Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 11

Interdimensional hypothesis
I'd like to direct a bit of attention to this article, which I've just AfD'ed. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now deleted. Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory as news
On the physics portal page there is a headline for an article that has little significance and certainly isn't the consensus in physics world or even being discussed. I have reason to believe that one of the authors of the article in quesiton has added this 'news'. Every time I take the line of news off it is reverted by the same person and I'm not the only one that has taken it off. how can this be resolved? -Captainspirou (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so we know what you are talking about, which "news" item are you talking about?. If there is an edit war going on here it is certainly a "slow boil" war (Looking at the portal page's history, I am not seeing a rapid exchange of reverts.)

Only after this has been attempted should you move to other forms of dispute resolution. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The news in question: "November 17 2008 A new alternative gravity theory entitled Gravity Theory Based on Mass-Energy Equivalence was published in a refereed physics journal Acta Physica Polonica B. (Acta Physica Polonica B, )" Paul B (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind the rest of my comment... I see you did attempt to discuss ...(here) Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit deaper into this, the editor in question (User:Gravityforce) seems to be a clear POV warring SPA (single purpose account). Looking through his contributions (here) he seems to have attempted to stick this alternative theory in several articles... and had it removed in all of them (including having at least one article related to it deleted at AfD).  I note that early on he recieved 3rr warnings (he seems to now understand the letter, but not the spirit of that rule... as his new habit is to revert twice and then wait a day to revert again).
 * I think this needs closer Admin attention. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've notified of this discussion. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only fair. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rife
I am apparently once again bullying and suppressing information on the claims of Royal Rife. Any outside input or eyes at Royal Rife and Talk:Royal Rife might be helpful. MastCell Talk 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinions rendered at the talk page. I believe this is dealt with now. Moreschi (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your input. As this is a perpetual trouble spot, I wonder if I could trouble a few board regulars to watchlist it? MastCell Talk 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Moreschi (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack... must resist attempt to get me to monitor yet another page ... damn... talk about bullying! :>) Blueboar (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In related news: Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences
In our ongoing drama to make a good list of subjects that have been deprecated as pseudosciences by reliable sources, we have come to something of a crossroads. For a number of months, a proposal has been on the table to reorganize the list thematically rather than by sources. I think we are finally coming to a stable state of an article that has this feature.

The next challenge is two-fold:


 * 1) Make sure that we aren't missing some major subjects.
 * 2) Get the best sources possible for the list.

I encourage people here to look over that page and see if they see any problems. The more eyes we get looking at that page the better.

And thanks to all the editors who went over there at any time in the last few years to help fix what was once a much worse list than it is shaping up to be.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have been working hard on this article, and in a very serious way. Having said that, I think that the article does not yet get off the starting blocks in history of science terms. But first, some things I'd expect to see included/more detail on. 1) climate change denial notions, e.g. the claims of Piers Corbyn that he can explain it all (and give you a long-range weather forecast for a fee) on the basis of sunspots. 2) Wilhelm Reich and orgone therapy 3) Related to scientific racism, the ideas of Lombroso, measuring skulls to see if people had criminal tendencies. 4) Again part of scientific racism: the notion of "polygenesis".


 * Now to the problems I see. I'm unhappy that Ayurvedic medicine and TCM appear in a list alongside the likes of Brain Gym. These are both centuries-old traditions with a religious as well as a scientific nature. If these appear, then why not their Western equivalents: the theory of the four humours, doctrine of signatures etc. I fully understand that notions purportedly based on these traditions are pushed today by unscrupulous quacks of all sorts, but the past is far more complex than that. And the history of medicine is not simply a story of unscientific nonsense being replaced by enlightened fact. The concept of Chi in particular is not only a concept within Taoism, but also deeply embedded in eastern Asian culture and languages. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could see a place for placing Ayurvedic and TCM in the Religious beliefs/spirituality section. Alternatively, we could just make a faith healing point and make oblique reference to these terms. The issue with these two traditions is that there are two aspects to them: one is the "folk tradition" aspect which is not pseudoscientific at all (may be more correctly termed "protoscientific") and the other aspect is the co-opting of the terms by modern "practitioners" who use "Ancient Eastern Traditions" to sell various pseudoscientific devices. Unfortunately, the latter is by far the more common use in today's world since most folk practitioners are being culturally sidelined and moving toward extinction.


 * I think your comments would be very valuable on that talk page. Please go over there and help!


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate
We need some wider input on monosodium glutamate about this dispute: Talk:Monosodium_glutamate. A group of single purpose accounts (probably sockpuppets of the same user) are continuously re-adding that monosodium glutamate is a migraine trigger when in fact all recent scientific review articles come to the conclusion that it is not. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been on my watchlist - I'll take a look in the next couple of days. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear lord. Has anyone considered that is true? The article, I mean, not the chemical. It causes me headaches, anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those nasty mushrooms in chinese food cause me headaches.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of those situations where most of the relevant research was done in the '70s and '80s, with the question largely settled that MSG ingestion causes a variety of physical symptoms which can include severe headaches, in a very significant minority (between 1/4 and 1/3) of persons who ingest it. Because it's a fairly old question that was resolved by the eventual removal of MSG from virtually all restaurant food and from most retail foodstuffs, at present it's comparatively difficult today to find online summaries of the numerous studies done on the issue. But it's hardly a "fringe" theory. Some key points of the history of this issue are recalled online today at "TruthinLabeling.org". ...... The several recent studies, actually reviews, that draw high search-engine rankings today are an attempt to revisit the issue from the contra POV. They're (1) quite limited in scope, and (2) have not been vetted for methodology and possible researcher bias. So, if anything, the "fringe" consists of the several very recent studies and literature review(s) that assert contrary results to the large number of prior studies that confirmed the correlation of MSG ingestion to severe headaches and numerous other physical symptoms. If the issue is "Are the headaches properly classed as 'migraine'?", there's also a significant body of literature available about the mechanisms by which MSG causes adverse reactions. They're largely vascular, and by most definitions, migraine headaches are vascular in origin. ..... This issue doesn't belong on WP:FRINGE, and if it does, it's for entirely different reasons than User:Cacycle asserts above. That's about as straightforward as I can put it. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Can you join in the discussion on the talk page then? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. A basic google search for "migraine triggers" will bring up many pages listing of possible triggers, and MSG is on most of them. That's not science, and it has not been conclusively proven or disproven that MSG is a migraine trigger, but there is wide agreement among people who suffer from migraines that MSG might be a trigger and many migraineurs are careful to avoid it. Whether or not MSG has been proven by science to be a trigger, that it is widely considered to be a trigger is notable and verifiable and appropriate to mention in the article. As one example that reliable sources support this, here is a fact sheet from the University Health Services at University of California, Berkeley. I'll post this on the article talk page also. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please come to the talk page. I went; the only person advocating this be added is breaking virtually every rule wikipedia has; he is impossible to work with. He has no support whatsoever, and instead of addressing concerns, he is calling other editors vandlas, accusing them of meatpuppetry, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. I've entered a comment there, just after your recent one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! All I can do is try to teach him policy, which unfortunately he is resisting. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait I just found this page. I am also advocating this--though at first I guess I broke several rules too.  Everyone seems to be ignoring me and talking to Anon. I was even just accused of being an Anon sock puppet! Ugh! KillerC what do you suggest we do?  FFN001 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Fringe would require us to focus on the best sources: peer reviewed medical journals. Lets start from there and then move on. However, I will not participat in the discussion as I already offered to deal with one of the parties involved in terms of behavior and the rest. Thus, I will stay neutral (and out of) the content aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

'See also' on Great Pyramid of Giza and Giza pyramid complex
These have just showed up. Its a bit surprising that neither article has more links, but right now the only links are to a couple of fringe authors whose notability I question. Maybe the answer is just to add more appropriate links? dougweller (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Dunn (author)
Even if Chris is notable enough for an article (and I'm not sure he is, just because I'm very familiar with his stuff doesn't mean its notable!), this article is a bit of a mess. Someone needs to nicely explain to something about our policies and guidelines. It also looks as though he plans to create a number of other articles for fringe writers, some of which may have been deleted in the past through AfD as not notable. dougweller (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This, and the articles that link to it, could use someone with a dustmop to clear out the cobwebs: Inner Traditions - Bear & Company. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Die Glocke and linked articles
Does anyone know anything about this claim for a Nazi super weapon that could take a look at the article? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I never thought I'd ever appeal to the Fortean Times as a reliable source, but they have a nice summary article on Nazi UFO claims that deals with this. Other articles caught up in the madness are Nick Cook, Igor Witkowski, and Jakob Sporrenberg. User:Arthur Warrington Thomas is also behind the pyramids stuff mentioned above. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on AfD: Articles for deletion/Die Glocke. --Pjacobi (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Survived AfD (although the German AfD's result was delete). It is quite a mess, could someone look at the huge reference section with every book or article that could possibly be relevant included? Including some links that I am pretty sure have copyright problems. dougweller (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Material (...again)
I don't blame anyone who says "good riddance" to trying to improve this Article, having just had a thoroughly disagreeable experience myself at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. Yes, someone has nominated Seth Material for Good Article, and the misleading way that the GA review was set up prevented me from delivering a review in keeping with GA criteria!

If you know the intricacies of the Good Article process and for some masochistic reason are interested in reviewing…

This experience has been one of disillusionment for me. During the discussions in December when turning the Article into a redirect was at issue, I consistently pleaded for patience so as to enable the article to get better. In my opinion, it is no better now than it was then. But its supporters have figured out how to tick all the right Wikipedia boxes and that makes it okay.

Next time when someone is being bold, don't count on me to hold back the bloodhounds.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people on the page you linked to seemed to appreciate your input and were looking for a no-blame explanation of why the GA review went so wrong for you. I'd offer to take over the GA review where you left off (it seems I need experience in admin areas - on the other hand I don't know if GA review is an admin area) but I've already been involved with the article, or if not with this one with a related one. Hopefully a non-involved person will come along shortly. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Stream
Is this notable in the field of dowsing, or should it be AFDed ? Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a real term within dowsing, but I'm not convinced it needs to be covered in its own article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Try a bold merge and redirect and see if anyone objects. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in Earth radiation, another bad article. And has anyone seen Vile Vortices? Isn't that a Lemony Snicket book? dougweller (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - see the talk page of Black Stream = Talk:Black Stream - I've redirected this to Earth radiation, since that article mentions Black streams, but it needs work. dougweller (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call! Of course, Earth radiation and related articles all need work/rewriting. Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Plum Island Animal Disease Center
This may be slightly off topic for this board, but I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is off-topic. Try one or more of the following:
 * Go to Requests for comment and follow the instructions.
 * Post about this on the talk page of a suitable WikiProject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine say (I can't find anything specific for animal medicine).


 * Hope this helps. Good luck. --TS 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you wonder why I posted here at all. A book called Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Plum Island Germ Laboratory has been used in those articles. It has been labeled "fringe" by some reviewers like army historians because it advanced the idea that Lyme disease originated there. WP:DR says to notify relevant WikiProjects and boards. This board seemed relevant because the "importance" of number 257 building comes mainly from that book. I notified WP:MCB as well. Thanks for your time and advice. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're on topic here!  Sorry. --TS 12:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE in application to fringe articles
It is now clear to me that one of two things needs to be done to clarify how WP:Undue weight applies to articles about Fringe theories. I have illustrated the two choices. #1 makes explicit what would seem to be an implication of a literal reading of an earlier statement. #2 removes the implication by qualifying said statement. As I have mentioned on WT:NPOV, the context leads me to believe that that meaning is not intended, which is why I currently favor #2. But I know some editors favor an interpretation in line with #1, and if that truly is the community consensus then it should be made more clear. I thought this would be a good place to mention it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both additions, and don't see this as an either/or choice. In an article about a Fringe viewpoint, obviously more weight will and should be given to discussing that viewpoint... but, this does not mean that the majority view point shouldn't be clearly stated, nor does it mean that we shouldn't mention that the majority viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * but, this does not mean that the majority view point shouldn't be clearly stated, nor does it mean that we shouldn't mention that the majority viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. I agree with that, but some will go further and argue that WP:UNDUE means that the majority of any fringe article's text should be specifically about criticisms. In my first alternative I was attempting to lay out how that could be made explicit if that is in fact the community consensus; in the second I was tweaking the part which some see as requiring that. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For those unaware, a related ArbCom case is discussing the editing of fringe topics: Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. Check it out and add any input. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that case is that a lot of the fringyness in the encyclopedia occurs in non-science articles. (Well, unless you think ancient history, mythology, and religion are sciences.) Also, that case seems to be focusing on a particular editor even though it's ostensibly to examine a wider set of problems... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree with your points. However, major pieces of this case are clarifying the application of WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE and dealing with civil POV-pushers. More input on these aspects may help create better solutions. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should point out that there are social (soft) sciences as well as physcial (hard) sciences something most people are not aware of. Archeology, historical anthropology (Ethnology), and general anthropology are all social sciences that by their very nature are well suited to examining ancient history, mythology, and religion.  One of the most famous examples of this is Wade Davis's Serpent and the Rainbow which has backing in the form of Guerico, Gino Del (1986) "The Secrets of Haiti's Living Dead"  Harvard Magazine (Jan/Feb) 31-37 (Reprinted in Anthropology Annual Editions 1987/88 188-191) which studied Haiti's zombies and found they were not simply wild stories.  That said the soft sciences also tend to attract the tin foil hat brigade as per the examples given by Cole, J. R. (1980) "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory" in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 3. Michael B. Schiffer, editor, New York: Academic Press, Inc.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

sigh, I hope to be proven wrong, but I firmly expect the arbcom to make a splendid mess of this. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Inventions in the modern Islamic world
This seems dubious/POV/synthesis. It's a list of things with a Muslim hand in it, although it seems very dubious to list American Muslims (like Muhammad Ali) as "Islamic World" and also other people who have moved from Muslim majority countries to the US when they were young. Seems also to be random intersection/synthesis or religion taking credit for science etc.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PLEASE someone tell me that we don't also have List of inventions by Jews and List of scientific discoveries by Anglicans. Phew-- at least those are red links, for now. This may be a job for WP:AFD. Mangoe (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good spot! I'm making some suggestions on the talk page. LeContexte (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world. Nommed  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Trig Trutherism at Sarah Palin
A periodic conspiracy theory has been cropping up in the Sarah Palin article that her youngest son Trig, who was born this past April, is not really hers, but instead her daughter Bristol's, and that Sarah Palin faked the pregnancy to cover for her daughter. The theory was originally promulgated at Daily Kos a day or two after her VP selection by McCain (the diary making the allegations was later removed by that site). Its most prominent current proponents are Andrew Sullivan, Jack Bogdanski, and an anonymous website/blog named "Palin's Deceptions". The most prominent piece of "evidence" that makes the theory impossible is that Bristol Palin gave birth to her own son, Tripp Johnston, in December, so the math makes it impossible for her to have given birth to both children. People hanging on to the theory are now alleging that Tripp Johnston has not, in fact, been born. Here is an example of a message left at Talk:Sarah Palin discussing this. Kelly hi! 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In defense of Professor Bogdanski, I'd just like to point out that his specialty is taxation. He's been immersed in the federal tax code for several decades, which would be enough to drive anyone stark raving mad.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What ever you do, don't tell them about how Sarah Palin never actually existed... how she was a fictional character invented by the McCain campaign (and was played by an unknown actress from Sheboygan, Wisconsin). And don't let anyone know that the entire "truther" movement was just a covert op to cover for the fact that Wikipedia's Administrators are behind the New World Order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 13 January 2009


 * Aren't there sanctions on that article? Or is this a "content" dispute? But seriously, when will some admins with pelotas exercise the nu-clue- er option over in those articles? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this honestly still a problem? Please provide a diff or two if it is. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point it's not a huge problem and is limited to the talk page. Here are a couple of diffs. I mainly just wanted to drop a note here so that you kind folks who keep track of these things were aware that it's still going on. Kelly  hi! 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

wait, so Tripp is Bristol's child, while Trig is Sarah's, and the conspiracy theory is that that it's the other way round, or vice versa? With these crazy monosyllabic baby names this is a bit like trying to keep track of the Pokemon family tree of Tolkien's dwarves :oP --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - yeah, it is pretty convoluted. As you would expect, the theory keeps getting more and more complicated to discount any evidence that disputes it. The people espousing it tend to examine photos of the pregnant Sarah Palin like her belly was the Grassy Knoll. :) Kelly  hi! 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno - how can you argue with this sort of unassailable logic? It's nice to see so many positivists about on Wikipedia, who won't be satisfied that a baby has been born unless they cut the cord themselves. More seriously: this should be a case study demonstrating why we don't allow blogs (even those from prominent individuals like Andrew Sullivan) as sources on a WP:BLP. If this progresses from an occasional annoyance on the talk page and someone actually tries to add this sort of nonsense to the article, I'll be happy to intervene (though I've dewatchlisted it for my own sanity, so would need to be notified). MastCell Talk 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * mother of god!! people are still on that? not that it isn't juicy gossip, but wow...--Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dag Hammarskjöld
This article seems to give undue weight to a series of (somewhat contradictory) claims that he was assassinated, out of proportion to the generally accepted view that he was not. LeContexte (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree based on length that the 'alternate theory' section is a bit long, and the text of the official version is a bit conspiracy-ish. If there is a way to condense that section a bit, or highlight the different theories that might help.  Also, if there is any solid refutation of individual theories that should be included also.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree and the "Death" section should probably be forked to avoid undue weight anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Immersion therapy
Article is up for wikifying, which I can do, but I would appreciate another eye or two. From the description it doesn't sound very fringey, more like a version of cognitive behavioural therapy. In which case, what does it do that CBT doesn't; is it notable? On the other hand perhaps it is classified as CAM. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not fringey at all. It's a specific kind of CBT.  The general idea is that if you have somebody with, say, spider phobia, you treat them by letting spiders crawl all over them, and eventually the fear goes away.  There is evidence that it works, but I believe most clinical psychologists feel that there are less stressful ways of treating phobias that work just as well.  Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the article. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fear of Esperanto? - Eldereft (cont.) 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I copyedited and removed the wikification tag. It just needs references now and preferably more indication of notability and how the technique is regarded. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Roberts of Seth Material fame
I've put the Jane Roberts article up for AfD and have given my reasoning on the AfD page - anyone who wants to, feel free to share your opinions either way in the AfD discussion. Sticky Parkin 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proven paranormal and homeopathic categories
I just put two new categories, Category:Scientifically proven paranormal phenomena and Category:Clinically proven homeopathic remedies, up for deletion. If anybody has a better solution, I am open to ideas. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that deletion is the best call here. Both category names assert an inclusion criteria so paradoxical that it would make it impossible to have actual member articles to either category. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the only member of "clinically proven homeopathic remedies" is was zinc gluconate. It would be highly controversial, at best, to call zinc gluconate "clinically proven" for the common cold. But it was interesting to see the zinc gluconate article, which consisted of 50% advertising material for Cold-eeze and managed to summarize the literature by citing an... idiosyncratic review article from the alternative medical literature while curiously failing to note major systematic reviews on the topic from the Cochrane Library and Clinical Infectious Diseases. What I'm saying is: more eyes on would be useful. :) MastCell Talk 07:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that at homeopathic dilutions, there is no "proven" clinical effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it should be kept, but maintained as an empty category, just to make the point clearly... :) MastCell Talk 00:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both categories are unhelpful over-categorization, imo. Even if full of topics.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted for deletion of both categories, but we could also leave a note on each category forbidding their population, and include both of them in a new Category:Oxymoronic categories. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A Category for Categories! Brilliant! Next we'll have a category for categories that do not contain themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (squeeze) Mayhap you were looking to wikilink to Barber paradox?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * nnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo less categories! not more! More incompleteness not less!  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Intervention theory
Intervention theory

