Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 24

Reddi and 'biblical science' section in Christendom
is active again editing historical articles. He's very fond of very old sources, and after an IP reverted this: he restored it - I reverted it and he's restored it again. It's copied form the 1903 version of this 1896 source, mentioned in our article on the author: Andrew Dickson White which may be of historical import but if it belongs in the article at all, which I doubt, it belongs only as a mention. The IP who originally removed it discussed it at Talk:Christendom. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reddi is always bad news. If in doubt, revert. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just the fringe stuff, it's his ancient references he uses at times, see which does have some recent ones but also " The New century book of facts. (1911).", "The Academy, Volume 13. J. Murray, 1878. Pg 339  The Rotarian Feb 1938. "Rediscovering the Silk Road"," etc. ~
 * correct, it's not technically a fringe issue, it's just bad editing. --dab (𒁳) 06:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages of Slovenia
I'm asking for more input in the dispute on whether to include 'Prekmurian' as a language in the article Languages of Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick glance and my basic problem is I really can't understand anything User:Doncsecz is saying. Example: "In turn is simple: the slovene questings more often care for the Prekmurian. The Prekmurian the most interested, notorious dialect." That's just not intelligible English. Maybe he's trying to communicate via translation software. Not a good idea. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a question of fringe. Demarcation between languages and dialect groups does not have generally accepted clear, objective criteria. Most disputes about such matters are really about politics, not linguistics, and should result in some form of compromise unless the situation is very clear.
 * If the article Prekmurian dialect is not very misleading, then it is justified to discuss it in Languages of Slovenia, while stating explicitly that it is not necessarily a language.Hans Adler 11:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Prekmurian is a dialect of Slovenian. I hardly think we needed the input from an authentic native born and raised in a remote Prekmurian village and communicating via babelfish to figure this out. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For info, Prekmurians is in need of attention. It was brought to Pages in need of translation as being written in incomprehensible, probably machine-translated, English. I tinkered with it a little then got bogged down. Would it make sense to merge it with Prekmurian dialect? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from it, that here is objectivity: every item support the status of the Prekmurian. This is bias. I was ask Lainšček, Branko Pintarič and others, and identify oneself with the Prekmurian. I not any more put in a word for the Prekmurian, as the users demonstrate the scorn of the Eastern Europeans. Ornate example: Talk:Croatian language. In Western Europa also resuscitate suppressed languages, accordingly in the EU is unaffected this processions. I accent the propagandas of Miško Kranjec and Rudi Čačinovič (this men attend the communistic dictatorship and theirs accolade was great jobs) give rise the bias of the Prekmurian and the foreign peoples still take into this propagandas. Linguists for ex. Jesenšek not cast doubt on the marked status of the Prekmurian inside the Slovene. Doncsecztalk 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Slovene literary language is an muncipal dialect, extrude other slovene dialects and Slovene linguist was chauvinists, when form the Standard, all in all from the Ljubljana dialect and Gorenjsko dialect. The Prekmurians was disaffected with the Slovene Standard and like between the World Wars language-authonomy for the Prekmurje (see: Slovene March (Kingdom of Hungary)). Doncsecztalk 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Enneagram of Personality
Hmm, there seems to be a particular user arguing forcefully that enneagrams of personality are not pseudoscience and that, moreover they have scientific validity! Help would be appreciated. jps (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See also a bunch of nonsense I removed from RHETI. jps (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And now the user has come back in calling me a "militant activist" with specious claims that "doctorates are okay". Help would be nice. jps (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Still at it. Edit warring for promoting this fringe view seems to be the going thing for . jps (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And, in classic fashion, the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ. jps (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have some assertions about the "pseudoscientific claim"? The assertion is vague and lacks specific measurements for reproducibility or falsifiability. It fails to apply operational definitions, so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them. It fails to reasonably apply the parsimony principle because the assumptions are not clearly identified. Pseudoscientific is obscurantist language, and apparently technical jargon in an effort to give the claim a superficially scientific trapping. The absence of boundary conditions to the claim, is most concerning, because there are well-articulated scientific evidence building about the subjects, limitations under which the predicted claims do and do not apply. In short the "pseudoscientific" claim is pseudoscientific rubbish based on subjective opinions themselves. It's essentially meaningless distraction to the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Riiiiight. Back in the real world, we've got some issues with people hilariously claiming scientific basis for enneagrams of personality including some pretty outlandish descriptions of "studies" that "show" a "scientific basis" for this nonsense. What these articles need is a thorough scrubbing by the incredulous. That's not possible right now due to some rather petulant advocacy. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From a cursory look at this group of articles, it's no surprise they are written in an in universe style since the majority of text is cited to primary sources. We'd have to locate objective secondary sources to avoid having an article about a spiritual concept written from the POV of proponents/followers. Also, I'm not sure all the various sub-articles are really required. Assuming that a lack of mainstream attention has been given these concepts, one main article that succinctly summarizes them might be more appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. OK, I see the problems there. Well, if I were to go in and clean the article of all primary-sourced claims, the result would be an article consisting of a mere sentence or two. Which would cause the people guarding the article to go nuts accusing "censorship" etc. and lead to all kinds of behavioral problems. The best way to avoid that is to rewrite the article using good quality objective sources. That usually calms things down, since the guardians get to see their basic "messaging" still in the article, albeit objectively reported by a 3rd party. Unfortunately that process takes a lot of time. Sometimes I wish such pick and shovel work could be outsourced ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there are at least a dozen authors in this subject with many books and economic commerce (means people, in their ignorance, demand it), there is mainstream coverage and related scientific research. For something this new, and apparently growing fast, how fringe is that? Why attack an article, when there isn't really an issue with fringe. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Textbook defense. Also, seen way too often here to be believable. If you could start listing some sources, LuckyLouie, I'd help you. jps (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So simply, it's a fringe theory because you (and no weight of reliable sources) say it is? There is no witness, no case, no harm.  Let it go. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The claims of scientific validity to enneagram-types are most definitely fringe, yes. Just as the claims for scientific validity of MBTI, astrological signs, or neuro-linguistic programming. jps (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @jps. The sources are all over the map; some embroider the subject with funky mysticism, others package it as a pop culture "how to get along with people" self-help method. However I found a surprisingly objective overview in Yoga Journal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on article issues regarding needed improvement and better sourcing, we seem to be witnessing a case where several things may apply to Zulu Papa 5's involvement here: likely a pusher of fringe theories; making point violations; disruptive editing; and definitely baiting jps. Just stating what seems obvious. Can Zulu Papa 5 be reigned in and cautioned per PSI ArbCom sanctions? This amount of disruption from one editor is a bit much. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since when is asking for sources and clarification disruptive? If you aim to escalate this over exaggerated issue, please provide some diffs (from all involved parties). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Of itself that's often a good idea, it's more the manner of your doing it in a baiting manner, seeming to pretend that ennegrams aren't a pseudoscientific idea and also going to JPS's talk page and accusing him of being a pusher of pseudoscience. That's totally ludicrous. JPS is a renowned expert on dealing with pseudoscience and pushers of fringe POV. It appears you've got a lot of fingers pointing back at yourself. You should just stick to asking for sources without revealing what appears to be a fringe POV pushing agenda. If there are issues related to sourcing, then just seek to improve that situation. That is always a good idea. Trying to defend pseudoscience at the same time only muddles the waters. I suggest you retract your personal attacks on JPS. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Soruces? That what I am seeking here friend. You appear to be pointing to JPS as a reliable source, is that how wiki works for you? Please, what do the sources say? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about you guys drop the sarcasm and belittling of a fellow editor and address the issues here. There is nothing wrong with having a Wikipedia article written in a way that describes the belief, discipline, ideology, or theory as its followers see it or themselves.  Primary sources are appropriate in this case to help build the article.  After that, if there are any reliable sources which take issue with the theory or those beliefs, this can be added.  Wikipedia, however, cannot declare it to be "pseudoscience".  Only the sources can and in the right context.  Now, are there any reliable sources calling this a "pseudoscience"? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cla68, asking for sources which say ennegrams are pseudoscience (or using synonyms to that effect) is the proper thing to do. Attacking and baiting JPS isn't okay. That's my point. Zulu Papa 5 should do the first without doing the second.


 * Presenting the believers' POV is necessary if there are RS that do it. If not, then follow the FRINGE guideline. Presenting the mainstream scientific POV is mandatory per FRINGE and UNDUE, if there are RS that comment on it. Note that our fringe guideline governs how we deal with the subject of ennegrams. That means the sourcing and presentation requirements differ from other articles. Note that there may be some aspects of the subject that are not pseudoscientific and others that are. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is baiting JPS? The way ZuluPapa is being treated over this article is reprehensible.  Anyway, "we" don't know what the "mainstream scientific POV" is.  Only the reliable sources do.  If you try to use sources that aren't about Enneagram to show that it's fringe, then that is synthesis and not allowed.  Now, I believe JPS has found a single source which gives its author's opinion that Enneagram is not real science.  So, add that single opinion to the bottom of the article under the section-heading "Contrary opinion" or something like that and move on. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the criteria for applying fringe guidelines? Is it based on some editors (non-scientific) opinions on the subject? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Cla68: I'd worry more about an entire article sourced to websites selling enneagram products or people selling enneagram books or counseling services. Material not originated by reliable and independent third-party sources can be rightfully removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And now: RFARB. I must have hit a nerve! jps (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kundalini syndrome
This is based almost entirely on the works of Fringe theorists. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's part of the 3HO / Yogi Bhajan group promotion. We just deleted Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan via AfD, this one should probably go the same route soon. Also see Kundalini Yoga as that one is also frequented by the Bhajan community. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Symptomology and DSM-IV sections seem to be straying into ALT MED territory as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears there may be some COI and promotion issues here, but also much valuable content, so outright deletion might not be the way to go. A good cleanup would be better. I know that in Denmark there have been cases of people who experienced a Kundalini rising reaction (translation) ending up in closed wards of mental hospitals. They simply become psychotic for a period of time. (It's simply unsafe to take Yoga into the deeply spiritual realm and go this far. Stick to the exercises.) I'm not an expert, but colleagues said it was possible to help them. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this "Kundalini rising reaction"? What is the mainstream academic view about it? 14.139.128.14 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better addressed as a part of Kundalini Yoga than in this article which is written from the group's standpoint? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer has the right idea here. A potentially troubling set of symptoms exists, for which there's a spiritual take (Kundalini), a nascent healthcare take (kundalini syndrome / qigong psychosis) and ignorance (which puts sane people into asylums - I'm aware of US cases too).  I don't prefer the ignorance take over the others.
 * Spiritual content is better suited to the Kundalini article, and healthcare content is better where it is. Meditation and Qigong are precursors to the symptoms just as much as Kundalini Yoga is, so any material relocation needs to bear that in mind. K2709 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Matriarchy
The Matriarchy article is getting a flurry of edits from what is apparently some sort of really far out über-feminist editor after their own draft for "Women's superiority" has been deleted. Please review. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * über-über-feminist to the rescue, then. (will have a quick look) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs a biologist to reduce the "in animals" section to a single sentence with link to an article that covers female-domination in animal communites (e.g. ants, perhaps, but I'll defer on this to a biologist of either sex, any gender). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already reduced that some. You are right, it's off topic. It's just there because the word "matriarchy" has been used in this context (insect eusociality is unrelated; mammals may be comparable but still aren't really relevant to the topic). But this isn't the article's current problem. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Aries_(astrology)
Check it out! You'll never find as much credulity in one article! 86.179.219.80 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe categories
An editor is claiming that Category:Intelligent design advocates‎ does not belong in Category:Creationists & Category:Pseudoscientists, in spite of a wealth of substantiation that Intelligent design is both Creationism & Pseudoscience. Further input on this topic would be welcome. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion being held? I could go either way on it, personally: being an advocate for intelligent design does not necessarily make one a creationist (in the narrow sense of the term), and there are plenty of people who advance the idea of intelligent design without offering it as an challenge to science or as a scientific proposition in its own right.


 * if you ask me, it's just a bad category name. Intelligent Design theorists would have been clearer and narrower.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) It's at Category talk:Intelligent design advocates‎. Intelligent design is a form of both Creationism & Pseudoscience, therefore an Intelligent design advocate is an advocate of creationism and an advocate of pseudoscience. What term would you use for an advocate of creationism if not creationist? What term would you use for an advocate of pseudoscience if not pseudoscientist? (ii) "Intelligent Design theorists" is a far worse one -- as (a) ID lacks a substantive explanatory theory & (b) many prominent ID advocates do not make theoretical claims -- only that evolution is not possible (e.g. Jonathan Wells and his Icons of Evolution, most of what Casey Luskin writes, Michael Egnor, etc, etc). Phillip E. Johnson is probably one of the most prominent ID advocates of all -- but would come under this category. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact "Intelligent Design theorists" would probably limit the category to 3-5 members, and would mean that we'd need a second category for all the non-theorist ID advocates who are principally known for their advocacy of ID. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Hrafn is right on this, Ludwigs2. "Intelligent design" does not refer to design that is in some way intelligent, it is a proper noun referring to a certain pseudoscientific creationist propaganda stunt that is going on in the USA. Otherwise it would just be known as "design" (the "intelligent" is redundant, if you have no intelligence, you cannot design anything). But "design" when referring to the cosmos is more commonly known as "creation". They have just replaced one word with a more modern-sounding synonym, added some tautology and tried to sell this as a "theory". I do not think this can be discussed meaningfully in any terms other than pseudoscience. You cannot be an "Intelligent design theorist" any more than you can be a "Lordship salvation theorist" or an "transubstantiation theorist" --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I've found that (among university students and staff, mind you), there's a reasonable-sized contingent of people who use the term 'intelligent design' as a kind of loose religious claim that God designed the world to be the way it is, happily including evolution as part of God's plan. Most of them don't really understand the science of evolution, but they have no bones with science on the issue except where scientists come out of the closet as atheists.  The Intelligent Design article is specifically about the ID Movement, which was explicitly pseudoscientific; I've only ever run across one student who's tried to argue for anything like that position.  I don't think it's entirely safe or justified to assert that that is the only or even the most prominent use of the term in modern American society (any more than it would be safe or justified to assume that most Mormons advocate for polygamy, even though some Mormons clearly do).


 * beware wikipedia parochialism: the fights we have on-project represent squabbles between sides with vested interests, and likely do not reflect the understanding of the average jane/joe; we should be careful how we allow our battles to color our opinions. -- Ludwigs 2  22:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm using the term in the way a wide range of WP:RSs (e.g. The Creationists, Creationism's Trojan Horse) use it -- for a Neo-creationist viewpoint that opposes evolution specifically and methodological naturalism generally. If you have WP:RS to the contrary, please present them -- but " but I've found that..." is simply WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * hrafn, you and I both know that it's possible (intentionally or unintentionally) to use reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic. I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but if you refuse to consider the possibility you're doing a disservice to the encyclopedia.  A category is supposed to be a navigational tool outlining a natural structure to information that most readers will find meaningful and useful.  My question to you is whether most readers would find this category structure meaningful and useful, or whether they would find it odd and strained.  I'm leaning towards the latter.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2: I am profoundly disinterested in vague claims about what "you and I both know" about hypothetical generalities. Unless and until you are in a position to demonstrate that in this specific instance RSs have been used "to present a skewed version of a topic", I would request you cease and desist making unsubstantiated accusations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * well, I am not at all concerned by what you are 'profoundly disinterested' in, nor am I concerned by your hypersensitivity to statements you happen to misconstrue as criticism. I mean really: what part of "I'm not saying that's what happened" are you failing to understand?


 * I was going to avoid this discussion aside from the above commentary (because it doesn't interest me all that much), but given your reactivity I'm beginning to be concerned that there is something unfortunate going on, so I'm going to make a more active examination of the material. see you over there.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles, in my experience, are often assigned to categories in a liberal fashion, because the category is supposed to be a neutral, organizational process to link related articles together for the benefit of our readers. Just because ID is listed under "Pseudoscience" doesn't mean, necessarily, that the topic is definitively being assigned that classification.  If ID is assigned to the "Pseudoscience" category, then it also should be listed under the related science categories, such as "Category:Philosophy of science" and the like. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out to User:Cla68 at Talk:Intelligent design, WP:FRINGE states "Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." (Italics mine) That ID is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is well documented, both at the ID article, and elsewhere. I would also point out that User:Cla68 was recently admonished by ARBCOMM for WP:BATTLEFIELDing on a fringe science issue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, that case wasn't a "fringe science issue". Anyway, why are you personalizing this discussion with me and Ludwigs?  You've just ordered me not to post to your talk page, so I'll have to say it here, discourse such as your engaging in here inhibits coooperation, collaboration, and compromise on article content. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cla68: the difs listed included a number for the Bishop Hill (blog) -- which blog advocates the WP:FRINGE viewpoint of climate change denial. I was not "personalizing", I was merely pointing out Ludwigs2's unsubstantiated accusation and your WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. That you had recently been admonished for misbehaviour in connection with another WP:FRINGE topic seemed relevant to your misbehaviour here. I will repeat here what I said on my talk page: kindly cease and desist making spurious complaints of incivility. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrfan, I was the primary editor on this article, which advocates for the theory of human-caused global warming. I edit for all sides of any topic.  Now, from what I see in this thread, you're having a hard time working with other editors on working through issues with NPOV on the Intelligent Design article, which, if you haven't noticed, has had, at least in the past, serious NPOV issues.  We should be having this conversation on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypatia in Raphael's School of Athens
There has been a discussion about this here. I believe the identification of a figure in Raphael's School of Athens with Hypatia qualifies as a fringe theory. As it is so widespread on several wikis (see file usage of this picture on Commons and also this  i'm bringing this up here.

There is no reliable source for this identification; the sources given are all self-published on the internet, either by non-specialists or anonymously, and unreferenced:


 * private website of a phD in physics and software engineer
 * internet magazine about mathematical problems by a mathematician named Rudy d'Alembert
 * : This is the most detailed exposition of this theory, it's anonymous and basically unreferenced; note that all references given are internet sources and none actually talks about Raphael's painting.

