Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 25

Kabbalistic Palmistry
I came across this in the backlog drive. As far as I can tell this is not a cut-and-paste; however, GBooks produces exact one hit, for a book published in 2008. Regular googling is not much more promising. I'm inclined to go the AFD route but I'm looking for other opinions. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't find another opinion from me... I find no indication that the topic has discussed by anyone beyond a few adherents. Google hits seem to be blog entries and book promotions.  Is Kabbala notable? yes... Palmistry? yes... Kabbalistic Palmistry?... no. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The palm and head reading stuff contained in the Kabbala's Zohar volumes may not be entirely obscure. Although the present article is poor and cited to one source, someone with a scholarly bent might be inclined to sift through a number of sources that turn up in a more focused search. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough material out there for an article on palmistry in Jewish culture, or at least a short subsection for the main article. And there's clearly material on how the hand appears in the Zohar, but I haven't found anything that really puts it together into a single thing other than perhaps this one book. Mangoe 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
We could use a few more watchful eyes at 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've been noticing a tendency of edits which add content explaining the fringe viewpoint without also adding content explaining the mainstream viewpoint. The end result is an article skewed in favor of a fringe theory and thus violating WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to keep an eye on this... but to play devil's advocate... There is a fairly large "criticism" section. Is that not enough?. Don't we expect an article about fringe theories to focus primarily on the fringe theories? Don't we expect such articles to give more space (and thus more weight) to the fringe viewpoints, and less weight to the mainstream viewpoints?  Yes, we want to be neutral, but neutrality does not necessarily mean giving all viewpoints "equal amounts of discussion"... it means giving each view a proper amount of discussion given the context of the article topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's two issues here. Achieving a WP:NPOV is all about balance.  Adding material supporting a fringe viewpoint requires adding material supporting the majority viewpoint.  As for the criticism section, there shouldn't be one.  Instead, it should be intersperced in the article content.  A while back, I rewrote much of the article and it was my intent to eliminte that section, but I got burnt out and never completed the rewrite.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view neutrality means specifically attributing ideas and arguments to the proponents, as opposed to stating them in the voice of Wikipedia. Explaining what opponents say is optional, and there should not be any automatic requirement for balance. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that NPOV is about balance... but balance does not mean giving all viewpoints an equal amount of coverage. It means giving the various views a proper amount of coverage given the context of the article topic. To properly apply NPOV you have to look at what the topical context of the article is... in the main 9/11 article, the topical context is the mainstream views on what occurred on 9/11...  so it is proper that we spend the majority of the article covering the mainstream view... however. to balance that we also mention (in brief, summary form) that various conspiracy views exist and what they say.  It works the other way in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  Here, the topical context is conspiracy theories on what occurred on 9/11... so it is proper to spend the majority of the article talking about the various conspiracy theories... however, to balance that we also mention (in brief, summary form) what the mainstream view is.  Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mainstream view point about which topic? The 9/11 terrorist attacks or 9/11 conspiracy theories?  If the former, I think we only have 1 paragraph explaining 9/11.  If the latter, we have about a 50%-50% mix of fringe versus mainstream.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hindutva POV screed at Women's rights
Recently, User:Arjun024 added a section on that article about India. While a section on India would be highly welcome, I find the current addition unacceptable. Not a single reliable source is used (some are even wikipedia articles or dead links), some of the material is completely irrelevant to the topic (e.g. nagarvadhu), and an unmistakable Hindutva "in-ancient-India-everything-was-wonderful-until-the-Muslims-came-and-ruined-everything" POV is redolent throughout. I have explained my reasoning in detail on the talkpage. Any input or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some comes from Women in India and as unattributed is copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Majestic 12
There is a problem I have mentioned in this section:


 * Talk:Majestic_12

More eyes are needed there. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is typical of many of our UFO related articles. Relying heavily on conspiracy web sites such as "presidentialufo.com" and books like "Out There, The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials" makes for articles that lean toward favoring the UFOlogy/Conspiracy point of view. Have you found any reliable, independent sources that would make a rewrite less cataclysmic? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has it all: Synthesis: "the Special Group certainly would have had both clearance and interest in all matters of national security". Weasel words: "Others have speculated that MJ-12 may have been another name for the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit..." Possible copyvio: "William Moore would later reveal that the whole New Mexico UFO disinformation scheme was run out of the Pentagon". Identical text here. Paragraph upon paragraph of unreferenced assertions: "MJ-12 is sometimes associated in recent UFO conspiracy literature with the more historically verifiable but also deeply secretive NSC 5412/2 Special Group, created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954." Unreliable sources: roswellproof.com, www.virtuallystrange.com. And that very specially indefinable FRINGE quality: "The significance of this paragraph is that it ties MJ12 to the Aquarius document, a purported fabricated document, that alleges that Jesus Christ was an alien.[citation needed]" Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looked that way to me too, though I didn't have the patience to go through it that carefully - not even interesting as an example of the conspiracy-theory genre. It reads more like a cooperative blog than a considered article. As for what to do about it, I've no idea, as AfD would probably lead to high drama, and accusations of Pentagon involvement (this is bad enough when the Pentagon probably are involved - e.g. WikiLeaks, where I'm sure some low-paid spook underling has to check what we've added to the article at least every few hours...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vedic science
Please take a look at these short sections which address problems with the article and its title:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vedic_science#Grounds_for_dispute_.26_.22pseudoscience.22_rubric


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vedic_science#Vedic_science_as_pseudoscience


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vedic_science#Pseudoscience


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vedic_science#The_term_.22Vedic_Science.22

Brangifer (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

HIV trial in Libya
Gives a lot of weight to the Libyan conspiracy theories about Westerners intentionally infecting children with AIDS; very problematic given the BLP issues here. (Crossposted to BLP noticeboard) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:MachinaLabs/pseudo
Although housed in userspace and explained as both an essay and a "thought exercise and philosophical venture", the fringe science + soapbox flavor makes me think it may fall under WP:UPNOT as "extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article...because it is pure original research." I'd be inclined to take it to MfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. It states it is original research, in so many words. I suppose the polite thing would be to suggest MachinaLabs moves it elsewhere first. I've left a note linking this thread on their talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed it from search engines with an edit summary explaining why. I will comment on the talk page there. Please join. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the statements on his User page indicate he might benefit from reading WP:DUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll pull it. I wasn't aware of that particular caveat in WP:UPNOT. It started off as a sandbox for a page I was working on, sorta morphed into a place to organize my thoughts, but I did not see it as a soapbox at the time. I can see in hindsight how it could be interpreted as that. It's served it's purpose and I haven't touched it in ages.
 * How was it even found? At the time, it seemed obscure enough that even the most thorough stumbling wouldn't have run across it.
 * Also, what is this about I should read WP:DUE? I've combed over WP:NPOV many times, as I do a lot of work in contentious areas. It's difficult to write in WP:FRINGE and stay neutral, but I try my best. Despite some people's opinions, parapsychology is not at all cut-and-dried discredited. If journals such as the Psychological Bulletin and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology are willing to publish these types of papers, that gives these ideas some weight. This leads me to believe that while these ideas are not in the majority [of scientific scholars], it is not a vastly limited minority. I give it my best to balance weight where it is due, preferentially cite larger journals to more niche ones, and give a neutral perspective. MachinaLabs (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism
Could people please check out the history of this page and see whether I made a good call or not in reverted and posting to WP:RFPP for full protection? NW ( Talk ) 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I need to read what you reverted more carefully, but on first inspection that seems incredibly heavy-handed. On face value, it looks like you've deleted a whole lot of information from the encyclopedia without any discussion (there's nothing in talk since 2009), redirected it to a far thinner presentation of the material, and then locked the page so that the information you deleted could not be re-entered.  obviously it couldn't be re-entered on the Truzzo page, since it seems to deal with broader uses of the term.  The information you deleted appears to be sourced (though I can't vouch for the sourcing until I read it more carefully), there was no edit war in progress, or even any conflict between editors that I can see; what was the reason for the 'scorched earth' approach you seem to have adopted here?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I watched the progression there today but got sidetracked. I think there may be something to discuss in its own article, but the content that was there was really unbalanced. Compare the recently-reverted content to what's presently at Marcello Truzzi and Scientific skepticism...what was at Pseudoskepticism was essentially only the psi research side that selectively throws Truzzi's words at critics. The present content in Scientific skepticism discusses the broader use with actual pseudoskepticism (e.g., AIDS denial and Holocaust denial). What restored was unbalanced content.
 * I actually think the topic of pseudoskepticism may work best as merged content in a subsection of Skepticism...I don't think protection is necessary as there is the reasonable possibility of useful editing on that page. Since the content was not deleted and remain in the history, there's nothing really lost. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case, NuclearWarfare did the right thing. There's a long history to this, so Ludwigs2 needs to AGF. The decision to merge the article and leave a redirect was a consensus decision and we don't allow socks to return and just restore such things. NW properly instructed the sock to seek consensus. That's the way forward, especially such a controversial move. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Scientizzle: Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia except via oversight of server crashes, but the content is not easily accessible to anyone without a reasonable understanding of editorial tools - which is what I meant by saying 'deleted from the encyclopedia' (perhaps I should have clarified with 'deleted from the visible encyclopedia', but since the encyclopedia properly understood only contains what is visible to normal readers... Eh, Meh).


 * There are two different senses of pseudoskepticism here that need to be distinguished. what you're talking about is better cast as 'denialism': it's pseudoskeptical in the sense that it refuses to acknowledge certain given facts in order to produce and justify an alternate theoretical worldview.  Pseudoskepticism in Truzzi's sense is different: it's a refusal to use the methodology appropriate to scientific skepticism in order to debunk something which science doesn't really address.  e.g. a pseudoskeptic in your sense denies the validity of given evidence to assert a theory as true; a pseudoskeptic in Truzzo's sense uses the lack of evidence (regardless of whether evidence has ever been or could be sought in a systematic manner) to assert a theory as false.  very different fish, those two.  maybe we could reopen the pseudoskepticism article and try to flesh out those two aspects of the issue?  at any rate, I do think the page should be unlocked, and that some kind of discussion of the revert should be opened in it's talk.


 * @ brangifer: I'm not convinced NW did do the right thing, and locking the page was clearly excessive, given that it hadn't been edited in a long time before that IP showed up. And please don't caution me to AGF half a line before you make unfounded sock-puppetry allegations - lol.  I'm not saying you're wrong about that, mind you, I'm just saying the irony of it is cracking me up.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with BullRangifer. An ip came along and reverted a redirect that's stood since Jun 2009. There was consensus for the redirect.
 * I think it would be worth pursuing Scientizzle's ideas further. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What if we were to construct a section on the pseudoscience page to cover pseudoskepticism, instead? That way we could cover both aspects of the problem; and honestly, pseudoskepticism is just another form of pseudoscience anyway.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not against a discussion, and maybe even opening up the article again, but we need a consensus first. That's my point. Your suggestion about a section at Talk:Pseudoscience might be a good idea.


 * Whether the subject should be housed at skepticism, pseudoscience, or here is a matter of opinion since it's related to both subjects and is situated between them. Pseudoskepticism is closely associated with pseudoscience and is its flip side. It is actually what pseudoscientists are doing when they are skeptical of mainstream science. They are being pseudoskeptical and thinking they are being skeptical and scientific. They also use the term as a pejorative accusation against mainstream scientists, but that's not really fair or accurate. When mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics are relaxed or even drunk and call pseudoscientists names and make them and their views the butt of jokes, they are being careless, but pseudoscience isn't their way of thinking or their modus operandi, so it's not accurate to call them pseudoskeptics. Their normal way of thinking is still scientific.


 * Some editors and former editors here actually make a very deliberate attempt at language revisionism in their use of the word "pseudoskepticism". One can observe them doing it here, where paranormal believers try to reframe everything, labeling the views of mainstream scientists as "pseudoscience", and scientific skeptics as "pseudoskeptics", and themselves as the true scientists and true skeptics. Reading it gives one a glimpse into bizarre, self-delusional, thinking. If one reads it too much one can begin to understand how Hitler and other demogogues could twist the thinking of people through manipulation of language.


 * As to the identity of the IP, well, the series of edits which one-sidedly resumes an old war between two banned editors tells a story and is itself the evidence....but that's not a matter we need to go into here. It really doesn't concern me that much. Anon IPs who make controversial edits are usually reverted on sight, and that would apply to the IPs of both banned editors. Banned editors who evade blocks and edit anyway can often do it for long periods of time as long as they abide by the rules and avoid controversy. It's still wrong, but it happens. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of unlocking pseudoskepticism to facilitate further discussions & improvements. It does seem a little over the top since there hasn't been much activity there prior to this episode (which possibly could have been handled with merely a reversion). In any case, there are now more eyes on the topic and the seeds of fruitful collaboration have been sown, so I'll point to this thread and suggest that the protection isn't necessary. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After messaging HJ Mitchell, I've been bold and unprotected the redirect based on the input above...I'll re-protect if it appears necessary. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. We MAY need to start an RfC about the matter, decide where to hold it, and place notifications on the relevant talk pages. Since the old location at Talk:Pseudoskepticism (which is NOT redirected) may have been removed from many people's watchlists, we need to be careful if we hold it there. We just need to be certain that everyone interested knows what's going on and has the opportunity to participate.


 * Although there was a clear consensus for making a redirect, I was never happy with the limited coverage the subject got on the Truzzi article where its content was cut down. In fact pseudoskeptics (editors here who believe in pseudoscientific ideas like astrology, homeopathy, vertebral subluxation, etc.) tried to reduce that content and redirect its focus to make scientific skeptics and believers in mainstream POV look like pseudoskeptics, which is part of their language revisionism tactic! I suspect there are enough RS to justify an independent article, with a nutshell and "main" link being included as a section on the Truzzi, pseudoscience, and skepticism articles. We just need a consensus to justify resuming work on the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * well, let me just point out BR, that I can't quite credit your perspective. you seem to miss the point that there's a bell curve here: there's science and scientists in the middle; off to one side there are people with ideas that get progressively more wild and less substantiated; off to the other side there are people who are ideological skeptics (rather than scientific skeptics) with progressively more wild and less substantiated beliefs about the nature of science.  people who worship the scientific method as an ontological truth or sociological norm are just as nutty as people on the other side of the fence, and there's no sense trying to incorporate them as a part of conventional science.


 * So the issue seems to break down to these questions:
 * Is the issue of pseudoskepticism (in its two forms) sufficiently notable to deserve an article of its own?
 * if not, is it better covered on the pseudoscience page or the skepticism page?
 * I think we're agreed that it's too broad to fit comfortably on Truzzi's page. -- Ludwigs 2  18:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Beautifully put! I can't disagree with any of that. It recognizes we're all human. I have friends on Facebook who claim they are in "the middle" politically, while actually being quite radical right wingers (I tend towards the left). They just show their ignorances of the nuances of politics. I have lived in Europe for so long now that I've learned to understand the myriad political parties and their tendencies and standpoints, so I know that I'm a liberal left winger! Somewhat the same principle applies here, and we all have our tendencies and occasional missteps. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo
Just passing this on: Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo. Buckets full of crazy, including a lede which proclaims it to be a "theory of evolution". There's lots of craziness which you can find from various subcategories of philosophy in amongst all the articles in Category:Integral thought. Some of it is legitimate religious content, but some of it may need to be deleted or edited to meet WP policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this when a few minutes ago I removed a lot of promotion for this person at Pondicherry (city)‎, Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to find reliable sources, I think this is a legitimate lede. See as an example of a book published by Mercer University Press describing his theory of evolution. This doesn't mean that the article is at all satisfactory, it seems to be mainly original research based upon editor's undertanding of Aurobindo and not on reliable secondary sources.

