Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 18

Category:Anomalous phenomena
Ran across this category; it seems to imply that such things as Spirit photography and Apport have no explanation? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Nominated at CfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Behe
We have an editor here who seems to have a hearing problem regarding due weight, and also what type of material belongs in a biography. IMO, lengthy quotes about defenses of books that have their own page do not. It's a tremendous amount added -- 11,000 byes in a now 58,000 byte article -- that throws off the balance of the article when it comes to FRINGE theory. Unfortunately, that is what User:Swood100 has done. Maybe I'm not getting through. Opinions? Auntie E. (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, on it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the section "A Simple Request" on the Behe talk page.--Swood100 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis
Creation according to Genesis is under a creationist attack and needs a few more eyes. Apparently it is not OK to state the literary genre to which the creation story in Genesis belongs without any doubt, because its name creation myth has dangerous, anti-creationist pro-science overtones that might hurt innocent children. (No, I am not just being sarcastic. One reason given for the censorship was: "The agenda of the non-believers vs believers is to shape the minds of the innocent who read this article.") The article is currently protected in a stupid version that suggests most Christians and Jews are creationists and stresses the colloquial sense of "myth" in "creation myth" contrary to WP:WTA. Hans Adler 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this but it sounds as if a pro-Bible editor just stated the motivation that many ant-Bible people probably try to hide, that of protecting the reader from stuff we know to be wrong and dangerous. Wikipedia is not supposed to protect people from prominent, non-frivolous POV. That is, if enough people claim to believe something it is likely to be relevant to understanding the human thought on the topic. In cases where beliefs are strong, I guess you would try to appeal to source prominence but then you need to start picking based on "reliability" and relevance. Personally I'm not sure I want to get into a discussion over purely words- I'm sure "myth" has been discussed here in many acrchived discussions but presumably its applicability rests either with the reliable sources usages or a wikipedian declared definition. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be a dawdle to find a WP:RS stating that Genesis is a creation myth. I have at least one on my magazine shelf at home. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you need to end up considering the entire body of sources.You see this in hard sciences too- you can find a few sources that say things with great confidence, others of course are more critical. So, sure, you can find sources to establish notability etc but then argue over due weight. I'm sure this has been hashed and rehashed several times but I still think there is a bit of an anti-religion bias due to trying to help the reader with the "right" POV. This is a common issue, not just an issue with religion, but each time I hope to make some progress in broader understanding. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WTA is pretty clear what definition should be used... and that is the one I and the sources available to me would confirm. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

this is a non-issue. This sort of ideological pov-pushing is pretty much rollback-able, and then there is WP:3RR. I don't see there is even anything to discuss. --dab (𒁳) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unintended consequences of equivocal wording are good things to consider. In this case, however, the unintended consequence of the word, "myth" is that people coming away from the article might believe that there are aspects of the story that are untrue. Of course, there are aspects of the story that are untrue, so the unintended consequence in this case is actually a positive outcome (unlike, for example, in calling something a conspiracy theory where someone might come away from the article thinking that it is a legitimate scientific theory). I fail to see what the harm is at all in calling Genesis a creation myth and have only seen documented benefits. Is there something I'm missing? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just skimming it, the first sentence is probably fine as it attributes the myth term to one group of people, scientists, which would seem to avoid making a merit determination beyond what the sources probably say. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The myth term is used by more than just "scholars" or "scientists". This is actually a classic case of inappropriate particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern I had was simply that it may have been stated as fact that the story is universally accepted as not accurate given that there are prominent adherent to the idea. Haggling over adjectives could be a waste but maybe just saying "non-believers" or enumerating the more prominent myth-callers would be fine. Certainly it would have the potential to turn into something almost mocking, " ... while being regarded as a creation myth by scientists, scholars, atheists, democrats, astrologers, butchers,bakers, and canlestick makers etc." At some point, you could argue relevance I guess but even an extensive list of reliable critics wouldn't be objectionable, I am just not sure you would have an easy time making a factual statement appear to be universally accepted. In an article  on evolution/big bang of course, this wouldn't need to be mentioned in much if any detail ( something about see also alternative theories of creation etc) . Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with stating or implying that the story is not literally true, since the "theory" that it's literally true is nothing more than a fringe theory. In the context of this article their are two relevant academic communities for this claim: Scientists and Christian/Jewish theologians. Creationism is fringe among both.
 * What we can't do is put undue weight on the fact that it's not a literally true story, but just saying in the first sentence that it's a creation myth (a technical term with a precise meaning, i.e. describing a literary genre, which is universally applied to this particular narrative) definitely doesn't amount to that.
 * We did, but then the sentence was replaced by nonsense and the article protected on the wrong version. The article now starts with a nonsense passage that claims a contradiction between Jews/Christians (note: not some, but by implication most or all) and scholars. The only way this contradiction would make sense would be if most Jews/Christians were creationists and scholars used the term "creation myth" as a synonym for the "creationist falsity", which they very obviously don't. Hans Adler 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To Mr. Adler and Science Apologist: Wikipedia was envisioned specificaly to be a neutral platform. A warzone for you to continue your relentless anti-religious war to dictate your own personal opinions expressed above to all readers of diverse faiths, is the precise logical opposite of a neutral platform.  I have a strong feeling this latest manouevere of yours is going to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales in the very near future. I happen to know it is the very antithesis of everything he ever intended.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, please bring it to Jimbo. Auntie E. (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recently wrote on Talk:Africa: "Africa is the kind of place where your reputation precedes you. Jimbo Wales has recently expressed great concern with expanding Wikipedia's reputation among Africans, and English Wikipedia is one of the most looked-at examples. It needs to drop the saying "Wikipedia: we'll tell you what to believe" if it is to be taken seriously, and it also must strive to be truly NPOV with attributing beliefs to what sector they originate in." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, your argument is that Africans don't like Wikipedia because people of diverse faiths want to keep the facts that, for example, the Earth is older that 6000 years segregated as "according to science"? That sounds to me like a ridiculous orientalist canard of the sort that used be trotted out by British imperialists when they argued for the partition of India since "different believers couldn't possibly live in the same country". Of course, this prejudice you exhibit is directed toward an entire continent. Impressive, to say the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That red-herring and strawman argument is typical of the logic you have shown throughout. At least you're consistent. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who described Africa as "the kind of place where your reputation precedes you." I suppose that characterization applies from Cape Town to Casablanca, eh? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? The way you twisted my argument from that observation does not logically follow. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That "observation" is a stereotype. Plain and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if you seriously want wikipedia to be a vehicle for you to tell the world which beliefs they may hold by your leave, and which ones you deem to be false, you're gong to get a well-deserved reputation. Not just in Africa, either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If people leave Wikipedia with a belief that it is a fact that the Earth is older than 6000 years, we have done our job well. Not just in Africa, neither. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That;s because you see your "job" as pushing your own POV and trying to alter what people believe, not simply describing what people actually believe in NPOV terms. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikipedia should conform to what reliable, third-party independent sources say about subjects. If people alter what they believe to become better informed about a subject, then we've done our job well. The facts may disturb them and they may disagree with those facts, but that doesn't make them any less factual nor does it remove our obligation to present them as facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think whatever you please, but there are a spectrum of other editor here who feel we should attribute all POVs carefully per NPOV policy and not co-opt the project with polemic of one POV directed at another. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOV policy is pretty unequivocal: In a given article, all viewpoints aren't notable enough to warrant mention. See WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, etc. Gabbe (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabbe is right. Not all POVs are equal and not all deserve the same treatment. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is a pit of small minority and fringe viewpoints, as well as original research. The terminology matter is a pittance compared to the fundamental issues with the article, though it is indicative of the underlying problem. To take but one "obvious" example: The difference between the two creation accounts is one the main scholarly subtopics and widely accepted. Despite that, it is given extreme short shrift and the main viewpoint of the article gives the impression that they are alternative tellings/harmonized accounts. There are much bigger things to worry about here than what labels to use. Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting with the title. Blech. Who calls it that? Totally against MOS. Auntie E. (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I am not worried by the title. So far as I am concerned it's an OK descriptive title. Which part of MOS would you say it's against? Hans Adler 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. As far as I know the distinction between two original narratives that were spliced together (an earlier Elohist one and a later Jahwist one) is pretty standard and should really be made clear in this article. Hans Adler 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's curious, because the article on the Documentary hypothesis says just the opposite: that the J/E source distinction is tending to disappear in more modern analysis. There's a real problem in trying to "put this on a more scholarly basis" in that (if my from something of a distance following is at all accurate) the state of the field isn't very stable, and therefore the sources as to what that state is are not generally reliable-- at least, the touchstone of scholarly publication isn't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana and Hans Adler, the latest attempts to "sanitize" the article to conform with fundamentalist religionist viewpoints may be a good thing because it draws our attention to the fact that the same thing has been going on, more discreetly, for some time. The article needs to be put on a solid scholarly basis. This will also make deteriorating it more difficult. As for the title, "[the] Creation according to Genesis" is a perfectly common descriptor and there is no need to change it. I just note that Book of Genesis also needs more loving watchers. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ed for stray return ) Yes, and the objective here is to document human thought as accurately as possible, so good scholarship dictates that you mention ( in a relevant article ) that some people believe, or at least claim to believe in, the factual accuracy of the account to some degrees and that at times it has been the mainstream view within some communities. I don't see how you can pass off fundamentalism as a non-prominent view, it is in the news quite often and has historically come up a few times. No one is asking for endorsement, just achievement of scholarly goasl of documenting human thought and not restricting that to a group you just know has to be right. Generally I don't think the articles have been that bad in the cases I've actually examined, but some of the comments on talk pages do tend to be militant and suggest POV pushing but that is not usually realized in many articles. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nerd, you need to read WP:UNDUE. Religious fundamentalism can and should be discussed in articles on religious fundamentalism. But it is UNDUE to create tangents on 19th to 20th century religious movements in an article dedicated to a 5th century BC text. The fact that the bible is relevant in a discussion of Christian fundamentalism doesn't imply that Christian fundamentalism is relevant in a discussion of the bible, that assumption of yours is a simple logical fallacy. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then who cares what 20th century scientists think? It isn't based on logic as much as sources and policies. If you discuss what modern scholars think it would seem fundamentalists have a relevant and prominent opinion. There are probably more fundamentalists that make more news than knowledgable scholars re this text. Now, if you want to compare prominence of Dawkins, who probably knows very little about this, and his community to an obscure fundamentalist sect then your prominence argument would change. This is one subjective area where communities can be defined to create a prominence that gives the reader the "right POV" and I'm not sure this is correct or good. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so your saying in articles about the Bible, the POV of groups who claim to adhere to it does not need to be given as much consideration as those of the groups that would dictate to them how they are "supposed" to be interpreting it. My point is that this is having an inverse reaction across the board in terms of English wikipedia's reputation, which is exactly why .en is now known in many places by the tag-line "Wikipedia: We'll tell you what to believe".  Just the polar opposite of what was originally intended by NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's precisely what the content policies (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV) tells us to do. In articles on Christianity, for example, we should report what most experts say about Christianity. Whether these experts are themselves Christians is irrelevant. By contrast, what non-experts (again, regardless of whether these non-experts are Christians or not) say should typically be omitted. Same goes with that which only a small minority of experts say. Gabbe (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) The Quran doesn't get the kind of special treatment you have in mind, the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't get it, and neither does the Bible. (2) Even if it did: Creationism is fringe even among Christians. Unless you want to restrict POV consideration further so that just Americans count. Hans Adler 12:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Quran should certainly get treated more neutrally, as it represents a significant POV in the world. I don't know about the other thing you named being a significant POV.  Nice try on the strawman, but I never suggested that "just AMericans count", that is another totally illogical and emotion-based fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, that's another thing that needs to be brought up with Jimbo: the repeated use of Wikipedia to perpetuate your false stereotype that you desperately wish was true, that those who follow the Bible, consist primarily of rural, uneducated Americans who drool tobacco-juice in their beards. Africa totally gives the lie to that stereotype, so that lie doesn't wash over there either.  But when I try to do something about the tag at the top of Young Earth Creationism, to address the imbalance and point out just how widespread YEC is in the Middle East, I am promptly reverted with a pretext, because the facts expose this backwards sterotype for what it is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend entering a discussion with Til Eulenspiegel who (formerly known as User:Codex Sinaiticus) has managed to pull this Refusal to Get It for literally years on end. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time to start a user:RfC. I haven't seen someone make so many offensive comments for years. It's the kind of attitude that only disruptive editors have. What has he done to improve the encyclopedia? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * to be fair he does a lot of useful cleanup edits, vandalism reverts, etc. I have just often wondered if that suffices to counterbalance the time he wastes with his equation of "following the bible" and "all-out crackpot young earth creationism slash biblical literalism". --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

related issues, historicity of Moses etc.
Please also look into Mosaic authorship and Moses and The Exodus please, while you're at it. It is, to the best of my knowledge, beyond reasonable dispute that the Tanakh Torah is a 6th to 5th c.BC compilation, which includes fragments of earlier accounts, perhaps as old as the 10th c. BC. This "older fragments" point is perfectly normal in ancient texts dealing with mythology and/or religion, just as you have the Rigveda which was compiled in the 10th c. BC but can include fragments as much as 5 centuries older, or the Iliad which was composed in the 7th c. BC or so, but can include fragments as much as 5 centuries older. Five centuries appears to be a sort of natural lifetime for poetic fragments in oral tradition. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Tanakh is held to be a late composite even in the most naive theory of its construction. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in mentioning it. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

strike Tanakh, I meant Torah (Pentateuch), sorry. --dab (𒁳) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Central issue in the notion of fringiness here
The biggest problem I'm seeing here is getting a reliable source for surveying the field. My impression for some time is that any random scholar in the field is likely to unreliable because the tendency is for each of them to say that their theory is state-of-the-art and the others are all being left behind. That also seems to be an issue in the Shakespeare question above. The question of what is a fringe view in a field where there is a lot of controversy (itself a difficult issue) is something we need a better approach in answering. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories are really not all that difficult. Some guy or small group comes up with an idea that gets enough intention to be notable but is viewed by most people with common sense as unimportant, inconsistent with established facts, untestable, or even symptomatic of mild psychosis.  In a perfect world, we would write an article that describes this person/group's idea, pause a moment in wonderment at the complexity of the human imagination, and move on to other things.  unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the fence who make that impossible: advocates who are dead set on advancing their favorite fringe idea as a semi-mystical truth, and skeptics who are dedicated to the programmatic destruction of every idea that doesn't meet their (rather ill-defined) standards.  This myth thing is a perfect example - on on side you have a few (assumedly religious) people who object to the term 'myth' because it implies a certain degree of falsehood and thus calls their faith into question. A true enough statement, if a bit over sensitive.  on the other side you have people who are obsessed with retaining the word 'myth' for the sketchiest of reasons.  anyone on the skeptic side who used common sense would shrug and let 'story' be used since it reall y makes no difference to the article; anyone on the religious side who used common sense would never raise the question in the first place.  and so we end up with a situation where both sides are insisting that the other side use common sense when they are not willing to use common sense on their own part.


 * very sad... -- Ludwigs 2  17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking just the opposite, that is we don't really need a catagory called "Fringe" for wikipedia, just varying degrees of prominence. Common sense of course is no better than calling someone an idiot, and indeed some ideas have been too obvious to test and people with "common sense" needn't look beyond the obvious for answers. My favorite example of common sense is quantum stuff- come one, something has to be either a particle or a wave, not both, common sense tells us that. History is not testable. And, sure, personally, after considering all the human history of which I am aware including behavior among scientists, and reading some of Dawkins' stuff, I find it hard to dismiss religion and certainly not with the zeal many folks have. If we were trying to approach merit, then ok we could all make different arguments about how to write an article but we aren't supposed to inflict good intentions onto an article AFAIK. If you were writing a dictionary, sure you put the commonests defs first and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But you don't usually say, " but this defintion is wrong" and I don't think the encyclopedia would do that either. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we disagree at all, actually - we're just talking at the issue from different angles. I am indifferent to the 'fringe' label (since I'm mostly concerned with accurate presentation of the ideas, and 'fringe' is itself a reasonably acute word for at least some of these topics), but I get annoyed at editors who keep trying to use to concept as a club to to attack ideas they disrespect.  the 'varying degrees of prominence' approach causes some problems - there are theories I know of that are notable, but so far off the deep end that you can't really lump them in with scientific theories without doing an injustice.  that's not a question of prominence, but rather a different classification entirely. for example, I can't imagine that we'd want to include flat earth theory as a viable, but extremely non-prominent theory in any scientific discipline.  It's just doesn't fit any of the observable scientific evidence.  I don't think that's an excuse to jump all over the topic, as some editors are wont to, but I do think it should be kept separate as a different class of idea.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

guys, this is a noticeboard. For the discussion of handling fringe theories on Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. For discussion of the notion of "fringe theory" in general, try Talk:Fringe theory. --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * been there, done that. didn't even get a t-shirt.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd give you a tee-shirt, Ludwigs2, if I had one to give. You were a good collaborator there. I agree with dab, though. It's best not to have these meta discussions here. Maybe we should archive this to WT:FTN? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree too, I was just joking around. probably best bot to do that here either, however.    let's consider this closed, unless Nerdseeksblonde want's to pick it up on one of the other pages.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll decline, I'm still looking for more specific examples like this. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus versus Horus comparisons
There is an ongoing dispute on the article of the Egyptian god Horus. There several authors have subscribed to a theory that Horus and Jesus share many similarities, which has used as evidence of the Christ myth theory. This comparison was made in the Bill Maher film Religulous, as well as several articles and books published over the last 150 years (the full list of sources is here. There has not been much in the way of academic response, except for an article found on the History News Network:  My question is, does this theory qualify as a "fringe theory," which means that it should be ignored entirely?  Or is it worthy of inclusion in the Horus article, including whatever response there is from the academic community?  ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, being fringe does not mean that a theory should be ignored entirely. fringe is just a designation for theories that need to be handled somewhat differently due to sourcing problems.  Theories should always be presented according to their prominence in reliable academic or journalistic sources.


 * The Christ Myth theory (and its equivalents) are certainly notable theories, but I'm not sure how pertinent they would be on a page about Horus. Generally that kind of reasoning is applied to Christian philosophy (which is why it's called the Christ Myth theory, rather then the Horus Myth theory).  if it has the kind of sourcing that you suggest above, I'd say it may deserve some small mention in the article, but nothing too excessive.  I can't really say more than that, though - not really a subject I know well.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I feel like my mistake was basing the comparison on the Christ Myth theory, as opposed to the (reliably sourced) similarities in Christian and Egyptian iconography (Mary/Jesus similarities to Isis/Horus). What I've been grappling with was the way to go about sourcing something where the obviously fallacious side was the only thing represented by mainstream sources. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't so "fringe" as to be "wholly inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually spent quite a bit of time researching this a year or two ago and I came to the conclusion that it is garbage. There are few if any similarities.


