless pointless revisions about what colour hair Alpines might or might not have and what territories they do or did cover. Paul B (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Important RfC: Criteria for List of pesudosciences

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

  1. ^ [89]
  2. ^ [90]
More