Die Glocke and Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom
Both have just been returned to an earlier badly referenced, OR laden state. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see it's our friend User:Arthur Warrington Thomas again. I think we need to have a talk with him about what this encyclopedia-writing business is all about. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article to its previous state, but I'd be glad to discuss the user's proposed changes with him on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked at his talk page? Lots of deleted articles, copyvio problems, unsourced BLPs, etc - and yet he was made a reviewer. I don't know if he's likely to learn, maybe more needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I looked; that reviewer privilege gave me pause too. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks
See Talk:September 11 attacks. This particular dispute is only in part a fringe issue, as the editors involved largely agree that the theories meet the definition of WP:FRINGE. The disagreement is about the notability of the theories, and about how to treat notable fringe theories. Cs32en  Talk to me  02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gage made 75 grand plus in 2009 lying to the gullible about what happened on 9/11...charlitans and scumbags keep the nonsense going so they can make a buck...some of these scumbags edit this website and have been behind the POV pushing to keep this garbage on this website...dozens of useless articles have been written promoting their poorly selling books, available almost exclusively at the seminars they sponsor where they can sell their preposterous tale for a buck and then try and shove their books at you. At ground zero, the 9/11 truth zombies besiege visitors, some there in mourning still, and insult sane peoples intelligence. Wikipedia is being used by these scumbags and people they have turned into zombies as an advocacy platform to keep their lies going so they can make more money.--MONGO 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source for this information, MONGO? What you have written looks like WP:NOT talk to me — all opinion, no source, and questionable relevance to the task of improving the encyclopedia.  Wildbear (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing you do is promote conspiracy theories at the expense of factual information...you'll end up topic banned before we're done.--MONGO 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we leave off with the threatening language? At any rate, I see that moon landing has a short section on hoax conspiracy theories pointing back to the main hoax article. It seems to me to be a bit extreme to work so hard at excluding the 9/11 material; I think it would be better to ensure that the summary passage emphaisizes that this stuff is complete bosh. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MONGO (and some others) really really really don't like ANY conspiracy theory mention in the 9/11 articles. It has always been so.  And policy is that the existance of 'notable' conspiracy theories should be noted, and pointed to an article about them.  Why is this so hard?  if Wildbear and others want more then a mention and a pointer, get over it.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "get over it"...no, I don't think I will..and I won't quit on this issue whether you like it or not. It isn't "policy" to include the galatically idiotic in an article that is suppose to be based on facts...where the heck you think this is policy is bewildering! The CTers already have a plethora of articles on this subject...more than a see also link to their junk science is more than generous.--MONGO 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you mis interpreted my statement. Policy is mention that there are fringe theories and point to the "plethora of articles on this subject".  I agree that any more than that is NOT WHAT IS POLICY.  I (as i mostly do) agree with you.  The challenge is that the position you take of 'no mention of the craziness' makes the nutters think that they have to fight the material in against government oppression.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The section seems fairly small in comparison to the size of this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty...the entire article needs massive trimming to get it focused...the CT junk should go first...I figure another 75 to 100 kbs need to be trimmed.--MONGO 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the short section on the conspiracy theories is ok. It is small and neutrally worded, and I just left a note to that effect on the article's talk page.  Also, I think it's fine to have a loooooong article on the topic.  As I said in my comment, I have some personal connection to the event, and I think the article as written does justice to what happened. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mongo I understand your point, and I'm sympathetic. My personal feelings on the subject are much the same as yours I suspect. However, this article is currently long. Frankly I don't see why it would have to be cut. It is a seminal event of our times. But the fact is that conspiracy theories are embraced by a large proportion of the world, particularly in Islamic lands. They're just too prolific, and here they are just a small proportion of the text. I agree with a comment I saw that the hoax section in Moon landings is analogous. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * en.wiki has served as a "mainpost" for articles and other some, not all of course, other language Wikipedias simply do a translation of some of our articles (this also happens vice versa of course)...but my point is, this mirroring should provide a source material that doesn't permit any advocacy. The article should have a much more streamlined focus...trimming and dispersal to subarticles is normal.--MONGO 12:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been following the discussion on the talk page, and I think that ONEWAY may be dispositive. I'd like to see more comments addressing that point. While my gut tells me that there needs to be some kind of mention, the language in ONEWAY is pretty clear and may require that the section be removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEWAY advises against including competing theories if they have no support in reliable sources. The section, however, is not included because there would be support for the theories in reliable sources, but because the theories are a notable aspect of the aftermath of the event. (For example, the theories are probably as notable as the memorials, which also are being described in a separate section of the article.) WP:ONEWAY would be relevant if the title of the article would be "Execution of the September 11 attacks", i.e. if the article would not include the background, the aftermath, interpretations, consequences etc. of the attacks. Cs32en   Talk to me  21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cs32en: If conspiracy theories are notable enough to mention in this article, then why has no one produced any reliable sources about the 9/11 terrorist attacks which also include an explanation of these conspiracy theories? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The burden is on those who wish to include the section to demonstrate that. Given the voluminous literature on the attacks, I'm surprised no solid, reputable source that relates to the attacks generally has not been produced that also deals with the conspiracy theories. I'd like to hear more on that from people who are familiar with the literature. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate for the main 9/11 article to include a brief statement as to the existence of "various conspiracy theories" (linking to the conspiracy theory article). The article is incomplete without such a statement and readers will expect to find it.  However, that mention can be done two or three short sentences (max).  Mention that conspiracy theories exist, link to the articles where they are discussed further, and that is all.  In other words... The theories should be referred to in the main article... but they should not be described in the main article Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable enough. I guess the question is whether the section should stay the current size or shrink. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

British Israelism
New editor making massive changes that seem to favour this odd viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He has edited heavily in Polygenism (which looks like a possible fringe magnet) and Ferrar Fenton Bible which has British Israelism connections, so people should take a look a these as well (I haven't had time to review either of them). Mangoe (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've told him his edits are being discussed here, that I considered reverting them all because he hasn't added edit summaries, and that if he wants to avoid that he needs to explain them on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology
Some editors want to describe the controversy about EP on the main EP page. Others want to describe the controversy only on a separate "controversy" page. Those who want to describe the controversy refer to a textbook and an encyclopedia that both describe it. They also tend to be people who think that EP is bunk. Those who want not to describe the controversy question the others' sources and say that the controversy belongs on another page. Is the controversy a mainstream topic that deserves coverage, or a fringe topic that doesn't? Leadwind  (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that either evolutionary psychology itself, or criticisms of it, would normally be considered 'fringe' - the debate is mainly amongst qualified academics from different disciplines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, EP is controversial, but it's not really fringe. why do people want to content-fork the controversy section?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I somehow got involved over there, and the situation is that a couple of us have reverted a couple of attempts to add criticism to the article because the criticism was simplistic and non-encyclopedic. This is not the place to rehash the arguments (and as AndyTheGrump noted, the topic is most definitely not fringe in any sense of that word), but for a flavor of what I mean, text removed includes "Evolutionary psychology (EP) is a pseudoscience" [unsourced] and "with critics accusing it of supporting unfair or immoral policies" [sourced to a generic article in an encyclopedia]. As I have written on the article talk page, I have no problem with some criticism, but it has to make sense (what "unfair or immoral" policy has been advocated by EP?). Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As John says, the defenders of EP are defending it against unfair criticism. One opponent of EP on the talk page, for example, says that EP owes what acceptance it has to racist bias in Western culture(!). In such an environment, I can hardly blame editors for being vigilant in protecting the EP page from unfair criticism. But they go too far when they try to sequester any reporting on the controversy to another page. They object, for example, to material found on Encyclopedia Britannica Online, even though WP:WEIGHT says that we are to use commonly accepted reference texts to help us identify mainstream views. They object to material that's cited to a university-level college textbook without any clear explanation for why. The case is especially murky because both EBO and the textbook favor EP overall, so one would think that defenders of EP would welcome both sources. Leadwind  (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't want to say these are invalid criticisms of EP (I've heard them, or variants), but they must be able to find better sourcing than that.  I haven't read the article through yet, but my first thought is this might be a friction between academic and popular uses of the theory - academics tend to approach the theory cautiously, whereas lay theorists lean towards a fringey form of biological determinism (often with racist/sexist overtones).  well, I'll have to dig into it more deeply.  I do think we should mark the 'criticism' article as a POV-fork, and discuss merging it back into the main article.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely merge it back intothe main article. There's plenty of scholarly critique of EP, and even engagement between proponents and opponents. The section in the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought is perhaps a tertiary source, but has references that could be followed up. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have made progress and now have criticism in the lead and on the page, so thanks, everyone. There's another EP debate now that we need help with, so I'm starting a new section. Leadwind  (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilbert Rideau
Here is an issue about undue weight.

An editor is arguing that my version of Wilbert Rideau here is giving too much weight to Billy Sinclair, Rideau's co-editor and now arch-enemy. Many of the early journalism awards that Wilbert Rideau picked up were joint awards with Billy Sinclair. The other editor rarely mentions Sinclair in his version, here. I argue that his version is putting too little weight in Sinclair's role in Rideau, particularly Sinclair's partnership with Rideau and his continuing legal conflicts and personal conflicts between Rideau and Sinclair.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor started Talk:Wilbert_Rideau WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see how 'fringe theories' are relevant to this - did you intend to post this here, or am I missing something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually questions about undue weight are posted here. Even though this isn't a fringe theory, my understanding is that this noticeboard is intended to take a question like this. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re the post above by WhisperToMe: Sinclair was co-editor of The Angolite from 1980 to 1986 -- six of the 25 years Rideau edited the magazine. I realize that WhisperToMe found a news article that incorrectly reported Sinclair was co-editor in 1978, but even Sinclair himself in his autobiography says he became co-editor in 1980. Rideau has had no contact with, and nothing to do with Sinclair in the quarter-century since Sinclair left The Angolite in 1986. He has moved on in his work and has produced, alone and with other collaborators, award-winning work in radio, television, and print, all of which another editor keeps minimizing or burying at the end of the article. [User: Eye Smith]


 * Since there's no fringe theory evident here, this might be better suited to NPOV Notice Board where issues of undue weight are also discussed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is at BLP/Noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Nedic regime" as most common name for WW2 Serbia
User:DIREKTOR constantly repeating on this talk page that term "Nedic regime" was used as a name of WW2 Serbia by the sources. We cannot come to that conclusion from these sources that he presented. All these sources mentioning term "Nedic regime" as a name of regime, not as a name of a country. Therefore, the way in which DIREKTOR insisting that article about WW2 country is named "Nedic regime" is clearly an example of unsourced fringe theory in which name of an regime is identified as a name of Serbia by this user. No single source is supporting his claim that "Nedic regime" was used as a name of a country (i.e. as a name of Serbia). I also opened this question in third opinion request, but it is rather an example of unsourced fringe theory. The problem is that user DIREKTOR also thinks that he owns that article and he not allowing to anybody to change this article name, which is based on his fringe theory. PANONIAN 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * wouldnt call it fringe theory, My own search seems give a number of names and euphemisms. Your own requested move seems about to have a number of possible names that dont seem supported by WP:RS The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether term "Nedic regime" is used by the sources as a description for regime or for country. Country and regime that rule over it are two different things. I am not disputing that term "Nedic regime" is used by the sources, but it is used exclusively as a description for regime. For example, this source and this source are using description "Nedic regime in Serbia", clearly referring to one regime ("Nedic regime") in one country ("Serbia"). User DIREKTOR is claiming that these sources are using term "Nedic regime" as a name of a country, not as a name of regime, which is not evident from these sources. As for my requested move, I proposed that this article about WW2 country should be renamed to any title with name "Serbia" in it, but user DIREKTOR simply claiming that such country "was not Serbia" and that "Nedic regime" is the "only correct name of that country". PANONIAN  10:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, response to my third opinion request is confirmed that DIREKTOR's interpretation is not supported by the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime#Third_opinion_request PANONIAN  10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A third opinion is informal intervention, it does not "confirm" anything, and I am not somehow "bound to obey" it. I agreed with the 3O, however: we agreed to move the article back to its original title - the same original title you changed. But pompous threads like this one are making it awful hard not to continue the conflict out of spite.


 * It begs the question: at which point does nonsense "reporting" become WP:HARASSMENT. Fringe theory?? This is about the fourth absurd "report" User:PANONIAN has composed in silly attempts to get rid of me and have his way in a content dispute. Will someone please explain this to him? I've half a mind to report him for this sort disruptive behaviour. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian diaspora and the Viking expansion
I'll preface this by admitting that in my opinion, the entry Norwegian diaspora is of dubious merit for a variety of reasons. But that's not the issue I'm bringing here. The specific problem is that an editor keeps on adding material to the entry about the Viking expansion, the settlement of Iceland and the conquest of Normandy. He is also tagging entries like Settlement of Iceland with the Category:Norwegian diaspora. Even the rare usages of the term "Norwegian diaspora" do not include these migrations/settlements to be part of the subject matter. The justification for usage is one mere source by a professor of ancient Norse poetry, who uses the term once in a book. Some additional comments on this would be appreciated. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - There is a pertinent back-story to some of the squabbling at this entry. It was deleted a few days ago, and the editor in question proceeded to 1) open a DRV (note that there was also a name change during the first AfD) while 2) simultaneously recreating the entry, which is now again at AfD. I'm only mentioning these things for some context.  The pressing issue I have is with the Viking era stuff. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Update - Now the same editor is also edit warring to keep the category on Norse colonization of the Americas.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology 2
Here's the latest...

What should we say about the testability of EP hypotheses? We have a Psychology textbook that says it's not impossible to test them, specifically in response to critics who say it might be impossible. We have Encyclopedia Britannica that also says EP hypotheses have been tested with impressive findings. No comparable source says they can't be tested, though individual critics maintain that viewpoint (apparently a minority viewpoint).

Should we say "hypotheses can be tested" (what the textbook literally says, and Britannica emphatically implies). Or "According to the majority viewpoint, hypotheses can be tested" (using "majority viewpoint" wording from WP:WEIGHT) Or "According to evolutionary psychologists, hypotheses can be tested"?

The more general question is this: should we report on a majority viewpoint regarding EP, and if so how do we determine what the majority viewpoint is? This issue is tricky because every minority-viewpoint editor resists the idea of giving the majority viewpoint any favorable treatment.

It's an interesting talk page with outspoken editors. The topic attracts a lot of detractors. Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Leadwind is cherrypicking quotes out of context. The source says that "it is not impossible to test ideas about adaptive origins of psychological traits" (not generally endorising the hypotheses of Ep but talking in general about adaptive "ideas") and then cites a number of sources for that claim all of which are written by Evolutionary Psychologists - in effect presenting the EP response to the criticism. Leadwind is not actually presenting this but is interpreting that not only as if the authors of the textbook believe that all hypothesis generated by evolutionary psychology are testable (which they obviously do not say) AND furthermore he writes that that viewpoint (his) is held by a majority of scholars (which the source also does not suggest) this is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT which says that "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". That means that if this view was really the majority view it should not be difficult to find someone actually stating that it is the majority viewpoint instead of relying on a tendentious reading of a single source.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, thank you for citing WP:WEIGHT. That means a lot to me. I've worked hard to champion that policy on the EP page, and it's nice to see it sinking in. Encyclopedia Britannica is a commonly accepted reference text which says that EP hypotheses have been tested with impressive results. Sounds like a majority viewpoint to me. As for the Psychology textbook, when they report on what critics say, they're careful to distance themselves and say "Critics say..." this or that. But then when they say that it's not impossible to test hypotheses, they say it in their own voice, as their conclusion. Since the Psychology textbook is a tertiary source that describes the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, it's exactly the source we should follow when describing the disagreement (per WP:WEIGHT). Leadwind  (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now you just need to understand the policy - I'm afraid I can't help more with ttaht than I've already done. It doesn't matter if it "sounds like a majority viewpoint to you" you are already convinced that it is a majority viewpoint. You need a source that actually says it is. If EB thought Evolutionary Psychology was a majority paradigm in psychology don't you think they'd have an actual article on it and not just the article on animal social behavior that you keep misciting? Also be sure to mention that you haven't actually read the psychology textbook you have only read the snippets that I have provided on the talkpage. Get yourself to a library and start doing some actual reserach then you may end up being able to recognize when saomething is a majority viewpoint and when its just a viewpoint. Dixi.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, Maunus, with all our bickering we drove everyone away. Leadwind  (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a still uninvolved comment. The sources you have cited don't yet show that enough has been written for us to say what a majority view is. Perhaps there isn't even a majority view on this particular issue - there often isn't in the social sciences. Rather than taking sides "EP hypotheses can be tested", "EP hypotheses can't be tested", most psychologists are likely to have a complex position on it - or simply to be uninterested in this particular question. So, assuming that this issue should be addressed, all our article can do is say "On the question of testability of hypotheses, X said.... Y said .... ". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's no majority opinion, you're right. But if there is a majority opinion, then failing to give it credit would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. You guess maybe there isn't a majority opinion, but how do we know? Maunus and I disagree on how to discern a majority opinion. How do you do it?  Leadwind  (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the population of interest? Scholars in what discipline(s)? Writing when? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority opinion I'm talking about is the one described in WP:WEIGHT, whatever is readily verifiable in commonly accepted reference texts. Statistically, there are different majorities that might have opinions, but I mean the majority opinion in the sense meant by WP:WEIGHT. Leadwind  (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT says that if there is a clear majority opinion then it will never be difficult to find ample evidence that that is in fact tge case. In other words if this was the majority opinion you should be able to find sources that say "a majority/most scholars agree/academic consensus is/"$ or something equivalent. You have not found such a statement and will not be able to find such a statement in this case, because the debate and controversy is still raging with no signs of either view gaining dominance.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The bit of WP:WEIGHT I find most relevant is this: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There are plenty of scholars defending EP, plenty critiquing it, and plenty with a mixed view. What needs to be described is who says what. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Leadwind, please have some perspective. I can say this about Evolutionary Psychology without too much problem:
 * It is a minor but valid area of research, with a smallish number of scholars actively working on it.
 * Most psychologists clearly accept the loosest, most general precepts of EP - that genetic heritage can influence social behavior in some ways - since examples of social behavior influenced by genetics (alcoholism, schizophrenia, depression; or more positively things like parent-child bonding) are well-documented
 * The more far-reaching claims of EP are viewed skeptically by most of the psychological (and anthropological, and sociological) community because
 * They are largely untestable, in the same way that any evolutionary theory is untestable (unfortunately, we don't even have records of early primate behavior so that we can 'see' differences over time, but have to assert that near-relative species are good proxies for long-extinct ancestors)
 * They lead to a theoretically unsatisfying form of biological determinism when applied incautiously
 * They currently do not seem to solve any particular question or problem (might be useful as a generic theory of human nature, but certainly can't be used to explain the vast array of cultural, sociological, and individual differences that exist in the world).
 * Currently the field is in that 'speculative wool-gathering' stage, where scholars are playing with the idea to see if they can make anything concrete and usable out of it. it's a long, long way from full scholarly acceptance.  Barring some remarkable discovery (e.g. the discovery of a still-living tribe of australopithecines in the jungles of Myanmar) it will be 10 years easily before this theory is even in the running for mainstream acceptance and probably a generation before its disposition is known for sure.  don't go jumping the gun on it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's completely accurate: The field is effectively broken into two halves, with one half being the testable theories (e.g. studying the nature of altruism, which dates back to Darwin and Huxley), and the other half being the complete "making stuff up to explain things" one. The latter, unfortunately, is the one usually reported on in the media. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case neither of the parts of Evolutionary Psychology are accepted as the majority viewpoint within psychology or generally in the social sciences. Also the branch of Evolutionary Psychology that the article is about is the way it has been formulated by Psychologists like Buss, Tooby, Cosmides and Pinker since 1990 and which has a series of specific divergences from the original Darwinian tenets - e.g. the Modular computation model of the mind. Other psychologists work from evolutionary perspectives but not within the particular framework laid out by the current paradigm of Evolutionary Psychology (which developed as an off shoot from Sociobiology - not from Evolutionary biology or cognitive psychology).  ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with policies and sources here, shall we? Judith brings up my favorite part of WP:WEIGHT, where we're instructed to cover the disagreement in line with how neutral secondary and tertiary sources cover it. Excellent. We have a Psych textbook that describes the disagreement over testability from a neutral point of view. It reviews the critics who say EP maybe can't ever be tested, but it concludes that it's not impossible to test EP hypotheses. Since our neutral source concludes that the hypotheses can are testable, that's what we should state. As for the majority viewpoint, Maunus would like the policy to say "Don't describe any viewpoint as the majority viewpoint unless your source does so." But it doesn't say that. Viewpoints stated as fact in commonly accepted reference texts are to be taken as majority viewpoints. Encyclopedia Britannica states the testability of EP hypotheses as an established fact. Since EB is a commonly accepted reference text, and no comparable source doubts the testability of hypotheses, positive testability is the majority viewpoint. We have two top-notch sources that affirm testability and none that doubt it. Leadwind  (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that is exactly what WP:WEIGHT says. It does very specifically not say that any statement taken form any tertiary source can be freely described as the majority viewpoint. It says that we should use tertiary source to find out whether there is a majority viewpoint, and secondly you are at this point speaking against better knowledge when you sday that the textbook calls EP testable - it quite simply doesn't. it says that "'''ideas about adaptational causes for psychological traits are difficult but not impossible to test". It does not say that all of EP's hypotheses are testable. There is a broad consensus on the talkpage that your interpretation is wrong. There is a broad consensus on this page that your interpretation is wrong. Will you please stop going on about it now...·Maunus· ƛ · 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, thanks for the quote. Very helpful. If our neutral source describes the disagreement and concludes with "ideas about adaptational causes for psychological traits are difficult but not impossible to test," let's say that on the page. That's all I ask, is to say what your own textbook says. We've gone to the trouble of finding a neutral source that tells us how to makes sense of the two conflicting sides (critics v EP). Let's just say the same thing that the source says, that it's difficult but not impossible to test EP ideas. Leadwind  (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not untill there is a consensus to do so.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, I'm concerned you may be interpreting my statement out of context. If there's consensus the textbook you talk about is a suitable source (it might be considered a tertiary source?), then the full nuance of its statement must be included. The source almost certainly needs to be attributed. Generally, the nearer you get to "EP, right or wrong?", the further you are from the mainstream of scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone accepts the source. No one is trying to use it to say EP is right or wrong. The question is, if our neutral source that describes the conflict says that EP hypotheses can be tested, what do we say? I want to report exactly what the textbook says until there's a consensus to diverge from our source. Maunus wants to diverge from the source and weaken the statement until there's a consensus to stick to what the source says. On the question of attribution, what policy do we examine to discern whether we need to attribute the statement? We don't attribute most statements. The people who want to qualify the statement as if it represented a minority viewpoint are all critics of EP in general, but the authors of the source make no such qualification, and the editors who criticize EP can't find any comparable source that says EP hypotheses aren't testable. Both our textbook and Encyclopedia Britannica say they are. If our sources say that the hypotheses are testable, what policy prevents us from saying that the hypotheses are testable? Leadwind  (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Manuka honey
If you believe the article, this is some seriously antibiotic stuff. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that honey in general has been scientifically demonstrated to have antibiotic properties - as our article suggests. I'd not dismiss this out of hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do rules about fringe theories include defending Fascist atrocities?
(And I'm using the word "Fascist" in a sense which does not involve Hitler or Neo-Nazis, FWIW.)