I found that on the Italian wikipedia this problem was noticed and corrected (see w:it:Discussione:Scuola_di_Atene), but I don't know how to proceed here and on the other wikis, please comment. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The identity of some figures in the School of Athens is agreed, but for many of the minor characters there is dispute. Some non-art history literature does make the claim, but I think among art experts it is generally accepted that the figure is male, not female. I'm not sure this is best addressed here. Maybe you should leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. At any rate, I believe this picture shouldn't be used as an illustration for Hypatia anywhere. It really makes wikipedia look bad. Gesellschaftsspiel (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Even the not very reliable webpage footnoted for the identifications includes the assertion from an unidentifed source that Hypatia was removed at the cartoon stage. There are many pictures puroprting to depict Hypatia, mostly made after the publication of Kingsley's novel, so no I think you are right that it should not be used. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Arno Tausch
Can anybody tell me if the fields of "quantitative world-systems theory" and "quantitative peace studies" legitimately exist? Because they sound like Psychohistory out of Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

The article in question is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not fringe. Just contributions to the mainstream social science fields of world systems theory and peace studies, mustering statistics to inform the argument. But "quantitative world-systems theory", "quantitative peace studies" aren't fields of study. Few or no other researchers would describe their work in exactly those ways. The claim that he initiated those fields is puffing-up rather than an indication of fringeyness. The biography is, as tagged, resume-like, and doesn't establish notability up-front. He probably does meet WP:PROF but some rewriting is needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, not fringe. I removed some puffery/OR earlier. Looking at the talk page, someone who I have no reason to think wasn't Tausch says that a lot of the article was written by a colleague, which probably explains some of it. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Riley Martin
Alien contactee and radio host, if anyone enjoys this sort of stuff it could use work. I removed some BLP trivia about being fired and rehired. --Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny stuff indeed, but I don't see anything there that meets WP:ENT, BIO, or AUTH, so a #REDIRECT to Howard 101 may be the kindest thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Juan Diego and associated pages
See Talk:Codex Escalada and Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe for the issues. We are getting somewhere but one editor keeps adding badly sourced material to Juan Diego. See the latest edit at Juan Diego, but the discussion is at the other two talk pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some ufology stuff
I finished a clean-up of List of Ufologists, but a lot of the sourcing there needs some fixing.

Whew.

jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
Definitely in need of a cleanup. Almost entirely fringe sources and a significant amount of coatracking.

Mentioned in Skepdic, so that source might help.

jps (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trimmed down to what reliable sources could support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul R. Hill
Here's another issue:

.

jps (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I could find no sources for this subject other than fringe pubs. Makes me wonder if he actually meets criteria for mainstream notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right with this one. These articles are sometimes really hard to determine one way or another because the signal-to-noise in many of the attempts to locate sources is so low. I try my best, but anyway. AfD? jps (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, see, Articles for deletion/Paul R. Hill. jps (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assorted AfDs
In case you're interested:


 * Articles for deletion/Silvia Simondini‎
 * Articles for deletion/Ademar José Gevaerd‎
 * Articles for deletion/Karla Turner
 * Articles for deletion/John Keel
 * This is a keep, but we desperately need to clean it up. jps (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (ufologist)
 * This is a keep, but it's an article in need of a cleanup. jps (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I scrubbed out a ton of "facts" sourced to fringe/conspiracy sites. I'm just The Cleaner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Richard H. Hall
 * Articles for deletion/ECETI Institute
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bullard‎
 * Articles for deletion/Ted Bloecher
 * Articles for deletion/Wilbert B. Smith‎
 * Articles for deletion/David Sereda (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Nigel Watson
 * Articles for deletion/Nick Redfern‎
 * Articles for deletion/Timothy Good
 * Articles for deletion/Roberto Pinotti
 * Articles for deletion/Eng. Sanad Rashed
 * Articles for deletion/Igor Volke‎

Some of these may actually have external notability, so if you can find some sources for them that would enable us to keep any of them, do help. However, I'm not all that optimistic.

jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Another UFO incident
In need of a serious cleansing:

The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials.

jps (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The cleaning chores in the UFO department are endless. While looking for sources for Val Johnson I ran across Jerome Clark. Is there no end to it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerome Clark is one of the most-used sources we have in this department because a previous editor must have been a huge fan and included a lot of his opinions in our ufology articles. His books are lauded by the ufology community and inclusion in his books has been used as an indicator of notability in some instances. jps (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Jerome Clark, sentences that start with "Perhaps his greatest achievement was..." gotta go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials." It is easy to see why. Proponents will detail objective specifics like time, place, damage, etc.. All critics can say is "not so", "not credible", "prove it", etc. - nothing specific except "he has a strange personality", "he was drunk", "he was making up stories", etc. which would all be likely explanations if it were not for the fact that this was a police officer on duty in the middle of the night who would have no capability to on his own recreate this damage when driving the vehicle at the same time. You would have to assume either that someone else did the damage, or that someone else was driving the vehicle, or that the damage was produced when the vehicle was not moving....Unless if you can fathom that he used some sort of gun to aim stuff at his car precisely when he was driving it! I suppose you will find the first and third explanations convincing enough, but given how little of this information you would trust, you could even believe that Val Johnson wasn't the police officer, or that there wasn't even a police car... or damage.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 12:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer multiple, bylined articles in established news outlets that treat the subject somewhat seriously and not wholly sensationally. As for Val Johnson, I'll take an amalgam of regional "page 7" coverage that at least demonstrates the story was the internet meme of its day. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Google News (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Val+Johnson%22+ufo&tbs=nws:1,ar:1) = Good CallKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific illiteracy is sky high. "In his 1983 book UFOs: The Public Deceived, UFO skeptic Philip Klass argued that the entire event was a hoax, and that Johnson had deliberately damaged his own patrol car. Among the pieces of evidence Klass found suspicious were Johnson's refusal to take a lie-detector test, the fact that the Honeywell engineer had found that dead insect matter still covered the two damaged antennas even after the supposed "impact", and that any ultraviolet light which could have burned Johnson's eyes would have been blocked by the windshield's vinyl layer and Johnson's sunglasses." Apparently Philip Klass forgot to mention that sunglasses should not be used to witness a solar eclipse and that there is nothing unusual or revealing about dead insect matter deposited on an antenna, especially if it is sticky, which is probably why it would stay on there in the first place. Does he think that objects impacting car parts would clean those parts?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've cleaned up Val Johnson incident. Meanwhile, somebody please help with Mothman, it's in embarrassing shape. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident
Article slanted toward UFOlogy POV, showcasing "credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, is the article slanted towards a "Ufology POV". Among the sources are the Washington Post, a CIA report, Curtis Peebles Watch the Skies (he's a noted UFO Skeptic and an aviation historian for the Smithsonian Institution), and numerous references from Edward J. Ruppelt's The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ruppelt was an Air Force officer who had supervised Project Blue Book. All of those seem like rather credible sources to me. The article presents both the pro-and-con aspects of the case and is extensively footnoted from the above sources. Again, it seems like personal opinions are being disguised as Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for at least removing the most onerous material. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do try to be flexible, and I certainly saw your point and agreed about the offending passage. Also, I noticed that someone has deleted an entire paragraph which supports the Air Force's conclusions that the sightings were indeed explainable as misidentified stars and meteors and temperature inversion, and provides references to prove that point. I will restore that paragraph, as in its current state it is more pro-ufology than it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
An editor is attempting to introduce a new section, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism into the article, mostly repeating stuff which is already in the article, but adding inaccurate Discovery Institute claims about the 'Dissent' + some WP:OR explaining away the inaccuracy. More eyes might prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also noted recently at list of common misconceptions that apparently, there is no single scientific method. Because, would you believe it, paleontology is a science that cannot do experiments. I get the idea, but its presentation as a "common misconception" is at least as misleading as calling this "Dissent From Darwinism" Scientific. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the scientific method would perhaps best be described as a set of methodological principles that get applied differently to different scientific situations (like the inability to replicate the Big Bang under laboratory conditions). (The misrepresentation in and around the 'Dissent' is so pervasive that it is hard to get hot & bothered about their misuse of "Scientific" -- the whole thing would be more accurately renamed A Religious Inarticulate Quibble with a Strawman.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Paleontologists can't do experiments? That's new to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some kinds of experiments that paleontologists do, but direct experimentation on fossil deposition questions that happened long ago are not possible. The expirements in depositional environments can only provide a portion of the sort of data to demonstrate how depositional activities worked in the long past. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sonoran Desert extending into Canada
Please see Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region) aand try and pick through the other sections on the same page. It has been insisted by the OWNer/author of this article that wine and travel articles are more authoritative than established, accepted definitions, to support the claim that a certain town (Osoyoos) and the associated wine region (for which the link is the talkpage) is part of the Sonoran Desert, the normal definition of which is only in southwestern Arizona, southernmost California and northern Mexico. It's gone in some rather mind-bending circles, including the author's assertion that the EPA, Britannica, Merriam-Webster et al., including other well-cited Wikipedia articles, are the "dissenting view" and that the wine-literature definition is the more widespread and more in common use and more correct (which it's anything but)....the latest twist in this is the claim that more people are alleged to have read a certainNew York Times article, which parrots the same phrase as all other wine articles, and the town's travel materials, pretty much verbatim, than have read anything that says the Sonoran Desert is only in CA, AZ, and SO(nora) (which would be, um, all the people in Arizona and California who've read school textbooks about local/US geography, and all local publications that use the term without meaning it extends to Canada...). The ongoing effort is to downplay the "normal" definition, and even the terms "conventional and accepted", in favour of the wine-literature as "reliable sources". A few scattered environmental science/ecological articles are around which use the term Sonoran Desert in ways not used by regular geography or other disciplines, or any school or university textbook that I know of, and a vast slew of sources repeating the wine-industry catchphrase about this, are all wrong; the author didn't even want it mentioned, says "this is a wine article, not a geography article, so only wine sources should be used.". Not jsut a reliable source issue now, this is escalating into downright fringe theory and "bad science"/bad geography. Wine articles do not exist in their own bubble; but to hear that waht is clearly the "normal" definition or "conventional" definition is disputable and not "most common" is, to me, ludicrous and verging on sasquatch-theory talk; "because Osoyoos/wine argument says so" is the gist of the argument, and every effort is being made to downplay the conventional definition, even to claim that it's a "dissenting" opinion. This is also on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where teh author was trying to "prove" that sources not part of regular geographic literature are, by their volume (and uncited repetitiveness), are therefore correct because there is nothing in print saying they aren't. The argument has also been made that since the Sonoran Desert article doesn't mention Osoyoos/the Okanagan, it should, even though nowhere else in between makes the same boast, and that because it doesn't say explicitly that Osoyoos and the Okanagan are NOT part of it, therefore they are. I'm getting quite tired of it, though admittedly amused at some of the illogical squirming that's going on, and on the effort to discredit the "usual" meaning and to play word-games in the course of "compromise". Not fringe science like cold fusion or teleportation or sasquatch or what-not, but definitely bad science and a fringe, non-conventional theory. Skookum1 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pure content dispute. phrases it as the "Sonoran Desert ecosystem" which is likely reasonable enough for a desert without a natural boundary. Collect (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a travel guide.  Google "Gateway to Bigfoot Country" for a somewhat similar thing, though sadly, for comparisons here, the existence of Bigfoot is under more scrutiny.  Still, the tourism and commercial interests of  Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California actually use that very phrase to attract visitors.   It could be argued, using the same thought process that fights to keep this ridiculous idea that the Sonoran Desert extends into British Columbia that those using the idea that Bigfoot exists for monetary gain are reliable sources, too,  in an article on Bigfoot.  Though "Bigfoot Days" in Willow Creek. CA are a lot of fun.    As I said on the article talk page, a quick look at any US government map (from any number of organisations in that government) will show that the Sornoran extends, indeed, but into Mexico.   And unless I missed them in my trips to BC and the American West, the great saguaros that are the trademark, so to speak, of the Sonoaran desert are not found in any of the many deserts that lay between the barely in the US Sonoran desert and British Columbia.  I am flabbergasted by the misinformation in the reliable sources and  can only assume that they, too, are following an original fanciful fiction.   Because the writers are not geographers, biologists, botanists or are people too lazy or uneducated to look at a map before they repeat this little silliness.  Like I said, Bigfoot, there is even a museum with exhibits dedicated to the furry fellow in Willow Creek.  So, ergo, he must exist!   Gingervlad (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another better example. Google "steve miller stuck in the middle with you".  I would do this for you all myself, but I seem to lack the competence to use the right wikipedia codes yet.   Anyway,  note page after page after page of lyrics, Mp3s, tabs, links galore attributing the song "Stuck in the Middle With you" to the Steve Miller Band.   Again, there are sources galore, all repeating the same mistake.  In fact, the song was written by and performed by Stealers Wheel.   So anyone who would come to a hypothetical wiki page that repeated the incorrect idea that it was Steve Miller who had done this song (somehow this seems to have started with the song being on the "Reservoir Dogs" soundtrack) and is shocked to find out that the other editors of the page insisted that because their sources said it was so, it must be included (and they could post a gallion of them)...and this visitor would understandably be perplexed and perhaps even upset that it was insisted that it be kept in the article...so, just because something is repeated and copied over and over does not make it non-fringe. Gingervlad (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Theistic science theories
Having failed to get Intelligent design added to Category:Scientific theories, User:Cla68 is attempting to create Category:Theistic science theories for it. Discussion at Category talk:Theistic science theories (though may well spill over into the talkpages of the articles they attempted to add it to -- initially Intelligent design, Creation science & Category talk:Theistic science theories). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a very neutral description of what is going on there, is it Hrafn?:) While researching intelligent design in Infotrac, I came across an article which described the movement to combine religion and science theories as "Theistic science", so I created the category for theories which combine science and religion, as no category existed for those topics.  The source for the term is on the category page. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So you'd have us believe that this has nothing whatsoever to do with your efforts on Talk:Intelligent design. The source in question describes those promoting "theistic science" as being outside the "science and religion movement" mainstream, and that the idea of "theistic science" is "shunned" by that movement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether "theistic science" is shunned or not by scientists is not the point. The issue here is whether this category is appropriate for grouping topics/articles together which deal with theories which integrate science and religion. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And your cited source gives no support to the claim that "this category is appropriate for grouping topics/articles together", or that they are legitimately "theories which integrate science and religion." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I worry about coining a term, "theistic science" may represent a real group of things. I recall a similar bunch of claims around "Islamic science" (aside from the science history of Muslim countries), mostly attempts to retcon religious beliefs into modern science, and attempts to rein in science that might threaten religion, but also some more ambitious philosophizing. If we could agree on the term, this might make a good subcategory for Category:Pseudoscience. I've boldly added Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts to this category. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd personally classify Islamic science as a culturally-based thread of protoscience, rather than the 'get the supernatural back into science' effort that the term 'theistic science' (see also theistic realism) is being used to describe. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As the list of sources I put on the category talk page show, theistic science is a term sometimes used to describe Islamic science. Cla68 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can remember (given how lengthy and tangential this list was), it does not reliably show this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Islamic science on Wikipedia is just a redirect to Science in medieval Islam, a science history of Muslim countries. It's not a good example of what I was referring to. The "Islamic science" philosophy I was remembering has not gotten much traction as a philosophy&mdash;I've been Googling this for a while now and cannot find the news link on this, or any other mention, so perhaps it has not advanced beyond one guy's announcement&mdash;and I doubt it's notable.
 * [edit 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)] (This hints at it a little: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jalees-rehman/the-square-peg-does-not-n_b_799206.html)
 * I will say I don't think this belongs under Category:Scientific theories. If we move it to just Category:Pseudoscience (plus some Religion sub-category), would that satisfy anyone? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it probably should go under both. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed then? Yank Category:Scientific theories, keep Category:Pseudoscience, add Religion? Is my work done here? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is such a thing as "theistic science", or "scientific theism". It's known as magic. It means that you can summon gods and make use of their power in a scientific, predictable and verifiable manner. People have tried it, some still do, but magic is a bit like supersymmetry or string theory, it's a nice theory, but somehow experimental confirmation remains elusive.

