Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 13

Wiseman hypothesis
Wiseman hypothesis appears to be a WP:FRINGE view, described purely from the fringe POV, sourced only to fringe sources (e.g. trueorigins.org/Bible and Spade, Answers in Genesis). Could probably do with some closer scrutiny. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it is already very clear from the present article that the theory is fringe. DGG (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably it does not meet the notability standards, and an AfD might be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Googling shows a ton of references to it. My impression is that it is marginally notable as a widely held out-of-mainstream opinion. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Google hits are to the unrelated "Peacock-Wiseman Hypothesis" (of Public Sector Growth) and "Maas-Wiseman Hypothesis" (which appears to have something to do with the poetry of Catallus). Eliminating those from the search leaves very little, and nothing that appears reliable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A Google news search came up with one hit, which was for the unrelated Peacock-Wiseman Hypothesis. If its really notable, its flying under the radar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Continued IP whitewashing. Please watchlist (I'm sure most of you have it already). This page has been semi protected several times recently, is it going to have to be indef? Verbal  chat  18:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious naturalism
I just came across Religious naturalism, and noticing that the lead is sourced to this site, and with what seems to me a somewhat promotional tone to the article, I worry that this may be pushing a rather fringe POV presented as a rational approach to religion and philosophy. It could be, however, that it is not actually fringe, and the problem is just that the article reads like the group's promotional brochure, and lacks balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar shows plenty of articles and books on the topic of "religious naturalism", so it's definitely inappropriate for so much of this article to be referenced to a single idiosyncratic web site. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium
In some cases it might be worth recommending that people holding unconventional beliefs try editing at Citizendium instead of Wikipedia. CZ and WP have different policies on neutrality, undue weight, and the like. In particular, Larry Sanger (the founder and Editor-In-Chief of CZ) has specifically stated of CZ "We are not a project of The Mainstream" and that fringe or pseudoscientific views will be given a fair and sympathetic hearing at CZ.

This most definitely does NOT mean that we send vandals, trolls, and their ilk over to CZ. That would be unethical and just is not on. And I'm not saying whether CZ's or WP's approach is better; I can see merits in both. But a consequence is that people who feel unwelcome at WP might find CZ a better environment (and vice versa). The most obvious example I can think of is User:Danaullman, who was banned by Arbcom but whom Larry Sanger personally invited to contribute to their article on Homeopathy. He then brought their Homeopathy article up to "Approved" status (roughly comparable to WP:GA). So it seems like a win-win situation: people who don't fit in at WP can find a better home, and CZ, which needs more contributors, can get some active and motivated authors. Let me re-emphasize that we should NOT send trolls and the like to CZ. But there are people like Dana Ullman who might work out well there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Citizendium actually much more friendly to a certain sort of editor than Wikipedia is. I recall the case of a particular user whose strongly held views on the benefits of vitamin C made it quite difficult for him to work collaboratively here. He subsequently rewrote a large portion of the Citizendium article on Vitamin C. I'll withhold judgment on the quality and accuracy of the Citizendium article vs. ours - well, no I won't. Comparing the two confirmed my belief that Wikipedia's model is by far more effective. But Citizendium did allow a reasonably satisfactory parting of ways. MastCell Talk 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be the CZ model. But it could partly be the fact that they have only a couple dozen or so regular contributors, such that each individual carries disproportionate influence. (Even some of their well developed, "approved" articles have an odd slant because they're essentially the work of a single person.) It will be interesting to compare CZ and WP if CZ ever reaches critical mass. Which I hope they do -- competition is healthy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Competition is healthy? Sounds like someone needs to go back to the All-Union Pedagogical Institute for a refresher course of Marxism-Leninism. Agenda-driven editors are a resource like any other, best allocated centrally to the benefit of all. We happen to have a surplus here, so orthodox communist principles dictate that we share some with Citizendium. Now if only they'd send over some of those experts... :P MastCell Talk 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium is well suited to deal with trolls. But after they are kicked out over there, they'll just reappear here. We need to be able to deal with trolls in spite of their insistence they want to edit Wikipedia. Trolls whom we can convinve their efforts are better spent elsewhere aren't really trolls. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. I don't think we can send "trolls" to Citizendium. Dana Ullman wasn't a troll, nor is our Linus-Pauling-disciple-du-jour (can't keep track of them individually anymore). They're folks who are knowledgeable on a subject and interested in sharing that knowledge, but they have an agenda that puts them crosswise to Wikipedia's policies and goals. It's nice to be able to offer them an alternative. Trolls remain a different problem. MastCell Talk 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Citizendium's article on vitamin C seems markedly less "fringe" than Wikipedia's was only a couple months ago before the trimmings by Eldereft and Richard Arthur Norton, and is probably less fringe and better sourced than Wikipedia's current version of vitamin C. It goes more in-depth on the biochemistry of vitamin C as well. Also, Larry Sanger seemingly http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_C#In_hand.3F took the article to task] in January 2008.  II  | (t - c) 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I wonder what might have motivated Larry to intervene... :P A more puckish person might argue that it took Wikipedia's editorial process - and editors - to note and correct the biases of the Citizendium article. But not me. MastCell Talk 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's hope he does the same to their awful homeopathy page. I was almost tempted to register after seeing that. I believe User:Pcarbonn has started his own alternative, as did User:Guido den Broeder Verbal   chat  20:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall their Homeopathy article is not as bad as it could have been though certainly it has lots of problems. Who are these "mainstream doctors and scientists"?  More to the point, who are the non-mainstream doctors and scientists? (My suspicion is that "mainstream" simply means "doesn't believe in homeopathy.") The "Scientific basis of homeopathy" section is ghastly -- if the isotopic composition of water could be changed by shaking it, we'd have nuclear reactors everywhere popping like fireworks. And the concluding all-purpose apologia for implausible beliefs (science has been wrong before so anything is possible) leaves me scratching my head. It would be to their benefit to fix the article's most obvious blunders but any and all criticism of the article -- no matter how mild or constructive -- is met by accusations that the critic simply wants the article to be a hatchet job. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the homeopathy article is about as bad as it could be. No real mention of dilution in lead and it heavily impresses the reader upon the prevalence of its use and random observations of its efficacy. Ironically, vitamin C is not approved and homeopathy is. Cold fusion is also remarkably bad. II  | (t - c) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem may be that they're so concerned with ensuring that the minority view gets a fair hearing that the majority view ends up being expressed in only a skeletal and hesitant form. The result is an article that could be considered neutral in a narrow formal sense (i.e., the majority view isn't ignored altogether) yet is biased through its structure and presentation. The writing style of the pro-homeopathy material is clear, direct and engaging; the writing style of the science material is wandering, tentative and elliptical. The homeopathic story flows in almost uninterrupted narrative; the critical bits are permeated with qualifications and rejoinders, such as cherrypicked literature references claiming that water has lasting structure (it being left unsaid that these are unrepresentative tiny-minority views). The scientific points aren't quite set up as strawmen to be knocked down but it's close. So the homeopathic view is presented sympathetically and in detail while the scientific perspective is presented in a weak, incomplete and unrepresentative form.
 * That's not to say that Wikipedia's article is any better: the homeopaths should be able to tell their story and the WP article fails the reader on that count. It needs more detail on what homeopaths do and how they see the world. And goodness but I hate that word "quackery" in the lead, notwithstanding the fact that it's well attested in numerous references. But the scientific perspective also needs to given fully and clearly, and it's here that the CZ article stumbles.
 * Had CZ presented both sides fully and sympathetically they could have trumped Wikipedia. But their approved version reads as being mostly from the homeopath's perspective with a few halfhearted disclaimers. (Topped off with that odd "anything is possible" Overview section that could just as easily apply to spoon bending or perpetual motion or whatever.)  Not really awful, but certainly a lost opportunity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article is annoying in that it uses 20 footnotes (some repeat citations) in the lead to repetitively shove the "it's not scientific" down the poor reader's throat. In doing so it doesn't discuss the mechanism in the lead at all. Water memory gets about one sentence which doesn't even mention the most relevant mainstream fact (water's structure lasts about 1 picosecond) or any of the proponents' research. Doesn't really discuss how much of homeopathic remedies would be expected to have zero particles or any scientific investigation into the law of similars. Wikipedia's article also doesn't mention the Bayesian approach where findings are weighted by prior plausibility, which is an argument against any positive findings. Still, it's much better than CZ's version. II  | (t - c) 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So fix it? I discussed improving the discussion of proposed mechanisms recently, didn't get around to it yet. There's some ideas for improvement on the talk page, please add to them and edit the page. Do you have a citation for the Bayesian approach? Fences and windows (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

God, I hadn't realised Citizendium was that bad: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy
 * I think their ID article is actually OK on substantive grounds but is poorly written. It reads as a rambling, unfocused personal essay. (But that's no cause for smugness; Wikipedia's ID article is waaaaaaaaaay too verbose and repetitive.) In contrast their Homeopathy article is badly misleading on substantive grounds, which is a bigger problem for a web site that "aims at reliability and quality." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw with Citizendium's model is that some subjects do not have enough editors to off set those with fringe ideas. The flaw with Wikipedia's model is that some subjects have too many editors editors to off set those with fringe ideas. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific imperialism and Scientism
Both of these articles need attention from more editors to improve their quality and references, and to remove possible bias and original research/synthesis. One method I've just suggested of doing this is to merge the two articles to the (a lot more) common, less ambiguous, and better defined term Scientism. Comments/help/eyes appreciated. Verbal  chat  08:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I watchlisted the page. Larkusix (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Denialism" on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid (cf AIDS)
A discussion has been started on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid about the use of the term Denialism in articles such as AIDS denialism, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, etc. I think this may be of interest to editors here. Thanks, Verbal   chat  12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also there is some tagging of AIDS denialism as an editor (in good faith) feels the title is not NPOV. Verbal   chat  12:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

this noticeboard's evil twin, WikiProject Alternative Views, seems to be at it again. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New Energy Times (Cold fusion website)
This is a new article related to the Cold fusion debate. As such I think it will be of interest to editors here. I'm not convinced that this is notable, and will have to ensure that this article isn't overly promotional - as always. Thanks, Verbal   chat  17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
This article seems to be a magnet for fringy rubbish. I just removed a couple sections sourced to some psychic and a neo-evangelical American "paraphrase" of the Bible. Worth watchlisting and perhaps a little cleanup. Moreschi (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm
I'm running into stiff resistance in my attempt to add a brief mention of the scientific consensus on evolution to the article considering the creationist beliefs of the Farm proprietors are spelled out.

It's not going so well. I've quoted from WP:FRINGE on the talk page, but that's not good enough. There are ownership issues as well as POV issues in play here. Am I wrong? Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving the article a preliminary look over, you are right that the scientific consensus on evolution should be included. The current version as of my writing includes the consensus mention. This version isn't too bad considering the length of the article. I think the lead in this version is pretty good; it mentions the controversy while keeping to the point, leaving the bulk of the explanation to the creationism section below. Sifaka   talk  00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made a WP:RFC on an issue related to this article & WP:FRINGE. Discussion can be found at Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Megawatershed (also called Mega Watershed, or Mega-watershed)
The 'megawatershed' is purely a promotional term used by a single company EarthWater Global. Allowing the article in Wikipedia will give the term an unwarrented legitimacy. Although the authors do reference some articles, none are truly peer reviewed. The closest might be the first (Excerpt from Robert A. Bisson, Megawatersheds in the "Water Encyclopedia: Groundwater", edited by Jay H. Lehr and Jack Keeley (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, 2005)). However, this reference is to a book that was edited by one of the principals in the firm EarthWater Global. And that relation (Jay H. Lehr) is not disclosed in the page.

Moreover, the discussions of the mega watershed (or 'megawatershed')subject are plagiaristic and contain nothing novel regarding what is generally understood about hydrology. The authors simply describe well-understood concepts of basin hydrogeology (without citing any prior art other than their own), apply their 'mega' label, and purport to have invented a new concept. To claim authorship for ideas and/or conceptualizations that have already developed by others is plagiarism, among other things, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that original ground water basin researchers such as Toth (deceased), M. King Hubbert (deceased), R. Allen Freeze, P.A. Witherspoon (deceased?), or Craig Bethke, to name a few, would not be amused by Bisson's claims.

As one example, the 'mega' discussions claim that groundwater hydrologists somehow never understood that ground water basins can overlap with multiple surface water basins (watersheds). That's patently false, and numerous publications by Hubbert, Toth, Freeze, Witherspoon, Bethke, and Marshak, and many others demonstrate that ground water basin and inter-basin flow have been well understood (and applied) for a very long time.

The closest thing to an example cited in support of megawatersheds is for a Caribbean island which is smaller than most typical watersheds by far. The discussion that the author's company found ground water on that island after a previous consultant failed, is nothing unique in the hydrogeology field, and not remotely sufficient evidence for the existence of a megawatershed. In any case, there is nothing 'mega' about the size of that watershed, or the quantity of water that was produced. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a surprise to find that the aquifer that was tapped, is not particularly deep either. Fresh water is lighter than sea water, and therefore tends to float on top of the sea water, within a typical island hydro system aquifer. I have followed up with a question on the depth of these wells to EarthWater Global on their YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC6_bdpypHc&feature=email

But they have not responded. Indeed, following my comment, they briefly deleted all comments on that page, including mine and barred further comments. That has apparently just been changed, so any reader of this can confirm at that site.

Other information from the company literature and the above video, asserts that recharge at high elevations is much higher than the recharge estimates made by hydrologists and weather scientists around the world. This is apparently the basis for EarthWater Global's claim of being able to produce vast quantities of water that as of yet have not been discovered. However no quantitative or factual information or citations are provided to support that mega-recharge-at-altitude claim. The company simply makes an argument that snow can blow away from snow gauges before monitoring is activated, failing to mention, for example, that if snow is blowing off a gage, other snow can also blow onto the same gage.

On this topic, in their promotional video, they suggest that monitoring precipitation is highly uncertain. Apparently, their own uncertainty regarding extremely high precipitation recharge rates vanishes when they promote megawatersheds, even though they can't document a single study to support it.

As is well known within this community, Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have not seen even ordinary proof to support the extraordinary megawatershed claim.

By promising the capability to somehow find and produce more groundwater based on a concept that has never been accepted by peer-reviewed journals, and by using this entry to help build business for a single company (at the expense of other companies that don't make this claim), this entry fails to meet the acceptance criteria, I believe and should be labeled accordingly within Wikipedia.

references: Toth J, 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins. Journal of Geophysical Research 68, 4785-4812. Hubbert, M.K, 1940. The Theory of Groundwater Motion. Journal of Geology, vol. 48 Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1966. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 1. Analytical and Numerical Solutions to the Mathematical Model. Water Resources Research. vol 2. pp 641-656. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1967. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 2. Effet of water-table configuration and subsurface permeability variation. Water Resources Research. vol 3. pp 623-634. Freeze, R.A., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1968. Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow: 3. Quantitative Interpretations. Water Resources Research. vol 4. pp 581 - 590. Bethke, C.M., and Marshak, S. 1990. Brine Migrations across North America - The Plate Tectonics of Groundwater. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences vol 18, pp.287-315

Michael Wallace Michael Wallace hydro (talk)


 * well, Dab moved the article to Earthwaterglobalwhatevertheirnameis, and I nominated it for deletion as a non-notable term and advertising spam. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well done, us :) let's see how it fares on AfD. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy
Could some people take a look at this page please. is attempting to add information sourced from letters to the FDA and patents, and claims that Ultrasound scans are a form of Electromagnetic therapy. I don't think this is right. This article is about the alternative medicine practice called "electromagnetic therapy". Please see the article history and the talk page. Yours, Verbal   chat  16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the difference between "sound" and "electromagnetism." Edison (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Imhotep
We have a new editor convinced that Ron Wyatt was a scholar and that Imhotep was Joseph. A casual eye on this would be useful, I don't want him to think it's just me and my "atheistic bias" (quoting from an email he sent me). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Article now moved from user space to main space. --Van helsing (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Wikipedia has finally turned into Blogspot! --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should take the opportunity to scrutinize the Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, Bob Cornuke and John Baumgardner articles wrt WP:BIO. We do cover these people, at Searches for Noah's Ark, Durupinar site, Flood geology and related article, but it is beyond me how they can be argued to deserve biography articles within our guidelines. Also note the WP:UNDUE crap I removed from Jabal al-Lawz, an otherwise innocent article on a topographic feature. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ages in Chaos
Can anyone with an interest please look at the last couple of edits, in particular all the attention given to the fringe writer Emmett Sweeney, which I had removed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's problems seem to go well beyond Sweeney, to the fact that very little in the article is currently verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much improved now. Hats off to all. Moreschi (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Holism in science
I've proposed that Antireductionism be merged with Holism, at is seemed to me to be a POV fork. Discussion is ongoing about that merge.

I've discovered another article, Holism in science, which is also in bad shape. It is full of POV, improper synthesis and original research, and is poorly sourced. An example of the synthesis is calling what the Santa Fe Institute does "holistic", with no reference given. I've tagged the problem parts. Some work on improving the article would be good. Fences and windows (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh lord. I suspect there's probably enough material for 2 separate article here, but certainly not three. It's a toss-up as to which titles survive. Opinions, anyone? Moreschi (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

inventions by nation
patriotism galore at Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries!

It is a mystery what purpose an article like German inventions and discoveries or Welsh inventions and discoveries or Dutch inventions and discoveries or English inventions and discoveries is supposed to serve. Completely achronic in scope, mind you. I wouldn't mind "of the German Renaissance" or similar, which would actually reflect a topic that can be discussed meaningfully. The gem of the collection is, as always, List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia, so much bona fide effort falling so far short of anything resembling encyclopedicity.

List of Chinese discoveries seems at least restricted to ancient China implicitly, which may make sense, but the giant List of Chinese inventions (ordered alphabetically! by the English name of the invention! you will conveniently find "Toilet paper" listed under "T"!) quickly dispels this favourable impression.