After a month's absense from monitoring the page Second Italo-Abyssinian War, when I returned to look at it yesterday I was surprised to find the section Atrocities primarily focussed on Ethiopian atrocities inflicted on the Italians who just happened to be the agressor in that conflict. After counting to ten, then examining the sources offered (e.g., one of the allegations made in that section was that Ethiopian soldiers indulged in their traditional practice of castrating wounded, dead or captured Italian soldiers during the conflict, something I was unaware & dubious that it did happen) I felt the material either misrepresented the sources cited, relied on sources that were not immediately accessible (e.g., a British writer was quoted as claiming Italian use of mustard gas was justified, but the source cited was written in Italian), or clearly biassed (e.g. Italian materials submitted to the League of Nations in defence of their use of mustard gas). Oh yeah, & I was very offended by the content. So I reverted it. Then I found that the person responsible had been banned for unrelated reasons, & felt my actions were justified.

So I was surprised to find this morning that my edit had been reverted by another editor with a note to look at Tito Minniti. That article presented the Italian defense for using mustard gas with a slightly more NPOV tone, but likewise misquoted its sources. So I went back to my preferred version, but added a note about the Italian justification giving it the weight I felt it had.

So am I locked into a revert war here? Or should I just walk away & allow someone (naively, I hope) insert an offensive apology for Italian atrocities in that war? (For the record, I admit I have a conflict of interest here. I spent my free time yesterday writing Yekatit 12, about another Italian atrocity in Ethiopia. And my grandfather was gassed in WWI, so I'm not entirely objective about the use of this weapon.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted something in favor of balance. You should probably tone down your own level of emotional offense. If you call someone's editing racist, you might just provoke a stronger hostile response than you otherwise would. Leadwind  (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I over-reacted. But the rewriting of that section was equivalent to saying that a burglar, who broke into a house & was attacked by the house-owner with a bat, was justified in pulling a gun & shooting the house-owner. After all, Italy was the unprovoked aggressor in that war against an outmatched opponent. Some injustices don't deserve a balanced handling. -- llywrch (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It so happens that I was the person responsible for toning down the language in the Tito Minniti article. I came across it by accident because its main creator had made some alterations to another page (Plague of Justinian) that had recently been raised at the RS board. I did not check the sources, so I don't know how accurate they are, but don't forget that Italian fascism at this time was a far cry from Nazism. The West at the time even hoped that the Italians would join the allies against the Nazis. If it's true that Minotti was tortured and mutilated we should report that. I haven't seen any evidence that this is untrue. You have to provide evidence that the claims are fringe, not just say that fascists are obviously bad, so anything that seems to justify their actions must be wrong. Paul B (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this in books accessible via google books, which certainly suggests that the current version is one sided, to say the least. I've rewritten the Minniti article in line with that source and another from 1937. It certainly seems that the atrocity version is very dubious. Paul B (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite has greatly improved the Minotti article: while I have no doubt that the man & his observer were savagely killed (although by whom remains an unsolved question), an isolated atrocity like that would hardly justify violating international agreements not to use mustard gas. At least against another, "civilized" opponent. And Haile Selassie's strategy in response to Italian aggression was to use diplomatic means -- & public opinion -- to force the Italians to desist; he was crafty enough to know if his soldiers tortured enemy combatants to death -- or practiced the ancient custom of "taking trophies" -- it would neutralize this strategy. Lastly, I'd rather label acts like use of mustard gas & Yekatit 12 as Fascist atrocities & not Italian ones: according to my primary source for this war (Mockler's Haile Selassie's War), other Italians, even non-Blackshirt soldiers, were revolted at the reprisals at times. Labelling these acts "Italian" implies that many Italians likely endorse these acts, perhaps even today. -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality again
An SPA, Ontologicos (talk • contribs), insists on removing material critical of Enneagram proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That kind of removal of an excellent scholarly reference is a red flag in my book, often indicating a POV editor. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, considering we have reliably sourced analysis from people like Ellis and Clarke, there seems to be a desire to have even the gentlest of criticisms removed . - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a comment in the thread, and I hope it helps. Leadwind  (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Torsion field
Your archives indicate you may not have taken a look at this article since 2009. It is chock full of assertions which struggle to present it as more than a fringe theory, such as ""torsion field theory has been embraced as the scientific explanation of homeopathy, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena[citation needed]." Cheers, Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not the way I see it; the article is overwhelmingly negative. The one real weakness is a lack of citation for the pseudoscientific claims. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ovilus
Seems to be a promo for a non-notable device for which fringe claims are made. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Googling for books produces one of the most amusing sets of false hits I've seen in a long time, but I get enough hits to suggest that it's as notable as many other obscurities here. The article on the other hand is entirely credible about the possibility of real paranormal research. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Find any sources that could be considered independent and reliable? All I saw was "hauntedamerica.com", "ghostshop.com" and "sonoranparanormalinvestigations.org". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any particularly critical works but there are several book sources which are at least good for acknowledging that the thing existed and enjoys some notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about The IT gadget of Ghost Hunting in The Atlantic? Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good source, but the article is 99% about some other gadget. While the subculture and its gadgets have some notability, I don't think each new gadget deserves its own article. Maybe the notable ones could be covered by a para added to Ghost_hunting? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I come here to an area of people that do not believe in anything paranormal and ask why this page is even being discussed here? I may want to go over to an atheist area and try to convince people there there is a God? Well I guess I will attempt at This device along with its subsequent generations, or versions of the same can be seen in use on Ghost Hunters, Ghost Hunters International, Paranormal State, Ghost Adventures and in many web based shows. It does have a dubious past and current history that is the chink in the armor of NPOV. It falls along the lines of Schrödinger's cat because of this; If I cannot prove ghosts exist then they must not exist. If cannot scientifically prove their existence then they do not exist because science cannot be done to verify a conclusion. Occam's razor because the simplest answer is they do not exist. However, within the realm of Paranormal phenomena does exist. And current String Theory theorists do allow for multiple dimensions that could actually be a membrane that touch our own dimension. Maybe that is where we go when we die and somehow the 2 are able to communicate through the gravitron (why is gravity so weak and EM is so much stronger?). Fringe is just that theories on the edge of what is "expected" of society and what is just too far out to believe. It seems that this group has a sole purpose to weed out theories that they may not believe in and therefore purge them from Wikipedia. I do not believe in God nor the Bible as it is written. I would not even conceive to dare to go to all of the bizarre Christian pages on Wikipedia and start deleting them. It is like fat people, they are the ones that are acceptable to still make fun of when being racist is no longer acceptable. The Ovilus is a product that has been shown on television multiple times, it is mentioned within the paranormal community, its page creation was part of the WikiProject Paranormal to do list. Yet, a person that deemed it "fringe" or way out there, can somehow recommend it to a group that wishes to purge it from WP due to their disbelief of the product. I don't believe that obscure 1940s radio equipment has any more place on Wikipedia than a hand built random word generator being used for "entertainment use only". There are countless other products on Wikipedia that have even less impact on the world that are left alone. Why is this product mentioned for deletion? Because it is part of a field that a group of people do not believe in. That is its lack of notability. Thank you for inviting me to this discussion I am sure it will be enlightening. «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude. That kinda talk isn't going to get you any sympathy here.  Nor make you any progress in saving the article.  The definition of notability is clear and has nothing to do with 'belief'.   You'll get a lot further with the mentions on various TV shows.  Can you source those TV shows?  Ie. can you find proof that it actually was mentioned on those shows?   Read the stuff I posted about acceptable sources, if you're unclear whats a good source on wikipedia.   Play by the rules and the article could be saved,   or feel free to keep going on about your idea of what's right on wikipedia and watch the article disappear without a trace.    Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it, I walked into a snake pit and kicked the sand. Fair enough, you all have an agenda that needs to be met no matter the cost. Fair enough I will post youtube clips of the Ovilus in use on NETWORK TELEVISION. That will meet its notability and you can go on to another "fringe wackjob article". [clips deleted as copyvio]

The Ovilus has been on several times on Ghost Adventures but I cannot find any free to watch episodes to share here. Just remember one person's Fringe is another persons reality.  «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted your clips as they are copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine it what the proof of notability requested. At this point I would respectfully request that anyone wishing to verify notability of the Ovilus to go to Youtube and do a search for Ghost Adventures: Ovilus and Paranormal State Ovilus. Being I cannot link to them here as per copyright issues. Being the population of the US is roughly 300 million; the law of large numbers in statistics indicates that within the current population around 117,000,000 people believe in ghosts to some extent. Roughly 120,000,000 believe in haunted houses. Last week Ghost Hunters had 1.71 million viewers, Last week Ghost Hunters had 1.71 million viewers, (CSI a non "fringe" show had 1.31)

From the Paranormal page US Citizens believing in the Parnormal:

Those numbers even halved are hardly "fringe". I am not trying to show the lunar landings were fake, that there are aliens imbedded in chips implanted into our brains. I would consider those "fringe" items. Instead I am writing about a popular product that is in use within a large subset community of the US and even the world. When I see "fringe" being thrown about by people the first reaction is that the reason they are using it is they do not believe in something and therefore they deem it as "fringe". It is a fine line you walk when you start marginalizing things within your own mind. You see ghosts and ghost hunting as fringe because you do not do it personally. I do not ride dirtbikes and yet that has an article here on wikipedia with no threat of removal. Riding dirtbikes is a fringe to me, but I would not think of having it removed due to notability. Ghost hunting is a hobby for a portion of society and just because you consider it "small" does not make it so. «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The concept of 'fringe' is well hashed over here. It's well understood.    Ghosts and communication with the dead are firmly established as fringe concepts here.  Wikipedia doesn't care about your hobbies, or your belief system.  It can't.   To make this place work, with all the darn chaos the rules are well set.  Find acceptable sources.  Prove Notability.  Use those sources to write an article.   Look at all the crap on the interenet.  How on earth can someone use a random blog as a source?    There are people that blog that genuinly beleive the earth is flat, and that Aliens control their brains.   Great!  Good for them.  That doesn't mean I can write an article that says the earth is flat, no matter how many people think that.  I could write an article that says that people believe that [Flat Earth] (and somebody did!) .   Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok maybe my tone within this discussion has been skewed towards what I believe. However; the product the article is about has been shown in use, by name by 3 separate television shows in several episodes (please search for them as I can not link them here due to copyright issues)Paranormal State, Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters International. Because of Schrödinger Cat paradox; I cannot prove the existence of ghosts because science does not accept any evidence found. I cannot find any evidence because what I find I cannot show to the scientific community, therefore, ANYTHING I show as evidence to this group can be said to be fake or biased. Its a convenient trap that is set for something that is deemed as "fringe". Whereas I can disprove the fact that we landed on the moon because I can bounce a laser off the reflectors left there by US astronauts in the 1970s, I cannot with any scientific means prove the existence of Ghosts. This leaves a hole in the article that cannot be filled and gives this group the means to have it removed due to it being a fringe article.