Apart from ritual magic or theurgy, science is neither theistic nor atheistic. The relationship between religion and science is orthogonal and needs to be discussed as orthogonal. "Islamic science" is just a shorthand for science developed by medieval scholars who were also Muslims, it doesn't mean that religious tenets of Islam have anything to do with it. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of the "programme" of the broader ID movement is to create a "theistic science" - ie, one that does not exclude the supernatural. It's debatable whether they've done more than assert its existence, but at least it's an idea. On the other hand, there's no such thing as a "theistic science theory". A theory is a group of hypotheses supported by a wealth of evidence. Clearly an entirely inappropriate category. Guettarda (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this is kept, a rename to Theistic science would make more sense. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still leaves the question of what would belong in such a category. "Not much" is probably the answer. "Article(s) about...", if such articles would be notable. "Examples of...", on the other hand, would be fraught with difficulty. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Theistic science" appears to have been a term used by Emmanuel Swedenborg to refer to something quite different - see here. There appear to still be some followers of Swedenborgian "theistic science".  At present a quick glance at Google Books shows the term firmly entrenched in the creationism/ID world by way of a "Christian research program" of sorts that tells Christians to utilize "all that they know" about the world when investigating it scientifically, which includes all that they know religiously as Christians.  Both of these uses are very specific, and neither would populate a category very well in my opinion.  The current use might, though I know very little about the subject so I can't tell.  Either way, "theory" ought to be completely out of the question, and non-Christian attempts to bridge religious beliefs and science do not belong either if you ask me.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All kinds of things could be shoehorned into that category. Would one include Christian Science? What about theistic evolution? Science in medieval Islam? Isaac Newton? Georges Cuvier? Alchemy? Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. The term appears to be in frequent use but in a narrow, explicitly Christian capacity.  I would not shoehorn any of those things in there unless you have reliable sourcing to do so, and from what I found I doubt that would exist.  Interested editors ought to follow the google books link to see how the term is actually used, as opposed to simply conjecturing based on the individual meanings of the two words that form the compound word "theistic science".  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ID movement uses the term "theistic science" narrowly to define science which does not exclude the supernatural. This is what the Kansas school board was going for in their redefinition of science. But then they take that and use it to claim all science done by people who do not exclude the supernatural. They have been claiming people like Newton for years. (Neil deGrasse Tyson actually makes a similar argument here.) Of course, they use it broadly, but selectively. If their definition is applied as they use it (ie, in the broad sense) then it could easily fit things like theistic evolution or science done by people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins. I threw Christian Science in on a whim. I don't know enough about them. But I wouldn't be surprised if their folks have made similar arguments - after all, theirs is supposed to be a blending of religion and science, isn't it? (Sadly, I have no coherent picture of their theology). Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I know next to nothing about this myself. From what I'm reading now it appears that "theistic science" was a concept of Alvin Plantinga's, utilized by the ID movement.  Anyway, it looks like there are plenty of mainstream secondary references that mention the concept.  An entry might be a better idea than a category.  I agree with Blueboar that we don't need a category.  The present categories do the trick.Griswaldo (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In no way should this be a category. We already have a category for this... Category:Intelligent design. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Theistic science" appears to be a neologism, and we should not have categories that are expressions of POV rather than being an actual, widely accepted concept. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Theistic science"? Srsly? Sounds to me like a b/s attempt at reopening the "intelligent design" discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

well, if "theistic science" is just another term thrown into the fray by the ID people in their quest for confusing terminology until nobody can tell whether they have a point, just let it redirect to Intelligent Design. No, obviously there shouldn't be a category named after this. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it to theistic realism, with which it seems to be largely synonymous (at least in ID usage), and written it up there. If anybody can find a notable, non-overlapping meaning, we can always set up a dab-page. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli
Currently Ruggero Santilli is labeled as a "proponent of fringe scientific theories." This description appears to make some people very unhappy, as you can see by the latest set of comments on Talk:Ruggero Santilli. The current objector just barely managed to avoid making a legal threat against another editor, and has gone on at great length about how biased the article is (I believe xe called for the "Editor in Chief" of Wikipedia to come and fix the article). So, I would like to invite comment from uninvolved editors about whether or not Santilli is properly regarded as a "proponent of fringe scientific theories". One thing worth noting is that other editors have tried to do a good job, I believe, of teasing out the fact that not everything Santilli has done appears to be fringe, even though some of it certainly seems like it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thiaoouba Prophecy
New article on a very fringe book (and being inserted into [{Atlantis]] and Mu. The book was originally called "Abduction to the 9th planet: A True Report by the Author Who Was Physically Abducted to Another Planet". Anyone see a reason not to take this straight to AfD? Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See which led me to Articles for deletion/Thiaoouba Prophecy. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and from thence to color psychology, which seems rather a mish-mash probably riddled with fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Thiaoouba Prophecy (2nd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Power Balance
'Anecdotal' evidence is being pushed as evidence rather than anecdote. Enjoy! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Research Publishing
Having seen I thought I'd find out more about this journal and publisher. Website is []. A quick search brings up and. And while writing this and continuing to search, I discover we have an article on it! The last link above seems related to the complaint mentioned in the article about the editorial boards. --Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The journals I references are not online only journals. the publications i sourced are available for download from the 2 links i sourced however are originally published journals. this is verified in the last comment at the bottom of the forum link you posted. Although I'm not sure what posting to a convo in a forum is supposed to prove here unless its the heresay nature of everything on the web. I agree with the changes some of your colleagues made in creating redirects and i also redid a lot of the information on the other article pages. I'm trying to learn the ropes here friend, so if you could help would be appreciated. --Newyork48 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Walled garden of PsychoX material
All of the contributions of are centered around two researchers, some terms they've created, the technology they have supposedly developed and the company promoting it. I first tagged the company for CSD, (without references most corp articles read like spam), but then looked at his contribs and realized just how deep this rabbit hole goes. Most the material appears to be a self-referencing walled garden, he is just now making links outside the articles he created. Some of the material looks referenced, or looks like published papers, but even that looks like vanity press and cold war era eastern block technobabble. Someone with a little more time needs to take a critical look at this stuff and tag/delete/propose delete accordingly.
 * Psychotechnologies
 * Psychoecology
 * Psycho-probing
 * Igor Smirnov (scientist)
 * Northam Psychotechnologies
 * Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement
 * Semyon Ioffe
 * Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching

Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I've come across an excellent Wired article on Smirnov. Based on it he might be a notable quack. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement - appears to be just advertising the company with lots of jargon. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the Wired article, Doug, I beg to differ: it doesn't read like paid-placement because there's plenty of doubt cast on the "psychotronic" claims made. There might be enough from this and other RS for a more objective article on Smirnov as "notable quack", at least. As for the rest of this stuff, it's all solidly in WP:FRINGE and WP:OR territory, from what I've looked at so far.  Massive cutting, rewriting, merging in articles covering notable fringe theories ... sometimes when it comes to being bold, deletion is the better part of valor. Yakushima (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the Wired article.Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to add a few more:
 * Psycho-correction
 * SSRM (disambig page)
 * The Scientific Research Institute of Psychotechnologies
 * Institute for creativity research

And this may not be all, I just took a few minutes clicking What Links Here on randomly chosen articles from the original list. Yakushima (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was looking for sources on psychoecology and found quite a few, none of them related to Smirnov or the actual article as it was. In fact, looking at the sources and ignoring this attempt to appropriate the name, it's just another name for Ecopsychology and I've redirected it there. Which means some cleanup elsewhere probably. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm not sure how to do that, we don't often have situations where a term in more general use elsewhere gets appropriated by something fringe and then is linked to numerous articles created to push the fringe concept. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, are you certain Ecopsychology (which seems to be about the psychology of environmental problems ) is the same as Smirnov's "Psychoecology" (which seems to be about the ecology of the human psyche)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Psychotechnologies is another example of the appropriation in these articles of a term more widely used elsewhere, eg and . This article needs expanding to cover the more mainstream uses of the term. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Psychotechnologies apparently has a legitimate definition, but I removed the promotional messaging from Smirnov's company as it had no place there. I've redirected Psychoecology, The Scientific Research Institute of Psychotechnologies, Psycho-probing, and Psycho-correction to Igor Smirnov (scientist) as the concepts have marginal notability outside Smirnov's walled garden. The rest will have to be given a closer look. A lot of the publications being cited are inaccessible and look dubious, and some small particulars are cited to legit sources to make them appear supportive of the material in general. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor is disputing my redirect on my talk page, I'll send him here. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And he's reverted my redirect. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your redirect but I made the distinction on the page. Please confirm whether or not you believe it is satisfactory. --Newyork48 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, let's first establish that the field of"psychoecology" meets WP:N and merits its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, please let me know what I can do, thanks. --Newyork48 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain Ecopsychology, which seems to be about the psychology of environmental problems and how to bond with nature is the same as Smirnov's "Psychoecology", which seems to be about the ecology of the human psyche. Smirnov uses the term 'environment' to refer to the "environment of the mind", which could account for our initial confusion between the two different concepts. I think the first is notable, the second may not be. In any case, I recommend a redirect from "Psychoecology" to Igor Smirnov (scientist) until the notability issue is sorted out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is the most logical decision for now. I'll have to do my best to continue translating and find references that everyone can agree on in English. Thank you for taking the time to determine the difference because they are both very different.--Newyork48 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. And yet, Doug has a point: Maslow apparently coined the term first. This has been an interesting roundabout journey to say the least. I now see the wisdom of the initial redirect to Ecopsychology. Apologies for any confusion.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seemingly the term has fallen out of use for that subject and the word they use now is Ecopsychology. I'm just translating from Russian and Psychoecology is the word they say Smirnov coined and he was the Director of Psychoecology at Moscow State University until his department stopped receiving funding from the Soviet Union when it dissolved. I wrote similar info in Smirnov's page. Interesting for sure. I cleaned up both Semantic Stimuli Responce Measurement and Semyon Ioffe article pages. I added proper reference to scientific journals where the studies themselves can be downloaded and received from the publishers website. The material in the journals are proper reference to the claims made in the article. Please review and let me know if it requires further reference (which may never end at this rate, lol) or if it is substantial enough to finish this debate over deletion. Thanks! --Newyork48 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books and Google Scholar show quite a few uses of the term over the past two decades in ways not related to Smirnov. He definitely didn't coin the word and any sources that say he did are wrong. --Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any source that says he did doesn't make those references wrong. At different times in different parts of the world different research was done and not shared internationally. 2 different people coined the same term a few years apart to mean very different things. In the Russian context that words means has the definition as I had laid it out. I can remove reference of Psychoecology from smirnov page and any other pages i have written it on but its omission does not make it wrong nor does that word not have the meaning that was intended for it. this is very much all hearsay or at least biased to what is relevant in english over other languages or topics in north america. --Newyork48 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been posting all of these pages. Thank you for everyone's input. I have been translating a lot of this materials from original Russian where one can easily access information on both of these men. In retrospect I agree with many of the changes that were made. This is the first project I have undertaken on wikipedia so I can see the way things have been altered are much more efficient. The Wired article that has been referenced is accurate but it must be read through all the way to the end, it is 3 pages long. The beginning sounds very biased but if the whole article is read it confirms most of the information I have posted. Also that since this technology is currently being used by the department of homeland security there is only so much information that is being released. I actually called Smirnov's wife, whom I have met, and asked her about this article when it first came out a few years back. She doesn't speak English nor does she give tours or her facilities or interviews without explicit consent of the People's Friendship University of Russia where their complex is located. So even the contents of a national magazine here should be technically questioned. Smirnov coined the term Psychoecology in the early 1970's, spelt as I have spelled it here. His research was based off research of other men from decades past and for all of the research I have done on the topic in English there is none that reference the history of the term except instead to heed back to cold war era scientists from the soviet union. I am just trying to connect the dots here from the Russian and available English literature. I have altered the bio on Semyon Ioffe to hopefully be less like a resume. I believe that the page I wrote about Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement should be edited and allowed to stay. This technology is currently undergoing rigorous testing in Afghanistan right now funded by DHS and as reports come out it will become a valid source of reference. --Newyork48 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If and when such reports come out, we can consider them. But we can not speculate on things that have not happened yet.  As for the fact that you called Smirnov's wife... that is what we call Original Research... there is no way for the rest of us to verify the information you gained from talking to her.  Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is the very point I'm trying to make. Any source we glean from is going to be speculative even a famous magazine. I agree with the redirects made and will wait for what other people say about psychoecology but I believe that the article on Semyon Ioffe (which I have updated) is of as equal importance as Igor Smirnov and that there is plenty of reference to internationally accepted science as well as at least 4 or 5 published papers for Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement. I will make an effort right now to list where those more recent publications are available from the publishers websites right now. Finally for the claims that the science make, for example the 0.5% false positive rate, this is all proved in their publications. Their publications are reports on clinical studies that were performed and these are not only their scientific validity but their operational results as well. I will do a better job of citing those references today for your review.--Newyork48 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Started a rewrite of Igor Smirnov (scientist) using the Wired article as the only source we have at the moment that's an objective WP:RS secondary source. Can expand as more reliable sources are found. I advise either verifying the items in the Patents info chart ("Classified as "State Secret") or removing them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Water ionizer
A new editor is getting up to speed on the relavant policies/guidelines as they relate to Water ionizer and has brought up the questions of whether or not the Pseudoscience or Alternative medicine categories apply. Also, the discussions on the talk page could use some help from editors willing to get into detail on WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Santa Claus
User:Jack Sebastian continues to disrupt Santa Claus by insisting that the nonexistence of Santa Claus is POV, and that telling children there is a fat man in a red suit who lives at the north pole and delivers presents to all of the children in the world in a single night on a sleigh pulled by a team of flying reindeer is something other than lying to them. His most recent crusade regards the name of a section on that page: see this diff. He has continually reverted other users who attempt to restore the consensus version of that section name, and in fact has tried simply deleting the whole section at least once, falsely claiming there was consensus to do so (saying "as per talk", when there was nothing about it on the talkpage) ostensibly to "protect" children from the truth. He seems to think he WP:OWNs the article, telling users who revert him that their edits are against consensus (with summaries such as "reverting BOLD edit") and that rather than reverting his edits, they need to "take it to the discussion page - why am I having to say this again?". Although the section is clearly about the fact that some pedagogical experts have questioned the wisdom of lying to children, he continually changes the section name to things such as "Debate regarding Santa's existence" (which does not describe the section contents at all). This is not the first time he has disrupted that page by attempting to censor it "for the children". External opinions welcome. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(note that he has also attempted to censor the talkpage, deleting an entire section posted by an anonymous user while accusing me of violating WP:SOAPBOX) --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no. Not again? First a cell phone in 1928, and now Santa Claus? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. I just glanced at the talk page. Node's description of the situation is correct. Amazing. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No fringe theory here. A better venue for this latest circus might be WP:NPOVN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least among adults, the existence of a fat red-suited man at the North Pole who gives presents to all the world's children on Christmas is indeed somewhat of a fringe theory if it is a sincere belief. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Apart from Scotty's attack-y comments (no real surprise there), which demonstrate the most shocking failure of AGF and civility I've seen outside of Grawp, this matter belongs - if anywhere - on the NPOV noticeboard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is only the 3rd day I've had any kind of interaction with Jack Sebastian, and I've already seen him make heaps of accusations of WP:NPA violations, including several against me. For example, when he deleted something I said at Talk:Santa Claus because he didn't like it, I said he was censoring me; raising the issue of censorship is apparently a personal attack. Well, what else is it when you delete a comment on a talkpage twice simply because you don't like what it says? He keeps threatening to "report me" for violating WP:NPA and who knows what other imagined rule violations. Scotty, I think you can safely ignore this person's baseless accusations against you. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you think I was out of line, head on over to WQA; F/N doesn't seem the right venue to bitch about me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the most shocking failure of AGF and civility I've seen outside of Grawp? JS, you need to get out more William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I do, William. I guess that was unfair to compare Grawp to someone who came out of nowhere to soapbox and accuse others of ownership and censoring. Maybe. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being too delicate. And haven't you noticed the irony of what you're saying, combined with your F/N doesn't seem the right venue to bitch about me just above? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have, William, but please take note of the fact that I am flesh and blood and can be pissed off by someone soapboxing and going on the attack when called on it. I am well known for having little patience for incivility, especially when the user sees it as entree into a discussion. In point of fact, the user's initial post was snarky to the point of NPA, followed up a few minutes later by a post in the article discussion wherein the soapboxing began. As both the initial post (written by an apparent youngster arguing that Santa exists) as well as Node's reply didnt actually serve any purpose in improving the article, I refactored both as irrelevant, That was when the accusations of OWNership and censorship by Node kicked into high gear, even after I tried to address the apparent problem on the user's talk page.
 * I say 'apparent' because the truth is that the user isn't really interested in collaboration but instead advocacy (ie. declaring Santa to be a fraud perpetrated by lying parents), this assessment bolstered by their comments initiating this discussion here. Take a moment to actually look at the links the user utilizes to argue censorship of the article; indeed the first one he is calling "censorship" was in fact a removal of a disaster-laden section for reworking. The rest of these so-called links of my interest in "protecting the children" are equally unsupportable, as anyone watching the article discussion can attest to. I am indeed stubborn, but my rep as an inclusionist is pretty well-established.
 * Lastly, I point out that Santa is one of those special cases wherein we WP:IAR bend ever so slightly on the issue of Santa's existence. Looking at an example of how Brittanica addresses the issue (elegantly, imo), note the operative phrases "Santa is said to live at the North Pole", neatly staying encyclopedic while at the same time not supplanting the role of the parent/guardian in the cases of younger folk. I am not arguing that Santa exists (and find any arguments to that effect a distraction); I am stating that no article in Wikipedia gets to serve as a soapbox for any user, be they NORAD-supporters or naysayers with a sad childhood. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proof that Santa exists: Consider the following statement:

"If this statement is true, then Santa exists."

Let's now find out if the above statement is true. It is of the form "A implies B", and is thus true if assuming that A is true, it follows that B is true. Now, if we assume that "this statement is true", then since the statement itself is saying that "If this statement is true, then Santa exists.", it follows that Santa exists. So assuming that A = "the statement is correct", we have verified B = "Santa exists", so the statement that A inmplies B has been verified to be correct. But since A itself is the statement A implies B, this means that A is true, hence Santa exists! Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement in question is a fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Coenzyme Q10
Coenzyme Q10 is an article with a large "Supplementation benefits" section that needs a WP:MEDRS cleanup. The section includes mention of research areas, and studies on rats. It looks like editors are doing a good job keeping it clear of sources written by nutritional supplement retailers, which is how I came across the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Michio Kaku
Qwyrxian and I have been having a healthy discussion about the Fringe theorist tag and now that I understand it better I'm looking at other scientists with, what I feel, fringe theories and I'd like to some input of this below discussion we have been having on Dr. Kaku's page. Lets not let his popularity in mainstream American media to distort the definition of "Fringe" and remember this is not a negative connotation...