Needs to be properly disambiguated, I guess, but as an astronomer I've never heard of this particular variant of origin of life proposals. Is it as idiosyncratic as I think? Also, is the nursing usage more prominent? The cursory research I did on the subject left me more confused than when I started.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe but notable. See Epsilonism and Epsilon Team for a variant coloured with Greek nationalism. Moreschi (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At minimum we need a disambiguation page to separate "Intervention theory (origin of life)" and "Intervention theory (nursing)". Both should not be discussed in the same article. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see no evidence that "intervention theory" is anything more than a phrase that can be used in a variety of different contexts. If anything it seems to be academically established as a set of theories about when various social agencies should "intervene" in a situation - including in matters of child protection, legal disputes and health care provision. The concept of "intervention theory" in UFOdom seems to be almost entirely associated with one Lloyd Pye, who has a website and pops up on Youtube. This seems totally fringe. The idea of alien intervention in human evolution is, of course, notable, but I see no evidence that it is called "intervention theory". The term is not used in either the Epsilonism orEpsilon Team articles mentioned by Moreschi. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick google search reveals numerous books and webpages with the phrase "alien intervention" in them. These range from the theory that humans were bred by aliens, to the more familiar view thast they built the pyramids (or created a Greek master race). There are also already articles on Xenu and fictional alien interventers Goa'uld etc. But I can't see a single article that links these - maybe Ancient astronauts. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the content and linked to Ancient astronauts. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia
These very extensive related articles may contain POV and give undue weight to a minority view on the subject. Just thought I'd list them in case anyone wants a challenge and is willing to try and WP:NPOV them if need be.

Zoophilia Zoosexuality Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism

Sticky Parkin 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh here's another one- Zoophilia and health (!) Sticky Parkin 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Myopia Myth‎
Created by a new editor with very strong opinions on the causes of myopia, the article is an attempt to discuss the theories from the book Myopia Myth without an understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. The situation is more difficult in that Myopia needs a great deal of NPOV work itself (clear and prominent statements on current medical consensus, clear differentiation between key areas of ongoing research vs fringe theories, etc). --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the first step is to take Myopia Myth to AFD. None of the references in the article are actually about the book or the concept, except of course the book this editor is trying to advertise.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'd like others to weigh in. I've also pov-tagged Myopia and started a discussion on its talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic Field Disruptor
This seems to be complete balderdash, but what do I know? Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's junk. I stuck a prod tag on it. --TS 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of "free energy" proponents
The articles on Harold Puthoff and Gordon Novel seem one-sided attempts to push the fringe POVs of these individuals (who are, incidentally, of dubious notability) LeContexte (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Puthoff is definitely notable, and the article about him seems reasonably disciplined, given how many weird things he and Targ actually did. Regarding Novel, I'm concerned by the lack of any reliable sources in the article, which contains many allegations that in the absence of sources are BLP violations.  I note with amusement that one of the sources listed is the Mind Control Forum, which is basically a collection of schizophrenic paranoia. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Science
Maharishi Vedic Science.

Needs help. Also check other areas of this walled garden of woo. I made a first pass at this article, but imagine that someone a bit more delicate than I could help in rewording some of the more clunky statements.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis
I'm having difficulties at Jesus myth hypothesis (which really ought to be called Christ-myth theory) with an editor who insists on defining the article's topic through original research rather than through reliable sources. Some additional voices might be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-Christians consider Christ a Christian title ( meaning"the anointed") for the man called Jesus. I have not looked at the article in a long time, so do not know the context of the current argument. But it seems to me that "Jesus" is the better choice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have issues with the title as a neologism, but I also see serious WP:UNDUE issues. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jesus myth hypothesis" is a virtual neologism (there are a handful of examples of its use, but I haven't seen very many in reliable sources). If there's a better suggestion I'd encourage someone to bring it up at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis. That's the least of the article's problems, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page the terms "Jesus myth" and "Christ myth" are used interchangeably when read literally they should mean different things. I mean a literally reading of "Christ-myth theory" would say that you are arguing about Christ being a myth; it doesn't make any evaluation regarding the person of Jesus as a myth which the "Jesus-myth theory" should be doing. This is the way Remsburg defined "Christ myth" and it is clear he wasn't alone.


 * Furthermore, quotes by more mainstream scholars that show not all the Jesus myth hypothesis supporters ideas are from tin foil hat land (such as Joseph Campbell's "It is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles.") have been removed from the article on the grounds they are not Jesus myth supporters. But if as I point out the definition of what "Jesus myth" and especially "Christ myth" even is is all all over the map then how can this be used as a basis for keeping them out?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From time to time Akhilleus comes to this notice board when he is having difficulties maintaining his editing goals for the Jesus myth hypothesis article. I would like him to explain how that differs from WP:Canvassing. I consider this all the more problematic because he never notifies other editors of the article what he has done, and that there is conversation about the article on this noticeboard . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked a bunch of his edits there, and I don't agree with your assessment. Plenty of times he is simply undoing the Wikipedic tendency to garbage up articles with lots of dubiously related stuff (e.g. dropping Bertrand Russell into the article in question, when even the passage quoted shows that he didn't care about the issue). One could just as well complain that you are trying to veil the article from critical eyes that might agree with him. Going on about canvassing has the same intent as canvassing: controlling the balance of power in the article. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it the problem is not so much Akhilleus but the source material.


 * The beginning of article states "Volney believed that confused memories of a historical but obscure Messianic claimant could have contributed to Christianity when they become linked with solar mythology." (Wells, G. A. (April–June 1969). "Stages of New Testament Criticism". Journal of the History of Ideas 30 (2): 157).


 * Then you have reliable references like Farmer, ("A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975), p. 43), Jones, (Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983), p. 47), and Horbury ("The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003) p. 55) all staying that 'Christ-myth' theory is that Jesus NEVER existed but this would by is very definition exclude theorists like Mead and Ellegard who hold the Jesus DID exist abet in a different century (a position Akhilleus himself has accepted as part of the Jesus Myth hypothesis) as people who hold Robin Hood existed have put put forth people like Sire Johannes d'Eyvile who lived during Henry III's reign a full century after Robin Hood supposedly lived. Never means NEVER ie Jesus not existing AT ALL, not in the 1st century CE or 1st BCE or any other century for that matter.


 * Then you have "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17) and Remsburg The Christ both of whom define "Christ Myth theory" and "Christ Myth" as including the idea that there is a possible historical person behind it all. Worse, Dodd doesn't give a time period to his "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" statement so there is no way to say if he is talking about the position of Mead and Ellegard or something similar to the position Wells puts for in The Jesus Myth (1999) and better explains in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003) pg 43: "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin."  Related you have Price's position of "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." Christ a Fiction (1997)


 * Finally you have "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (body text) (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16) which has been kept out for what IMHO is a bunch of OR reasons.


 * The fact of the matter is even among reliable peer reviewed sources the definition of either "Christ Myth" or "Jesus Myth" is all over the place ranging to Jesus never existed in any shape way or form to he might have exist but nothing can be really be determined (Price's actual position and that of Remsburg). The definition and even fringeness of a position should not be a game of pick that source. Unfortunately in this article that is exactly what is happening.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

One question... is an article, or articles, which discuss the academic hypothesis that either Jesus, a Christ, or both never existed actually a fringe theory? It strikes me that the majority of humanity probably believes this. This is true certainly in the case of the existence of a "christ". Objectively speaking, the existence of a Christ figure is taken on faith, rather than proof, so it is far from a fringe theory to discuss the possibility that no such figure existed at all. That said, if we are looking at this from the perspective of a myth hypothesis within Christian theology, then it would obviously be fringe, but if we are speaking generally, then an NPOV treatment of the topic would begin with the fact that most people on the planet do not believe in Christ to begin with. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I find it particularly fascinating that on this noticeboard, where rationality is so valued, the majority have classified it as a "fringe theory", thereby supporting those who also support Creationism and and Intelligent Design, and who (because of a literal belief in the Bible) try year after year to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a remarkably uninformed statement. The Jesus myth hypothesis holds that the human being Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist, i.e. that there was no historical Jesus. There's no shortage of statements in the very article that say this is a fringe theory. Believing that there was a historical person who began Christianity doesn't entail any religious position, any more than thinking there's a historical Epimenides means that you're a follower of Zeus.


 * For some reason, Malcolm (and other editors) seem to think that if someone says that the Jesus myth hypothesis is a fringe theory, that person must be a Christian, of the variety who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. At least, that's how I see [this comment by Malcolm. I guess that's why Malcolm keeps on bringing up [[Hyam Maccoby]]--even though Maccoby thinks there was a historical Jesus, and went into some detail reconstructing his career, Maccoby also says that the NT accounts of Jesus' life have been heavily elaborated by myth. In other words, the Pauline epistles, the Gospels, etc. don't present a historically accurate picture of Jesus, but a mythic one. In a broad way, Rudolf Bultmann, Burton Mack, and other scholars of early Christianity would agree--the NT is heavily colored by myth, variously defined. But not everyone who talks about myth in the NT is an advocate of the JMH. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is simply this: Why are we calling this a fringe theory? Hiberniantears (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiberniantears, it is a minority theory in terms of published work by western theologians. But you are right that few people actually believe the story told in the Bible is historical fact.


 * Akhilleus, The thesis of "Jesus myth hypothesis" is that the story told in the bible is not historical fact, and can not reasonably be thought to be historical fact. Which part do you think is "true": The Immaculate conception and virgin birth? The announcement of the coming birth by an angel to Mary? The miracle of the loaves and the fishes? The returning of the dead Lazarus from death? The curing of the epileptic by banishing of obsessing spirits? The Resurrection of Jesus after his death? Or, rather, should the entire story of Jesus be thought of as an educational myth for the moral education of those who are inclined to love, and believe, such stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs)
 * If you think that critics of the JMT all believe in immaculate conception and virgin birth, I think you should just sit down and read the actual article at this point. You cannot discuss a topic if you choose to remain perfectly clueless about it. You implication that rejection of the JMT automatically amounts to acceptance of Biblical literalism isn't just uninformed, it's positively nonsensical. --dab (𒁳) 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read it. I note that you describe me as "perfectly clueless." Please review WP:civil. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "remarkably uninformed", then. On this topic, that is. You may have your strengths elsewhere, no claim made there. If you refuse to read an article and yet insist on debating the topic, you will get reactions of this kind. In my book, it is "incivil" to impose oneself on people without bothering to make sense or pull one's own weight. If you think criticism of the JMC equates Biblical literalism, you need your logics module examined, it's simply a non sequitur. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Perfectly clueless" is about right. You've been told what the article is about, many times, and you refuse to listen to what people are telling you--a great case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, before you tell people to go read WP:CIVIL, you might want to think twice about drawing conclusions about people's religious beliefs from their editing. I'm just a little bit annoyed that you're attributing literal belief in the Gospels to me, and I would appreciate it if you stopped. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, just where did you read that I made any assumptions at all about your religious beliefs? I asked some questions that were not based on assumptions about anyone. As for my not agreeing with your view of the direction of the article, that is certainly correct. Is there a WP rule that I can not disagree with you? It is true enough that I think you have less than a perfect understanding of the issues here, but the discussion should be directed at improving the article, not cataloging your educational or comprehension limitations. That sort of incivility, calling editors "Perfectly clueless," is understood my me as an attempt to make editors who disagree to give up and go away, and often goes with WP:OWN. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly, Malcolm; or were you asking questions like these merely for rhetorical effect? Or perhaps you weren't addressing me, even though the paragraph of questions starts with my username? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the questions were rhetorical. I have no idea what your religious beliefs are, if any; and neither have I any interest in knowing. By the way, I notice that no one has said that they think any part of the Jesus story is actually true. Perhaps it really is a myth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that the basic concept of a teacher named Jesus in the 1st century is reasonable but and this is the real problem his connection to the Jesus we know may be nil. Remember that the Jesus we have was decided on in the 4th century and the views of Jesus that didn't not fit that view persecuted and suppressed.  I was able to trace the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea as far back as to Richard M. Mitchell's 1887 book The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ.  I say 1887 rather than 1893 because I have found references predating that year to the book in Bulletin of the Public Library of the City of Boston 1889‎ - Page 261, and The North American Review‎ July 1888 Page 120. Sadly both versions of the the book were self published and Richard M. Mitchell such a common name that figureing out if he is notable is like finding a notable John Smith and other than a few contemporary reviews there seems to be little on this book; this makes it useless as a reliable source unless someone can find a version or review that give me more to work on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Yes. I find it particularly fascinating that on this noticeboard, where rationality is so valued," WP:FRINGE makes it clear that on pages about religion, science should not be introduced to disprove the religion. So please keep that in mind. Also, many scientists are religious, so the two aren't as mutually exclusive as you seem to suggest. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many scientists are religious. Einstein, for instance, spoke of "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. But as can be seen by this, his religousity was not based on a belief that the stories of the Bible are true. Even among theologans are found those who consider the story of Jesus to be essentially a myth. For instance, John Shelby Spong, the retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, NJ.


 * "The difficulties of the Gospels evaporate, however, with the aid of Spong's key—actually two keys. The evangelists did not conceive of their writings as history, he declares. Rather, they were stories, never intended to be taken literally, which served to illustrate the meaning of Jesus (that is, the presumed historical Jesus) according to a longstanding Jewish practice. This practice was known as 'midrash'. In this particular expression of midrash (there are many ways this word and concept can be applied), the writer retold an existing biblical story in a new story and new terms, basing many of its details on specific scriptural passages. Thus Jesus was portrayed as a new Moses, in settings and with features which paralleled the stories of Moses; he was represented as performing actions such as 'cleansing the Temple' which embodied ideas expressed in prophets such as Zechariah. In this way, all the significances and associations of the older context would automatically be soaked up by the new one. To the knowledgeable reader or listener, a story or anecdote modelled on an identifiable prototype in scripture would convey a meaning and inspiration far deeper and more detailed than that contained in the simple words themselves. This was the power of midrash."