Why "fringe"? Misplaced patriotism viciously kicking encyclopedicity in the shins as always. Contorted reasoning like "in some cases, their Englishness is determined by the fact that they were born in England, of non-English people working in the country". Presentment of Englishry for the purposes of compiling a Wikipedia list article is sort of an all-time apex of WP:SYN in my book. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The real problem with these articles is not that they are unencylopedic in principle but that they are very difficult to maintain properly. Is it possible that you're feeling some symptoms of burnout? Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * National pride gives rise to people claiming someone "invented" something when he did an early an impractical demo which largely was anticipated by the works of someone else somewhere. Edison (U.S) invented the light bulb. But wait! Swan (England) made one almost as good shortly before. But wait! 20 other people made wire or carbon glow for an hour or two dating back to Humphrey Davy {Cornish, in England) in 1802, as soon as the battery was invented. But wait! Priestley (England) in 1775 used Leyden jars to make wire glow briefly and even melt. Inventions grow on the prior work of others until someone makes a "practical" device.  I look for a public demonstration, written up in scientific publications, preferably with a patent, of something that had arrived at practical or commercial usefulness. I also look for scientific publications in the decades after someone "invented" something crediting them with the invention of it, not just jingoistic nationals a century later who do not understand the technical issues or the degree to which prior efforts were rejected as duds at the time, whether it is airplanes, submarines, steamboats, automobiles, radios, phonographs, computers, telegraphs, telephones or photography. Edison (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The very idea of attributing inventions to a people/country/region/anything other than the inventors themselves is grotesque, and, yes, the reasoning on which this is done is nationalism at its worst (therefore fringe). Edison's objection is another serious argument against these articles: they seem to have been designed for presenting and endorsing partisan claims in ignorance of what other sources have to say. I would fully support any action that would remove such articles and related categories. Dahn (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Test case set up at Articles for deletion/Scottish inventions and discoveries. Enjoy. Moreschi (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gunnar Heinsohn
This could also use some attention if anyone is interested. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is connected to the section in Population pyramid, which is thin on citation and smells of unbalance and possible OR. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see the problems in Population pyramid, but I'm having difficulty spotting anything seriously bad in Gunnar Heinsohn. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tidied up Gunnar Heinsohn, and I've proposed splitting Youth bulge into its own article - it doesn't sit right in Population pyramid. Sources for Youth Bulge are on the Population Pyramid talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph McMoneagle
This article seems to contain several "versions". I have no idea why. It could probably do with a huge clean-up and copy edit. Anyone interested in this guy? Verbal  chat  18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, an outstanding mess. Most of it's entirely sourced to McMoneagle's book yet written as fact. The "versions"? I guess whoever wrote the article wanted McGoneagle's every utterance preserved for further, um, study. 90% of the detail could be replaced by "...however, McGoneagle provides a number of differing accounts". - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
I think it's time something is done about this, a notable injection of crank propoganda into Wikipedia. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that it survived with a WP:SNOW last time, perhaps it would be more worthwhile to cull the list of irrelevant entries. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. As it is, folks who published a single irrelevant paper 20 years ago count as "scientists" for the purpose of the article But the skeptics want to bulk up the list as much as possible and won't allow more meaningful criteria. They don't realize that having all these inactive people from irrelevant disciplines only weakens their position. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What an awful article. If it isn't deleted then it'll need as many eyes as possible. Verbal   chat  17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dogon people
I may need some help on this. And if anyone is really interested, I have 2 van Beek articles and the article by Griaule's daughter. Recent edits I think make it looks as though Griaule et al's findings are fact, although there have been serious challenges made about some of their claims. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVII of France
Possible sock puppetry at Louis XVII of France and Karl Wilhelm Naundorff. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the latest additions at Louis XVII. I presume this is some Princes in the tower conspiracy that the dauphin really survived until the mid-19th century. It's not necessarily sock puppetry per se. Seems like a single user in Croatia is working anonymously and is being assigned differing IPs when he logs on to the internet --Folantin (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Electric motor
An editor has made strong and persistent claims in the Electric motor article that Hungarian researcher Ányos Jedlik invented electric motors and electric vehicles in 1828. Apparently sources in Hungarian discuss his work, but I have not seen evidence that anything was published until many decades later, little evidence that the models pictured date from that year, and no evidence that any 1820's work by Jedlik had an influence an development of the technology in the next several decades. I would appreciate other eyes on this, especially if anyone can read the primary sources or subsequent reviews of them as discussed in the Ányos Jedlik article. I feel that it gives undue weight to give complete credit for "inventing" the modern DC motor with commutator and, since histories of electric motor development written in the 1880s do not mention him. Edison (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current phrasing of this in the article is pretty good. We need to hammer on these "actually invented here" claims that even if the claims are true, the supposed inventions were historically insignificant. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Every experimenter should get credit for what he built, demonstrated, published, patented, but not exaggerated claims lacking proof that anyone heard about the work in such a way it influenced the advancement of the art. Extreme nationalist sentiment makes claims dubious. Reliable sources are essential, not just present day jingoistic nationalism. A picture of a gadget in a museum does not constitute proof that it was built in the year claimed, and does not constitute proof someone is the "inventor." Edison (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Chaim Tejman
Just came across Chaim Tejman, and well... let's just say that I'm not surprised that almost all the edits are by User:Chaimt. I don't dispute that he's written the books the article says he's written, but I believe that if his Grand Unified Theory was taken seriously by the establishment, it would have a lot more Google Scholar citations. I was thinking about taking it to AFD, but I figured I'd bring it up here first. Thoughts? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mishlat Scientific Prints doesn't seem to exist independently of this author, I suspect his stuff is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He claims his first book is in the Library of Congress -- can anyone find it, I couldn't, using . Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, the LoC collects pretty much every book published in the U.S.. So how is it even notable if it is? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, and if we can't verify that it's there then he really does have problems. I've added an autobiography template to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pure OR with no notability beyond the web presence that Tejman has created. There are two Google Scholar cites, one relating to sign language, the other in an essay written by a college sophomore who had no idea what she was citing.  Needs to go to AfD. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just about what I'd figured—thanks for the reality check, all. The AFD is starting to look like SNOW. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Brit-Am
More activity on this article. A prod was removed (Ok) and my COI tag (not ok and replaced), the new editor is I think Yair Davidiy, the article's creator under a different account name and Brit-Am's founder, with a new account. I don't know if it is notable enough to survive an AfD, but it is certainly a mess. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram has now AfD'ed it. Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mirko Beljanski
I removed a claim that did not make sense, and a google search results make me suspect this guy's research is probably a fringe topic. There are no third party sources in the article.-- Birgitte SB  17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like his foundation may be a money spinner. But if you read French, see and also my recent edit. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Uriel Machine
On the talk page, someone has pointed out that a search for Uriel's Machine ends up here, an article which although based on the book is titled after a fictional device described in the book. Looking at the article with fresh eyes and more knowledge than I had when I first edited it, it doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:Fringe or WP:NPOV. Before I move it to the title of the book, and have to rewrite the lead, it would be useful to have some other input. Thanks.


 * If the article is to survive, it should be moved to the book's name and indicated that it is woo-woo rot. It's not clear how "notable" it is; googling shows that the woo-woo world knows it, but I haven't found evidence that it has escaped into common "knowledge". Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At best this needs to be restructured to be an article about a book, and not an article about a thing. The authors are well known for writing speculative pseudo-history... and what we have here is a pseudo-historical book about a pseudo-scientific device.  As an article about a book, it might pass WP:FRINGE... but not as currently written. 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the book's title (not sure if I should delete the redirect) and reworded the lead, deleted some pretty irrelevant stuff about making the 'machine'. It still isn't NPOV though. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and NPOV FAQ Changes
There are some proposals/event over on the WP:NPOV policy page that will probably effect fringe theories and be of interest to people here. The proposals are to strip the WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ of its policy status, and move some things across to WP:NPOV. The debate, such as it is, is spread across both talk pages (so please look at both), and referenced to archives as well. The conversation has degenerated somewhat so can we please from now keep it on topic and level headed - probably new sections need starting, although there is debate as to the best location for the conversation. At the moment it is parallel on FAQ talk and Policy talk.

Many opinions from anyone are welcome! Verbal  chat  14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Central Europe
Most English sources tend to put Romania in Southeast Europe: However, an editor is pushing a fringe POV trying to add Romania in Central Europe in any possible way which resulted in this gallery (first six maps are based on reliable English sources, the seventh is already from the 1960s, the rest looks like a joke). Also a map of Central and Eastern Europe made it there, not because it would help clarify what Central Europe actually is, it is rather misleading. He inserts a number of non-English sources from 1902, 1927, the 1950s, 1960s + pocket encyclopedias etc. without a minimum regard to WP:FRINGE:"Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." This mediation attempt closed after some disruption by User:Panel_2008, apparently a one-purpose account is also worth reading (similar pattern). What to do? Squash Racket (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * HIV/AIDS in Southeastern Europe: Case Studies from Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania; by Thomas E. Novotny, Dominic Haazen, Olusoji Adeyi; published by World Bank Publications; ISBN 9780821354834
 * NATO after 2000: the future of the Euro-Atlantic Alliance by John Borawski, Thomas-Durell Young; published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001; ISBN 9780275971793, p. 95:Southeast Europe Initiative (SEEI) of NATO: Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Croatia.
 * Europe unites: the EU's eastern enlargement by Peter A. Poole, published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003; ISBN 9780275977047; p. 93, chapter 7:Romania and Bulgaria: Seeking to stabilize Southeast Europe
 * Encyclopædia Britannica: Romania — Country, northeastern Balkan Peninsula, southeastern Europe.
 * Encarta: Romania, country in southeastern Europe, occupying the northeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula.
 * The Columbia Encyclopedia: Romania or Rumania, republic, SE Europe.
 * Southeast European Times: sponsored by the US European Command, a central source of news and information about Southeastern Europe in ten languages: Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian and Turkish.


 * Squash Racket, the English Wikipedia doesn't evaluate the reliability of the sources according to the language in which the work was written. For example, the rule WP:CITE specifies that we should preffer English-written sorces instead of foreign language of equal caliber. For example, this webpage is written in 10 languages. All the articles are indentical, so they are of equal caliber, and if we cite an article from this page we should use the version written in English, not in one of the other 9 languages. Or, if a book, written originally in a foreign language was translated into English, we should rather prefer to cite from the English translation then from the original version written in a foreign language. --Olahus (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "Use English sources" goes beyond that, but an admin can clarify this, I didn't expect an answer from you here. If there's a major disagreement between English and non-English sources, we prefer English sources (see above), but that's why I'm asking it here. Squash Racket (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your collection of sources is an original research, mostly obtained by ordinary Google-searchings.If you want to, I will also show you dozens of English sources regarding Romania to be a Central European country. And, if you wnat to, I will show you also dozens of sources regarding Hungary as an Eastern European (not Central European) and even Southeastern European country. Squash Racket, you only try to exclude Romania from the list of Central European countries. You're not the first Hungarian user trying to do this (the Hungarian-Romanian rivality is very old - even in wikipedia, unfortunately), but I ask you at least to assume good faith. Wikipedia is not the right place for personal disputes. --Olahus (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one editor got personal in an unacceptable way on that talk page recently. User:EconomistBR, a Brazilian editor had a dispute with you about the same issue well before I got involved on that talk page, see for example Talk:Central Europe.
 * How can be a collection of sources original research? I can't follow your logic at this point. If you refer to tendentious collecting of references to push a fringe POV, it was you, not me who was accused with that. see Talk:Central Europe. I wasn't editing the article at the time.
 * It is only User:Olahus who tries to make this personal right now, I think I referred to the problem very clearly: fringe POV pushing. I hope this is the right noticeboard. Squash Racket (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The dispute with EconomistBR is older than 1 year and it it was solved. I didn't have any dispute with him since then.--Olahus (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we're saved from the old Brazilian-Romanian rivalry accusations if someone disagrees on whether English sources support something or not. Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a new candidate for lamest dispute ever. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, considering that there's never going to be a precise definition. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that the dates of sources has anything to do with this, though, as the term is used historically (is Prussia part of central Europe? Well, not anymore!). I fail to see how this needs more than a list in the "always, usually, sometimes" form, with reference to defunct nations/principalities/etc. Romania, it would appear, would fall into "sometimes", and then this could all stop. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought everyone knew that Romania should be officially designated as being in "The Orient" (which includes anything to the east of Dover) :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went in an gave an outside opinion. I suggested using the most recent EU and UN classifications and not using stuff written before or during WWII, and avoiding sources from the time period slightly after when a bunch of ceding and treaties came into effect. This UN country profile and this EU country profile say Southeastern Europe. There lot of tendentious argument in that article. Sifaka   talk  19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also from the United Nations: United Nations Statistics Division - Geographical Names and Information Systems. See also the country profile from NATO, and the Embassy of Romania in London. --Olahus (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NATO is a military organization with its own geopolitical strategy; it's not a neutral scholarly one
 * NATO's own description is dubious ("the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe ...")
 * NATO was working with Romania and Bulgaria in the frames of the Southeast European Initiative (SEEI), which is telling
 * Besides that Olahus is presenting the problem right here, right now. Pushing a fringe view not supported by English sources. Squash Racket (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The UN one with the Romano-Hellenic division is kind of weird; Canada isn't normally grouped with Europe. The NATO one places it in the "south-east of Central Europe" and The London Embassy says "Romania equally belongs with the Danubian and the Black Sea states" (in both Central and Eastern Europe?). This is really confusing. Sifaka   talk  20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the reliability of soures might be endless. I believe that Romania is a country that is sometimes regarded as Central European, not a country that is usually regarded as Central European. I think, the user Mangoe gave the best answer. Concerning NATO (I write this especially for Squash Racket), the information regarding Romania's location is very good described, using Physical-Geographical features. I don't believe that both NATO and the EU would have any interest to manipulate the datas concerning Romania's position in Europe. --Olahus (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NATO is a military organization with its own geopolitical strategy; it's not a neutral scholarly one
 * NATO's own description is dubious ("the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe ...")
 * NATO was working with Romania and Bulgaria in the frames of the Southeast European Initiative (SEEI), which is telling
 * The EU didn't manipulate anything, it says Romania is in Southeast Europe.
 * I don't like to repeat myself, but apparently sometimes necessary. Squash Racket (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative include Hungary too, so Hungary is a Southeastern European country, right? In the country profile NATO says clearly where Romania is located, the rest are your supposals. And concerning the EU article as well as the country profile from the Romanian embassy - where is the problem that is was written by Romanians? --Olahus (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote from the article:"The Slovenian concern was that they were a Central European country, not part of SEE, but once Hungary joined, they quickly followed suit."
 * I didn't use NATO a source, as I said it is a military organization with its own geopolitical strategy; it's not a neutral scholarly one. IF they have contradictions in what they say about these regions, it's only a further reason to drop NATO as a source on information like that.
 * If we accept Romanian sources as English ones, confusion at that article will only grow. This is the Fringe noticeboard, so probably someone can help what to do. Should we separate English and non-English sources? Squash Racket (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The mention about Slovenia's hesitation was added by the ip-user 66.32.39.193 without mentioning any source. Now, tell me please what benefit should have NATO saying that Romania is Central European instead of Eastern Europe or Southeastern Europe or Southern Europe or whatever? Maybe you interpret the sentence "the intra-Carpathian space, opening to Central Europe ..." as dubious, but I don't doubt that you clearly understand the meaning of this sentence: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe" from the same page. I didn't present any source written in Romanian. --Olahus (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP added around half of the article with the linked edit, so I doubt there's no source for that. THE WHOLE ARTICLE is unreferenced at this time.
 * If NATO has contradictions in what they say about these regions, it's only a further reason to drop NATO as a source on information like that, I don't doubt that you clearly understand that by now. (The term "South-East Central Europe" is dubious in itself. Does it refer to Southeast Europe? East Central Europe?)
 * I still think this is the right noticeboard for this problem. Should we separate English and non-English sources? This time I'd like to see an answer from someone else if possible.
 * If User:Olahus pushes for the inclusion of Romanian sources now, I wonder why he opposed the inclusion of Serbia in the "sometimes Central European" category. Such sources put Serbia too in Central Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on! You "doubt" there's no source for that. And if such thin really exists, why is Slovenia's self-determination as Central-European relevant, while Romania's self-determination not? For the rest of your "concernings", I already answered today here: Talk:Central_Europe I am not in the mood to write the same thing on two talk pages. --Olahus (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NATO is self-contradicting in its views on that topic, so it's really a "thin" source. Slovenia is depicted by a number of reliable, neutral English sources as Central European, Romania is not. That's why.
 * If User:Olahus pushes for the inclusion of Romanian sources now, I wonder why he opposed the inclusion of Serbia in the "sometimes Central European" category. Such (or even better) sources put Serbia too in Central Europe. You forgot to answer that one. Squash Racket (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-regulation theory
I tried to propose it for deletion, but Twinkle refused to co-operate. I'm not sure whether there is some substance behind this stuff. Self-regulation is a term used in psychology, and there seems to be some genuine health science usage, but the article seems to be mostly based on fluff. Please have a look at it. Vesal (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The version of 9 June 2008 is not too bad, just stubby. It's easy to find the Kanfer sources the article refers to using Google Scholar, although I can't actually look at them.  On 9 July 2008 an IP editor got at the article and really messed it up, and it has remained that way until now.  Probably it would make sense to revert back to the 9 June 2008 version. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dropa Stones
Some serious attention is required here. The "Editor's Note" is insufficient as it stands. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like this might be a good article to put up at AFD. Surely "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" (WP:FRINGE) and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" (WP:UNDUE) could apply here. I don't see much evidence of notability presented in the article, and it's poorly-referenced (and the sources it does use are all internet pages). Note also that Dropa was already deleted by AFD last year --Miskwito (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the article needs to be deleted, because this is a sort of notable "fringe meme", but our article ought to make it clear that there is no evidence for the existence of the people named, the place, or the stones. It's all fiction as far as it's possible to tell. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, copyright infringement has left a big smoking crater, so no worries... Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Premonition
Anyone interested in this one? There are a lot of good sources for the topic (I've put some related to the Titanic - some making general points on premonitions - on the talk page), but it's not much more than a list of premonitions right now instead of a serious discussion. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam‎
IP keeps adding badly sourced Tamil nationalist nonsense about Lemuria, renamed in the 1930s to Kamari Kandam. A good source not yet used (other sources are used by this author) is. Also see I have History at Land's End: Lemuria in Tamil Spatial Fables as a pdf or Word file if anyone wants it, which is used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (film)
The subject of this film is clearly Fringe a fringe topic, but it's a notable Fringe topic (and we have several articles on it already: see: New World Order and New World Order (conspiracy theory))... my question is whether the film is Fringe. At the moment the article does not properly establish the film's notability (per the notability guideline), and I am wondering whether to AfD it or spend time looking for sources that might establish notability. Please take a look. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The filmmakers are not nobodies, but notability of this film is bordeline at present, based on my understanding of WP:Notability (film). These guys' prior film, Darkon, won a significant SxSW award and respectful press coverage. But so far I did not find much in the way of significant WP:RS coverage or reviews of their new film, even in Variety and Hollywood Reporter.   The IMDB page links to only these two reviews: Oxford Film Freak and Film School Rejects. I am not familiar with these; the latter does seem to have a staff and editors so it may qualify as WP:RS.  I was unable to find other links to reviews on their website (although I had some technical trouble opening the relevant page so someone else should re-check).   Does national distribution via IFC on-demand qualify for WP:N?  By the way, it's possible that the filmmakers (Andrew Neel and Luke Meyer) themselves may pass WP:N at this point, based on reasonably extensive coverage of Darkon plus various mentions for their other work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You came to the same conclusion I did after a look at what was on Google. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what should we do about the article on the film? Nominate it at AfD as being non-notable.... merge it into an article on the film makers... or what? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:KevinOKeeffe has added a number of new sources today. The article may now need paring (World Net Daily to prove the existence of the Bilderbergers?  Aint It Cool News?), but the addition of positive reviews from Wired and Film Threat seem enough to push this over the notability threshold, at least for me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Notability of the film itself seems to have been established.  As Arxiloxos points out, other issues now need to be addressed, but notability is no longer one of them. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joshua
There's a dispute here about "No Evidence that Joshua Ever Existed?" that touches on fringe issues I believe. One is how to handle statements about non-existence of evidence (a statement which perhaps should be revised to make it more detailed). The other is how to handle historical claims based on non-historical books. The editor involved is telling me I should AGF the Dead Sea Scrolls, which lost me entirely. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OT historicity issues are troublesome due to the great deal of disagreement within the field. I've attempted a solution which I think is true but which avoids the gratuitous dust-up over the OT as a historical document. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think OT historicity pretty much falls into the two categories of pre-kingdom and post-kingdom. Anything later than Solomon can be assumed to be essentially historical, anything before David as essentially legendary. David and Solomon themselves are sort of the watershed, and genuine debate is possible there. Joshua is of course pre-kingdom, and it as futile to try and discuss the "historicity of Joshua" as discussing the historicity of, say, the Tuatha Dé Danann. Sure, both are invasion myths which may ultimately go back to a historical nucleus, but they survive as pure myth. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And add to that that the earliest extant written text for Joshua is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that's only fragments, skip forward to what, the 4th or 5th century for full text. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this isn't really relevant Doug. It is fair to say mainstream scholarship places the Hebrew text in the 6th or even 7th century BC, making it one of the oldest books in the Bible. But even with such an early date, the text would already look back on Joshua as a figure of the remote past, some 500 years ago. 500 years is an extremely long time in a culture without written records. Joshua is an Iron Age Hebrew folk legend.
 * I would direct your attention to Moses which has much more severe pov problems regarding historicity. Moses is your typical mythological founding father figure. Yet the article makes it sound as if doubting Moses' historicity was somehow a minority position. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It could certainly do without the Torah Plot Dump. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