 * Common claims are Jesus is a solar deity with evidence such as the "Son of Man" really means the "Sun of Man. However, this ONLY works in the english language which has pagan roots to its origin as a language. As we all know the Bible was not written in English originally but in Hebrew and Greek and the original hebrew does not have any connection to the sun and thus does not back this theory up. Also the Bible in numerous places condemns worship of the sun and "baalim" (which is also the sun).


 * The other one was the 25th of December being an ancient pagan holiday. However, the Bible does not anywhere reference the 25th of December nor even say that the birth of Christ should be a holiday or celebrated. The origins of Christmas is from when the Roman Empire for its own surival as well as to establish the Catholic church had to find a way of bringing pagans into Christianity so they kept the pagan holidays but "Christianised" them. That is why we have the pagan Christmas tree, which represents fertility if I remember correctly and other pagan themes associated with Christmas. Infact some Christian denominations do not even celebrate Christmas for this reason.


 * Another claim is that the word Jesus comes from "isis", however, that is due to translation changes between hebrew and greek and then english. In hebrew the name of jesus was Yashua, which sounds nothing like isis. So again debunked.


 * A lot of these claims are made based on playing with english versions of the Bible rather than the original language and ignorance of the history of Christianity. These comparisons between horus and Jesus have very little ancient or modern scholarly support.


 * Other claims about horus are patently false. This is without doubt fringe and in many cases an outright fabrication of historical knowledge of ancient Egypt. This theory is doing its rounds on the likes of Youtube and conspiracy forums due to conspiracy films which have used very weak sources by dubious people who have come up with a "new theory".


 * Not all churches portray Jesus the child in the arms of Mary the mother. This portrayal is largely unique to Roman Catholicism and in part triggered the protestant reformation which itself is widely documented historical event including its scriptural "protests". This is just pseudohistory these links with horus. I can see why people believe it, it is easy to believe pseudohistory and conspiracy theories at first glance if one is ignorant of the subject matter.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

the problem is not with comparing Jesus and Horus, which is perfectly straightforward if you use proper academic references from religious studies. The entire problem is that people will insist on using pop culture sources like Christ myth theory or Religulous instead of proper academic ones. Help Wikipedia by insisting on WP:RS! Jesus and Horus are not items of pop culture but of religion, hence the only permissible secondary sources should be academic publications from the field of theology and religious study. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfunctory qualification: unless the pop-culture usage is notable in its own right. it isn't in this case, but I want to make it clear that it's a notability issue, not just a reliable source issue. -- Ludwigs 2  09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * in that case, stick it in Category:In popular culture and ask people to stop pretending it's a serious religious debate. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Marina Warner makes the comparison in terms of mother-and-child iconography in Alone of All her Sex. Not a theology book, cross-over from scholarship to wider audience, but could be notable enough to mention? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's total junk historiography. I think, if this were to be included in the Horus article (and I still think it should), it needs to be based, primarily, on academic and religious observations -- such as the comparisons of iconography between Isis/Horus and Mary/Jesus (seen in the Black Madonna article).  I think the Christ Myth thing deserves a mention, but nothing more a sentence or two...because the problem is, even though it's conflated idiocy, it's a claim that's been promoted by several notable individuals, and it warrants some response.  I don't think I'd ever use any of those sources as evidence that yes, in fact, there is a reasonable similarity between the two.  But, at the same time, the notion is far too popular to be ignored entirely.  I mean, I think entire articles have been constructed around more dubious references, to be perfectly honest.  To just drop in a few lines about this comparison would help...because otherwise people will just confirm this myth elsewhere (such as religioustolerance.org). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if an individaul is notable (for example we would not use George Cloony as a source for thermo dynbamcics), what matters is their notablility in the field they are being used for (We would use him as a source for the movie industry).Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality of William Shakespeare
There is a section on the Shakespeare biography which conjecturers on Shakespeare's sexuality based on dubious research that was sponsored by a small number of proactive gay rights intellectuals. They never conclude or prove or show any primary material or secondary research that Shakespeare was queer, What is known is that he was married and had three children. These facts have been continually pointed out on the main entries talk section and are never answered, and yet the editors of the page insist on including this baseless section, without answering any of the factual issues, It is a non-neutral segment which misleads reads about Shakespeare.

Mrbrklyn (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn


 * This is a well-established theory in English literature - not the most prominent view, but not fringe by a long shot. I had a professor discussing this back when I took an undergrad english lit course, and that was a good long time ago.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Ludwigs2 is right about this. Now, that being said, most English profs consider it a non-verifiable conjecture, more of an interesting thought puzzle than anything else.Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this is "well-established" or should get more than passing mention under WP:DUE. The point is simply that when you have an entire literary establishment obsess over a single author for 400 years, there will be nothing that was not at some point said about him. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmm... I wonder if anyone ever claimed he was a space alien?  I don't really disagree with you (and lit is not my field) but I do know there is enough academic writing on the subject that it can't be dismissed outright.  besides, when was the last time you wrote a sonnet to some nice young person of the same sex?  -- Ludwigs 2  09:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. A reasonable approach would be to simply point out the homoerotic aspects in a discussion of the Sonnets. But trust to it that Wikipedia will come up with a dedicated, painful Sexuality of William Shakespeare article, complete with a section entitled "Possible homoeroticism". I am not sure if I am the only one who thinks that any grown-up educated reader will consider this involuntary wiki-comedy. Perhaps the laws of Wikipedia should be expanded by "you cannot parody Wikipedia". And a corollary, "if you do parody Wikipedia, Wikipedia will grow a long and tedious article discussing your parody." --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shrug. This is what happens you have encyclopedia-writing-by-interest-group. It's a right pain in the backside and is mostly a product of systemic bias. I shouldn't think there's much we can do. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it's just interesting who we have in Category:Sexuality of individuals. What do Jesus, Hitler, Elvis and Shakespeare have in common? Their sexuality is scrutinized in dedicated Wikipedia articles.
 * But I don't mind either. The "Sexuality of WS" article is accurate enough, and if somebody wants to read it, they will walk away with more or less the right impression. It's not a problem. (back to Jat people!). --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That said, while this one isn't too bad, Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell is so awful someone's put it up for AFD, and Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is truly terrible. It appears to be based on a one-off comment in a 1926 biography, a recent hoax by a gay rights activist, and a recent book by a student of Kinsey who was also...you guessed it...a gay rights activist. That such terrible scholarship gets any acceptance is definitely a sad indictment of something or other. Moreschi (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm currently working with the same issue in The Hardy Boys; apparently Frank and Joe had the hots for each other. Again, there's a single book behind the thesis, though there is ample documentation of gay fantasizing. There seems to be some rule of academic publishing (or at least publishing) that any homosexual speculation about any random thing is noteworthy. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, this is straying into a broader critique of wikipedia (one that i agree with, mind you, but...). for the vast majority of wikipedia editors, wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather a collection of more-or-less carefully written blogs about particular topics of interest.  trying to get NPOV within an article is tough but doable; trying to get NPOV across articles is darn near impossible, because almost no one recognizes creoss-article NPOV as a meaningful concept.  that picture & caption cracks me up, by the way.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't want to know how much time I spent on it. And the funny thing is that my amateur art scholarship seems to show that it's a fake emerging out of the post-WW-II art market fog. I, however, am not a reliable source. Mangoe (talk)
 * Holy crap, what an article. Referring to the Hardy Boys. The lede is full of phrases like "agents of the adult ruling class" and the reason it's a popular series is due to its "American ideals of white masculinity" ," a paradoxically powerful but inept father" and "homoromance". "Fun to read" didn't make the list. This is why I don't do WP:FICTION. LitCrit makes as much sense as Hoodoo. Fuck that shit. Auntie E. (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, yeeeee. going from this conversation to the Hardy Boys page makes that picture in the lead take on all sorts of unwholesome connotations.  all it needs is for the boy in blue to grab the other one's hips, and we'd be off into an entirely different genre.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there does seem to be some criticism out there which addresses it from a literary perspective (as opposed to using it for sexual or political fantasizing). As it is, the criticism section comes almost entirely from a LGBTQ (with particular emphasis on the Q) milieu. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically what it comes down to is that Shakespeare dedicated a whole whack of some of the best love poems ever written to his male patron. People have inferred a relationship from that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fringe theory article
I've removed twice reference to the "Shakespeare authorship question" from this page as I believe it is a very poor example, and requires undue prominence to be explained properly in the (very) short article. It also seems to be a spreading of a disagreement from other pages. The Apollo moon hoax is a better example to my mind, but without good reason I don't think we should be littering the page with examples. We already have the list of pseudosciences for similar things. Review, opinions, compromises, etc welcome on the talk page (as usual). And it's nice to see you all again. Best, Verbal chat  09:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a good example, except that one of Wikipedia's "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" advocates refuses to accept it as such. So yes, the article is better off without it as modified by a fringe theory advocates. - Nunh-huh 10:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand there's supposed to be a difference between fringe and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. I would put the anti-Stratfordians in the first category and moon-hoaxers in the second. This makes the Shakespeare authorship article a better example. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both "batshit crazy", to use your colourful metaphor, to anyone in the relevant field. ;) More laymen are likely to have heard of the apollo hoax (and quite a few, unfortunately, believe it) than have even heard of the ridiculous Shakespeare question. Verbal  chat  14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

( edit concflict)
 * The problem here is distinguishing merit from promience, "fringe" generally refers to quantity of supporters not the quality of their thinking. In any case histoory is not testable, at least not the same way scientific theories are. You can always find some reason to doubt or believe a given piece of information and can't reproduce history without a time machine. The goal of the encyclopedia is to document human thought, not settle arguments or add new ideas. The reader may have interest in factual merit of a topic or reasonably want to know what the overall thinking is for the purpose of doing his own research of some type that fits into what is currently known( if you ignore dead ends they tend to keep re-surfacing and someone has to go to effort to find the old results, play with them, and probably conclude what others have concluded but only after a lot of wasted time. ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The fringe theory article should indeed make the distinction between fringe-within-academia and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. Many items move from the former into the latter category over time, when a formerly arguable academic hypothesis becomes solidly refuted but lives on in crank publications. A useful criterion is that academic mainstream may be wrong at any given moment but forces itself to make progress over time, while fields of crackpottery simply grow weirder over time, possibly fracturing into subsects but never making any progress. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the distinction as described by dab should be made. And Nerdseeksablonde makes reasonable points as well. I am concerned by the characterizations made by Verbal in that he/she seems to be unaware of the number of academics (including hundreds of English Lit professors) that do, in fact question the traditional attribution. Several colleges now teach courses on the subject. I doubt that can be said about moon landing hoaxes. At least now I understand the reverts made by Verbal, who is obviously very opinionated about the issue, as am I. It would be interesting to hear from non-aligned editors about this particular edit, as stratfordians such as Verbal and Nunh-huh, and Anti-stratfordians such as I are (obviously) pretty entrenched! :) Smatprt (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep your opinions about others to yourself. I am not a "Stratfordian", I'm simply not an idiot. If respectable research shows there to be a likelihood of alternative authorship, then fine. This hasn't yet happened and it is a very minor fringe theory pursued by cranks rather than anyone with standing in the field. The fringe theory article is not a list of examples, and nor should it become one. Verbal  chat  15:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow - calm down. I didn't mean to offend, but of the two sides, you certainly have come down on the Stratfordian side. That was not an insult. But calling me a crank or implying stupidity is not needed. According to your definition, 1/3rd of the Supreme court, Freud, Walt Whitman, Henry James, hundreds of college professors and thousands of others are cranks or stupid? Can we avoid the name calling and just stick to the question? I think it is pretty clear where you and I stand - which is why I asked for some non-aligned editors to weigh in, which they have. Again - sorry for any perceived insult.Smatprt (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, being called a "Stratfordian" is a little like being called a "round-earther": the implication that someone who calls you that is that there's two equal camps, when in actuality, there's just the one that's rational, and you're in the right one. - Nunh-huh 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thie implication is two equal camps? Where on earth did you get that. If that were the implication, then this wouldn't be fringe it would just be two regular articles of opposing viewpoints, which is obviously not the case. Nunh-huh was one of the most srtident editors who actually tried to censor all discussion of the subject completely, and failed for obvious reasons. When the leading Shakespeare scholars of the day, including Wells, Matus, Shoenbaum, all devote chapters in their latest books to the subject, even to dismiss it, the issue certainly deserves coverage. Call it minority viewpoint, alternative view, fringe theory, whatever - there is no doubt of its status.Smatprt (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to agree that the Shakespearean authorship thing would qualify as an example of the fringe-within-academia category, while the Apollo hoax stuff is solidly in the off-the-wall-batshit-crazy one. Verbal, the question is not "is there likelihood of alternative authorship" but "has this question been detailed in academic debate". --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is, should it be included in the article, and I see no reason why this example is better than millions of others - and this is not a list article. I think they're both silly, and both have had "serious" academic study of similar level. Verbal chat  16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The goal of the article in question is to explain to our readers what a "Fringe therory" is. The examples we use should work towards that goal.  So, if there a better example than the Shakespeare one, I have no problem with swapping it in.  If not... leave it. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * nobody tried to make it a list article, but to my mind Shakespeare authorship question is an excellent example of a fringe theory, quite opposed to the Apollo moon hoax which is not a fringe theory in the classical sense so much as random nonsense dreamed up on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that both are actually prime examples of fringe theories. The only difference is that the Shakespeare Authorship fringe theory originates from academic cranks while the Apollo landing hoax fringe theory originates from more random cranks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Apollo moon hoax pre-dates the internet. Better examples may be 9/11 conspiracy theories, homeopathy and other unscientific medical theories, anti-vaccination campaigns, etc etc. Verbal  chat  16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cold fusion would make a much better example, also. Verbal chat  17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Shakespeare authorship issues can be cosidered "fringe within academia". It has consistently been promoted by amateurs, and support within academia, even taken in a broad sense, is vanishingly small. However it is a good example for the article, precisely because it has been promoted for so long. It is possibly the most 'venerable' and persistent example of a fringe theory, the mother of them all. It does not require detailed explanation. Only certain editors' desire to muddy the waters creates t5hat impression. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd need to see RS to support that contention, and If that is the case then it may be a good example. However, Cold fusion is well known, had serious research, and is still researched by some groups while being clearly in the "fringe" camp (at the moment, not judging here). Cold fusion would be a much better example that can be supported by references, whereas the Shakespeare question is mostly amateurs. Verbal chat  17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this at talk, but that very brief conversation was unfortunately cut off. At the policy page it states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Also "Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." Unfortunately, the article does not convey this broadness very well. And that was the point of my edit, and to show that some theories receive increasing support, as is the case with this one. I would think that different examples would help make those points. I had agreed to a rewrite of my original edit with a regular editor of this page so I thought things were good. After looking at the article again, I tried a slightly different edit - instead of lumping it with plate tectonics, I used it as an example of a "novel re-interpretations of history]]". Is this better? Smatprt (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your goals seem to be to get Wikipedia to endorse your position, when the goal of the page in question is to define fringe theories correctly. Your view on what is fringe in this case doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, and since you won't let the authorship question stand as an example of fringe theory, it seems we can't use it. - Nunh-huh 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wo - I'm not sure what it is you are saying so it makes a reply difficult. I certainly am not asking or expecting Wikipedia to endorse anything so your first sentence makes no sense. I do think there is great confusion over the word "fringe" (wiki editors understand the broad usage, but general readers do not). Is that what you are referring to? Smatprt (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There are very few academics who feel that there is solid evidence that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote those plays. But there are lots of academics who feel that the information we have about Shakespeare's life is too sparse to permit certainty one way or another. So I am inclined to agree that this is not a good example for the Fringe Theory article. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is incorrect. There are very few academics who think there is some uncertainly about who wrote Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looie496 is a bit more accurate. Solid evidence is lacking, but there is plenty of uncertainty to go around. But remember the very broad definition here on Wiki: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". Now considering this policy: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Does anyone dispute this is the case here?Smatprt (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Uncertainty" is not a theory. I would think you, for example, would "dispute" that alternative authorship is a notable fringe theory; I would have no problem with that description. The only question here is whether the presence of fringe theorists working to advance their fringe theory on Wikipedia means we must forego this particular example of a fringe theory. There is no shortage of academic scoffing at the sorts of arguments the fringe side presents; for example Sylvan Barnet's introduction to the Signet Shakespeare: "Perhaps it is well to say at the outset that there is a good deal of evidence supporting the idea that William Shakespeare of Stratford and London wrote Shakespeare's plays. Several dozen other names have been put forward, the most notable of which are Bacon, Raleigh, Marlowe, and Queen Elizabeth; perhaps the most amusing candidates are a nun named Anne Whately and an alleged illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth. But there is no evidence to support any of these claims, all of which begin with the assumption that 'the Stratford poacher' or 'the Stratford butcher-boy' simply could not have written great plays and poems. A suitably learned or aristocratic candidate must then be found, and if the candidate has written under his own name, verbal echoes between the plays and the candidate's undisputed works must be collected. Sometimes ciphers are detected; for example, in the comically long word honorificabilitudinitatibus in Love's Labor's Lost (V.i.42), Bacon is said to have planted a Latin anagram, Hi ludi F. Bacon nati tuiti orbi ('These plays, offspring of F. Bacon, are preserved for the world'). It is true that a similar long word, honorificabilitudine, appears in a manuscript that contains some of Bacon's essays, but slight variations of this word appear elsewhere too; indeed, the word in the exact form in which it is found in Love's Labor's Lost had appeared in print a century before the birth of either Shakespeare or Bacon. Moreover, other anagrams can be extracted from it—for example, Ubi Italicus ibi Danti honor fit ('Where there is an Italian, there honor is paid to Dante')."

"Against all anti-Stratfordian theories stands the fact that scores of Elizabethans spoke of Shakespeare as a playwright, and no Elizabethan is on record as having believed that Shakespeare did not write the plays. If the actor William Shakespeare was a mere front for another author, how was the secret kept so well? Why, for example, was it never detected by Ben Jonson, who both in print and in conversation spoke of William Shakespeare's plays? (One answer which has been offered is that Jonson called Shakespeare the playwright because Jonson himself was the author of the plays but wished to hide his identity.) In short, if Shakespeare did not write the plays, a great many people were fooled during the thirty-five or so years between the date of the earliest plays and the publication in 1623 of the collected plays. Did the actors—some of whom worked with Shakespeare for about twenty years—never suspect that their dull colleague could not have written the plays he was passing off as his own? Or if, as another approach holds, so many people were not fooled but rather were in on the secret, how is it possible that in its own day this widely shared secret never leaked out? According to another desperate theory, which recognizes that the plays were regularly attributed to William Shakespeare but refuses to tolerate the idea of the Stratford poacher as an author, the plays were written not by William Shakespeare of Stratford but by another man of the same name. But to the charge that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not William Shakespeare the actor and playwright there are many replies, at least two of which are simple and compelling: Jonson and others speak 0f the playwright as the 'swan of Avon'; and in the Stratford man's will bequests are made to some actors in the London theatrical company who acted Shakespeare's plays, thus indisputably linking the Stratford man with the London theater. Not until 1769 was any doubt expressed about the authorship of the body of work ascribed to Shakespeare, and this doubt was founded on the a priori assumption that the plays must have been written by a learned man."