 * I do not think that rationality contradicts religion, and thinking that the story of Jesus is a myth is quite compatible with religious practice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Super, Malcolm. But the literal truth of the Gospels is not at issue in this article. The existence of a human personality behind the Gospel stories is. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But how far does that "human personality behind the Gospel stories" have to get before you get a "pick a Jesus pick ANY Jesus" result? Past a certain point you have the same problem as finding "historial" Robin Hoods in the wrong century from when the stories take place.  I mean there are some scholars who put the "historical" Robin Hood as late as Edward II, over 100 years after the time of Richard I and John Lackland and yet we are told finding a historical basis of Jesus a century before he supposedly lived is support for the Jesus myth hypothesis.  The inherent illogical of having Robin Hood living a full century after the setting of the stories is accepted and yet having Jesus a full century before is not; has any scholar on the historical Jesus side explained how this make any degree of sense regarding consistency in how you treat history?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

never mind, I had forgotten this was the "Eurabia" guy. It's not worth investing time in this. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, even if you do think you are superior to me (an attitude you have made clear in many edits) WP:civil still applies even to you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories are scientific ones that ignore the available evidence. Quite ironic that a theory based on a lack of evidence should end up here. The attempts to straight jacket the article in its scope echo the apologetic rebuttals on the web which are full of appeals to authority and do not do the subject justice. Sophia  23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right and when you look at the evidence for the historical Jesus you in reality don't have much: Paul is so vague on detail you don't know much about the Jesus he talks about, the Jesus of the canon and non canonal gospels have many details varying (time of birth, length and sequence of ministry, and even time of death), and the non Christian sources all have problems with them. It doesn't help that if a person is not a avid Jesus Myth supporter their comments are kept out of the article.  Dawkins' The God Delusion comment case in point:  "Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed."--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A few comments:
 * We don't yet have articles on the Allah myth hypothesis, Vishnu myth hypothesis, Yahweh myth hypothesis, L. Ron Hubbard myth hypothesis, or similar questioning whether the deity of a given faith is historically accurate. Most people in general I think would reasonably take it as given that historical accuracy isn't the essential point when dealing with religious subjects. Also, considering that, at least to the best of my knowledge, any stories about the religious "Christ" tend also to relate to Jesus of Nazareth, and can thus reasonably easily be included in the Jesus myth hypothesis title, the reverse isn't necessarily true. "Christ" also refers to the Messiah concept separate from the historical Jesus, even if it isn't used in that separate sense very often.
 * I do think that an article about whether religious sources qualify as reliable, accurate historical documents in general would not be a bad idea, and that there already is an article The Bible and history which deals more specifically with the historicity of the Bible per se. Such places would, I think, tend to be the best places to put such content.
 * I do acknowledge that several reputable sources, including Michael Grant (author), at least question the historicity and/or reliability of the narratives about Jesus that we have received. But, for the most part in this particular case, the majority of these statements are at least somewhat repetitions of the simple statement "we don't have many/any outside sources for this material, and adherents of a religion aren't necessarily the most objective sources about their religion anyway." Such statements really only need to be made once, and generally don't take much space.
 * Having said all that, and hoping most of it makes at least some degree of sense, it does seem to me that the preferred content for an article on this subject would be whether Jesus of Nazareth actually did exist and what if any statements in the Bible and elsewhere about Jesus might be other than historically accurate. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

that would seem to be the scope of our historicity of Jesus article... --dab (𒁳) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that we are allowed something called editorial discretion. Sure, there's a broad spectrum of opinion on how closely the New Testament follows historical fact, and different theories in particular on who this Jesus person was and what he did. And in academia the same term (or similar terms) may even be used for different theories. This does not mean that here on Wikipedia we are incapable of drawing distinctions. It's very clear that there was a notable fringe theory, no longer kicking around at all, which posited that Jesus never existed in any shape or form. And as a notable fringe theory we can write an article about it. Other notable theories on the subject get their own articles, or can be dealt with in one main article (historicity of Jesus). This fairly basic framing should not be up for debate. Moreschi (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. A theory which gets enough coverage to meet notability criteria as per WP:NOTABILITY doesn't necessarily have to also be widely currently accepted, and would thus be both a fringe theory and notable enough for an article. And a few other ideas, like the one Paul Verhoeven wrote about saying Mary was raped by Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, would fairly clearly qualify as notable enough as well. There might be a question whether it makes sense to separate them all out as separate articles, given the possibly short nature of several of them. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)The Jesus Myth hypothesis does NOT question whether the deity of a given faith is historically accurate but if the portrayal of its founder which is said to be history is accurate. Muhammad is regarded as a prophet and is not Allah; so questioning if Muhammad really existed doesn't question if Allah existed. Similarly Buddhism doesn't have one holy text and none of them purport to be historical accurate eyewitness accounts as the Gospels supposedly do. There are some Rabbi who question if Moses existed and the Exodus even happened-that doesn't mean Yahweh didn't exist. The existence of L. Ron Hubbard can easily be proven by the staggering amount of contemporary evidence regarding him. This does show there is some confusion about what the Jesus Myth hypothesis is. That you have definitions all over the place certainly doesn't help.

Even in the 1st century not all Christians believed that Jesus was God. Paul himself didn't seem to regard Jesus as God as he talks about them as if they were separate entities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, this is perfectly true, but it must be about the 100th time that these things are pointed out wrt the JMT article. We are going in circles. Can we not make the article state as much and save ourselves the trouble of painstakingly explaining the nature of the JMC to every new editor showing up on the talkpage individually? The JMT is one very narrow, radical stance on the historicity of Jesus: Jesus never existed, at all, and all of the NT narrative is just a confused rendition of assorted Near Eastern myths. Period. Any more moderate shade of takes on the NT go to Historicity of Jesus. You would expect this to be fairly simple to grasp. But if we really cannot solve the scope problem, it may be best to merge Jesus myth hypothesis into Historicity of Jesus at long last.  --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I agreed with Dbachmann about the subject of the article, I would support merging it with Historicity of Jesus. The only logical subject matter for the article is that the New Testament story is a myth. That is what the name of the article says. It has been about 40 years since I read it through, but that is my understanding of Tom Paine's point concerning Jesus in The Age of Reason is that the story is a myth, and needs to be discussed as such. Paine says there is no reason to doubt that there could have been an illegitimate child who went on to became a religious leader; but whatever the facts of the case, the Bible story is mythology .Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I am with dab on this, when he writes "You implication that rejection of the JMT automatically amounts to acceptance of Biblical literalism isn't just uninformed, it's positively nonsensical". I think one problem with some people editing this article is that "myth" means different things for scholars and for laypeople.  I think another problem is that people are getting mixed up between arguments about the historical Jesus and the myth that emerged as Christian orthodoxy.  Traces of both are found in the Gospels, and both historians trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus draw on the Gospels, and orthodox (emphasize, small "o") Christians also draw on the Gospels.  The "Jesus myth" argument is an argument that is critiquing orthodox Christianity, not the question of th historical Jesus (and these aticles should never be merged).  Akhilleus is right that when people talk about the "Jesus Myth" things would be clearer if they said "the Christ Myth" - but I think we need to follow the sources ... Wells says "the Jesus myth" and that is a strong reason to keep calling it that.  But I think that all arguments about the historical Jesus should be in the articles on the historical Jesus, and readers and editors should be directed to those articles i they want to learn or add information about academic discussions of the historical Jesus.  It is my understanding that the view that the Jesus named in the Gospels never existed in any form is fringe if not entirely rejected by scholars; the view that the Gospels provide a reliable account of Jesus Christ is the majority if not mainstream view among Jesus, and that "the Jesus Myth" refers to a range of theories, some forwarded by amateurs (i.e. people not trained in history or adjunct fields, who do not publish in appropriate peer-reviewed journals) and some forwarded by serious scholars.  I don't think "the Jesus myth" in the sense Akhilleaus means by "Christ myth" is in its broadest sense a fringe theory within the academy, but I think many accounts of "the Jesus Myth" are either fringe if not entirely rejected by scholars ... someone once posted a link to a youtube video explaining the Jesus myth theory in Dan Brownian terms and that account is just absurd and not at all supported by scholarly research; other versions are, and the article should be distinguishing between the two. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I do not agree with John Carter. We do have an article that discusses the Yahweh myth, it is the article on the Documentary Hypothesis in which the mainstream work by historians are agnostic on the question of whether there exists a theistic deity, and are focused instead on how the books of the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, reflect the conditions of life and views of their authors who were human and lived long after the events they committed to the form that was ultimately put in writing.  We should have an article on "the Jesus Myth" because there are verifiable sources that talk about it.  There is a great deal of writing about Jesus in English, and to include all major views from verifiable sources would result in an unmanagable article, so several years ago many sections of the Jesus article were spun off into new and separate articles, including the one on the Jesus Myth.  I do not know how much critical scholarship in English exists on Islam, and its account of Muhammed and the Koran ... maybe one day one of these three articles will grow so long that parts of it too will be spun off and there will be one article on revisionist and critical scholarship on the Koran or Muhammed.  Inshallah! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Insha'Allah? Is there something particular that you are trying to say by that? If it is a statement of your faith, I understand. But otherwise the choice of that word in this contect seems puzzling.


 * And why are you, apparently, comparing the story of Jesus (about which nothing factual is know -- if indeed he actually existed) with Muhammad (who's life is well documented)? What points are you trying to make....or had you written this after having in the cold too long without a hat on ? There is no Muhammed myth, and there is certainly no claim that he is God.

(remove indent) "The JMT is one very narrow, radical stance on the historicity of Jesus: Jesus never existed, at all, and all of the NT narrative is just a confused rendition of assorted Near Eastern myths. Period." Sorry, Dbachmann, but that definition is not supported by all reliable sources. For example, Dodd, C. H. (1938) in History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17 under the heading Christ Myth theory states: "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him."

Schweitzer stated "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (Out of My Life and Thought, 1931 page 125) and yet Weaver lists James Frazer along with Herbert Spencer as supporters of "then-prevailing idea that behind myths of origin are actual historical personages" (The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950 pg 59)

In his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard, Doherty states "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." While strictly speaking this is true Wells is NOT saying that there wasn't a 1st century Jewish preacher named Jesus who inspired the Gospel Jesus.

Finally, you have Remsburg who as I have repeatedly demonstrated defines Christ Myth (supposedly synonymous with JMH): "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

As I have repeatedly stated when what the JMT even is and who supports it varies depending on what reliable source you site then something is way wrong. It becomes a game of pick that reference and goes totally against the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia. SOmething really needs to be done with the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that "Christ Myth" is even more a mess than "Jesus myth" is and has had definitions that definitely include Historicity of Jesus as Remsburg does and other that are strong maybes as Dodd's does. The obvious conclusion is that the definition has changed over the time and the article needs to reflect that fact rather than try to strong arm it into a defintion that does not fit all the reliable source material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to hear from outsider to this debate... so I volunteer. I have to admit that I am having a difficult time understanding the subtle differences between the Historicity of Jesus article and the Jesus Myth article (which incorporates an additonal "Christ Myth" concept)... but it sounds as if the difference is that the Historicity of Jesus article focuses on the man, while the Jesus Myth article focuses on the story that is told about the man. Correct me if I have the distinction wrong.
 * If I am clear on the distinction being made between the two Wikipedia articles, it raises a problem... it is a distinction that is not clearly made by the sources. It sounds as if most of the sources mix the two concepts together.  From what I can gather, most of them interweave the questions as to historicity of the man with the question of the story being a myth.  If this is so... if the bulk of the sources do not clearly separate the two concepts, are we justified in doing so?
 * I am not sure if we should merge Jesus Myth into Historicity of Jesus, or if both should be merged into some other combined article... but I think a merger is indeed in order. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I don't think this is quite the correct description of the relationship between these articles. Historicity of Jesus does indeed focus on the man Jesus of Nazareth, and sets out the evidence for the historical Jesus. Historical Jesus also focuses on the man behind the stories, and sets out various theories of what that guy was really like. As you can imagine, there have been a lot of different ideas of what the "real story" behind the New Testament is, so Quest for the historical Jesus gives us the history of how reconstructing the historical Jesus has been approached by different scholars. Jesus myth hypothesis gives more detail about one such reconstruction, which is really a de-construction: there was no historical Jesus at all!
 * So think of Jesus myth hypothesis as a sub-article of historical Jesus or Quest for the historical Jesus, giving more detail about one aspect of a complex topic area. As such, I don't think it should be merged: its contributions to the larger field of historical Jesus studies are quite small, such that histories of the topic devote very little space to it (you can find respectable books about the study of the historical Jesus that don't mention Christ-myth theories at all).
 * By the way, BruceGrubb's treatment of the sources is fairly tendentious; he's incorrect in what he says about Dodd, for example, and what he says about Schweitzer is a red herring. Academic sources are specific and unambiguous about what the JMH is and its fringiness. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus has been pushing for the Jesus never existed position while also stating that people like Mead and Ellegard belong under the JMH umbrella despite the inherent contradiction of the two positions: never means NEVER ie Jesus not existing in ANY CENTURY. As I have asked before given "historical" Robin Hoods have been found a full century AFTER the period the stories are set in  why is proposing a Jesus existing a full century before somehow different (If anything the before would seem to be more logical then the after)?  To date, Akhilleus has not suggested one logical reasonable solution or even a reference for his position.


 * As for Schweitzer being a red-herring, this is a typical Akhilleus blow off of a relevant point. Earlier on Akhilleus stated: "If we are going to be NPOV regarding this topic, we need to reflect what reliable sources say about it. We have several such sources: Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver have useful treatments of the subject..." but the moment you show that the "reliable source" says something Akhilleus doesn't like it gets drop like a hot potato or even worse he brushes off the problem.  The problem being THE SOURCES ARE NOT CONSISTENT ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT.  Take this quote "A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth, Wells has moved away from this hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Wells's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.", (Van Voorst, Robert E, 'NonExistence Hypothesis', in Houlden, James Leslie (editor), 'Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia', page 660 (Santa Barbara: 2003)) but Wells holds that Paul's Jesus was a "pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time." and furthermore Wells spells it out in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003): "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." (pg 43) In short, Wells argues that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed from the mythical Jesus of Paul and the ministry of a Galilean Jesus who was was not crucified; the Galilean Jesus giving a time frame and Paul's mythical Jesus requiring various elements to be added to the Galilean Jesus' life to make the two "fit". For example, Paul's vision c30 CE requires the Galilean Jesus to have been crucified and resurrected before that date regardless of what "really" happened to him. Well contends that other elements such as the birth and the betrayal came from the OT. In a nutshell, Wells has effectively lopped off the two key things that separated the Gospel Jesus from the other would be Christs running around at the time: the birth and the death stories. All that really leaves you as "historical" is the ministry and there are issues on how much of that has been mythologized.


 * Worst yet "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."--Earl Doherty in his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard. Since "The Jesus Myth" does contain a historical Jesus in the correct time period (I've read it and it appears Akhilleus hasn't) but Doherty is still calling Wells a "current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists" you still have a problem.  As I said the literature on BOTH sides is a total train wreck.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant work by Schweitzer is The Quest of the Historical Jesus, especially the chapters added in the 1913 German edition, which are included in the 2000 English edition edited by John Bowden. In this book Schweitzer does not include Frazer in his list of authors who disputed the historicity of Jesus (2000, p. 355) or "the historicity of the oldest Gospel tradition" (p. 393). Schweitzer discusses Frazer in the context of his influence on Arthur Drews, and makes it clear that Frazer believed in a historical Jesus and used his ideas about ritual to explain why specific incidents happened as recorded in the Gospels (pp. 383-385). BruceGrubb's quotation above is from Schweitzer's autobiography Out of my Life and Thought (German original 1931), in which the author is describing the contents of his previous book. If he used misleading wording about what he had written eighteen years earlier, that's irrelevant to the reliability of the original work. EALacey (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus is public domain and is available on the internet at several places.  However there are problems, as they are the earlier 1910 edition and looked for "Frazer" in the 1910 edition by Peter Kirby and didn't get a match at all and the 1913 edition at Google book has some of the pages referring to Frazer's actual position non assessable.  I should mention that Akhilleus submitted Bennett (2001) In Search of Jesus and looking through it it where I found the problem regarding Schweitzer and Frazer.  Furthermore, the Bowden translation is published by Augsburg Fortress Publishers ("Augsburg Fortress is the Publishing House of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.") while the Bennett book is by Continuum International Publishing Group who state that "We are an academic, religious and trade publisher, producing over 500 books a year, written by authors who are acknowledged experts in their chosen fields."  If I had to choose which is the more reliable source I would side with the one that had at least some academic publishing backing rather than the one published by a church's publishing office (effectively self published).--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone could stand to learn a bit more about the Fortress Press. Also, Bruce, what exactly does Bennett say re: Schweitzer and Frazer? Does he present this as a huge contradiction that destroys Schweitzer's reliability, and illustrates a problem with the definition of the Christ-myth theory? Or is this your own argument, based on a tendentious interpretation of the one sentence in which Bennett mentions this matter, in passing? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Fortress edition, Schweitzer's summary shows that he understood Frazer as believing in a historical Jesus. Are you suggesting that this is the result of accidental mistranslations, or are you alleging fraud? EALacey (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Frazer only indicated that he thought there was a historical Jesus in a footnote in the 3rd edition of the Golden Bough, published in 1922. If that's right, it's quite plausible that prior to the 3rd edition people believed that he thought there was no historical Jesus--Drews certainly used Frazer liberally in support of his arguments. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Considering that the relevent sections of Bennett's book are online at Google books, anyone can answer these questions so I don't see what relevance the questions have. But then again, Akhilleus, you were the one who made the utterly insane statement "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." As I said in my reply at the time just 1 minute in Google books produced dozens of references to Remsburg and some were even to his book The Christ and when a statement can be that easily disproved via basic research (even with the wrong spelling) something is seriously wrong.

Regarding the situation with Fortress edition, I have no idea what is going on. But the issue as I pointed out regarding the issue was "It does raise a question of how much we can trust the summations authors give us". It does strike me as strange as the 1910 version doesn't have even one comment about Frazer (I looked for the name though the entire online version and found nothing) and yet this 2001 translation does despite Bennett showing this conflicts with Schweitzer's comments in a later book. It could be that Schweitzer changed his mind and thought he had put Frazer in the same category as John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in his earlier work. Nevermind that the Out of my Life and Thought with limited preview at Google books is the edition put out by Johns Hopkins University Press. Again if I had to choose I would reliable source I have to with the two books that have at least some academic publishing backing rather than the one that presents itself as "We are the ministry of publishing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." along with the blub above I provided that they use to id themselves via Google search. To be fair, German can be hard to translate into English. My late mother who was fluent in high Deutschland German would often use the example of 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket of water' of how easy it one could mess up translations if you didn't pay attention. Also Akhilleus, if correct, has presented us with a little logic problem. How could Schweitzer in 1913 have said Frazer believed in a historical Jesus if the point wasn't made clear by Frazer until 1922?! Something there really doesn't make sense.

Finally, doing a search regarding one of the other sources I stumbled on "The Jesus Myth" Barbara G. Walker from Freethought Today (August 2007) Vol. 24 No. 6. The article never comes out and say just what the Jesus Myth is and in fact can be confusing to someone only vaguely familiar with the material as to WHAT it is arguing. If anything resembling a definition can be pulled from the article it is that Jesus Myth here is being used as Remsburg used "Christ myth" which only serves to prove what I have been saying--the definition of the term Jesus Myth varies and there is little if any consensus on what the term means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce, try finding out more about the Fortress Press; it's an academic imprint, and publishes many works of quality scholarship. You seem to have missed entirely what I was saying about Bennett, so let's try again: in the one sentence he devotes to this matter, does he impugn Schweitzer's judgement? Does he say that Schweitzer was wrong about Frazer? Does he say that there's a problem defining what the JMH is? Or are those arguments that you're making yourself? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the WP article on Augsburg Fortress, Fortress Press has been incorporated into Augsburg Fortress. They are owned by Lutheran church groups. The academic standards may be excellent, but no one would expect such a group would ever publish anything that challenged the the story of Jesus. In other words, it would be the place to look for support on one side of the issue only. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with their ability to translate German? EALacey (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortress Press was an "academic" imprint from the Lutheran Church in America before it was merged with Augsburg Publishing House in 1988 and long before the book in question was published. Even if the book was under the Fortress Press imprint (which it isn't) those are hardly unbiased credentials.  Even though Akhilleus tries to defend his position he still has not explained how Schweitzer would know in 1913 of a position Frazer supposedly didn't clarify until 1922.  Also there other source that don't entirely agree with the definition Akhilleus is in support of.