patrolling the wider field of "OT historicity", Doug and I have just found King's Calendar. I've prodded it but may be someone wants to afd it properly. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gruesome Harvest
Gruesome Harvest is an orphan article about a 1947 book somewhat akin to Other Losses, except perhaps not quite as fringey. I have been unable to find any mainstream reference to it, though it is apparently popular with the Evil Government Conspiracy set. For whatever reason an online copy is available here.

The article we have is rather truncated; it's unclear to me whether it wants expansion, exposition as a known fringey theory, or a one-way ticket to the land of AFD. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the prod that Hrafn added. I'm not sure how notable the book is, but it isn't fringe, merely outdated.  It was published in 1947, before the Marshall plan came into action and while the official policy was the "Morgenthau plan" that aimed to reduce Germany to an agricultural rather than industrial nation.  Even so, the book is aimed much more at the actions of the Soviets than of the western nations -- the most important thing the western nations are accused of is standing by while the Soviets systematically dismantled East Germany.  The entire book is available online, and in the parts I looked at the facts look mostly accurate, although there is often a tone of outrage that a modern historian would not employ.  (Other Losses was written in 1989; it makes a big difference.) Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the content of the article. NPOV? Hardly: "The book exposes the atrocities the Allies committed willfully against civilians. It is one of the few books that are available in English that address the murder of millions of non-combatant German civilians and German prisoners of war from 1944 to 1950 as a matter of deliberate allied policy not inefficient logistics as it is most often presented in school text books. The book was written as it was still happening and includes comments from eye witnesses in the same time period." Looie claims that "it isn't fringe, merely outdated." Have you read some of it, such as the account of the "diabolical program of racial bastardisation" instituted by the Allies? Paul B (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) T


 * I didn't say that the article or book are NPOV, only that the book itself is not fringe. Yes, I did look at the part about the "diabolical program of racial bastardisation" -- it's talking mainly about the deliberate Soviet policy of permitting German women to be raped by Soviet troops on a very large scale, which as I understand it is accepted history.  Again you have to remember that this was published in 1947, when things in Germany were in an extremely chaotic state and nobody could see what the future would look like.  Had the Morgenthau plan not been replaced by the Marshall plan later that year, millions of Germans would probably have died of starvation, and Germany might still be a third-world nation today.  The author of the book was obviously racist and violently anti-communist, but those would not have been considered fringe attributes at the time. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the article with NPOV. Note that the article should be primarily about the book itself, not the events it describes, which belong in another, much more detailed, article discussing the claims on both sides. I've performed a brief search looking for signs that the book itself is notable per WP:NB, and came up with very few hits. Are there any independent sources available that discuss the book itself, so we can satisfy the book notability criteria? Otherwise, this looks more like a source for the Allied war crimes article than the subject of an article in itself. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've worked on the wording a bit. It's pushed by ultra-right websites and I think mentioned in some books with the same perspective, some are in other languages. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that, I think we should probably keep a watch on it here. The suffering of German civilians and POWs after WWII is not in doubt, but historical narratives about it, its exact extent, and the degree of intentionality involved vary greatly. Without external reviews of the book from reliable sources, it's difficult to evaluate the value of this book as a source. -- The Anome (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More: I can't find any details of the "Institute of American Economics" cited in the author's affiliations, other than mentions associated with this book itself. There appear to be two distinct people known to Google called "Ralph Franklin Keeling": the author of this book, who is apparently mentioned exclusively in the context of this 1947 book; and a geochemist, who appears to be quite distinct from them, with a PhD dissertation date of 1988, 41 years later. Given the apparent lack of WP:RS commentary on either the book or its author, it's difficult to conclude that the book meets the notability criteria. The Anome (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm struggling to understand why this particular obscure tome deserves an article. I think it might be a case of the WP:COATRACKs. --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to a single very obscure mention I found, the "Institute of American Economics" was a renamed version of the "Midwest Voluntary Federation", a pro-German organization that changed its name after war was declared in 1941. No further information on the web about that either, though. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this book meets any of these criteria.--Folantin (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Now up at AfD.--Folantin (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the book is a notable primary source documenting the Morgenthau Plan and the earliest phase of the Allied occupation of Germany. As such, the article can be merged there. Thankfully, Morgenthau Plan already has a contemporary relevance section perfect for discussing the book's role in far-right lunatic fringe historical revisionism today. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see no evidence that the Morgenthau Plan ever included the mass-murder that Gruesome Harvest is alleging. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ahem, this is why I am calling it a primary source. I wasn't assuming anything in it is factual, but it documents the general hysteria and paranoia surrounding the Mortenthal period (1945 to 1947, an extremely scary period for the defeated Germans who were expecting dreadful vengence to fall any day. Of course, in 1947 at least the western allies decided, you know what, we'll just buy you a new economy instead, but this still hung in the balance in the years during which this book was written). See also WP:TRUTH. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I definitely found evidence that it enjoys some currency among some of, how shall I put it, the wingnut set. As I said, I didn't find any evidence that anyone mainstream cared. Is being not entirely unknown in fringe discussion enough notability, seeing as how even the fringe-watchers don't see fit to comment on this? Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Theun Mares
This recently created article, approvingly written about a South African New Age author whose (effectively self-published) books are essentially a reprise of Carlos Castaneda's Toltec warrior mysticism, is in need of substantial revision and balancing. I have noted the key concerns on its talkpg, and the article's creator is in some (so far) reasonable dialogue about amending it; but there's a long ways to go. While a complete rewrite is necessary, I also have my doubts that this author or his works meet standards of notability for inclusion, particularly as there appears to be little or no verifiable independent information or WP:RS commentary around, on the man or his books. IF anyone else is able to assess and offer an opinion, or perhaps even any additional information, would be glad to hear it. My thinking has been to nominate for deletion, but could be swayed against if something notable crops up and if at least the article can be more appropriately balanced. Thoughts anyone?--cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said this on the article's talk page -- I did an independent search and found a couple of very trivial mentions but that was it. I think AfD is the way to go with this. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * K, thanks Doug. I do tend to agree; if it were to be rewritten with a truer sense of proportion ("Theun Mares is a self-published author of New Age esoteric tracts whose themes and terminology of Toltec warrior mysticism is taken from Carlos Castaneda's books and invented pseudo-shamanistic spiritualism. He also runs some seminars from his retreat in Slovakia"), then one would wonder what the article was doing here at all. Will wait'n'see if the article creator comes back with anything, but otherwise AfD looks to be on the cards. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the original author has systematically edited it down to an empty page. Can it just be WP:PRODded? Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for CJLL Wright to come back. It can actually be G7'd as the author has asked CJLL Wright to delete it. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, someone tagged it and I G7'd it. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

using user pages to post deleted fringe articles
I posted a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. kwami (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a real problem as such articles still show up on Google, sometimes on the first page. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought User pages were filtered out at Google. No?
 * In any case, I think such material should be moved to a User sub-page (attached to the User's Talk Page... which I am all but positive are filtered out on search engines) Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See where, about 4 down, you'll find an article which is a User subpage of a new draft of Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. You may well be right about talk page subpages. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that I also thought User pages in general were filtered... now I am not so positive as I was. In any case, I see that the issue that Kwami was asking about has been dealt with at ANI. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a few individuals have abused Userspace as a workaround for deleted articles, like this one. They still enjoy free high profile web hosting, top ranks in Google searches, and live links to WP article space and listings WP category searches. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

we have a time-honoured relaxed attitude in dealing with userpage antics. Userpages do show up on google, but they are ranked way lower than mainspace articles. People who really abuse Wikipedia as a host for their personal stuff do get warned, but as long as they don't go completely over the top, it is usually enough to slap a userpage template on the page in question. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * in the case of User:Drnhawkins, we do appear to be looking at an abusive pattern though. This isn't an active user who likes to keep a crowded user space, but a new user who wrote a single article on a fringy hobby-horse, had it deleted, and is now hosting it in userspace. Apart from a few edits to Prewrath, it does not look as if this user has contributed anything at all besides his "Joseph and Imhotep" thing. But before we drag him to MfD we could perhaps give him the benefit of doubt and wait to see if any useful contribution may still be forthcoming... --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I might suggest ditto for this fellow whose only contribution is publicity for his own cable access show. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At WT:FRINGE I suggested kwami take this to ANI, which he did. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Art in the Lower Paleolithic
I have been reviewing Prehistoric art in the context of the Venus of Schelklingen discovery. It appears that calling claims of Lower Paleolithic (before 200 kya!) works of art "controversial" is being rather kind. Articles affected include Venus of Berekhat Ram and Venus of Tan-Tan. Mask of la Roche-Cotard is also extremely dubious. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked into the Venus of Tan-Tan and the Mask. Regarding the "Neanderthal Mask", it has its supporters:, while others sound a note of caution:, but it seems to have got enough coverage to be notable. The original 2003 article by Robert Bednarik about the "Venus of Tan-Tan" has been cited quite a few times, but only appeared in one news story. Bednarik is something of an archaeological maverick, an autodidact who has had a few clashes with people in the archaeological world, but his work is taken seriously, e.g., so I wouldn't say "fringe" is quite the right description. The article might not stand alone, but if so we should merge it to Prehistoric art. It is easy to let our own skepticism of 200,000+ year old art guide us, but the sources are, as ever, key, and archaeologists can be wrong without being fringe theorists. Fences and windows (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * there is a difference between "adademic fringe" and "all-out crackpot" which we often forget to make on this page. The Venus of Tan-Tan is clearly on the academic fringe. That shouldn't prevent us from mentioning it at the appropriate place, but I do not think "somebody made this suggestion at some point in an archaeological journal" is sufficient for a standalone encyclopedia articles. We don't do articles on individual academic papers, even if they are perfectly solid and mainstream. There is a difference between the notability a source requires to qualify for being cited, and the notability it requires to deserve its own article. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't really about the academic paper, it's about the object. But as it hasn't had significant coverage in secondary sources, I'd not oppose a merge to Prehistoric art. Fences and windows (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current proposed merges are to Art of the Middle Paleolithic, but the Tan-Tan and Berekhat Ram finds are said to date to the Lower Paleolithic, I think. I guess it all depends on the precise dating, and when the Middle Paleolithic started - that's the problem with categorising continuous variables. Fences and windows (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, it is their impossibly early date that makes the suggestion that they are "art" qualify as WP:FRINGE. They are worth a footnote, but hardly any more than that. These are just random pebbles somebody thought looked like "Venuses". Rorschach ink blots. Evidence of Middle Paleolithic "art" is scarce to say the least. But "Lower Paleolithic art" is just an 21 character string. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you that neither object looks worked, but our opinions are not reliable sources! The Berekhat object has a lot of reliable secondary sources referring to it. Even if it were somehow proven not to be a worked object, it would still be notable as a proposed piece of Lower Paleolithic art, and still worth including in Wikipedia. I suppose a similar example would be Piltdown Man, although that was deliberate fraud rather than wishful thinking. Fences and windows (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no reliable claim that any of these articles are 'worked', with the exception of the Berekhat Ram object, which simply has scratches in grooves, which might be from someone sharpening a tool. It's a wild leap to identify intentionally formed faces or breasts on these things. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please look at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)
I'd appreciate many more eyes and opinions on this article's talk page, it's got a bit heated and off topic with unfounded accusations being made. Please spend a few minutes reading through and giving your opinion. It mostly seems to be a mistaken interpretation of NPOV and CFORK. There is intrinsically linked to a debate about renaming, please join in (on either side, you may convince me to change my mind!). Thanks, Verbal   chat  09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadow people
Just one of many articles that's full of bad sources, undue weight, undue woowoo, etc. that could use a lot of fixing. 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The in-universe "infobox" is especially onerous: "Grouping", "Data" and "Habitat" suggests this stuff is observable in reality...and "Status: Unconfirmed" suggests confirmation is possible at some future date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this criticism seems to hold good for any conceivable application of Infobox Paranormalcreatures, which should therefore perhaps be MfD'd. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeokinetics
This seems like a good place to ask, is homeokinetics a genuine field? The article was recently cut right down due to plagiarism. I can't find many sources to rebuild from, but I'm far from an expert on these things. the wub "?!"  09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes. As a term, this seems to cover two quite different things: some homeopathic woo-wooness, and a perhaps legitimate field of inquiry. The latter traces back to Arthur S. Iberall, whom you can read about here. The problem I'm seeing, though, is that everything I'm reading about it is (a) in-field, and (b) extremely puffy and open-ended. I haven't been able to find anything that discusses it from a truly secondary viewpoint. It sets off my fringe detectors in a big way, though obviously we can't write that up; nevertheless so far I'm finding primary sources in a manner that's characteristically fringey.