It seems reasonable, then, to believe what so many Elizabethans believed, that William Shakespeare of Stratford and London wrote the works of William Shakespeare. .

So there is the one side with evidence, and the other side with uncertainty...that's more or less the definition of fringe. - Nunh-huh 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, you really need to follow some hard sciences. In a commercial setting esp, lack of doubt is a huge problem. Doubt, uncertainty, explicit statement of limitations of data is often hard to elicit. Tone of presentation doesn't reflect quality of underlying data- somtimes confidence is called for, but usually the problem is too much of it. Certainly criminal trials would be a closer analogy but the whole notion of knowing how much doubt or confidence to attribute to anything is quite subjective. People who express no doubts don't always turn out to be right (duh). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Comparisons between history and hard sciences in this way are fairly useless. There is no point in "doubt" for its own sake. We can doubt that Milton wrote Milton or that Wordsworth wrote Wordsworth if we like. It's impossible to prove that they did. Even their manuscripts could be copies of destroyed originals by the "true author". Such theories are unfalsifiable. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that while documentation of Shakespeare's life was sparse there was literally no compelling evidence suggesting any other author. This makes for a classic application of Occam's Razor in the most literal of senses - when one entity is sufficient and when there is no evidence of the actions of a second entity the most likely assumption is that the only involved entity is the one known to be involved.Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess this is problem with catagories and maybe dabate should be included in def of fringe (" often held by passionate minority and dismissed by majority " etc ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend taking this back to Talk:Fringe theory at this point. This is quite apparently a dispute between two users both with preconceived opinions on the Shakespeare question and not about he definition of "fringe theory" at all. To resolve the dispute, more outside input will be needed. Fwiiw, I sympathize with Paul's point that the Shakespeare authorship debate deserves a place of honour in the article as the "mother of all fringe theories". --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not at all about "two users" but about all acknowledged experts vs. a few wikipedians who care so deeply about their fringe belief that they will not let the lack of any persuasive evidence in favor of it deter them from trying to use Wikipedia to persuade others to believe it, too. - Nunh-huh 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see one user who is strongly advocating this theory, and if there is some decent RS for this being the "mother of all fringe theories" then perhaps it does deserve a mention. Otherwise, it is not a one of the most notable fringe theory in the context of all fringe theories. If there are good sources for that, fine, otherwise - no thanks. Verbal  chat  20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A fringe theory is whatever RS says is fringe, not based on the definition you have. If you more prominent sources call this fringe, it seems it would qualify but then you could argue maybe promience within fringe. In that case, it seems it should stay as an example until you can find a more prominent theory. If fringe status is really controversial and you are looking for clear exemplars, then

leave it until someone offers better and finally edit out Shakespeare for prominence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, did this go off on a tangent, especially Nunh-huh, who seems to be making the the case of Stratfordianism, instead of addressing the issue that bought this to this page in the first place. Thanks to users Nerdseeksblonde, Blueboar, Steven J. Anderson, Dab and PaulB for staying on point and not changing the subject. Smatprt (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem is "fringe theory" in a larger community or within wikipedia? Perhaps article should mention one specialized community, wikipedia, which seems to be working on its own definition. LOL. Personally the catagory seems to be a bit nebuluous but in any case I'm not sure how well you can define it but may be a list of examples and how accepted or arguable they are as "Frings" and by who and which definitions. You may as well be trying to define any other term which is normally taken as an insult- how would you define examples of being in denial that everyone would agree upon? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Shakespeare authorship debates can be used as an example of an issue where people disagree as to whether the issue is Fringe or not... with some people claiming it is and others claiming it isn't... and most people not really giving a damn one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * just because Wikipedians insist that something is "controversial" doesn't make it so. You would need 3rd party RSs to establish that "people disagree as to whether the issue is Fringe or not". --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This debate is not a legitimate one within academia. It may be referenced off-handedly and with humor by serious academics, but the real key is that the mainstream treatment does not take the fringe position seriously when discussing it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Stratfordian theories quite clearly comprise a school of thought that has extremely tiny minority of support among the relevant academics with a noteworthy, but still tiny minority, lay following. That's practically a textbook example of what is framed as a fringe theory. Vassyana (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Noting the requests above for sources framing the issue: There is no better voice than the advocates of skeptical views regarding Shakespeare's authorship. In the introduction of The Shakespeare Controversy (of the second edition published in 2009 by McFarland & Company), Warren Hope and Kim Holston explicitly make clear the fringe nature of anti-Statfordian theories:

Yet [despite the broad historical liveliness of the authorship question] the histories of this subject are marked by a dreary sameness. They are all written from the same point of view: there is no Shakespeare authorship question, really, only a gabble of cranks who thinks there is.

This history of the subject is quite different. It is written from the point of view that there is an authorship question, that it is important, and that the right answer has already been found and broadcast among us.

In short, this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view &mdash; a view that will pass.


 * There it is, in the words of a reputable scholarly proponent of anti-Statfordian theories, as published by a reputable publishing house. Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * what Vassyana just said. As was said above, this is an exellent example of a fringe theory and definitely deserves a prominent place in the fringe theory article. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does, but the difficulty is that when it's added, it's quickly subverted and given as an example of something that's no longer fringe. By all means add it back if you think it can be maintained as an example of a fringe theory, rather than a counter-example. - Nunh-huh 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Vassyana has already presented the necessary reference. After this, it's just a matter of user conduct. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty much what it's always been. :) - Nunh-huh 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All right,I'm confused. Based on this discussion, which was brought here by Verbal, there appeared to be a general consensus, even from Nunh-huh, so I made this edit: []. It was immediately reverted by Verbal, who then slapped me with a 3r warning, even though I had not made a revert edit to this article for the last 24 hours, and had only made one revert edit at all (when this whole thing started). Verbal brought this discussion here, but doesn't like the result of the discussion so he proceeds to revert (again) and harasses me? What is going on?Smatprt (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What has been provided is a reference that the question that concerns you is indeed a fringe theory,and I never doubted that. The question is, is it a notable example amongst fringe theories (we need a RS for that), and the talk page discussion seems to be against that or for inclusion of several well chosen examples, with RS showing notability. The second problem is that you keep adding an undue level of detail and have misrepresented the standing of the question in your edits. What examples should be used should be discussed further on the talk page, this discussion was to get further input and refs supporting the notability of this theory. So far those are lacking. I've replied on your talk page re the edit warring warning. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have no problem with it being included as an example, minus the long screed, provided a reference that it is in some way an important example (prototypical, etc, not just "dangerous revisionism") and placed amoungst other, similarly notable examples. I agree with Nunh-huh that the example is being misused by Smatprt. What examples should be discussed on the talk page by all interested. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are not being honest. I provided the RS you asked for on the talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "long screed" in that I provided a one sentence definition in summary style taken directly from the SAQ article. Absolutely no POV or grandizing was attached. If you think otherwise, please explain. Otherwise, it looks like you are edit warring and harassing me to get your way. Heck, even Nunh-huh just said "By all means add it back if you think it can be maintained as an example of a fringe theory, rather than a counter-example." And Vanessa has provided the reference, which could also be combined with the reference I supplied you.Smatprt (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken if you think I support what you're adding to the article, which is not that the alternative authorship theories are fringe, but rather an assertion that they are something else. The appropriate language for the article would be to place a link to the "authorship" article in a list of fringe theories, labeled as such, not the language you want to add. - Nunh-huh 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You apparently didn't look at my last edit. I stated that it was an example. I didn't try and say that it was something else, that support was growing, and I didn't quote the NY Times survey. Smatprt (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I most certainly read your edit before commenting on it. It does not mention the words "fringe theory". Quite simply what you want to add to the article is not what has been discussed and approved of here, but something else entirely. Please leave the addition to someone else. - Nunh-huh 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to establish a theory's level of "notablility" to use it as an example of a fringe theory in an article on Fringe Theories. We only need to establish that the example chosen is considered a fringe theory (which this discussion has done).  What gets used as an example in an article is a matter for editorial consensus.  We don't have to use the Shakespeare question... but we may if we wish.  That said, I do agree with Verbal that the place to argue all this out is at the article talk page.  Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we talked it out on the talk page, I provided several refs including this one:"Again - here is the RS you asked for: from Univ of Wis pseudoscience section paper on the Authorship: "For sheer longevity, no conspiracy theory can match the notion that William Shakespeare did not write the plays that have been attributed to him." Here is the whole article: from Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences Department: []." And still he deletes the entire addition instead of tagging it and accuses me of edit warring when I simply followed the consensus of this discussion. What was the point of Verbal bringing the discussion here then? 4 editors here have said it should be in the article, but Verbal refuses. Smatprt (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4 editors have suggested that something like "the belief that someone other than Shakepeare wrote Shakepeare's plays is a fringe theory" belongs there, they haven't supported the text you want to add. - Nunh-huh 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then why has Verbal (or any other editor) not even put that language in considering all the editors who have said the subject should be included in the article, and references have been supplied both here and on the article talk page? Does one editor really control the article?Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what we're attempting to discuss on the article talk page. Talk, agree, then edit. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob Shannon (computer programmer)
See Articles for deletion/Bob Shannon (computer programmer). Pcap ping  01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with fringe theories? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is essentially sourced to his home page, on which he basically claims he invented the BBS, contradicting the mainstream view. Pcap ping  04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone noted his claim and disputed it? It doesn't really matter if history judges him as being right, as long as history does judge ( something of encyclopedic value). At issue seems to be notability as far as AfD is concerned. In an article about BBS fringe status of his claim would be an issue.  Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Seclusion of Girls at Puberty
An odd cross between a literature survey, term paper, and personal essay, seems to be a POV fork of The Golden Bough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it also seems to rely rather heavily on wikipedia for its sourcing (nearly half). It’s also this editor’s only work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nommed for prod. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought they were just kept away from me by responsible parents LOL :) I'm not sure if this is fringe as much as POV but in terms of merit, I would just like to comment that this particular POV has the modern PC tone- those people in primitive society didn't know what they were doing. Indeed, maybe they didn't I dunno, but there is probably plenty of literature explaining that what they did could have made sense and even been beneficial due to situations they confronted at the time. I guess if anything the POV is not fringe but quite mainstream and probably doesn't reflect all the literature that could be included on this topic. Certainly if you want to make a judgement stated as fact ( " they did it because they were stupid") no matter how obvious it should be to the politically correct among us ( " they must have been stupid to do this" ) try to source it and see if any non-fringe sources exist with alternative thoughts ( " thereby preserving virginity and helping to arrange a marriage for some social objective " etc). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hereby demand that the Wikipedia elite immediately create Seclusion of boys at puberty to counter the pervasive cross-article bias of only reporting on topics covered in reliable sources.
 * Sorry, no actually useful comments right now other than that there is far too much emphasis on The Golden Bough and Nerdseeksblonde is, as ever, insightful. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie has got it right, this is like a term paper. There is an interesting topic somewhere in this. Our puberty article is altogether too biologistic and desperately needs a cultural section, it is amazing how Wikipedia often misses the most essential topics (by this I mean items so central to the conditio humana as to be almost invisible to us) completely. Seclusion of girls at puberty isn't a finished product, but it contains important points that would nudge the puberty article into the right direction.

Obviously we cannot base coverage of an anthropological item on Frazer (1890), but it's a start. We definitely need better coverage of puberty rites across cultures. Also, gender roles is the usual postmodernist/LBGT trash instead of a proper encyclopedic laying out of the known anthropological facts. Wikipedia has a lot to catch up on in this sector. Of course submissions like The Seclusion of Girls at Puberty aren't going to solve this for us, but they do serve to point out the deficit. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ley line
Could some folks here have a look at Ley line, particularly the tone of the section on skepticism. Sample quote: "Some skeptics have suggested that ley lines do not exist, and are a product of human fancy." (Oh, really? How odd of them.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a pass at it. We need more sources. Additionally, I think Template:Infobox Pseudoscience would be appropriate for including there. Classic pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prescott Bush
The discredited "Prescott Bush was a Nazi because he was on the board of directors of a bank that the Nazis confiscated" conspiracy theory is the subject of a POV-pusher on this page. Additional eyes needed. THF (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Crucifixion darkness and eclipse
I've really had it with the Jesus mess. "Christ myth" is just the top of the iceberg. See Jesus and history and my comment here. The Jesus people are quite obviously unable to sort it out on their own. Vigorous fringe-busting intervention is needed here, almost as badly as in the Kamboja-Jat-Kshatriya nightmare articles. The crucifixion eclipse article is just another example of a ludicrous fringe theory given the place of a serious theory in a long detailed article. Date the crucifixion based on the mention of "a darkness", I ask you. The Christian cranks will insist that this is valid scholarship, while the anti-Christian cranks will point out the obvious flaws and then jump to equally flawed "Christ myth" conclusions. And so on in circles ad infinitum. Except, that is, if we really clamp down on this thing and insist on the restriction to real, academic references, not pop culture items about how the Vatican is hushing up the truth. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You would think that avoiding a merit debate would eliminate a lot of these issues. Then the issue is largely prominence and determination of relevant communities for the topic and reliability of sources for the claims made. First, note that there could be a "mainstream" astrology theory related to astrology and fringes within astrology even if astrology is fringe within any related scientific articles. Note also that more people watch Oprah that read about angiogenesis inhibitors, Further, a determination of something being "pseudoscience" is largely a judgment of merit against some set of criteria. If the objective of wikipedia is to document human thinking, you have to represent the thoughts of the "ignorant" as well as those you happen to agree with. Inflicting good intention  POV only leads to one destination. Often the ignorant are the most prominent ( this is just a popular platitude on merit LOL). I guess if you try to step through who thinks what on issue by issue that should help or at least isolate the differences of editorial opinion. Personally AFAIK the only agreed upon reliable coverage of this is Josephus one-line comment but there are probably many other documents of uncertain chain of custody or authorship. Stating anything as fact would be difficult and lot of attribution would probably be expected. There are a lot of recent works explaining how some Biblical observations could have actually occured due to natrual known laws but presumably these are specculative and untestable but probably come from reliable sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having a great deal of trouble sorting this out because of the great jumble of different kinds of dubiosity involved. As far as the eclipse thing is concerned, looking at the list of eclipses articles I don't see one happening in the right place in any candidate year, so isn't this totally bogus? But on the other hand, a lot of the Jesus speculation comes from secular scholarly sources, which I suppose makes it reliable or at least notable bogosity. A lot of this stuff is "refuted" in religious academia. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be original research, there are probably good sources that make similar obvious points. I feel your frustration however as wishing to point out the obvious is a recurring problem. But, you are trying to document what others think.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

as often, I am having a hard time making sense of anything Nerdseeksblonde is saying. As for the crucifixion eclipse, yes, it's just bogus. We have an extremely long and detailed article on something that will be just shrugged off by anyone who knows anyone about the issues involved. WP:DUE says, that sure, we can have articles on items that are totally bogus just as long as they are notable, but then the introduction needs to make clear immediately that the topic is, in fact, bogus and only discussed for its cultural notability. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of work to be done (groans). I was going to suggest merge with Crucifixion or Chronology of Jesus, but if Newton discussed it then that swings notability for me. Not that it is clear from the article how Newton did discuss it. Stub right down to recent RS? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy in the news
The Lancet just retracted an old paper often cited as linking autism to vaccination, and was cited on the mainpage. As well as the preceding, Andrew Wakefield, Vaccine controversy, MMR vaccine, Generation Rescue, Thiomersal, Thiomersal controversy, and suchlike articles could use a few extra eyes over the next few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes just read it. A few pages may need to be adjusted to reflect this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows mercury is a killer, isn't it just common sense? LOL. This is actually even funnier because mercury is a classic thing that creates a J-shaped ( non-monotonic ) immune response. Non-monotnic transfer functions inside feedback loops defy common sense, as do singular natural events and quantum physics. I haven't looked at the basis for this retraction but, assuming the truth of what OP states, it helps remind us that reliable doesn't mean infallable and a militant attempt to inflict good intentions may not help anyone ( not too long ago, if you knew mercury was bad and the Lancet had linked autism to thymerosol, you may be tempted to run around saving people which now wouldn't seem like a productive activity). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there was already plenty of conflicting research, so I would not expect this to have any huge impact on the actual field of research, but point well taken on following MEDRS to summarize the views of experts in the field. Which reminds me - last I checked, Hormesis had some fairly questionable material and/or weighting, and I have been meaning to delve into the actual research. Anyone up for it? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone becomes rational after the fact. At the time, if you knew thymerosol had something to do with mercury you may want to save kids from autism. When data is incomplete document what is avaliable and who thinks what. Good intentions POV don't usually help. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