As the article stands this is true: Those facts are there and can be disputed ad hoc, but as a whole do show a level of Notability that meets the standard set by Wikipedia. Belief or disbelief at this point has little to no bearing on this article in that it is listed as an entertainment product. The game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uno_(card_game) is an entertainment product and it has been shown on use on television, popular culture and within a subset community. It is allowed to stay on wikipedia because it meets those requirements. Ovilus meets those requirements too.  «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a product shown in use on several television shows by name.
 * It is mentioned by name in 3 published works (not on the web).
 * It is mentioned by name and shown in use by many paranormal groups (on the web or youtube).
 * It is a well known product in the paranormal community
 * First of all, Golgo, Jesus, take it easy. As far as I can tell from looking at the article history, no one has nominated it for deletion so I don't see what you're getting so excited about. I did a light cleanup on the article (fixed a little grammar and spelling) and deleted some references. All three of the websites you were using clearly fail WP:RS and that, frankly, doesn't leave much on the article except the google books references, which are not used for specific claims. There's also a BLP problem. The article makes a number of statements about the device's inventor that have no references. Those are going to have to be referenced to a reliable source fast or be deleted. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for unreferenced claims about living persons. I don't think there are any real WP:FRINGE problems at the article the way it reads now because it doesn't claim in Wikipedia's voice that the thing works. However, I can't say what would happen if anyone AFD'ed it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see we agree on the Fringe aspect portion so can we continue this over at the page instead. Its hard to keep track of all of the separate conversations on either my talk, the articles talk and also this page. See you there «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  03:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the makers web page claim, "The Ovilus II is the next generation of ITC equipment!" And since ITC is supposedly "contact with spirits through electrical devices", claiming it doesn't fall under WP:FRINGE and having the article state in Wikipedia's voice that the device is 'for entertainment purposes only' is a bit shady if you ask me. Also I think it's a no-brainer that designing an electronic device for dead people to interact with and marketing various 'improved models' that supposedly make it easier for the dead people to interact is pseudoscience; a category that should be made clear in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we pretty much all agree that it's fringe, Louie. The only thing left to be decided is how the article should read and whether it fails WP:NOTE, but let's discuss that at the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Saw the Gallup Poll posted above and thought someone was arguing that the subject wasn't fringe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the continued snarkiness. I was trying to be civil yet I still see remarks that are meant as a jibe...Considering that poll (through law of large numbers) indicates that probably over 100 million people in the US believe in haunted houses, you can continue to call that fringe but, more people believe in ghosts and haunted houses then believe in NASCAR. If you do not believe in something does not relegate it to a fringe topic. A nice standard that was written by someone on wikipedia is not a mandate from the masses to go on witch hunts to disprove arguments within your small community of nay-sayers. You all believe you are some mandated department of wikipedia that keeps the wackjobs out well that is fine. As long as you operate in a fair and just NEUTRAL manner have at it. It does seem though that membership in this group of yours allows you to somehow be better than the articles authors. Because you are skeptics does not immediately clear you for objective thinking. Many people were skeptics of the Wright Brothers, of Oppenheimer, of just about any thinker that thought outside the box. Within a narrow mindset is security but not always any more sanity than someone else.  «Golgofrinchian»   ∞talk∞  04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "more people believe in ghosts and haunted houses then believe in NASCAR." I doubt it. There is a difference between believing that something exists and believing that it is significant. And actually, both the Wright Brothers and Oppenheimer were pursuing mainstream science/technology - they didn't 'think outside the box' so much as try to find out what the box was - through investigative/scientific methods. If this electronic dead-person-communicator works, or if you can convince a significant number of people that it does, and provide verifiable evidence of this, it will deserve coverage in Wikipedia. Until then, it is fringe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who says ghosts do not exist? The Boson particle is supposed to exist, and they built a haddron collider that cost billions of dollars to find it. What if they dont? You can say that the boson particle is fringe too. It falls within theoretical physics. But no one has actually "seen" one. More people believe in ghosts than the boson particle, yet the collider has yet to produce one. A box that is supposed to communicate with the dead is only less scientific than the collider due to it costing a billion dollars less. Fact is theoretical physics thinks ghosts MAY exist on a separate universe Membrane (M-Theory) within string theory. They could be standing right next to us but we cannot see them due to the graviton (which may never be found but has no problem being accepted here on wikipedia). I know this may be alot to take in so I ask, once you have investigated for ghosts, studied theoretical physics and string theory, then come back and say they do not exist then I will accept your interpretation of what is real and what is not. «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of what is real, and what is not, is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable external sources. Find some that suggest that this ghost-phone works, and you can have your article, or even find sources that show that a significant number of people believe it works, and you can have the article. Until then, it is fringe. Not because it isn't real, but because hardly anyone has heard of it, never mind commented on whether they think it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Golgofrinchian, I think you misunderstand; WP:FRINGE is a guideline for how to treat concepts that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view and evaluating the degree of significant attention (if any) they have been given. It's not a measure of how popular a belief is within the general public. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am confused, what is the difference between mainstream view and general public view? Mainstream science rejects string theory and also rejects ghosts. Both are not testable other than String theory seems to work out in mathematics and Ghosts have been part of history since it was recorded and it is just as untestable via standard testing methods. An Ovilus is no less a testing machine for the field of paranormal research than an EMF meter or Digital Recorder. No one knows exactly what a ghost would do in a testing environment. Bias is as Bias does. A "researcher" going into a field test for evidence of ghosts would by his very bias either totally believe the data such as a word from the ovilus, emf meter, thermometer, laser grid. Or, they would deny it all because of a skepticism of the data. I could run any number of main stream laboratory tests where my own personal bias could skew the results of the test. It is done all of the time for commercial means, to sell some product or whatever.


 * So, while I believe that the lunar landings being faked has a real fringe theory aspect to it, (because you can bounce a laser off of the reflector left there on the moon), the paranormal has no testable method to it where it can be proven or disproved. No one dead has come back to tell us of the afterlife, yet many millions of people believe there is an afterlife. Within that afterlife who is to say you cannot somehow contact the living? How do you test this? You test it with whatever method has been worked out by many people before you. Marconi did not invent the radio, he took theories and practices of others before him and then used them to create Marconi's Law.


 * Ghost investigators use equipment tested by thousands of people before them. Either the results shown on these pieces of equipment are to be taken as evidence, or they are to be debunked. Either way the results are no less of a result than another experiment conducted in a laboratory. Ghosts probably do not haunt a laboratory. So the experiments must be taken out in the field, at a home, in a barn or whatever. Social experiments such as the number of people crossing a street at a time is not conducted in a lab either. It is done out in public, at street where people cross. Paranormal investigations are conducted at homes or other places where people (either the home owner or someone else) has indicated something strange is going on. The investigators go into that place, just as any scientist with a theory; That which is going on here must either be 1.) Environmental anomalies (such as wind or a bad hinge), or 2.) Paranormal in nature. If what is occurring can be debunked then it is. If it cannot be debunked it is then put through a standardized test using the equipment that has shown to give a result. Communication with the anomaly is tried and tested with devices such as the Ovilus or EMF meter.


 * No one can absolutely say that when I ask a question "What is your name" and on my digital recorder I hear "John" and the former owners name was John, that that indicates a ghost. It can and probably is faked from time to time. I can show you where mainstream science is faked too. That does not indicate through association that all evidence from mainstream science is fake. What happens here though is that because some evidence was faked by group X then all groups must fake their evidence. That is not an objective view.


 * And before you say that well, no one is trained to perform science on a ghost hunting team. Adam and Jamie from Mythbusters were special effects artists that are now accepted within the scientific community as actual scientists.
 * In closing, can there be people faking evidence, yes, can there be people using scientific method to test for existence of ghosts?, yes. To that end it is important to give, at least, paranormal investigations a slight modicum more credence than some other fringe theories.  «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dogon people
Some of the recent edits are ok, but I've just removed something from a software designer who wrote a fringe book published by Inner Traditions. Needs more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * False alarm I think, that was added last year (to three articles). Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome
New fringe article, possibly should be a redirect to Christian O'Brien. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See also which the article's author is involved in for background. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now at Articles for deletion/Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome. I note that although O'Brien is notable as Chairman and General Manager of what is now BP, his article is mainly about his fringe writings. I'm not happy with the use of Wikipedia to promote the work of someone who probably wouldn't meet our criteria if that was all he had done. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * O'Brien discovered The Garden of Eden site in Lebanon in 1985 after 15 years of research, working for 16 more until his death on far more important work for humanity than anything he did as chairman of BP. This body of work is so many light years ahead of current academia that is has been impossible for anyone to peer review.


 * This article, covering the only peer reviewed section of his early work was featured in the Sunday Telegraph - a substantial U.K. news source, along with other sources and books, hence, whilst considered fringe, is a highly notable part of his independent reserach that should meet all criteria the Eden work currently doesn't. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What peer review? I see some quotes in the ST article, but those are obviously selective and we don't know what else was said by those quoted. You've also got Colin Wilson and a dismissive one liner in Fortean Times. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * DAVID HOPPIT donned stout walking shoes and went with O’Brien in search of the proof. - now whilst David may not have had a doctorate, he was (and hopefully still is) a journalist and his peer review is the best we are going to get under the circumstances. If you like, I can try to get Wikipedia license for the image of Tim and Joy O'Brien at Wandlebury as they conclude that whoever built the site knew, 5000 years ago, that the Earth was round. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, you are misusing the phrase "peer review" here. Getting coverage in a mainstream news source is not the same thing as peer review--for that, O'Brien would have to have published something in an academic journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygenism, edit warring and undue weight?
There's some edit warring going on over at Polygenism talk over how much weight should be given to the work of Akhil Bakshi. If you read the talk page, you'll see that 86.10.119.131 (who has previously gotten stressed out about Kent Hovind etc.) claims to have reported 2/0 to a "Mod", by which he means User:Zachlipton (see User talk:Zachlipton). Polygenism manages to bring together two not-at-all-controversial topics: creationism and race. Have at it, fringe fans! —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The work of Akhil Bakshi is not "creationist", Akhil Bakshi is an evolutionist and supporter of the Multiregional Hypothesis his work is not "fringe" it is actually mainstream he concludes each race has evolved seperate on different continents, he is a member of a popular Anthropology research team he has spent over 6months touring the world backed by Indian's prime minister to support his work, he is a top grade scientist, i believe his work should be on wikipedia, but of course some may object to his work hence why they would want it censored. The user 2over0 deleted the Akhil Bakshi material a number of times, i believed he had a personal bias against this material, but as the user Zachlipton has pointed out, the articles which reference Akhil Bakshi are not enough. Akhil Bakshi has a scientific paper coming out and a book. We will wait til more information is reported, this issue is not controversial, and it has now been resolved. Polygenism is not all "creationist" as you can see from the article a number of evolutionists also support this position, it is not a "fringe belief". 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I said nothing of the sort! I didn't say that Akhil Bakshi was a creationist. I said that the topic of polygenism brings together the topics of creationism and race, which are notorious for attracting fringe views. A topic that could potentially attract fringe POV pushers + edit warring = a good reason to post on WP:FTN so that a group of people who are capable of patrolling potential fringe POV pushing can keep an eye on the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can provide some evidence that Bakshi is a "top grade scientist". Travelling the world supported by a politician does not cut much ice in comparison to a publication record. The quoted material sounds like typical neo-Coon stuff. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Akhil Bakshi in the newspaper This link here, if you read the two newspaper clippings, hes degrees are listed, hes also a well respected by the scientific community (he lead the Gondwanaland Expedition and was in charge of over 100 geologists, seismologists, zoologists, botanists, anthropologists and medical doctors, he is also a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Knowing something of the area of Biological Definitions of Race; his views its totally fringe as its stuff We have been debunking  since Boaz. Its just the latest pseudoscietific theory that is too new for anyone to given a full debunking of. How much weight he should be given in that article is another question? I dont think its right to have too much weight given. Let other Fringy people make some noise about it then we can push it as a fringe theory The Resident Anthropologist (Talk  + contribs) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the newspaper article lists him as having an MBA, and that they characterize him as an "explorer". Does he have a degree in a field related to the subject of the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn most websites list Akhil Bakshi as a doctor. This is him here and part of a scientific team he has worked with. Scientists The follow three videos i suggest you watch to understand Akhil Bakshi's finds are based on science. Video 1Video 2 (Caucasians and Asians have partial Neanderthal DNA (and part Cro-magnon), Africans don't have any. Neanderthal fossils have NEVER been found in Africa to date).

In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had, nothing more and nothing less. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. If mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring? Video 3
 * Improper Venue to argue the "facts" of the case. We go with what WP:RS say. Can you provide us with WP:RS published prefferably in peer reviewed journals? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure what scientific valid sources you want Resident Anthropologist but there is alot of evidence which debunks the out of africa theory of human origins, i have over 10 peer reviewed journals with this information in published by well respected scientists, but that is not revelant here (you can look this up in your own time), concerning Akhil Bakshi there is no reviews yet but as you can see there are websites and newspaper reports about his work, he is writing a scientific paper on his finds and when it is published, im sure the mainstream scientific community will investigate his work and there will have many reviews to use as valid references. Concerning the weight of the information concerning Akhil Bakshi on wikipedia currently there is nothing about him on wikipedia, it has all been deleted. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there are no published reports by him or on his work he has no place here in Wikipedia. If and when he publishes then we have WP:RS until then no body of work... no inclusion. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a little late to the party here since I replied at Talk:Polygenism after 86.10.119.131 left a message on my user talk page asking for help. For the avoidance of all doubt, I am not a "mod" as we don't have mods, and I'm certainly not an admin either. My first reaction was to warn both editors involved about edit warring (I realize there is a minor copyvio issue here too) and to ask for civility, and I'm pleased to see that the edit warring on this issue has stopped for the time being. I hope that continues. My initial, and relatively uninformed, thought was that Bakshi's views deserved minimal (a couple sentences at most) coverage in the article given the claim of his stature and press coverage. However, if, in fact, he has not published these findings as ResidentAnthropologist states above, I don't think Bakshi's theory belongs in the article at all, as scientific theories generally must be published in a reputable journal to meet minimal standards of WP:FRINGE. Once his theory has been published and we have some idea as to its reception in the scientific community, we can assess what weight, if any, to give the issue in the article. In the meantime, there is no deadline and we shouldn't be including theories that haven't even been published in a reliable source yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachlipton (talk • contribs) 2011-03-02 06:41
 * I concur. Unless Akhil Bakshi can be shown in a reliable source to have expertise in this area, we should not include his findings. Being a doctor or having and MBA does not qualify him to make judgements in regard to the ancestral origins of humans. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The newspaper clippings describe him as "Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society". That makes him a geographer. I see that he is acclaimed as a leader of expeditions but does not seem to have expertise in human evolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

New sources found for Akhil Bakshi material
I have just found some links which mention Akhil Bakshi please have a read through them.

Here is Akhil Bakshi's scientific paper:

"CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES" A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi

Link 1

Another link mentioning his paper link 2

86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * mhmm not a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * uhh... Just looked at the second link you do know that white supremacy site dont you? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the first link.

Heres another link which supports polygenist evolution and the multiregional theory:

This website has alot of information on it which debunks the Out of Africa theory and has alot of information on it about the Multiregional Theory, the book was written by a respected anthropologist, his book has sold many copies Link 3 86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And looking at the first link, ramblings on some random website do not cut the mustard under WP:RS. Can we please have some actual peer-reviewed material published in a reputable journal? There is also a question of redflag material. Moreschi (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither of these are reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Please actually read WP:RS for more information on what a reliable source is here at Wikipedia. We're talking about respected peer reviewed scientific journals here, not a random blog. The number of copies his book has sold isn't the issue, it's the reliability of the sources where the information is published and the extent to which the views have been accepted by the scientific community. Zachlipton (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

More evidence:

Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa? The discovery of 400,000 year old teeth debunk Out of Africa theory

Link 1

Link 2

Anthropologists Dispute Latest ‘Out of Africa’ Claims

Link 3

110,000-year-old Chinese Fossil Poses Challenge to 'Out of Africa' Theory

Link 4

Fossil challenge to Africa theory

Link 5

Georgian skeletons challenge 'out of Africa' theory

Link 6

86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus is what we represent here on Wikipedia. Scientific consensus may shift away from out of Africa Theory but that has not occurred yet. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the Multiregional and the Out of Africa theory articles are biased and censored, for example the 110,000 year old fossil is added right at the bottom of the page of the Recent African origin of modern humans article and one line is given to it?, where is the criticism section on the Recent African origin of modern humans article? There is none. Why is the 400,000 tooth which was found in Israel not mentioned on either of the articles???? Bias going on here, the tooth and these other finds should be added to both those articles, especially the tooth becuase it supports the multiregional. There is evidence against the Recent African origin of modern humans and it is not put on the wikipedia article. This is unacceptable. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More that the research is rather new and much of it inconclusive. Nothing has been "debunked" on the out of africa front, its all normal dialogue and revisions. Out of africa is the predominant theory; Until a paradigm shift is recognized the articles will likely not have much impact. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the Recent African origin of modern humans the oldest fossil evidence should be in Africa, but the oldest current find in the world is found in Israel, so already we have fossil evidence against the out of africa theory, this evidence clearly supports Polygenism and the Multiregional origin of modern humans and this evidence should put on wikipedia. 400,000 year old teeth found in Israel completly challenge the out of africa theory please look at link 1 and link 2. A section about this needs to be added to these articles, if thesesections are not added i will add them myself, let's have some honesty on wikipedia please, censoring material just becuase you don't like it needs to stop. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stream line where you are posting becuase this is the third identical thread with the same links I have found. These are just teeth that a guy found which he carbon dated. No DNA nothing to say that these are definitely human. I would highly encourage you to use actual Peer reviewed articles instead of merely linking to sites that agree with you opinion. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the scientific paper:

Published in the The American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel)

Link

Regarding the DNA tests they are apparently being done at the moment. There will be a further report on this, so heads up. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article I have it sitting here in front of me and its not backing up anything you are suggesting it contains. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this report that starts to explain how come there is so much variation in the interpretation of the research findings. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed thats being fairly generous to Hershkovitz et al, they have picked up alot of flack for their presentation to the general public. The paper doesnt support anything like what 86.10.  thinks it does. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist i respect your comments and your opinions, but you really are just being annoying now and following me all over wikipedia on purpose and leaving comments and watching every edit i make, can you please leave me alone. If you actually look at your history since you have been on wikipedia you have never actually added anything to wikipedia, if you just want to spend your time deleting peoples material and leaving 100s of comments that is up to you but the whole point in wikipedia is to add material. This conversation is now closed, if you wish to continue it that is up to you, but i will no longer comment here. I suggest an Admin can please delete all this polygenism section off this Fringe notice board becuase the material regarding Akhil Bakshi and other multiregional finds will never be put on wikipedia you have made it clear you do not want it, so what is the point in continuing this debate? None. I am out. Thanks. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed attacking me is very productive. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Polygenism is not mainstream and Bakhshi is not an authority on human evolution.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles
I'd appreciate it if someone would see if I've gone too far in reverting what I see as someone's attempt to remove criticism from the article - see their comments on the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I agree with the revert But i follow the removal. Its a dubious area of amount of criticism with religion rivalry being a factor. Larson is hardcore Calvinist Christian, he attacks everything that is not that. So how much wieght should his criticism be given to something he like because its not "Truth" with a capital "T." This is the thing that pisses people  me off with Wikipedia and religion... We rarely make any distinction between legitimate comments  "“story of creation is totally different from the Christian one." and much more slippery  "Its false belief and you are deceiving people who are sincerely looking for God."  One is analytical one is polemical and the article pretends both views are equal. I try to avoid theological heretic angle and restrict it to analytucal angle.  I think thats whats inflaming the situation here. Do you see my concern?  The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs)

Shugborough Inscription
The Shugborough inscription is a carving on a monument in Staffordshire, England, consisting of the 10 alphabetic characters "D_OUOSVAVV_M". Many theories have been proposed as to its meaning, but none has received widespread acceptance. Suggestions since 1982 of a link with Priory of Sion have increased the number of people aware of the carving and who have tried to decrypt it.