 * To complicate matters, there is also a Homeokinesis, which appears to be something different, also double-meaninged, and borderline to truly fringey. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon
Recent changes giving equal weight to fringe view and mainstream view in the article lead. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#Accuracy_and_POV_tags. Talk page]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy (esotericism) again
The article is having problems with editors who want to add material about biomagnetic fields without acknowledging that all the evidence indicates these fields are many orders of magnitude too weak for human senses to detect. We're seeing the classic signs of a fringe theory on the talk page: "Mainstream academics & publications have become the high priests of wiki-religion" --; "How long will the world be flat and truth be held back?" --; etc. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Berber World
New article making some rather bold, unreferenced claims. For starters, I'm not even sure "Berber world" is a specific scholarly term requiring its own article, although I'm sure you can find it in textbooks, just as I'm sure you can find references to "Chinese world", "Eskimo world" and so on. In other words, this seems little more than a content fork of the (admittedly inadequate) Berbers article. "Berber World" goes on to make some mindblowing unsubstantiated claims, including "Unlike in some other cultures, the Berber identity is not based on race or language", and - mostly notably - "This makes everyone who lives in the Berber World a Berber, even if he or she does not speak Berber or is form a different race or religion." In other words, everybody who lives in North-West Africa is really a Berber, whether they're aware of it or not. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The author seems to be from Holland (IP, books ref to Dutch google books search [OMG!] and the simultaneously created articles on nl, fr, arabic wikis). However the correct geographical term seems to be the Maghreb, which has its own article already. The IP has tried to insert Berber World in place of Maghreb in Berber people. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I thought it was the name of a carpet store. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed there are 1,280 hits for "Berber world" on google compared with 168,000 hits for "Barbie world". I have not tried google scholar. Mathsci (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've turned it into a redirect to Berber people. It was nothing more than a content fork. --Folantin (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This move wasn't too popular with Mr Anonymous . --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
A new article has been created for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a web site notorious for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that undue weight is being given to these fringe theories in order to promote in order to push a POV. Anything negative about this group is being removed and only positive things are being mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT means undue weight within an article, not undue weight within Wikipedia. However, since the article is about the group itself, it is only natural that it should describe its views. I think it all hinges on the group's notability; if it is non-notable, then the content is best merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. GregorB (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentions of it seem to be of the 'Richard Gage, who founded A&E, said...'. I've just changed some wording in the membership section changing 'supporters' to something like (can't recall exact word) 'people who have signed their petition'. The article says very very little about the organisation, mainly discussing Gage and his views. Who are the leaders (I am assuming that there are some, but who are they?)? What makes it an organisation? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point - although it is quite legitimate for an article about an organization to describe its views, it still looks a bit like WP:COATRACK. Again, if the organization is not notable (and I'm not arguing either way here), its views can still be legitimately described at 9/11 conspiracy theories. GregorB (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Reuters report (not a press release) and a TV news item from Telecinco, a major Spanish television company, that report exclusively about the organization have been deleted from the article, stating "English sources please!" or something similar. Also, per WP:N, there do not even need to be any detailed or exclusive articles about a subject, if it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources, as it clearly is. Page views do not decide whether a site is notable, but if a site, like this one, has more than 100 views per day, it's an indication that a decision on a merge or deletion should be well thought through. Cs32en 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple trivial mentions of the type I've described do not meet our notabiity guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to keep this article as I think these guys are hilarious, but they just don't meet the notability bar, etc. It may not say detailed but it does say significant coverage - not just mentions. For example, the Slate piece is not "significant" coverage (it's barely coverage, just a mention to make a side point.) Verbal   chat  19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to make the assertion that something would be not notable, if you remove pertinent reliable sources from the article. 14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:
 * Spanish national TV company Telecinco: (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")
 * German national TV station ZDF: (Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
 * Press agency Reuters: (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
 * National Post, a major Canadian newspaper:
 * La Stampa, a major Italian newspaper: (Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.")  Cs32en  09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Redshift
There is currently some disagreement on the talkpage regarding how bogus and superseded theories should be treated. Editors with well-developed thoughts concerning WP:PROMINENCE as applies to science articles would be appreciated. This was apparently discussed several times prior to my tenure at that article. The major points of view appear to be: it does no harm to devote a few words to mentioning alternatives; interested readers should be exposed to more than the hegemonic homodoxy; and the article is about the observation of redshift and its three causes. For those of you paying far too much attention to the drama boards, this particular flare-up begins with this revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to inform the reader about the fact that the theory is considered outdated by the scientific community, and to describe the theorie, so that a reader who is unfamiliar with the technical term for a theory knows what we are talking about. If the theory is not considered outdated by a significant minority in the scientific community, or if it's notable otherwise (e.g., because it is mentioned in reliable sources or used in outdated textbooks that are still being used), it should be described in more detail, and presented with appropriate contextual information. Cs32en  10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young (author)
On, there's an extremely enthusiastic new account. I believe they mean well, but I think there are serious, serious issues with basic policy like WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. I've tried to address these on the talk page, but am entering a phase of both limited patience and limited on-wiki time. So if anyone else would like to take a look, more eyes would probably be useful. MastCell Talk 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that when a user's first two edits serve merely to bluelink their user and talk pages, trouble almost invariably follows. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. I would like to note my first edit was to blue link my user page. Someone else blued my talk with a welcome. It's the people who seem to know the ins and outs of editing already (like they can use tags) which raises my eyebrows a little, then again I had been editing WP for a little while before I started my account too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifaka (talk • contribs)
 * As Tobias Fünke once said: "Dammit! I blued myself too early!" MastCell Talk 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Irano-Afghan race
Anyone interested in bringing this article into the 21st century? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

gah! speedily merge into The Races of Europe, I'd suggest. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

also found Corded-Nordics. An associated account is. The off-wiki website relevant to this is (once again) Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. The background of this "Nordish race" thing is Richard McCulloch and white nationalism in the US, see here for some history. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also related is this anonymous IP account from Sweden . I've seen this article linked and then unlinked on various pages on my watchlist but I've never thought to look at it until now. --Folantin (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that both the Cyrus111 account and the anon have also edited Racism in Sweden, it seems likely they are operated by the same user. I also note that the Aryan article has severely deteriorated recently (I just did a deep revert). We need to stay on the lookout for such racial nonsense, this will keep coming up indefinitely. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This has the makings of an amusing FTN case. I think we are looking at a Middle Easterner living in Sweden who feels alienated by Swedish xenophobia and is out to prove that he is more "Nordic" than those "Upper Paleolithic" cavemen peopling Scandinavia :) --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (2) & Conspiracy theory
An anon IP is adding unreferenced info to this article, removing referenced material, and introducing POV, and editwarring their changes. Could we please have more eyes on this article. Thanks, Verbal   chat  17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring this up. See also Talk:Conspiracy theory & his/her attempt to change the lead, and their comment on Talk:September 11 attacks that the article "constitutes treason against whole humanity". The editor wants us to consider all suggestions that something is a conspiracy theory as libel - and tried to change the lead to our article to say that conspiracy theory is libel. IP editor is suggesting they are a new account. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrazine sulfate
I am curious about the new article hydrazine sulfate. It seems to be well written and has seemingly reliable references, but when I look at the external links at the bottom and search on Google, I see that hydrazine sulfate seems to fit a particular brand of conspiracy theory: that there is an inexpensive, readily available cure for cancer but the evil drug companies and the FDA are conspiring to prevent the public from learning the truth about it. So I'm concerned that a story may have been crafted that doesn't quite fit the evidence. Can others please take a look? (cross posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology) ChemNerd (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, alarm bells justified. Hydrazine sulfate has been promoted by Dr. Joseph Gold, founder and director of the private Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, for about forty years now. The main editor on this article has been (new, single-purpose account). The U.S. National Cancer Institute and the British Columbia Cancer Agency have published fact sheets which are pretty clear that it is not a "cure" for cancer, although it may help in cancer-related anorexia and cachexia. WP:MEDRS would suggest that we prefer these secondary sources over the primary sources currently used. The claims in the article that the NCI deliberately breached the Declaration of Helsinki so as to mess up its clinical trials are ludicrous, and merely serve to illustrate the paranoia of their author. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hydrazine sulfate is probably a substance that is notable enough to have its own article (see here). I don't know whether it plays or can play any role in cancer treatment, but from my knowledge of chemistry, there are very like a number of other applications, so that any discussion of the cancer treatment issue (we a writing about fictitious therapies and hoaxes, of course, if they are notable) should, in my opinion, receive far less weight in the article. Wikipedians with some background in chemistry should be able to write something about this substance rather quickly. Cs32en  13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the article to deal with the randomised controlled trials that found no evidence of efficacy. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion
As usual, more eyes are needed at Cold fusion, yet again, as fringe books and patents that slipped through the oh-so-reliable USPTO are sources for all kinds of crazy claims (4 body fusion at room temperature!) Hipocrite (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, I have nominated Abd's essay for deletion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing. User:Coppertwig has also edited this essay, tailor-made to justify fringe POV-pushing. Various editors were invited to discuss the content on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pray, how does one "discuss" with Abd? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so people know... MfD was a SNOW KEEP (correct in my opinion). Editors may rant all they wish on their user pages.  The important thing is to remember that it is mearly a user page and not an accepted "Essay" ... it should never be used to justify anything in article discussions.  We should probably keep tabs on it, and make sure that it does not quietly change its status while no one is looking. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Law of Social Cycle
Is this group of articles including but not limited to Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, PROUT in any way fringe? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this before. I also took a minute to chase down the claims made about Johan Galtung and it seems pretty clear that he really has nothing to do with this (on top of being quite a controversial character himself). It's rather blatantly fringey, and borderline at best in notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

a classic Walled Garden, all surrounding some guru of limited notability. Ths should all be redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. --dab (𒁳) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mount Ararat
There has been a concerted effort in this article (and to a far lesser extent at related articles such as Mountains of Ararat‎ & Noah's Ark) to grossly overstate (without any WP:Verifiability) the historical Armenian relationship to this mountain. It may surprise some of you that "Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark". I didn't know that Noah and his immediate family were Armenians. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have now backed off their wild claims. Some continued watchlisting of this article may still be useful however, in case they resurface. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to soon -- they're now claiming that Mt Ararat is in Armenia (complete with redlinks to ARMENIA and the purported province therein -- ). Shades of the mountain coming to Mohamed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was in historical Armenia, but now it's in Turkey. Same goes for Lake Van, which has been visited by the same guy. --Folantin (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * but there is no reason for confused patriots to point this out to us, seeing that Wikpedia has been aware of the fact all along. Mount Ararat has been within the sovereign kingdom of Armenia for about 30 years, in the period of 95 to 66 BCE, and arguably from 54 to 428 AD as part of Armenia as a Persian client state. Noah has nothing to do with it. Of course by the same logic of insisting that the historically maximal size of your country is the "natural" one, Mount Ararat is also "in Turkey", "in Iran", "in Greece" and "in Italy". You have to be a nationalist to appreciate the beauty of such truths.  --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll excuse me, but I have to be off to combat the appalling Italian pov that the Valtellina is anything but an eternal, integral and inalienable part of the Helvetic Confederation. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the House of Habsburg started out in Habsburg, Switzerland, doesn't that make the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Spain and the Low Countries Swiss? >:) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * probably also half of South America. And Florida, site of the Wikimedia servers. Say what, just ask my permission before you edit articles from now on, ok?  :oP --dab (𒁳) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's been in rather more Armenian polities than Dab suggests, but since about 1923 its location has been the Republic of Turkey, so that's where Wikipedia puts it. The article already details the significance of the mountain for Armenians. Claims like ""Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians, dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark" have got to go. --Folantin (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Forget the discussion. Who's been adding this according to WHOIS? An IP from Richardson, Texas. It's none other than our old permabanned friend and sock puppet general Mr Ararat Arev himself. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young again
I'd like to ask again for some outside eyes on Robert Young (author). There is a rather enthusiastic single-purpose account there who I believe means well but... Anyhow, the issue as I see it is simple: the article is used to promote Young's views on live blood analysis, pleomorphism (the kind where human blood cells turn into bacteria and viruses), and an alkaline diet, among other things. Sources are Young's books and alt-med websites. Any material which is a) independently sourced, b) reliably sourced, or c) reflects the mainstream view on these topics is removed because it doesn't mention Young by name. I think this is totally inappropriate, but maybe I'm wrong. Outside eyes would help move things forward. MastCell Talk 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is now a request for comment concerning this issue. Please review the preceding talk sections and offer your arguments. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Building biology
Poor, uncited fringe article. Anyone know anything about the subject? Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article prominently refers to the German term Baubiologie, I've had a look at the German article. It seems that the German term "Baubiologie" includes both aspects related to scientific research that is undisputed and aspects related to research that is considered controversial, such as the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health.
 * The English article seems to give those controversial aspects more weight than the German article. In particular, the German article says that, as the term "building biologist" is not protected by law, some adherents of para-science would call themselves building biologists. The English article does not make such a statement, and also does not indicate which aspects are controversial and which are not. It also contains a sentence in the lead that seems to be an inaccurate representation of the thinking of building biologists ("Practitioners consider the living environment as an organism [...]"). I do not know whether building biologist have any particular views about buildings or are maybe just working in a particular field related to buildings.
 * The German Association of Building Biologists is cooperating with German communities and offers publications on topics like air quality, mold, pollutants, radioactivity, and electromagnetic radiation.
 * From my survey of the evidence, I'd say that the article is not a fringe article, but that the aspects of the article that deal with issues related to fringe science should be more clearly identified as controversial or fringe, and the aspects of building biology that are non-controversial should receive more weight. There are number of other issues related to the style and content of the article that should be improved. Cs32en  06:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Should I put a WP:Translation template on it? Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether "building biology" in English means the same thing as "Baubiologie" in German. I would assume that there is a similar field of expertise in the English speaking world, but I don't know whether this is being called "building biology". Maybe "building health" is a possible term (see, for example, this website, no endorsement of the website implied here). Simply translating the article might lead to significant confusion with regard to the specific terms that the article should explain. It's probably better to start with pertinent English language sources, so I'd rather use Refimprove and dubious. Cs32en  09:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with refimprove and some inline tags. If editors there reinsert the unsourced material or remove the tags, we should consider AfD, so that the involved editors (hopefully) come up with material properly supported by independent reliable sources. Cs32en 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria
Did the Muslims destroy the Library? This article was recently edited to make it seem so. The edit is based on this source. The classic study of this issue is Butler's Arab Conquest. Kauffner (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war
This new article is very problematic -- it isn't really about telepathy, it is a highly paranoid and pov-pushing view of the purported dangers of certain lines of neuroscience research. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a mess of OR, n-nPOV pushing, and conspiracy theories. A lot of it isn't sourced and the sources aren't supporting the conclusions being drawn. Cut out the unsourced stuff and there isn't anything coherent left worthy of an article. The article's subject isn't coherent and it attempts to prove that telepathic mind controlling technologies exist and are a imminent threat and will create an "Orwellian nightmare" based on the fact that scientists and the government are researching and trying to develop technologies to interpret brain waves and brain-computer interfaces. The article goes so far as to recommend adjustment of privacy laws. It reads like an argumentative paper instead of an encyclopedia article. I would nominate it for deletion. Sifaka   talk  18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like an AFD candidate to me...--nemonoman (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is currently listed for deletion here. Sifaka   talk  19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am the author of the article. I can see that it has generated some small controversy within days of entry. New advances in science and technology that push the limits of human perception often do. The article is well documented with references to reports that have been recently published by reliable sources. The US army has itself been providing reliable publications with information about this research into computer assisted 'telepathy' that it says it has been funding since at least the year 2000. Articles in Science and Technology magazine Wired, and in a number of other trusted publications as referenced in the article, show beyond doubt that the US military has indeed been funding research into 'telepathic' applications for brain-computer interfacing. This article might once have existed on the fringes - as reports that electricity could be captured to light private houses might once have seemed unbelievable when most people still used candles.

I welcome advice from experienced Wikipedian writers in the fields of science and technology. If any scientists involved in Wikipedia feel there are ways the article might be improved I would really appreciate their feedback. I am aware that it is a relatively new field that could have developed out of or been accompanied by earlier experiments into the power of the mind and cybernetics. Would this article be better appended to an existing article? Or should it be considered a separate research topic, deserving of a page of its own rather than being tacked on to another related topic. Personally I consider the research to be composed of a number of branches of science and research including software, wireless hardware systems, neuroscience and psychology. Because of the number of sciences and ideas the topic encompasses I feel the topic is best addressed on a separate page - otherwise one could spend time endlessly appending and updating other related pages with references to the subject.

Would the article stand better in the minds of its critics if it was renamed - and if so, what might be some suggested new names for a new branch of science that the military is funding and does itself consider to be a form of computer assisted 'telepathy' (that it has stated it plans to use on the battlefield)? I found the existing title to be simple and eye catching, summing up the topic and its current application as imagined by Pentagon funders. But, if a title such as 'Computer-assisted Telepathy' is found more acceptable then so be it. The research does exist, and Wikipedia should cover it if Wikipedia wants to be considered a contemporary encyclopedia encompassing newly reported advances in science and technology. Frei Hans (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been nominated for deletion. Please do not post any further replies here until the deletion debate has concluded.  The appropriate discussion page is located here.  Papa November (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu Rayhan Biruni
Was Abu Rayhan Biruni Khwarezmian or Persian? Didn't he speak Khwarezmian language, but wrote books in Arabic and Persian languages instead of own language? Is there contradiction?  Massa Getae  (talk)  10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit User:Massagetae/Khwarezmian_people if anyone know about Khwarezmians or Chorasmians since there is no article for them.  Massa Getae  (talk)  08:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Khwarezm is just the name of a city. The Khwarezmian language was the dialect of that city. We're not going to postulate the existence of a Bostonian people based on the [Boston accent. Just like Sogdians redirects to Sogdiana, so Khwarezmians should redirect to Khwarezm. Ethnically, these people all form part of the larger Saka group.