World government
Editor trying to introduce fringe ideas as fact, should I be bringing this up here or at NOR? See. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The example you gave does not look to me to be fringe; the sourcing and wording could be improved though. The example you gave just looks like the type of pro versus con political arguments of a theoretical or future world government.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since he's citing sources (albeit unreliable/questionable), it's not OR. Per Litgeek, it's not really fringe either.  I'd post something to his talk page.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside theTranscendental Meditation movement used to be know as “World Government". I unfortunately do not see it mentioned on this page?   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh! Well they have some competition; according to Scientology, psychiatrists are behind a plot to establish a not very nice world government.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Vertebroplasty
There seems to be a lot of new accounts editwarring here, promoting or otherwise this technique. Probable socking/block evasion. I'm just going, so could people take a look? Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes did some work on this page a while back. Have unwatched it.  Will take a look.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it on watch but medicine is not my specialty so I'll only really be able to look for the standard pseudoscience medical stuff that gets around the science and scepticism press. Simonm223 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (dietary supplement)
New article (remarkably well-formatted) about blue-green algae, by a new editor, full of spurious health claims. I suspect a connection with Christian Drapeau, see Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 17. I suspect that the author who created this,, is the same as the editor who created the earlier article,. The one thing I am sure of is that this ought not to exist. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Um... yikes. Watching this also and going over my library a bit because I'm sure I've read something on this topic. Will assist after I get myself up to speed.Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See talk.Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Related article Nutraceutical Simonm223 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Preventative War
I'm separating this to an appropriate section for some actual discussion that this board can handle. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, in preventative war, the lead specifically says that preventative war is an act of aggression in international law, which ignores the United States position that it is not. THF (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * fact Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See, this is why I don't want to get embroiled in specific examples. I'm asking for a consensus on a rule of general applicability.  If such consensus is achieved, we can then discuss its application to specific articles.  If we can't achieve such consensus, it's not even worth my time to get articles up to snuff on NPOV. THF (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to achieve such consensus when you're not providing locations for people at this noticeboard to help you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the lead that I see is the weasel-word "some" in the last clause. Who are the people who disagree and why? We need to get some sources and tighten the language there. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of problems in that article. I'm going to try to clear out some of the obvious uncited statements and grammatical errors. Khin2718 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The question brought by THF is interesting to me. My feelings are:
 * - a US government position can be widely seens as invalid by notable experts in the field
 * - this would make it reasonable to treat the US position as FRINGE and disregard it in most sentences in any article discussing such a topic
 * - a US government cannot be disregarded completely: an additional sentence should be made in every section to allow for minority viewpoints, or else the article would lose Neutrality.
 * If you agree, that means that this is really a new kind of catagory: SEMI-FRINGE: too important too ignore completely, and to lonely a viewpoint to account for it in every sentence. To bring up the old example: "the earth is flat" can be ignored completely in any article, it is 100% FRINGE.  On the other hand, whether insurgent Palestinians are called freedomfighters or terrorists depends on perspective, so wikipedia should be neutral when describing that.  And when describing interpretation of International Law, there is enough consensus among experts to disregard political viewpoints of any single person or country that goes against that. As far as neutrality is concerned. It is however very interesting to our readers to be notified afterwards of dissenting positions. Do you agree? and another question I have is: What to do with biased Reliable Sources? Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that we need a new "category". It seems more than adequately dealt with by our existing policy, which has so far proved effective against this kind of POV pushing and advocacy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal seems annoyed, but from his/her words I cannot understand whether you are defending or opposing the US government positions. For me, I couldn't care less about the government positions, I am just interested in how to write a neutral wikipedia which is as informative as possible. I would not have it taken over by either pro-government or anti-government partisan groups. Could Verbal clarify what is meant by "THIS" kind of POV pushing? Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I assure you I am not annoyed or in any way angry with your suggestion. I simply feel it is unnecessary, as the kind of wikilawyering we've been seeing around these articles and shown here has been unsuccessful (by "this" I didn't mean your proposal). Some US/UK/... gov positions are fringe, some were fringe, some would be fringe if held now, and most (I hope) aren't fringe. Just because it is a gov/political position has no bearing on its fringe status. However, NASA is a pretty good source for mainstream science, particularly astrophysics, etc. I don't see any problem with the current model, as no one has attempted to define in policy gov positions as absolute. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

George Chapman (healer)
This article is mostly plagiarism from a Telegraph story (its reference). I think it should be deleted, but probably some would claim notability. Do with it as you wish :) Other questionable articles to be found under the category "supernatural healing" include Hagiotherapy and Vibrational medicine. ▻Tim Shuba (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could have deleted it but have added the copyvio tag which blanks the page. If anyone wants to rescue it, the instructions are now on the article. If it isn't rescued it will probably be deleted in 7 days - see Copyright problems/2010 February 6. A quick look at Google Books suggests the subject may meet our notablity criteria, which is why I didn't just delete as clear copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also did a search on google books and came to the saem conclusion. Also google pulls a few hits too. Not sure how RS mant are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I ahve made a start, but really need otehrs to chip in [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the content of Hagiography, which was copied from I think the Croatian Wiki, with something a bit more objective and reliably sourced. Apt timing to as Saint Valentine is involved. :) Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

United States government
Is the official position of the United States government on a controversial legal-political issue "fringe"? THF (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what reliable sources say about the matter. Is the waterboarding thing again?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter what the topic is. Either the legal and political positions of the US government are fringe views in articles about legal and political topics, or they are not. THF (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification. The controversial legal-political issue is whether waterboarding is torture or not. THF knows that there is no clear position of the US Government on this issue (because I already made him aware of this on the Waterboarding Talk Page) so how can we classify it as fringe or not fringe when in fact there is not a clear position from the USG. AGF it seems to me a bit disingenuous to bring this matter to this board in the way framed by THF.--LexCorp (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a clarification, because that's not what I asked. Please don't muddy the discussion and put words in my mouth.  Again, it shouldn't matter what the topic is.  My question applies to all controversial legal-political issues, including international law, capital punishment, and whether Zionism is racism.  I want a definitive consensus from Wikipedia on its NPOV policy whether the position of the US government on controversial legal-political issues is fringe or not. THF (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that THF's post is not a useful way of addressing this matter. However, if the US government declared that there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, that the earth was flat, or that creationism was the correct explanation of the origins of life, that wouldn't alter the fringiness of these positions. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are all scientific questions, and thus entirely irrelevant to the question I asked, which specifically limited it to legal-political questions. Please don't muddy the discussion. THF (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * True because the USG is no expert RS on those issues and neither it is on torture. AS a funny aside Bush commented when he was still president of the USA that in its opinion Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms. Thank god he is no expert on either education, evolution, ID or science.--LexCorp (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't really know if it's fringe or not. But shouldn't this  question be answered by what reliable sources related to the relevant  field say about a topic?  For example, if I wanted to know about the  face on Mars, I'd look to sources in the field of  astronomy.  In this case, yes, NASA would be a great source to help  determine what's fringe and what's not.  What's the relevant field for  torture?  Medical? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The field is controversial legal-political issues, such as international law, Zionism, capital punishment, etc. That's why I specifically limited my question to legal-political issues. It has nothing to do with evolution or the Face on Mars. THF (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The legal-political issues are a posteriori consideration. In a murder the first person in the scene is a doctor to certify the death, then all the legal apparatus takes over. In this case the experts are those that can determine the extent of suffering experienced by the subject being waterboarded. Thus Doctors and psychologists. It is up to the legal-political experts to determine if torture is legal or not. Not whether waterboarding is torture or not.--LexCorp (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To cut to the chase... yes, a Governmental agency can express support for a view that is considered fringe without changing the "fringiness" of the view. For example, Holocaust denial is still considered a fringe view, despite the support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the government of Iran.  Governmental support simply makes the fringe view more notable, not less fringe. Blueboar (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking about Iran, though, which certainly holds fringe views. I'm asking about the United States. THF (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is possible for any government or governmental agency to hold fringe views. Whether whether a specific government actually holds a fringe view, or whether any particular view is actually fringe or not is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * {EC} Blueboar, I disagree or at least I think situation is more complex. I think it depends on which agency is making the statement and whether that agency has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. NASA and NIH are excellent sources for astronomy and health respectively.  For this particular issue, I don't think there's a similar agency that would be relevent or respected.  Regarding Ahmadinejad, you are correct, but only because Ahmadinejad is not a reliable source on history or politics.  Also, I would caution editors to keep in mind that we don't simply look to one source to determine fringe.  We're supposed to examine multiple sources.  That said, with certain topics like ID or AGW, they're all pretty much in agreement so examining multipe sources isn't much of an issue.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No... the fringiness of a view point is determined by how many people accept the view, not by who holds the view. Granted, the more reliable the view holder is, the more likely it is that lots of people will accept it, but that is not guarenteed. Blueboar (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

United States government redux
Two editors have changed the subject above, so let me repeat the question so it doesn't get hijacked: On controversial legal-political questions of international law, capital punishment, Zionism, whether an organization is "terrorist", etc., is the position of the United States government fringe, or, by definition, is it a serious position that, even if in some defined minority, deserves to be accounted for? In other words, is it ever appropriate for Wikipedia to take an NPOV position in an article that states that the US government is wrong? (Please note that this is not asking about scientific questions such as stem cells or evolution; solely about legal-political issues.) THF (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Asking a question that broad, and the answer is simple. It depends.  I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to pose a question here without the context of where an answers may or may not be used.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first, I don't think it depends: I think the US position on legal-political questions is inherently notable, even if it stands alone against the rest of the world, and even if I disagree with it because of the simple fact that the US is, at least for another couple of decades, the most powerful country in the world.


 * Second, how will I use it? I will use it for NPOV purposes in over 100 different articles that treat the US position as definitively incorrect -- unless the Wikipedia consensus is that the position of the US government is or can be a fringe position such that it need not be accounted for within the Wikipedia definition of "neutral point of view," in which case I will use that assessment in an article I'm writing about anti-American bias on Wikipedia, and simply leave the project as indefensibly biased and unwilling to adhere to its NPOV policy. THF (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) The policy positions of the US Government (by definition) cannot be fringe - fringe implies something that is outside of conventionally established norms, and since the government (in any nation) is one of the entities that defines norms, it cannot represent a fringe position. In international, it might occasionally be possible to claim that the US has a minority position, but in most cases you'd actually have to say something more like the US has a unique position in the international community, because (given current understandings of state sovereignty) there are very few situations in which it could be assumed that the US and other nations are even trying to establish a common norm.  on capital punishment, for instance, you can say the US is unique within the western industrialized nations as having a system of capital punishment, but you couldn't say it was in the minority about capital punishment because you cannot sat that the opinions and attitudes of other western nations have any bearing within sovereign US borders.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)"[I]s the position of the United States government fringe ?" Can't say, unless you tell us what the position is.
 * " Can a position of the United States government be fringe ?" Of course; although in most cases it would be notable fringe (the two are not incompatible)
 * I don't think anyone can say much more if you insist on asking the question only in the abstract. Abecedare (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert here, but regarding legal-political issues only, I would say no. From a medical perspective, if the National  Institutes of Health has issued any statements, I would say that this particular agency can be used.  Same thing for NASA with astronomy.  But I'm not aware of any similar agency within the US government with a reputation for accuracy fact-checking the way that NASA and NIH does.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

THC, I think there needs to be more discussion before even attempting a vote. Can you please self-revert the vote below or close it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No reason we can't have a vote and discussion simultaneously. People can change their !vote, or wait until they see their concerns addressed.  Keeping the vote open permits editors to state their position now without having to monitor the page. THF (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break 0
This vote IMHO is idiotic and not the function of this noticeboard. I move to close this discussion or demand a much narrower enquiry by THF.--LexCorp (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish to know whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudo-science), you may ask for advice on this noticeboard. Seems like the right place to me.  Where do you propose I bring this issue?  I've notified WP:VPP, WT:NPOV, WP:NPOVN, and WT:Fringe_theories about the existence of the discussion. THF (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Particular topic" being the operative word. Your statement below is so broad as to be rendered useless. No matter how the vote goes the result is meaningless and not useful for anyone seeking clarification from this noticeboard.--LexCorp (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The following question was asked: "Do apples ever deserve a labeling-exemption according to the meat regulations?" - Answer: "No. Apples aren't meat."
 * The following question was asked: "Does the position of the United States government on legal-political issues constitute a fringe-theory?" - Answer: "No. Governments make policies, not theories."
 * Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then you agree with me: I take the position that it violates NPOV to say that the US government is wrong on a political/legal question in an article, while others say that it is okay because the US position is "fringe." THF (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not exactly - I only agree on the "because"-part. You can still cite sources that say the U.S. is wrong, but you cannot say the U.S. is wrong  because of WP:FRINGE. It simply doesn't make sense.
 * I would also disagree with limiting this question to the United States. Governments in general do not deal with theories. Even the above-cited IR Iran does not "theorize". It makes policies and laws, and some of its leaders might sometimes - quite frankly - "rant," but that still does not constitute a "theory."
 * Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, certainly I have no objection to the sentence "RS X says the US is wrong" or even "The international community largely disagrees with the United States' position." I do object to the hypothetical phrasing "Capital punishment is a violation of human rights. ... The United States takes the position that capital punishment does not violate human rights." with editors justifying it on the grounds that most nations oppose capital punishment, and the US view is FRINGE. THF (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... now we're getting into the hairy details. The above example does not say "the U.S. is wrong". As long as two two sentences can be referenced, it's a different issue. You might understand or hear that it says (somewhere between the lines) that "the U.S. is wrong" -- but it doesn't say that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you. The hypothetical article is adopting a point of view that the US point of view is incorrect.  That would seem to me to violate the requirement that the article adopt a neutral point of view.  Are you taking the position that that sentence complies with NPOV?  If so, why? THF (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... I can now see where you're coming from: Are you looking for an intro to the first part of the sentence along the lines of " According to XYZ, capital punishment is a violation of human rights."... ? In that case, you'd have a point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Thank you for your patience, and I apologize if I was unclear at any point. THF (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break 1
The Four Deuces writes: The fact that the US government holds a position has no bearing on whether or not it is WP:Fringe. That does severe damage to the NPOV policy. Then a concerted band of editors can take a page on a legal or political topic and edit it to say that the US is wrong on issue X -- and then hide behind WP:FRINGE. Since WP:FRINGE applies only to "non-significant opinions", I'm hard-pressed to see how the view of the US on a controversial political or legal question could ever be "non-significant." THF (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I would widen these concerns to include any government. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

!vote
For purposes of WP:NPOV, the position of the United States government on a legal-political issue can never be considered "fringe" per WP:FRINGE.

Support

 * 1) . Per my argument above. THF (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Not "never" but in very few circumstances could the official position of the US government be "fringe". It might be mistaken, but not fringe. Why are we discussing this? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Changing !vote. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment We don't really know why. The OP framed the question as a generality and has not directed us to a specific article or discussion.  That's part of the reason I'm opposing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's draw a line under it. Shows how pointless discussion in the abstract is. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The fact that the US government holds a position has no bearing on whether or not it is WP:Fringe.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Being a government does not automatically take it out of the potential range of WP:Fringe.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this cuts all ways. This is not to be assumed as support for any specific statement of the US government as a fringe one (or a non-fringe one) as the question put to the noticeboard was exceptionally vague. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ridiculous. What determines whether something is fringe is what third-party reliable sources say about the subject. Third party reliable sources can be influenced by the reputation of the entity making the statement and move some idea that would otherwise be fringe into the mainstream. Likewise, third-party reliable sources can decide that in spite of the reputation of the entity, the proposal made by the entity is outrageously out-of-the-ordinary and fringe. Case-by-case is the only way to measure this. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Factual claims that are generally considered fringe do not magically become non-fringe just because a relevant US government agency believes in them. This is true in general, and it is even more true if one of the following reasons or a similar one should apply: (1) The US government agency advances a fringe theory for political reasons such as protecting agents of the US government against prosecution for crimes they are asked to commit. (2) The agency's support of the fringe theory leads to strong internal turbulences, such as resignations of leading officers. (3) Under a subsequent government the agency withdraws the original claim or acts as if it had been withdrawn. Hans Adler 19:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reject legitimacy of vote

 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. We should discuss things first and attempt to reach a consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Furthermore I would say that in the way the vote is presented it deviates substantially from the functions of this noticeboard and thus I ask all editors not to participate in it and also ask THF to remove it voluntarily.--LexCorp (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As above. In particular, the attempt to create a "general rule" does not belong here.  Specific scenarios should be discussed.  The OP went out of his way to hide, then dismiss the specific scenario that prompted his post here. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with this way of using the noticeboard, I think this discussion may have instructional value later on as an example of how a dispute should not be handled. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposition seems to misunderstand what we mean by fringe here. WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which tells us that we should not cover topics if they are not covered by independent, reliable sources.  It is thus much the same as the WP:NOTABILITY guideline.  The main difference seems to be that coverage by debunking sources is considered to be adequate for this purpose even though, by their nature, they tend to undermine the topic rather than endorse it.  An example may help - see Indiana Pi Bill.  This merits coverage, not because it was a government matter, but because it has been covered by independent sources such as mathematical journals.  They tend to ridicule the proposed law but that's ok.  There will be other governmental matters which it would not be appropriate to cover such as the minutiae of bureaucratic regulations which have not been covered outside of those regulations. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these comments fail to AGF. I'm asking for a general rule about NPOV because I don't want to have the same debate dozens of times on dozens of pages, and I think correct application of NPOV is consistent with that general rule. If you disagree with that general rule, just state that you disagree with the general rule rather than personally attacking me. I'm not asking for "democracy", I'm asking for consensus. If the consensus is that the general rule is not consistent with NPOV, that's very useful for me to know, so I can stop making the argument here, and start making the argument outside of Wikipedia that its NPOV policy is a sham. THF (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment also fails to AGF of those posting those comments. Several people (including me) have said that we should not have a general rule as your asking and explained why.  Your motives have been questioned because of how you brought the question without disclosing the context and actively trying to avoid that context being disclosed. But, if you'd prefer to simply ABF so you can ignore dissenting opinions, go right ahead. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing !vote to this heading. Without going into AGF issues, it hasn't been useful to discuss this in the abstract. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also changing !vote for the reasons outlined above. Notwithstanding this, if it were a valid topic of discussion I would still oppose it because of the reasons I originally stated. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion
I move to archive the discussions related to these matters of "US Government positions" as inappropriate for the noticeboard. I am trying to assume good faith but think that specific questions on specific articles are better than these generalized debates. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where should I raise a general question of policy application then--especially when, I, in good faith, believe that the proper application of the NPOV policy in a category of articles requires a certain uniformity? This isn't a specific question on a specific article, because it's a problem in dozens of articles. If that's WT:NPOV or VPP, I'm happy to move everything there, but the introduction to this board says that this board is the place to discuss it. THF (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Village Pump is the appropriate location for gradiose discussions. This noticeboard is supposed to be far more mundane. Think about it: if your conversation indicated a consensus that was not articulated in our policies/guidelines, we would have to think about how or whether to add or modify our policies and guidelines. That's manifestly not the purpose of this board. This board is supposed to deal with problems in the encyclopedia as they relate to policy, not questions of policy themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From the header "a particular topic is fringe or mainstream". You didn't ask about a particular topic, you asked a general question.  Asking "Is the view of the US Government on whether waterboarding is torture considered fringe?" would have been perfectly appropriate. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to redraft my question, but that is not the question I asked or the question I wanted answered. If there's a consensus that, notwithstanding the plain text of the heading of this board, I should discuss this at VPP instead, I'll move this to WP:VPP at some point. If that consensus exists, then someone needs to change the language at the top of the page to avoid confusion instead of jumping down the throat of someone who in good faith thought that language meant what it said. THF (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Particular topic" is pretty plain language to me. That said, some rejoinder such as, "This is not the place to discuss what characteristics generally constitute a fringe theory, as that matter is set by the consensus outlined in the Wikipedia Fringe Theory guideline." might be appropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and agree. I would also add something to point them to the correct spot, whether that's VPP or talk for NPOV/fringe. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I second ScienceApologist's move to archive... I cannot even tell what all this is really about without specifics, what's the point? Things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket rule of thumb composed in the dark. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is in the dark. It's a straightforward application of NPOV and FRINGE, a logical corollary to the existing rules.  If you think that it's not a logical corollary, simply state that you disagree with the statement, and we'll know that there's not a consensus for it. THF (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just mean it reminds me asking for a blank check. "Do you agree in principle with what I'm about to say? I just can't tell you exactly what it is yet." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for a blank check. I'm asking for people to agree (or disagree) that the position I've taken is a basic corollary of existing rules, and trying to understand the consensus of what NPOV means; I honestly can't understand why what I've proposed is remotely controversial for anyone who supports the basic principle of NPOV. It would seem to me that most would agree "The United States violates international law" is a violation of NPOV, but that proposition can be found throughout the project, and I don't see why it would be productive for me to raise the NPOV violation in several dozen different places if it can be resolved in a single place. THF (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank statements are one thing. "Violation of a law" is a judgment that is usually made by a prosecutor, a judge, or a jury. Wikipedia isn't supposed to make judgments, but we report the opinions of people. However, facts such as "The Union Army detained Confederate troops as prisoners of war. The Supreme Court ruled on a number of occasions that such imprisonment was a violation of habeus corpus." seem to me to be perfectly legitimate. The implication might be that the US Government broke the law (in that case the Constitution), but the facts of the matter are really all that is stated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