Edits to the article have recently been made by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady. These give predominant weight to a proposal made in 2011 by fringe historian A. J. Morton (whose website is here). The editors' desire has been to devote to Morton's theory an entire paragraph in the introductory section and an entire later subsection, neither of which 'honour' is given to any specific rival theory. I would contend that this would be to give his theory an unfair and unencyclopedic prominence.

Initially the main reference was to coverage of Morton's theory in the Irvine Times, a newspaper published in Irvine, a town in Ayrshire, Scotland. This was somewhat grandiosely referred to as "the Times". Morton himself has written at least one article in the said newspaper, on the history of the potato. (He also claims to have discovered a "medieval power centre" called Evonium, and asserts that the Holy Grail may have been brought to Kilwinning, also in Ayrshire). There have been further articles on his Shugborough theory in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.

Morton contends that the letters refer to the "Viscount Anson" who inherited the Shugborough Estate in 1806, and his mother Mary under her maiden name of "Vernon Venables". He also believes there is an acronymic reference to the parish which relates to the viscountcy, "Orgreave", described as "United" with "Overley".

Both Andrew Baker and Richard Belfield have pointed out that the "mystic ciphers", almost certainly of the carving, were referred to in a poem of 1767, and therefore the inscription could not refer to circumstances which lay 39 years in the future.

It is emphasised that no theory has yet been widely accepted, and all existing theories are highly speculative or even tendentious. No theory, so far, has been published which rest on a solid cryptographic footing. As well as Morton's theory, other suggestions mentioned in the article include:

(acrostic)


 * a dedication by George Anson to his late wife: Optimae Uxoris Optimae Sororis Viduus Amantissimus Vovit Virtutibus ("Best of wives, Best of sisters, a most devoted Widower dedicates (this) to your virtues"). (Morchard Bishop, 1951)
 * Orator Ut Omnia Sunt Vanitas Ait Vanitas Vanitatem ("Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, all is vanity" from Ecclesiastes) (Steve Regimbal, 2004)
 * Out Your Own Sweet Vale, Alicia, Vanishes Vanity. Twixt Deity and Man Thou, Shepherdess, The Way, (Margaret, Countess of Lichfield, 1987)

(anagrammatic)


 * the suggestion that 'VV' should be read as 'TEN', with reference to Roman numerals, with rearrangement yielding "DEVOUT MASON"

(pronunciation)


 * the theory that 'UOSV' refers to 'Iosef', interpreted as a reference to the biblical prophet Joseph (Louis Buff Parry, 2004)

I would argue that Morton's theory ("Viscount Anson Vernon Venables - Orgreave, United with Overley - Shugborough") sits appropriately in the above list. It should not be given undue weight apropos the other theories.

Edits such as those by User:85.179.141.50 and User:CreatorLady which give Morton's theory such undue weight should therefore not be allowed to stand.


 * UK and Scottish newspaper articles stating that A J Morton has suggested that the Holy Grail may be have been brought to Ayrshire, Scotland, include this and this.Elephantwood (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * all the interpretations are speculative. Morton's is just one in the list. It should be covered as it has appeared in sources. Since there is nothing 'fringey' about the argument - it's entirely prosaic - I don't think his theories about the grail, whatever they may be, are relevant here. However, it's worth noting that by "power centre" Moreton means a centre of administration. It's not a mystical concept. Elephantwood's account came into existence only recently and is only dedicated to attacking Moreton's presence in this particular article. What the agendas behind this are, heaven only knows. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never opposed the presence in the article of a mention of Morton's theory, and I agree with Paul B that it should be mentioned. It should be covered along with the other, equally speculative, acrostic-type theories. My concern has been to oppose the giving of a predominant place to any one of these theories vis-à-vis the others. I am happy with the article as it now stands. "(A)ll the interpretations are speculative. Morton's is just one in the list" is exactly what I've been saying. Elephantwood (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I got as far as Priory of Sion and heard sirens going off on my bullshit detector. I don't think that (what'll I call it?) list of names should be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia without it being pointed out that the whole thing is a sophomoric hoax perpetrated by one Pierre Plantard in an effort to (get this) create the appearance that he was a descendant of the Merovingian (Carolingian?) kings of France. Or something like that. I can't remember all the details and have no wish to revisit them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Morton denies that he has ever even written about the Grail, and even spoke of his outrage with the press. It's interesting you should omit this in your summary here. Your potato comment is also clearly supposed to demonstrate that Morton is a lame fringe thinker, while a quick google search suggests to me (and clearly to others) that he is not, and that you've deliberately picked on the "silliest" stories just to get a wiki entry changed, and warp what is readily available to all of us. You should also know by now, that Morton has openly condemned the "mystic cipher" poem as pseudo-history, yet you use it here as evidence against the present solution. 92.231.86.9 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Elephantwood wrote: "nobody has come up with any reason why someone in the 1760s would have wanted to say "Viscount Anson, Vernon Venables" when George Adams, the Viscount Anson to whom Mary eventually got married only got the title Viscount Anson in 1806!!"
 * Morton said there is no evidence that the code existed before the 19th century, and that the only people who have faith in the poem (the only "evidence" ever offered apparently) are pseudo-historians. I've read the poem now. There is no mention of these letters, and the earliest reference to them does appear to confirm the Morton Solution. I've also checked if VA and VV were residents of Shugborough in the early 19th century. They were! Morton has written "the first four [letters] are the ancestral lands of the last four [letters]". This doesn't look like a mere "theory" to me, nor does it look "wacky" but I'll let others decide. 92.231.86.9 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also, Steven J. Anderson, that Elephantwood wanted initially to remove the Morton Solution [edit: section] in its entirety, and leave in its place the Priory nonsense. This rang alarm bells for me. 92.231.86.9 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not want to do that; you are mistaken. However, even if an editor did want to do that, that would be irrelevant to an objective consideration of the following question: should Morton's theory, uniquely among all other theories, be given pride of place by getting its own para in the intro and its own subsection? Or should, on the contrary, it just be listed as one among several highly speculative theories? If 92.231.86.9, or anyone else, believes that the first path should be taken, please provide an argument which isn't focused on what a dodgy character Elephantwood is.Elephantwood (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood has put a lot of work into removing the only sensible solution we've ever heard (is just me or does it sound very believable?), but his underhanded and dishonest representation of the facts surely can't be allowed to continue in an Encyclopedia environment. 85.179.79.107 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only a couple of reasons I can think why Elephantwood wants all this hush-hushed. Neither are very good. Let it be noted that the entry now gives total predominance to all other theories, even those from the lunatics, while the Morton Solution, a clear contender for pride of place, is now the shortest (at sixteen words). These hasty edits should be reverted. 85.179.79.107 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All edits by Elephantwood have been reverted after discussion here unveiled a large chunk of his (Elephantwood's) obvious agenda. Reverted blatant granting of Holy Grail/Priory theories sole pride of place, despite EW's insistence that none should be placed above another. I seriously doubt EW has a case for further edits. 92.231.189.224 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's false to say I wanted to remove all mention of Morton's theory, and although Andrew Baker was in the past a contributor to Priory of Sion discourse, he hasn't been for many many years. An effort is being made to promote Morton's speculative acrostic theory as if it is in a class of its own compared with other speculative acrostic theories. I am reverting to before this happened. I support Paul Barlow's contribution. Clearly there is some headbanging going on around here, so I am happy to see the dispute go to administrative consideration in which hopefully objective contributions can be made by those with a NPOV and there won't be any need for me to participate at all.Elephantwood (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 85.179.79.107 says the Morton theory is "the only sensible solution we've ever heard". The encyclopedia should not take such a view. Just list it as one of several theories. The article as it currently stands does not promote Priory of Sion focused pseudohistory. Just look at the opening paragraph. And take a look at some of the other theories mentioned. Promotion of Morton's theory is coming close to vandalism here.
 * May I ask, what arguments are there in favour of including a paragraph in the introduction, plus a whole later subsection, solely about Morton's theory?Adding these back in and saying it's only been done after "discussion", is misleading and unacceptable.Elephantwood (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main argument, as I see it, is that Elephantwood took it upon himself to change the page to one that highlighted the Priory of Sion hoax and the Holy Grail. The "only sensible solution" quote comes from this very talk page - as part of this discussion - and not the wiki entry? 92.231.189.224 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Elephant wood said: "I support Paul Barlow's contribution. Clearly there is some headbanging going on around here...". Clearly there is. Paul Barrow originally proposed/edited the page so that the Morton Solution should have a subsection (pride of place as you call it). The result of your deletion of this is that Grails and Priories from the 1980s are at centre stage and have a whole paragraph plugging one of the least authentic books of the late 20th century and its authors. 92.231.189.224 (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood has now been warned for abuse (namecalling) by wiki defender.85.179.75.25 (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * additional, since there doesn't appear to be a single reference to a scholarly attack upon Morton, indeed the opposite is true, EW's opinion that Morton is a discredited fringe historian is his and his alone. I don't know why it has been included in this section at all.85.179.75.25 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick message to all. After a little nudge from an admin and another user I have removed a number of inflammatory remarks (from me) and tidied up behind me. I made sure the coherence of the conversation remained untouched. I also removed a few doubled up quotes, occasions when I quoted long streams of my own words from another talk page. If you see any problems feel free to edit. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
It has come to my attention that there has been a great deal of edit-warring concerning Martin Gardner's book, especially concerning the reaction to it. Denizens of the noticeboard may with to take a look. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been nothing approaching edit-warring since 14 February. Since then there has been a regular discussion on the talk page, mainly between myself and one other editor. Constructive input from other editors, even "denizens of the noticeboard", is of course welcome. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow...the editing atmosphere is a good microcosm of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Assumptions of bad faith, POV pushing (even open advocacy), refusal to follow style guidelines and Wikilawyering.  I'm not sure what can be done about this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It feels like I am in a large room filled with people all talking and having multiple conversations at the same time. It seems to me more of a cacophony than a discussion. Lots of loose ends are left dangling, making it hard to figure out how to move this forward. Hpvpp (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, part of what is wrong with the article is the same as what is wrong with Wikipedia as a whole. However, I am not adequately equipped to deal with that and so I have decided to quit before I lose my patience and get blocked for incivility. Hpvpp (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Italians
A user is insisting that Napoleon and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor are undisputably Italian, and has provided sources to back this up, although some are a bit dubious, as it isn't clear whether some of them refer to personality or nationality. Making them Italian also seems to contradict the consensus reached on these people's respective articles. I'm therefore not sure if it's a fringe theory, POV editing, or entirely appropriate to give someone dual nationality when their article does not say so. I'm sure that adding the equivalent of "Napoleon was Italian!!" to his article wouldn't stick for long. Egg carton (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

More Christian O'Brien
See Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * more concerned by the fact that his sourcing seems to be stuff he can read. The snippet are extremely poor The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He needs to understand that snippets aren't enough. I found him using one in the article now at AfD which had a chapter called 'The Wandlebury Enigma', but the chapter has nothing to do with O'Brien's claims (I have the book and he agrees he hadn't read it). But these features are not noteworthy for what O'Brien says about them, they are just being used as a coathook for O'Brien's minor fringe stuff. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What worries me is his use of Archeolocial reports such as "Wilkinson, P., 1978, 'Portingbury Hills or Rings' Essex Archaeological Society Transactions Vol. 10 p. 221-4 (excavation report)". I am skeptical about such reports as sources due to the inherent problems for people not trained in field methodology. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also (excavation report) can mean a variety of reports, alot of times such report are tentative reports on Fieldwork. Gives the ARcheologist to chances to publish a report you see which in publish or perish institutions can be critical. Usually the tentative and the final can have substantially different conclusion from the final reports. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main issue for me is still 184 words including the lead on the mainstream view (156 leaving out the first identifying sentence), 256 on a very minor fringe view. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual decalogue
As a spill over from some long standing debate at Ten Commandments a couple of editors are insisting on pushing a very odd minority POV at Ritual decalogue regarding it's status as term used to describe a certain list of commandments in the Hebrew bible. Some knowledgeable eyes would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

T Jefferson article & possible extreme POV pushing
Editor in question, Gwillhickers, has posted fringe claims to the article main space: edit #1  & #2. He had no evidence; this directly contradicts majority historical opinion,. Editor claimed in edit #1 there were 20-25 other possibilities as the the Hemings father as opposed to Jefferson, but the DNA study doesn't say anything about 20-25 others; in fact, the "absence of historical evidence" made or other "possibilities...unlikely". He then accused in edit #2 the scholars who do not agree with his version as being biased. He added these conspiracy theories to the main page of the article. 4 different editors who tried to reason with him saying he was misquoting information, ignoring certain facts, and ignoring wikipedia policies: 1), 2) & 3) , including myself in detail here 4)  & here. I reported him to the WP:OR noticeboard, and he scoffed at it.

Now he's adding more info:
 * "And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love, and who sought out real companionship where ever he could find it." & . According to him, "Any scholar who can't acknowledge this quite common human occurrence in the human drama I would think has little capacity for NPOV to begin with and are motivated by other factors." Where he gets his info from is anyone's guess.

He's now resorting to inventing history by directly implying a 14 yr old trapped her slave owner into a relationship, something so ridiculous that some of us take exception to it. An editor warned him, and so did I. Perhaps I'm mistaken but his response looks like a threat to me "Please watch it." . It appears Gwillhickers will say anything to get his version of history, and he's argued for months, and he's making the article impossible to work on.

At least 2 editors other than myself classify his work as "extreme...pov pushing" & as "protecting TJ's legacy concerning Hemings", and one is an historian who said today "The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship" etc.

Historical opinion has changed since 1998, and that is reflected in a number of sources "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings", and there's more on that if needed, including numerous awards & the Pulitzer Prize & Fellowship Gordon-Reed won last year, which caused even long-time supporters to change their pov. Now we've got someone attempting to control the article and demanding the lead & main body conform to his ideas as opposed to historical mainstream thought. We can no longer assume good faith after months of this.Ebanony (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians. You and other editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an unfortunate situation and I hope that this matter can be resolved. I believe that Ebanony states the matter correctly.  I have been concerned by some of the statements made by the editor in question, Gwillhickers.  This editor contacted me on my talk page to vote on this matter, which was fine and appreciated.  However, I was under the impression that consensus had already been reached prior to this new discussion.  Yet after all of our previous discussions and an overall consensus, a new discussion on the same topic had been formed by the same editor.  I can certainly appreciate this editor's enthusiasm on this topic, but at some point the discussion must end in consensus.  This editor cannot be allowed to continually bring up the same topic once consensus is reached.  The continual discussion of this topic is an effort to achieve his/her preferred outcome.  This over-discussion of the topic is equivalent to bullying.


 * I have expressed my concerns on this matter in a new section titled an "End to the Hemings discussion." I hope that all of the editors, including Gwillhickers can reach a consensus that we are all pleased, but the information in this page should be one of historical consensus and it should be properly cited.  Thank you.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Gwillhickers is back on the talk page continuing to argue these fringe ideas, and that they are justified. He says "It is perfectly reasonable to inquire and acknowledge all possibilities involving the relationship. I have been told by two other editors that no one knows for sure the nature of the relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to mention in this context that love or other mutual feelings, could also have been a factor in the affair, if indeed there was one."
 * Maybe so, but not on wikipedia since the mainstream academic community outright dismiss any other possibility (as I cited the DNA study above & will now cite Gordon-Reed): "The historical record...is devoid of any...connection between Sally and Jefferson's brother Randolph or Randolph's sons or any other Jefferson for that matter" Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings Annette Gordon-Reed pg x ). Ebanony (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Note* withdrew part of earlier claim by deletion.Ebanony (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On March 2nd a consensus call was made regarding the volumes of Hemings related material that was on the Thomas Jefferson page at this time. Approximately a year ago the same situation existed, with many pages devoted to this one topic. There was and is an overwhelming consensus to reduce this material as the topic is well covered on the Sally Hemings page. Since I made the call for a consensus Ebanony has made a litany of false accusations regarding my account, including the one made just here ("He's now resorting to inventing history..."). As can easily be deduced on the Jefferson talk page, my focus remains on undue weight and biographical policy considerations regarding the Hemings issues which have and continue to occupy at least five pages in the Jefferson article. -- As for the claim "now resorting.." and 'pushing fringe theories', mention was made by at least two editors on the Jefferson talk page that no one knows the nature of the Hemings relationship. All I did at this point was mention this.. And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love.. This mention, on a discussion page, is what Ebanony has attempted to bolster his claim that I am 'pushing fringe theory' on to the Jefferson main page and is typical of the sort of things this editor has used in his repeated attacks on myself. My primary involvement since the consensus call, and always, has been with undue weight and biographical matters and easily reveals how the above statement made by Ebanony, ("He's now resorting to inventing history...") is yet another gross misrepresentation of my activity.  -- Aside from addressing this editor's numerous attacks, my primary focus "now" and always has been undue weight. Ebanony has used this noticeboard to give a totally different account of my activity. It has always been focused on undue weight and biographical guidelines -- by far.  All I ask is that any interested parties take a closer look into the talk page itself before taking the claims made by this editor seriously. Thank you, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand, of the so-called "consensus" vote Gwillhickers called, that Stephan Schulz reported him. I believe administration considered it canvassing (WP:CANVAS), and discouraged him from engaging in that behaviour. As I understand it, Gwillhickers contacted a number of editors to "create" consensus for his goal of reducing Hemings material (after being told no from Jan-March): . I understand it & its result to be illegitimate, and an attempt to unduly influence the size of the material on Hemings, by gathering support from a variety of editors he chose to contact. This relates to this noticeboard insofar as it establishes his ardent desire to remove/reduce well document material on the Hemings/Jefferson relationship (which he erroneously calls "opinion" and "theory" ).