Dear Qwyrxian, "time machines, multidimensional space and, ... parallel universe" as discussed in his book to me represent fringe theories which is fine. Now that I better understand the Fringe Theory Tag I am going around to many other scientists to ensure they are properly classified as well. There seems to be little equity in how this tag is used... Globalreach1 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article carefully--Kaku doesn't advocate those theories, or say that they are likely; rather, he is specifically looking at "popular" science ideas, and considering whether or not they may be possible in the future. Furthermore, if you look at the article on the book, you'll see that he specifically declares a number of them impossible, and says that some others could take humans thousands to millions of years to develop. Plus, the point of the book is actually to show people the actual scientific issues connected to some of these pop culture ideas (like discussing Einstein's equations indicate time travel is theoretically possible, albeit likely practically impossible). This in no way makes him a supporter of fringe theories. You're of course welcome to look at other scientists and see if the label needs to be applied, but it looks like you need to look a bit more carefully at what the scientists claim--it's one thing to look at a strange theory and say "Could this ever be possible?" and another thing to say "This thing I say is true, even though 95% of other scientists think I'm wrong". Also, be very careful that you are not being pointy--that is, don't go adding this tag just to prove the tag is incorrect on another article. Unless someone else says that Kaku's pop culture work counts as fringe, I don't believe this description should remain. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian here are some other items which any "Mainstream" physician would say is clearly not mainstream, I'll post this on the Fringe Notice Board for discussion. thanks for your input, Globalreach1 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Physics of the Impossible Physics of the Impossible is an exploration into the science people dream about. Kaku explores things that people think are quite impossible. Hyperspace Hyperspace is about the four forces of the universe and higher dimensions. Parallel Worlds Parallel Worlds talks about the possibilities of the existence of parallel worlds. Kaku also talks about black holes and other frequently asked matters of advanced physics. Beyond Einstein Beyond Einstein is a resource for people wanting to know more about physics. Kaku mostly talks about Einstein and his quest for the Theory of Everything. (above all by Globalreach1)


 * My opinion is that the pop-science books by Kaku like Physics of the Impossible are very carefully written, not as advocacy of fringe positions, but as pop culture books designed to say, "Hey, that sci-fi stuff you've read/heard/dreamt about? Well, here's how much of that is real, and how much is not."  To me, it seems very different to say "Einstein's equation indicate time travel is possible, but you'd need black hole level energy to do it, so check back in a few thousand years (at least)," then to say "Time travel is totally real, and I've written a paper to prove it and I did in the lab although nobody can repeat it I swear it's true!"  Now, I haven't actually read Physics of the Impossible, but it doesn't sound like a fringe book to me--just like a typical pop-science book.  I do appreciate the input of others, however, as perhaps I'm mistaken about how much Kaku advocates these ideas.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I realized that the specific edit in question isn't clear from this. It was the addition of the phrase "a proponent of some fringe scientific theories," in this diff that brought about the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I didn't know better I'd say someone upset that Ruggero Santilli was labeled fringe is trying to make a WP:POINT. As for Kaku, his schtick is to "address a technological concept from science fiction and design his own theoretical version of the technology using currently-known science". Like a lot of TV pop science, Kaku's content is promoted with playful hyperbole e.g. the episode title descriptions at Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kaku certainly isn't fringe. He enjoys dealing with pop-science and science-fiction, but he isn't advocating any weird science. Rather, he's a respected physicist that also enjoys engaging in speculative fiction (aka Sci-fi) discussions. I'd say he and Neil deGrasse Tyson are the closest thing this generation has to Carl Sagan. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I understand now much better the meaning of Fringe and how it is not necessarily a negative tag but a factual one. Globalreach1 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ayahuasca
Could someone with biology/chemistry/pharmacology background take a look at this article. I have a feeling that some of the "sourcing" such as "Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies" may be a little fringey. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is it about MAPS that you consider "fringey"? I'm not seeing anything. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User throwing a temper tantrum over how calling the pre-colonial period "pre-colonial" is "academic racism". Omg, Pre-Columbian Genuese bias! Pre-Islamic monotheist bias! Pre-Indo-European laryngealist bias! Pre-history literacy bias! WP:ENC pro-education bias! --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Mr Historian I guess racial bias in African history has been solved. And in your higher position you can use uncivil conduct and mis information about your ignorance of Pan-Africanism. Now does UNESCO use the term Pre-Colonial Africa? Yes or No? Get back to me with an answer and then we can have a serious debate. Does the African union (representing all of Africa) use the term Pre-colonial? So who is using this term. African historians today? Is Molefi Asante or Ali Mazrui using the term? Never heard of them? And this is the problem. What about the history of Ethiopia are they using the term. Oh My GOD I forgot, they never where Colonialized !!! Keep reading and drop the superiority complex. Discuss these points and not "temper tantrums" am I am still waiting on you to reply.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is any of this relevant for the fringe theories noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * um, extremely relevant? Afrocentrism/Pan-Africanism is one of the most actively pushed brands of pseudo-scholarship on the wiki, and one of the major contributions of this noticeboard has been to reduce these antics to a bearable minimum. You are welcome to help, AndyTheGrump. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That Dbachmann is a political opinion best left to a soapbox. Mr Dbachman can you please try and reply to the points so we can understand how FRINGE comes into my argument. And as oppose to calling something pseudo scholarship I am struggling to hear how rotating 7000 years of history around an 80 year event (colonialism) is FRINGE. unless UNESCO and the AU are now Afrocentric organizations. And please note that if Afrocentrics (which I am certainly no fan of) are running wild on Wikipedia so to are Eurocentrics. I am waiting. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, it is possible that Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ is pushing a fringe theory, but since Dbachmann didn't provide any indication of what or where he did, it isn't evident how we are supposed to know. As for whether the term "pre-colonial" is "academic racism" I'd say we'd need to see the context. I've certainly seen examples of racism from academics, but I can think of examples where the term would seem entirely appropriate. Again though, the suggestion that academics can be racist isn't per se a fringe theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I don't know how long you have been following this noticeboard. I don't really recognize your username, and I have been active here for years. Perhaps you want to review the archives for past discussions of Afrocentrism. Halaqah is just the latest in an endless string of Afrocentrist pov pushers, all alike. You can either look at his contributions and then try to help out, or you can let it be. What is not helpful is general semantic musings about the meaniing of "racism" or "fringe". I daresay you need to see the context. So please go to the "contribs" link I gave and look at it. This is a noticeboard. I post here to draw attention to a problem to interested parties. Those who are interested can look at the context and then try to help. Those who are not interested can just leave it alone. It is 'not'' the purpose of this noticeboard to rehash the entire history of Afrocentrism related disputes on Wikipedia every time somebody feels like asking. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * look, Halaqah, the only thing that counts on Wikipedia is, can you do this: make a point and base it on a published, quotable source. As long as you aren't doing this, you aren't discussing, and you aren't presenting "arguments". This isn't usenet. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dab I do not wish to fight with you, so lets call it quits. Your edits to Pan-Africanism are disruptive and un-constructive despite your claims of your Politics of neutrality. The agenda seems to put shadows on Africa, do you not see that? Your sources are from some questionable places and distractors of African merits. Nothing to do with Pan-Africanism. The Fringe argument is moot and invalid but still you fight. I enter into evidence UNESCO document Decolonizing African history "the racial arguments on Africa can be traced back to justification for slavery..." read more in their 1968 series. Maybe I am imagining racism but that would be me and UNESCO and most African historians. Please read Unesco here and see if anything i am saying is in conflict UNESCO Re-writing History and Decolonizing the mind notice who is at that conference. Notice the complaints and the direction and opinion of UNESCO as it relates to the racism Dab says I am making up. Here is another source from Unesco. Unesco History of Peoples See the section on Africa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"lets call it quits. Your edits to Pan-Africanism are disruptive" That's a good one. Especially from an editor who has yet to cite their first actual reference.

What are you even talking about? I am not disputing the reality of racism. I am simply saying that pseudoscience and counter-racism isn't a viable response to racism. And if you still think it is, you are invited to engage in it on some other forum, not on Wikipedia.

So slavery was justified by racism. Sadly, this is true. Does it follow from this historical fact that "all African languages are related"? No. If you want to denounce racism, go and denounce racism, don't make up a fantasy world of historical revisionism.

AndyTheGrump, you want to see all-out fringe theories? Go to Théophile Obenga. An article which I have just converted from a copy-paste dump of an Africana Studies Center homepage to a referenced account of how this author made up pseudolinguistic theories for no other reason than because he felt Africa deserved a more grand linguistic history. --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why "pre-colonial" is racist, but is Halaqah saying there is some other term preferred? I see a lots of text generated here, but nothing about why the term should not be used or what other term it is appropriate to use. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-colonial is not racist on its own. I am stating you cannot merge Ancient African empires in preference of pre-Colonial. For 1 you will have to delete Ethiopia and Liberia. Moreover you cannot take an entire history of Africa and spin it (8000) years around a recent 80 year event. Would you write Pre-911 American history? No one is doing this for anyone else.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Dbachmann, I was unaware that you still wanted me to comment on this issue, after suggesting that I wasn't familiar with the ongoing history of everything that has been discussed here. Well that is true enough, but it isn't actually relevant, as far as I can see. If you think a particular fringe theory is being pushed somewhere, provide proper diffs, so others can see for themselves without having to go through contributors histories etc. We are supposed to be discussing edits here, not editors, and I thought this was a debate about whether the usage of the term "pre-colonial" was appropriate, not about Théophile Obenga. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the purpose of these noticeboards is not to "generate text" as Paul puts it, or to "discuss edits". It is to draw the attention of editors to ongoing problems. The actual discussion does of course, as always, take place on article talkpages. I do not expect you to know the entire history of this noticeboard. I expect you to click on the link provided and figure out the current context for yourself. As the section title clearly indicates, the purpose of this section is to alert you to the contributions of, i.e. run-of-the-mill Afrocentric fringecruft, and you are supposed to click on the "contribs" link to see what is going on if you are interested.
 * if there is a better title for Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa, everyone, including Halaqah, is invited to post their suggestions to the article talkpage, describing why they think their proposal sits better with WP:NAME. I am myself unhappy with that article, seeing as it is a pure WP:SYNTH list not based on any topical unity, and I would actually support a split of this article into the various sub-articles on the history of identifiable parts of the African continent. --dab (𒁳) 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe as defined by the user is a pro-African orientation, which would be typical for any African historian such as Asante, Mazrui. Fringe for me is Eurocentrism. Now apart from grabbing at straws the editor has no case. He is ignorant of terms and uses them loosely see sources and edits to Pan-Africanism. I do not think I am disqualified for taking a non-racist white supremacy view to African history. It is strange that to speak positively about African is now a fringe science. I have shown the editor UNESCO, which I am guessing not Afrocentric or pseudo history. Because everything I have said is in the UNESCO document. To the novice it is easy to confuse these terms but I am no fan of Afrocentrism and even if i was it has no bearing on me as an editor just like being a socialist or communist White Anglo-Saxon in Russia. So why not discuss the merits or lack thereof of my assertion of pre-colonial (which are not about the term) but about rotating 8000 years of African history around 80 years of colonial history as it speaks to Ancient Kingdoms. Hence why I do not believe African empires should be merged. But It is clear my politics are on trial and anything which remote says two good things about Africa is cause for all of this . A notice should be erected No Black editors allowed to edit African history unless they bow to Eurocentric history (aka mainstream history) as the complainer put it.. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot When discussing Pre-Colonial Africa or Pre-Colonial kingdoms v African Empires Please note only Ethiopian Kingdoms can be added to African empires. Ethiopian kingdoms cannot be added to Pre-Colonial Kingdoms nor Pre or pOst colonial studies, neither can Liberia, so you see the two cannot be merged, Axum does not come under a Pre or Post colonial debate.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear, dear. Andy is a helpful grump in my experience, dab. True that not all of Africa was colonised. "Pre-colonial" is a loose term and perhaps we can find something better. Is List of pre-20th century African states any use at all? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the present nomenclature. Colonialism drastically rearranged the geo-political boundaries of the continent.   On a "politics of post-colonialism" note, one does not shed the trauma of colonialism by quibbling over words or pretending like colonialism didn't exist.  It did, and it is of rather obvious historical significance.  That said, why aren't people settling this issue by going to the sources?  What is current in reliable sources.  WP:UCN should apply here as usual.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprized if academic sources in English used anything other than "Pre-colonial" and "post-colonial", but since that's what Dab uses, people object. This is a lame discussion.  RELIABLE SOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!  USE THEM!!!!!!@!!!!!   --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Solution
Hoppimike is making the article more "balanced" by removing criticisms of MMS. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific metrology
Back to our regularly scheduled broadcast - anyone want to write a lead for this clearly fringe article? It seems to have gotten lost during a redirect/rename. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article history might help here. The first version had this lede:


 * Pseudoscience within metrology] seems to have been triggered by interest around the [[Great Pyramid of Giza, and later by the discoveries of standards of measurement in Mesopotamia, especially in Gulash. Lately, the anti-metric movement seems to have spurred further activity.
 * There are many different theories being claimed, but the common theme is that by a method of pure numerical comparison of the actual values of various standards of measurement, often to bizarre levels of indicated precision, it is proven that all units of measure have a common origin. Typically, no direct evidence of these connections in form of archeological finds or historical documents are given, the evidence is always in form of mathemathics showing relations.


 * I don't know much about the subject, but that looks like a reasonable start. Possibly someone who knows a bit more could look through the history to see where it was deleted, check sourcing etc, and restore it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Damn. I went back a ways but not to the beginning, I'm sure I had a good reason at the time, of course. :-) Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at WT:MEASURE. Hans Adler 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group and Daniel Estulin
I'm concerned about the para towards the bottom at Bilderberg Group which is being discussed at Talk:Bilderberg Group. Two of us object to it and have removed it but Loremaster is insisting it stays in. I think it is being given too much importance and that it should be in Estulin's article, not the Bilderberg one, and also seems to be promoting the minor fringe political party the Party for Socialism and Liberation (whose article looks promotional by the way, if this interests anyone). More comments would be appreciated as Loremaster is not the easiest of editors to work with on this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything to add except for two things:
 * 1) Acting in good faith, both Dougweller and Crosbiesmith have been doing a good job of watching over the Bilderberg Group article to make sure cranks don't turn it into a vehicle for the promotion of paranoid conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, in their zeal, they have become convinced that any discussion of the views of conspiracy theorists even when done contextually and critically is a promotion that must be suppressed. According to this logic, Wikipedia should not have an article on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is a promotion of these theories.
 * 2) I will delete the explicit mention of the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the article since the only reason why they are mentioned was because many months ago someone disputed that all Marxists believe XYZ so we had clarify that only some Marxists, such as members of the PSL, believe XYZ.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been involved in editing this article from time to time. It seems to me that regarding estulin's work, we need only 1-2 sentences documenting what he say about the bilderberg group, and we should point to an estulin article for the rest of the information. I believe that both parties are operating in good faith on a different subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments. However, everybody seems to fail to grasp that it isn't what Estulin actually says about the Bilderberg group that is note-worthy. It is the fact that Estulin's fringe views about the Bilderberg group have garnered international media attention because of Cuban President Castro's endorsement of them. --Loremaster (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paragraph on Estulin needs to be greatly reduced in size or eliminated entirely. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could support it being reduced in order to be more consice but I don't understand why some people think it should be eliminated entirely. Care to explain? --Loremaster (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing reduce it precisely because what Estulin says about Bilderberg is not really noteworthy. His book and that Castro commented on his work may be noteworthy in this article, but only as a mention. Also, the article claims coverage in international press, but I'm not seeing what I would call truly international coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Estulin's views about the Bilderberg Group are obviously not shared by mainstream journalists and scholars who have written about the Bilderberg Group. However, his views are note-worthy in a section about conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group because 1) they are reprensative of the most common view of the Bilderberg Group held by conspiracy theorists, 2) Estulin has a huge following in the conspiracy theory community and many well-known conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Lyndon Larouche have embraced his views and promoted his works, and 3) as the disputed paragraph explains, his views about the Bilderberg Group have garnered international media coverage because they were embraced by Fidel Castro.
 * Therefore, if the only real issue is that we need more sources to confirm that these views have garnered international media attention, I will be more than happy to look for them.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with others here (I also mentioned this at the article talk page) that Estulin's views are both fringe and not very noteworthy, even for a section on Bilderberg conspiracy theories. Estulin's views should remain in his own article. A mention of his visit to Castro to talk about Bildererg, which actually might have received some mainstream coverage, might merit one or two sentences. Any more would be WP:Undue Weight ("in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"...."the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", etc.). The fact that other way-out fringe conspiracy theorists (Jones, Larouche) might endorse his views does not grant notability. Just my opinion. First Light (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question barely discusses what Estulin's views about the Bilderberg Group are. It is limited to one short sentence that quotes him as accusing them of plotting "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self." IF the entire paragraph was a lengthy summary of everything Estulin thinks about the Bilderberg Group, I would understand everyone's opposition to giving his views undue weight. But it clearly is not the case since the paragraph is 1) on how and why Estulin's views about the Bilderberg Group have gained international media attention, and 2) how some Marxists have reacted to this. Ultimately, how can Marxist Cuban President Fidel Castro's embrace of Estulin's anti-Marxist views about the Bilderberg Group not make not them note-worthy? Seriously, what does it take for fringe views to be note-worthy in a section about fringe views if not something as unthinkable as that? I've been in many disputes where I could understand the opposition's point of view but this current dispute simply baffles me... --Loremaster (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing that would help your argument would be significant coverage in reliables sources in the mainstream international press. The article states "This coverage has, in turn, been picked up by media outlets worldwide", but no references for that statement are supplied. We can't really say how Marxists reacted unless reliable sources cover that, the reaction from a limited number of marxist publications doesn't really cut it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources would also help to show that Marxist views of Estulin are not just reliable, but also notable. It's difficult to find any reliable sources about Estulin, except a few that report his visit to Castro. That's why one or two sentences on that visit might be notable enough for inclusion, if significant coverage can be demonstrated. First Light (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. My feeling is that WP:UNDUE mandates that Estulin's views be kept to a minimum. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I explained, Estulin's views are barely discussed. --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it entirely with an edit summary saying that if evidence of significant coverage by international mainstream media is found, and someone wishes to replace it in part, discuss it at the talk page first. I'm counting on Loremaster realising that the consensus is against him. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *sigh* When I find the reliable sources, I will restore the entire paragraph. Until then, I will create a short paragraph that discusses the fact that President Castro has embraced and promoted Estulin's views since the reliable source we currently have is more than sufficient to support this note-worthy statement. --Loremaster (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are dealing with two distinct issues here... 1) the noteworthiness (which is a function of WP:UNDUE, not WP:Notability) of the theory and 2) the noteworthiness of the theorist. I think the theory is marginally noteworthy in the context of the Bilderberg group article.  I don't think the theorist is noteworthy at all in this context. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that we are dealing with two distinct issues. However, I think the current version of the paragraph on Castro and Estulin which I just edited respects Wikipedia guidelines on undue weight, notability and reliable sources in the context of a section in the Bilderberg Group article which focuses on conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group.
 * So I consider this dispute resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So I consider this dispute resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. The AP doesn't feature articles, they're just a wire service. The article only mention one article, not several (it may be the case that there was more than one, but we'll need a source). Also, the author of the article says something to the effect "as quoted by Castro", we need to keep that distance. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I approve of the cleanup but the article was actually written by Will Weissert, an Associated Press writer stationed in Cuba. His article was published and republished by several media outlets such as the Christian Science Monitor. That's why the story gained international media attention. As for the phrase "as quoted by Castro" it was removed by User:Moriori so I'm happy you think it wise that it be restored. --Loremaster (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's better. It's no surprise that Castro doesn't like the Bilderberg group. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no surprise that Castro doesn't like the Bilderberg group but I hope everyone understands that it is a surprise that Castro would embrace Estulin's anti-Marxist conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group. It would be like U.S. President George W. Bush endorsing a book written by Noam Chomsky that is critical of Saddam Hussein. --Loremaster (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're more easily surprised than I. Also, please note that AP is a wire service, they distribute articles written by reporters, and newspapers publish them. For the story to gain international media attention, international media would have had to respond to it--the fact that an AP article appeared in more than one newspaper basically means nothing. AP's reliable, but let's not take things too far. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am more easily surprised than you but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make any sense for a Marxist dictator to spread anti-Marxist conspiracy theories. If it did, there wouldn't have been a story. As for the AP, they distribute articles written by reporters but not all of them are published by newspapers. Some of their articles are disseminated far more than others. And, according to one source, international media did respond to it. Regardless, this dispute is resolved. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Genocide denial at Turkey
In Turkey, is adding highly POV, weasel-worded material designed to equivocate or outright deny the Armenian Genocide  and slow-reverting   to keep it in, even though he has been reverted by more than just me. Personally, I find this to be an example of odious POV-pushing and genocide denial. This is nothing more than the standard denialist Turkish Government line ("Many people on all sides were killed, it was a crazy time, and those ungrateful Armenians rebelled against the poor old Ottoman Empire in the first place,..." and so on and so forth). Needless to say, his additions are completely unsourced or entirely off-topic (e.g. about the Vilayet of Yerevan and Azerbaijan). Any attempt at discussion on the talkpage is met with howls of rage and personal attacks, I mean the title of the thread started by Diren Yardimli says it all. Athenean (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand the NPOV issue here, but can you clarify the concern re fringe theories? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I hate genocide disputes. Just a quick glance at this page (and an amused chuckle over the 'talk:turkey' header, which is an American euphemism for getting down to business), and I'm about ready to start up a thread over at NPOV/N myself.  the page is clearly caught between editors trying to make strong, unfounded assertions in either direction ("extermination of Armenians"" vs. "atrocities committed by the Armenian guerrilla bands"), when I'm pretty sure that the label 'genocide' is highly debated in scholarship and that there is still a lot of credible ambiguity about the incidents of the war.  but you're right, it doesn't really belong on the FRINGE noticeboard.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkish nationalists deny Armenian genocide. There's a surprise. I'm reluctant to join in because spending large amounts of my time with such editors tends to result in a massive decrease in my will to live. --Folantin (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin believes there is a NWO conspiracy, and for some time the 'New world order' link has been to our New world order (politics) article. A recent attempt to change the link to our conspiracy article was reverted, but as you can see at my new section at Talk:Chuck Baldwin I think that the link to the politics article is inappropriate as it is explicitly not about global government, and Baldwin is explicitly talking about global government. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Doug points out, the "(politics)" article speaks of NWO being "primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance" in a particular sense. So I dunno how Doug distinguishes global gov from global gov; there's a kind of tautology going on here. I stand by my comments at article talk at that link, supporting the consensus to date, that Baldwin's position (including as linked by Doug) clearly refers to the politics topic rather than the conspiracy topic. This might be a matter for more sourcing to illuminate better, but it's odd that Doug seizes on a random edit and wants to start a new FTN section about it. Maybe the two NWO articles should be merged, as there is some fork quality to them and I suspect any quote from the random list in the political article could be chargeable as referring to the conspiracy article instead, just like Doug is doing with this Baldwin article. JJB 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a difference between JJB's quote which is "primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance" and his quote in context: "Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, if you can spot a difference between global gov and global gov, you should be able to spot a difference there too. But let's get to the point. How do you distinguish "politics" from "conspiracy theory", especially when an author (Baldwin) disambiguates that the "conspiracy theory" meaning is not the intended one? I'm generally skeptical, and am becoming more doubtful that RS's actually distinguish meaningfully any such distinction as is alleged between these two articles. JJB 09:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is that when I disambiguated 24 Oct 2008 on a talkpage request (the page I disambiguated to looked like this prior to its move), I already complained then about the NWO articles containing this very WP:CFORK. And that same dab has stood for two years (despite the move). And in those days the politics article didn't even acknowledge "global government", but today it is recognized in the lead of the politics article, indicating that the convergence of these two articles has already been happening! So, Doug, if you really want action on this, what are your RS's for distinguishing the two and for determining which one any speaker is referring to? If it's all semantic, why, let's merge! Nobody has a trademark on NWO meaning some global system, all POVs go in one article, fork resolved, wow, I'm talking myself another job when I should be elsewhere. JJB 09:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your pov. Many apologies if I've misunderstood what I've read, but I think you support Ron Paul (why do we have a separate article Ron Paul bibliography?) and Chuck Baldwin (looks like that article needs work from the tags) and you say you do crossword puzzles for World Net Daily, so it isn't surprising if like Baldwin you disagree with the conspiracy theory label. I think you will find it difficult to achieve a merge but of course you can try. Meanwhile it seems pretty clear that the link should be to the conspiracy theory link. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article linked from the article talk page. "A VERY REAL NEW WORLD ORDER" It is clear that the author, Chuck Baldwin, believes there is a conspiracy connected to the so-called "new world order". He refers to well-known NWO conspiracy theory memes, "Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve." For that reason it seems most appropriate to link to New World Order (conspiracy theory). If it's impossible to come to a consensus on that then the less-desirable fall-back position would be to link to the disambiguation page, New world order, requiring readers to decide which article is most relevant.  Will Beback   talk    01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Independent Payment Advisory Board
I have become embroiled in a dispute at this article recently (but also at Death panel about fringe theories that the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPAB, a body which which is yet to be created but which was set up under recent US health care reforms with the express purpose to control Medicare expenditures WITHOUT reducing health care benefits or eligibility (and which is expressly forbidden by law from rationing care in these ways) will nevertheless ration care and constitutes a Death panel (a body which, as Sarah Palin, who coined the term, would be one in which her elderly parents or her disabled son might one day have to stand before and plead for their life based on the panels perception of their worth to society. Similar charges were applied to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE, UK body which undertakes clinical effectiveness research in the UK to guide doctors and health service managers on the most effective (clinically effective as well as cost effective) treatments.