comments
There was a time when US held many views that were considered fringe... Fringe views like the idea that all men are created equal, the superiority of democratic government, or that people should have a right to free speach and the freedom of religion. It also held veiws that were fairly mainstream such as the idea that you needed slavery to make a plantation ecconomy work. Fringe does not mean right or wrong... it simply is a function of how wide spread acceptance of the view is. Any government can hold fringe views, as long as the view held is rejected by the world as a whole. That much is self-evident. Blueboar (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess this is this is the problem once you decide you try to define a catagory called "fringe" and then constantly debate if it is about popularity or merit. "Too obvious to be wrong" ideas are often not tested leading to great stagnation. See any of my recent rants. Christians were at one time non-existent, then fringe by most criteria, then mainstream by many crieteria for centuries ( would the ideas of a Theocracy be considered fringe if it set the law of the land?) and noware considered fringe my many. Political correctness, is that fringe or mainstream? People try to inflict good intentions everywhere they go often leading to arguments that amount to, " you must be [wrong, fringe, stupid] because I don't like what you are saying." If you stick with prominence and make wording reflect range of judgements about reliability, you may be able to remove the notion of fringe. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The stance of the US government may be a factor in deciding whether a view is fringe or mainstream - may even be a significant factor on some issues - but it cannot be an ultimate and infallible authority. If, for example, the US government and US legislature took a position which ever other government and legal authority in the world opposed, then this would still be a fringe position. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, Gandalf61. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's your position, then express opposition to my proposal. But I thoroughly disagree with Gandalf's last sentence as a misapplication of NPOV. (NB that nothing in my proposal requires the US to be "ultimate and infallible," merely sufficiently notable prominent that its viewpoint is not FRINGE.) THF (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't mean "notable". You mean "prominent". Notability vs. prominence. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My vote is WP:UCS. Sure, the US are a superpower, and most of the time they take a position, that position will be relevant simply because they have a big enough stick to make sure it is relevant. But that isn't an a priori truth or something, that's just what considering the question at hand will turn up most of the time.

Why are we being asked to consider this in such abstract terms? Just cut to the chase and outline the actual dispute behind this. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's a general problem in dozens of articles, and I think it's most appropriately resolved in a single discussion about what FRINGE and NPOV mean. THF (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a fruitful discussion, probably because it's not clear where the position of the united states government is considered fringe. Sometimes that's because people misunderstand the purpose of this noticeboard, and other times it's because the goal is to use this board as a "gotchya, see what they said!" noticeboard. Given that we have to assume the first, we'll need to see this in context. Where is the position of the US government being treated as fringy? Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In dozens and dozens of articles relating to Guantanamo, international law, and/or US foreign policy, including BLPs, International Criminal Court, Preventive war, and waterboarding, and likely dozens of others that I haven't found yet. But again, I don't want the debate to be tied up in case-by-case contextual analysis: my entire argument is that correct application of NPOV must treat US governmental positions as per se prominent enough not to be fringe in articles about legal/political subjects.  I think this is an entirely sensible view of NPOV, and I don't want to have to have the argument over and over again as I try to clean up NPOV problems in the encyclopedia: I'd like a consensus on whether this argument is legitimate, or whether I shouldn't waste my time thinking that NPOV means what it says. THF (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote in response to this but my logic remains the same. Fringe policy is about science/pseudoscience, not about political positions. Ahmedinejad's statements on the Holocaust are "prominent enough" to be mentioned in political articles but Holocaust denial remains fringe. He's not a pseudohistorian but has adopted an element of pseudohistory as part of his political position. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your position. If, as a matter of US policy, the US takes position X, is it ever appropriate for a Wikipedia page on a controversial legal or political topic to say (explicitly or implicitly) "Position X is wrong"? THF (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, it is not our job to say "Position X is wrong". We report what sources say. That extends to what you call "implicit" stances, but there will always be people who read a stance into what is actually perfectly neutral text. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment. There are articles, however, where the US position is expressed as being wrong, and editors who justify that violation of NPOV on the grounds that the US position is fringe. THF (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * fact - who has stated the US position is fringe? Links plz. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) THF, if there are particular articles that contain something like, "The US position on matter X is Y. That position is wrong." then please report them here or at NPOVN. We will work to neutralize and properly handle those statements in particular. Trying to outline a general rule is not going to help matters. We're all on the same side here. It very well may be that the positions of the US Government that you seem to think are being deprecated here at Wikipedia are being treated improperly. We're here to help with that. However, you have to admit that painting with the ridiculously enormous brush that you did leaves plenty of room for weirdness. For example, the official position of National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has been shown at times to be in direct conflict with the vast majority of the reliable and scientific sources on a subject. In your universe where the US Government's position is never fringe, that leaves us in a weird position indeed. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is an embarrassment to the US, and is largely FRINGE. You will note, as I have repeatedly stated, that my proposal is solely about legal/political issues, and explicitly excluded the US's scientific views, so I wish people would stop muddying the discussion with the latter.
 * There are hundreds of places where the USA's views are treated as incorrect. There are dozens of articles that state affirmatively without qualification that the US violated international law, and I find new ones every day. THF (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you must admit that it is often difficult to decide exactly when an issue starts being legal/political. Certainly, many of the statements made by NCCAM have legal/policy implications. For example, there are policy statements made by NCCAM demarcating which alternative medicine practitioners are more legit than others (chiropractors good, psychic healers bad, for example). These muddy waters are going to be around all the time.
 * Please do provide specific examples where the USA views are treated as "incorrect". For example, we are working now on preventative war. If you find examples that unequivocally state things such as "The US violated international law" bring them to NPOVN. Those are statements which must be attributed since law is generally something that is interpreted. We don't even say things like, "Ron Karenga violated the law." Instead we say things like, "Ron Karenga served time in prison on a conviction for false imprisonment and assault." The same standards should be applied across the board and you do not need a fiat from this noticeboard to fix problems like this. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In reviewing your example links, it appears that the US is not treated as a fringe, but rather as a minority position. Remember, fringe positions are ignored while minority positions are given weight in relation to their prominance. For example, in preventative war - "In the modern era, advocates of Preventative war tend to be from the political fringes ... western neo-conservatives such as George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld" Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally this whole exchange strikes me as quite bizarre. I just don't see how governmental rhetoric constitutes a "theory", as opposed to a rank act of self-justification. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite... where in the world did you get the idea that "fringe positions are ignored"... they too are given due weight in accordance with their prominance. Yes, sometimes they are ignored, but at other times they are acknowledged and discussed.  Whether to discuss a specific fringe theory in a particular article and, if so, how much weight to give it is a complex decision that can not be summed up with an all encompassing: "Fringe positions are ignored".  That simply isn't true.
 * I have to agree with those who say that this discussion needs to shift... the issue isn't whether the US can hold a fringe theory (it can)... but whether specific position X that it holds actually is fringe. After we dertermine that, we can move on to the secondary questions: assuming the position is fringe, is it notable enough to discuss in specific article Y... and if so how.  Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * THF: If there are any articles saying "X is wrong" (where X is some position or statement), then those articles are horribly written. If there are articles saying "X is Y" (where Y is generally considered to be wrong), then that might be OK (depending on X and Y). For example (I know you like to keep it as general as possible, but I think my point is hard to illustrate otherwise) : If some article says "Waterboarding is wrong", then that's bad writing. If some article says "Waterboarding is torture", then that's an entirely different issue. Most people considered Y ("torture") to be wrong, but there's a world of difference between saying "X is wrong" and "X is Y". Now, while the word "fringe" can mean many things, in the context of Wikipedia it means "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" (per WP:FRINGE). With this meaning it is entirely feasible for the US government to hold a position that is fringe. Gabbe (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

this has gone far beyond what is appropriate for this noticeboard. My opinion is that THF is wrong in his approach to this. It is misguided to discuss items of policy or politics as "fringe, yes or no" in the first place. "fringe" is properly applied to academic or pseudo-academic hypotheses, not to government positions. And no, this cannot be treated on a once-and-for-all basis, there is no way around the case-by-case approach. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's not so much a question of whether it's fringe, as it is whether it is WP:UNDUE. And a more appropriate noticeboard for that would be WP:NPOVN. Gabbe (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is intensely aggravating to see this noticeboard being abused to hash out the waterboarding debate. Yet again. Haven't we been through this enough with the monomania of and his extensive collection of odd socks? Wikipedia is not the venue for this kind of crap, nor is it what this noticeboard is used to address. Consensus is clear on waterboarding and has been for many years, IMO with good reason. Perhaps we need some kind of version of WP:PEREN for articlespace. Moreschi (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * True, this seems to have gotten out of hand for for such a simple answer. The definition of "fringe" is: Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views. Zaereth (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Belated comment
I think it is fair to assume THF is asking this question out of good faith, rather than trying to push a given POV; from my experience with him, although I disagree with many of his opinions, his primary failing is approaching conflicts thinking as a lawyer, rather than as an average, rational, yet prudent person. (Not to bad-mouth lawyers: my brother & brother-in-law are lawyers.) The problem which is being overlooked is that the US government is hardly a monolithic institution which holds one, consistent opinion on any given topic. Not only does the US government change its stance on issues between administrations, different officials of a given administration will often have different opinions on a given issue. (And then there is the matter whether members of the legislative or judicial branch speak for the US government: does Dennis Kucinich represent the US government's opinion with as much authority as James G. Watt?) The best approach to this matter is to identify with as much detail as possible who in the US government holds the opinion. Otherwise, we will find the US government being used to endorse such fringe positions as Eugenics (which was supported in the 1930s) or the extermination of Native Americans. Does this offer a solution for all involved? -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Just discovered that this article is getting attention again, I just had to change an edit which used Bovon's original claim about a name, ignoring the fact that he later changed his mind and retracted it. If anyone else is interested in the subject I'd appreciate more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This thing is being used as a WP:FORK of Talpiot Tomb. Frankly I think the documentary should be merged into the other article. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And also Jesus Family Tomb. Something of a little walled garden of credulous acceptance. Moreschi (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Spiritism
It appears that Spiritism has been taken over by excessively credulous authors. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually this is much worse than I thought, and frankly it's such a mess that I don't know where to begin. There seems to be a severe train wreck between the credulity and the confusion of spiritism and spiritualism, helped out (apparently) by the fact that this is a largely French development, but in French the word for it is not "spiritisme" per se. Even if you don't read French, you can look at Spiritisme (Allan Kardec) and Spiritualisme moderne anglo-saxon in the French Wikipedia and see that they conflate together for our Spiritism article. If you can read French (which I do well enough to get this far) and look at Spiritisme you can see that it begins approximately as follows:

"The word 'spiritism' was defined for the first time by Allan Kardec in the introduction to The Spirits' Book published 18 April 1857. Spiritism is a doctrine founded on the existence, manifestations, and teachings of spirits, most often of incorporeal human spirits. The the word applies more broadly to animist or other practices which intend to communicate with these spirits by various means, including trance states or objects such as seance tables. In our day, spiritism designates both the modern English Spiritualism initiated by the Fox sisters in 1848, and the spiritistic doctrines of Allan Kardec defined in 1857 as 'a moral philosophy and a science'." (My emphasis) I don't know the literature that well but I think the confusion between these three senses doesn't obtain in English; therefore "spiritism" should be reserved for the Kardecian system. Rooting out all the stuff that isn't directly related should help relieve this mess of the POV fork. I'm half inclined simply to translate the French wiki article on the Kardec system and throw everything else away. Is there someone else with adequate/superior-to-my French who could look this over? Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do with biased Reliable Sources?
Sometimes minority viewpoints are widespread, beyond total FRINGE, but disregarded and laughed at by (all) Reliable Sources. To give a hypothetical example, 500 years ago Catholisism was the dominant viewpoint in Western Europe. Then Luther came, protesting against it. Suppose for the sake of argument, that all Reliable Sources at that time were representing the dominant viewpoint, and if they ever did represent some of Luther's viewpoints, they did so in a distorted fashion. Would wikipedia, had it existed in the year 1517, be allowed to quote Luther directly from his own Ninety-Five Theses, or should wikipedia only quote the theses as quoted by the Catholic Church in their Reliable Sources literature? <BR>My own gut feeling is: that is makes most sense to quote directly from the source, from the moment that Reliable Sources have treated the criticism as Notable. If trustworthy primary sources exist (for Luther's theses), this should provide a more honest and neutral and factual representation of the conflict than when solely quoting from Reliable Secondary/Tertiary Sources. (In the past however I have had strong disagreement with wiki-editors who shared a certain bias with the Reliable Sources, and then claimed that the viewpoint of the Reliable Sources was the Neutral Viewpoint that wikipedia should take.) Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to give this some thought but I like the basic notion of considering some hypothetical examples. While less emotional perhaps, you do get the hypothesis-contrary-to-fact issues and when people can take the "high ground" in hypotheticals they will (" I would never push a POV " etc and I think the Bible mentions this too LOL) I guess first you have to remember that the object is to document what various groups think, not try to inflict a POV based on merit or who you think will be "right" in the future ( crystal balling also applied to notability, a fringe cult or mainstream religion is hard to tell early on). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a way to educate people to think right although often you have to question the prominence of a scientific viewpoint compared to the overall relecant communities in some cases( all publications have some kind of bias if they admit it of not ). Reliability however often encounters the argument, "gee, that can't be right" as a reaction to merit of an unederlying fact ( "the earth is flar") rather than "what does this person state." Neutrality means reflecting prominence within a topic-so you could have articles on abortion, right to life, and pro-choice with different POV prominences within each topic evem though they more or less talk about the same thing. Or, maybe consider notable but obscure religious gropus that themselves may have a mainstream and less notable finges ( a few peope split off and made up some stuff that only they have published). Sometimess with religions it isn't clear if intellectual independence criteria are applied reasonably- that is, you may expect all research groups funded by NIH to be intellectually indpednent while thinking that all Christians are simply parroting the same things when reality may be quite different. This isn't just religion, you see this often in business ( various stock analyses have been pointed to by others) but the dichotomy most often encountered at wiki is that between science and religion. The problem with only citing original primary sources is that it leads to original research, synthesis, and cherry picking to create a new POV. In short, you can end up making stuff up that is not noted elsewhere and can't be reviewed here for merit. How is that for a non-answer talking around some point that may or may not be related to what you originally posted? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a terrific non-answer to my taste, LOL. But having overcome its initial horror ;) let's seperate crystall-balling from fairly representing the minority view. We must assume that a minority view's proponent can fairly represent its own view. Indeed, they are the foremost expert around regarding what their own view is. So, would not Luther's manuscripts be the most adequate source for wikipedia, instead of the Reliable Sources which would cherry-pick and distort his views, given half the chance? Even if there is no political motivation for a RS to distort a minority view, the distortion is inevitable because the minority view likely does not fully comprehend the minority view? Or is the problem that we then lack any objective criterium on which part of Luther's Theses would be most important to cite? Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is: In 1517 Wikipedia (assuming it had the same policies and guidelines) would have treated Luthor as Fringe. We would not have included any mention of Luthor or his ideas.  By 1520 that would have changed slightly... Luthor's idea would probably still have been labeled as Fringe, but... by then, the 1500s equivalent of reliable sources would have started to take notice of Luthor and discuss his ideas, the topic would be deemed notable fringe... notable enough for us to discuss in a limited way, and possibly devote an article to.  By the 1530s we would have considered his ideas a significant minority view, and there would be no doubt as to the appropriateness of fully discussing it.
 * Of course, in 1517 Wikipedia would probably not have had the same policies and guidelines we do today. Instead of WP:FRINGE we would have had WP:HERESY!  Things do change over time. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, after I've stopped laughing at these wonderful examples (it is fun to speculate about Wikipedia in other times), unless Wikipedia was quite different then, Luther would still be quoted directly, using his own website as a ref, but he would be given less WEIGHT and definitely no UNDUE attention, while an abundance of Catholic scholars would be quoted. Newspapers reporting them would also be quoted, since no newspaper journalist would dare to disagree for fear of being burned at the stake. (They didn't have freedom of speech or a free press back then.) So, that being the case, Wikipedia probably wouldn't have even linked to Luther's website. Things really were quite different back then. Human rights didn't exist as hardly even a thought, torture was the normal way one dealt with undesirables, so it wasn't considered wrong by anyone, etc. Even being drawn and quartered was practiced for a long time. We really aren't that far removed in time from those ways of thinking, and among certain groups that is still the dominant way of thinking. The sooner democracy, freedom, tolerance, and NPOV become the dominant way of thinking, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (deindent) :) How the wikipedia rules would have been 500 years ago is anyone's guess. But how about applying the current wikipedia rules we've agreed upon, and then pretend that situation. Brangifer would like to quote Luther directly, while being careful not to give his views UNDUE attention and WEIGHT. Blueboar assumes that by 1520-1530 the notability would have increased. But the crux of my question is: would we quote him directly, or would we only quote the Catholic scolars which criticize him and quote their (cherry-picked) quotations?  (No disrespect for 21-century Catholics intended) Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See: WP:OR. Zaereth (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yish... the only reason this argument exists is because a good number of editors have difficulty distinguishing between contexts.  In 1517, an article on "The role of priests in spiritual life" would have focussed on the Catholic idea of the role of priests, and Luther's opinions would have been a minor addition (assuming they were notable enough to include at all).  however, an article on "Luther's 95 theses" would have focused on Luther's 95 theses, as presented by Luther.  the Catholic perspective would have entered into the article sufficiently to point out that this was not a commonly accepted viewpoint (and probably that anyone who believed it would burn in hell forever), but the article would not focus on the Catholic opinion of Luther's 95 theses.  Please re-read Fringe;  and I (and others) spent some time haggling over this a few weeks ago, and the current version is clear on the matter.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * YISH - 1. A strange form of the word 'yes'. Often used to show indifference. // 2. An exclamation of annoyance or irritation, often used like 'geez'.<BR>I am not a native American speaker. I assume you are tired of hearing the same questions over and over?<BR>The link from Zaereth was most helpful to me. So, when can we use primary sources? Minority views can often be found in books, but anyone can have a book printed. An editor will simply look whether publishing an opinion had a commercial value, not whether the opinion is valid or useful. So would books be reliable sources, if they are written by the minority proponents themselves? More interestingly, let's suppose that in the fictional example the Catholic scholars were contradicting each other, and Luther's side would find out and mention that in their writings, should wikipedia present that side of the debate, or should wikipedia wait till the ruling Catholics would write about such contradictions themselves?  I would say that when 2 catholic statements are clearly irreconcilable, then why would we need an extra Reliable Source to point that out? Or, would relying on the primary source of the minority criticising the dominant ruling class be original research, and thus prone to error and would that discredit wikipedia as unreliable, amateuristic and so forth? Xiutwel-0002 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If we took the original situation, we would be able to quote Luther, but we would have to avoid the temptation to interpret what he says ourselves (if we can claim that the experts cannot understand what Luther says correctly, why should we presume that we - more or less anonymous Wikipedians with no proved expertise - are likely to do any better?). The result might look somewhat like this: "In his 95 theses Luther has written 'X'. Theologian Y has argued that it implies Z, which is heretical according to the decisions of U.". It stays mostly the same way in the second situation: if the experts cannot see that "statements are clearly irreconcilable", then it's probably not that clear for us to decide. Thus the fact that Luther thinks those statements contradict each other would be considered to be simply a fact about Luther's views and would probably be included into the article about him (maybe with a note that the theologians in question see no contradiction, if we can get a source for that). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I can't speak native American either (except for a couple of words in the Sioux language). I think you meant native English speaker   but yeah, I get tired - not of this question, but of the squabbles it often leads to.