 * For example, look at this definition of JESUS MYTH THEORY out of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions (1951) by Royston Pike--"The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." The 'mainly' in this definition is a problem because it suggests that some of the Gospels record might not be of mythological origin ie historical. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1982) page 1034 defines the Christ myth theory thus: "This view holds that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." Since Bromiley not only mentions Bertrand Russell but says "This negative attitude is shared by P. Graham, The Jesus Hoax (1974)." even while admitting Russell leaves the question about there being a historical Jesus open, it is clear that Bromiley defines "Christ myth theory" as simply questioning the validity of the Gospel account and not if the man Jesus lived or not. And this is only the tip of the definition contradiction iceberg.  No matter how Akhilleus tries to claim otherwise it can be shown that even in the academic area just what Jesus myth hypothesis/Christ-myth theory/Christ-myth/Jesus-myth means varies wildly.  Trying to claim that the terms "Christ-myth" and "Jesus-myth" mean different things when they don't match the supposed synonym of "Jesus myth hypothesis" is just OR song and dance to cover the fact they do NOT have consistent definitions even among scholars.
 * Bromiley really messes up Akhilleus' position as he makes it clear that the hrist-myth theory questions the STORY and not just the existence of the man and this is the 1982 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. The more you did the more you find that the definitions simply don't match up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortress Press still is an academic imprint; try looking up their recent publications. Bowden's translation is published under the Fortress Press imprint; it says so on the copyright information page, the back cover, and the other locations where one would expect this information. Not that this is particularly relevant, since as EALacey has pointed out, it's hard to see how anything that Bruce and Malcolm have brought up relates to Bowden's ability to translate Schweitzer's German accurately. Not that I expect a coherent rationale for questioning a source from an editor who has argued, in apparent seriousness, that the Oxford University Press is biased because it publishes bibles...
 * This thread is demonstrating exactly the problem that goes on at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, and why we need some new voices there. Bruce is essentially posting the same thing over and over, and distorting every source he gets his hands on in the process, in support of his idée fixe that the JMH covers a broader range than the nonhistoricity of Jesus. E.g. the Pike and Bromiley definitions Bruce quotes above are in line with the definitions already in the article, that the JMH is the denial of Jesus' historicity; it's only through denying the plain meaning of what these guys say ("The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character") is Bruce able to bring them in line with his own, OR definition. Another great example of how Bruce deals with sources that don't match his notions may be found at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis.
 * To his credit, Bruce doesn't edit war, but the endless circular discussion on the talk page has crossed the line into tendentious and disruptive editing. Distortion and misrepresentation of sources, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:NOTAFORUM all apply, and I'm fairly tired of dealing with it by myself. Some assistance in dealing with it would be nice. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, your edit is a perfect example of one of the most problematic aspects of this noticeboard. In what way is your request there for editing backup any different than WP:canvassing? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual, Malcolm, your question has been answered before, this time in this very thread (just scroll up a bit). WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, you have accused a user of disruptive editing. It you really think that is true, why have you brought your complaint here instead of AN/I? As I have said, I think what your really doing is WP:canvassing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Malcolm, if you think this belongs at WP:ANI, you're more than welcome to start a thread there. For my part, my post is a continuation of the discussion that was already occurring here, so I see no reason to move things anywhere else. (If I had, would you accuse me of forum-shopping instead?) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, there is no rule against seeking support on a noticeboard -- that's exactly what they're for. Canvassing means seeking support from particular people who you believe to be supportive of your point of view. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Canvassing, particularly Campaigning and Votestacking .  Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)It should be mentioned Akhilleus tends to misrepresent the positions of other editors either by reading things that are not even there or leaving important things out. My issue with Oxford University Press is NOT just that they publish bibles but they along with Cambridge University publish the Authorized King James Version of the Bible a version that as far as the UK is concerned is held in perpetual copyright by the Crown. The problem with that is when Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and set up the Church of England he also made himself and his successors the Supreme Head of it (ie the equivalent of the Pope) which became the title Supreme Governor in 1559. Before that in 1544 Parliament restored the title of Defender of the Faith to Henry VIII and his successors. And it is not only about money but the prestege that comes with being given the right to published the official Bible of the Church of England by the official leader of that Church (ie the Crown). The question of a possible conflict of interest should come up just as it should concerning a publication regarding the Jewish people by any major University in Germany between 1935 and 1945 or an US University paper regarding Communism from 1949 to 1954 (and perhaps even a little later).

In fact, how anyone who even thinks about this for one minute can't see the apparent conflict of interest here is beyond me but then again we are talking about an editor who stated "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." when a 1 minute search produced dozens even wither the wrong spelling (the name is spell RemsbUrg not RemsbErg and yes I have made the mistake myself). Yet Akhilleus response to my statement of "I found Remsburg's The Christ referenced or quoted ALL OVER THE PLACE by BOTH SIDES. Even the wrong spelling got me some of the same hits with things like The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury (2007) and Obstruction of Justice by Religion: A Treatise on Religious Barbarities of the Common Law, and a Review of Judicial Oppressions of the Non-religious in the United States by Frank Swancara (1971) thrown in for good measure.  Even searching through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89 as well as the two S Acharya books above.  I even found Remsburg on Kenneth Humphreys'  Jesus Never Existed webpage.  Tell us just how in the name of heaven did you miss all these people to make the statement "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg"??? I found several not only mentioning Remsburg but either reference or citing his book The Christ as well including "The Historicity Of Jesus' Resurrection" by Jeffery Jay Lowder (1995) and "Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? by "Historicus" of the United Secularists of America, Inc." was "Looks like the usual mass of self-published and non-expert sources that don't pass the reliable soruces policy." despite one of the authors being Gordon Stein (to be fair a little later Akhilleus did acknowledge Buddhist-Christian Studies was NOT a "self-published and non-expert source") but the point is Akhilleus said he could not find ANY ie NOT A SINGE REFERENCE to Remsburg despite me having pointing out Baal of Hay article in reply to Akhilleus using Holding as a reference in HIS 21:23, 4 December 2008 comment. Yes, Akhilleus tried to use Holding of all people to bolster one of his arguments.

Never mind Akhilleus early efforts to defend a "quote" (and I use the term very loosely) by Grant that had been argued by other editors like Phyesalis, E4mmacro, Sophia, and ^^James^^ to be thrown out with Phyesalis saying 22:45, 12 December 2007 "Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies." (I at least tried to prove this with my research rather than just simply claiming it.) set my current perception of his research skills. Oh for the record the entire relevant stuff of Grant is at [Attitudes to the Evidence] so Akhilleus can no longer make the claim that I have "never read the full passage from Grant"--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having said all I don't really blame Akhilleus but the quality of the material on both sides of this argument. Even University Presses are not immune to vanity books as I was shown to my chagrin when I presented University of Chicago as an example how good University Press in general were and somebody found some borderline material from them.  That definitions vary depend on who you cite is a real problem and trying to claim are not the same thing even when they uses the EXACT SAME TERM is POV crap.  When you can show that Bromiley (1982) has a definition that doesn't match up with Dodd (1938) and neither matches up with Farmer, (1975), Jones (1983) or Horbury (2003) though Rembsburg's definition (1903) does match up to Bromiley's to some degree you have a problem.


 * Also as I have previously pointed out Price also calls George A. Wells a "Christ-myth theorist" in Free Inquiry magazine Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000): "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus, according to which he is imagined as someone like Asclepius, a demigod savior who came to earth in earlier times, healed the sick, and was struck down by the gods but resurrected unto Olympian glory from whence he might still reappear in answer to prayer. The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era."  In short the source material is a total train wreck even with something as simple as the definition being a game of pick that source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Digging around I found even more proof to my contention that the definition used for Christ- myth theory is inconsistent and varies from author to author. "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ- myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History" Transaction Publishers pg 58 which is as you will see is a very excluded middle position that creates a mess of problems.   Where does Wells Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth position fit in this definition and why does Walsh's definition conflict with Dodd's no matter how you read it?


 * Then you have Nicholas Patrick Wiseman (1964) The Dublin Review‎ pg 358 said "'The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." which totally slams the door on Mead and Dodd as well as later authors like Wells and Ellegard. Finally you have Herbert George Wood (1955) in Belief and Unbelief since 1850 said "When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." just confuses the issue is as Bertrand Russell NEVER said Jesus didn't exist and Wood clearly saying here that saying the Gospels are not representable of the life of Jesus is an alternative to the Christ-myth theory.  But this conflits with the statement Price himself made in Free Inquiry magazine Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000) when he called Wells "Christ-myth theorist".


 * I have to bluntly ask my fellow editors HOW MANY EXAMPLES DO I HAVE TO PRODUCE BEFORE WE ACCEPT THE FACT THIS DEFINITION VARIES ALL OVER THE PLACE?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

the obligatory Hindutva intermezzo
The latest incarnation of the "Indigenous Aryans" topos appears to be, presently insisting on giving a full account of these exciting theories here, with rather nice edits elsewhere (the truth about the Aryans was hushed up by a Nazi conspiracy, you see). --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * now joined, with tedious predictability, by a sock sidekick, . --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On it. Moreschi (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rtlevel is blocked indef per Number 27. Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CU confirms that Rtlevel was indeed a sock of Jmanjmanjman, along with . Socks are blocked indef and the main account for 2 weeks. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On this article the lead currently states:
 * There is no scientifically testable and verifiable evidence in favor of the existence of ghosts, despite centuries of interest in the subject. Because the traditional interpretation of ghost reports tends to contradict basic laws of physics, it is not taken seriously by scientists.

The sources are as follows:
 * Reality Check: Ghost Hunters and ‘Ghost Detectors’ (csicop.org)
 * Study: No Scientific Basis for Vampires, Ghosts, Associated Press, Thursday, October 26, 2006, hosted on foxnews.com

There is disagreement on wording. I feel that attributing this directly to specific authors: "according to an article in a journal called The Skeptical Enquirer and an article from Fox News, there is no scientific evidence" falsely implies that this is an unexpected, minority or fringe view of scientific opinion on ghosts. Another editor points to other statements in the article, such as one about a poll result, that are specifically attributed.

I'm pretty sure that the two cases are completely different, and I think the onus should be on someone who claims that there is scientific evidence to produce a reference to peer-reviewed research. A statement by a reliable source (and I don't think there is any suggestion that Fox News misquoted the Associated Press report or that the AP misquoted Professor Efthimiou, a physicist at UCF) that there is no such evidence seems authoritative enough unless there are credible claims to the contrary.

It occurs to me that this is a question that has been asked before in several similar contexts. What verification is required for the statement of the null hypothesis? At what point is it reasonable to state as a fact that no scientific evidence exists for a fringe phenomenon that is no longer taken seriously by scientists? --TS 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE. Designed precisely to deal with this problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er...yes, but the statement that the subject is "a fringe phenomenon that is no longer taken seriously by scientists" is a personal pre-judgement by Tony. The Skeptical Inquirer is an unashamedly POV pushing journal, and is not the official or even the mainstream voice of science. As for Fox News, maybe the less said the better...Colin4C (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you name a field of science where ghosts are taken seriously? I should expect that physicists would be expected to be interested in the temperature of ghosts, their mass, electromagnetic properties and charge. Chemists would be able to investigate the composition of ghosts, if they're made of matter.  And so on.  Which fields of science are actively investigating the properties of ghosts?


 * And Colin, whilst I agree with you on Fox News, you may not have noticed that the report was not written by Fox News but by the Associated Press (for what it's worth) and that it features an interview with a UCF physicist whose statements support my wording. --TS 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the policy reference, ScienceApologist. That section of the guideline is clear and seems to support exactly what I am doing:
 * When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely the opinions of people. --TS 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO "Ghosts" do not come under the rubric of "fringe"...whatever... There are literally mountains of published data on apparitions, with varying explanations for them, and hundreds of tons of empirical evidence. In the past mesmerism or hypnotism was similarly dismissed as "against the laws of nature" as were meteorites. The scientists of the 18th century were absolutely adamant that rocks do not fall from the sky. Anybody who suggested that they did was dismissed as an utter idiot. Later, the scientists were proved to be wrong: there is such a thing as hypnotism...and rocks do fall from the sky...Colin4C (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are these "mountains" of reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts? The rest is special pleading. --TS 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide. And while I'm at it, could you provide peer reviews attesting that Fox News has provided irrefutable evidence, via one news-report, which has forever disproved the existence of ghosts? I, myself, was incredibly impressed, in the article you quoted, that Patrick Swayze, playing a ghost, in the film Ghost violated Newtonian Physics by BOTH walking along the ground AND walking through a wall. I guess the logical corollary to this film critique of a fictional character is that ghosts can't possibly exist in the real world, or if they do exist can't walk along the ground AND walk through walls. However, I'm still a bit hazy on how a criticism of one popular culture representation of ghosts provides irrefutable evidence that ghosts don't exist. Also did the ghost in Randall and Hopkirk Deceased violate Newtonian physics as well? Colin4C (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand the difference between Fox News and the AP, it's hard to see why we should trust the rest of your argument. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ghosts are, of course, real, in the same way dreams and visions are real. People see them, have always seen them, and will keep seeing them, because ghosts are one category of perception open to humans. In the same way as "sunrise" is one possible category of perception. The question is of course, what triggers this perception, and the nature of events triggering perception of "sunrise" are very different from those of the events triggering perception of "ghost", but nevertheless both are real encyclopedic topics that may be discussed based on academic sources. In this sense, ghost isn't inherently a "fringe" topic, it is simply open to pseudo-scientific interpretations, just like "sunrise" is open to interpretations of "Helios driving his chariot over the horizon". --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether ghosts are a fringe topic, but whether the claim that ghosts really exist is a fringe theory. I advocate that we treat it as such.  However I think it ought to be possible to come up with better sources to support this view than the ones that are given. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: here is a very recent article that expresses mainstream views; here is a book that summarizes academic perspectives on this question as of 2001. (Parts can be read on Google Books.) Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My entire point was that ghosts do of course "really exist", in the same way your memories or dreams really "do exist". The "paranormal" question of "belief in ghosts" is really a false dichotomy, and it is WP:UNDUE to discuss the topic of ghosts in terms paranormal/parapsychological literature rather than in terms of folklore, mythology, literature, anthropology and depth psychology. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

John Lamb Lash
Amateur mythologist etc. tagged for 3rd party sources for a year and a half. Lots of reviews, interviews on new-agey/conspiracy sites but not much (any) mainstream coverage. Closest he gets to respectability seems to be once published by Thames & Hudson. Please, someone tell me I'm missing something.  Misarxist  16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * new agey conspiracy sites are fine if they are independent of the person. i.e., his own website is only good for his own opinions, the nutter association of north america journal of new agy conspiracy information that's not associated with him is good for notability.  (not a lot of notability, but it doesn't take much to keep an article).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the view that anyone who is not a Christian is anti-Christian a mainstream or fringe view?
I cannot tell from the lead of here article, much of which I moved to the talk page for discussion I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * it is a somewhat fringey view. There are a couple of references in the new testament for statements similar to "if you're not with us, you're agaist us" sorts of things, but they are only really held to by those who take a very litteral view of the bible.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if people could comment on the Anti-Christian sentiment talk page. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Urine therapy and non-peer-reviewed journals
The article on Urine therapy says this:


 * In 1997, Joseph Eldor, of the Theoretical Medicine Institute in Jerusalem, published a paper in Medical Hypotheses suggesting that because cancer cells release antigens which appear in the urine, oral autourotherapy could spur the intestinal lymphatic system to produce antibodies against these antigens. [ref]Urotherapy for patients with cancer, J. Eldor, Medical Hypotheses 48 (#4, April 1997), pp. 309–315. .[/ref]

The article uses as reference an article from the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is *not* peer-reviewed, and as such, it's full of fringe science (for example, AIDS denialism).

Should we even use information from such journals, especially on medical issues? I would think that the lack of any formal peer-review makes it unreliable by default and against the standards for WP:Reliable sources.