As I have pointed out on the talk pages, the people who use the word "rationing" do so in the normal sense (restricting supply allocations of goods, e.g. through ration books when the demand exceeds supply at the prevailing price level to ensure that everyone can get some of what they want, but maybe not all). With rationing, those who would be willing to pay more for something are unable to get it because of the rationing policy. This is not the case of the NHS in the UK because it is always possible to pay out of pocket for what you want if the NHS does not pay. Many web sites in the US it seems wrongly seem to claim that people in the UK are sometimes "denied access to drugs" because the NHS does not fully fund them. But they do not seem to use the same term for private insurers who do not fully fund their clients' drug costs either. Some British newspaper journalists have cottoned on to this use of language in the U.S. and have used the terms "rationing" and "death panel" in relation to NICE, but the reality is there is no serious political opposition to NICE in the UK. It has broad support across both parties and amongst the general public (though some seemed to think that the Conservatives in office would abolish NICE, this was not the case).

Those who wish to paint the likes of NICE and IPAB as rationing bodies or Death panels are mostly on the fringe of US politics and there is only one British politician who has dared to criticize the NHS for "rationing" as a result of NICE policies and he was roundly criticized for it, even within his own party.

So what is the issue?

It seems clear to me that certain editors are desperate for WP to promote these fringe theories by airing them in the article pages. Though these editors do seem sometimes to allow the opposite view to be given, the problem we then have is that it gives WP:Undue weight to the fringe theories - as though its a case of 50/50 when that is far from the truth.

My own feeling is that the IPAB and Death panel articles have got out of hand. They need to be kept real short with just the real facts and the fringe opinions should not be aired directly (with references to reliable sourced pages carrying the views and /or activities of the fringe theorists) but they ought not to be given undue weight by airing the theories directly in the article. Similar expressions have been aired at WP:ANI but so far nobody seems willing to help me get order and proportion into these articles.

Advice please on how best to proceed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Those who wish to paint the likes of NICE and IPAB as rationing bodies or Death panels are mostly on the fringe of US politics" is presumably well supported by reliable sources? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to prove "mostly" of course because I don't suppose anybody has tried to count. Certainly the Lyndon LaRouche organization has tried to paint NICE as a body engaging in policies akin to those in the Nazi Action T4 program. I'd call that a fringe view. One of the editors who i have done battle has alluded to this connection recently and it seems that a person calling himself a representative of this organization asked a question a meeting at which the chairman of NICE was speaking in which he repeated this allegation. This is extreme stuff. It is not normal. Sarah Palin has been called out numerous times by factcheck.org for promoting falsehoods and she is regarded by some as being an extremist, or at least for expressing extremist positions about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 February 2011


 * Ah, but that's faulty logic. Just because fringe groups agree with some opinion, does not make that opinion fringe.  It's when mainstream opinion does not agree that it becomes fringe.  If you want to establish that some opinion is, or is not, mainstream you need some sort of evidence.  It also seems to me that the propositions "IPAB is supposed to do A" and "IPAB will in fact do B" are not mutually exclusive, and each has to be considered separately.


 * True, but if NICE really was a death panel there would be millions of Brits pressing their politicians to get it abolished before they got ensnared. They don't of course, not because they are stupid, but because they are wise enough to know that there is a trade off that has to be made and they are happy for that trade off to be made by the medical experts who run NICE and whose fellow medical professionals daily realize that there is a need to use the budgets they have wisely. The death panel and rationing stuff is just baloney. It is just getting best value for money. As for IPAB and opinion A and B the issue is one of weight. Just because a few people make a lot of noise and raise cases before the courts and even raise bills in congress does not mean that these views are mainstream either. Unless someone produces a poll I'll guess we will have trouble determining that one. I would say though that everyone has opinions including Senators and judges and newspaper journalists but this does not necessarily mean that their opinion is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. We have to reflect the MAJOR opinions and not the extreme ones. Death panel and rationing are definitely extreme positions. If the government chooses to buy wooden pencils instead of plastic propelling ones because (a) they are cheaper and (b) write just as well, does that mean that the government is rationing pencils?  I think very few people would agree with that, but this is the essence of the argument made by those who say IPAB and NICE are rationing.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a "casual reader" who originally reverted User:Hauskalainen in favor of the seemingly more informative User:Intermittentgardener. I now see that was a mistake as User:Hauskalainen has shown User:Intermittentgardener appears to be POV pushing (here on his Talk page). Ritterhude (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ??? (part 2)
See also:
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80
 * Notability/Noticeboard
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)
 * Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends
 * No_original_research/Noticeboard