 * to answer your question, though: My view on this is that sources are there to verify statements written in wikipedia, not to prove them accurate. If the goal of an article is to describe a particular set of beliefs, you describe the beliefs and then you reference a source so that readers can see that your description follows from what the source says.  Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for this purpose.  The danger of primary sources lies mainly in the fact that primary sources are usually trying to assert something as true, and we need to be very clear that we are describing what they say without looking like we are advocating for their position (this is why secondary sources are preferred where available - they usually don't have that assertive edge).  So for the hypothetical example, in an article about the 95 Theses we describe what (fringe theorist) Luther says, and if Luther references a debate in the greater realm of Catholic scholarship then we write about how Luther referenced that debate (which may entail describing the debate briefly to keep it from only presenting Luther's side).  There would probably be no need to mention Luther at all in an article about the debate in the greater realm of Catholic scholarship (not unless Luther's opinion was a prominent and direct part of that debate).  does that make sense?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about Luther. I disagree with Ludwig on the idea that Wikipedia should not strive for accuracy. To verify information is to prove it accurate. Facts (verities) are provable, including the facts surrounding an opinion (point of view). Proving an opinion is impossible. All we can do is verify that it exists. Secondary sources usually provide expert interpretation of opinions. To demonstrate, here is an opinion from a primary source interpretated by a reliable secondary source:


 * Airplane technology rapidly increased after World War I. By 1936, dogfighting was thought to be a thing of the past, since aircraft were reaching top speeds of over 250 miles per hour. This was proved wrong during the Spanish civil war, as quoted by the U.S. Attaché in 1937, “The peacetime theory of the complete invulnerability of the modern type of bombardment airplane no longer holds. The increased speeds of both the bombardment and pursuit plane have worked in favor of the pursuit … The flying fortress died in Spain.”


 * I've used primary sources myself, such as the US Navy's flight instruction manual. However, I have a little expertize in the field and fully understand the information provided. We must be careful when interpreting primary sources to avoid misinterpretation and synthesis, which are both easy to stray into without even knowing it. Primary sources are also used quite often to insert information that isn't prominent, (see: WP:PROMINENCE). If info is notable it'll usually be found in multiple secondary sources. So the cop-out answer to your question is that it depends on many circumstances that must be determined on a case by case basis.


 * Also, there is a difference between native American and American Natives, and not just anybody can get a book published, (just try it). Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we should strive for accuracy. but the accuracy we should strive for is accuracy about what's presented by sources, not accuracy about what's true in the world.  it's nice when the information presented in sources lines up nicely with conventional knowledge about the world (as is true of most technical manuals and scientific reports), but when we are reporting on opinions or ideas that go counter to conventional norms, then we need to present the ideas faithfully in the terms of the people who offer them and afterwards balance them with conventional viewpoints.  we don't want to try to present a non-normal view through the lens of conventional knowledge, because that will only end up making the non-normal view look abnormal (will all the negative implications of that word), and that is not a desirable outcome.  and sorry about the native american pun - I couldn't resist  -- Ludwigs 2  01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are using "conventional" to mean "accepted by people in your immediate friend circle" or " things I just know are right." Scientific progress always comes by finding conventional wisdom or long held obvious beliefs to be wrong. Calling something conventional as you do above just makes it sound like a rationalized or intellectualized way of saying " the right POV." Indeed, conventiional I would think is reflet in source prominence- voodoo could be the conventional belief. You want to document norms and deviants, not say that the deviants are wrong. I would also point out that being able to look at some data set- reliable wiki sources, evidence at a crime scene, or data about anti-oxidants free of any conclusiosns too obvious to question is the first step in making scientific or other progress towards factual truths. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * no, I'm meaning 'conventional' to mean 'according to the current state of knowledge in the relevant arena'. Even something as solidly 'factual' as gravity is merely a scientific theory that has developed over time, so that different eras have different scientific understandings of what it is.  Right now the 'conventional' understanding has gravity as a characteristic of spaces - 100 years ago, conventional knowledge had gravity as a force (a characteristic of objects, not spaces), the current conventional knowledge may change in the future (re gravitons or string theory).  With less-settled ideas you'll have more competition between theories: either you'll have one (currently) dominant theory and a bunch of well-defined alternates or you'll have a situation in which no theory is taken as 'conventional' knowledge universally.  but still...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Sorry I misread you, for apparently we are in agreement. And no problem about the pun. I just thought I'd point that out, since it often comes up in my area. Zaereth (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I should also maybe state the issue with "documenting what people think" as it relates to being a valid objective rather than telling them what you just know is right. Consider the case of trying to study a topic, a reader who wants to do what you want to do in the wiki article needs to understand the various POV's to make a strategic determination or just look for more cases of people doing stupid things. If looking to write a proposal, you want to know your compettion of widely held beliefs that could impact your approach- consider stem cell research for example. Even in securities analysis you have two competing quantities- value or what it is worth compared to the current market price which is basically a popularity contest ( or as Graham says you have a weighting and a voting machine). If you want to buy low and sell high, you need to determine if the market price is lower than real value ( and therefore likely to go up or become irrelevant as you hold the bargain you bought and harvest the returns). So, you need to know "why is everyone stupid besides me" to be reasonably sure you are getting a bargain. Does that help reduce the temptation to push The Right POV in an encyclopedic article on a controversial issue? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of these hypothetical situations have much to do with the primary role of an encyclopedia. In fact, "pushing the Right POV" (in plainly factual matters, at least) is a temptation that encyclopedias should not resist.  Phiwum (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no right POV or wrong POV. How can anyone's opinion be wrong? There are only prominent opinions and not-so-prominent opinions. We give them the same weight as the plethora of reliable sources do.


 * Ludwig's example of gravity is good. We can give facts we know about gravity, the laws, without fear of bias. Unfortunately, that's not very much. Everything else is just theory, or, in other words, an opinion which is backed up with evidence, but which can not be proved with that evidence. Using prominence, we can determine that Newton's opinion is almost as important to understanding the subject as Einstein's opinion. Alternative theories, however, are just not as prominent yet, so don't get nearly as much weight. By balancing opinions we achieve neutrality. Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It simply boggles my mind that you doubt whether opinions could be wrong. Of course they can.  The earth is not flat, despite the fact that a few people think that it is.  These folk have wrong opinions.  In other matters, of course, it may be more difficult to show conclusively that a belief is mistaken, but it is nonetheless obvious that the "right" (best justified, but not necessarily correct) opinion is the one with the preponderance of evidence, that coheres with background knowledge and so on.
 * Of course, there are many areas in which I would not dare to declare one view better than another. But the fact is that there are other areas in which it is clear which view is best supported by contemporary knowledge and WP should not hesitate to make this fact apparent.  Pretending that pseudoscientific nonsense is a gem awaiting discovery and polish is a disservice to our readers.  Phiwum (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone says that wnat to make things known until something comes up they don't happen to like. In this case, it would seem that the best or right POV would have the best coverage in reliable sources and then it is just a matter of prominence. At issue seems to be when your opinion of what has to be right differs from the source coverage among various communities. I think we probably agree on leading with the evidence, to the extent primary sources can be used to establish that which has been noted by others. But prominence just creates the question, "contemporary knowledge among whom?" and then you need to ask " how good is their evidence?" At this point, merit and popularity seem to conflate. Sure, you expect and oncologist to know more about cancer than Suzanne Sommers but her appearance on Oprah probably makes her more prominent among contemporary large communitiies. Leading with evidence and opinions from reliable sources should provide context- you don't need to push anything onto the reader. If you want to push then dig into the sources, don't inflict good intentions onto the reader is all I'm saying. Also note than singular and highly improbable events do occur and that history is simply not testable directly. However, the same observer who sees a UFO can have a bad hair day staring at a petri dish but presumably any observations in that setting wshould be reproducible if they are important. Conspiracies do happen too, and notable ones could be of interest for a variety of resaons if nothing other than understanding how humans behave in the wild. So, again, many of these articles I don't think cause us to differ on specific but talk here sounds a bit militant sometimes. Good intentions can be a bad problem. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this noticeboard seems to deteriorate into a general brainstorming on general principles. This discussion belongs on a project talkpage, such as Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories, and I hereby propose to move it there to reduce clutter on this noticeboard. Incidentially, I also resent the naive assumption that Roman Catholicism is "a position" and that there was no theological dispute prior to Luther. --dab (𒁳) 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza
An article with few editors interested in it, but see. I'm not sure if I should have brought this here or the NOR board. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All I can say is wow. "So much verifiable 'measurements in the stone' -based math seems to obviate the long-debated Egyptian pyramids 'tomb theory' -- at least for the 'Great' Pyramid of Giza. Upon what grounds does one deny such plain and straightforward basic 'math-in-stone'?" When do the aliens join in?
 * To be serious revert back however far your need too to return the article to some semblance of reality.
 * Here he changes a quote to something the ref does not say from 25000000 to 26000000.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

mensurology, eh? 524.1483 mm for the Royal Cubit? Seven digits accuracy, not bad at all for the Middle Bronze Age. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty good even for the Middle Titanium Age, at that. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Leeman and
I left a note at WP:BLPN about Ntsukunyane Mphanya's BLP violations on Motsoko Pheko and an IP has suggested that NM is actually BL (who has an account here I believe). Which would be impersonation. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this posted to FTN instead of ANI? Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there have been two threads about this. I'm hoping NM will reply (but he seems to edit only sporadically). I'm not sure it's the right time to take it to ANI. Maybe I'm wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still don't see what this has to do with fringe theories, but let me add for the benefit of other readers that presumably the reason you bring up the issue of impersonation is that "Ntsukunyane Mphanya" is the name of a real person, a south African politician. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looie: Ntsukunyane Mphanya was up on this board recently for spamming Leeman's cranky theories concerning Ethiopian Judaism and the Bible all over the place. From memory the two men do have an IRL connection. I would be surprised if this actually is impersonation: I think we have a comrade-in-arms who is on the warpath without Leeman's active connivance, though possibly Leeman read our COI policy and thought he'd better create an alias. It doesn't really matter either way, disruption is blockable as disruption no matter who is behind it. Moreschi (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepting it doesn't really matter either way, you can see from the contributions an interest in UK as well as African topics. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey
The subject of Aubrey de Grey has recently begun to edit his biography and related discussions from various IP addresses (including 212.183.140.4, 212.183.140.52, 81.155.164.81 and possibly also as new single-purpose account User:Marainein). de Grey appears to want to portray his idea that human beings will soon live forever (if they follow his genetic re-engineering strategy, including inserting mitochondrial DNA into the nucleus and lengthening telomeres in an unspecified fashion) as a concept generally accepted by the scientific community, when as far as I can tell, the only scientists agreeing seem to be on the board of his immortality organisation. I placed a notice at AN/I about the COI (after a COIN report went nowhere), but it wouldn't hurt for other editors to take a look at this and related articles.

de Grey's Methusaleh Foundation has established a notable prize, and de Grey edits his own journal, but does this make his speculations mainstream science? Are we truly to the point where declaring that humans will live forever is not WP:FRINGE?

Aubrey de Grey is just one of many fork-like articles on immortality speculation related to de Grey, including SENS Foundation, Rejuvenation (aging), Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, Methuselah Foundation and De Grey Technology Review debate, most of which are built around SENS website pages (and in some cases copied text) and not much else. A thorough clean-up is required. Any volunteers? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I reinstated this question because, as wonderful as we may all think Jimbo Wales to be, he does not have the experience editing Wikipedia FRINGE articles that many here do. I think that there are bizarre sentences in this article and the biography runs a bit soapy for my tastes. The one critical source is enlightening indeed and probably needs to be given more WP:WEIGHT than it currently enjoys. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to this, see Articles for deletion/Rejuvenation Research and Articles for deletion/Methuselah Foundation. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the  American Aging Association related? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate biogerontology synergistic research institutes and cryonics fantasies. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a handy category: Category:Life_extension. is garden probably needs weeding. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Behe
This ID proponent's article seems to be having trouble with WP:RS and possible WP:BLP issues. Help required! Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat
 * It seems the article is being paired back quite far, and on grounds I'm not convinced about (though they might have some merit). Please also review the history and talk page. I'm sure there are some Intelligent Design veterans around here. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat
 * I think that best can be called a "hatchet job". Just about anything critical was removed or restated in a gentler tone.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Been completely gutted. Washington Post, New Scientist, NSCE are "not reliable sources." The Fuck? Auntie E. (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah - and not even consistently done. Shrug - I've got my ideas on the source of this, just not sure exactly how the hachetman got pulled into this.  Odd, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE aren't mentioned, only WP:BLP.  Hmmm, now why could that be ...  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 05:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This one's been brought up on the BLP noticeboard as well, with claims that things like saying his ideas "are not accepted by mainstream scientists" is a BLP violation. At the moment, sourcing is being provided on the article's Talk page, but this one bears watching. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The True Furqan
This bizarre article has just received a massive and highly nonencyclopedic expansion by an SPA,. The changes have been reverted, but it's not clear how the story will develop, and more eyes might be useful. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's one of the most massive examples of OR I'd ever seen. It also appears is hell-bent for 3RR and beyond.... - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
My experience as an ArbCom clerk leads me to agree with Seddon, this will almost certainly not be accepted. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears it has not been. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Viral causes of autism, CFS, etc.
A very determined cabal of editors with obvious and in one case admitted personal interests are promoting some slightly fringe ideas at a variety of related articles including chronic fatigue syndrome, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus and Whittemore Peterson Institute. The chronic fatigue syndrome "walled garden" (as an experienced editor described these articles to me) has been a notorious haven of activists for a particular view of disease causation (namely, that a virus is responsible for what they prefer to call "myalgic encephalopathy" or "X-associated neuroimmune disease"), and has witnessed some rather deprecable behaviour in the past.

To the best of my knowledge, no scientific study claiming viral aetiology of CFS has been confirmed. The latest virus claim (XMRV), published in Science last October, was contradicted by a PLoS ONE report in January. Several special-interest editors are now using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), responsible for the Science report. They delete any information about the institute that they deem somehow negative, even if it's from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They remove accurate descriptions of the Institute's findings in favour of scientifically inaccurate summaries. They won't allow mention of the status of Ampligen, a drug rejected by the FDA and with which the founders have a long and intimate history. Additional, current issues:


 * WPI was founded by individuals who believe a virus is the cause of CFS, for the purpose of researching CFS. Two early (reported) versions of the institute's name also made this clear. The CFS editors have deleted this information from the article in favour of the institute's own, relatively recent, claim that it's a research institute for CFS, autism, fibromyalgia, MS, gulf war syndrome and other "acquired" diseases with "neuro-immune" aetiologies. Of course, this characterisation is simply wrong, as none of these conditions is widely accepted as acquired, and with the exception of MS, "neuro-immune" involvement is not well established.
 * WPI consists of one laboratory and two PhDs. Editors at the article won't allow any mention of the institute's size, for example as reported by The Guardian.
 * The lead investigator for WPI, Judy Mikovits, is probably the only Institute director to have been hired from behind a bar in a yacht club. To the CFS editors, it's neither interesting nor noteworthy, even when reported by the New York Times, that Mikovits got the job through someone she was serving in a bar, so they delete.
 * When another team published contradictory results, the lead investigator for WPI, in a reliable source, explicitly accused them of doctoring their experiments and of being part of an insurance company plot to discredit her institute. The special-interest editors say that mentioning this would be a BLP violation and that I am guilty of "fabrication".
 * Harvey Whittemore, WPI's founder, has a close friendship with the Senate majority leader in the United States, as well as with another Senator, both of whom have earmarked federal money for his Institute/the University of Nevada Centre that will house it later this year. For whatever reason, the CFS editors wish to conceal these relationships.

Any aid in bringing the Whittemore Peterson Institute article (and others) to a more NPOV, whilst fairly and accurately emphasising the slightly out-of-the-mainstream stances of the institution's workers/founders would be greatly appreciated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When dealing with health claims review articles should be used and primary studies should not per WP:MEDRS. This often helps improve article quality.  Removal of well sourced material should not occur.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand the accusations that K is making. This isn't a MEDRS article. It's an article about an Institute.  OK it has been set up for a specific mission and has already published a high-profile paper in Science.  It has also receive numerous accolades by CFS patient groups around the world and a statement of thanks read out in Congress by a US congresswoman (which we haven't gone into, BTW).