So, should I remove that paragraph out of the article? bogdan (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the unreviewed status of the paper and the fact that Google Scholar shows that it has been cited a total of zero times, I don't think it should be considered a valid source. I'd be in favor of removing that paragraph. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of the above. (Note: I don't work in the healthcare field so you may give my opinion less weight as coming from a non-expert.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am so not immature enough to refer to the abundance of pee-reviewed sources. --TS 13:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Medical Hypotheses is completely unreliable (in the sense of WP:RS), and any material cited solely to that journal should be deleted or the citation replaced appropriately. If you are going to do a linksearch for similar instances, however, please keep in mind that some articles published there are important to the development of some notable but scientifically bunk ideas. Articles in the journal cannot be used to support statements of fact, but should be referenced where they are appropriately described. Same applies for JPANDS and a few other journals of that ilk. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who will drink their own urine because they read that it's good for them, and those who won't. I doubt anything Wikipedia has to say on the subject will convince a person to move from one group to the other. That said, I am continually appalled at Wikipedia's reliance on Medical Hypotheses as a source of citations in medical articles, and agree with the general points articulated by Bogdan, Looie, and Eldereft. MastCell Talk 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eww. Just Eww. 75.158.88.7 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)illisium

If I read enough times in The Lancet etc. or heard via government health recommendations that Wee therapy prevents illness for life, I would happily drink it. So I suppose it depends where you read it, or how desperate you are. Maybe that's just me though.:) Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a fecal therapy fringe thing out there (rely on Mast Cell to tell us all about it), so if you want "ewwwww", that far exceeds urine therapy. And also, if you're dying of thirst in the Sahara, drinking one's urine might be useful. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuals in mufti
There's an edit war (in which I'm not involved, thankfully) going at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni concerning the inclusion of a claim that this individual was a secret homosexual who obtained his position as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem due to a rumoured gay love affair with a senior British government official. The claim is sourced to a 2008 book, Icon of Evil, which received very bad reviews and strong criticism by historians of its factual accuracy. The claim in question is specifically mentioned and criticised by one reviewer, and it seems very much like a fringe theory. The issues at hand are whether a source that does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:V, should be used in a Wikipedia article to support statements about third parties, and whether a fringe claim should be included in the article in the first place (considering the requirements of WP:UNDUE relating to tiny-minority POVs). Input would be welcomed at WP:RSN. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is actually the wrong place, if the source is really so poor then that's a BLP violation. Looie496 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the parties involved are dead, so no BLP violation - it's a fringe biographical theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he died in 1974 it's conceivable that living persons could be implicated. However I agree that it's better treated as a conspiracy theory of dubious provenance. I'll take a look. --TS 12:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well after a quick shufti, I'd say that if this homosexuals in mufti thing is sourced solely from this book, it's not a goer. There ought to be other sources if it's not just some fringe thing. --TS 12:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * without even looking if both Chris and tony think it's dubiously reliable claim, I'd say leave it out. The only way this becomes important is if this claim is somehow key to the persons encyclopedic notability.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be incipient edit war on this article. Attention would be appreciated. --TS 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to worry--I think enough of us have the article watchlisted that we'll be able to suppress the cruft without violating any rules. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but you guys are going to have your perceived flaws catalogued on the Userpage of Shame... MastCell Talk 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Some attention to recent edits on this article would be appreciated. An editor asserts that claims of fraud cannot be asserted. As far as I can tell they are substantiated. The editor in question also seems to be making edits so as to make this device appear to be a cure for cancer. --TS 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This rather obscure article has been the scene of some of the most relentless WP:ADVOCACY I've come across on Wikipedia. I've actually used Talk:Royal Rife as a case study on Wikipedia's vulnerability to abuse. Please to add to your watchlists. MastCell Talk 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the talk page. Hopefully this will slow down the bewildering flow of socks, random IPs, and mysteriously wiki-wise new accounts. Moreschi (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't last long. MastCell Talk 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have appealed for a restoration of that protection. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its counter the principle of Wikipedia to protect both an article and its talk page, unless there is egregious abuse that can't be dealt with by any other mechanism. Like it or not, unregistered editors are welcomed to contribute. The IP what was contributing to the talk page may have some misguided beliefs, but he wasn't doing any harm with his talk page discussion. Moreover, he appears to have claimed to have left Wikipedia, so the protection is no longer required anyway. I'll keep and eye on the page, though, in case that situation changes. Rockpock  e  t  20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for keeping an eye on the situation. Unfortunately not using semi-protection does mean tying up editor's time with baby sitting articles, rather than doing something more constructive, like creating an encyclopedia. I just wish this application of the semi-protection policy didn't sometimes actually interfere with the "principle of Wikipedia". There are other legitimate ways of applying it, ways which make editing here more fruitful. Please excuse my irritation, since I'm sure you are doing a good job and I am truly thankful for your attention. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic
A new editor, 76.105.171.107, has shown up at this article and made extensive changes which do not appear to be in line with our Neutral point of view policy. Attention would be merited, I think. --TS 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Barefoot horses
Everything that has been done to horses' hooves since antiquity is completely wrong. Citations for this? We don't need no steenkin' citations. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard to spot anything glaringly bad at the moment. Do you think this still needs help? Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject is not particularly notable: When searching "barefoot horse movement", I can find 38 hits on google and none from a reliable source. bogdan (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, without "movement" it gets over 18,000. I know very little about horses, but I do know that the question of whether to use horseshoes is something that horse owners are all interested in and have diverse opinions about, so I don't think there is anything fringey here -- which is not to say that the article couldn't be improved. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Views
Might also have been called "WikiProject Fringe Theories". There is nothing wrong with an effort to properly cover fringe theories and minority views, just as long as the "project" isn't inofficially turned into a WP:DUE-evasion effort. It would seem that either this noticeboard is within the scope of this project, or else the project is within the scope of this noticeboard. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the template for that WikiProject being added to this noticeboard. It can be used for organizing cleanups and whatnot, keeping this noticeboard for more acute matters such as NPOV disputes. --TS 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure projects get to tag noticeboards due to neutrality issues (on the other hand, I think it would be entirely appropriate for WikiProject Soap Operas to template WP:ANI). --Folantin (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Munay-ki
Any opinions on whether this concept, invented/promoted by neoshamanistic author Alberto Villoldo, is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article? AFAIK Villoldo is the sole source and originator of this syncretic system (notwithstanding it allegedly being passed on to him by shamanic figures in Peru), and any other website or new age org mentioning it necessarily repeats or draws from Villoldo's writings and promotional paid appearances and spiritual tours. Independent sources seem to be quite thin on the ground.

My first instinct would be to nominate for AfD, or at the very least redirect to Villoldo's article for a brief mention there; but possibly its recognition has spread far and notably enough beyond Villoldo's inner circle to give it some chance to withstand a notability challenge. Certainly, it's hard to see how it could be turned into a balanced NPOV article, and it (as well as Villoldo's article itself) needs much more attention to RS, FRINGE, V, and UNDUE. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tag it for merger to Alberto Villoldo. Unless Villoldo is only notable for that idea, in which case his article should be merged into Munay-ki. Or perhaps neither are notable...? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some Google-hunting. Villoldo has a bunch of books which are cited by a bunch of new-age books by other writers, so he has plenty of notability.  The Munay-ki concept was popularized by him, but seems to have achieved a substantial amount of more or less independent notability.  So it's all very fringey but I don't think there are major notability issues here. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1313 and Rosicrucianism
Someone added to the article on the year 1313 a statement that it was regarded by Rosicrucians as their foundation date. That then spurred a new editor to add a long note about why historians don't regard that date as historically significant to Rosicrucianism. Someone else then wanted the note wikified and I thus found the article in the backlog of articles for wikification. I've removed all mention of Rosicrucianism from the 1313 article and transferred the material to the Rosicrucianism talk page. I hope that sorts it out, but thought I would also put a note here in case someone would like to keep the articles on watch. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko murder theories - notable fringe?
This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on Fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.

In light of this I would like to have a number of indepedent editors help us out with an ongoing discussion on Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko was murdered two years ago in London, and the British authorities, after investigating the cause, said they were 100% sure that the killer was an ex-russian official and also stated that they are convinced the murder was commited with state backing. Russia however never extradited the main suspect, so nobody has ever been punished. As usual with a case which gains widespread attention, alternative theories become available. Since many opinionated Russian nationalists wanted to promote these theories (attack is the best weapon for defence) eventually a new article was created called Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories in order to keep those theories away from the other two main pages Alexander Litvinenko and Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. The theories are pretty wild, some fitting James Bond style plots, others even more ridiculous, such as that the killing wasn't actually an assassination but self-poisoning.

Two of these Russian nationalist users (addition: according to them I'm also opinionated) want to adjust the lead section of the Alexander Litvinenko page significantly, including the following addition:

"The events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death."

I think undue weight is giving to fringe theories here and we're indeed dealing with POV-Pushing. While the fringe theories are possibly notable, they certainly do not belong to the lead section. I also think that its unfair to state that the the events leading up to the murder are "a matter of controversy" because according to the UK's investigation they're clear as sky. Their arguments are that the alternative theories aren't fringe theories, and that the UK's investigation result is also "a theory itself".

So that leaves me with two questions for indepdendent users here:

1) Are these (notable) fringe theories or not? 2) Should the line above become an addition to the lead section?

Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmmm. after a super quick super coursory look, I think at least some of the various fringe theories on his death are 'notable'.  I am cautious/leery of the fringe conspiracy coatrack article.  In general a shorter section in the poisoning article on the various alternative theories of his death might be less undue weight to the alternative theories.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I've said too. I do acknowledge that some of the fringe theories are notable, but think that it shouldnt't be covered in the lead section of Alexander Litvinenko. The users who are trying to do that think that these theories aren't fringe theories (whether notable or not), but I think they are. You called the theories fringe theories as well (but added that they are notable in some cases). Shouldn't that be enough to at least keep them away from the lead section of the article on Alexander Litvinenko?
 * Note that I do not mean to exclude them everywhere, I do think they should gain attention. My concern now only lies with writing/keeping a proper introduction. Grey Fox (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott
The person who runs Talbott's personal website is currently trying to "keep NPOV" this article. He has already removed all criticism from the article and has been resisting attempts by myself to point out the obvious physical impossibilities with Talbott's beliefs. More eyes needed, essentially.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You really should check your facts before posting such blatant and misleading inaccuracies. I assume here it is I whom you are incorrectly categorizing as "The person who runs Talbott's personal website".  The Thunderbolts site is actually a collaborative effort with input from both scientists and laypersons. I only help with it in a voluntary capacity as clearly stated here and here and, incidentally, here, down the bottom in relation to the Thunderbolts forum and your COI.


 * "He has already removed all criticism from the article ..." - The criticism section was removed by User:Dicklyon, as can be readily noted here. "I took out the crap and left a short article on the guy, reasonably well referenced. Can anyone tell me any way in which the 29 KB we had before was a better wikipedia article than this 3.7 KB? Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)", a move which was championed by User:Phaedrus7 (who had himself contributed much of the disputed criticism section) "Well done, Dicklyon!"


 * "... and has been resisting attempts by myself to point out the obvious physical impossibilities with Talbott's beliefs." - The appropriate place, if any, for discussing his "beliefs" would be a Usenet group, your own blog, or similar. This is Wikipedia the aim of which is to produce encyclopedic articles, and as per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR your own unpublished thoughts on his ideas are not relevant. Davesmith au (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, does anybody else think this may be deletable? He did publish a magazine that some people think is notable, but his Saturnian ideas are certainly so obscure as to defy reasonable sourcing and his current projects may not even deserve mention in his own article due to lack of independent sourcing. Input would be appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article is referenced, this appears more like canvassing, especially in light of your refusal to engage in proper discussion on the article talk page and your COI which I've mentioned there. Davesmith au (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mulled it over: Articles for deletion/David Talbott (2nd nomination). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of all the above, why doesn't this surprise me? Davesmith au (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe someone mentioned this article in a class I was leading today? Lord in heaven, you guys need to watch this thing. What is a guy with a BS in Urban Studies doing pontificating about celestial mechanics? It was enough to draw me out of a Wikibreak. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Would you believe someone mentioned this article in a class I was leading today?" Perhaps Talbott is more notable than you thought.  Perhaps your class has a few groupies.  Perhaps if you and others didn't try so hard to discredit him his name would not be popping up all over the place. Perhaps a better option would be to instruct your class that Wikipedia is no place to conduct scientific research, as articles can often be slanted via POV-pushing editors, etc etc etc.


 * "What is a guy with a BS in Urban Studies doing pontificating about celestial mechanics?" One could just as easily ask what is a cosmologist (or for that matter, say, a chemical engineer, or a clown...) doing pontificating about a mythologist? Davesmith au (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sort of article you are demanding, Davesmith, exists. Such texts are known as "promotional copy by book publishers" and "fanzine adulation". Your attempt to exclude criticism of these crackpot claims is heinous and reprehensible. You want to prevent readers, who want to know if there is a shred of evidence that the claims could be true (there is not), from finding an answer in the article. Over my dead body.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's put a BLP tag on the article and taken it to the BLP noticeboard. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He reverted my actions with the explanation that it deserves reverting because I made the changes. He also thinks I have a conflict of interest, however, I believe that he actually receives some money from Talbott to help set up his website. Hmm.... This is going to get slimy if we're not careful. I'm on a Wikibreak. Someone else please help over there! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @ScienceApologist. No, another editor reverted your actions, though I had intended to, and my explanation was not that you had made the changes, but that Wikipedia policies and guideleines trump your and your class' off-wiki consensus, the reason you gave for those edits.  Not that any of that matters, as I did not revert your edits.


 * You do have a conflict of interest. Are you going to deny having launched yourself onto the Thunderbolts forum several times, disregarding the rules thereof?  Are you going to deny conflicting directly with Talbott on a good number of occasions?  I don't care that you have a conflict of interest, only that you are attempting to conceal it.  If you had the integrity to declare it, at least we would be on a level playing field.


 * And as for this - "I believe that he actually receives some money from Talbott to help set up his website. Hmm...." - talk about heinous and reprehensible acts. See here "I am directly involved in the work of David_Talbott and the thunderbolts.info website. I do not receive any income or finacial reward for my involvement, it is purely voluntary" and then provide some evidence for your disgusting slur (of which none exists as it simply is not true), or refactor it without delay.  This is a direct and dishonest personal attack to which I take severe exception.


 * @Goodmorningworld. Do not set up strawmen and then burn them down.  I have not "demanded" anything, save adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Asking for references for criticism is hardly a heinous and reprehensible act.  I have no problem with genuine intelligent criticism from appropriate sources. Davesmith au (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point. What you describe SA as having is not a conflict of interest.  It is a disagreement.  Read the guideline page.  If DT was an editor, the two of them would be advised to avoid interactions, for sake of disruption.  But that is not a COI.  Your relationship with DT is murkier; while it purportedly involves no financial reward, do you "benefit" from the relationship?  I don't know, but am merely pointing out that it's a gray area.  Saying you have a COI may be a mild overstatement, but it is not a slur or a personal attack.  Your situation is clearly closer than SA's to being one.  Please keep calm; feigned indignance doesn't come off very well in cyberspace.   Then you can better address the points about editing the article.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Davesmith is probably not worth worrying too much about... he seems to be pretty ineffectual. Someone else should try to figure out what to do with him. What's strange is the extreme paranoia and persecution complex. For the record, I have never had any direct conflicts with Talbott that I'm aware of, and I'm pretty much laughing over here at the absurdity of davesmith's accusations. Blocking and banning are one possible solution, but I think that as long as we can contain his attempts to soapbox away from articlespace, it might be fun having some comic relief around. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Baccyak4H. My relationship with DT is not at all murky, it is clearly stated as referenced higher up my first response to ScienceApologist. You have asked "do you "benefit" from the relationship?".  Financially no.  I have received so far US$125 as partial compensation for my online costs, as I need to maintain a certain level of connectivity to the www to carry out my volunteer duties.  Considering my total cost of internet acces and activities over the last twelve months has been in excess of AUD$1200 (the vast majority thunderbolts related) and my ONLY income is a disability pension, I hardly think there's any financial benefit for me.  If you find that so hard to understand or believe, that's not my concern.  As for other benefits, if you mean I enjoy the privelage of interacting privately with a good number of scientists and scholars, some of whom do real research in real laboratories, and some of whom publish peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals and some of whom are considered to be the best in their fields globally then yes, in that way I benefit.  It's far more beneficial to me than interacting with a bunch of wannabees who don't really know anything about the things they're so eager to discredit, no personal offence intended.


 * As for "Saying you have a COI may be a mild overstatement, but it is not a slur or a personal attack." do you have difficulty with comprehension of English? Please re-read my response, which regards ScienceApologist's attempt to discredit me  with his totally unfounded "beliefs".  If I were to say "I believe ScienceApologist recently escaped from a lunatic asylum so we should be wary of his edits" (which of course, I don't) I would expect to be pulled up over it, considering I would have no proof to offer. My indignance was not feigned, but a natural response to his disparaging lies.


 * @ScienceApologist, I fail to see any paranoia or persecution complex, nor is it proper for you to assert same, unless of course you're now an expert in psychology/psychiatry and there was some evidence to support it. As for your claim not to have had any conflict with Talbott, there is plenty of contrary evidence within the public domain, and some retained privately, but as same includes your real name, I will save it for private submission to Arbcom, if it comes to that.


 * Anyway as I'm tired of defending myself against a stream of mistruths which began at the top of this thread, I aim to take a break from active editing at least in the short term, as per my post here. See ya! Davesmith au (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentric historiography
A spin-off from Afrocentrism and the Egyptian Race Controversy articles, apparently designed to reintroduce all the old favourites: Cleopatra was black etc etc. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a horrible mess. has re-appeared at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and is trying to take the article 3 years back into the past of nightmares. Meanwhile, we now have Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?, a living policy violation if ever there was one. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * not if you ask "Experienced & Established Editor", who appears to believe that blatant policy violation should be met with kind and loving attention, respect for the feelings of the pov-pusher, and god forbid don't touch the delete button. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

nothing new under the sun. It appears we'll have to babysit the Afrocentrism articles for the next couple of months until Deeceevoice & friends are shown the door, or walk away in a huff, once again. I wish there was a short-cut for this, because the outcome is set, and it's just a question of going through the motions, yet another time. Accounts like, going around creating articles such as Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? have no ratio essendi within the project. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply because the topic attracts editors like the ones mentioned above, there is no reason to keep the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy from being expanded. That Cleopatra was black is a significant minority view, or at least the debate surrounding this has been mentioned (and been conducted, sort of) in academic literature. The article by Asanta is available online, and I actually managed to link it before Ancient Egyptian race controversy was fully protected. However, the link was objected to by some editors on the grounds that it was 'commercial', which only illustrates how difficult it is going to be to work on the topic. There was an agreement between me and Woland on the talk page that material on the various controversies (Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet') should be included in the article. I would have waited for  some more comments, but I don't see any argument against that - because the possibility that other editors also try to add a lot of other junk certainly isn't an argument. Actually they did add a lot of other junk - which is why I had to spent several hours to get that junk out of the article. As the article is currently fully-protected, the option to continue editing it does currently not exist. Otherwise I would be able to give you 4 subsections on Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet' that you couldn't honestly object to. Zara1709 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