I want to apologize in advance for bringing this up again, but we need experts on this noticeboard to interpret the outcome of the above linked discussion, and to revisit it here for clarity and direction. Since October 26, 2010, one user (versus dozens) has claimed that notability is inherited and demands inclusion in our film article on Chaplin's The Circus (1928) because, in his words, of "all the talk about it". The majority of the content has now moved to Time travel urban legends. The user, however, still wants to link to it in the film article "see also" section, but we have no single reliable source about the film that mentions or discusses George Clarke's time travel urban legend, so I don't see how we can include it. Could we get some outside opinions on the repeated introduction of this fringe material? See also sections are generally used to include potential information that has yet to be merged, but George Clarke's "time travel theory" is really no different than the theories of let's say, internet celebrity Time Cube. And, just because TimeCube has had a lot of "talk" about his theories, doesn't mean we are adding him or links to his theories into the see also sections of Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. (see for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Time Cube) Is this situation any different? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A user has started a mediation case about a simple, straightforward application of WP:ONEWAY? Wow. And WOW because it's the same user who, in his defence of a huge, in-universe style advertisement for military "Santa tracking", wrote the following immortal words on Talk:Santa Claus:
 * "No one is arguing that Santa is real or not, and no one should. We stay neutral on the topic. We avoid committing to either side of the argument [...] I refuse to believe that we are not so unskilled that we cannot write an article without staying out of the debate."
 * Hans Adler 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OTOH, 9/11 terrorist attacks has an entire subsection devoted to a fringe theory. I doubt we have any standard about fringe theories in the See Also section.  In fact, I'm not even sure we have a guideline about See Also sections in general (but if anyone can point me to it, I'd love to see it).  In any case, if your description is accurate that it's only one editor arguing for its inclusion, then that editor should abide by consensus.
 * BTW, I'm not sure that this is really a fringe theory so much as it's an internet meme. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is reliable literature about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that addresses and debunks the fringe theories. However, there is no such literature about the film and George Clarke's time travel theory.  That is the difference. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct that "meme" is more accurate, as a fringe theory would indicate something people seriously believe in, not something that is obviously false and which only has entertainment value. If an actual fringe theory held that actually an impostor starred in the film, not Chaplin, or that he deliberately burned down the set, that sort of thing, it might deserve to be mentioned if it appeared in the long list of books that have discussed this movie. What troubles me is that we've gone over this time and again, and yet, no matter how clear the consensus, we keep beating the same dead horse over and over again. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see/receive any notification of this new discussion (the fourth or fifth venue sought for new input), which I find kind of ironic, considering the charges of forum-shopping that have been leveled at me by the submitting editor. Pot, meet kettle. It beared pointing out. Anyhoo, some slight corrections and some major ones. First of all, there have been at least two editors who think that some mention of the material should be in the article. Not using the article as a COATRACK, not offering UNDUE perspective. Not offering any opinion as the legitimacy of the claim (though there are citations for that). All that we are suggesting is a simple, cited notation about an event covered by dozens of reliable, notable news sources. Additionally, it bears pointing out that the reasoning for keeping this material in the article is simple fact: prior to the YouTube video and subsequent reporting my major media outlets, the page statistics indicated maybe a dozen people visited the article on a busy day. When the story broke, the page stats for the article went through the roof, and one day featured over 17,000 hits. Even after the story died down, the page statistics have not returned to their previous levels. As well, there are over a million web hits for this particular topic. Conservatively (ie. removing blogs and other non-rs crap), the numbers for the the internet/news story mightily exceed the number of hits for simply the movie itself. IMHO, these are indicative of one thing: our readers connect the two. The manufacturers of the DVD collection, the Chaplin website itself all connect the two. Even the news sources and the subsequent debunking articles connect the two - when speaking of the internet thing, they mention it as being a DVD extra of the film. The filming of the premiere (wherein the woman is apparently chatting with her ear trumpet) was created (presumably) to act as marketing for the film, 1920's style. They are inextricably linked. IT could easily be argued that the internet thing, with all its news coverage, actually increased interest in the actual film. The last time I checked, we don't get to superimpose our personal opinions as to the factual nature of the articles we edit. I am not stating that I think the claim of either cell phones or time travelers is anything but silly, but neither I nor anyone else here is allowed - as wiki editors - to judge. We simply state the information given us by reliable, verifiable citation and move on. We don't push the reporting as real or as a hoax (which is about the dumbest thing in the world to suggest); we note that the matter came up, what the claims were and how these claims were addressed. Period. It's the most neutral way to proceed. Not try to hide the mention first through a tiny link, and then through an outright removal. If there are any dead horses being pummeled here, it is this: we aren't citable; our opinions regarding the claims of citable references have no value in Wikipedia. I find it very disconcerting that other editors are failing to remain neutral, using their judgements of a theory as basis for exclusion. Lastly, I think its great that Time travel urban legends was created to cover these sorts of matters, but it doesn't really replace the need to at least mention the incident in the film article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no connection between sources about the film and this time travel nonsense. Consensus is against inclusion at this time. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, but you will have to accept it and move on.  You've been pushing this issue since October 2010, and you've wasted a great deal of time better spent editing. Please feel free to continue your campaign on your personal blog or some other offwiki site, but not here.  Thanks for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unfortunately page view statistics on wikipedia are not the criterion used for including material in wikipedia articles. If Jack Sebastian wants to write articles in this way, that could be done on his own personal blog on YouTube.  Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, I have a blog on YouTube? News to me. Mattsci. Perhaps Viriditas might be thinking of yet another person with a YouTube blog or whatever.
 * You should take note that I didn't utilize wiki page statistics as the sole criteria for inclusion, but instead as a simple indicator of interest amongst our readers. Perhaps a bit of AGF wouldn't hurt on your part - I have no stake whatsoever in the legitimacy of Clarke's claim, or its mentioning in this article. I am strongly in advocacy of its inclusion because - and only because - the only criterion being used (cloaked in various inaccurate interpretations of policy and guidelines) for its removal is 'I just don't like it'. Please, offer a better reasoning than that that actually follows policy and guidelines. Convince me; that's all I'm asking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gavin Collins was indefinitely blocked for this kind of disruptive behavior, and if you continue to waste our time, I suggest a RFC/U on Jack Sebastian. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All of this has been repeatedly pointed and the user. Th user actualy is asking on the mediation case that this is even included on the lede. This is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to go to the mediation page and see it for myself, and indeed, he is there calling for it to be placed in the lead section. We're through the looking glass here, people. Isn't this blockable at this point? Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add that Mr Clarke has also sadi that the operson in the DVD extra may have just been a loony, thus its not the only explantion he offers but it is the only explanation that the text has ever given.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted before, the truth, falsehood or looniness of the claim is immaterial; the citability and criteria for inclusion have been met. Pretending it never happened in unencyclopedic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC
 * That is nonsense. Consensus is against inclusion, and the material that was added to the urban legends article doesn't even match the primary source. Stop wasting out time. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Viriditas. We need to wrap this up conclusively. One of the contributors to this article has already been driven away . Agree that the "enough already" point has long since been reached. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I didn't forum shop this topic to yet another noticeboard - Viriditas did. I was content to resolve the matter via informal mediation. You and others appear to not be interested in using DR to resolve problems but rather by ganging up on one of the two dissenting editors. Is that how we resolve disagreements now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that this is not a question for this board. There is no fringe theory under discussion here.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. It never was a matter for the Fringe noticeboard; instead, it would appear to have been an attempt to forum-shop and reframe the issue at hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can concur all you want, but this is the correct noticeboard to discuss the POV pushing of popular time travel "theories", Internet memes or not. And asking for clarification of the previous consensus reached by this board is not "forum shopping" of any kind, nor could it be, as I am in agreement with the consensus reached on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is the correct noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Time travel backwards is definitely a fringe topic. Wikipedia has no policy of neutrality on such matters. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is pushing any time travel theories. I keep stating that the reason for inclusion is coverage by notable sources and reader interest. Please feel free to point out any advocacy of the time travel theories by myself or the other editor favoring inclusion. This means you have to provide DIFFs indicating such advocacy. Failing that, you cannot claim POV pushing. So, produce diffs of advocacy or withdraw the claim. Period.
 * It occurs to me that this is yet another attempt to re-frame the discussion from dealing with the material to one wherein the editor himself is attacked for "POV-pushing". Splendid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this is reported in anything close to a WP:RS. That is the problem. In the case of claims like that, a report from the United States National Academy of Sciences might provide such a source. Up until now, no scientific body has made any comment, whence the extreme fringey nature of this highly questionable material. There seems to be no point in continuing to repeat invalid circular arguments ad nauseam. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian's comments about page hits makes me wonder if we are all being trolled. His arguments for inclusion, spread across all of the noticeboards, accomplish only two things: the promotion of independent filmmaker George Clarke and interest in Chaplin's 1928 film, which many fans are trying to bring back to the attention of the public. In other words, it looks like Jack is culture jamming Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that one of the asinine things I have ever heard, Viriditas, and that's saying a lot, having edited in Wikipedia for some time now. You should feel 100% to point out where I have ever advocated Clarke's theories regarding time travelers using cell phones as legitimate. It's an exhibition of extraordinary bad faith, and a rather ham-fisted way of trying to re-frame the discussion. If you think I am culture jamming, take it to AN/I. Please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly cited page hits as a reason for inclusion of the fringe meme, even after it was pointed out to you separately by different editors that page hits are not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion of content from an article. You are the only editor who has cited page hits, and you have stubbornly repeated that specious reasoning. You just did, once again, in your post above. So yes, your conduct is legitimately being questioned here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is no assertion that this film clip actually portrayed a case of time travel (which would indeed be a fringe claim) as opposed to the verifiable assertion that many people were interested in this film clip, there seems nothing to discuss here. The appropriateness of the link in some article is properly discussed at the talk page for that article -- the appropriateness of various editors' behaviour is a matter for dispute resolution.  In short, please take this discussion elsewhere.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this discussion is within the scope of this noticeboard and is appropriate. DR is ongoing in other places and various claims have been made and continue to be made about time travel and its inclusion in encyclopedia articles by a single solitary editor against consensus. If you have nothing helpful to offer you are welcome to ignore this thread and focus your efforts on something more constructive.  Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Viriditas, it's not - it's an attempt to reframe the discussion, using various straw man arguments (ie. making the argument about an editor, and not the actual issue on point). As well, asking anyone who disagrees with you to simply move on and stop contributing is contrary to the idea of a vollabrative encyclopedia. This is why we have talk pages, and DR in the first place. His opinion is just as valid as yours (actually more, as your reasons for involving yourself in this matter are highly suspect to begin with).
 * As has been stated before, you should feel completely free to point out where the single editor in question (me, I presume) has made any claims about time travel. I know you have been looking, considering your creation of a subpage on the subject; I'm farily certain you aren't going to find any such comments from me pushing a fringe concept.
 * The matter on point here is a claim that the subject of reliable, verifiable and neutral sources have reported on that relate to this film. As has already been pointed out (rather concretely), the film of the premiere and the film are related. Cited? Check. Related? Check. We don't get to evaluate the claims made by notable sources. It's part of Who We Are as Wikipedia editors. Cites always rtrump our personal opinions. If you dont like it, "you are welcome to ignore this thread and focus your efforts on something more constructive." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal beliefs have no bearing on this issue. The facts show that you are pushing a fringe concept contrary to WP:ONEWAY into film articles where it doesn't belong  against consensus.  This discussion was started to revisit the initial discussion, Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22 and to request an interpretation and outcome of that previous discussion for clarity and direction.  You and your friend Kenilworth Terrace are not required to participate, and judging by the above discussion, we have once again come to the conclusion that you are editing against consensus in a tendentious, disruptive manner.  If that isn't clear, feel free to ask an administrator for guidance. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to waste time on a pointless discussion then I won't stop you. As your were kind enough to point out, I do have better things to do, even if you do not.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kenilworth Terrace, I would like to see some closure.  To bring us to that point, could you give us all a summary, in your own words, describing the outcome of this and the previous discussion linked above in Archive 22?  What conclusions were reached by consensus?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can and usually does change, Viriditas. As well, your ONEWAY argument is fatally flawed; to bring us to that point, please provide numerous citations as to when and where the matter was treated - using any of the 2 dozen solidly reliable and verifiable sources (ie, ABC News, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) - wherein the matter was treated as a less than "serious or prominent way". Thanks, we'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Im can only recall seeing about 5 sources, could you provide a full list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not doing your homework for you, head on back to Circus and view the article history. As an aside, can you note what sorts of article you have worked on that require quintupled references for inclusion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Source 1[]
 * Trivial coverage that clearly treats it in a humorous way.
 * Source 2 [] Again not an in-depth analyse that discuses the matter just reports some one has claimed something. Trivial reporting(also is WGN regarded as a major news outlet?).
 * Source 3 [] Again trivial coverage that does not analyse the subject.
 * Source 4 [] Again trivial coverage (about two paragraphs like most of these).
 * Source 4 [] At last a proper news story that actually analyses the clip and claim. Calls it a ‘fun’ explanation. Thus clearly does not regard it as a serious claim.
 * Source 5 [] is a pretty good article for this, but its just one. Also it pretty much dismisses the claim she is a time traveller. So the claim she is a time traveller is fringe, according to this source. So we are left with an internet meme about misidentification. Not a genuinely accepted theory about time travel. Also I would point it its language hardly treats the mater as a serious story (like most of these sources).
 * Source 6 [] calls it a fun theory, again.
 * Source 7 [] Also includes the claim (by Clarke) that she may be (in his words) a loony. Even he does not appear to treat it that seriously. Also again reports that it’s a fun theory.
 * Source 8 [] is pretty much the same as source 6 (it looks in fact like an abbreviated article by the same publisher). Also again calls it a fun theory. And links it to the 1940’s T-shirt story.
 * I count 8 sources (one of which may be a duplicate), I make that about half a dozen sources, not a dozen. Many little more then a paragraph or two. All treating it as a bit of fun. We require multiple sources that treat a story in a serious way (and in depth), not as a bit of fun. If we only include the unquestioned major news outlets (ignoring local papers and local radio stations), we are in fact left with 6 (and I am assuming that livescience.com is a high quality source).Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also argue fringe because it does not appear on all DVD releases, as such it is not automatically associated with the film, but only with a specific release of the film (not indeed does this footage appear in all versions of the premier footage). Thus we have a single instance of one persons claim, that it not visible everywhere, that has been dismissed by every expert (and news report as a 'fun' story), that the originator himself is not sure is true (and for which he has another explanation), that there are alternative theories (that obey Ocams razor far more then a Time traveller). In an article that is not about Mr Clarke (or time travel), not the premier of the film, not the DVD realise the clip appears on but about the film itself (about which none off the internet speculation has been about). As has been pointed out by antler user this has no more relevance to the film then liz Hurley’s knockers has to Four weddings and a funeralSlatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Well, I appreciate you getting some of the sources, Ss, even though you missed about a dozen of them. However, you have probably recognized that the descriptor of "fun" doesn't appear in any of them, but is instead your evaluation of their treatment. See, there is a way to actually not that in a balanced article section on the topic. In most film articles where some critics loved the film and others hated it, we note both (so long as doing so is accomplished in a balanced, not undue way) with citations. True, a few (I'm unclear where you are gleaning the term "every expert" either, but I am guessing that is you again, speculating) have sought to debunk the appearance, but no one with an ounce of sanity has called it a hoax - that term has only appeared here, really. Seriously, does someone actually believe that Clarke went out and doctored millions of copies of archival footage before it went to mass production? That's as reasonable as that of time travelers caught on film. You cannot cite that the DVD appearance doesn't appear in all DVDs; you are simply assuming that. Additionally, you are also assuming that we should even be considering Clarke's claim. As editors, we have no standing in the discussion - it is cited by several notable sources, and that's what counts. In short, our opinions about the claims are immaterial. Therefore, this isn't a FRINGE issue; no one is trying to push time travel or 1928 cell phone usage as valid (nor should they). The meat of the issue is simple:Is it reliably cited? Yes, of course it is, and by several more references than any of the other info currently in the article. Is it verifiable? Yes. Does it push time travel in the article or does it simply mention the claim? The latter is obviously true; indeed, before it was reverted, there was solid info noting the claim as well as citations of the likely confusion of the "cell" in question. Therefore, the matter is less of a FRINGE matter and more of some folk seeking to delete material from the article based solely upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the sources has this to say “others calling the film a fake”. So yes there are sources that say its (or has been accused of being) a fake. Another of the sources say “The Internet has been buzzing ever since the clip was posted. Time travel is a fun explanation, but what could the woman really be using?”, so yes there are sources that call it a fun explanation. Sources that have been used to support this article. I have found (as far as I can tell) all of the sources that we have used. If there are others I suggest you provide them. By the way this is not a review of a film, opr even of a DVD extra its someone opinion of what they think they have seen.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, SS, but that is a very good example of cherry-picking the data for that material which suits your position - something we aren't supposed to do here in the encyclopedia, as it violates our neutrality policy. In fact, most of the references simply note the material without calling it a hoax (and frankly, those few that do call it a hoax are either parroting a blog or simply stupid).
 * I understand your resistance to including the information; you think its a hoax, or trivial - we all get that you feel that way. Unfortunately, you are missing the main point here. If the news story was trivial as you and others have said, then no one would have taken the time to "de-bunk" it; by definition, no one would have bothered to pay it any mind. It was reported by exceptional news sources (fulfilling Verifiability, Notability, Reliability criteria for inclusion) and stories seeking to debunk it (from smaller tier sources) were generated from this notable coverage. It doesn't matter that it wasn't in the film. It doesn't matter that it isn't a review. It does matter that it is inextricably connected to the film, as the premiere film where the instance was noted was for the premiere of the film, and included by the makers of the DVD. Even Chaplin.com. To deny connection is - quite frankly - stupid. There are too many sources connecting the two. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And again - can anyone point out where there is an advocacy of time travel as a valid concept being argued within the article for the film? If not, then there is no fringe theory being offered as real. Thus, no need for this noticeboard - which I will again submit is a cynical attempt to remove the info from the article by calling it something it is not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF please. Well any one can look at the sources provided here (the only ones that have been provided) and see for themselves nhow many say its a fun thneroy and how many give it more then a trivial mention (and how many are 'exceptional news sources'. Oddly the only sources that actauly cover it in any detail are the verey ones you seem you be rather dismisive off. No oen denys that this is a premier of the film, what we deny is that the time traveller story has no connection with the film. It is based on the mis-identification of a few seconds of footage from the premier that has not been endorsed by the makers of the DVD or Chaplin. Something does not have to advocate something to give undue weight to a fringe theory, just me3ntiong the theroy would be undue. Yoiu want an entiere paraqgraph on this. What you have is a link to antoher page. This is both too much (the other page should no exist (a page about Time travel urban legends) where we can give it far more detail, then would be warrented on the Circus page. As well as being too little (you actualy want the a detailed description of this, running to two or three sentances). That breaches fringe as we are giving a huge amount of the article over to an idea that even the supposed proposer (Mr Clarke) does not beleive.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven: What do you mean by "the time traveller story has no connection with the film"? Are you saying that this is WP:SYN?  If so, I don't see how this is WP:SYN if a reliable source has connected the two.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course there is a connection: The time traveller story is about the film. But the connection goes only in one direction, and so the story is barely noteworthy in the film article. Cruft gets added to articles all the time, but usually there is no strong opposition to the necessary cleanup work. There are several exceptions, i.e. cases in which there typically is opposition to de-crufting. Fringe is a notable such exception, and it arises so often that we have a specific rule for it: WP:ONEWAY. Hans Adler 14:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a connection in the sence that its the premier if the film, but there is no conection in the sence that the specualtion is not about the film, but the premier. The Extra is connected to the film, the sepcualtion is connected to the extra. I woiuld also ppoijt out that tehr has been no connection been proven between this woman and the film, she appears to be just walking past the cinima. So in fact this specualtion has less connection to the film then Ms Hurleys dress sence does to Four wedings and a funeral (at least she was indirectly connected to the movie). As such I would argue that the specualtion is not connected to the subject of the articel. Are ther any other exmaples of specualtion about DVD extras being in artciels about films, where the specualtion has no relatioship to the actual film?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The connection is tenuous at best: a DVD extra with footage showing a pedestrian, not an actor in the film, walking by in newsreel footage of the film premier. Connection or not, ONEWAY applies. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that this is a fringe issue. Sure, if we endorsed the view that there had actually been time travel, that would be a gross violation of fringe policy. But we can write articles about all sorts of wrong-headed notions without endorsing them. This speculation is not notable, at all. As virtually everyone has said, it isn't relevant to the film. Please can the thread be drawn to a close now. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting me. It's weeks since I looked at the details of this silly dispute, and I see now that I misremembered something. Hans Adler 20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans Adler: Thanks for the link to WP:ONEWAY. I see what you're saying.  I would agree that this is barely noteworthy in the film article.  I'm not sure if "barely noteworthy" means a brief mention (a sentence or two) or no mention at all.  That said, there seems to be an awful lot of time and attention going to a matter that seems relatively unimportant.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure, that's why I chose the formulation. Of course now that I have been corrected (the woman is in a film related to the film, not the film itself), I prefer no mention at all, although silly details are not a priori inappropriate. It really depends on the overall quality of the article and whether it fits in. Hans Adler 20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AS has been mentioned repeatedly, no one is advocating using the article as a coatrack for the theory of time travel - no one even wants to spend too much time on it. At most, the two or three editors in favor of inclusion suggest noting it (with citation) in a pop culture section along with a bookend of the most likely explanation (again, reliably sourced). That doesn't seem out of line, and it doesn't hurt the article at all. I think that's eminently reasonable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that "Chaplins Time Traveler" [sic] isn't about a scene from the film, but from a DVD extra released much later. And, there is no reliable commentary outside of George Clarke, that mentions anything about the legacy of this film and Clarke.  For Clarke's observations to hold any weight, we would expect an article or book about the film to mention it.  Unfortunately, this appears to be a slow news day story, and adds nothing of value or importance about the film, so it should not be included.  If there comes a time when a source about the film discusses the DVD extras, we may then decide to include it, but not before.  Please remember WP:NOTNEWS: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia...Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion....Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."  Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to have done a fair bit of original research on your own here, Viriditas; could you cite that this is the first time that the film premiere was released in DVD form, or as part of a Chaplin collection? Or that the day this story broke in several reputable media outlets was a "slow news day" (since I don't really recall it being such)? As for your statement that " For Clarke's observations to hold any weight, we would expect an article or book about the film to mention it ", I would argue that you are implementing a view on guidelines that do not bear out through the actual guidelines; it is again your interpretation.
 * Additionally, it would appear that you are perhaps forgetting some of the key parts of the guideline you refer to, Viriditas, such as the statement about how " most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ", you omitted the part that offers a few key examples: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"; leaving out that part suggests that you are choosing to interpret this guideline far more narrowly than was intended.
 * The material is well-cited (t least a dozen references, all RS and V), it is linked to the film by those sources outside of Wikipedia (like the official Chaplin website, or, far more mundanely, the producers of the DVD sets that Clarke used), and just as importantly, by our readers, who came to the article looking for the info and likely left disappointed.
 * In fact, you are predicting or worse, theorizing that there is no enduring notability for the topic, which was not a routine routine news report (as in the aforementioned examples of weather and sporting events, etc.).
 * This discussion was brought here - and I will withdraw my previous charge of forum-shopping, and presume that Viriditas came here seeking to simply alter the pervious consensus of a simple mention in the 'See Also' (not ideal for either side of the argument, which was a good indication that it was a good solution). He was wrong to do so - there is no FRINGE argument being presented in any substantial version of the article wherein mention actually advocated or argues as valid the theory of time travel. Allow me to repeat that:


 * There is absolutely no claim that time travel is possible by anyone anywhere in the article.


 * I challenge anyone to present info that contradicts this, for I've seen none of that at all. All that has ever really been added was information noting the news interest generated and reasonable explanations for what was seen, all of it extremely well-cited (Indeed, better that most of the article at the time). Not one shred of information touting the images as proof positive of time travel or pre-Depression cell-phone usage. Indeed, less was mentioned in the article than has been devoted to non-film-related material in Poltergeist (film) and The Dark Knight (film).
 * Seeing that is the FRINGE noticeboard, and that the arguments for exclusion have morphed away from Fringe-related arguments into a variety of others, I'd argue that those arguing against inclusion are using this noticeboard as a WP:COATRACK, offering a slew of strawman arguments when in fact, the only true argument is that the same 3-5 editors simply don't want the info in the article, and have chased off almost everyone else who disagreed with them. I'd argue that this discussion belongs on a more appropriate noticeboard, like Content, or the like. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like many new users, you've made a common mistake, an error really, in your assumption that the policies and guidelines exist independently, without any relation to any others, and that WP:FRINGE related guidelines, such as WP:ONEWAY, have no bearing on other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTNEWS. Fringe theories, such as George Clarke's observations about Chaplin's film outtakes, are only notable in the context of a serious discussion about the film.  Since there are no sources that can be said to do this, we can't include it.  Sorry about that. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I've likely been here longer than you, so let's dispense with the condescending tone, shall we? You aren't going to get anywhere with me otherwise. Thanks.
 * Secondly, it is your personal opinion and interpretation that Oneway applies; it doesn't, for the many reasons noted previously. Neither does Notnews. The viewing of the anomaly came from a serious viewing of the film. That it doesn't specifically address the film doesn't affect its relationship to the article, any more than Heath Ledger's demise does on The Dark Knight, or the supposed curse surrounding Poltergeist.
 * Jack, re "I've likely been here longer than you," please don't make comments like that unless you are willing to reveal your former user name, so that other editors can verify your contribution and disciplinary history, if any. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially since he was talking about my block log on ANI. It seems a bit unfair for Jack to do that while hiding the history of his past accounts, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, we cannot use your personal interpretation to exclude material, especially when it isn't borne out by other examples, some of them Good Articles. Therefore, it must remain. Deeply sorry about that - you should likely read up on our policies and guidelines yet again. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Poltergeist and Batman stories are directly related to the films production, they are not related to its premier. Also in both case the material come from people directly involved with the production, not some one who saw a DVD extra and thought they saw something. PLease sstop comparing like to unlike.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop being so literal. Begin looking at how the different policies and guidelines fit together. Neither Ledger's death nor the curse had anything to do with the films; indeed, nothing about the "Poltergeist Curse" is in the DVD extras. The reason they are in the articles is becaue they relate to the subject of the film. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Keith Ledger was the star of the film, and the "Poltergeist Curse" relates directly to people who acted in the film Potergeist. As has been repeatedly explained to you, this relates to what some guy on Youtbue posted concerning a DVD extra containing newsreel footage of the film's premiere, not having anything to do with the film itself or anyone involved therein. The woman with the "cell phone" was somebody who just happened to walk by. She was not a film actor or crew member. She had no connection to Chaplin or the film. She wasn't even at the premiere, just walking by on the sidewalk. This has been explained to you over and over and over again. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we wrap this up now please?
I remind everyone that the purpose of this board is:
 * Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudo-science).
 * Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here.
 * Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories.