 * The word "Autism" is mentioned twice: both in direct quotes: one from the Director of Research; and one the WPI's mission statement. After the mission statement, I have already added a caveat which I  review and agreed with all of the active editors (though from the above, I gather that K has withdrawn this agreement): The Institute is novel in its of grouping of these diseases into a single "neuro-immune" class, which it asserts may be "caused by acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system"; however, there is no expert consensus on the aetiology of these diseases.   What do you want us to put in this line in the WPI mission statement? -- "Research the pathophysiology of neuro-immune diseases such as &lt;this content has been censored by Wikipedia editors&gt;" or do you want to do what K is proposing which is to censor these sentences and alter their words to match her particular perspective?  This is a very dangerous path to go down.


 * All I can ask is that the members of this community look at the last version of this WPI page before K restarted her mass reversion -- . Where are the "promotion of fringe theories" and the "bias of a cabal"?  Yes, we took out some comments that we attributed to Mikovits, but both McClure and Mikovits were using the press to criticise each other.  If you include one side then you need to include the other to maintain NPOV.  Our view was that it was better to wrap all this tit-for-tat in a single summary statement "Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients." with a list of supporting references so that readers could drill down if they so wished.  If this is really fringe work, how come the paper was accepted by Science and why are the following mainstream scientists  involved in this research?
 * NCI Cancer and Inflammation Program: Frank Ruscetti, Mike Dean, Bert Gold, Dan Bertolette,Ying Huang
 * NCI Laboratory of Cancer Prevention: Sandra Ruscetti, Charlotte Hanson, Jami Troxler
 * SAIC: Cari Petrow-Sadowski, Rachel Bagni, Kunio Nagashima
 * Cleveland Clinic: Robert Silverman, Jaydip Das Gupta
 * WPI: Judy A Mikovits, Vincent Lombardi, Max Pfost, Kathryn Hagen
 * We are not trying to promote fringe science, but we will try to maintain NPOV and try to stop other editors throwing unsubstantiated dirt and accusations under the guise of rooting out heresy. -- TerryE (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links at Ron Wyatt and Durupinar site
The main problem is at the Durupinar site article, a link farm of pro and con sites, I've started a talk page discussion on both articles mentioning WP:UNDUE. There's an IP Wyatt fan involved. Some comments on the talk page at least would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The folks at WP:ELN might be interested as well. Gabbe (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What concerns me is that both articles seem to have a lot of references to anti-Wyatt, but still fringe sources like Answers in Genesis. Also there are two images near the bottom of the Durupinar article (a pic of several drogue stones and a pic of Fasold standing next to an alleged drogue stone) that seem to have been pulled from a website without proper licensing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find the first image, but the second seems to come from here - the first one may be from the same site, I haven't looked through it. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the other image I'm referring to. If you look at the captions for both images, you'll see that there are external links in both captions that go to external version of a large image that the images were cropped from. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into it. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Similar questions were raised at Talk:Robert C. Michelson where, who created the Michelson article and uploaded the images, suggested he was a relative after it was suggested he might be Michelson. However, see his response to user:Future Perfect at Sunrise . COI anyone (at that and other articles)? Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Decatur and the Jersey devil
I've just yanked a section from Stephen Decatur concerning how he shot the Jersey devil through the wing. It was inserted by an IP a year and a half ago, so there may not be that much pressure to keep it, but someone else might like to take a look at it. The sources were all Fortean/Ripley stuff except for a fluff newspaper thing. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it
Is it just my imagination, or is Jersey Devil a bit on the credulous side? Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has a section collating "encounters" with this legendary creature...yes, it can use some tidying. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Borean languages
I have sympathy for the concept, but as I establish on the article talkpage, this idea has a pedigree of having been made up online, and it has not seeped into any academic literature short of one or two mentions-in-passing in Mother Tongue (a journal which is itself of rather fringy status).

Definitely a "fringe theory" (in the best academic sense), but one of very minimal notability. --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vinicio De Bortoli
Article about a possibly non-notable Italian physicist includes claims that run the gamut from originating "revolutionary theories in physics and electronics" to being "unable to obtain a degree because of bullying at work". Internet searches turn up nothing aside from his own claims of being the co inventor of "the first non-invasive interface for decoding of brain waves", sourced to an online patent. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a direct dump of the Google-translated page on the fellow from the Italian Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A maddening search as most everything is in Italian. What I get is that he is claiming priority on several items such as the Mindball game, while apparently having nothing to do with their actual development. It's off to WP:AFD. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw some videos on YouTube where he claims priority on analog-to-digital technology. And then, there's his blog... - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello guys sorry to write in an old archive, but I'd like to leave a comment on this topic. I recently found surfing Italian websites (I'm Italian) the story about this guy. Since you don't speak Italian you could miss some details about this man. He claims he received the BCI technology from the aliens. I don't want to judge this, but if you believe him, he didn't invent the BCI (he received from someone else), and if you don't believe him, well, he's clear he didn't invent anything. So, he always lose. He claims he's an engineer but on the same webpage he's so proud to tell everything about his life, even that he didn't graduate in physic because he was harassed, but weirdly he forgot to talk about his graduation in engeneering. Finally and more important, as you can check in the page about BCIs the FIRST BCI was made in 1973 by Vidal  and his patent is 1986. So he's not the first inventor of BCIs as he claims everywhere, neither he didn't invent the principle of decoding the brain waves. --tsu (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (CEST)

Ghost
There have been some recent problematic edits attempting to add unrelated commentary about the Committee for skeptical inquiry to this article. Please see Talk:Ghost, review, and discuss. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of editors seem to be employing Fringe_theories to minimize the mainstream view. They have a grudge against CSI and the National Science Foundation? They feel a majority of scientists secretly believe in ghosts? I guess I don't understand what their argument is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, guys, I've had the Fringe Theories Noticeboard bookmarked for a couple of years now - I'm a regular participant. If you want to try to cast me as 'some editor with a grudge against CSI' you're welcome to try, but I am going to rake you over the coals for it.  My argument (as I expressed quite clearly on the talk page) is that CSI is an advocacy group for proper science education, not a scientific research group, and it should not be presented as as though it were a scientific research group. If you have a particular problem with that, the issue is still open for discussion - running off to the noticeboard with some hysterical, off-the-deep-end fabrication is a bit lame.  It's not a problem, mind you, it's just stupid.  try discussing the matter first.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry of you're offended. I truly didn't (and still don't) understand the motivations behind the edits. And this is the first time I've been threatened with being "raked over the coals". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your first time... you are now no longer a Wiki-virgin. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - well, it was a pretty mild raking, I'll grant that, so maybe he can still claim virginity (If he so chooses). I can't (and don't want to) speak for Colin, who seems to take a more extreme approach than I do. My point is that CSI is primarily an advocacy group rather than a research group - they promote scientific understanding in public fora as a matter of education and reason, but they don't actually do anything to create scientific understandings themselves.  Granting that I like that effort, the wording on Ghost (and on multiple other pages, I'm sure) is weasled to give the impression that CSI is far more scientifically authoritative than they actually are.  Colin's original approach was inappropriate, I think, but I could see the valid point he was trying to make behind what he did.  My revision gives a much more accurate representation of the CSI's place in the topic.  is that clearer?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentally, and different from other skeptical groups, CSI is a committee that is dedicated to actually researching the evidence for paranormal claims. They've been around for so long in their various forms (formerly CSICOP) that there is almost no claim that they haven't subject to scientific investigation. What they've discovered over the years is that the vast majority of their research has yet to be challenged by anyone else. So, to deprecate them as being primarily and "advocacy group" rather than a "research group" is pretty strange. I have yet to see a research group that has done better research on the subject of ghosts than CSI. If you can point me to one, please let me know. They are certainly more reliable when it comes to evaluating paranormal claims than any so-called "Parapsychology organization". I am a bit curious that particular attribution is being used incorrectly. The section as it is currently worded actually violates particular attribution because it attributes rather mundane points to specific individuals rather than summarizing facts (e.g. it is a fact that many of the claimed abilities and properties of ghosts violate the laws of physics). In short, when statements are only contradicted by the Parapsychological Association and Institute of Noetic Sciences, NPOV does not require us to provide particular attribution of the facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with ScienceApologist's statement. One doesn't need a peer-reviewed paper in Nature to point out that patently fringe claims are fringe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm simply going by the NSF source cited on the Ghost article itself, which (in a chapter that deals with public perception of science) says:
 * There is nothing here that says CSI investigates claims, or does research, or collects evidence to refute paranormal claims. Instead, they "advocate the scientific investigation of..."  If you're not going to believe the NSF when the NSF says they are an advocacy group, who are you going to believe?  If you have another source not yet presented that shows CSI in an active research capacity, I'm happy to look at it, but otherwise that article claim needs to be rewritten to reflect what the source actually says.
 * There is nothing here that says CSI investigates claims, or does research, or collects evidence to refute paranormal claims. Instead, they "advocate the scientific investigation of..."  If you're not going to believe the NSF when the NSF says they are an advocacy group, who are you going to believe?  If you have another source not yet presented that shows CSI in an active research capacity, I'm happy to look at it, but otherwise that article claim needs to be rewritten to reflect what the source actually says.


 * I'm not interested in arguing with you about the CSI's merits as an organization. generally I like them, and I think their mission of advocating for critical thinking and science education is admirable and important.  but come on, guys: painting stripes on a tabby cat doesn't make it a tiger.  CSI has plenty of authority as an advocacy group (given its NSF backing and its collection of Nobel Laureates).  we don't need to weasel them into being something more than they are.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is not with Ludwig's suggestions but with this addition by Colin4C, which suggests that CSI's views on ghosts are unrepresentative of scientists' views in general. This is a serious problem because the page, as it stands, fails to make it clear that the existence of ghosts is not fact. You have to scroll through half of a long and detailed article just to find the isolated sentence According to a poll conducted in 2005 by the Gallup Organization, about 32% of Americans "believe in the existence of ghosts." &mdash; the first indication that their existence is even controversial. The section on "scientific explanations" is the last one before the bibliography and the first half of it discusses magnetism and infrasound, which are very recent dubious hypotheses. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, geez, I hadn't looked at the page more broadly. "Phantom armies, ghost animals, ghost trains and phantom ships have also been reported"...  hunh?  That must have been on the Fox network.   -- Ludwigs 2  01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, the quote you provide actually talks about the members, not the organization itself. In fact, it's pretty easy to see from our own article on the subject where the committee supports research that actively investigates claims, does research, and collects evidence to refute paranormal claims. Do you think the sources in our article on the committee are incorrect? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the source that is actually given on the Ghost article does not support the claim given on the Ghost article. as I said, if you want to produce another source we can compare, but when the NSF itself says the main purpose of the group is advocacy, you have a high bar to pass.


 * Looking at the page you linked itself, though, I don't see a lot in the way of actual research being done by the committee itself. In fact, their listed activities are:
 * maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education;
 * prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims;
 * encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed;
 * convenes conferences and meetings;
 * publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal;
 * does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully.
 * All of which speak more to active efforts to advocate and educate for science than to the actual pursuit of investigations as a group. I mean, I suspect that as individuals they may pursue such research, and they probably support researchers who do so, But the main focus of the committee itself seems to be trying to get people to think more clearly and rationally about pseudoscientific claims.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining a bunch of stodgy Nobel laureates giving enough credence to the concept of ghosts to settle themselves down in a drafty castle under a full moon trying to do actual research (though if you throw in a few smokin' hot research assistants you might have a decent plot for a cheap horror flick).


 * Again, I don't want to get all that critical of them. you know (if you recall) that I get annoyed by attempts to misuse skepticism (skepticism should never be allowed to become a belief structure in its own right), but proper scientific skepticism is a generically good thing, and I do credit the CSI (for the most part) with being properly scientific skeptics.  But I think it's pretty clear that their primary purpose is to advocate for good science and good reasoning.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're bending a little bit over backwards in order to maintain "advocacy" as a primary aim of CSI. The reason this looks problematic is because it makes it seem like the organization is self-promotional and not dispassionate nor neutral when, in fact, they're the closest thing we've got to dispassionate and neutral evaluation of claims of the paranormal. I'm just concerned that they are being contrasted against nebulous and ill-defined "other" groups which are somehow "better" sources for NPOV facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, I appreciate the reasonable presentation of your argument here, having previously (mistakenly) assumed your support for Colin4C's rather unreasonable take on the subject. Yet I am having some trouble embracing the idea that the Ghost article should specify that CSI is an advocacy group. It's a vague disclaimer open to interpretation (advocacy of what?). If a disclaimer were needed, saying that CSI's aim is "to advocate and educate for science" would be much less vague. However this whole discussion leaves me wondering why (as SA hinted) this section of the article requires such careful particular attribution for mundane facts (for example, attributing that there's no credible scientific evidence for ghosts to the opinion of one individual, Joe Nickell). It seems as if the majority position is being treated as the fringe position in this article. I wonder if you agree? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) @ ScienceApoligist: And I think you're bending over backwards (a bit) to present CSI in a more authoritative role than they actually occupy in the world; C'est la vie, et vive le différence! I'm not actually disagreeing with you, mind you, since I wouldn't want CSI lumped in on the same footing with the Ghost Hunters crowd, but I hardly think that's going to happen (at least, not before Ghost Hunters gets their first NSF grant).


 * It seems to me that your concern is really one of impression management. You're worried that if we remove a 'strong' statement about CSI and replace it with a neutral one, it will be interpreted as weakness, and someone will take it as an opportunity to warp the article into something fairly outrageous.  That's just not a threat assessment I can actually share.  In fact, I think impression management is counter-productive: it comes off as pushy to people who want to include other perspectives, and tends to inspire them to push back.  usually it's better in the long run to take a more balanced view, because it keeps people from assuming (and reacting to) a perceived bias on the page.


 * @ Louie (after edit conflict): I'd be happy with your 'to advocate and educate for science' wording, if that makes things easier; I just want to avoid the impression that the CSI is a scientific group doing definitive research on paranormal topic(s), since that impression seems to be unfounded. with respect to your other concern: grant first that this article needs some NPOV work (which I'll address when it gets unlocked), and second that I don't think the established scientific viewpoint should be treated as fringe, ever.  however, this is an article about ghosts.  the only reason we need the conventional scientific viewpoint on this article is to offset/dispose of any tendency people might feel to suggest that ghosts might actually be a reasonable topic for scientific investigation.  Again, it's the Ghost Hunters thing - we don't want readers to assume that 'paranormal investigations' actually constitute what most scientists would call science (except perhaps in those few, rare cases where it actually is).  We don't need to present science to offset religious or spiritual beliefs about ghosts - I don't think we want to start telling the entire Christian world that their conception of the Holy Ghost is erroneous - we just need to keep 'true' pseudoscientific claims (e.g. that ectoplasm can be captured and measured) from taking over the page.  It's my general philosophy about fringe articles: describe the fringe idea, soberly and accurately, and then give kind but firm reality checks as needed to keep the article from flying off into never-never land.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, Ludwigs, that it is a bit of impression management that I'm worried about. The point is that WP:FRINGE is in force because we need to be able to sidestep these idiotic back-and-forth edit wars where simple and plain writing is removed in favor of he-said/she-said constructions. CSI is about as good as it gets for describing the scientific facts of reports of the paranormal. They were, indeed, founded to provide that very sort of analysis. That their conclusions are not in line with the hopes and dreams of the ghost hunters is the main thing we're driving at here. We do not need an encyclopedia that accommodates all perspectives equally since we've got WP:WEIGHT after all. Wikipedia should not the place to present detailed credulity when incredulity is the modus operandi of the vast majority of sources in the know. Trying to marginalize incredulity is akin to exalting the fringe perspective beyond its niche. Let's be clear here: we are talking about an article on a subject which touches far more than scientific evidence. However, the section in question deals directly with scientific evidence. That's where the scientific evidence (or really, lack thereof) must be plainly laid out for the reader. The last thing we need are readers coming to Wikipedia to figure out what the scientific evidence in favor of the existence of ghosts is and instead have them read a quote mine that is full of specified quotations without summary style exposition of the facts of the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * generally speaking, I ignore the 'particular attribution' clause, which I see as fundamentally misguided, and generally in conflict with NPOV (a bit like asserting that the only credible sources for information on the Soviet Union are from the John Birch Society)). At any rate, none of this is on point, because the issue is not over the inclusion/exclusion of the reference.  the issue is whether we represent the CSI accurately as a group that advocates or inaccurately as a research group.


 * If you want to get hyperbolic about the rest of it, I could play that game, but I'd really rather not. I'm not fighting a war here;  if you are, I really don't want any part of it,  -- Ludwigs 2  16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to find any common ground with that last post, Ludwigs. Ignoring a part of a guideline that had community input and consensus seems, at best to me, problematic. Your opinion that the statement is in contraction to NPOV seems to me to ignoring the most succinct way to describe NPOV. Claiming somehow that CSI describing the scientific evidence for ghosts is even remotely parallel to the John Birch Society describing the Soviet Union either is pretending that science is all based around political one-up-man-ship or that CSI is on the remote fringes of understanding about science: neither of which are tenable positions. Finally, your attempt to rule by fiat that the only "accurate" way to represent CSI is as a group that advocates and it is inaccurate to describe them as a research group has already been shown to you to be incorrect. So we're left with a lot of hot air. I'm not about to get hyperbolic about the situation, but realize that you are setting yourself up for a lot of conflict (and not just with myself) by staking out these positions. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * you forget that I was around when the 'particular attribution' section got written and was imposed on the page, over the objections of numerous editors (myself included). I was inexperienced then, I'm not now, so don't try to pull the same crap on me.  I will IAR that section until it goes away or gets revised into something sensible, because it serves no value on the project.
 * don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere on this page, on the Ghost article, or anywhere else that I can see does the CSI discuss the scientific evidence for ghosts.  All the article says is that the CSI labels paranormal concepts as pseudoscience (lacking credible scientific evidence), which is fair and accurate.  However, they are a skeptical group that labels a vast range of issues pseudoscientific.  The John Birch society could easily make a fair and accurate description of the Soviet Union as well, but that doesn't make their position neutral.
 * the NSF marks them as an advocacy group, as does our wikipedia page - you have yet to provide a source that says they do anything else. do you have a problem with reliable sources when they say things you don't like?
 * yeesh. -- Ludwigs 2  22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ludwigs2, it's even more difficult to find common ground with that post. We're going to have to agree to disagree. We'll see what happens whether or when our wikiphilosophies collide in actual editing environments. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's probably better. I think you and I get more hot-under-the-collar at each other when we discuss abstractions than we do with concrete situations.  one of these days I'm going to have to buy you a beer so that we can have a real drunken philosokrieg and get it out of our system.    -- Ludwigs 2  04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Secret society needs attention
Our article on Secret society needs a lot of attention. Due to the nature of its topic, the article is always going to be a Fringe theory magnet. At the moment it strikes me as attempting to deal with the subject neutrally... but inconsistent citation style (ie a serious lack of inline citations) makes it all but impossible to know if it is actually doing so. The same problem exists in knowing what is Original research and what is backed by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moses as the founder of democracy
At Moses as symbol in American history there appears to be a mixture of legitimate accounts of the important symbolic role Moses has played in struggles for freedom (Civil Rights movement, etc.), but also pseudo-historical claims that Moses and the 10 C's are the basis of democracy and human rights. I noticed this when the author of that article added a summary of it to the into of Ten Commandments, and, after I removed that, created a new section for it further down in the article. I haven't read the sources, but this has the appearance of recent domestic movements to rewrite US history to argue that America was founded as a Christian state. I don't have the background in history to argue this myself. kwami (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I have seen people refer to early Hebrew governance (post exodus, pre judges) as a kind of democracy, but it's not a very significant idea in scholarly circles (it's not a refuted theory, really, just not something that's caught much interest). I can't imagine you could do much with the idea on wikipedia without a good bit of synthesis.  I'll take a look.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the investigatory article on the Texas School Board done by the New York Times mentioned that Moses is often referred to as a figure of American civic and historical import: . Worth a read and perhaps gives good fodder for writing a critical analysis of the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Effect
Here's one of the casualties from the great cosmology wars of 2005. I'm not sure how to approach this. Here's the story:

In the late 1970s and 1980s, a major question was, "What is the nature of Quasars?" A flurry of researchers went to work on the subject and came up with a number of options. One was that quasars were at cosmological distances and the tremendous redshifts seen in them were really examples of objects that were really far away (now known to be the unequivocal right answer). A number of observationalist sticks-in-the-mud continue to argue that quasars (or at least a subpopulation of them) are actually nearby objects which are ejected from nearby active galactic nuclei (famously, Halton Arp argues this). Finally, a small group from University of Rochester led by Emil Wolf proposed an effect which hadn't been observed, and is the eponymous name of the article.