The bickering over the "ethnicity" of medieval Islamic scholars is very popular among Wikipedia's assorted Middle Eastern nationalist editors. You can spot past battlefields by the ridiculous amount of footnotes ("Alberuni was a Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] scholar") These disputes reflect modern nationalisms and are an anachronism in the articles' contexts in most cases. This is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and if I was calling the shots, the proper approach would just be to ban nationalist pov-warriors after one warning. This would save us countless man-hours lost babysitting the ever-recurring predictable nationalist bickerning. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are Encyclopedias devoted to this topic like Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam. One just has to put bias aside and follow principles like WP:RS, WP:weight ..etc. and avoid nation building concepts for local consumption.  Even Britannica has resolved it to an extent.
 * My two cents. Biruni states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". Now that is his own description of his own people.  There is no anachronism here.  Actual Arabic here:

و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس


 * Yes technically his language would be Old Iranian Chorasmian but Persian in the wider sense means Iranic/Iranian. The people of Khwarizm were Zoroastrian Iranians (and this was still many if not most if the people during the time of Biruni) and saw themselves as Biruni states: "branch of the Persian tree". Biruni is also explicit that his native language is Chorasmain. Persian in general here means Iranic speaking and in general, Greeks/Arabs/Turks used Persian (Tat/Tajik) in the sense of wider Iranian peoples. The narrower meaning for just speakers of a branch of Iranian language is a more recent phenomenon and a sort of anachronism for ancient articles.  So if we are worried about anachronism, then it does not apply to this case at all.  Biruni is explicitly clear about his native language (Chorasmian) and identity: "branch of the Persian tree".
 * The ethnicity stuff in Middle East is not too difficult. There are in general three categories for Medieval Muslim scientists: Iranic (Persian and includes Soghdian/Khwarizmian and etc.), Arabic and Turkic.  The places things overlap are places that have been Arabicized and Turkicized. Basically areas such as Caucasus, Iraq, Iranian Azerbaijan(for example Tabriz was not Turkic speaking until the Safavids), and Central Asia (major urban centers were slowly Turkified like Tashkand after Mongol invasions).  Scientists and historians have now a very good idea when these linguistic shifts occured for the most part (see Central Asia or old Azari language for Azerbaijan or Shirwan for the Caucusus).  For example at the time of Biruni, there was no Uzbeks in the area and this is made more obvious by Biruni saying: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree" and he provides sample of his own native (according to his own word native) language which is the Chorasmian language.  Yet I saw a book that calls him Uzbek but obviously this is not correct.  Once in a while a scientist is diputed and we give alternative viewpoints.  Some ethnonyms are more recent like Uzbek or Azeri (and prior to this Turkic should be used before 14th-16 century since actual developlment of these languages are after 14th-16h century and sometimes the ethnonym is more recent.  Afghan (for someone just born in Afghanistan) is fine from 1750 (circa) when the country was decared but before that it mean Pashtun.  But in general Arabic, Turkic and Persian(Iranian/Iranic) have been used and when a small conflict might arise, one just follows policies of WP:RS, WP:weight, WP:NPOV and etc. So to make it clear for anyone interested in that era, there are basically three categories of scientists with Muslim background from these areas (Middle East, Central Asia, Caucusus): Iranic(Persian/Iranian), Arabic, Turkic(also Turkish is used).   Encyclopedia Iranica and Islam  (and Britannica) have it defined for many of these scientists.  Once in a while we get clarity for example Turkic/Turkish->Oghuz or Kypchak or Uighyur or etc.  Or Iranic/Persian->Soghdian, Khwarizmi, Old Azari. Hope that helps.  It should be noted that modern people who call themselves Khwarizmi are not related in the ethno-linguistic sense to the old Chorasmians .  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilizing mission
Apparently an essay about colonialism. Not a single source cited appears to address the topic of "civilizing mission" up front. --dab (𒁳) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is basically about mission civilisatrice, right? Big topic. Most of the article is focussed on the Portuguese rather than the French Empire, which is a bit of a surprise, but it feels like a translated article. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the topic is valid in principle. The problem is that the article is an essay rather than an encyclopedic discussion poperly referenced and integrated into our larger coverage of Colonialism. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It started off as a stubby article about French colonialism, then a Portuguese editor added a paragraph about the Portguese Empire last December. Since then, it's become more essayistic and Portuguese. Perhaps it should really be two articles under the respective French and Portuguese versions of "civilizing mission" (cf. White Man's Burden). Mission civilisatrice would be a big article on its own. --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The White Man's Burden is an article about a poem. Of course the gist of the poem expresses the concept of 'civilizing mission'. I think the article should be about the concept. The history of French or Portuguese colonial history should be discussed in articles dedicated to these particulars.
 * but I recognize that here we have an article on an important concept that has been lying neglected and needs attention. Probably nothing "fringy" here though, just bad editing to be cleaned up. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not really my area (the bit I know comes from reading about Indochinese history) but somebody could do a good job here one day. After all, the concept of Manifest Destiny (not exactly the same thing, but not a million miles away either) has a big article dedicated to it. --Folantin (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is definitely not a "Fringe Theory"... it is a justification for colonization that was common at various times in history, but is out dated and dismissed by the modern world (which tends to be dismissive of any justification for colonization).  I would suggest subbing the article and undergoing an extensive re-write...  and don't just focus on recent eras of colonization... The idea that colonizing powers had a duty to bring "civilization" to the "uncivilized" goes back at least to Ancient Rome (and probably earlier). Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think we should have a specific article on the French late 19th century/early 20th century concept of mission civilisatrice (or mission civilatrice) under that heading. The French belief in this idea was stronger than, say, the British. --Folantin (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to say the two countries had different interpretations of the concept and different ways of implimenting the idea... but not that the French had a stronger belief in it. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ham, son of Noah
edit war over the perennial 'Kemet' issue in which the "truth" that Kemet means 'land of the blacks' is being insisted upon by edit warring without discussion on page. Dispute also seems to be affecting Hannibal, since one of the same editors is insisting on removing an image of a too-European looking bust of great man. See also Black (hieroglyphic 'km'). Paul B (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable I guess I’m the "other editor" being talked about. 1st I haven’t partaking in any edit war concerning the article Ham. In the past 2 days I have only made 2 edits so I do not know why this editor is saying I am involved in HIS edit war, I am also not sure why the editor is bringing up the dispute with Hannibal and claiming that it is over a “an image of a too-European looking bust of great man” When there was never once a question about the European-ness of the image or a queston about race for that matter. As you will see for yourselves the whole dispute was over the SOURCES attached to the image. The original dispute was with me and other editor and this one came in making claims of race.. The claims made about me and the topics really puzzle me. He also called me an Afro-centric. Which I still do not understand why. This editor seems to have a fixation with race topics. As you see for yourself race was not an issue in either articles. not by anyone other than this editor himself TruHeir (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources are absolutely impeccable, so there has to be another reason for your irrational persistance with your claims. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, mention of Black (hieroglyphic 'km') brings to mind, a well-meaning editor from Arizona enthusiastic about the Ancient Near East, but the numerous articles and categories they created are simply bad beyond description. This will need to be tackled at some point.

The "land of the blacks" meme defended by is of course a non-starter. The only place where this can be duly discussed is Afrocentrism and Ancient Egypt. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the bible is not a reliable source then this Article shouldn't been here altogether, if you want to talk about Egyptology then take it up on an article about Egyptology. Since this is an Article about a person from the Bible, the bible is the only thing to stand by.
 * 1) 1 In response to what you put on the talk page. What you are saying is utterly meaningless. Screaming afrocentrism at the top of your lungs can’t help you. In the bible Ham (meaning black or burnt) was Noah’s son who moved into Africa. The Bible refers to Egyptians as a descendant of ham and Egypt "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27 I do not see the made up afro centric story about this. This is what the bible says and you say the bible is not a reliable source.
 * 2, I did not see an implication about the meaning of Black land and Land of blacks. In the edit made by TH both were listed as possible meanings, In the beginning you argued that it means black land, but the edit you made you just listed it as black. However KMT does not mean does not simply mean black, KM does. So you do not have a point. Caliborn (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the link to the Reliable Sources board indicates, the Bible is only 'reliable' as a source to describe its content. It is not reliable as a source of information about the origins of ancient peoples, speculation about their skin pigmentation, or etymology. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not make claims of skin pigmentation. I am curious to know have any of you actually read it. And did the person who start this claim read the article at all? You all sound repetitive and are arguing about nothing because the article already states the meaning of the word. Try reading it first before you comment or editThecityone (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, it does not mention skin color or anything like that....I knew very well that the article explained black land and talked about the fertile soil etc, but see it was never about that, the article or the statement black land or Land of black/blacks. It was about him trying to call me an Afro-centric on a different matter, one which had nothing to do with race. And that edit was what he used to to say I was. This is what the editor Paul B who started these claims and "dispute" left on the other editors page about me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catiline63&diff=295202103&oldid=295128030 When that editor and I were disputing SOURCES attached to an Image


 * As you can see race or skin color or anything along those lines were not brought in that dispute with me an that editor, yet if you look up at what PaulB wrote above concerning it along with his claims that I was in his edit war) you can see he said it was over a too “European looking image” ….. Just as race or skin color was not mentioned in this article yet that is what he is talking about.... He is a racist and seems so fixated on race that he has to bring it up even when no one has even mentioned it. This was never about the ham article because the article is self explanatory. Anyone that reads it can see for themselves the meaning of Khem is explain. That is why I am not wasting my time on this or him TruHeir (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot, well about the page the repetitions have been removed by me because the explanations were already present and didn’t need to be added again. So the article is good to go Thecityone (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Special Investigation Group
Article editorializes in favor of a perceived government conspiracy to abuse human rights in NZ and omits any balancing coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ASIO File is another from the same author, and appears to be slanted toward some sort of conspiracy theory, with Orwell invoked on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BOLDly I have redirected the latter. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans
This fringe theory still has its defenders. Some eyes on avoiding giving undue weight to the MRH would be good, and cleaning the article up generally. Ta. Fences and windows (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A subject cannot be given "undue weight" in its own article. WP:NPOV still applies, though. GregorB (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Akh, yeah. I mean that it is in danger of being uncritically supported by cherry-picking of evidence. Fences and windows (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

the "undue weight" is between presenting this as a historical, obsolete hypothesis, and a current minority opinion. Similarly, phlogiston should predominantly be presented as obsolete, and discussing current-day defenders of phlogiston at any length would indeed violate WP:DUE even if it is the article dedicated to phlogiston. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started clean-up, still needs a lot of work. Fences and windows (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some help on improving this article would be welcome, there's a persistent IP editor defending the multiregional hypothesis. Fences and windows (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is inflate fallacy to call research model "fringe theory" when scientists publish in it framework in the most prestigious journals. I have slight idea who is relay behind yours nicks/thesis and you may think vice versa. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Morgellons
Some IPs and SPAs keep adding non-(MED)RS speculation to this article. Can people please have a look at the recent history. The article could do with a general review too. Verbal  chat  09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like quite a good approach to a fringe theory from a quick read through, presenting the idea well while making the mainstream view crystal clear. Fences and windows (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While the lead does indeed make it clear that the mainstream view is that Morgellons is bunk, there is very little discussion in the main article about that mainstream view. That needs to be fixed. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was left with the impression that it was pretty balanced, without screaming PSEUDOSCIENCE AND DELUSION, but I'll give it another look. Fences and windows (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is more IP/sockpuppet POV pushing shenanigans going on in this article. More eyes please. SPI filed here. Verbal  chat  09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative calorie food
This article has slight sourcing that celery needs more calories for the body to digest it than the body receives from nutrients, but then there are unreferenced calorie rich foods listed such as apples, berries, tomatoes and watermelon. I'm not even that sure about celery. I said on the talk page of the article that in a week I would remove foods lacking references. The article has been around a while. Edison (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like trivia and should be deleted. No food has negative calorie.  Zero calories yes but than it is not really food.  The celery bit sounds like an urban legend.  Seems like they are mashing number ( ie if you eat at a rate less than your basal metabolic rate than you lose weight and this they call these foods negative calorie )  This is a fad like so many others in the diet foods, all you can eat chocolate cake diet anyone?-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prodded it. If it is still in this state after 4 years, it's never going to improve. Fences and windows (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's arguable that ipecac is a negative-calorie food :-). Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic opinion on conspiracy
I having a slow-moving not unpleasant discussion at Boise homosexuality scandal with an editor who tagged the article with an NPOV template. So far, consensus is to remove the tag, but the editor in question soldiers on. His point (seen here) seems to be that the primary source used, an academic named John Gerassi see special collections page at NYU library here has offered his opinion that the motivation behind the mass arrest and jailing of gay men in Boise in 1955 was politically motivated by a corrupt city councilman and an assistant prosecuting attorney.

He is recognized as an authority as the main researcher by two other sources, Jonathan Katz, who edited Gay American History in 1974 and Eric Marcus, who edited Making Gay History in 2002. The article is about a week old, and it's about a time in U.S. history when gays were included in the national paranoia to ferret out the unsavory element in the middle of the Lavender Scare and Second red scare. No other major works have been written about this event, so Gerassi seems to be the only guy writing this. Per WP:Fringe, however, since he researched it and formed an opinion, does it not belong in the article? I appreciate your clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If WP:FRINGE prohibited the use of any source that researched a topic and formed an opinion then it'd rule out all expert opinion. What that principle and WP:UNDUE prohibit is reliance or exaggeration of minor views not accepted by other sources. I see no evidence that the weight of other expert sources reject those conclusions. The conclusion seems to be not particularly out of the ordinary. To be a conspiracy theory it'd have to be much more than the idea that some politicians are corrupt or motivated by bias. If there are reliable sources rejecting this then cite those other sources. If there are an overwhelming number of expert sources saying that theory should be dismissed out of hand, then remove it completely. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud
Has some very strange ideas she is trying to add to articles from Ochre to Adam and Eve. It may be that with guidance she can be useful. Apologies if this is the wrong board. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Judging from personal experience, this is just one of those users who are never going to get it. --Folantin (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently being dealt with at WP:ANI. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical regions of Caucasian Albania
Since the arbitration enforcement does not give a damn about fringe POV pushing, I will try it here. Baku87 has created this template which was obviously drafted based on this one. It has two major flaws: one is that the title is awkward, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region, and on top of that he adds the Azerbaijan republic map pushing the fringe theories described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his section about Azerbaijani myths and symbols (Azerbaijani mythology uses 'Azerbaijani' and 'Albania' interchangeably in discussing this kingdom.) There is no point in submitting this to deletion, there will be vote stalking, there will be no point in changing anything since it will initiate revert warrings. Since the arbitration enforcement ignores everything and does not see anything disruptive in deliberate nationalist POV pushing (this was already reported there, apparently there was nothing disruptive), this noticeboard remains the only relevant thing to turn to. Note also the purpose... he added them on those articles with the template of historic regions of Armenia. - Fedayee (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the area Caucasian Albania did exist, and these were areas of it. Using the Azeri flag is an error, but otherwise I see nothing inherently POV about this template. Are you sure you're not just forum shopping? Start from the beginning - what precisely is wrong with the use of this template? Fences and windows (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the Azeri flag to a map of Caucasian Albania, in lieu of any symbols from the country being available. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping? I think you misunderstood me, I am not saying Caucasian Albania did not exist please re-read what I wrote. Historical regions of Caucasian Albania is misleading, Caucasian Albania ITSELF is a historical region.


 * The name of that template only make sense if Caucasian Albania still existed recently and that we are referring to its historical regions. That's actually the rationale behind Baku87's move when he associated it with the current republic of Azerbaijan with that map. Note that in fact, only regions which were part of historic Armenia were included and not the rest.


 * If you want to help, you can start by renaming the article to something like 'Regions once withing historical Caucasian Albania' or something such. I never questioned the existence of Caucasian Abania, neither the existence of a template about it but rather the map and the title, which was a formed to mean 'Historical regions of Azerbaijan.' You have removed the map, which was a good idea, but now the title is inappropriate. I can of course make the necessary changes but if an uninvolved editor makes them, involved editors might think twice before revert warring. - Fedayee (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Caucasian Albania was a ancient state, and not a region. Fringe theory is calling it a historical region, and not a state. Here's an article about that country in Encyclopedia Iranica, it says: ALBANIA (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ), an ancient country in the Caucasus. The template is very useful, and includes the territories that were a part of the country. I don't see how this template could be a fringe theory. -- Grand  master  12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "only regions which were part of historic Armenia were included and not the rest." Don't we fix that by applying it to the regions in modern Azerbaijan too? Fences and windows (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that the most usefull template would be something like "Historical regions of the Caucasus" which would then be applied to an article on Caucasian Albania (and other historical regions in the area). Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no use of a template with the title Historical regions of the Caucasus. It would be too general. The present template is useful, because it shows the territories that were a part of the ancient state of Caucasian Albania. It is very informative, and is easy to navigate. I don't really understand why it is even discussed here. The template is not a fringe theory, but a good reference on the history of an ancient state. We have similar templates on the history of neighboring states, such as Template:Historical regions of Georgia, Template:Historical regions of Armenia, why cannot we have a template about another ancient state in the Caucasus? Grand  master  17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the regions in the template are a part of modern Azerbaijan. We do not have articles about other historical regions of C.Albania at the moment. When we do, we will definitely include them in the template too. There were regions that historically changed hands many times. I don't think there's any rule that allows a region to be included in only one template. It is done in other templates too, for instance the region of Sophene is included into 3 templates. Why is it a problem here? And I don't see what could possibly be wrong with the title. Grand  master  17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are in any position to 'fix' me. Baku87 created the template on June 2 and added the map of Azerbaijan. Knowing that it made no sense, you left it there and did nothing. You even justified his created template. On June 12 when the map was replaced, you jumped in and replaced the added map an hour later. Your double standards and ignorance of blatant POV pushing is one of the major reasons as to why there are so many problems in those article. And I notice again that you entirely skipped my main point, being that Caucasian Albania is historic by itself, the title of the template is crafted in a way that it implies that it's something more modern when those regions and Albania are in this same period.