Since the discussion appears to involve none of these, please could it be taken elsewhere? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this discussion is well within the venue of this board. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are wrong, Scotty. This board is for situations where fringe-type topics are being pushed as non-fringe topics. This noticeboard serves as a 'reality check' of sorts for those folk, or to serve as a clarification of what is or is not a fringe concept. If I am wrong, someone other than Scotty or the others fighting this tooth and nail (and you know who you are) speak up and tell me how I am wrong. Otherwise, I am not seeing how the addition of the information is endorsing the concept of time travel or cell phone usage - in any era. :) If it isn't doing something that would trip a fringe warning, then this matter doesn't belong here. It was brought here incorrectly, which is okay - people make mistakes. Just cowboy up, admit them and find the more appropriate venue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still fringe, because it represents the opinons of a George Clarke YouTube video that is essentially WP:NOTNEWS and has not a thing to do with the Circus film. Your opinion above, that "the viewing of the anomaly came from a serious viewing of the film" is funny as comedy, but we're trying to be serious here.  There is no "anomaly" to discuss in the film article and no serious newsworthy source has discussed it in relation to the film.  It ain't "anomalous", Jack.  However, it is Clarke's fringe theory that it is anomalous, and we are not required to include it.  If it isn't notable for its own article, then we have no business shoehorning it into another article without good sources about the film.  Many editors have discussed the subject and consensus is against inclusion in the Circus film article at this time.  So yes, let's close this as "consensus not to include non-notable fringe theory in Chaplin's film article".  Agreed? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid I still find your arguments based on a deep misapprehension of our policies and guidelines, Viriditas - I cannot agree with either your assessment or conclusions.
 * Using your logic, any reviewer speaking as to their opinion of any given film being great or crappy or symbolism for the 1960 election is in fact a fringe theory, and must be removed - have fun with "correcting" all the film articles with reviews.
 * Levity aside, you are using NOTNEWS incorrectly. The matter wasn't a routine reporting, was treated as serious news and well-cited, and remains a popular web search item. In short, seeking to apply it to this matter is about as valid as seeking to place it within this noticeboard.
 * As well, I am sure you understand that I don't endorse, believe or otherwise condone Clarke's remarks about time travel, and pre-Depression cell phone usage; perhaps you could demonstrate slightly more good faith before painting me with the same brush as you would someone who actually believes in hat stuff. After all, one could paint you as a wikistalker. Good faith goes both ways.
 * So, I am afraid I cannot agree to remove the material - it is well within Wikipedia purview to retain such information. Had you actually brought this to the correct board in the first place, you might have been able to garner more outside input, instead of chasing away most of those that disagreed with you. Consensus has changed - when you remove the same voices calling for removal, and those seeking its retention, there are a growing number of folk who feel it should be included. Why don;t we simply agree to keep it a small mention, one mentioning the news story and another explaining the likely explanation for such? That way, it isn't COATRACKing the article, and is given the proper due weight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for summarizing your position, Jack. I think everyone knows where you stand now.  To recap, George Clarke's idea is classified as a fringe theory because it promotes an idea that is not supported in any discipline, let alone film, and promotes the absurd idea that the simplest explanation for an unknown person appearing in an outtake from a film premier (not even the film itself) is that the person is a "time traveler", one of the more ridiculous notions to have cropped up in 2010.  When one watches Clarke's YouTube video, one gets the distinct idea that Clarke is marketing himself and trying to get his name "out there", as he advertises himself and his work.  There is not a single thing remotely encyclopedic about this, and discussion after discussion has concluded that there is no consensus for inclusion at this time.  Those are the facts, Jack, and unless you can convince a significant number of people to come over to your side, you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. One way you might try to change the minds of other editors is do some research on the topic of the film and attempt to bring it to at least GA level.  This will show that you have an interest in the topic, and you aren't just there to annoy editors and waste their valuable time; after all, you've been obsessing about this since October 2010.  With that said, as a new user you may not be familiar with all these things.  Anyway, I want to thank you for sharing your unique perspective and I wish you all the best in your Wikipedia future. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong again, Viriditas. We - as editors - aren't supposed to give a rat's ass what George Clarke says or believes. You are deeply mistaken that FRINGE means that we cannot use reliable news reports that discuss those views. From the first paragraph of FRINGE itself:
 * "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence.[1] A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is.[2] Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[3] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
 * What is key is that we are not supposed to give the theory undue prominence, which - with only two sentences (and only one in the current, inadequate version) - is easily avoided. So, you are as wrong thinking that inclusion is a matter for this noticeboard, is covered by NOTNEWS or any of the several other personal theories you have floated and have seen go down in flames.
 * And to be rather blunt, you brought this matter to the board, so maybe the accusations of beating a dead horse re a bit misplaced. Find a mirror for some direction. While I appreciate your interest in the matter as well as your efforts to develop the film article, you are the only one who has done so, the two or three others content to take cheap shots at me instead of actually improving the article. I don't know anything about Charlie Chaplin, except that he seemed like a womanizing, drunken prick. What is of interest to me is a project guided by rules and not elitism. If you think that an unfair description, note that you know nothing about Clarke, and are willing to use speculation about who he is to remove well-cited information. Sorry, we don't work like that here.
 * As for consensus, the more places you shop this matter to, the more editors who come to think 'hey, maybe a mention about the thing wouldn't be bad.' So, thanks for your efforts on that front. The consensus isn't so one-sided now. And those are the facts, my wikistalking friend. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No soem one reviewing a filom is nor fringe, this is not a reveiw of the film, its comentry on a DVD extra (not even a review but someone saying they think they saw something). Commentry that has been roundly dismised by the few experts who have commented on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It'll never be wrapped up until Jack disappears into the space-time contunuum from which he came. This is now WP:LAME and needs to be shot to put it out of its misery. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'd point out that you would appear to be the only one here who actually believes in time travel, Paul. Lame or not, that was a pretty snarky remark. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the space-time contunuum has anything to do with time travel.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might have done if I'd spelled it correctly. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the great trouble with time travel: spellcheck errors.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a kind of magic.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So we are agreed that a) this doesn't belong on this board (not being a matter of proselytizing time travel as real), and b) we can include two cited sentences noting the whole matter: one simply noting the hubbub, and one noting the likely explanation? No undue influence and no coatracking of the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NO I don't think we can the matter is still in dispute. It may )or may not be) fringe (I still belive that to include any referacne to this person as a time traveller is a frionge theory). But we cannot say that it can be included based upon the opinons of othres issues.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jack, you can place all that junk on your personal blog, but the consensus is against you here. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I don't have a personal blog. What on earth would make you think so? And you might want to do some more arithmetic; consensus pretty much shows that this is the wrong place for this topic. It's been pretty decisively shown that the source noting a theory, where it isn't addressed in the article does constitute the 'endorsement' of a fringe theory. We don't have that here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that consensus is all tyhat claer and that we should close mthis as no consensus. However lets have a vote (just to see what kind of consesnsus we have. Its is mentioned in the article, very briefly and without any detail and links to an article that covers the material in more depth, what more should be neeed?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is mention of time travel or mobile phones a fringe theory in regards the Charlie Chaplin film The Circus
This is only about those two issues Not the wider story of an inteent meme. My question is. Do you bleive that any mention of a time traveller filmed ooutside the films premier, or the saem using a mobile phoner if a fringe theory. Please try and restrict this to commenting on just those two pointsSlatersteven (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply put: WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:ILIKEIT apply here. This is a flash in the pan that's already dying out as a meme, not a notable event relating to the film. It certainly doesn't stand on its own, and has no more relevance to the film than a bug getting hit by a Ferrari affects the history of the cars. People come up with these silly things all the time: it's called Pareidolia. A notable occurrence would be things like the supposed hidden "sex" message in The Lion King, which has received widespread coverage and still comes up in the media from time to time. This isn't even a blip on the radar. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My take is that all requirements for reference have been met. There appears to be some who argue vehemently based on their belief it isn't real, and they site things like santa clause and the futility of argument in general. While that might be successful in smearing any editors who merely feel that the inclusion of the reference is acceptable because policy guidelines have been met. I note in the latest edit that a reference was made and removed by an editor who has taken a side, claimed that there was no support. Linked it to where there was support, then linked it to where there was only one editor who had come to an obscure place to provide support. I have been focussed on the talk page, so was unaware of the debate here. I accept that it is hard to argue that the claim is real, but the claim for inclusion has merit. DDB (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There isn't a single reliable source about the film and George Clarke.  This is not notable in any way and represents Clarke's attempt to get his name "out there".  Wikipedia isn't a PR firm nor a vehicle for promotion and advertising.  If Mr. Clarke's "theory" was in any way important to the film, surely someone would have written about it by now.  Instead, all they keep writing about is Clarke's YouTube video about the extras from the DVD.  Well, I've got that DVD in front of me, and I'm watching the scene right now.  It is simply archival footage from the 1928 premiere in Los Angeles showing a Zebra-painted horse statue with people walking by in the background, one of whom holds their hand up to their face.  It is not, as Clarke claims, "a member of the public walking by on a mobile phone", nor is that the simplest explanation. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are wrong, Viriditas - as has been pointed out every single time you peddle out these old chestnuts. It is solely your opinion that Clarke is doing this as a publicity stunt (no citations to that effect from reliable news sources, etc.), and you aren't citable. Likewise, your different observations from a viewing of the DVD are not equivalent to counter those of a far more notable source than your personal opinion.
 * The story would have remained some whimsical little blog on YouTube, had it not been given life by reputable, reliable and verifiable sources. You may disagree with the importance they placed upon the reporting, but - and this is meant not unkindly, but as a smack upside the head with a non-gentle bit of ego-bursting - we don't care what you felt was important. As editors, we aren't citable, and our opinions don't counter cited sources. Period. If you wish to change the set of policies and guidelines, you should feel free to submit proposed changes to our existing policy elsewhere.
 * In short, the matter was cited, connected up the yin-yang to the filn by credible, reliable and obvious sources, so maybe we can dispense with the unrelated arguments. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, my dear young friend and new editor, civility dictates that you do not start a discussion about editors by proudly exclaiming "you are wrong!" In the future, please keep your POV to yourself.  The facts of the matter show that there is no consensus for including this trivial marketing gimmick in our article on Chaplin's film at this time.  You can feel free to browse the above discussion for details if you are interested.  Furthermore, Clarke's PR move has nothing to do with Chaplin's film.  The "extras" in question are from the Los Angeles premiere.  You are welcome, of course, to find a single, reliable source about Chaplin's film that mentions Clarke, but since there aren't any, you'll have to wait until the first one is published before we can consider it.  In any case, thanks for your time and interest. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, if you have difficulty accepting it when people point out that you are wrong, you might want to consider editing elsewhere. And clearly, you are wrong. About a great many things, chief amongst them is that this matter actually even belongs in this noticeboard. It has been pointed out several times by myself and others that it doesn't, and yet you keep insisting it does. You keep insisting that the matter is trivial, which it isn't, according to our definition of such. You continually forum-shop the idea that this is a violation of NOTNEWS, when - clearly - it doesn't fall under that prohibition. And you keep asking for citations that connect Clarke's suggestion about cell phone usage and time travelers, but you seem to turn a blind eye to the dozen or so citations presented that not precisely that.
 * The noting of a heavily-referenced event, counterbalanced by references that dispute the conclusions drawn from that, do not present a problem addressable by this noticeboard. We aren't making it more notable than it is. We aren't stating an idea of our own, nor are we endorsing it. We are simply reporting it. Therefore, no violation of FRINGE. Add to that that most of your arguments haven't even touched on the idea that this is FRINGE; you were forum-shopping, plain and simple.
 * Maybe your time would be better spent stalking someone else, Viriditas - as has been pointed out by others. In this matter, you have failed to present any criteria for exclusion but plenty of incentive to doubt your intentions for seeking it. Your mere presence here seems based in bad faith. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, civility dictates that you do not childishly accuse other editors of being "wrong", but rather focus on and address why you think you are right. As a new user, you may not be aware of this, so I hope this information helps you in any future discussion. But, let us get down to brass tacks: as can be seen by User:Viriditas/Circus consensus, there is no consensus for your pet topic at this time.  In order for you to change this status, you would have to successfully persuade us as to why you think this trivial PR marketing campaign is notable, and more importantly, relevant to an encyclopedia article about the 1928 film, The Circus.  Failing to address this problem, and failing to cite reliable sources about the film that discuss George Clarke and his strange, some might say "fringe" views, one must then ask you to kindly drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Thanks for listening, and good luck. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that this issue has been wrung out like an old washcloth, and that both consensus and policy dictate that this already forgotten nonsense be removed from the article or, at most, minimally treated in the "see also" section. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, i will point out when you are wrong, each time it I notice your errors. It is neither childish nor uncivil to do so. Consider it an effort on my part to help you along the learning curve (you are welcome, btw).
 * Unfortunately, that would appear to be an uphill effort. I am simply going to dismiss your churlish continued efforts to categorize the initial reporting of the matter as either a publicity stunt or marketing campaign, since you have repeatedly failed to support those statements. This categorizes many of your arguments as disruptive - refusing to get the point, despite it having been pointed out to you several times. I have sought to be helpful and accommodating the first few times you asked (assuming that you simply weren't bothering to read the previous posts), but I am not going to do your homework for you. Refer to your own subpage for the points in defense of inclusion. They have been repeated often enough. Maybe ask someone else to list them for you.
 * Perhaps you need to stop beating a dead horse, Viriditas. What you have done is forum-shopped an issue that - by your own admission - is less a Fringe-y problem than one of triviality. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is where it has been for a while. It was only after an indef-banned troll restarted the deletion argument (which led them to their current state in oblivion) that this sorry excuse for a content discussion began anew. I am not arguing to have several sections on the matter. Two or three sentences at most, and the way it currently is, at least. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the publicity stunt claim. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2098365 http://www.cnbc.com/id/39895814/The_Charlie_Chaplin_Time_Traveler_Video_Is_Freaking_Us_Out (note also includes the claim it’s a fake). At the end of the day we have no consensus about this. So that is how we need to leave it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you helping to make my point for me, Slatersteven, thanks. The first citation contains the following key statement: "Another YouTube poster thinks the woman was simply scratching her head, and that Clarke's video is a publicity stunt for his production company./ If that's true, it may have worked. The video has received more than 1.6 million views since Oct. 21, and the number is still rising." Unless the rules for reliable sourcing, we cannot include YouTube comments from the peanut gallery. You need a reliable source calling it PR or fakery, not just your speculation. When you (or Viriditas) have that, then you can argue it as a mitigating factor for exclusion. Until then, you are out of luck here.
 * Just in case you missed it, Slatersteven, your first reference refuted the point that the event was NOTNEWS: "The video has received more than 1.6 million views since Oct. 21, and the number is still rising". This is a reliable citation telling us that the matter is of continuing interest. Thanks for the assist, SS.
 * The second reference has the following statement, which I am guessing you skimmed, as it doesn't really support your argument: "Is this a hoax? The very fact that the woman looks so witchy makes us wonder if this isn't a publicity stunt by Clarke, timed to coincide with Halloween. Does anybody have the DVD of "The Circus"? Does this clip really exist? Or is it something Clarke made himself and is only claiming exists on the DVD?" Viriditas - the only one of this motley little group who has actually done anything to expand the article since October (for people so intent on "preserving the article", most of you have done a piss-poor job at expanding it) - has noted that he has seen the DVD extra in question. His opinion of its nature is immaterial (at least as an evaluative tool), but he concedes the video exists. Your first reference presumes the existence of chicanery on the supposition that his copy is the only one in existence. As it isn't, the claim of hoax is invalid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The direction that time moves in, has never been shown to be anything other than an insurmountable barrier precluding all possibility of time travel (although it makes for great sci-fi!) Some indeed do believe in time travel, but they have got to be such a tiny dissenting minority, that it seems applying the fringe policy here is justifiable.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that it is possible to travel in time... I do it constantly... moving forward in time, at a steady rate of one second per second. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See, if the two sentences in question actually advocated time travel, it would be here. It doesn't which begs the questiona s to why someone thought it belonged on the Fringe noticeboard. Arguments for exclusion are about everything but a valid FRINGE argument. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. They reference a video clip that clearly articulates a fringe theory, that someone traveled in time and plopped down in 1928. In my view, this has no place in this article whatsoever. See fuller discussion below. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original threading of comments that User:Jack Sebastian intentionally and disruptively altered to change the meaning and intent of the original editors and order of the thread. This is extremely hypocritcal behavior on Jack Sebastian's part, as he previously complained on ANI about other editors doing this to him.  Jack, please practice what you preach. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, Viriditas (incorrect as it is); please know that I have undone that edit; please do not refactor the words of others. You have been warned about this by several others. No alteration to intent was made by myself, as my reply was to Slatersteven. I had indeed complained on ANI about this, but was assured that what I did was perfectly within bounds. Perhaps you need to visit ANI more frequently, or at least more closely read what you are referencing. Please don;t make me revisit this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)
 * A source can report on youtube comments, the source is not youtube. Nor is it my OR, the source (as you quote) say its been called fakery. The other source does ot indicate that this is not 'not news' it says thyat it is still 9ijnteresting to people, but it does not indicate that interest is lasting, just that it has lasted a (about) a week. Moreover we do not judge sources, we use them for what cgthey say. You asked has nay said it was a fake, they have. As to expanding the artciel. I notice that this is all you have added to the artciel (and is becoming almost an SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel my account is an SPA (and I can assure you, you are deeply misapprehending the term), then please report me. Understand that you should probably avoid these sorts of accusations, as they tend to land you in hot water over and over again. If I see a problem - as I do here - I am going to stick around until it either gets fixed, or it is determined that the community is willing to live with the error. I have other interests both inside and outside of Wikipedia, as I am sure you do. This is why I haven't accused you of being an SPA, since you haven't done anything to expand the article yourself. "Physician, heal thyself."
 * As for the text of your comments, you are again speaking not from the sources, but from your gut. We do not do that here at Wikipedia. You have pointed to two sources that you say support your claim that its a hoax; one points to a single youTube comment by an unidentified person suggesting it as such and the other actually supports my point that the matter is of enduring note: "The video has received more than 1.6 million views since Oct. 21, and the number is still rising". The source says that, not me. thanks again for that, btw.