well, fine, I'll be happy to collaborate with Zara1709 in the expansion of this article. But for the love of ḏiḥautī, could somebody just bite the bullet and ban the Afrocentrist crackpots? There is literally nothing to be gained from letting the prance around any longer. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always foreseen this as the inescapable future of FT/N. Why don't we on this board just declare we are a "board" or some kind of powerful ecumenical council, that gets to decide what POVs or opinions readers are not allowed to hold? Then by banning from wikipedia everyone who subscribes to the disallowed belief or opinion, it will make it much easier for us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this belief or opinion doesn't really exist, or at least that the POV cannot speak for itself.  How neutral.  Although I do not love ḏiḥautī, so I fail to appreciate this appeal to reason. Blockinblox (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are all beliefs equally valid? It doesn't matter because that is the wrong question. This has nothing to do with beliefs.  People do not get fed up with fringe POV pushers simply because they "believe" something out of the ordinary.  No.  These people "disrupt" the encyclopedia.  You know what that means?  They act in ways that hinder the non-disruptive editors from ensuring the encyclopedic quality of entries.  And you know what, we all at least pretend to agree these actions are unaccetable.  It is completely reasonable to suggest banning people who periodically break the rules we have in place to govern our actions.  Editors are allowed to hold any opinion they want, they simply are not allowed to act in certain ways.  I'm imagining that most people who are literate enough to edit this encyclopedia can recognize that this is par for the course in the world outside of the encyclopaedia as well.  Of course maybe some of you live on anarchist communes I'm unaware of.PelleSmith (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that reply was barely coherent to me. But what I am getting at is, we have to realize that we live on a globe, and that people on the other side of the globe just may think entirely different from the way people think on whatever side we happen to be on.  The advent of internet and especially open-source publishing sounded the death-knell for the old mentality of centuries, which would have shown everyone the same television screen, and made them all watch it.  In fact, J. Wales deserves much of the credit for hastening the demise of such mind-control freaks, by his opening a wikipedia in every major language around the world.  And it's clear where he stands; otherwise do you think anything like, say, a "Swahili wikipedia" would ever be allowed to exist?  Unless the mind-control freaks want to devote their lives to learning Swahili now, it's quite impracticable to try to ensure the Swahili wiki is free of "crimethink" and force it to be on the same page in all respects.  This was also proved by some of the humorous attempts to do exactly that on the Farsi wikipedia; the native speakers simply howled and literally ran rings around the stilted efforts of some folks using a dictionary or paid translator.  Now, we do still have some governments like China that are fighting a losing battle to stem the flooding over the dikes of information- and thought-control.  Our English speaking magisterial types are obliged now to fight over redefining the semantics of terms like "neutral" and "fringe" for everyone else. But I say it's high time we try to look past our noses and see that the rest of the world is never all going to think the same way we do. Blockinblox (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Humm. Barely coherent? That seems to describe your post. Is the fact that someone who couldn't speak Swahili tried to contribute to Swalhili wikipedia supposed to tell us something? It happens all the time here too. Anyway, anyone can set up webpages in any language about anything. That's what defines the internet, and it's also why it's full of rubbish written by extremists of all sorts - inclusding those on other 'pedias. Or are you also going to laud the "information" on Conservapedia and Metapedia? It is the job or this board to help keep the rubbish out. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, good luck then! Have a nice life, and don't let those rubbish-pushers get you too down! Blockinblox (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mind-control freaks"? Again, this has nothing to do with "mind-control" or anyone's "beliefs".  This regards "behavior-control"--something that every social group in the history of human life on this planet has engaged in and will continue to engage in.  It is the behavior of certain editors that warrants their blocking, just like it is the behavior of the criminal that lands him/her in jail.  Now if you want to claim that this behavior is the natural expression of a different belief system, and by punishing it we are trying to control this belief system (as opposed to controlling their behavior as it may effect the rest of us) then your barking down the path of anarchy.  You do get that right?  Not democracy or republicanism but anarchy.  We have guidelines for what can and cannot be included in the encyclopedia--see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, etc.  We have these guidelines to ensure a goal.  This goal is to write an encyclopedia based on knowledge that is as close to mainstream scholarly consensus as possible.   When people break the guidelines and threaten the goal they disrupt the encyclopedia, which is something that adversely effects the rest of us, just like the crimes of a criminal in the world writ large.  You might be confusing the world we live in with the this one.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No I'm not, and I agree with you entirely about your points that policies must be followed to prevent anarchy. And you say these guidelines are never applied on the basis of belief systems, and you are correct that they should not be.  I just get a little concerned whenever someone appears to be suggesting exactly that.  Which happens on this page a little too much for my comfort. Blockinblox (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People who deal with fringe theorists and various nationalist POV-pushers, like Dab does, get frustrated and identify problem editors with their obvious attributes (e.g. being an Afrocentrist). This is not surprising when the same problem editors make it clear (directly or indirectly) that getting their version of the belief associated with said obvious attribute into the encyclopedia is the goal they have in mind when they behave disruptively.  Clearly no one wants to ban editors for simply declaring their POV, or their beliefs, but for crossing the behavioral threshold in asserting these beliefs.  I don't think it helps to construe Dab's words in those exaggerated ways.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Get frustrated and identify problem editors..." LOL  Hey, thanks for your input! Blockinblox (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what that means exactly, but OK. Take a look at the circus over at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy.  Here we have a sock puppet of an editor who has already been indef blocked for disruption freely saying things like, "[s]ome of these guys are pretty smart at gaming the system."  And the sock is referring to those who are thanklessly wasting their time trying to keep the entry encyclopedic.  People who have to deal with this kind of behavior get frustrated.  Its pretty understandable.  My first thought was to tell Dab that banning these editors does not always work because, well they find ways to come back.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like you are resorting to the tried and tested "Ararat Ararev" technique, for banning whole points of view and widely published schools of thought from the project, under the guise of a single, mythical "ghost editor". To explain in case anyone is unfamiliar: Ararat Ararev was a rather persistent editor who used to add information from Armenian history books, written in Armenian by Armenian authors, that are widely taught in Armenian schools.  The big problem with that is that apparently, according to most of the Armenians' neighbours, Armenians aren't supposed to have any books of their own at all, and should instead have listened to the Soviets, or to (fill in the blank).  Ararat got himself banned for fighting with his enemies, and may have resorted to a number of sockpuppets for a while (this was all years ago).  However his enemies, including admins, apparently took advantage of this circumstance to ban several other Armenian editors, in fact, anyone who dared quote from these same history books, taking that as proof certain and sufficient that they were all the same individual, without any further check.  It doesn't take a genius to see that what was really accomplished here was not just the banning of one 'troublesome' editor, but the banning of all of these authors who are taught in Armenian schools, and an entire significant point of view pertaining to Armenian history.  To this day, any Armenian found citing one of these "banned" authors whom he learned in school, is likely to be immediately blocked as a "sockpuppet of Ararat Ararev", no questions asked...
 * Now, you have just stated that several accounts who quote a widespread school of thought you'd rather not existed, are all really the same nebulous individual. Pretty soon, you'll have your problem solved - all the authors they are quoting will be blanket-banned, and anyone who quotes these authors is henceforth obviously the same one "editor" as your pretext.  It's just that some of us remember reading about similar tactics being used in the year 1933. Blockinblox (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Tactics"? "Mythical ghost editor"? I'd "rather not existed"?  Where do you get this stuff from?  I have no investment in that particular discussion nor did I so much as imply that all the Afrocentrists are the same person and there is no mythical ghost editor.  There is a very really and truly indefinitely blocked editor using a sock to evade his block and it looks like he's up to his old POV pushing -- the same POV pushing that lay at the foundations of the tendentious editing behavior that got him blocked in the first place.  For the record I'm not sure anyone else is even aware of this, so clearly this fact is not the basis of anyone actually dealing with the issue's judgment.  I am not aware of the situation you elude to above but admins don't ban editors as socks without some kind of proof, like that provided by a checkuser.  Socking, especially for the purpose of evading blocks or voting more than once on a certain issue, is a behavior we don't allow and I'm sure you're aware of this and understand why.  Regarding my supposed desire to see people with a certain POV gone from the encyclopedia there is not a single shred of evidence in anything I've written to you that suggests this.  I'll say this for the last time.  When editors start becoming disruptive in their behavior, that's when its time for them to get shown the door.  The fact that a very high percentage of those expressing very extreme nationalist POVs also tend to become disruptive in their editing behavior is not something you blame on admins trying to keep this place in order.  From what you have written it looks like you have a beef with those admins who deal with these types of disruptive nationalist editors so I guess this discussion is pretty pointless.  Have a nice one.PelleSmith (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst your bubble, but tons of editors get banned as "obvious socks" (often wrongly) on the mere say-so or whim of an admin, without any checkuser whatsoever, every single day. I wish it weren't so, and it were as you said; checkuser should be a requirement.  That would save a lot of innocent editors getting banned just for citing the same POV as someone else who was "disruptive", when in reality it is the POV and all the scholars who wrote about it, who are banned from being cited, by anyone. Blockinblox (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I said they don't block without "proof", and checkuser generates one form of evidence. In some cases checkuser is not necessary to prove that someone is a sock.  I'm sure mistakes happen, but that's why anyone can appeal a block.  This fact detracts pretty much all of the force from your claim.  If someone is a legitimate non-sock editor then they will in an appeal easily be able to prove this.  The fact that they chose not to speaks volumes.  I've seen these types of blocks overturned and editors vindicated after a sock accusation, but editors who are socking and get caught don't usually appeal the block or take it to arbcom ... they just create new socks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

← Right, you two are way off-topic here. Please take the argument over POV/behavior to personal discussion or an RfC. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery
This is blatantly written from a sympathetic fringe point of view. A number of related articles are also written in whole or part with a credulous tone or undue weight: Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What sort of help would you like? This whole thing is a load of bull, and the only reasonable way I see of handling it is to delete all of those articles and replace them with redirects to abduction phenomenon, which needs improvement but isn't as hideously horrible as those others. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all into Abduction phenomenon. I recall having done some of that a few months ago, but anything I did has probably been undone. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with merging and redirecting, but it will be undone and complained about bitterly. UFO articles are the Augean Stables of Wikipedia - a den of scum and villany filled with single-purpose accounts, IP-hoppers, genuine sufferers of mental illness, offsite coordination, and people whose sole mission is to spam the Butte, Montana chapter of MUFON's website over every possible article, however tenuous the relation.  WP:FTN hasn't even begun to crack this topic area open.  It will take an organized effort to make this stick.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided to redirect the lot to Abduction phenomenon. Might be a bit too WP:BOLD, but we'll see. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...aaaand I've already been reverted. As vandalism, no less. :P &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your actions were indeed excessively bold. Those articles are all on notable topics (all have received treatment by both pro-ufo, explicitly skeptical, and mainstream scientists), split off from the parent article due to its size in accordance with policy. I'll agree that they need more thorough treatment of mainstream scientific studies and skeptical critiques of pro-UFO theories are needed, but I lack the resources to add them myself. Regardless, it is certainly inapropriate to damage Wikipedia's coverage of one side to make up for deficiencies in the coverage of another when it's so easy to add that coverage yourself.

I noticed that when Hand turned "Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery" into a redirect (a move I agree with), none of its content was transferred to any other article. Ditto with every other article deleted today. If these changes had gone uncontested hours and hours of work by several contributors would be lost. It looks like very little respect has been given to your fellow workers' labor. Hand didn't even leave a notice for these articles' prime contributor (me) or raise any complaints on the articles' talk pages, which is what standard procedure would suggest. I'm sorry I called you a vandal, but when I saw 5 or so pages immediately blanked without discussion that was the first thought that popped into my mind.

Also, despite removing all of their content (that is, functionally deleting them) none of them actually qualify as appropriate for deletion (all are notable, not spam, and salvageable as articles). No good faith effort has been put forth to identify flaws or attempt improvements. I'm willing to cooperate in attempting to improve these articles and address any concerns that may be had, and agree that there are reasons for concern worth discussing, but unilateral deletion as was done earlier is inappropriate, rude, and damaging to Wikipedia's coverage of an intersting, if ontologically dubious subject. Shall we get to work? Abyssal (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Free energy movement
Two IPs (socks?) have been trying to create a POV fork at Free energy movement. It was a redirect to Free energy suppression (which uses the term "conspiracy theory" explicitly in the lead). Seems pretty under control for now, but please put the redirect on your watchlists for more eyes. NJGW (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed
At Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories - tendatious pro-conspiracy POV pushing editor, insisting that the title of the article is POV and overly abiguous. Please drop by and opine. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very busy talk page! I've entered a request for the involved editors so provide a quick summary of the disputes to help outside editors get oriented. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... It is hard to follow... that is part of the problem. Basically one editor with a clear pro-conspiracy theory agenda made a raft of changes to the article, which I reverted. He got very offended and is now challenging every other word in the article and every tiny edit anyone makes. As soon as we try to address one issue he shifts focus and attacks the article from a different angle.  So it is a long and tendations dispute.
 * The current issue, however, is simple: is the article's title ambiguous? and is it POV? Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories of Freemasonry would be less ambiguous. I also would like to see the article less list-like and more indication given of how notable the different theories are. And generally more differentiation between different classes of theory. For example, Christian writers have been suspicious of Freemasonry since the beginning, and the Christian critique of Freemasonry can be regarded as mainstream. It's in sharp contrast to some of the more recent and conspiratorial theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Deniers
I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. --TS 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Panentheism
This is sort of at the edge of fringiness, but I'm getting to my wit's end with panentheism. The concept itself isn't too hard to explain, and the article does a half-decent job, at least, of doing so. The problem comes with the section where it is being identified in various religious and philosophical traditions. First, a lot of people can't tell the difference between panentheism and pantheism, and so they keep sticking in examples of the latter. Second, the perpetual controversialism between Eastern and Western Christianity has washed up in the article. It is perhaps true that panentheism is not as universally held in the West as in the East, but one can readily find western theologians who explicitly hold to it. Which brings us to the third issue: most of these identifications are analysis rather than the original sources using the term themselves. For example, we have a cited claim that the Cherokee were monotheistic and panentheistic, but the cited work supports the former and doesn't mention the latter at all. Another bit on neoplatonism has a citation, but the quote doesn't use the term and actually supports an interpretation of pantheism instead.

I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself. I'm familiar enough with the field to where I think I can distinguish the forms correctly, but it seems to me that if I rely upon that I'm going to have endless battles with the people who can't distinguish them. In any case, I'd like some other eyes on this as well as opinions as to the approach I intend to take. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself." That's probably the way to go. I'll watch the page, but I won't be able to devote much time (or research) to this. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a challenge. The similar-sounding topic pantheism is also often confused with pandeism and with polytheism, often seen in new age and neopaganism philosophies as an alternative to monotheism.


 * Maybe it would be helpful to come up with a clear disambiguation hatnote. Maybe also add a section at the top of the article that addresses the related ideas, with an acknowledgment of the modern uses of those terms in the popular literature relating to new age. By addressing those misconceptions up front (with reliable sources), the rest of the article could strictly focus on the correct use of the topic term and might incur less distractions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to make the distinctions clearer, but sadly, I think that material is often added by people who either can't be bothered to read, or who are too thick to register the difference between the terms. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold reading
There's a minor edit war with one user insisting on phrasing that presumes that the vew that *all* psychics, mediums, and so on are real should be given greater weight than that they use cold reading. C.f. first sentence. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of a moot point, because the first paragraph sucks egregiously in other respects: it gives some information about what cold reading can be used for, but neglects to tell the reader what it actually is, which is the true job of the first sentence of an article.  Both versions are equally bad in this respect. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bible diet
Appropriate for an AfD? LeContexte (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? It seems notable, as long as it isn't pushing it as approved science or anything it should be ok.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD? It's borderline ! As it stands it could justifiably be redirected to the author (Jordan S. Rubin) of the book it's an ad for, tho possibly changed to an article on that book if it's notable? Or, if it ends up being a real (ie non-promotional) article about christian 'bible diets', it's going to need 3rd party sources etc. discussing the phenomenon/fad, rather than just the web-sites/books promoting said phenomenon.  Misarxist  10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands pretty much sucks, but Google shows quite a number of "Bible diets" of various sorts, so this topic is surely notable enough to deserve an article. Looie496 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it hits on Google, but are there any books, newspaper articles, etc. about the topic? That's the thing we need to look for. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several books called "The Bible Diet" or some variation thereof. Even Google Scholar shows 50 hits for the phrase "bible diet", although about half of them are related to something else.  The most interesting is an article from Gastronomica called "Don't Eat That": The Erotics of Abstinence in American Christianity. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected the author to the diet, since he's not really known for anything else, and the diet gets some paper space in printed encyclopedia, while he does not. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rheinwiesenlager - opinions & input needed please
At Rheinwiesenlager, another editor is seeking to add to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. I have reverted the change citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for which the editor in question has labelled me a Communist. I would be grateful for some external input. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved Eisenhower and German POWs to Other Losses since the article is essentially only about Bacque's claims in that book. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and I could use some help cleaning up after myself. Many, many references were there to support claims about Allied food policies and malnutrition. I tended to just de-link these; however, the claims need to be cited, preferably to outside sources. If anyone could assist me please drop a message on my talk page. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed, for the third time, Bacque's claim from the infobox. It is a classic fringe theory, it enjoys no mainstream support, and it is mentioned in the body of the article. However, I fully expect to see Smith2006 reinsert it, and would be grateful for others' views on this. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Eye on contributions by User:Uruk2008
I'd like to ask for some additional eyes to review contributions by. He has some sort of background with explosives, but has added a lot of misinformation, fringe theory, and explosives-related pseudoscience over the last few months too. I've started reverting some stuff and mentioned it on his talk page, but I think more eyes to look at all his contributions may be helpful so that it's not just me. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up this grossly biased article. There is considerable opposition from some people who think the extraterrestrial hypothesis should have a section outlining support for that hypothesis. There is in fact little if any support for the hypothesis within the scientific community. - This article is very popular and I think some attention to its terrible biases would improve Wikipedia's reputation for taking science seriously. -TS 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ
Yet again people are trying to demote the NPOV/FAQ from policy status, this time by simply edit warring to make it so. Less than 24 hours of discussion since they necromancied an old thread, and already they've demoted it four times.