 * Besides, the map you have added is totally misleading and you have been told this several times but continued using it. Had you cared about accuracy, you would not have used misleading maps. For those who are wondering, the map added by Grandmaster represents Armenia and its neighbours, as written on the original. Without that information, readers might even assume that the lines of does not even refer to Armenia but Albania. - Fedayee (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the point in bad faith assumptions about other users? Keep it to the topic and make arguments that concern the matter in question. I demonstrated above that similar templates exist about other states. For instance, we have Template:Late Roman Provinces and Template:Roman provinces 120 AD, which list provinces of a presently non-existent state of Rome. Why a similar template cannot be created about Caucasian Albania? -- Grand master  18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with Grandmaster's edit, the map he substituted was probably better. It clearly shows Caucasian Albania and puts it in a regional context. Fences and windows (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences, the map added by Grandmaster is titled 'Armenia and its neighbours' (as written in the original used to craft it), zoom in and you will see 'line' with the date for the last two without any indication. This only makes sense when the reader is aware that it's a map of Armenia. But the map is presented as if it is one on Albania. It is not, in fact the frontiers which Grandmaster says are those of Albania are not exactly claimed by the map to be those of Albania, but rather (see map indication) Albanian lands and border territories. That's made even more clear because a large part is included in both Armenia and Albania and the border territories. And you have not replied about the appropriateness of the word 'historic', see the examples brought by Grandmaster. As you can see, while I said that my problem is the term 'Historical', he still continues providing examples as if I am opposing to Albania altogether. The way it is worded amounts to creating a template about 'Historical regions of Sumeria' as if Sumeria was more modern than its regions presented and somehow survived unlike its regions so that its regions become its historical regions. - Fedayee (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the problem here. The map shows Albania in a wider context of the entire region, why is it a problem? And it could be titled anything, what does it matter? What matters is that it shows S.Albania and its borders at their maximum extent. It is quite informative. See for instance a template on another historical state, Template:Khazaria, it has a similar map. Plus, how can an image make the template a fringe theory? With regard to the name, as I understand, you are having an issue with the word "historical". If we renamed the template to the "Regions of Caucasian Albania", would you be happy with that? Grand  master  06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't see the problem because you are not reading or refusing to understand. For the umpteenth time, this map is not a map of Albania but Armenia, anyone reading it is misled to think it is Albania and will even think that those last two lines represent Albania's borders which we both know they are not (and only those knowing the title of the map will know that) but they are Armenia. Besides, the borders which you claim as being Albania are not Albania alone but border territories as mentioned on the map. Since you keep ignoring what I write, I will change the map and rename the template. I have provided concerns which you have not even bothered replying to but rather soapboxed answering everything (not even what I have raised) but what I have raised. That's the only thing I will be adding here unless you start answering to the exact issues I have raised. If I don't reply, know that it's because you will not answer or ignore my arguments. - Fedayee (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already answered in much detail. The map shows the territory of Caucasian Albania as well, it is called "Armenia and its neighbors", i.e. it shows not just Armenia, but all the states in the region. The map on page 666 from The Cambridge Ancient History is not accessible from google books, but it is listed here:, so you can check for yourself what it is actually called. Obviously, border territories were also a part of Albania, otherwise there would be no point in inclusion of them within the Albanian borders. And stop threatening with unilateral actions, you know that disruption on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles is covered by arbitration remedies. If you want to rename the template, you must follow the established procedure for renaming. Grand  master  05:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg articles
These, and probably Trilateral Commission articles, tend to be a honeypot for conspiracy theorists. Look at for instance Knights of Saint Columbanus which mentions Bilderberg 13 times. The Bilderberg Group article probably has sufficient attention, it's the minor ones like Indra Nooyi where she is described as attending the 'highly secretive' Bilderberg group, etc. that could use some light attention if anyone has the time or interest. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I do anything about it, take a look at Sir Frank Ewart Smith and the link it uses for Richard Beeching. I should AGF I guess and assume there weren't any others that could be used. And International financiers which seemed to exist only to discuss conpsiracies, I've cut that bit out and I'm not sure what to do with what's left. Redirect somewhere? Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've redirected International financiers to International finance; another target could be Global financial system. Fences and windows (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reddi and Free energy
At it again. No edit summary and no discussion, per usual. NJGW (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA Spread Theory
Brand new article, full of OR. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Prodded. Term is not used outside Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see W. Lawrence Lipton. Fences and windows (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Has been deprodded. I'll start an AfD. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that, I've just done that with Twinkle. An AfD is probably better anyway, sorry F&W. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a non-Twinkler, I'm happy to be spared the work. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does make life a lot easier/more productive. I've put a COI tag on the author for his autobiography also. There I'm not sure about an AfD yet, it may just have to be rewritten to turn it into an article. I've also removed all his self-entries to various lists of authors, educators, etc. He's just using us for publicity so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bhagavata Purana
I may actually need help here (or have someone tell me I'm wrong) which I reverted again. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's from the ISKC website-- hardly any reasonable person's notion of a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a reliable source for that story (I heartily agree with Mangoe's opinion of ISKCON), along with an interesting analysis by a notable astrophysicist, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar. I don't know that it needs to go in the article—I just hated to see ISKCON discredit a favorite and most unusual old story and it's application to modern physics. Priyanath talk 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim
This article is tripping my bullshit detectors, but I am hindered by my ignorance of German. The primary source listed is from the central European chapter of MUFON, for example, but other citations come from legitimate (if speculative) magazine publications. Thoughts? Skinwalker (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article could definitely use some cleanup. The author of that primary source, Illobrand von Ludwiger, is characterized as a "physicist and pioneer in satellite control systems", but actually he is most notably a proponent of UFOs and other paranormal phenomena.  Heim generally appears to fall into the "brilliant crackpot" category -- his intelligence was obviously outstanding, but he never presented any work that the mainstream physics community could make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochre and Jackiestud
This is getting stupid. is now deleting well sourced additions of mine (I actually used books instead of websites, silly me( and replacing it with unsourced pov stuff, and that which is sourced is sourced in part from two Wikipedia mirrors and other non-RS websites. I tried to explain this to her on her talk page but she's just ignored me. I'm at 2RR now and don't want to hit 3, but in any case this is just part of an edit war between her and several other editors on various articles. She's deleted my comments on problems with recognising ochre, my addition of a new report on Blombos cave, any suggestion that Blombos may not be unequivocal evidence etc... Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be merged with red Ochre, or rather vice versa since Yellow Ochre oddly redirects to 'red ochre'! Obvious solution would be to direct both to 'Ochre' and merge content of the 'red ochre' article. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that Ochre claims to be about a color, whereas Red Ochre is about a pigment (hm, I see where she found one of her sources now, at the latter article). But actually, after the lead, it then becomes a pigment. Needs a bit more thought. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ochre should be Yellow Ochre, which is the colour. Really, I think they'd all best be in one article, which could reasonably include discussion of the chemistry, and of the use of earth pigments in history. There's no reason to have an article on one pigment, which also actually claims to include Yellow Ochre, while Ochre is also de facto about Yellow Ochre - but mentions several other Ochres! Paul B (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support a move for a community ban of Jackiestud. This user is clearly too confused to be expected to ever contribute anything useful. --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At ANI, another Admin has predicted an indef block if she can't be found a mentor. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've merged the two articles, dropping the more eccentric claims. I included a line from Jackie's source, though I'm still rather wary of it. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero
, creator and recreator of articles such as 420-year cycle and Septennial cycle, seems to have taken over this article and is fighting off any attempts to, for instance, remove a citation to another Wikipedia article, or call Alfred North Whitehead a philosopher, let alone any real content changes. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now blocked for 48 hours. The article still has his own indescrible stamp of obscurity on it. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this idea has any traction among other metaphysical philosophers. If it doesn't fulfill notability requirements, the solution would be to merge this article into the philosopher's page and delete it. Update: I just checked the delete log and its been up for AFD four times already, so I guess it probably would survive another round. Article improvement is probably the best option. Sifaka   talk  20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One Thousand and One Nights
I'm having a strange minor but protracted dispute with User:Soundofmusicals who insists we shouldn't put the common English alternative title The Arabian Nights in the first line of this page. Now, since this was the title of the first English translation and the two most recent ones, as well as being the title of the entry in The Encyclopaedia of Islam and several other studies of the book (see the notes and references section in the Wikipedia article), I'm at a loss to understand why we shouldn't mention this alternative as early as possible per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not even asking for a page move. Judging by the talk page, this is simply the result of yet more standard-issue ethnic bitching. I think Soundofmusicals has been trying to achieve a "compromise" with some users who just don't like Arabs very much, but this is the sort of compromise which leads to our articles saying 2+2=4.5. --Folantin (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be more suitable for the POV noticeboard? Anyway, the page view statistics for the page and the redirect  suggest that "Arabian Nights" is a significant alternative title, but perhaps not as dominant as one might believe. I agree it should be in the first line, but if it is a culturally sensitive matter perhaps it needs to be moved a bit further down in the lede and contextualised, as a compromise. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Culturally sensitive"? You mean we should pander to ethnic bigots? I've demonstrated at great length that this is a significant alternative title in English. --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right. It seems to be the Iranian ultra-chauvanist user:Xashaiar who is the probem here. Paul B (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That also explains why there is a Persian translation of the Arabic title in the first line and there are no objections to that. Xashaiar (and others?) are trying to make out this is more of a work of Persian literature than an Arabic one. Of course, it is believed that the Nights was based on an earlier Persian collection, Hazār Afsān ("A Thousand Tales", not "Nights"), as the article notes, but no copies of this work have survived so we don't know the precise degree of influence. Likewise, La Fontaine's Fables is regarded as a work of French - not Greek - literature, even though some of the stories are based on Aesop. --Folantin (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to waste time with ultra-nationalist bigotry here. The case is plain as plain. Yes, the tales have Persian origin. They are still preserved in Arabic, not Persian, and for this reason they are known as "Arabian Nights" in English. End of story. The proper term for this kind of constellation is "Perso-Arabic". Arabic influence in medieval Persia isn't the exception but the rule. Persian patriots interested in pre-Islamic Persia are welcome to edit articles about pre-Islamic Persia, but this most certainly is not a topic of Persian antiquity but a prime example of the classical Islamic Perso-Arabic culture of the Middle Ages. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights
There is a discussion taking place at the moment at No original research/Noticeboard concerning the disputed claim that the Cyrus cylinder is a charter of human rights. As this is an issue that has come up before on this noticeboard, editors may wish to be aware of this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * this is so old and has been fully discussed. The only thing that seems to be going on is that the Persian ultra-patriots are boosted into activity as a result of the events in Iran atm. This is just childish. So we run into all sorts of nonsens in our articles on Persian antiquity any time there is some political happening in Iran? Let the patriots focus on the articles on current events instead of taking out their frustration on innocent articles about antiquity. I would really appreciate some admin backbone in cases like this. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not related to current events in Iran. has been attempting to add a fragment from a 1911 newspaper article to refute a 1999 book for about six months now. The dispute has only reignited because another editor removed a tag that Nepaheshgar added to the article back in February. The specific issue at hand is that the 1999 book says that the Shah originated and promoted the claim that the cylinder is a "human rights charter", but Nepaheshgar has found an article from an apparently completely unknown author in a 1911 issue of the Christian Science Journal that he believes refutes Wiesehofer's attribution of this claim to the Shah's regime. The question is whether this constitutes original research on Nepaheshgar's part, and also whether adding a reference to this obscure article would be undue weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "admin backbone", you do know that the Arbcom has recently ordered admins not to use their tools to enforce WP:NPOV or WP:V? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Let the patriots focus on the articles on current events instead of taking out their frustration on innocent articles about antiquity." But the usual suspects have been using Wikipedia as a battleground for years, projecting modern-day conflicts back in time. There's very little on Iranian talk page fights which doesn't boil down to one of the following:
 * Persian Iranian and Azeri Turkic patriots scrapping over who was what ethnicity (they're going at it hammer and tongs at the moment over at the Safavids article)
 * Iranian and Arab patriots refighting the Iran-Iraq War (Persian Gulf naming dispute, Shatt al-Arab naming dispute, One Thousand and One Nights - see yesterday's entry on this noticeboard)
 * Persian patriots bigging up the Persian Empire(s) by adding the phrase "Persian Empire" wherever possible; trying to prove it was the biggest empire ever yet -unlike every other empire - never did any bad things like owning slaves; claiming anachronistically that the Cyrus Cylinder was a "human rights charter"; attacking cartoon films which "diss" the Persian Empire; badmouthing Alexander the Accursed etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It gets very boring and predictable after watching this for a couple of years. We, as the community, should try to learn a lesson from this and adapt. Nothing will ever come from these "disputes". They are just usenet white noise. Of course to the rookie admin, they look like exciting "content disputes" which contribute to the editing process and must therefore not be touched and all parties treated with equal "AGF" and "NPOV". But we must have enough veteran adminstrators by now to recognize that this isn't going anywhere and should just be filtered out as noise. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been toying with compiling a guide to all these disputes, showing their origins in contemporary politics (expanding from an idea by Moreschi). Obviously, it's still very sketchy as I've barely started (any contributions are very welcome - just add your info to the talk page). But it could be a handy guide for admins. It would be quicker than wading through the endless repetition on article talk pages. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Safavids we follow WP:RS sources. Given the various views of Western scholars, of course there will be users discussing various viewpoints.  The concensus now is Safavids were of Kurdish origin who were Turkicized in speech but then lead an Iranian empire.  I would read the Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam article on Safavids.  In actuality, after debating, we simply decided to let RS sources speak for themselves.  As you can see no one has been banned, blocked or etc. and users work it out.  There is no Iranian and Azeri Turkic patriotic problems, as many Iranians themselves are Azeri-Turkic (Khamenei, Musavi presidential nominate) to normal users here.  Overall unlike say the 50 million Europeans who killed each other in WWII, there has never been an incident of Persians killing Arabs or Azeri-Turks killing Persians or viceversa for ethnicity.  Chauvanistic concepts were also imported from Europe to this region as before, there was an Islamic ecompassing culture which put faith in God and his holy prophet above ethnicity.  Compare for example the relative tolerance of the Ottoman empire until the rise of Turkish nationalism (which heavily borrowed European concepts).  So once in a while there is a small debate on history stuff(say between users from Iran and the republic of Azerbaijan), but lets be realistic here, no where have we seen 50 million+ people killed in the region.  Actually Iranians (Persians) have never ethno-cided/genocided or wiped out any group because of their ethnicity (if I am wrong, please prove otherwise).  For example the record of Achaemenid empire vs the British empire would be a case point.  But we can see things in WWII, or the expansion of the West in America and etc.  Everything needs a balance and love of homeland as long as there is no sense of being better than other humans and looking down upon others, is not wrong.


 * The Persian Gulf naming issue is a national issue since from 1960s due to pan-Arabist nationalism, the name of the body of water was changed. Pan-Arabist nationalism again was a concept that was followed by Saddam Hussein for example and he killed Kurds in Iraq or Shi'ites in Iraq.  The same pan-Arabist nationalism was responsible for this historic distortion.    I am sure if we start calling Europe as Arabia, it might not fit well with some users.  In Europe, there is also the Macedonia and Greek issue. The name of a body has been Persian Gulf since the time of Darius the Great and due to nationalism in 1960s a new name was coined.  1000+ year of Arab literature prior to this era of nationalism has also called it Persian Gulf.  God has created every creature (human and animal) with sense of "Obtaining what is beneficial and dissuading what is harmful".  All animals and humans have this sense, specially removal of threat.  In this case, Iranians having bad experience with pan-Arabist nationalism (propped up by the West during the 8 year war and even provided with chemical weapons) will obviously not turn a blind eye to changing a historic 2500 names due to nationalism.  If it is nationalistic-chavaunism you are condemning (which I do not condone), then obviously changing a historic name from 2500 years ago due to nationalistic-chavaunistic reasons is condemnable.  When Arabic literature itself has used Persian Gulf uniformly until 1950s/60s and some guys started changing it because they did not like Iranians, what do you think should be the national reaction?  Sit back and smoke pot?
 * There is a good critic of the 300 film here from a historian in UCLA.  I would read it.  Some Iranians might badmouth Alexander the Great and others in history identify him with a Qurannic character and etc.  Everywhere has some villians and heroes.  Personally, I think Alexander the Great followed the same line of Iranian Kings.  However he is associated with burning the Avesta in Zoroastrianism.  So in a way he is a villian for Iranian Zoroastrians but in Iranian Islamic culture, he is seen in a positive light.  The issue is complex and one can search "Alexander" in Iranica.


 * Anyhow, I can say my record shows I never have used fringe sources to push a POV. You can check my record, I have been editing very tenacious articles (with this name and previous user name) and not once have I been blocked, banned or etc.  Because I follow guidelines of Wikipedia.


 * And finally, please read the discussion. It is about who originated the anachronism that Cyrus Cylinder is a "human rights charter".  I have no doubt calling the Cyrus Cylinder a Human rights charter is anachronism.  The issue is who came up with this anachronism, Western writers or the former Shah of Iran?  The former Shah 100% likely borrowed such anachronism from Western writers, but he is taking the blame for starting it.
 * I was not going to pursue it further, but I will email Wiesehofer (a very nice gentlemen who has responded to my inquiries before)and see what he says and post it right in this small section and no where else. Hopefully we will see the response right in this section, because unlike some of the above users, I believe Wiesehofer is a reasonable fellow and I have asked him other questions before.  For the sake of just displaying the arrogant behaviour of some users, I will CC two admins and post Wiesehofer's response here.  This is so the matter is on the record right in this section and the accussations against me being is cleared up. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the record I think dab and moreschi are excellent admins. Their records are clean.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New problem at Bhagavata Purana - claim it inspired Einstein
IP claiming it was the inspiration for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, using various non-RS sites including a mirror and one at least that doesn't even back the claim. I'm at 2RR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has now taken it to the talk page - nice to find an IP who would do that! Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More racial merriment
At Multiracial American we have some excited fellow insisting the article is "racist" and biased because, I suppose (they aren't being very coherent), it doesn't treat "mixing" of the various European "subraces" as "multiracial". Needless to say, "mixing of white with white" has never been an issue in the history of racial legislation in the US, nor in the US census, nor, to the best of my knowledge, in any sort of discourse on race in the United States (subcategories of the five major races recognized in the census being catgorised in terms of ethnicity, not race). The editor unsurprisingly cannot present a single source that would at least illuminate where they are coming from, but they make up for that minor flaw by producing all the more noise and wikidrama.