 * Lastly, your contention that we do not judge sources is patently absurd. Of course we evaluate sources; we even have policy regarding it (WP:RS) as well as numerous polices for weighing the value of different sources. What we are supposed to do is to present balanced, neutral articles, demonstrating the major points of view on a subject. When we have a claim of time travel by someone (and it meets our criteria for inclusion, as this matter does), we provide (or attempt to provide, anyway ) references to balance out the claim. Failing to do so creates a situation wherein undue weight is being given to a single event. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As this is still going round in circles can we closer as no consensus?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One editor's failure to acknowledge consensus is not "no consensus." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of this question thre is not a single user, there appear to be a couple who say this is not fringe, a couple who say not sure and a couple who say it is, that seems to me no consensus. On the wider question of this material its irrelevant if Jack is in a minority or not, this is about the issue of fringe and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that there was one editor favoring inclusion. There appears to be two. What I'm saying is that there is a clear consensus for either minimal or no inclusion, and only one editor digging in his heels and refusing to acknowledge that consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, Scotty. I am fine with the matter as it is. For now. I am quite opposed to complete removal, as it is absurd to pretend the matter isn't connected to the film article. And, has been said enough to make one's ears bleed, consensus doesn't trump policy. It was an indef-banned contributor who started this big ball of lame rolling; others just hopped aboard.
 * Allow me to be clear: some reference to the matter must be made, without advocacy and without using the article as a coatrack. No one is advocating much of anything else (I was opting for a more neutral version, but that was pretty much shot down). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also I think that editors following this noticeboard need to be aware of what is at issue here: It is a stubborn effort to include a reference to the fringe theory that someone traveled in time. The film clip in question clearly articulates that preposterous theory. The creator of the video clip says(see minute 2:15 or so) "Right now the only conclusion I can come to, which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure to some people, but it's a time traveler." This was quoted in the coverage. See. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, incorrect, Scotty. What is at issue is whether this noticeboard should be used as a catch-all for arguments best-resolved elsewhere. While the initial claim by Clarke is a fringe theory, the reporting of the issue (as well as the information seeking to debunk it) is not. It is not our job to sort the truth from insanity; we report the sources neutrally and reliably. While I think your characterization of stubborn is indeed correct, I find the stubbornness to be to insist that we as editors trump cited sources. We don't do that in Wikipedia. Our opinion doesn't get to figure into articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not just an "initial" claim. It is the claim that he has made and has not withdrawn. Nobody is claiming that the articles reporting this fringe theory (time travel) were themselves pushing that theory. That's a total red herring. The question is the extent to which, if at all, that absurdity is to take up space in the article on the Chaplin film. That's why this was reported to the fringe theories noticeboard in the first place. The fact that this wacky theory was reported in news outlets is not unusual. If this noticeboard were only to examine fringe theories examined in non-reliable news sources this would be a very thin noticeboard, because they would not be inserted in the articles in the first place or swiftly removed per RS. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please just stop this now
I'm seriously considering reporting everyone who keeps dragging this wretched issue back to this noticeboard to WP:ANI for deliberate disruption. If there is an "idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" would someone please (1) state that idea; (2) state with reference what the mainstream opinion in that field is; (3) state with diffs which article that idea is being written. Otherwise stop now please. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This "wretched issue" clearly involves a fringe claim - a video purporting to show a time traveler, and whether it should be referenced in an article. That's plain from the video itself; the video propagates a fringe theory, which is that some lady traveled in time. Time travel is a fringe theory. Stop trying to squelch discussion. There is no consensus that this subject does not belong on this noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course the assertion that living human beings can travel or have travelled back in time is a fringe theory. That is not what is under discussion here.  What we have is a sustained, repetitive, pointless and disruptive debate about whether someone in a video clip looks as if they might or might not be holding a mobile phone and to what extent this should be described in an article about a film.  It's about as relevant to this board as a debate over an obscure plot element in Doctor Who or the notorious wrist watch in Ben Hur.  This is not a discussion about the fringe theory of time travel, and I'm not trying to squelch it, I'm trying to have it taken elsewhere, where it won't waste the time of people on this board.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has already been pointed out to you (Scotty) that the initial YouTube video does not constitute a claim of FRINGE theory. True, the initial claim is fringe-y, but if it is referenced extensively (check) and in a serious manner (again, check), in a serious publication (once again, check), it can be included."References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Ergo, those references that debunk the theory provide balance and reinforce that the matter was taken seriously enough to debunk.
 * FRINGE in a nutshell: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." The matter isn't being given undue attention in the article, and should in fact be expanded slightly to keep the matter neutral. In its current state, however, it is absolutely not presenting either FRINGE or UNDUE issues.
 * Because of this, it isn't a FRINGE matter for this noticeboard. Indeed, some have cynically used this board as a COATRACK at best, and at worst, a cynical kite-flying excursion. Either way, it doesn't belong here. The matter should be closed as not germane. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has already been pointed out to you that the initial YouTube video does not constitute a claim of FRINGE theory. Excuse me? The video says "Right now the only conclusion I can come to, which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure to some people, but it's a time traveler." See. The fact that it was picked up by RS news sources is utterly irrelevant. You and Kenilworth are both mischaracterizing the basis for this discussion, which is a video that promulgates a fringe theory, "time travel." Its inapplicability in this article is plainly stated in WP:ONEWAY.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ecI'm sorry, but you really need to read FRINGE again. Carefully. Kenilworth Terrace is pointing out that FRINGE has been the least of the concerns discussed here, and that the noticeboard has been coatracked in an exclusion argument that has ranged far afield.I agree with him.
 * I will state it clearly: yes - the initial claim by Clarke is a fringe theory. In itself, that is not enough to exclude it from the article, or fromthe encyclopedia entirely. In order to be considered exclusionary, the matter must be poorly cited, unduly advocated by less than reliable sources or must be given undue weight/ As there is less than one sentence in the article (and at most has been all of three sentences), that isn't a consideration. Your belief that it is "utterly irrelevant" is simply that: your belief, unsupported by any policy we currently use in Wikipedia.
 * Perhaps you are laboring under the misconception that we cannot note wacky theories presented elsewhere simply because they are wacky theories. I direct you to the wacky theories that Paul McCartney isn't Paul McCartney. Fringe idea, but very well cited and documented. While other considerations might be in play, FRINGE is not one of them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, missed in my comment as it was posted during an edit conflict, you are misinterpreting ONEWAY. Here is the test for that:
 * "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack."
 * My apologies to everyone else who is already familiar with ONEWAY; it seemed pertinent to include the definition, so it will cease being a reasoning for exclusion. We have independent sources connecting the topic in a serious and prominent way and it doesn't present an issue of UNDUE weight, so no COATRACKING, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If as ScottyBerg suggests, I am mischaracterising the basis for the discussion, perhaps he could state clearly, with diffs what he believes that basis is and how it is relevant to this board? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, please go ahead and "report" everyone as you threatened to do. That way, both administrators and arbcom can take a closer look at the editors and accounts involved, including their unusually close association to each other.  I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. Viriditas (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been clearly stated above. Jack Sebastian just agreed with me that the video promulgates a fringe theory. The question is whether the video should be included in the article, either as a "see also" or described in sentences. What part of what I've just described fails to fall under the aegis of this board? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Above" refers to 80kb of discussion in this iteration alone. Could you bear to repeat it here with the diffs?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already described the issue here. It's simple: how much of the article on The Circus should be devoted to the fringe issue of time travel. What part of that don't you understand? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so clear. What I don't understand is why that should be an issue for this board, and why it keeps coming back here.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because time travel is a fringe theory, and the video promotes that fringe theory, and this is the fringe theories noticeboard. OK? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Scotty here. I can see the comparison with "Paul not being Paul", but surely that fringe is also under the aegis of this board. The 1928 cellphone topic is fringe, and so what needs to be worked out, is how much weight to give it, if any, and if so, in what article. I doubt this is anywhere near as big as the Paul rumours were back in the day, either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has already been worked out, with general agreement to include nothing more than a see also link to the time travel urban legends article. Jack, however, still believes that this trivial nonsense should be added to the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I did? While I provided diffs showing different edits to categorize the matter, only one included a Lede sentence. In actuality, I feel that a 2-3 sentence section should be enough. A simple link provides undue attention in that it doesn't balance out the claim. Indeed, yourself and three other editors have been arguing rather vociferously for complete removal, not keeping the article as it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, you can add my support to your list of consensus for the most sensible solution you just outlined. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can a compromise be worked out?
Look, you guys are spending way too much time on this. Can't some sort of compromise be worked out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Numerous attempts at compromise have been sought (1, 2, 3) by at least two editors and all were rejected by a core group of 3-4 contributors, only one of whom has actually edited the article to any extent. I and others think that at least some mention needs to be made (as currently exists), and others feel it is a case of 'Not In My Encyclopedia.' It bears pointing out that the calls for removal were initiated on at least two occasions by an indef-banned troll. I'd love some compromise, and feel that I and others have already compromised extensively. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We already have a compromise in place, worked out on the talk page by members of various related WikiProjects, to include a see also link. You can view a rough measure of the consensus at User:Viriditas/Circus_consensus. That Jack still wants to add George Clarke's non-notable theory of "Chaplins Time Traveler" to the lead section of a notable film article, goes to show that this is Jack vs. the world.  It is important for Jack to understand that consensus does trump tendentious editing, and always will. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: If Jack is editing tendentiously as you say, then maybe this should be brought up at ANI. I have no dog is this fight, but I am concerned on how much time is being wasted on, no offense, something fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.
 * To anyone involved: Wikipedia is a collaborative process that requires working with people with sometimes vastly different opinions than your own.  This means that at times, you have to live with edits you disagree with.  This is a fact of life here on Wikipedia and it cannot be escaped.  For your own sanity and the sanity of those who have been watching this train wreck, sometimes it's best to let things go. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity's sake, I haven't been arguing that the matter needs to be mentioned in the Lede. If that has what has kicked off this LAME matter, let's resolve it now. I only think we should mention the matter, all balanced-like.
 * It was my understanding that you and others wanted the matter removed completely. If you are not opposed to a sentence stating the issue followed by a sentence explaining the likely explanation (hearing aid/crazy nut/etc. and not a time traveling cell phone user) - with cited references, of course - then we can dispense with the wikidrama. I honestly thought you and the other three wanted to purge any mention of it. If I am wrong in this assessment, then accept my apologies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, true, and that is why edits against consensus, such as this, are so troublesome and disruptive. It also explains why this article is being discussed here. If there was no continued campaign to insert this fringe material into the article, we would not be having this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So wait - your problem is not that folk keep entering text into the Lede (as Viriditas has repeatedly argued)but that the info is there at all, is that right? Because I only oppose the complete removal of the material. If its a matter of how much to include, we can actually get somewhere in the neighborhood of a resolution to this mess. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the current version of the article is all right with you? It is the consensus version, containing a "See Also" reference to the fringe theory. The only dispute in the article involves this edit, greatly and ludicrously expanding the text.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what we had resolved to have, months ago before the troll restarted the call for its removal, and others jumped the bandwagon. The version you note isn't perfect, as it is missing citations and goes on a bit more than it really should. The version I thought was best was this one, but without the Lede comment, which in retrospect gives too much attention to the matter. Before you dismiss it out of hand as too long, please note that the entire stub is four sentences long (the citations take up all the edit space). The first sentence notes what the thing was about, the second sentence notes the media blitz. The third and fourth sentences are two different explanations for the item viewed. I think this provides the most balance, keeps us neutral, non-Fringe-y (we aren't endorsing time travel as a possibility) and bookends the entire matter. Please give me your thoughts on the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time this has been explained to you: the issue is not whether Wikipedia "endorses" fringe theories but the extent to which it includes such theories in articles on non-fringe subjects. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and what we are discussing here is how much to include, not whether its fringe-y. At the least is the link already in place. I think we need to present a neutral view, which means not only providing links to the initial reporting but links to the statements seeking to debunk the material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be used to permanently record the latest fad. Yes, someone made a youtube video, and someone made some silly claims. In a year, if a reliable source performs an analysis of the topic of the article (i.e. The Circus (film), not time traveling), the "popular culture" section can be inserted with a note about its relevance to the topic of the article. Currently, it is just non-encyclopedic trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnuniq's comment, which sums this up quite well. A youtube fad like this, if it's being reported in reliable sources a year from now, reaches the threshold of meriting a sentence or two in a pop culture section. First Light (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, permanence in Wikipedia? Ain't no such animal, Johnuniq. Everything changes here, consensus, policy, guidelines, etc. What we have now is a matter. Using CRYSTAL, we don't decide that something will be unimportant in a year. It meets our criteria for inclusion, complete with multiple reliable sources on both the initial reporting as well as the likely explanatory stories. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, you are still misinterpreting policies and guidelines after this has already been explained to you. WP:V does not mean that just because something can be verified it must be included.  And, CRYSTAL has nothing to do with what Johnuniq said, nor is it used to apply to talk page discussions about trivia and notability.  Consensus has not changed on this Jack; it is still you against everyone else.  For your own sake, please let it go.  It would also help if you try to learn more about how we use consensus, V, and crystal on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you continue to be wrong, Viriditas. You continue to misapprehend polices and their application while simultaneously acting elitist in your responses and frankly, its bordering on tendentious. No one is hanging their hat on WP:V, any more than this noticeboard is about trivia and notability. Pick an argument and stick with it, please. If it isn;t going to be FRINGE, then use all that knowledge you claim to have amassed and find a better venue. You are the guy (or gal) who brought it back here, and you've tended to argue everything but FRINGE.
 * Lastly, I believe I have said that consensus can change, a nugget which you should have garnered in your long history here. As wel as the ability to count. I count three to four people in favor of inclusion, and the same three to four seeking its removal. That sounds like a changed (or at least stalemated) consensus to me. If you feel that you are not making any headway in your arguments with me, please consider that any words from you are going to be taken with a large-type grain of salt. Now, if you would like to go off and allow those of us who didn't shoehorn their way into this conversation, Scotty and I were discussing about an actual solution. Happy editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus has not changed on this issue. The arguments against inclusion (and against your misinterpretation of basic policy and guidelines) are sound, strong, and remain in place. Please accept consensus, avoid any further tendentious editing, and get back to working on the encyclopedia.  Thanks for all your hard work, but it is time for you to put the stick down and back away from the horse. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, but I respectfully decline; it would be far easier for you to find someone else to stalk and go find somewhere else to edit. And learn to count: the number has increased to four editors wanting the info in there, whereas the number against inclusion remain aroudn the same. Now, since you have made your viewpoints succinctly clear, understand that they have been received. We'll take it from here, thanks.
 * Now, as you were saying, Scotty? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, Scotty has no interest in discussing anything with you, and he's asked you to stop harassing him both on his talk page and on your own. Since I started this discussion at 22:33, 11 January 2011, I think it is pretty unlikely that I am "stalking" you or anyone else here.  Please try to focus more on civility and avoiding statements such as "you are wrong", as this puts you in a poor light.  We aren't interested in who is right or wrong, but what is appropriate content for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  There is strong consensus that your preferred choice of content is not appropriate.  At this point, several editors have observed that this discussion is over, and I would ask at this time that you take any further discussion to your personal blog.  Thanks, and good luck with your future endeavors. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you miss that part of my post where I said that I respectfully decline to accept your advice? As for consensus, you might want to count again. There are four users in favor of at least the current mention of the video, if not more.
 * As for the wikistalking comment, I am not going to bring any more wikidrama about you. After asking me to not post where you do, you have subsequently edited almost every article I have for the past three weeks. You can bs all you want, but we both know what you are up to. Please do not address me again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will ignore your personal attacks and uncivil comments about editors and stick to discussing the issues. On Wikipedia, we don't reach consensus by counting votes.  I thought you knew this, but since you don't, here are several essays you may want to read to familiarize yourself with how consensus works on Wikipedia: What is consensus?, Wikipedia is not a democracy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and Consensus not numbers.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or others.  Clearly, we do have consensus on this issue, and currently, you are the only one claiming that we don't.  That should tell you something, Jack. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you yet again miss that part of my post where I said that I respectfully decline to accept your advice? Sorry, you can relate essays until you are blue in the face, but the reason they are essays and not policies or guidelines is that they do not have community consensus. So, indly go away now. I kinda find you icky to talk to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a misinterpretation of how essays are used on Wikipedia. Consensus is policy, and it clearly states:
 * "More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes...Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Responding YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE is not useful..."
 * In other words, the essays I gave you to read merely expand upon the already agreed upon policy and best practices. Let me know if this makes sense to you, Jack. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you begin reading my posts, Viiditas. I respectfully decline to accept anything you have to say, based as it is in a backdrop of harassment. Anything else you have to offer at this point will go unanswered. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is policy. You don't have to accept anything I say, but you have to accept policy. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The entirety of your arguments have been based on a fundamentally unique interpretation of our policies and guidelines. I'm not going to rehash the different polices which support inclusion yet again. Inclusion is well within at least two different policies and several different guidelines. I accept policy, Viriditas; I do not accept your unusual interpretation of them. Please do not interpret my correction of your flawed logic as a desire to reengage with you. I do not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or guideline that demands inclusion of any content, Jack. Several editors have already tried to explain this to you.  I quoted CONSENSUS above for you Jack.  Please follow it. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough: taken to AN/I
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have twice now susgested we end this can we end it now?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for method to settle matter
Jack and Viriditas: I have the following proposal. How about both of you sum up your arguments in a paragraph or two, along with your proposed text (or lack thereof) and I'll post a message at WP:WikiProject_Film and we allow uninvolved editors decide the matter, majority rules? I know that concensus is not a vote, but we need a way forward, rather than this endless arguing. What do you say? Will you agree in advance to abide by whatever the outcome is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AQFK, I think there must be a misunderstanding. My position is only that Jack abide by the consensus.  That is it.  The reason this dispute has spiraled out of control, is because Jack has been arguing since October against consensus.  That is the entirety of my position. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, is User:Viriditas/Circus_consensus an accurate summary of past discussions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion at Talk:The_Circus_(film), so if there is agreement for an invitation to uninvolved editors, they should be directed there. First Light (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it would seem that is the best place (it is after all an RFC).Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack appears to be altering the text of User:Viriditas/Circus_consensus (I am not sure in meaning) material he is quoted to have said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been brought to the attention of the film project. I agree that the ongoing RfC is already collecting opinions on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)