God help me, what's with these people? Simply saying that an RfC should be run before you demote a long-standing policy is being met with claims that it never was meant to be a policy to beggin with (how stupid of us not to have realised in the 7 years it's been part of Wikipedia policy, originally as part of WP:NPOV, and that there never was consensus for it to be policy. What's going on here? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this involve some kind of Fringe Theory? q141.152.51.234 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV/FAQ is one of the the main policies on fringe theories. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should be asking this at the FAQ talk page, but I don't understand what's at stake here. Why does it matter whether this is policy or not? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, having a clear, policy-level statement that science is priveleged over pseudoscience was godsend in the evolution-creationism debates, and probably one of the only thing that really helps when trying to clean up the Alternative medicine and other problematic parts of the Wiki - without an explicit statement, it would be hard to convince people. Having to show them four different policies and a couple Arbcom rulings really doesn't have the same effect as a clear, concise statement.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a POV statement."without an explicit statement, it would be hard to convince people". We don't try to "convince" our readers of anything.(olive (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * ...The editors, Olive. Not the readers. There are some people who seek nothing but to promote fringe theories. Without this, it becomes dificult to, for instance, have any chance of convincing a creationist that his surveys about belief in evolution in Hicksville, America are not the relevant metric. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict:
 * Whew! Now there's a statement about people that rubs me the wrong way...Hicksville, America? What kind of agenda is that? No further comment.(olive (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * It seems rather evident to me at this moment that the FAQ section should remain at the policy level. It seems to provide answers to policy questions which are frequently asked. These answers are ostensibly agreed upon by the community at large. The answers are binding as policy so long as the community at large agrees on the answers. That said, I haven't read a good reason as of yet to demote FAQ. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oliveoil, I hope we can all agree that we don't want an encyclopedia tainted by the prejudices of "Hicksville, America".  Those who want that have their own encyclopedia, and they're welcome to it. --TS 21:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want an encyclopedia tainted by any prejudices, and prejudice is anywhere, and everywhere ... even here.(olive (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC))


 * And thus Wikipedia becomes still more out-of-touch with, and alienated from, Hicksville, America. Good job, editors! 141.152.51.234 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia was always intended to be a high quality free encyclopedia based on the neutral point of view. Reflecting the prejudices of the stupidest people, of whatever nation, has never been an aim of this project. --TS 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right.... And they believe that the Earth was created, so therefore we know they're just stupid, right?  141.152.51.234 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Belief in creationism is, in fact, inversely correlated with level of education. In short, the less educated you are, the more likely you are to be a creationist. The correlation with study of science is even stronger. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stupidity,ignorance and arrogance all inhabit the cities as well as the small towns, as does intelligence. Equating stupidity with small town people, and attempting to judge who is stupid and who is not can only lead to pigeonholing and subsequent misjudgment.(olive (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Amen! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we move on from attacking a poorly-chosen wording to actually deal with the relevant issues I raised? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Hicksville? Its the finest little town in Arkansas, just down the turnpike from Dead Pig! Why we done got ourselves some of that there electricity stuff just three year back, and now I see Jerome's Hardware done even brung in a machine for doing the laundry for me, though it costs about six years wages so I can't see my no-good husband staying sober long enough to save up for one, though I injured my back something fierce fighting off them foreign fellers last time their saucer landed near here and bending over the creek for hours to get his britches clean surely does make it ache a packet! 41.245.54.216 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hicksville, AK is fine... it's Hickville, NY that you have to worry about! Seriously... Shoemaker has asked us to forgive his poor word choice and focus on the issue... should NPOV#FAQ be considered part of the policy or not? Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I grew up in a farming community in the Appalachian foothills and have several relatives poor enough that they have no choice but to hunt for food. Seriously. Move on, people. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in Africa. Folks around here wish there were edible animals left to hunt. They would happily swap lives with your Appalachian relatives. Wdford (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile back at the ranch. Maybe we could take the pertinent aspects of the discussion :o) back to NPOV/FAQ where the status of the FAQ is being discussed.(olive (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Monogenesis (linguistics)
This is an odd article, currently wholly unreferenced, which defines linguistic monogenesis as "the idea that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language spoken many thousands of years ago in the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age". Fair enough. It then goes on to assert that "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th century. It is scarcely more popular today. It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." It seems odd that the article is in effect claiming that this is a fringe theory. I think the author is conflating the central assertion (that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language) with the fringe claims of those linguists who have sought to model it. The author's attempt to introduce evolutionary theory also seems confused. The article claims that "if all recent human populations on Earth (including, for example, Australians, appearing 40,000 - 50,000 years before the present) stem from a single out-of-Africa migration, linguistic monogenesis becomes a conceivable hypothesis." Since this is the dominant view, it seems odd to portray it in this way. In any case, even multiregionalism is not logically inconsistent with linguistic monogenesis. However, editors with knowledge of this topic seem to be needed. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression (but I'm not a linguist) is that linguists generally view this as a fringe hypothesis, not so much because it is totally implausible as because the people who write about it cite "evidence" that most linguists think is bogus. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's the distinction I was trying to make. It's the models not the concept itself that are fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be merged with Proto-World language or Origin of language. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Problems at homeopathy. I don't want to revert any more. User is refusing to enter into discussion, and I suspect it is a banned editor. Please can an admin or AE admin, or someone take a look and help out if required. Thanks, Verbal   chat  11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as a heads-up, Homeopathy was last week's featured article on Citizendium. Dana Ullman (who played the main role in writing the Citizendium article) has been pointing out to the alt med community how much better the CZ article is than the Wikipedia one. So, we're apt to see an upsurge in activity at homeopathy for a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is why citizendium fails. Verbal   chat  17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this thread is evidence that homeopaths aren't welcome on wikipedia. I dispute both claims. See Talk:Homeopathy. Verbal   chat  17:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes... it is all a great big conspiracy to silence homeopaths and keep the "truth" from the public... Seriously, homeopaths are welcome on Wikipedia, but just like everyone else they must abide by the rules.  POV pushing and edit warring are not acceptable, no matter what your agenda. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Free energy
A user would like to have perpetual motion figure prominently at the Free energy dab page. I believe this is giving undue weight to the term and violates DAB standards. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts.
There's a couple articles that could probably use some experienced editors. These aren't in a terrible state or anything, but they may be giving undue weight towards certain views. Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some outright lies in the first. Dr. Keith L. Moore is quoted as saying "I have no difficulty in accepting this", in reply to the question of whether Quranic knowledge of the embryo must derive from God. The full sentence is "I found no difficulty in accepting this as a seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda." The sentence is chopped up with a full-stop added to misrepresent it. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The second third is just a mess, bordering on an essay. It's hard to tell whether this idea is creationist/"fundamentalist" claptrap, or atheist intellectual snobbery, especially as it brushes up against natural theology (another deeply problematic article) without acknowledgment. From what I can tell, there is a specifically creationist version of this idea (cited from Creationwiki, of all places), but throwing William Harvey into the mix doesn't help. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I snipped a big part of the first, where it droned on endlessly about some Dr. Moore's ideas for ages and ages, without any sign that they were particularly notable views, or that he was someone worth listening to on the subject. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The first two articles are propaganda by a few hard-core sectarian SPAs.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who has taken a look - a lot more work to be done, some of which I'l try and do myself. ClovisPt (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This material is pretty far outside of my own knowledge base - does anyone have a suggestion as to where to look for editors with a better grasp of the issues? ClovisPt (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

POV issues on two related articles
Some POV issues here, if any editors who feel like dealing with them: Charles Fort and International Fortean Organization. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy theories
Outside input is requested here. Sceptre (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of ironic to bring this issue here, since that article was actually created as a result of a discussion on this noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never the less... we should keep an eye on it. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? FTN is normally quite anti-fringe theory, so why would a discussion yield that the consensus was to create an article for this? Jesus Christ, was everyone's brains on holiday that day? Sceptre (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the top objective at the time was to get the stuff out of Barack Obama, where it was before that. I should add that my opinion is different than yours:  I think it's a great article, one of relatively few where I'm happy to point people to Wikipedia as the best way to learn about a topic. (By the way, if you don't believe me, just look at the edit summary for the first contrib to the article.) Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Venetian People
I came across this article today. It contains a list of references, but no in-text citations. Some sections (Etymology, Origins, 1000 BC) may contain fringe ideas or inaccuracies. There seem to be examples of confusing modern Venetian people with the ancient Adriatic Veneti, giving the impression that the latter are somehow ancestral to the former or as if the two are one and the same people. I removed some OR (a lay comparison of ancient Venetic with modern Venetian language) and tagged some of the most contentious sections as unreferenced:. The article needs a cleanup as some bits are written in poor English. --Jalen (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don;t see that as the main problem: the main problem is the uncited and POV sections on "venetian genocide" and following. I've tagged them. DGG (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

HonestGeorgeWashington on Neuroprosthetics
I could use a hand here -- added some very dubious material about the CIA and MKULTRA to the article, I removed it with an explanatory edit summary, and George re-added it with no explanation. Since I prefer to avoid multi-reverting, it would be nice if others could take a look at this. I will notify HGW of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks dubious. Is the user new to Wikipedia? I reverted the addition, pending some secondary sources that support the text.


 * (I was hoping that the article would be about prosthetics--that I could move with my mind. Reality is so disappointing sometimes...) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The section on Motor prosthetics is indeed about that, at least partly. I should perhaps explain that this is not a very well-organized article, but I wouldn't like to see it go completely to hell. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured_article_review/Warsaw_Uprising and Norman Davies
I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Energy accounting: undue weight to the view of TechInc movement
There's a problem with the article Energy Accounting. It is presented as a concept in the school of thought belonging to the movement Technocracy Incorporated. But the term is a general concept. The article now has a heavy bias towards TechInc's POV. I've tried to explain this on the talkpage but the main editor of the page doesn't understand this. (S)he is also repeatedly removing the dispute tag of the article, although the dispute is not over and WP:NPOVD should be applied. Could someone have a look on this? Mårten Berglund (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity
Not sure if this belong here but this article is fear mongering using a fringe point of view and is held in place by a number of editors. I have therefore started a rewrite over at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones until issue can be resolved. Help in this matter would be appreciated.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I agree with your approach, but have difficulty deciphering the sequence of page moves and redirects here. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alien abduction
I'm requesting a move:


 * Abduction phenomenon → Alien abduction —(Discuss)— These collections of stories are not universally agreed by all sources to be phenomenological. Some "alien abduction" stories are akin to ghost stories or mythology and are not subject to phenomenological study. Also "abduction phenomenon" is ambiguous since it might be referring to any number of situations where real, actual abductions became rampant (such as in unstable politcal environments or the moral panic that surrounded stranger danger in the 1980s USA. The obvious title for this topic is "alien abduction". Please move it to it's natural home. --ScienceApologist (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might wish to glance up the page at WP:FTN. There's a bunch of that there stuff there that the good old SA hatchet could usefully be put to work on.  I don't quite have the courage to take it on myself, but I'd be happy to pitch in. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If arbcom gets their way, you may lose the SA hatchet. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Max Gerson
This could really use a clean and polish, and a drop of themainstream organisations say / cranks say discussion style. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Era of Scorpio
This is someone's personal theory for blending western and eastern zodiacs. This was previously deleted - see Articles for deletion/420-year cycle, and the editor has also added his theory to Origins of the Chinese Zodiac (see this difference ) Edward321 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychic, et al
I feel that heavily disputed things should not be stated as fact. Psychic, Medium, Mediumship and so on should call them "proposed" abilities, or "claimed" abilities. Am I in the right here? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the wording should be flexible: "purported", "nominal", "supposed", etc., could also be used. Discretion should be taken to make clear the qualification, but without introducing a disparaging or ridiculing tone.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "purported' is in my opinion disparaging.    DGG (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking if the lead to these articles should begin with "Foo is a qualifier ability"; then the answer is no.  If you are asking if qualifiers should be used when referring to specific incidents or people connected with these concepts; then the answer is yes.  Try to use time travel as a yardstick.  We don't generally feel the need to qualify all discussion of time travel, nor would we ever let a bare-faced claim of someone traveling through time slip through the cracks. When trying to be neutral with these issues I suggest picking a similar concept that no one makes money off of as stand-in.-- Birgitte  SB  02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that before bringing these kind of discussions over & over in again, editors can search/browse arbitration committee outcomes . So that muda can be reduced as much as possible. Logos5557 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No one should feel that they should not start a discussion here merely because arbcom touched on the issue during a particular incident of poor behavior. It isn't wasteful to encourage deeper understanding rather than pointing out a rule to blindly follow.  Human descion-making is a vastly different operation than computational programs.-- Birgitte  SB  15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The incident that resulted in that arbitration request may be counted as particular but the outcome is general and binding. To me, the decision here is so blatant that it is a waste of time and space to pursue a deeper further otherwise understanding. Editors are expected to follow wikipedia policies, rules and arbcom results. Until there is no arbcom outcome stating otherwise, I believe previous outcomes should hold true. Human decision-making is indeed a different operation than computational programs and that's why we elect humans for arbitration committee, not computer programs.Logos5557 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the arbcom ruling answers the question of how describe these items. It says these abilities in people are non-existent. It does not give any specific guidance on how to describe these items, just a singular example of how not describe them (i.e. don't describe people as actually possessing these abilties).  There is certainly a wide range of appropriate ways to describe these things which would be in line with the ruling, as well as additional inappropriate ways which would not contravene that ruling. If you feel the discussing these possibilities is a waste of time then don't participate.-- Birgitte  SB  18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * May be you should first look at the very beginning of the case; involved parties, statements by them, arbitrators' opinions etc. here . As you will see, there are editors thinking, the use of psychic and similar terms as if those are accepted facts, being NPOV violation, undue weight, etc., which is similiar to the case here. I guess editors/administrators can discuss endlessly in favor of their deeper understandings. What I believe is, those discussions can go nowhere if there is prior ruling on the subject. I will sure not be a part of this discussion, my "mission" was to point out arbcom outcome on the subject, which editors discussing the matter here are seemingly not aware of.Logos5557 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the argument about "the use of psychic and similar terms as if those are accepted facts, being NPOV violation, undue weight, etc." being used here at all. I see a discussion about whether specific qualifiers are appropriate followed by you complaining about people bringing such a discussion here.  Frankly I don't even understand if you agree, disagree, or do not have an opinion about anything of substance in this discussion, all I understand is that you disapprove of the discussion entirely.  And I can't, in good conscience, allow such a discouragement to pass unremarked.-- Birgitte  SB  19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbcom ruling on the case says there is no need to qualify/temper psychic or similar terms with "purported", "nominal", "supposed" etc., and I fully agree with that outcome. You simply are not in an allowing or disallowing position. Logos5557 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you misread me. All I claim to be able to allow or disallow is my own comments.  "Allow[ing] . . . discouragement to pas unremarked" = Me personally declining to comment.  If you really think I am not in a position to do that I don't have anything further to say to you.-- Birgitte  SB  20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I became unsure how to read you. You may have misunderstood the arbcom ruling. Because you stated above "It says these abilities in people are non-existent" while arbcom ruling exactly says "Psychic or clairvoyant and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist". As it is clear as glass, arbcom ruling does not say these abilities are non-existent, it says "since these abilities may not exist in a person, the use of the term does not imply such abilities exist, therefore there is no need to qualify/temper such terms". Logos5557 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing in this matter
This whole thing involves a fairly new (but previously blocked) editor who seems to believe it is his/her duty to prevent mediums and such like from getting their feelings hurt. (Take a look at their talk page. They are going around to a number of paranormal articles and whitewashing them so that it is implied that paranormal abilities are reality, contrary to WP:FRINGE. They are using Wikipedia to "right great wrongs" and as a "battleground", even using the word!

Now they are canvassing for support:


 * Hey, you seem to have similar beliefs to myself. If you have some free time, could you please cast your eye over articles such as John Edward, Colin Fry, Psychic, Mediumship and even cold reading. The reason i ask this is that there seems to be some kind of atheist/skeptics crusade against the paranormal, and some of what they put in articles surmounts to libel and religious intolerance. I could really use some backup in my battle to stop this, any any help you could provide would be highly appreciated. Thank you User:Phallicmonkey 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Diff.

It is not our job to introduce editorial bias to prevent offense or to make unreality appear real. Unless the scientific evidence proves a phenomenon is real, it is treated as a fringe belief, and articles should not leave the impression that they are real. They should cover all significant sides of the question, but without leaving a false impression. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Covering all significant sides of the question in a  neutral way does not, TBH, seem to be the goal of some of your compatriates - some of them seem more keen on mass edits and deletions that are more in the nature of a purge ( with not a little canvassing on their own part as well), with WP:FRINGE given as a justification for doing an end run around WP:NPOV - so I can certainly see where the characterisation as a "crusade" comes from. Artw (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the ad hominem attempt to distract from the issue here, canvassing is forbidden, as well as advocacy of fringe POV. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't this whole board a "legal" canvassing of skeptical editors? Post here and the skeptical constabularly shows up at your article.  That's obviously a good thing for Wikipedia, but the double standard is a bit off, IMO. Phil153 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of these noticeboards is to notify....and hopefully get more eyes on the situation. So far the skeptical constabulary seems to be absent, and instead I'm getting flack from apparent believers in fringe theories, instead of constructive ideas about how to deal with pushers of fringe POV. I guess it would make sense that such believers would watchlist this board, but to use it to undermine efforts to prevent advocacy of fringe theories is against the purpose of this board and Wikipedia's FRINGE policy.


 * Well, this is somewhat moot now since the user was indef blocked for POV pushing, and then unblocked. They now have a new username and have promised to behave. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 Doomsday prediction
I've worked on this a bit, but it's going to be a kook magnet so if anyone wants to put it on their watch list... Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the Niburu "theory" also be represented on that page? Ever since the world somehow failed to end in 2003 (or was it 2006?), the date of Niburu's return has been "updated" to 2012.
 * I got the impression from a recent Skeptical Inquirer article that the Niburu story is relatively well-known (for fringe end-of-the-world scenarios). Phiwum (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the article badly needs a dose of skepticism. I've been looking around in Wikipedia for some article that deals with the phenomenon of cults or religions predicting that the world is going to end on a specific day (which has happened hundreds of times), but to my surprise haven't located anything about this.  Have I just not searched correctly, or is such essential material actually missing? Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph to the lead. I still think we need a good article on the sociology of end-of-the-world predictions, but it would take somebody who knows more than me to write it. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best way to approach it would be with a list of the predictions? Something like List of times the world was supposed to end? The scope of the article would be difficult to determine. Would it limit itself to clearly religious predictions or add those of psychics? John Carter (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerebral Hemispheric Dominance
This is a new article, created by a new editor,, whose intentions seem to be good, but it isn't a good article, and I'm not sure how to handle it without being bitey. Basically the problem is that the sources are very poor, and I know just enough about this topic to know that a lot of the statements here are overblown, but not enough to fix them. I've attempted to contact the article creator but haven't received any response yet. My inclination is to delete the article and replace it with a redirect to Lateralization of brain function (which is itself not terrific, but at least is better), but I shrink from treating a new editor with good intentions in such a hostile way if there is any other approach that doesn't leave a bad article on a topic with substantial public interest in place. So I'm coming here for suggestions before doing anything. (PS, yes, of course it's a MOSCAP violation, but that's a trivial issue.) Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Easiest is to tag for merge with Lateralization of brain function. Then, after discussion, anything rescuable can go into that article. It's not a hostile act as the creator can chip into the discussion. You can explain on her talk page that an article already exists that covers much of the same ground. She might even stick around to contribute to the merged article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner discussion at RSN
Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Descent from Adam and Eve
This is on the main page today as a "Did You Know"?