Really an issue of cough up some source or go away, but I figure I have already made the mistake of "assuming good faith" here so I cannot suddenly switch to rollback-the-troll mode. PS, also note user's block log. They were "given another chance" for being apologetic after an indef ban for trolling less than a month ago. It would appear that the apologetic mood has worn off rather quickly. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll pitch in. Looks like this one is headed for ANI shortly. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sarmast
I've just been looking at AIV and gave a 31 hour block to a new editor edit warring on this article with possible COI problems as well. See. The two other editors there are probably at their limit and I'm sure the article could use a an eye or two more on it. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
The Afrocentrists are back in force, and since February have slaughtered the cleaned-up article. As with the Persian nationalists above, this isn't going anywhere, we are just looking at a bunch of ideologists who creep back every couple of months and start over. Discussion has long been circular and futile. We really need an approach that allows us to short-cut such nonsense cropping up for the dozenth time. It's worth discussing it thoroughly once, even twice, but after six or seven times around, reiterating the "discussion" becomes a simple waste of time. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

for quick reference, the last good revision before this year's round of attack is here. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that this is a recurring problem, I am thinking that it may be time to move up the Dispute resolution ladder and submit this to Arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think you know what you are saying there. The arbcom already has looked into this. This is why the article is under "probation", which didn't stop the trolls from returning to butcher it in February. Predictably, arbcom proved completely incapable of dealing with this. Nor should they be asked to, since they do not "judge on content". This includes the judgement of whether the content in question is far out extremist crackpottery. This noticeboard has done several orders of magnitude better at coping with this sort of thing than the arbcom in its brightest moments. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given what happened with the Macedonia case, ArbCom is only likely to strip the bit from any admin who went within ten feet of the article, and then block any troublesome editor, before failing to follow up with any kind of concrete plan to prevent the inevitable return of socks of the blocked editors. Not worth your time. Better to commit yourself to full time watching of the article, or just finding another corner of the 'Pedia to watch while the article goes to pot. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I am posting this here in the hope that some editors with a clue will put it on their watchlists so we can intercept the trolling as it comes in as opposed to in half-yearly intervals. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is now on my watchlist! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of familiarizing myself with the history of the article, and I noticed that the current version is considerably (several times) larger what you identified as the last stable version from February. I have a fairly high level understanding of the issues here, but would you mind breaking down key things to look for in a basic list (or point me to an existing one)? In looking things over, I see three variations of the article:
 * 1) The Moreschi version that is the basis for this dif.


 * 2) This longer version, which was reverted to by dab today.


 * 3) This considerably longer version, which Wapondaponda reverted to, and which appears to be the unbalanced problematic version.


 * So while 3 appears to be out of the question, is #1 preferable to #2? Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially about a bunch of tenacious Afrocentrist editors and their (sock) armies trying to create the impression that Afrocentrist claims on the "race of the Ancient Egyptians" has scholarly validity, which it does not have (yes, we have good sources on that point, check Moreschi's article). This has been going on since about 2005, so we can look back on some four years of circular "debate". Moreschi went to great pains to clean this up and present the case as it is. The attempts to lend credibility to these racialist fringe claims involve the attempts to conflate Afrocentrist literature with bona fide studies on the prehistoric population history of Egypt. Needless to say, these topics need to be cleanly separated. Last August, we did this by introducing the detailed "Origins" section at Egyptians. The additional material that has accreted on the Afrocentrism article since then I have now split off to the new standalone population history of Egypt article, which does sport a brief "racial aspects" section out of charity towards the "Afrocentrist view".

In reply to Hiberniantears, I obviously do not insist on any specific revision. This is a question of good editorial judgement, once the air has been cleared of trolling. Just clearing the air of trolling will be a huge step forward here. "Article probation" in theory should do this for us, but of course this will need admins willing to clamp down on the trolls, just slapping a warning template on the talkpage isn't going to impress anyone. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive discussions and efforts that have gone into cleaning this up. I'm going to revert to the February version, and apply full protection to the article, for the time being. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conversation now effectively moved to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just plain wrong. I see no justification for reverting this article all the way back to February because a single editor complains about "Afrocentrist sock armies" butchering the article. This article needs to be unlocked and Dbachmann needs to be banned for making disruptive edits. AncientObserver (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time, back in Wiki pre-history, this article was a section on the Afrocentrism article. It became obvious that it was uncontrollable, and it was spun off by an Afrocentrist editor (user:deeceevoice) to became a separate article. There Afrocentrists and White Supremacists, Arab-Egyptians, and anyone else with a racial axe to grind, battled incessantly over how white or black the Egyptians were - usually projecting modern Euro-American categories onto ancient peoples. The article became a complete and utter mess, with quotations from Herodotus intermingled with genetic studies, and with no sense of the changing contexts in which ideas about race developed and how this applies to the various modellings of 'race' in Egypt over history. The minimal version preferred by dab is one solution. The other (which was preferred by User:Zara1709) is to contextualise the debates clearly by showing how they emerge from race-politics and 'science' at various times. Unfortunately the "true believers" will not have either of these arguments, and the article invariably sinks into a morass of claims and counter-claims, competing pictures of "white looking" and "black looking" pharaohs etc. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul Barlow is absolutley right,i myself warned about this article that is was going to be another fringe fest like the previuous article Race of the Ancient Egyptians which in this case the article was rebranded Ancient Egyptian Race "Controversey" but of course the afrocentirst started to circle wagons and slowly took the article back to the Race of the Ancient Egyptians,how many times does this cycle have to continue when will an admin take a stand and realize that an article that's main focus is the race of the ancient egyptian is unworkable i.e it becomes a farce of competeing dna studies ,ancient observers personal opinions and ancient egyptians art..to try and prove they are black or white...than some editor comes along and sites fringe than the ycle continues..--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This disgraceful article should be deleted, or at least reworded into something like "Ancient Egyptian skin color controversy" in order to highlight the absurdity of such issues. Wikipedia—while excellent for mathematics and some science-related material—is simply incapable of dealing with emotion-filled issues such as these.  Cranks inevitably just waste people's time, and undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.  CABlankenship (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to the use of unconstructive language such as "disgraceful" and "cranks". Clearly CABlankenship has a contrary POV, but that does not excuse incivility or failure to Assume Good Faith. Please could an admin issue CABlankenship with a warning, and perhaps check if CABlankenship is a sockpuppet of Dbachmann. Wdford (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, here we go...--Folantin (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. The skin-color of the Ancient Egyptians is a minor and trivial issue which does not deserve an entire article. If this "controversy" were over any other feature (for instance, the size of Ancient Egyptian feet), nobody would seriously consider it worthy of an entire article. Furthermore, the word "race" in the title is controversial and inappropriate. CABlankenship (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * as has been pointed out again, and again, and again, this "controversy" is indeed unnotable in scholarship, but it is notable in Afrocentrism, an US based racialist movement. This is the classic WP:FRINGE case of a "theory" with no merit that is nevertheless given coverage because enough noise has been made about it (a.k.a. "notability"). So yes, it does deserve an article, it just needs to be made absolutely clear that the article discusses issues of Race in the United States and not of Egyptology. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure these guys are not socks?
 * Films and flowers and 14th century painters and obscure insects are considered "notable" enough to have their own articles, but Dbachmann and his fellows have a serious burning desire to kill this particular debate. The issue was considered "notable" enough to be the subject of an International Symposium, and that debate was not limited to Afrocentrists or African Americans - a number of reputable scholars took it seriously.
 * Am I allowed to ask where do admins draw the line between troll and mere redneck, or will that get me stomped on yet again?Wdford (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on the WP:ANI noticeboard, it is surprising that this reference by a leading egyptologist
 * has not been used in Race of Ancient Egyptians or this WP:UNDUE fork, largely the work of a sock of banned user . Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * has not been used in Race of Ancient Egyptians or this WP:UNDUE fork, largely the work of a sock of banned user . Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good recommendation, Mathsci. I'm on the waiting list at my library, but if you have read it and can make relevant contributions based on that work, please do so. Wdford (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be read to some extent on google books and on amazon.com. I won't touch these articles (I have briefly chatted about Race of Ancient Egyptians with 2 egyptologists that I know). Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

a fresh account apparently here to make use of user and talk namespaces as a personal webhost. Without a single main namespace edit, account is dumping reams of text apparently rambling on about confused occult and/or pseudoscienific ideas.

this isn't urgent, just another case study in how far we are willing to tolerate out-of-main-namespace fringe material. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Dobrev's theories on Bulgarians
An anonymous user user:168.7.241.58 (Thanks BalkanFever - I forgot to paste) is busy adding Fringe (nationalist) theories to early cyrillic, glagolitic alphabet and other pages to do with the origins of Slavic languages. These are all sourced to one site with text written by the Bulgarian economist Peter Dobrev. I have tried reverting, and explaining on their talk page, but I'm being ignored. Could someone please stop them? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify it's . I also believe admin intervention is needed.  Balkan Fever  04:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the article Bulgar alphabet was created today using the same source. It needs to be speedily deleted as fringecruft. I believe who created it is the same person as the above IP.  Balkan  Fever  05:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

we have an article on this class of crackpot theories, at Pre-Christian Slavic writing. Bulgar alphabet can be merged there. --dab (𒁳) 05:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance of a block on the IP?  Balkan Fever  05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also asked here. He's annoying me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a rangeblock. This may also be a good opportunity to review Ancient Bulgarian calendar. Bulgars and Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
This alternative medicine organisation was quoted as a major source of opinion on GM food, I've never heard of it and it doesn't even have a Wiki article. This seemed a violation of undue weight to me, so I've removed this section. This is being discussed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research
A new editor is adding a section to this article which I believe is undue and not reliably sourced. More eyes please. Thanks, Verbal   chat  11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Improving edits (MoS edits, removal of puffery) are being blindly reverted, in my opinion. Citation requests and POV tags are also being removed in the edit warring. I'd really like more editors to take a look. The problem at the moment centres on one section giving undue weight to one case published in one book. Verbal   chat  19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Popped onto the page and joined the talk section. There are some valid concerns here. Gotta agree with Verbal.Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note there is a newer discussion below. Verbal   chat  15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Piri Reis map
I believe some undue weight is being given here to the theories of Graham Hancock. Other opinions? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reference to Hancock in the Piri Res map article. Please specify. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the dif showing the Hancock stuff. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)
Found this post on RSN, thought it might be of interest to people here "Just putting this out there, and hoping some more experienced heads can give it a look... This is the article for a controversial eligious movement based in the US but with communities around the world; article contains liberal citations from official website, and most edits with dissenting information are reverted by users who are also members of the community. I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and I'm hoping someone with an idea of what they're doing can intervene. Thanks - jaybird 71.169.155.237 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on the article.   Will Beback    talk    14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching this one too, and I see that a lot of unreferenced and non-neutral has recently been added by a user claiming to be a former member. I've restored the earlier version. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern with this article isn't fringe theories so much as the serious and sustained POV issues. Perhaps the POV notice board would be a good place for discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I cut a lot of the POV issues out of the articles. Let's wait and see.Simonm223 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thealogy
Ok, 'thealogy' is ok, but 'Monotheasm'? Anyone know anything about thealogy? Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

these are neologisms from New Agers with no clue about Greek. No problem as long as it remains clear that this is New Age / 2nd wave feminism terminology with no currency outside of these subcultures. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Basque this time
At Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, an editor (Arnaiz1) claiming to be M. Arnaiz-Villena is repeatedly deleting large amounts of sourced material, claiming he never said these things and that we're part of a conspiracy against him. Since they are stated either in his books or in the website of a foundation advertising his books, a foundation of which A-V is president, Arnaiz1 is obviously misrepresenting something. A-V's claims are pseudoscience, though because few people have bothered to review him and we don't have any sources using that word, the wording in the article has been downgraded to "fringe". A-V is the author of the Usko-Mediterranean BS that was deleted last month. For those of you who haven't heard of him, A-V is the greatest epigrapher in the history of humankind. It was him, not Champollion, who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, which turn out to record Basque, not an Afrasiatic language. (The entire field of Egyptology is a scientific fraud.) Also, the use of Hittite in the reconstruction of Indo-European is a fraud, as Hittite is also Basque. And the Hammurabi code is not a legal code, but records Basque religious texts—Sumeriology and Assyriology are great scientific frauds. And Phoenician was not a Semitic language, but Basque, as were Minoan, Etruscan, and Elamite. His website advertises that Basque is also the key to deciphering the Indus, rongorongo, and the Mesoamerican scripts, as a neolithic Basque civilization spanned the globe. kwami (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that A-V, if it is he, is denying that his theories are fringe. He's denying that he actually is the author of material published under his name. This raises really difficult problems that go beyond the scope of this board and impact on OR and BLP. It's a real nightmare. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research 2
This article is in desperate need of help. The positions of advocates are presented in flattering terms, while critics (or "skeptics") are dismissed ("unpeer reviewed") as laymen or nonexperts (because they aren't reincarnation researchers) and the substance of their criticisms isn't presented. A very problematic article with glaring WP:NPOV problems, caused by heavy reliance on non-RS fringe sources. Ownership is also apparent. Verbal  chat  08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The self-published websites that Verbal is referring to as "critical" should not even be in the article at all. They are not peer-reviewed because they are amateurs, as opposed to the professors of psychiatry whose research they are reviewing. Mitsube (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is another claim I should have added: editors there are discounting the James Randi Educational Foundation as non-expert and self-pub. They classify it as a fringe source! However, this is not the criticism I am referring to above, though it is clearly relevant. Verbal   chat  09:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, JREF has done more to dispassionately investigate fringe issues than almost any other organization I can think of. The fact that they have frequently debunked these issues has been because of adherence to strict experiment protocols.Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Criticism of reincarnation shunted into a ghetto with little "rebuttals" added? Seems to violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Did some fixing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe content used/uses the Journal of Scientific Exploration. This was not questioned! Another interesting article where the lead seems slightly unbalanced. Verbal   chat  11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that at least some of the content in the article is plagiarized from Stevenson's obits in The Telegraph and the Washington Post. Compare: with

and compare

with

The Ian Stevenson also has some similar problems. Secondly, the NYT obit has some useful quotes from Professor Leonard Angel of Stevenson's research, and mentions a Skeptical Inquirer article Angel wrote. Also see the references at the end of this Skepdic Dictionary. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently Nature (journal) isn't a scientific journal, and it is dismissed as "popular magazine". I couldn't make this up. I'll note the copyright issues on the article talk. Verbal   chat  19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going fix the lead where it prominently associates the University Of Virginia with the reincarnation research but leaves out that the college's Division of Perceptual Studies, a parapsychology department whose focus is ESP and the paranormal, actually conducted the studies. However the article now seems to have bigger problems as evidenced by tagging sprees and 3RR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. It appears that a single editor with an axe to grind is reverting anything that might challenge his position that the Stevenson research represents a sound scientific model.  And is simultaneously insisting on inserting weasel words to discredit criticism. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I made the edit, and now I'm going to give that kerfluffle a rest. Seeing a "This user believes in reincarnation" infobox on one editor's page makes me think it won't end well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To me there is an element of choosing one's battles. The editor who has been reverting every change to the article shows no signs of stopping and I just don't care enough to get into an edit war over this.  I was looking at the history of the article and there were many, many reverts in a single day where other editors came in, changed something and then this one editor just immediately changed it back.  He eliminated criticism of the stephenson study drawn from skepdic and restored rebuttals to criticism in his criticism ghetto.  Not going to bother fighting him on this.Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should abandon this article. It is much improved already, despite the ongoing wp:advocacy, but there are still ongoing problems - such as refusal to accept RS that calls the field pseudoscience. Verbal   chat  14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows that a single dedicated fringe advocate can successfully hold an article hostage by gaming WP:RS. Consider that to this day, the WP article about communicating with dead people through tape recorders remains free of the word "pseudoscience". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing a small experiment. Added a link to pseudoscience to the see also section of the 'evp' article, undisguised.Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful not to edit Wikipedia to prove a point... Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I made the edit partially out of curiosity to see if it was reverted the edit I made was a valid one. Warning well taken though.Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has 100% improved. To those who did it, your efforts are appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The reincarnation research article is much better now.Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

grief porn
Strangely nothing in Wikipedia addresses this issue, equally strange there exists debate about a known fact. I believe that this is the best venue regarding an editors ability to recognize conflicting references and without subjective interpertation dismiss demonstrably false references. It's a simple exercise with this example at the extreme obvious side of the spectrum.

A reference exists and makes the specific claim that the term "grief porn" was coined on April 7, 2005. Prior use evidence of the term, in context, exists in both published fiction and non-fiction works and in the printed press dating many years back. 

Must Wikipedia be a slave to referenced errors, is there no level of editorial responsibility allowed? Is an error in a Blog, journal or paper notable in and of itself? Or must anything sourced be allowed inclusion as the standard is verifiability and not truth?

Is there truly not any level of demonstrably false information that can be removed?99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that something be included just because it's in some source. If editors agree not to use a particular source, then they won't use it.  Friday (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Battles over this sort of thing tend to be incredibly tenacious. I've had two cases where I had to track down high school yearbooks to refute newspaper errors and offhand remarks, and one case where I had someone in another state searching library stacks to prove that a referenced work did not in fact exist. The jury is still out on whether Herbert Hoover swore or affirmed the oath of office (circumstantial evidence says swore, some newspaper reports say affirmed). People don't seem to understand the notion that to be reliable, a source has to be correct. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to avoid the wall of text below, as I've seen these same arguments repeated at least a half-dozen times in the article discussion. The discussion from two different editors think that both sides can be stated to benefit the article, whereas this IP contributor here swears up and down that none of us understand the rules. tenacious isn't the word her; tedious is far more fitting. We have already pointed out several times that the usage of citations isn't an either.or arrangement but rather a 'however' arrangement (ie, this was reportedly done, but this contradicts that). It is a net benefit to the article to mention both as counterpoints to one another, allowing the reader to make up their own minds. From a practicality aspect, it prevents one citation from being periodically removed in favor of another (case in point, the anon did precisely that) - effectively destabilizing the article.
 * The argument against the use of a reliable citation from a newspaper is put forth from an anon who admits they've edited under another account in the past, and there is a strong indication that this might be a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. Additionally, their edits are clearly tendentious and uncivil, and they are unwilling to discuss without making personal attacks. Thought that might better frame the inquiry of the person. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm being told the following:


 * Here is the link to the blog. The edit: and the proof that the claim is false.