 * I am unaware of any "gross misrepresentation" of facts he claims I allegedly made. On the other hand, speculating a 14-yr-old child manipulated Jefferson into a relationship; claiming that there were "20-25 other possibilities" as the father; saying that the Hemings/Jefferson affair itself is "theory" or "opinion" & implying it may never have occurred, indeed qualify as inventing history/supporting fringe theories. Gordon-Reed & the DNA study (under Dr Foster) concluded there was no such evidence for other possibilities, and the affair is established historical fact, accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars as of today (Reed won the Pulitzer Prize in history on this). However, there is a fringe group of deniers who say otherwise, and I submit that Gwillhickers' edits/comments seem to support their position that the father of the Hemings children was anyone but Jefferson, which I suspect may be related to his calls to remove/reduce respected scholars work in WP:RS by claiming WP:UNDUE weight to them & Hemings in general (editors are currently working on a reduction, after that questionable vote).


 * Gwillhickers claim that "mention was made by at least two editors on the Jefferson talk page that no one knows the nature of the Hemings relationship" is misleading, as I understand it. I assume he refers to Parkwells & Stephan Schulz in the link he provided . Stephan Schulz said to Gwillhickers "You speculate about Jefferson's and Hemings' relationship. We know very little about it." Parkwells said to him, "I agree that we should not be speculating about the nature of their relationship". In their edits they discussed only the known facts of the relationship, and discouraged Gwillhickers from discussing the unknown facts (or in this case the speculation I termed invented history). My understanding is that both editors reject Gwillhickers' speculation of other possible fathers; both consider the Hemings/Jefferson relationship to be established fact; and neither speculated on fringe theories nor lent support to them. Hence, when Schulz says we know little, he's not saying we don't know if there was a relationship, he's saying we should stick to the facts as reported in WP:RS; namely that Jefferson is the father of the Hemings children. In short I understand Gwillhickers comment that "no one knows the nature of the Hemings relationship" is an attempt to deny outright that there was a relationship and that the Hemings children were Jefferson's, and pretend others editors support it when they do not.


 * As of today, Gwillhickers continues to promote the fringe theory that the Hemings/Jefferson relationship was merely a "theory" or "opinion": . This behaviour, whether in the main space or in the talk pages is disruptive (which he implies is restricted to the talk page, though it is not  & ), and is not merely a brief mention; he's been pushing it for months, and refuses to stop. Editors should not abuse the /main space/talk page as a forum for the promotion of theories on the level of UFO science. We request appropriate intervention to prevent this behaviour from continuing. Ebanony (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers continues: "We know Jefferson was around during times of conception and we have DNA results that can only narrow the possibilities down to a couple of dozen other male members of the Jefferson family, to which you have replied to with the idea that there is no 'historical evidence' for the others, and so you readily dismiss them, all of them, out of hand." The aforementioned is more promotion of the "20-25 others possibility", and it's not I who dismiss it, but rather serious academics (DNA study, Reed, NYTimes, Pulitzer Prize etc etc.)


 * "What other notable and deciding historical facts do we have that 'confirms' that Jefferson was 'father of them all'? The claim of multiple fathers is patently false & one with clear racial undertones. Said editor wants these unsourced/unfounded fringe claims in the main space: "If there is other historical evidence, facts, this needs to be included in the controversy section." He's been making these demands for months, and this should not be tolerated. Ebanony (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My call for consensus was perfectly legitimate and followed Appropriate notification guidelines. Notification was given to existing discussion members, including Ebanony, and a few others outside the discussion. No one was approached who expressed any POV about slavery, much less Sally Hemings. Ebanony's above account of this affair is yet another example of the misrepresentations he has repeatedly resorted to since he was forced to deal with the reality of the overwhelming consensus for reducing the volumes of material committed to one topic on the Jefferson page. His concerns for "fringe theory" have nothing to do with the volumes of material most of the other editors would like to see reduced and/or relocated, some of which has been removed by the contributing editors to that section, not Ebanony, btw. It is my opinion that he is using this noticeboard as a distraction to thwart further efforts being made to reduce the volumes of material in the Controversy section.
 * Regarding controversies, an idea that involves opposing points of views, it is Ebanony's desire to see that no mention is made of any other point of view. If there is a contemporary consensus view this should certainly be stated in the article, but if Ebanony wishes to write about the controversy it remains unclear how he intends to do so by not explaining the opposing POV's. Apparently he wishes to have a 'Controversy' section, with few of the facts, and a lot of opinion that says 'we say so' in absence of these facts.


 * Regarding Ebanony's above claim "Gordon-Reed & the DNA study (under Dr Foster) concluded there was no such evidence for other possibilities.." This is in contradiction, as Foster's DNA study concluded that 8 Jeffersons Could Have Been the Father of Eston.  -- Dr. Foster also later admitted that  "it is true that men of Randolph Jefferson's family could have fathered Sally Hemings' later children. As you can see, this is indeed a controversy and there are many conflicting accounts which is why Ebanony wants to block the discussion entirely rather than to deal with facts that undermine the belief that Jefferson fathered all six of Sally Hemings' children. Gwillhickers (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction in Dr. Foster's study: "Four of the five descendants of Field Jefferson could have illegitimately fathered an ancestor of the presumed male-line descendant of Eston." He admitted the theoretical possibility, but immediately dismissed it in the very next sentence:" But in the absence of historical evidence to support such possibilities, we consider them to be unlikely." . Gwillhickers interpretation of Dr. Foster's quote to claim other "possibilities" has no support from the expert who says there was no evidence for any such conclusion. It is established that none of them was anywhere near Hemings when she conceived. Further, "The DNA samples were coded by Dr. Foster and then taken to England where researchers at Oxford University examined them. Eventually the team of scientists expanded to include researchers from the university of Leicester in England and Leiden University in the Netherlands. A variety of tests were run independently at these three locations." Forensic DNA typing John Butler, p 227 . Published in no less than the scientific journal Nature. 3 independent European labs say "the four" possibilities are "unlikely" & outright dismiss them for "absence of historical evidence". Gwilllhickers not only contradicted them, he claimed "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children." . Gwilllhickers claim is patently false.


 * "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History for her book The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, Gordon-Reed, had this to say: "The historical record...is devoid of any...connection between Sally and Jefferson's brother Randolph or Randolph's sons or any other Jefferson for that matter" Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings Annette Gordon-Reed pg x . The MacArthur Foundation gave a fellowship to Gordon-Reed, who wrote Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, saying, her "persistent investigation into the life of an iconic American president has dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship."[. :


 * Newsweek: Gordon-Reed "is best known for 1997's groundbreaking "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," which examined historians' treatment of the Jefferson-Hemings liaison, and made a strong case that Jefferson fathered seven children with Hemings. DNA testing a year after the book came out vindicated Gordon-Reed's assertion, and made her book a cause célèbre among Jefferson scholars. Joseph Ellis, whose National Book Award-winning biography of Jefferson, "American Sphinx," claimed Jefferson never slept with Hemings, later conceded the point, writing that it was difficult not to conclude Jefferson had been "living a lie."(Newsweek, "A New Jefferson Memorial", 4 Oct 2008) (taken from Parkwells post ).


 * Dr. Ellis also said, "The new evidence persuaded me that I had been wrong, and I felt a kind of moral and professional obligation to say that,' Dr. Ellis said." Defenders of Jefferson Renew Attack on DNA Data Linking Him to Slave Child. He continued "I think I want to step forward and say this new evidence constitutes, well, evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that Jefferson had a longstanding sexual relationship with Sally Hemings." . I believe the same source cites Andrew Burstein's agreeing the new evidence was convincing.


 * The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF runs Monticello) had a scholarly report that concluded Jefferson fathered Sally's children: Statement on the TJF Research Committee Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society disagreed in 2001, but its criticism was demolished by Helen F.M. Lear, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 3, September 2001, p. 207; a paraphrase: they TJHS report of 2001 violated historical and genealogical practices, and it ignored the body of evidence. Whether it's Eric Foner, "The Master and the Mistress", Sunday Book Review, New York Times, 3 October 2008 or Gordon-Reed (etc etc), this relationship between Jefferson & Hemings & the offspring it produced is fact (not a theory or a "possibility"). After the recent 2009 awards (I believe 16 to Gordon-Reed), those who disagree truly are "defenders" of the faith who argue "that others in his family could have fathered her children" (NYTimes). Gwillicker's illegitimate poll was to get rid of most of the information I've just written here (in the current article), and argues the "opposing POV" should be included, even though it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory known as "defenders". Ebanony (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid power
My main concerns are still the O'Brien stuff above as that is affecting some of our more serious articles, but I ran into someone editing various fringe articles which led me to this one which has needed a cleanup since 2008 at least. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Health of Coconut oil
I removed a "Health" section from Coconut oil after it was recently added, because it contains copyrighted information and what appear to be fringe theories on the health benefits. From what I can make of the edits, most came from an old version of the article that is yet to be identified. The edit summaries don't shed light on any of it, but this NYTimes article that was added as a reference may have been the impetus for the changes.

Anyone have time to look at the this? --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Zanclean flood" and Pliny the Elder...?
From Zanclean flood, we learn that it is a hypothetical Mediterranean flood, theorized by Maria Bianca Zita, whilst on a 1972 cruise, to have taken place roughly 5.33 million years ago.

Now that part might not be "fringe", and normally I wouldn't care. But I do care when I see User:Michael C Price keeps introducing a lengthy quote from Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), in support of this hypothetical flood.

I have removed it several times, explaining things like "Original synthesis", and how we can't just assume Pliny had anything to say about a flood 5.33 million years ago - unless *perhaps* some published secondary source has ever connected Pliny's remarks with Ms. Zita's hypothesis... Regrettably, he has not responded to my appeal for talkpage dialogue, except to carry on a low-level edit war of simply reinstating the Pliny quote without comment, as he has just done yet again. This is all the more perplexing, as he seems like he may be a seasoned editor, one who ought to know the ropes.

I am not personally as familiar with the "Zanclean flood", as I am with Pliny, so I don't know how widely received Ms. Zita's theory may or not be - but I do know something smells fishy about quoting Pliny as an authority on it. It is therefore with reluctance that I am bringing the "Zanclean-Pliny" connection - which would seem to be novel, unpublished research - to the attention of this fringe board, in order to get additional input or advice, and perhaps break this deadlock. Thanks for your time, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a number of people on the case now, keeping the silly connection off the page. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually think it could be a reasonable inclusion, if it were properly introduced in, say, a section explaining WHY the Mediterranean dried out (because of the narrowness of the Straits of Gibraltar, etc), basically to note that the possibility of it having happened at some point is fairly obvious. As it is, though, it's very much a non sequitur at best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would still take some citation to a secondary source, but so far there is none, not even "Professor Skyler Cosmo fervently believes Hercules was there in 5.33 million BC to cause the Zanclean Flood." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the article were called something like "Theories of the formation of the Mediterranean sea", then the "theory" that it was scooped out by Hercules might merit a mention in a historical section, but that's not the topic of the article. The article is on the "Zanclean flood", something of which Pliny knew nothing. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would need to be a much longer article to justify mentioning Pliny, yes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would need to be a much different article, with a much different title. And just for the record, the idea that the Mediterranean was scooped out by Hercules does not constitute a "theory" in any scientific sense of the word. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deodorant
ExpertResearcher seems to be the only member on Wikipedia of an army fighting to link Aluminium (e.g. in anti-persiprants) to increased risk of Alzheimer's. --Elvey (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide us with a link to the article(s) where this is a problem? (FWIW I seem to remember reading about a possible link between Aluminium and Alzheimer's - I don't know if it was ever proven.) I presume you mean in the deodorant article itself - it needs watching, from the look of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! It needs editing, not just watching.  Someone willing to re-add the ACS and AA references?  Seems the form could use improvement (it says "Reporting form:  Enter the name of the article in the space below:")--Elvey (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops; meant to link to this section of the talk page.--Elvey (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Washitaw Nation
New editor asserting that this is actually a sovereign nation, calling US courts 'quasi-courts', etc. I'm at 2RR now. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude or anything, but "Empress Verdiacee Tiari Washitaw Turner Goston El-Bey" has got to be the one of the whackier examples of pseudo-aristo-cruft I've come across. Watchlisted, anyway. Moreschi (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Redemption movement
Readers of this board may be interested in recent activity at Redemption movement and the related discussion at WP:NPOVN. (The article describes its subject as "claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so it could borrow money. The movement asserts that common citizens can gain access to these funds using obscure procedures and regulations.")  Some experienced, uninvolved eyes may be helpful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Astronomical Complex and 3 other articles
This is a pov stub pushing fringe ideas. It failed DYK because it is just a stub, but enlarging it might just end up with more fringe pushing. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs watching. I've tweaked the lede slightly, and I'll maybe do more later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I missed the rest of them - see my comments at Template talk:Did you know where there are 4 articles proposed for DYK all mentioning Christian O'Brien. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy
Looks like a WP:POVFORK, but I think the organization and associated content of the article probably violates WP:FRINGE: --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Secondary sources
 * 1.1 Systematic reviews in reputable medical journals
 * 1.2 Specialist/professional textbooks
 * 1.3 Position statements and guidelines of major health organizations
 * 1.3.1 Medical establishments
 * 1.3.2 Heart-health organizations
 * 2 Primary sources
 * 2.1 Studies in reputable medical journals
 * 3 Tertiary sources
 * 3.1 Editorial, commentary and conference findings in reputable medical journals
 * 3.2 Lay scientific books
 * 3.3 Popular press
 * 3.4 Self-published works
 * Would be better renamed Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. If " controversy" stays in the name, the article would be expected to cover the public debate rather than the science. I've never seen an article laid out in such a way before and it doesn't seem like a good idea. Why not engage the editors on the talk page about it though? I think only the sources in the group 1 are relevant. Rather than laying them out in this way, a different structure needs to be found. Not for-and-against, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a very interesting topic and that's why I'm working on it. I also think the structure a little awkward but am deferring to the wishes of the original creator  Eastsidehastings until he is satisfied with his improvements that still seem to be in progress.  I'd also like an opinion on whether some of the sources currently listed under the tertiary category are really tertiary.  From my understanding of the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources the Taubes and Enig sources would fall under the definition of secondary sources because they are by authors that could claim expertise who are interpreting primary and secondary sources to form an argument or recommendation and not just passing on the conclusions of others. Lambanog (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My principal aim in creating the daughter page was to help sift through the citations to make the correct (and - gods help me - readable) statements in the main Saturated fat page. I'd be pleased to see it disappear if that could be achieved.  However, looking at the history of the Saturated fat page and talk page, there's a seemingly-unending string of edits inserting citations of variable quality.  My suspicion is that a big part of the reason the main page reads so poorly is that it can't gain equilibrium.  So a secondary purpose to the daughter page is to provide a outlet for that editorial urge.  Better WP:UNDUE in the daughter than the parent.  The structure of the page was to help editors weigh the evidence.  If the structure does not accurately reflect WP:MEDRS then please help me fix it.  My personal opinion is that the mainstream view is that saturated fat is a risk for cardiovascular disease, but there are fringe views to the contrary, and enough doubt in the primary and some good secondary sources to make it difficult to settle.  Every major medical organization I've found so far is fairly straightforward, but WP:MEDRS rates their views as less valuable than the systematic reviews and meta-analyses.  Those are less straightforward in forming a clear picture, so I'm still collecting.  Guidance very welcome.  Eastsidehastings (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that you might need to transfer this article to a subpage of your user page while you are still working on it. I can see that it could be very helpful to sort the sources in this way while the article is in draft, but as it develops it needs a different structure. And what's the main focus of the article? Is it about the science, in which case you only need to use the systematic reviews? Or is it about the controversy, in which case mainstream media will be an important source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 08:09, March 14, 2011
 * I second that comment (actually already made on the talk page). The structure is a very poor choice and encourages the reinterpretation of primary sources in one section, and the use of popular in another.  It seems like a page almost guaranteed to be used for original research, promotion of a viewpoint and attempting to predict the science instead of reporting it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been mulling the science vs controversy nature of the page over, and I feel the controversy needs an outlet. From that perspective, I've got to agree with WLU's concern that the page encourages substandard edits.  But as I've said before, better in the daughter than the parent.  The primary studies, popular press, and self-published references were on the main Saturated fat page a little while ago.  Without someplace more appropriate for that to go, they'd land back there again, do you not think?  Eastsidehastings (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, the Uffe Ravnskov article looks like it could use WP:FTN attention? Eastsidehastings (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology and the Japanese earthquake
The batshit idea of lunar perigee causing the earthquake off Japan is currently flooding the internet about as fast as the tsunami itself. Even the UK's second-most-widely-read (and notoriously obscurantist) newspaper has done a terrible piece in its 'science and technology' section. Articles to watch are supermoon, Orbit of the Moon where something has been added, and no doubt 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, although the word supermoon does not appear in the current revision of that article. A lot of confused people will be turning to Wikipedia in the next few hours and days, particularly to look up the word "supermoon". 82.46.43.33 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have mistaken the Daily Mail for a newspaper. I'll watchlist these articles, but it needs more eyes (preferably ones that can keep focus - insomnia is going to catch up with me eventually) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm watching. Should mention at a suitable project (I might get a chance to do that later). Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for help at WT:WikiProject Astronomy (there are other more specific projects, but they are not so active). Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax protester arguments
I realise these are rather large, well-developed articles, and I don't want to criticise the people who worked on them... but does anyone else think the existence of Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments represents massively excessive coverage for what are, ultimately, fringe theories? No serious lawyer thinks that American citizens don't have a duty to pay income tax, but we have three lengthy articles discussing exactly that question. This looks like undue weight to me. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles look weird, like complete original synthesis. There is very little to show whether any campaigning group actually made these arguments. There is also a US-centric viewpoint in them. If an argument turns up in the American protests and in the protests of Taxpayers Alliance in the UK and in protests in other English-speaking countries, then, if we have a source for it, it is probably notable. Otherwise.... Itsmejudith (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has some relevance to the Redemption movement section a few threads up. There's been a fair amount of disruption there from an editor who seems to have taken an extended vacation from reality. Also note Sovereign citizen. I think someone suggested these two be merged. There are a few other relevant articles. has a user page that says he's a tax attorney/CPA employed by the IRS and has been working on some of these recently. He's probably a good resource to separate fact from fantasy.
 * I think it's kind of important that the reality-based community be vigilant on these articles. If any bad information slips in and a reader acts on it, it will put them on a short course to federal prison. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I see the level of meticulous detail, I think these three articles may have problems with regard to WP:SUMMARY and, possibly, WP:HOWTO. We need to be clear to our readers that this stuff is a scam and people who try it get locked up. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged them all for relying too heavily on primary sources. One is a GA. It should probably be re-assessed.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The afore mentioned User:Famspear appears to be the primary author of those three entries, and a major contributor to the other two Steven J. Anderson mentions.Griswaldo (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the same text is found in We the People Foundation and Robert L. Schulz both heavily edited by Famspear. He does seem helpful and the recent attack on him by our Vistor friend is one of the things that led to Visitor10001's one week block last night block. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