The references are all unreliable, and while the tone isn't too bad, it could use a bit of skeptical attention. Or maybe an AfD. Phil153 (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * oh dear. Redirect to Generations of Adam. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology
Some problems developing on parapsychology. Could interested people please have a look and give their (well supported :)) views please. The problems are to do with pseudoscience, the description of parapsychology, it's recognition, and worldwide acceptance and practice. The more the merrier! Please discuss it over on the article talk page. Thanks, Verbal   chat  10:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent edits to the lead have removed well sourced and pertinent information. If (many) editors could please take a look I'd be very grateful. Verbal   chat  13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this not covered by pseudoscience or other sanctions? 30 edits in two days including frequent removal of sources and ridiculous unsourced additions like this (compare with Psychic) is a really crossing the line. Phil153 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the users was warned two weeks ago and continues in disruption: ]. I suggest referring him to WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this appears to be gaming and is at the very least disruptive, which they have been specifically warned about by an admin involved with AE, and this topic is covered by the sanctions. Verbal   chat  14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edits like this one from SA calling parapsychologists "believers", or this one from SA removing details provided in an excellent reliable source are equally unhelpful. How can we expect proponents of parapsychology to use sourcing correctly if sceptics don't do likewise, even where the sources are favourable towards some aspect of a contraversial field? It's not enough to just "know" something on these contraversial subjects, please always provide and follow reliable sources. Where is the source saying the number of parapsychology units is diminishing internationally? Why isn't it referenced? This approach is unacceptable whether taken by proponents or sceptics. Parapsychology is only one of a great many problem child articles on Wikipedia, and none of them should be allowed to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, regardless of the religious, national, or philosophical differences they involve. I find SA and LLM's approaches to this issue equally disruptive and unconstructive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. "Diminishing" is the wrong word. Only TWO universities are listed by the Parapsychological Association, which is the source that is used. That's inifinitisimally "diminished", in fact nearly out of existence as a field of study in universities. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to use me as a convenient "skeptical target" if you must, but I encourage people to look at the diffs posted and see if they really are "equally" disruptive as other changes obliquely referred to here. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Parapsychological Association is not the source cited, the Nature source is. Check the ref at the end of the statement. If you want to say the number has diminished (internationally, by implication), then you need to find a source that says the number has diminished - neither the Parapsychological Association nor the Nature source say so. And what is your reasoning for changing "parapsychologists" (or "scientists" or whatever it was at the time) to "believers"? You are not a convenient target, your posts really have been disruptive, and it does seem that you are pushing a perspective without respecting WP:RS. I too suggest that interested editors check your edit history on Parapsychology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eariler, I provided a perfectly legitimate source by Robert Todd Carroll that showed how University programs in parapsychology were being closed that you removed. Secondly, changing "scientists" to "believers" is wholly justified in my book. There are no sources which indicate that legitimate scientists believe that parapsychology has verified the existence of psi, but there are sources which indicate that people who believe in psychic phenomenon do think such a thing. In any case, then next edit I made replaced "scientists" with "parapsychologists" and I notice you didn't list that edit in your cherry-picked diff list. I respect what you are doing at Parapsychology and think you are a good editor. But you seem to be falling fast into traps of WP:OWN that have plagued other editors with similar agendas. We have slightly different editing styles. I try to get the text to conform to the sum of the sources I've read and worry about citations later. You use the references to guide your wording. There's something to be said for both approaches, but you seem to be attacking me simply because I'm different than you. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SA, I believe that this is a very unfair characterization of RP's motives. Saying you'll write the text "and worry about citations later" might be fine for a less contentious topic, or where the article is a B-class or stub. Parapsychology, however, is an FA and a minefield, and as such, the text should be treated with respect, and sources should be clear and relevant. It would improve matters a lot if you would include both your text and your (reputable) sources at the same time, for the sake of the article and other editors. Other than a short delay (while you "worry about citations"), there seems little downside to handling your edits as a unified whole. As for RP "owning" the article: well both the skeptics and the "believers" hate his edits, so he must be doing something right, and I'm grateful that he's still standing. --nemonoman (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like people are using the FA status as a "protectionist" level. I'm of half-a-mind to take this to WP:FAR and get it delisted if this kind of argumentation keeps up. I also nowhere said that I "hated" RP's edits. They're generally fine. However, the attitude that if everybody hates somebody's edits that they must be good is absurd on the face of it.ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Carroll source wasn't a very good RS, being self-published, as noted in talk. I also asked for a quote from Carroll, as I couldn't find it making that point. The problem with the "style" you describe is that it doesn't follow WP:RS, and it's exactly the same thing proponents do: write based on all the books they've read. They just read different books to you, and ignore different sources, or draw different conclusions from their sources. In many articles, that approach might be a fair way to provide uncontroversial material that can later be referenced (especially when writing the lead, which should just summarise sourced material from the body anyway). But in articles as controversial and heavily-sourced as Parapsychology, its really an anathema to constructive editing, especially when you use that approach to make edits that are controversial even within the article, as was certain to be the case for this article where there had been an extended discussion in talk where proponents were saying parapsychology has grown and quoting their own sources (some of which were also of dubious reliability). In any case, we're well onto material that should be on the article's talk page now. I just wanted it clear that from my perspective, editing from what people "know" without respect for WP:RS is equally unacceptable on controversial articles whether it's a LLM or a SA doing it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Carroll source is quite good since most of the PA citations used in the intro are self-published as well and by WP:PARITY, we have a winner. The claim that parapsychology is somehow "more controversial" than other articles I edit is one that is subject to the whims of Wikipedia editors and in a mainstream encyclopedia, we approach all subjects with the same goal. I am probably more well-read on this subject than you are, so I wouldn't go casting aspersions as to my familiarity with the subject. I take WP:RS very seriously and consider it personally offensive that you insinuate otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Carroll source is much poorer than the Nature source as a WP:RS, so the Nature source should clearly be preferred. WP:PARITY is reasonable when no solid reliable source on a specific topic is available, but should be discarded when one is. As for your offense: please stop making edits without providing WP:RS, and I'll stop pointing out when you do, and then presumably you won't be offended any more. I'm sure that both you and most of the proponent editors are all more versed in the subject than I, but Wikipedia is built on WP:RS not the vagaries of personal expertise. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty gamey argumentation. You claim that my source is "poorer" but then complain that I didn't provide a reliable source. Apparently you are the sole arbiter of when and how sources should be used and to what effects. I have done nothing wrong in my edits and you are the one who seems intent on making this out to be personal. Dismissing a well-researched essay by an expert on the subject on the grounds that another source happened to be published in Nature as an editorial/personal interest story by someone who is essentially acting as a journalist is silly. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) It's your recent edits without sources that I'm concerned about, the fact that in previous edits you supplied a (not great, in my opinion) source is not relevant, only the recent edits where you supplied no source at all. Also, edits like the "believers" one are completely unconstructive, and their only outcome is to further enflame an ideological edit war. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We are either talking right past each other or your trying to communicate something to me I'm simply not understanding. The explanation surrounding "believers" is straightforward enough and provided above. I have also given sources for every one of my content suggestions. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no clearer way for me to say that every time you add or change information in a contraversial article, you should add the RS for that edit to the article at the same time. You did not do that during the recent edit war on Parapsychology, and that's the behaviour I'm suggesting you consider changing. There is no use saying "I've given sources" when you haven't added them to the article at the same time as you made the change, it's meaningless (and it's exactly the same weak excuse that LLM was using for his unsourced editing, which is why I am comparing you). As for editing the article to call parapsychologists "believers", it's a derogatory and inflammatory edit in this context and the reasons you give are entirely unconvincing. It's true that you didn't defend the edit, but it's the kind of edit that should never happen in the first place. If it was part of a pattern of similar editing it would be very concerning. I meant to make this reply very brief, as all the ground has been covered very clearly and this is turning into a war for the last word, but I'm concerned that haven't expressed any recognition of any of the very real issues with your editing that I've highlighted, and that we can therefore just expect more of the same unacceptable approach. Do you accept the basic principals behind my advice, that all editors should always cite reliable sources to contraversial articles when they add or change information, and that we should never remove well-sourced and relevant information, or not? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you seem to think that there is a right way and a wrong way to edit an article, but WP:BOLD seems to indicate something else. If you want to write a policy proposal that says every time someone adds or changes information to a "contraversial" article they must add the "RS" for that edit to the article at the same time, be my guest. I don't think it will go very far, but I may be wrong. Secondly, you should carefully consider whether there really is such a thing as "a kind of edit that should never happen in the first place". Wiki-technology is designed to avoid that kind of absurd protectionism. Collaboration is collaboration. We try out wordings. They don't work. We try out other wordings. They work. That's the name of the game. To say that any edit "should never happen" does not seem right to me at all. I think essentially, you've highlighted two issues that I think stem from two different approaches to writing Wikipedia, but this place is big enough to accommodate both your techniques and my techniques and let me be the first to say that both approaches are valid and useful when collaborating on an article. I appreciate your input but I plainly reject your absolutist "principals". ScienceApologist (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be reading a different WP:RS than me. The guideline says we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Whereas you're say that you're an expert, so you don't need to cite your sources when you make edits, even edits that readers and editors may find contraversial because the topic is a hotbed of dispute. I don't recall the part of WP:RS where it says to cite your sources for contraversial edits later on, in your own time, because you're in a hurry to make a point right now in the midst of an edit war. As for calling parapsychologists "believers" in the article, it's an inflammatory and unconstructive edit. It would be equally inflammatory and unconstructive if someone had changed "critics" to "pseudocritics". Call me absolutist all you like, but nobody will convince me that there is a situation where inflammatory and unconstructive edits to mainspace articles serve a greater purpose on Wikipedia. This talk section was started in relation to unsourced and inflammatory edits by parapsychology proponents, and you seemed set against such edits until I pointed out that some of your edits were equally bad, but now you're defending such edits. Seems like you want two sets of rules, one for "them" and one for you. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret me. You claim that I'm not citing my sources. I dispute this claim. There is no part of WP:RS which makes any statement about "contraversial" edits and claiming "policy by omission" is essentially what you're doing if this is your point. You are an absolutist and you are free to criticize other's edits. Only, it's a wiki and so edits will be tried in a variety of ways. You think "believers" is inflammatory. I don't. I think there's room enough for both perspectives, but I'm not the one getting upset over it and since it is a wiki people are able to change it. You may wish to reread my comments here. I was pointing out that LLM had been warned specifically about disruption. If you think there is a "double standard" at Wikipedia, you're right. Not all edits are treated equally. I submit that there was nothing problematic about my edits and find your insistence to the contrary to be unconvincing and borderline pedantic. You are free to your own opinions, and I am free to disagree. I just find your stridency and choice of discussion topics to be problematic myself from the standpoint of various policies about tolerating different editing styles and WP:OWN. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This merry-go-round is making me quesy, time to get off. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed by disruptions to this article. It's a constant effort for coherent NPOV editors (like the estimable Ryan Paddy) who work hard to keep things in some sort of order. I don't know that there's a solution to the 2 sides having an ongoing slugfest. I, for example, have some limited information on the topic, but not enough to distinguish between a legitimate assertion and a pile of POV bullshit. It's a shame to see this FA become littered with strident POV from both sides of the issue. I watched a controversial article where I do have some expertise decline, deteriorate and turn into a festering sore see Aurangzeb. Sorry this is more of a rant than a help. I'll be watching to see if some intelligent strategy begins to emerge. --nemonoman (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "NPOV editor". NPOV is a goal we all strive towards. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry Fyslee: there are editors who try to reach for a neutral point of view (no one has it perfectly, of course, but some do try) and there are editors who don't try to be neutral at all. ScienceApologist (along with others) has made it explicitly clear in his talk page discussions that he doesn't believe fringe topics deserve fair or neutral treatment (or maybe better put, he claims that the neutral treatment for fringe topics is the one which represents them - to his mind, correctly - as devoid of value or meaning).  whatever you might think of that attitude, it can't help but be disruptive, the way any dogmatic belief is disruptive to discussion.


 * Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground, but when an editor enters the discussion with the attitude that everyone else on the article is an inveterate POV-pusher, what else are you going to get? -- Ludwigs 2  19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't speak for me, Ludwigs2. It's very rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SA, if you'd like me to dig up a bunch of diffs where you say pretty much exactly this, I'm willing. I actually meant to phrase this in a way that you wouldn't really disagree to, but I guessed I missed.  how would you characterize your attitude towards fringe topics?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about what I may or may not have done some time in the past. We are talking about what you just did. I would prefer it if you didn't refer to me personally at all. We seem to have some policies which discourage that. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you not facing a possible ban for doing just that right now? Artw (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not facing a possible ban for speaking for me, no. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Artw (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much going on with the article at once for an outsider to get a handle on quickly. But one thing I do understand is that there seems to be some contention about how the existence of university parapsychology research departments is handled. At the moment, this point is discussed twice in the article, with repetition, and that is unacceptable for FA. The info needs to go into one place, probably early on, because the article needs to be very clear about who researches what, where and how. Next thing, what source is needed. Is it being claimed that the Journal of Parapsychology (or similar) is RS for this? I would have thought it was not. Then if there is no RS that gives an overview of these departments, then should we refer to university websites, or are they to be regarded as PS? Ideally, we would have a source for the overview claim backed with a source for each uni. Then there is the question of how the geographical distribution of these uni depts is handled. If it is correct that the majority/largest no. are in the UK, then UK should be mentioned first. I'm very curious to look up these UK uni depts, because on further investigation they may turn out to be something other than a classic parapsychology lab. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now seen that there is a good overview: Odling-Smee. Of course, this is only from the magazine part of Nature, and she is a staff writer. It's good enough for here, except that when she lists 3 UK research centres and then says "among others", the "among others" is loose journalism. It's only Edinburgh, Liverpool Hope and Northampton that have research centres. I couldn't see anything to indicate that the department at Liverpool John Moores was any more than tangentially involved. Goldsmiths, well, perhaps, but they call it "anomalistic psychology" and they approach it from an explicitly sceptical direction. "Privately-funded" is slightly problematic as well. Remember, this is an American journalist briefly summarising activity in UK universities for an international audience. We don't have a clear distinction between publicly and privately funded research centres in the UK - basically they all tend to have a mix of funding that constantly varies. The 3 listed here may well be among the minority of such centres that have never had a public-sector grant coming directly into the centre, but the universities still probably cross-subsidise the centre from the public grants they are given for teaching and research. These are very minor quibbles though and only become relevant in the context the battleground that is the WP we know and love. What needs to happen now, I think, is that the two sections that list the research centres are consolidated, using Odling-Smee and the websites of the research centres, ignoring the refs from the parapsychology community. Is that the only thing at issue now? If not, could the disputed issues be stated here more clearly? Or perhaps RfC? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got it, Judith. I think you should check out the Carroll essay too which keeps getting removed from the article as though it was infected with some disease. It's a very good overview of the research history of this "discipline". Your input would be greatly appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Carroll article was removed because the Odling-Smith one was a better (not perfect, but better) reliable source on the subject. The Carroll article is self-published. I would still be interested to see a quote from Carroll regarding the changing status of parapsychology in universities internationally, that's not something I noticed when I skimmed through it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "self-published" criticism of Carroll's essay is a huge red herring. It contains a lot of information that passes the muster on all of Wikipedia's normal sourcing guidelines. "Self-publication" in regards to a subject as dodgy as parapsychology is par for the course in light of our sourcing guidelines at WP:FRINGE. Please try to actually discuss the source's quality independent of the publication status since much of our "supporting" sources are self-published as well (by the PA). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of what's being edit warred over recently:
 * How common is belief in the broader scientific community that parapscyhology is pseudoscience, and why some scientists believe that. This is the subject that kicked off the edit war, with my addition of the Cordon source - after I added and defended it, LLM started editing widely across all the following areas.
 * Who, if anyone, believes that the results of parapychology experiments demonstrate the existance of psychic abilities.
 * The results of parapsychological experiments, who believes they provide good evidence of psychic powers, and who believes they don't.
 * What is the status of parapsychology research in universities, and how has it changed.
 * What is the status of parapsychology research in private institutions, and how has it changed.
 * Where is parapsychology research published, and how has that changed? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Basic thoughts on your bullet points:


 * Not sure how "common" it is, but it is true that your Cordon source works well.
 * Parapsychologists generally believe in the results they publish. I haven't seen non-parapsychologists who believe in the results.
 * It seems that a general summary of the status of parapsychology is that the major research labs in the US that were sponsored by universities have all closed (the last one was the PEAR lab). The UK continues to fund parapsychology programs, most notably at Edinburgh.
 * Parapsychology continues to be pursued by a number of credulous research groups that tend to be closely connected to New Age "think tanks" and quasi-religious organizations.
 * There is no universal standard for what makes parapsychology research have a high status. Your average ghost hunter is arguably doing as high quality research as the sponsored outings of the Parapsychology Association. I cannot see a reliable differentiation. Up until the 1970s, there were a few parapsychologists who had standing enough to force their ideas into mainstream journals and they were generally respected if disbelieved. However, their eventual retirements, death, and general frustrations with getting positive recognition has led to most of these "legitimate" academic parapsychologists in the United States to essentially disappear. In the UK, the situation is slightly different, though the academic parapsychologists there continue to seem unable to publish in most mainstream journals.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)