 * The date given is an unsupported "Fringe theory", the reasoning entirely based upon policy and some strange view that my providing impeaching citations is as my fellow editor so clearly states: "unfortunately - you aren't a citable source that can be referenced in counterpoint". Strange. 99.144.192.208 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, it's a serious problem of Wikipedia. Just today I had verifiability, not truth quoted at me by a very experienced editor. I believe the rules are in part optimised to deal with fringe and crackpot editors. We don't want endless discussions with them where they try to prove that the earth is flat so it can be stated in an article, or disprove evolution so that an article can no longer present it as true. Unfortunately that leads to situations where all editors agree that something is wrong, but a large minority insists that we claim it anyway because we have a source. We have WP:REDFLAG, but that again is also optimised for dealing with fringe. A very common problem seems to be factoids that are passed from one "reliable source" to another in a telephone game that can sometimes go over several centuries. Thus we get the situation where "reliable sources" tangential to a topic describe it in great detail, but omitting anything that could help to verify the information from archives, while more on-topic sources mention it only in passing because the author only writes what he could verify. I think WP:REDFLAG needs to be broadened to cover this situation; however, it's important to get the balance right to avoid its use for pushing fringe positions. Hans Adler 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to derail the RfC at the appropriate talk page but I'd like to chime in. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean we don't have any false statements to any degree ever. In fact it behooves us to state the false so we may shed light on the subject. If we don't include this information then someone will find it, note that it's not in the article and edit the article to include it anyway. Then we argue over whether it's a reliable source and so forth. If we instead state outright that some paper has printed this but has since been shown to be incorrect then we don't have to worry about future editors and battles, the article can defend itself. This should not be seen as an endorsement of false statements, but you must address the false statements in order to refute them. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point i was making earlier. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can this really be the policy of Wikipedia, as was stated above by the editor seeking inclusion of this false information: "It is a net benefit to the article to mention both as counterpoints to one another, allowing the reader to make up their own minds." This is after all a claim that a phrase was created on specific date, April 7, 2005. A date which is demonstrably false.     ,99.144.192.208   (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, after reading the talk page where you guys have been discussing this: This is not about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong as if it was true, it's about whether or not to present a statement known to be wrong while indicating as clearly as is possible without transgressing the "original research" restriction that it is actually wrong.

The demonstrably wrong claim appeared in the Observer Blog. Our standard rule seems to be that main entries in such a newspaper blog, which are signed by people who otherwise also write in the newspaper, count as reliable sources. Thus it's misleading to refer to this as just a blog entry.

This leaves us with a situation in which the error can be reported with proper framing as such, or simply dropped. In other words, as so often the rules don't tell us what to do and it's a matter of WP:Editorial discretion. The following two criteria are potentially worth considering: Hans Adler 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How wide has the error been disseminated? If a lot of people believe in the incorrect information, it makes sense to mention it and to indicate why it is wrong. If not, it doesn't seem to make much sense to include a random piece of random trivia and embarrass the author of the erroneous claim.
 * 2) Does it improve the presentation of the article if the information is included? Our best articles contain all noteworthy information, but they are also fleshed out with additional non-vital information.

The date, mention of the press conference, and even mention of the topic itself, are not known to exist anywhere else on Earth. Additionally as you are putting forth a suggestion for a possible framework for resolving False Statements of Fact would you be so kind as to visit the RFC at the grief porn article and demonstrate a practical application of your framework to this real life example?


 * Let me also ask a follow up question, am I understanding you to say that errors can sometimes be Notable and worthy of inclusion? If so, would the same standard exist - ie, would one require a supporting reference that noted the error and/or it's importance to our understanding of the subject? 99.144.192.208 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, are we sure this is a reliable source? Sorry, I don't have time to research this myself, so hopefully I'm not leading you on a wild goose chase but somewhere there's some verbage about the blog being subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Can we confirm that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Another thing you might want to look into is this is apparently an Observer blog about the Observer. Is this a primary or a third-party source? Finally, have you considered e-mailing the author? He might issue a correction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Sorry, you might have been waylaid by the retititve usage of the citation by the anon, which would seem to indicate that there are dozens of other citations. There aren't; there are four. Additionally, it seems important to point out that there are no references calling the initial source from the Guardian Blog incorrect - that is solely the anon saying that. the citations he keeps repeating are instances in different fiction and non-fiction books where the term appears.
 * The comment by the anon, "The date, mention of the press conference, and even mention of the topic itself, are not known to exist anywhere else on Earth" is clearly absurd. The Guardian is certifiably read by a large number of people in the UK and elsewhere, Not sure where that particular spin came from. As I siad, this anon is quite crafty, as their previous account might have been. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Crafty? What an insulting remark. There is no simpler body of evidence to look at: Here is the link to the blog. The edit: and the proof that the claim is false.
 * The question is, "Was the term invented on April 7, 2005?". The answer is No - it has clearly been used in context in fiction, non-fiction and press for many years prior to that date. Crafty? Hardly.99.135.175.107 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if we assume that this person is a newspaper reporter and not just a blogger, that's not a WP:RS-complaint reference to support the claim for when a term was invented. It may be reliable that the guy used the term, but not that he created it. For first use of terms we should refer to respected etymologists. DreamGuy (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is tangential to the issue. The article says that the term was coined by Yates, so we don't need an etymologist to take apart their statement. Indeed, that would be synthesis. What we have is a reliably-cited statement in a widely-read online source wherein the statement says one thing. We have other citations that do not say that the initial statement is false; they simply use the term prior to the date of supposed coinage. We state both to present a neutral article. For all we know, the statement was coined by Yates after Diana's death in '97, and was only reported to have been such in 2005. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether something is a reliable source or not is not tangential. The Observer blog can say whatever it wants, but it's not reliable for the specific topic in question, so it cannot be used to support that claim. An etymologist would NOT be synthesis, it'd be reporting what an expert on the topic said instead of someone who wouldn't be expected to know anything about what they were talking about. You've got everything completely and totally backwards from how Wikieepdia works. DreamGuy (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If Orwell were alive today ... "We have other citations that do not say that the initial statement is false; they simply use the term prior to the date of supposed coinage." ...That's just Alice in Wonderland nonsense.99.135.175.107 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was pointing out that you have represented the same four citations over and over again, purporting that they each claim ownership of the phrase grief porn, and I clearly pointed out that they do not. The only person calling them a "lie" is you. Now, since you - by your own admission - have edited here under prior IDs, you know better than to make disingenuous arguments. The article about Yates says they invented the term. There are prior instances of its usage. We point that out. Period. What is so hard for you to grasp about that? I am sorry, but your behavior is characteristic of WP:IDHT and using the wiki as a grudge match, and I am growing less interested in trying to help you understand and more inclined to simply ignore/report you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You put in your edit comment "losing my patience, suspecting that WP:IDHT might be the source of the problem", which, along with some of the comments above, is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Considering that you were already admonished at WP:WQA about violating policies regarding your behavior on this article towards me, it seems odd for you to think that you can act the same way toward another editor and that you would report them instead of the other way around. DreamGuy (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks DG, but I got it covered. As well, thanks for the permission to offer you unsolicited advice about your behavior everywhere I note a problem with it - thanks very much.
 * And, as has been pointed out to you at your many, many noticeboard beat-downs, AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior. As for civility and IDHT, I'm not the first person to point that out; the anon's behavior has been pretty awful during this. Anyway, maybe keep your opinions focused on the topic, DG. Anything else from you isn't going to help the situation. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't "have it covered". You're right, AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior, but what you regularly do is invent it up out of thin air in your own head and then expect the rest of the world to just accept your conclusion despite the lack of any sensible reasons or evidence. The topic here is that the source is clearly wholly unreliable, both as not being authoritative for the topic and clearly out and out wrong, and it's your inability to stay on topic when it means you have to admit you are wrong that has led to all the accusations and threats. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the citations claim ownership of the phrase. They are example's of prior use, the movie review was from 2002 for example and was just a casual use of the phrase in the context.99.135.175.107 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. This point might be moot, as there are others helping out in the article to find the correct avenue to pursue. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly "moot". We have a single editor that has made a suggestion, I'm not sure why you've made this effort to stifle input while the rest of the editors involved appear to be in the dormant cycle of a 24hr unit, but the larger policy question of confronting Demonstrably False Statements of Fact is decidedly not moot. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you forgot to indent again - don't worry, I got it for you. As for the conversation being moot, it certainly wasn't an attempt to stifle anything - lol, are you ever going to stop trying to read my mind? You really aren't good at it. By all means, please continue the discussion. I only pointed out that the bone of contention that you forum-shopped here was apparently resolved, and met with your approval. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Do we have any evidence that this blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot point, not reliable either way for this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It is a separate section that comingles staff members and blog contributors. It calls itself a blog, looks like a blog with random short thought entries and does not read or format as the professional product found on the website outside the blog area. We also have first hand reliably sourced references that thoroughly impeach a major claim by the contributor, indicating a lack of fact-checking. Most importantly we do not have a supporting reference claiming that the blog is the same professional product as found in the Guardian and not formally tagged as "blog". 99.135.175.107 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And even if it were an official news article it would not be a reliable source for the topic of word origins. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was under the assumption that Arcayne actually supported this edit. Now it looks as if this wasn't meant seriously and Arcayne actually supports a position that I cannot agree with. In any case I think this edit is seriously worth considering under the framework that I described above. But reporting without comment a claim that we know to be wrong, just because it appeared in a reliable source, would not be OK. Hans Adler 15:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

False Memory Syndrome Foundation
This article has had longstanding major problems. The article was essentially taken over a couple years back and turned into a very calculated hack and slash job on the organization and its beliefs. It basically pushes the WP:FRINGE view that false memories of child abuse do not exist or are extremely exaggerated (exact opposite of all current expert knowledge on the topic) and strongly insinuates that the people who came up with the term (as well as anyone who believes it exists) are just child molesters covering up their crimes. Considering the direct accusations of pedophilia against specific named persons this article also has major BLP violations. DreamGuy (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What efforts have you made to fix the problem yourself before coming here? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, this is not the Inquisition. Cease this combative interrogatory, please. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was sure a non sequitur. DreamGuy (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this article is enough of a problem that anyone might legitimately ask for assistance. The material about abuse is all quite public & we have an article on the person accused; I see no direct BLP concerns. On the other hand, the information about this specific instance is disproportionate for an article about the organization. The POV is sneaky and the article needs rewriting. KillerChihuahua made a start; I continued. another person's look at the article history would be appreciated. Some of the information needs updating also.   DGG (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that we have other articles relevant to this topic, including repressed memory and Recovered memory therapy. We should be careful to distinguish the organization this article is about (which I don't know anything about) from the topic in general. Looie496 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science
This article on a virtual organization devoted to pseudoscience and connected with self-publicist Ruggero Santilli has been recently created. My own view is that it should be changed into a redirect to the Santilli article. It is one of the worst pseudoscience articles I have seen and I think seems to have been posted by one of those involved in this virtual organization. One of the other people mentioned is Myron Evans whose BLP has been deleted at his request. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the creator, who also created a speedily deleted article about another non-existent organisation The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, improperly removed the prod template and the template requesting reliable secondary sources. Franceso Fucilla has certainly edited the article and the talk page as, because his characteristic rants can be seen there. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now listed for deletion here. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an amusing and not totally unconnected video. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear!! MaDski !! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement
There has been a posting on this page about the AfD for the now deleted Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science. I posted a link to a video above which shows that Jeremy Dunning-Davies is an active supporter and advocate for the work of Ruggero Santilli. He is also directly involved in this institute. is now claiming that it is inappropriate, even contentious, to draw reference to the fact that Dunning-Davies is a public web advocate for Santilli and fringe science. I'm not quite sure what is irking this recently arrived user, but in this case fringe science advocacy seems completely clear cut. This video of JDD singing the praises of Santilli's new science apparently cuts no ice with A.K.Nole. I am posting here to get other opinions on whether JDD is directly involved in fringe science, in particular the pseudoscience organisations connected with Santilli, Myron Evans and Franceso Fucilla which are quite apparent in this video. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have in addition listed Jeremy Dunning-Davies for deletion here. This should supersede any discussion here. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute Mathsci's presentation of this case. I am not an advocate for fringe science.  What I am advocating is the proper application of WP:BLP to this article.  The sentence in question was Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli supported by a link to the web page Administrative board of the Teleseo-Galilei Academy of Science http://www.telesio-galilei.com/board.html Administrative board of the Teleseo-Galilei Academy of Science.  I maintained that "connected with fringe science" is a contentious description of a living person and further that it is poorly sourced.  One link to one organisation does not support the plural "organisations".  The source does not self-describe as fringe science, that is Mathsci's synthesis.  The source is primary, not a reliable secondary source.  The connection with Santilli is not seen in the source and must be Mathsci's original research: it is certainly a coatrack.  Mathsci airly refers to other sources, such as a video, which he has refused to cite in discussion or in the article.  All in all, this does not meet the high standards of BLP.
 * Mathsci asks rhetorically what is irking this user. What irks this user, as he knows full well, is Mathsci's attempting to assert ownership over this article, riding roughshod over Wikipedia policy and last but not least Mathsci's bullying attitude.
 * The issue is not whether Dunning-Davies is connected with fringe science: it is whether this has been established to the standards BLP policy. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are various pieces of information available, the most important being the presence of Dunning-Davies on the two websites attached to Santilli. These change every few months, I suppose because there are disagreements between Santilli, Myron Evans, Fucilla and possibly Dunning-Davies. However, at present Dunning-Davies is listed on the website. The other information can be found in the articles Dunning-Davies writes promoting Santilli's iso-mathematics and geno-mathematics (which is some of the worst pseudoscience out there). There is also the video above and other videos showing Dunning-Davies at the award ceremonies. If Dunning-Davies has publicly let it be known that he is attached to such institutions, which by their very nature are not recorded or recognized by any mainstream academic institution, this is unfortunately all we can go on. My personal feeling is that Dunning-Davies, or for that matter Ruggero Santilli, do not have sufficient notability to have BLPs on WP, except for their fringe science/pseudoscience notability/notoriety, Since fringe science and pseudoscience are reported on wikipedia, BLPs of this type will always generate this type of difficulty. The problem is often that these people or their cronies are the originators of these BLPs; the subjects are often shameless self-publicists. Another example is Florentin Smarandache, who again is connected with the same circle of fringe physicists. There is no original research or synthesis here:

Dunning-Davies is also connected with web organisations devoted to fringe science, in particular "hadronic mechanics", the subject invented by Ruggero Santilli.
 * Perhaps A.K.Nole was unaware that this BLP is periodically edited by people like Francesco Fucilla, so it is under constant watch. WP:OWN doesn't come into this. The problem is to avoid wikilawyering instead of using the normal sources for fringe science or pseudoscience, which by the nature of the subject are problematic. One example of how to deal with this is Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory. Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no original research or synthesis here". Excuse me?  Does Mathsci really believe that the reader will go a series of (uncited) web sites, somehow know that they are attached to Santilli, then read and somehow understand papers on advanced physics and mathematics?  Of course not, that's what Mathsci did, and that's OR and SYNTH.  How does Mathsci's text and his explanation here not violate WP:OR: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors?  How can an article requiring such a lengthy explanation not violate Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources?  How does Mathsci not violate drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources?  How does the text not violate WP:BLP: Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association?
 * Let me be quite clear. I do not know and make no assertion about whether Dunning-Davies is mainstream, fringe, or off the map (contrary to the misleading section heading chosen by Mathsci).  I say that no acceptable reliable secondary source has been adduced for any such assertion.  I say that this article is a clear violation of BLP and I say that Mathsci has failed in the obligation to be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.  This is not wikilawyering, it is core policy.  A.K.Nole (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The rhetoric is getting a bit heated on all sides -- let's turn down the temperature, can we? I agree that the sentence in question creates a weighting issue even if it is correct, but since the article appears to be on its way to deletion anyway, this is not a problem of vast urgency. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try FRINGE. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some time in the future A.K.Nole might develop a better understanding of the academic world of science and the British university system. His remarks seem completely clueless at the moment.
 * My own personal feeling is that it is better just to have articles on specific topics in fringe science/pseudoscience, provided that they have already been properly assessed in the mainstream literature by recognized academics. Unfortunately it is often the case that the flawed science can be spotted by an average undergraduate, so, with errors that bad, there is no a priori guarantee of suitable scientific criticism. BLPs on the people involved are probably not the way to go. This is just my own WP experience with this type of fringe science. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made the points I wished to and Mathsci does not address them. I leave it to other readers of this page to decide whether the first paragraph of the posting above is anything other than a personal attack.  A.K.Nole (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To A. K. Nole: I would call it more of an unfavorable characterization with respect to editing the article. Wiki requires a thick skin.
 * I will comment on the AfD. Awickert (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very hard for me to WP:AGF with after his undisguised attempt at WP:BAITing on my own talk page .  Any more silly remarks of this nature and A.K.Nole could find his editing privileges curtailed. On the other hand that kind of foolish edit tells us quite a bit about A.K.Nole. If he has any further comments, he should make them at Usernames_for_administrator_attention, although at his own extreme risk.  Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This unsourced and incorrect change to a redirect shows that A.K.Nole is up to no good. The trademark he is thinking of is MathSciNet (note the captalization) already mentioned by me on the deletion page. OTOH, WP:DFTT. Yawn.  Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MathSci's remarks are, as s/he admits, off-topic: s/he is demonstrably incorrect about the trademark issue.   A.K.Nole (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The username issue is utterly bogus. Raising such issues in order to gain points in a debate about something else is generally considered disruptive editing, if not stalking.  You are advised to reconsider your approach here. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The username issue and A.K.Nole's subsequent edits have now been raised at WP:ANI. The discussion here about fringe physics is completely independent of his machinations elsewhere on the wikipedia. I have simply stated that I cannot assume he is editing in good faith any more. There is no debate to be won or lost here to my knowledge. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TELESIO GALILEI AIAS    REPLY to WIKIWAKOS!!! http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html 86.158.11.60 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.telesio-galilei.com/theDarkCaseOfWikipedia/wikipedia00.html
 * Someone clearly HAS FAR too MUCH time on THEIR hands. (even reading 3 pages is contagious it seems) Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)