On the question about the massive amount of space devoted to tax protester arguments, the number of articles, etc.: I absolutely agree that the amount of space is large. The history behind this is that tax protesters, over the years, have persistently invaded Wikipedia and posted nonsense in "regular" tax articles. When I began editing Wikipedia in late 2005, and for several years thereafter, this was a significant problem. Experienced editors constantly had to move this stuff to a separate article on tax protesters. Eventually, the material in the one "tax protester" article became so large and ungainly that it was split up into the numerous articles you see now. Things have been relatively quiet in recent times, but we never know when another "attack" comes.

My personal preference would be to keep the articles as they are. Of course, I and other editors have invested a huge amount of work in getting them to this point.

Now, a word about the use of primary sources. One of the problems with articles on tax protester topics is that often primary sources are the only sources available. For example, tax protesters will come in and post some nonsense, citing some court case or another. The only way to deal with it is to delete it or to refer to that primary source, showing what the actual ruling of the court was.

Each and every one of the issues discussed in the articles is there because a tax protester came to Wikipedia and put it there, or because it is an issue that tax protesters have raised in court, etc. Indeed, the very citations to the court cases are proof that these are "tax protester arguments".

I would argue that these are not examples of "original synthesis". Almost every protester argument presented is countered with a citation to an actual court case where the argument was raised by someone and rejected by the court. There is a certain level of "disfavor" in Wikipedia regarding the use of primary sources, because of the rule on No Original Research. However, I contend that the use of primary sources is OK as long as the POLICY behind the "No Original Research" rule is upheld.

I would argue that a main goal of the rule is to prevent editors from using Wikipedia to put primary source A with rule A together with primary source B with rule B to formulate a new "rule C" -- a rule that is NOT found in source A or B. That is a classic example of prohibited Original Research, of a synthesis (and a faulty one at that).

In other words, I would argue that the mere use of primary sources does not necessarily constitute "synthesis." And the mere use of primary sources -- even extensive use of primary sources -- does not in and of itself constitute "Original Research" as that term is used in Wikipedia.

I would argue that the tax protester articles do not contain the flaw of "synthesis."

These articles have been reviewed, I would guess, by hundreds or perhaps thousands of legal scholars who read Wikipedia. If you look at the edit histories, you will see that for several years now the articles have been very stable -- in the sense that there are virtually no critiques from experienced editors (and relatively few attacks from tax protesters). The accuracy of these articles in describing the state of the law has not been a subject of serious debate. Indeeed, the articles have become so stable that there has been virtually no debate at all about them in recent years.

I obviously have personally put a tremendous amount of work into these articles, so my defense of their current condition can be considered with that in mind. My argument on this would be: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Famspear (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Clarification: As a fellow editor noted above, I am indeed an attorney and Certified Public Accountant. However, I do not now work for, nor have I ever worked for, the Internal Revenue Service. I have over 25 years of experience in federal tax practice. I am also a regular contributor at a web site forum called quatloos.com, which exposes scams, including tax protester scams. See.


 * Curiously, one of the persistent, goofy, delusional contentions of many tax protesters is that anyone (like me) who exposes their scams must somehow "secretly" work for the IRS or the Department of Justice, or must somehow secretly be receiving money from the government to suppress what tax protesters claim to regard as the "truth". Yet, I don't work for the IRS; I work in public accounting, representing taxpayers. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the following editors be asked to contribute their views here, as they have made material contributions to tax protester-related articles:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BD2412
 * BD2412 is an attorney who has contributed a tremendous amount of work to the tax protester articles.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eastlaw
 * Another attorney.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayJasper


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Shandy


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morphh


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravensfire


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SMP0328


 * Because I have contributed so heavily to the articles, I will "hang back," and leave it to the discretion of my fellow editors here as to whether they want to contact those on the list (and others) who have contributed so much to the work. Obviously, the editors I listed might well support much of my view of the articles. Famspear (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the error and have struck through the incorrect statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Famspear (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To return to Robofish's original query, I agree that the coverage is excessive. The three articles should be merged. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo Famspear's point that the reason we have these multiple lengthy articles is that thoughout Wikipedia's history, people who've been led to believe various of these theories have attempted to shoehorn them into our legitimate articles on taxation. The fact that these theories are referenced to the court cases dismissing them demonstrates that these are not merely abstract imaginings of what a tax protester might say, but actual methods that have been attempted by taxpayers, prosecuted by the IRS, and held invalid by the courts, usually several times for each theory. Entire books have been written just on the proposition that the Sixteenth Amendment was never actually ratified, and that its continued enforecement is a product of a conspiracy involving all branches and levels of government. The U.S. tax code is voluminous and complex, and it is therefore not surprising that conspiracy theories (or just self-serving backward interpretations) are equally voluminous. The material in these articles is well-cited to cases, law review articles, books, and government websites. Merging could not be accomplished without eliminating the inclusion of sourced, verifiable, and sufficiently notable information from the encyclopedia, which seems to me to be based on concerns addressed by WP:Wikipedia is not paper. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is the result of fringe pov pushing doesn't strike me as a very good reason to give such excessive coverage to these topics. If it really was notable it would be able to write articles that weren't based on court transcripts, but on academic secondary literature written by experts. As they are now the articles are basically original research. It may be that Wikipedia is not paper - but it is an encyclopedia.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I see the point being made by BD2412, I tend to agree with Maunus. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point me to any item of "original research" in Tax protester constitutional arguments. So far as I can tell, every point made in that article is referenced to a source presenting an interpretation of the law being addressed. Please note that court cases are only primary sources for articles on the cases themselves; they are secondary sources when cited for their discussion of the meaning of a primary source, e.g., a statute or constitutional provision. bd2412  T 17:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything that can only be sourced to court transcripts is Original Research. Court transcripts are primary sources for every aspect of their use - they are never secondary sources. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these citations are to court transcripts. A transcript is merely the record of testimony delivered by witnesses, and argument by attorneys, made before the court. These citations are to published opinions, wherein the court makes a determination on what the law is, and provides an explanation of the meaning of the law under review. Furthermore, the contentions raised in these articles can also be sourced to the IRS website materials titled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, and to the Anti-Defamation League's Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments, by Bernard Sussman. There are also several law review articles listed as general sources. To the extent that any of the material in the articles is not sourced to your satisfaction, this can be accomplished. The issue then becomes one of providing satisfactory sources to demonstrate the existence of conspiracy theories notable enough to be addressed at length in these sources. bd2412  T 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some sort of easy compromise can be worked out. Have any of these links gone bad?  If so, removing content based on dead links might be an easy way to prune some of these articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relying on link rot to guide our content decisions is never a good plan; I hope that this isn't an idea that has been tried here or anywhere else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the use of primary sources is not, in and of itself, "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Again, I would argue that compressing these articles is going to be defeating our own purpose. If there is prohibited "original research" in one of the articles, then let's identify it and deal with it.

Another point: There actually is relatively little in the way of scholarly, previously published articles about tax protesters (and the articles we have found are cited). That's partly because -- by definition -- it's a fringe topic. You aren't going to find volumes and volumes of scholarly articles previously published on the subject. What you ARE going to find is a massive amount of information published by tax protesters on the internet -- and a massive number of actual court decisions, absolutely none of which have ever upheld any tax protester argument (without a single exception, as of this writing).

But because of the nature of the way tax protesters tend to operate on the internet, the only effective ways to counter their tendentious postings in Wikipedia with "balance" is either to delete the postings, perhaps swithout regard to the three revert rule (under some sort of exemption similar to that for vandalism or defamatory material on living persons), or to allow the "escape valve" of the existence of these (in my humble opinion) well-written, well sourced Wikipedia articles devoted specifically to this topic.

I would reiterate my view: Use of a primary source is not in and of itself prohibited "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Any reading of any source, whether primary or secondary, involves some judgment and interpretation by a Wikipedia editor. The use of each source, primary or secondary, should be evaluated on its own merits, and not on the sole basis of whether that source is primary or not. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: As editor BD2412 has noted, there are reliable secondary sources on this topic, including peer reviewed law review articles, and they are used in various places in the articles. The very best and most comprehensive secondary source (although not a peer reviewed article) in my view is from attorney Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ, at, and Evans is cited in some of the articles. Famspear (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Famspear on this. Little good will come from undertaking a large-scale reorganization or cutting of these stable, well-substantiated, informative, and sensibly organized articles.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Editor BD2412 makes an interesting point: Court opinions, while called Primary Authority in the legal world, are Secondary Sources as that term is used in Wikipedia, where court opinion is used (as it is) for the interpretation of the Primary Source -- the interpretation of the actual, verbatim texts of the U.S. Constitution, of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., the statute itself), or of official Treasury regulations, IRS Revenue Rulings, etc. While there is some quoting of and use of Primary Sources (such as the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which deals with income tax) or brief quotes from Code provisions, the uses of these Primary Sources can (I would argue) be evaluated on their own merits.


 * Another point on the volume of material in these articles: The Tax Protester FAQ by Daniel B. Evans (which I mentioned above as the definitive work on this subject) isn't even an "article." It's a list of specific tax protester arguments, grouped by category in a sort of outline format, with explanations, citations and quotes. The Wikipedia articles don't even come close to covering all the material by Daniel B. Evans. Yet, as a PDF file, the current version of Evans' Tax Protester FAQ comes to about 264 pages. I would argue that when viewed in context, the Wikipedia articles are not overly long. If the Wikipedia articles covered even half of the material covered by Evans, I suspect the Wikipedia articles would at least as long as the Evans material.


 * Another point regarding the volume of material is that while tax protester arguments are fringe positions, the amount of time spent by the federal courts in having to deal with these matters has been such a matter of concern to Congress that in December 2006, Congress increased the penalties for making these frivolous arguments on federal income tax returns from $500 per return, per person (meaning a penalty of up to $1,000 on a married joint return) to $5,000 per return per person (or $10,000 per married joint return). This is in addition to the long-standing monetary penalties for filing frivolous litigation in federal courts. In short, while tax protesters are admittedly a fringe group with fringe legal theories repeatedly rejected by the courts, they are a serious problem. If anything, the frivolous tax returns and frivolous litigation has gotten worse since this phenomenon began to appear in federal courts in the mid 1970s. While these are fringe theories, the U.S. Congress, the IRS and the Justice Department have concluded that the people who push these theories have created significant problems in the judicial system. The IRS maintains a special unit at the IRS Service Center in Ogden, Utah, just to deal with the volume of tax protester returns. The volume of material in Wikipedia on this topic should, in my view, be viewed with this in mind as well. Famspear (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These do seem to be very long articles on a fringe theory. However pruning them would almost inevitably lead to the pruned theories being reinserted at some point and then the hard work of Famspear and others in providing the refutations would have to be re-done. I wish that we could provide as authoritative refutations for some of the other fringe theories in Wikipedia. I think that no major changes need to be made. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

K. N. Panikkar and "Marxist" historians in India
One of our Hindutva pals has been adding assertions about "Marxist" historians to several pages, notably the claim that Panikkar comes from "the Marxist tradition of historiography". This may well be correct. One would expect there to be such a tradition in India during the post-war period. However, as far as I can see none of the four "sources" cited in Panikkar article assert that he is a Marxist. Most simply suggest that he holds leftist views, and one refers to something called "cultural Marxism". Ironically, much of the rest of the article is a panegyric. The article Marxist historiography was originally solely about India. Now there is one, barely comprehensible and wholly uncited, section on India. I'm sure there was/is a real school of Marxist history in India, but this whole area is confused because the Indian right's tendency to slap the term "Marxist" onto anyone with a vaguely liberal-secular viewpoint. Paul B (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was added before to the articles on a number of historians. There was a school of postwar historians that revised the earlier tradition from the British period, and it did draw on historical materialism, but the label "Marxist" would have to be properly sourced, and no way should it be in the lead like that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See and, both refer to him as a Marxist historian although I've also seen him referred to as nationalist. This may of course reflect what Paul says above. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of the expression, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole"? ;) ScottyBerg (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific status of astrology
There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.

I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.

I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Eleven pages of text you want us to wade through?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The extreme amount of text that is currently being produced there should of course not be a reason to let the article deteriorate. I find the last sentence of the proposed new text very concerning. Hans Adler 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Although scientists in Western countries tend to regard astrology as a pseudoscience ...", is absolutely absurd. I think there is clearly some fringe POV pushing being attempted over there.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. :) I'll try to offer a summary, without going into the details of who said what (improper indenting makes that a bit difficult, actually).
 * The proposed revision to the introduction involves two changes: (1) the addition of some historical background about astrology in ancient times, to which there appears to be little objection; and (2) the removal or watering-down of the statement that astrology is pseudoscience, in preference for statements that astrology "lost its standing as a science" during the Enlightenment but recently "experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support" and that, although astrology tends to be thought of as a pseudoscience in the West, it is considered a "trusted body of knowledge" in the East.
 * That's a highly condensed summary, but it captures the gist of the change. Basically, the change is designed to obscure the extent to which astrology is recognized as pseudoscience by the scientists, and to present the conflicting views as essentially equal (to some extent, even giving preference to the pro-astrology view). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's really the gist of what some people are proposing to say, then obviously it's not on. It was actually before the Enlightenment that the scientific and mythological sides of star-gazing diverged. Even before the invention of the telescope, which is a pretty obvious turning point, the Church accepted the use of the stars to measure time but rejected divination by them as heretical. The "resurgence of interest" is in no way a revival of the medieval phenomenon, but a new development in popular culture, spread through newspapers. And it is no more a trusted body of knowledge in the East than in the West: what dreadful essentialising. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Enlightenment is mine, but I believe it is not an inaccurate interpretation of the sentence, from the proposed text, that "[a]strology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by the age of reason". Most of the rest is quoted directly from the proposed text. The full text of the most recent version of the proposed change is here, and the dispute is centered primarily around the final two paragraphs, starting with "However, astrology has ...". -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde‎ again
An IP edit warring at the article, adding long lists of honorifics about a fringe author and treating conspiracy theories as fact - all sourced to self pub sources, Youtube and Rense.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! Tinfoil-hattery of the worst kind. I've done a quick cleanup of the worst of it, but I doubt it will stick. Are there actually any reliable sources that suggest notability at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Toss up. The subject has an entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary and a mention in a book about UFO Religions. However the IP pushing to expand the article with puffery has got some real issues. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the edit warring IP refuses to recognize reality so this may require an admin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has now broken WP:3RR. He/she also claims to have contacted Wikipedia.org. Can someone else look into dealing with this - I'm about to lose my temper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IP should have been warned, I've warned and reverted, and am off to bed. Someone please report them if they revert again. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, the IP has gone off the deep end again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * RBIed. Moreschi (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, rense.com is not only a horrible pseudoscience site, but also an antisemitic hate site and so characterized by the SPLC and the ADL. Go to their websites and do a site search on "rense". It should never be used as a reference anywhere on Wikipedia except Jeff Rense where it can be used solely to document Rense's views, never for facts. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, rense.com is used 641 times in WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now semiprot for a month. Moreschi (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a project. Can you link to a list of articles that link to rense.com? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . - 2/0 (cont.) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that gives only 17, gives 435. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jat people
A "royal race", but is this revert justified, i.e. is a classification from British colonial days usable without other source, or is this a primary source? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a primary source in the way it was being used, anyway. Certainly not something that belongs in the lede, and quite possibly not in this article. Might have more relevance in a British racial classifications of Indian peoples article, or something like that (don't know if it exists already). Moreschi (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche 2
SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association. The review states,


 * "NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..."