We now know for a number of reasons that the Wolf Effect explanation for quasar redshifts is completely untenable. Majorly, quasars are known to exist in systems that are decoherent, the massive redshifts associated with them are seen in absorption lines, and in order to get systematic redshifts of any size a rather dense medium is needed to allow for the dissipation of energy through scattering. Lacking these conditions, a consistent redshift is not possible and the Wolf Effect is therefore not considered a redshift mechanism. A protracted battle that resulted in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience happened back then over this issue that resulted in, primarily, a vindication of the idea that Wikipedia is supposed to marginalize fringe ideas in mainstream topics to the extent that they are marginalized in reliable sources.

The detailed physics of the Wolf effect was worked out in a number of mainstream journal articles that are now all but forgotten. Though they were published in mainstream journals, no one bothered to comment on the papers after the consensus models for quasars was developed. It seems that Wolf himself may have even abandoned the idea that there is any cosmological implication to his prediction and discovery at all, having not published about the hypothesis for more than a decade.

So we've got this article on the Wolf Effect. It's a real effect that was theorized to explain a particular set of observations and it turns out not to be the explanation for those observations. However, the sources we can locate on this matter all essentially just tell the first half of the story (theorizing, predicting a spectrum, observing it in the lab, explaining the conditions) and the second half is missing (critique of the idea is done through overwhelming silence of the community and the consensus model ignoring it). But how do we write an article that captures this state of being? What is most prominent and notable about the Wolf Effect? How do we avoid original research?

I personally think what's most interesting is the effect itself (a sort of combination of coherence, physical optics, and scattering) which is an effect that has been observed in laboratory conditions, but has never been seen in the natural world. It's historical backwater tributary that, while interesting, is an almost unverifiable story because no one bothered to publish anything refuting it as a possible cosmological redshift mechanism. So I'm left not knowing exactly what to do. Real physics, real phenomenon, unreal antiquated explanation for unrelated things. I tried working on it, but am thinking of self-reverting because I'm so confused.

Please help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a good way to figure out what to do: Imagine that you are telling someone, who knows nothing about the subject before talking to you, about the "Wolf effect". What would you tell them? The explaination above sounds great to me, although the style that it's written in obviously isn't perfectly appropriate for an article. Looking at the Wolf effect article itself, I'd simply add your (third paragraph? the one that starts with "We now know for a number of reasons...") to the article, with references. Most of the other stuff that you've brought up here would be a great addition to the article as well (with sources, obviously). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, as I see it, that there are no sources for my story. What I've posted here is correct, but it's original research. And, while I am qualified to write this story for publication, I'm not inclined to do so right now nor do I know what venue I can do this in. So in avoiding original research, how do we let the reader know the current state of the situation? What sources do I cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ...I'm not a researcher myself, although I have quite a bit of exposure to research. I could swear that I'd heard all of what you said above, in one form or another, prior to your posting it here. It sounds like you'd know better then I would so, are you sure that there are no source(s) that could be used to back that up? It may take citing more then one (or even a couple) sources, but I'm fairly certain that the info is out there. Hasn't this stuff been added to current astronomy textbooks/reference works? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be really interested in finding a source that can be used to back up what I wrote above. If you find any, please let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are any of the results from a Google scholar search of recent articles matching both "wolf effect" and quasar useful? For instance, the book "Questions of Modern Cosmology: Galileo's Legacy" found by this search includes a brief statement that the Wolf Effect "does not appear promising as a mechanism ... [to] mimic cosmological redshifts". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty promising source, but is still rather combatively fringe and could serve to source a different perspective than the one I provide above. I quote it here now for completeness and ask the opinion of the community whether a different source should be found. (Note, for example, the divisive use of the word 'careerist' and the vague reference to 'Pandora's Box'.

On the Wolf Effect

Dear Jack (Sulentic), among plasma physicists, the Wolf effect has been considered a possible cause of noncosmological redshifts. Can you please explain why this effect should be relevant under the physical conditions expected for line emission from quasar? Can this effect account for the internal shifts observed between lines emitted by ions of widely different ionization potential?

Emil Wolf is an impressive scientist who easily satisfies the definition of a truth seeker (Baconian). He was therefore rather naive when he suggested that a mechanism that came to be called the Wolf effect might have an application in astrophysics. This was a mechanism capable of producing non-Doppler shifts in spectral lines. Any application offering this possibility will be dismissed by careerists because any demonstration of a non-Doppler component, however small, could be said to open Pandora’s Box. I accept some of the blame for encouraging him to explore such possibilities. I think he was genuinely surprised by the rancor and hostility that greeted his suggestion. The Wolf effect can be included in a general category of scattering mechanisms that can in principal (i.e., given the proper set of physical conditions) shift line emitting photons to longer (or shorter) wavelength. Others include Compton and Raman scattering mechanisms. Compton downshifting of photons is well known especially among X-ray astronomers. All of these mechanisms might play a roll in complex sources like quasars. Compton scattering was invoked [516] to explain a significant (but not cosmological) redshift observed in the 6.4 keV X-ray line discovered in many low redshift quasars in the 1980s. It was not warmly welcomed but now higher S/N spectra reveal that most of the redshifted lines were not real.

Scattering mechanisms do not seem promising as a way to produce all or most of the cosmological redshift. I am not qualified to discuss such models in detail, but the empiricism can provide first-order constraints for such models. Producing small shifts or asymmetries in emission lines is one thing, but shifting the bulk of the photons outside the envelope of the intrinsic (rest frame) line is quite another. A scattering process generally broadens a line and alters its shape. The broad and complex emission lines in quasars offer a tempting target for scattering applications. Electron scattering, for example, almost certainly has some small effect on emission line structure in quasars. Unfortunately, a large fraction of quasars also show one or more narrow emission lines with the same or very similar redshift as the broad ones. Scattering mechanisms also often produce wavelength-dependant shifts. In recent years, we have been able to compare the emission lines at UV, Optical, and IR wavelengths, and we find that all lines in a quasar show the same redshift within a scatter of at most 800 km/s (UV emission lines do show a systematic blueshift relative to optical lines in perhaps 60% of quasars). In summary, we do not know enough about the physical conditions within the central regions of quasars to rule out scattering mechanisms, but to produce a pseudo-cosmological redshift, they would have to scatter all of the lines from Ly-alpha, to Paschen-alpha˛ in a way to produce the same redshift and preserve their intrinsic widths. If I were looking for an astrophysical application of the Wolf effect in quasar astronomy, it would be to explain small scale shifts and asymmetric differences within a source.

In summary, the Wolf effect appears most promising for explaining smaller line shift and shape anomalies. It does not appear promising as a mechanism that might produce non-Doppler redshifts that could mimic observed cosmological redshifts.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may also be worth doing a search on google books or if you or anyone has the time, an afternoon at the library. Often scholarly books fill in the gaps that the peer reviewed literature has not yet filled.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Age at Criticism of the United Nations
I came across this section while reading Criticism of the United Nations, and something about it didn't seem right. I know we're not supposed to use weasel words like "some," but when there are multiple sources that make up a significant minority, I think there is a reason to use it. None of the sources are online. The author of one of the sources, Michel Schooyans has a stub level article with 5 of the same sources, I suspect placed by the same person who made that section. I don't really know much about the UN or the "New Age" conspiracy, but I was wondering if someone knowledgeable about this could take a look and see if they think anything is wrong.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have heard of criticisms of the UN having connections to New Age groups. It may not be a mainstream belief but I don't think that any wikipedia guidelines such as WP:UNDUE have been broken as it is only one sentence. I think that it is notable enough for an at least brief mention.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for takin a look at it.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so fast... I am much less sure about this than Literaturegeek is... The "UN and New Age religion" theory seems to be a loosely defined sub-theory of the broader New World Order conspiracy theory. In other words, its on the fringe of the fringe. I have been able to access some information on two of the cited authors, and I don't see much that impresses me...  (Gary Kah's bio can be seen here, and Hannah Newman is not even a reliable source... just a website where she self-discribes as "I'm a nobody, actually.  I have no academic degree even remotely related to this field.  No list of published books, teaching stints, or associations with Big Names".)  More to the point, I think to mention this theory we would need a source that isn't advocating it... but a mainstream source that discusses it.  I think this does raise WP:UNDUE questions. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I did not look into the sources to see their quality or lack thereof. I am not sure what you mean by "UN and New Age religion theory",,,, perhaps you mean some conspiracy theory of the UN enforcing some new religion, I dunno??? The sentence in the article is not talking about such a conspiracy theory but just said that the UN has been criticised for its connections to new age movements; you seem to have jumped from that to something else and then tied it to something else again. I apologise if I am misreading you. I have no strong views on this and do not mind if the consensus is to delete. I dunno if there are scholarly sources available, if not then might be best deleted.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the sources (and other writings by the same authors), they go beyond just criticism of a UN connection to new age movements. They frame their discussion of this connection in the context of there being a sinester conspiracy to weaken traditional religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church) and valiues, with the goal of creating a non-religious New World Order.  To put it another way... It seems that the only people who criticize the UN for having a connection to New Age groups are conspiracy theorists, and the only place they make this criticism is in the context of a conspiracy theroy... I therefore am uneasy about mentioning this particular criticism, and wonder whether mentioning it isn't giving the underlying conspiracy theory Undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have spent some time searching google scholar and google books and you are correct in what you say, that it is associated with conspiracy theories; typically involving a fulfilment of prophecies. I expected to find some type of scholarly discussion mentioning some form of criticism of international bodies giving too much time to new age movements or something not to do with an intentional sinister conspiracy but did not find any. Perhaps I was using the wrong keywords lol. Anyway it looks like we have consensus for its deletion. It might be worth merging into a relevant consiracy theory article but I now think that the statement should be deleted from the criticism of the United Nations article as it is a conspiracy theory. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Longevity traditions (recently Longevity Myths)
This article needs some balance toward neutrality, and it's a bit more than I can handle. There's some unqualified creation science attributing the long ages of Adam et al. to the antediluvian "firmament". The other sections aren't much better.

NB: I did change the title from "Longevity myths" because of our section on the word "myth" as a word to avoid in the casual sense. If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back. Auntie E. (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Incredibly messy. I will make a couple of edits but isn't it synthesis to bundle together the biblical accounts of up to 900 years with 19th and early 20th century claims of 150 odd years? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We could make it into a List of longevity claims. That might help solve the synthesis problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Auntie E. (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhoh, there's already an article on Longevity claims which documents the unverified yet viable claims of recent history. It seems that that particular article considers "claims" more veritable than "myths" and the article continually makes clear that "myths" are not credible, which appears to violate our guideline on the word. Auntie E. (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with orb (optics)
Not sure what to do with this article. I removed a section on the paranormal, but notice that the vast majority of references and external links are to paranormal resources. Nevertheless, backscatter and near-camera reflections are very real phenomena which deserve an article. I'm just not sure that this umbrella (orb (optics)) does the trick. There is also extensive discussion of orbs in the paranormal literature, but this article is not orb (paranormal), it's orb (optics). WP:ONEWAY would have us segregate the mundane idea of backscatter (which has nothing to do with guessing about ghosts and is a real problem in almost all optical arrangements) with the more outrageous (and possibly interesting to our readers) ideas that these aren't photographs of ghosts. Then again, I'm feeling that another name would be more appropriate since "orb" is not the preferred nomenclature amongst those not debunking/ghosthunting.

Anyway, I thoroughly confused myself, but I really do think that there are two articles in here and not one. Advice and help in creating/splitting articles would be greatly appreciated.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The section you removed cited About.com which I don't believe is a reliable source. Creating a separate article for the paranormal aspects seems reasonable although I have my hands full with other articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About.com is published by the New York Times, so I don't know why it wouldn't be a reliable source. You might be thinking of Ask.com? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's not much editorial control over the content of about.com. They give their invited contributors free reign to produce whatever content they want. It's essentially a glorified blog. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * humm... maybe you're right. I never really thought about it much before now... (I can't recall ever actually using them either, although I do remember looking the site up for some reason) — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I looked it up in the WP:RSN archives and it has come up several times. Admittedly, I didn't take the time to read through each and every post, but it appears that opinion is a bit mixed.  Personally, I try to avoid citing any source that might be questionable so that might be the cause of my bias against About.com. YMMV.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just redirect this article to Backscatter and then, if a new paranormal article is desired, one can be created. Hal peridol (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable to me. Should be boldly try it? I'll leave it to someone else to decide. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave it a go. The Backscatter article could definitely use some improvement though. Hal peridol (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not kosher
Hey guys, look at the heading of this discussion and ask yourselves one question... why we are having it here?

This is a great discussion, and I appreciate everyone's input. However, it is not kosher to have a discussion about the Orb (optics) article on this page, and then once the discussion is over, announce a so-called 'consensus' (as in here), on the Orb (optics) article page. It's the second time the article has been broadsided recently, as when here, the article was merged, again with no discussion on it's own discussion page. This is in very poor form; it does not reflect a good faith effort to include the editors on that page in the discussion. Please conduct discussion about the fate of the Orb (optics) page on it's discussion page. That's what the page is for. Or at the very least, announce on that page that article's fate is in discussion elsewhere, before the... er... consensus is reached.

And for the record, I will reiterate, the Backscatter page is ultimately about a broad concept of physics, and includes references to other specific instances where the term is used. Now the editors on the Backscatter page seem committed to conflating the disparte subjects (physics, flash photography and computers) because they share the same word. There is no need to conflate these subjects. What is really called for is a disambiguation page for the word backscatter, that could include each of the subjects that include the term backscatter.

And for what it's worth, the Orb(optics) page is poorly named. It's an article about digital flash photography. It has gone under several different names including Orb(photography) and Orb(paranormal). Please note that Orb (photographic) does redirect to Orb (optics) and Orb (paranormal) is the one that goes off into make-believe land. This has confused the issue, of course.

I appreciate your understanding in hearing my points. I know we can and will do better. Thanks. 842U (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As the editor who did the merge, I had no reason to think that the merge would be a controversial one, which is why I didn't bother with a proposed merge template, etc. Orb (optics) is actually about an example of the phenomenon of optical backscatter, and seems to be an ideal candidate for merging. Whether the backscatter page should be a dab is another question - most of the examples used on that page could/should be expanded, and there are other phenomena that are not covered at all. Hal peridol (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship sources
I think some readers of this board are interested and might want to chime in at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Aryan again
Edit war erupting. Apparently it is "propaganda" to assert that Iranians have any claim on the Glorious Word. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ica stones
Could interested editors review recent changes to the article Ica stones? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, they're terrible. I've reverted and included a note discussing why they are inappropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to the article. I'm pretty sure the other involved editor is acting in good faith, but I tend to view his/her edits as misguided.  Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory article recently obtained GA status. In my glee I quickly (perhaps overly quickly) submitted the article for FA candidacy. While reviewers indicated that there were a number of issues in need of resolution, the article's candidacy was derailed primarily by one reviewer's accusation that the article was POV.

Specifically, a very experienced reviewer read the article, claimed to have read the 39 footnotes (I know, excessive, I'm working on it) that indicate the theory is WP:FRINGE, and then faulted the article for presenting the theory as "fringe when it may simply be a minority position". The reviewer's go-to fact checking source here was that unassailable pillar of historical Jesus research, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Needless to say I was both shocked and deeply frustrated. But this sort of thing keeps happening: anonymous IP users, moderately involved editors, and now even an admin have read the article, claimed to have read the footnotes, and still--inexplicably--questioned the WP:FRINGE nature of the topic.

I understand that the article needs to shed some of its footnotes; 39 citations in support of a single point is far too much. But considering this baffling trend I'm hesitant to do anything. Afterall, if some people will question the fringiness of the theory in the face of literally dozens of citations, what will happen if that list is pared down to just two or three? So before I do much in terms of trimming the list, I'd very much like to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Is there some authoritative Wikipedia body that could rule in some way on the fringiness of the Christ myth theory? I'd like to get such a ruling into the article milestones on the talk page or something. Eugene (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no way to get "official" rulings on content in Wikipedia. However, Christ myth theory has come up many times on this board, and there's usually a clear consensus that it's a fringe theory. See:


 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_6
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_17


 * Note that the article was once called Jesus myth hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to get a ruling on this from the ArbCom? I realize it's not what they normally do, but it would seem arguably proper. Eugene (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure arbcom would look on this as a content decision and would summarily reject any attempt to make a resolution to that effect. Posting links to those discussions in a FAQ for the talk page boilerplates is probably the best you can hope for. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing I have learned... there are some articles that should probably never be featured, no matter how good they get. It sounds like Christ myth theory is one of them.  I doubt you will get ArbCom to rule on this, but you can always try. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand your perspective, Blueboar. But I figure that if intelligent design and Xenu can become Featured Articles, despite the vandalism and hardcore POV edits they no doubt receive, why not the Christ myth theory? Somehow those articles found a way to fight through the nonsense and make it; I'm trying to find that way. Eugene (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Get a different reviewer. The one you got is very "experienced" but not in a good way and I've never had a high opinion of their judgment. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)