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. -- JN 466  04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Volunteer Marek says he has checked the AER issue in question. The Google Books snippets are in fact from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than a review of the book, so that is different. -- JN  466  22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)
Editor trying to call this a scientific theory. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. Entertaing theory, BTW...Moreschi (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems awfully long, especially for an article that is tagged as not having enough reliable third party sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see it's a lot shorter now, let's try and keep it that way. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see it's been cut substantially since I looked in on it. I'll watchlist it too. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please. The problem is when you have someone pushing something that shouldn't be there when they are new, and sometimes when they aren't, they just keep pushing ignoring 3RR and one person can't cope with that. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just reverted a vandal on it. Should it be semi-protected? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was overeager and touched 3rr there. Sorry.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP is just the editor editing logged off. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Final anthropic principle
This article seems like a fringe-theory just based on a single primary source. also related articles like Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe. His Final Anthropic Principle is based on his idea for the Resurrection of the dead. His views are fringed shown by the lack of any mainstream acceptance. As well as Final_anthropic_principle his views have also been slipped into Cornucopian, Anthropic_principle, Plenitude_principle, Zeno_machine, Fine-structure_constant, Fermi_paradox, Social_constructionism, Self-replicating_spacecraft, Paul_J._McAuley possibly also Quantum_suicide_and_immortality. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Final Anthropic Principle, a G-book search turns up a number of reliable sources discussing it; so it is what the article says it is, a speculative theory. Since I don't foresee the theory gaining traction within mainstream cosmology any time soon, a redirect to Frank J. Tipler isn't out of the question. In the very least, I'd swap out the primary source cited for more independent secondary sources (such as the Nick Bostrom example I gave above). Haven't looked at the others yet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His FAP is based on the pseudoscience theory he puts forward, and being a fringe theory it seems a bit much to be including it in other articles. Should Final Anthropic Principle perhaps be merged into Tipler's own page? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, I've redirected FAP to Frank J. Tipler. While porting this material over to the main article I noticed a hidden link in the references to something called "www.dhushara.com", which certainly doesn't qualify as a RS. I removed it, however someone ought to go over this article with a fine tooth comb to see if there are any other embedded urls. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Starchild skull
Some active editing here again and needs more eyes as I can't keep reverting. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it's very "active". I made some improvements and was strangely reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of deletions of sourced, neutral discussion there. Either people are being way too quick on the trigger, or people, having failed to get it to support their beliefs, are trying to delete all sections which challenge their beliefs to deal with it by stealth. Not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
 * I think we want to avoid using "www.starchildproject.com" as a source for anything but their own claims, since the site promotes the skull as containing "DNA not similar to anything on Earth". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected for three months, so people can actually edit without getting randomly reverted by drive-by IPs. Moreschi (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When is a minor fringe publication a reliable source?
I think this belongs here, at least first, as it involves fringe issues, RS, and NPOV. Brown Willy Cairns is not a fringe article, or rather it shouldn't be, although I believe it was created with the purpose of further publicising Christian O'Brien's ideas. The last paragraph first introduces a suggestion of astronomical alignments via a book by Rodney Castleden, a reliable source although the book is talking about Brown Willy Hill, not the cairns, and I can't find the date claimed. It then goes on to say " It has also been suggested that around this date (c. 2700 BC), midsummer sunrise would have aligned over Brown Willy South Cairn if an observer were standing in the supposed centre of King Arthur's Hall and, when viewing from the centre of Craddock Moor Stone Circle, the midsummer sun would have set precisely over Brown Willy North Cairn. This has suggested some astronomical purpose in cairn placement and construction. It has been speculated that the remains of over 100 ridge-top cairns are still on Bodmin Moor." all sourced to "C. A. E. O'Brien; Barbara Joy O'Brien (1997). The Shining Ones: An Account of the Development of Early civilizations through the Direct Assistance of Powers Incarnated on Earth... : A Philosophical Discussion Based on Ancient Mystical and Secular Documents, Dianthus Publications" - I think his books are basically self-published by Christian Brann's Dianthus Publishing, whose only other output seems to be a cricketing book - even the website devoted to his ideas described them as 'printed', not published.

So, should O'Brien be used here at all?

Just searching while writing, I see that the reason I can't find mention of the cairns in Castleden is that no one seems to call these the 'Brown Willy Cairns' except O'Brien, and even 'Brown Willy Summit Cairn' seems to be a made up name. I can find references to "Two large summit cairns crown Brown Willy" etc, so the cairns are real, the name isn't. Damn. I'd been assuming there was a reason that we should have this article not related to O'Brien, but these cairns seem to be pretty trivial, reinforcing my belief that the only purpose of the article is to push O'Brien's ideas, which is an admitted goal of the editor. Maybe AfD is the way to go, but the issue I've raised about where we should be using O'Brien needs addressing. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm dubious of using them. Google Books picks up a lot of of 1800-era works but Baring-Gould for instance only refers to one cairn, and when I get through all the problems with the aerial maps (bad coordinates including an error which puts the site in Normandy, and lousy images) I only see one cairn there. When you trim away all of the O'Brien and all of the miscellaneous chatter about cairns in general, all that's left is a very stubby article that says "there's a big cairn on top of Brown Willy". And from what I can tell, that's pretty much what is known. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I have to invite anyone questioning the existence of two cairns to expand the image of the view from Brown Willy Summit. Brown Willy South Cairn is clearly visible. Also, two are shown in the map sources (use Ordinance Survey and not Satellite imagery) and uulian Cope's The Modern Antiquarian calls them Brown Willy Cairns, with a broken link to Wikipedia's previously non-extant coverage of them (that's no longer broken). Here's some other points regarding article cleanup:
 * a) Turnstone published all the data I am taking for these articles, and that was peer reviewed in Archaeoastronomy (Journal) by Barnatt, so it's not quite so minor and fringe. Shining Ones material is, admittedly, even if parts are a reprint from Turnstone. I can remove that link and replace if you insist.
 * b) Going back over my sources, Charles Knight mentions summits covered in cairns, Charlotte Maria S. Mason mentions "Granite cairns surmount the crest of Brown Willy" implying the plural, Sabine Baring-Gould mentions the lack of excavation and 'Cornish King' theory. Castleton mentions Brown Willy summit as the equinox sunrise marker in the Stannon Stone Circle entry. Copeland Borlase is one of O'Brien's sources and he describes these, along with the investigations and burial theories of last century.
 * c) Finally, I've reluctantly added a reliable source - Barnatt who has mapped out the 2 cairns himself - Another hilltop site is Brown Willy, centered on SX159798. Half way along the ridge is a cairn 18.5m in diameter and 1.8m high. At the north end is a cairn 25m or more in diameter and 3.2m high I'd rather stick with O'Brien's measurements as Barnatt's guesstimating which I don't consider accurate or capable, even if he is a reliable source! He hasn't even factored the Earth's drift when claiming his spurious current alignmnets - amateur hour! Thank goodness someone got their theoolite out and gave us the exact solar, lunar and other declinations to within 2 decimal points for all these alignments and factored in the Earth's drift to suggest the alignments when built. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The question here isn't how many cairns there are... the question is whether to mention the various fringe theories about the significance of the cairns (and if so, which theories).
 * If we accept that we should mention the "astronomical significance" stuff in the first place, we definitely need to get rid of the "it has been suggested" weasel wording. Tell the reader who suggests what.  Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I take it the burial and Cornish king theories are notably sourced. I found another that Old King Coel was buried under Brown Willy North Cairn, but seriously....I can replace with 'Barnatt, O'Brien or Castleton' suggested for the astronomical theories if we are to avoid weasel wording. Good idea. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Castleden, not Castleton. I still stand by my statement that O'Brien is a very minor fringe writer without even a regular publisher, and Paul, I think you would agree that you are trying to raise his profile in various ways. One of these is to use him for sources in Wikipedia. I don't think that's appropriate, especially when as in some of these short archaeology articles half or more than half of the text is about O'Brien (Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills are the obvious examples). Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking that the entire paragraph could be re-written and summarized in one sentence: "The Cairns figure prominently in the archeoastronomical theories of authors such as Christian O'Brien, John Barnatt and Rodney Castleden." That is really all that needs saying. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Are Free energy machine makers Inventors?
Is it correct to have Free Energy machine creators tagged as inventors when no device exists or no working device was created? (obviously they are inventors if, besides claimed free energy machines, they invented actual devices) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

section of magnetic reconnection article
Recently, a section was added to the article on magnetic reconnection. As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe plasma cosmology theory which has been strongly refuted by cosmologists and astrophysicists. The user has also displayed alarming incivility on the talk page, which has essentially become a flame war. I attempted to take the offending section of this article down, but the author undid this attempt multiple times. As a plasma physics researcher, I attest that this section strongly misrepresents the state of knowledge in the field and does not belong in an article on this topic, and therefore should be deleted. I am afraid that if this user is not blocked from editing this page, that this could go on indefinitely. Spacehippy (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has also been posted on the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. Spacehippy (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

An administrator has imposed a one month block on the user in question. Barring sockpuppets or anonymous updates, this is probably resolved. Spacehippy (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology RFC
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A separate article on the controversy is definitely a POV fork. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left the fray. The article is too well guarded by its WP:OWNers.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More Astrology
The fringe POV push at Talk:Astrology has been intensifying, and turning increasingly disruptive. How does one officially make them aware of the pseudoscience arbitration, such that they are sanctionable if they escalate the disruption? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dealt with, see WP:AN. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cow urine
Was alerted about this article from a posting on WP:RSN, but several editors are pushing questionable medical information about the curative powers of cow urine from questionable sources like patents and www.love4cow.com. More eyes would be probably be a good idea. Yobol (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The single editor fighting to keep the fringe medical claims says that cow urine will be the next big breakthrough, and suggests anti-Indian bias on my part. Me, I'm not particularly comfortable even mentioning these claims based on sources like a Telegraph article that even notes how most Indian doctors consider the claims "eccentric.". I suppose the fact that some people believe cow urine to be medicinal is notable.  Not, though, to the tune of a long, credulous, overly-specific article, though. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually multiple editors, and I've reached 3RR. More eyes are needed. Yobol (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This probably needs to be moved, actually, to Cow urine in Ayurveda, or something similar. And then it really, really needs to be rewritten to discuss this specifically from the perspective of the Indian tradition of trad/alt med, and its relation to Hindu nationalism. Moreschi (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was Merge to Panchgavya. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin coverup hoax
Can we have more eyes on this one? Another editor has requested that I look into it, but it gives me a headache. Maybe someone else can sort through it better to see what might need to be changed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of India, migrations from the Urheimat to cyberspace
pushing Out of India theory around the block. An old trope on this board and elsewhere from the Hindutva wars of the past, but worth keeping an eye out for even now. Moreschi (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Heads-up re : The so-called "world homeopathy awareness week" is 10-17 April. Homeopathy advocates are making extensive use of social media, they seriously hate the Wikipedia article because it is accurate and unbiased. Expect an onslaught. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . Ok, watching. Moreschi (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Grinning Man
Not sure how this survived AfD. There are lots of claims written as fact and no sources that could be considered reliable. I especially love the "creature" infobox featuring 'grouping', 'habitat', etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/The Grinning Man (2nd nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this has been discussed over the past few days at "Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP on the BLP noticeboard, where consensus was against inclusion. -- JN 466  19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you're claiming to be uninvoved, but that's very clearly not true. You're being extremely aggressive, archiving my posts in multiple places, and reverting when I restore them. I have asked here for fresh eyes, and it's not up to you to decide whether I may do that. If people don't want to respond, they'll ignore the requests. It's appropriate here because LaRouche is a fringe thinker, and I want to make sure editors used to dealing with that—and perhaps used to dealing with cults—are aware of these RfCs. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a Wikiproject for people who are "used to dealing with cults" SlimVirgin. It is a noticeboard for Fringe topics. You can't go around plastering your RfC in places that are not related to it.  It is disruptive.  The question was posed and answered on the BLP/N already. You disregarded that answer and started the RfC and posted notices of it all over the place.  That is text book WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  Please stop it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm entirely uninvovled in LaRouche topics. I made the mistake of thinking that you and Will Beback would respect my uninvolved commentary (along with the comments of other uninvolved editors).  Instead you just acted like the comments were never made, and Will started casting aspersions.  I'm sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive but it's not coming out of thin air.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have never cast aspersions on Griswaldo. I would appreciate it if that false statement was not repeated.   Will Beback    talk    21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Truly uninvolved people aren't instantly aggressive, Griswaldo. I'm not saying I know what's behind it—and if you say nothing is, I'll AGF and take your word for that—but going around archiving requests for fresh eyes is most unusual. This is not forum shopping; this is the norm with RfCs. Indeed, the whole point of RfCs is to cast far and wide. If you don't like the request, don't respond to it; that's all that's required. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Instantly aggressive" is a complete mis-characterization. I'm glad to see you are also casting aspersions. I will note that with your RfC you have now garnered only more opposition to your position.  It was a pointless exercise but I hope it is finally the last we have to hear about this.  I do not intend to answer any more LaRuoche related questions on any noticeboards because it is not worth it.  So your objective there has clearly been met. Happy activist editing.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But why are you ignoring the result of the discussion at WP:BLPN? The issue has been dealt with.  WP:BLPN did its job.  If you disagree with the result, feel free to raise the issue again in another 6 months.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the Duggan stuff should probably stay out of LaRouche's biography; inclusion would appear to be a classic case of coatracking. The article on the movement yes, the man himself, probably not. BTW, this stuff does really belong at WP:BLPN, not here: if the same material is going to get cross-posted to all the noticeboards, there's no point having a variety and we might as well all just roll them into WP:CONTENT/Noticeboard. Fractured discussions make for a real pain in the ass. BLPN is normally a better place to take problematic BLP material, unless said BLP material is actually a simple coatrack pushing the subject's fringy ideas, or skeptical ideas, or anything that might fall under WP:FRINGE. But the LaRouche biography (in this instance, anyway), would not appear to qualify. Best, Moreschi (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Moreschi, better discuss on BLPN. The fringiness of the subject's views isn't at issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Wisdom New Dawn Society
Ancient Wisdom New Dawn Society is an unsourced article. I'm not sure if this is a school of Yoga in the sense of a type of Yoga or an organisation that teaches a recognised type, or if it is just a fringe group. I'm still only around sporadically until Friday or Saturday. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely non-notable. Should go to AfD.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Their domain has expired & there's no mention of them on Google Books or Google News. Some of the terminology indicates that they may be more closely related to New Thought than to traditional yoga. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Prodded. Moreschi (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a clear A7 speedy to me, now tagged as such. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding torsion field (pseudoscience)
There is a question in the case of torsion field (pseudoscience) what the primary notion of torsion field is. In the peer-reviewed physics literature, the torsion field is another way of referring to the torsion tensor. However, there is also a pseudoscientific theory that is only loosely related to this (if at all). My interpretation of WP:FRINGE is that the primary idea should be the one used by the relevant scholarly community. However, an editor at Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience) is arguing that scholarly physics sources are "biased", and that the primary notion is the pseudoscientific one (which he acknowledges as "crackpot garbage"). He bases this assessment (apparently) on the larger number of raw Google hits referring to the pseudoscientific notion. But this seems to me to violate the spirit of WP:FRINGE, which attests: "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." Is my interpretation of the guideline applicable here? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. WP:FRINGE isn't really relevant here - the theories are clearly demarcated, it's just a question of article naming - and I think what you're after is more WP:COMMONNAME. Given that, I think there's a fair enough argument for moving the page to torsion field and putting seealso tags (or whatever is most appropriate) at the top of both pages. Alternatively, I suppose you could keep the page at its current title and make torsion field a disambig instead of a redirect to torsion tensor. Moreschi (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. It looks like your second suggestion is already the favored solution.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Health effects of chocolate
Anyone have time to review this article? At a glance, it looks like it needs a rewrite from a WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jordan Lead Codices
Request that editors keep a precautionary eye on this one. Petecarney (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. It may take years for the first results of physical and epigraphic studies to become available. Right now the sourcing is a bunch of stories containing initial comments from archaeologists and other scholars who haven't had much (if any) access to the codices in question and blog postings. &bull; Astynax talk 03:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gainesville, Florida
Page editors constantly take down POV notice when dispute as not been resolved. No negative information about city of any kind is allowed to remain.
 * Wrong noticeboard for your complaint, but it's the right noticeboard to note your fringe view that Gainesville is a hotbed of redneck racism and intolerance, which is totally uncited.  Horologium  (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and crime
Can someone take a look at the Race and crime article? It seems to me to be attempting to present what is at best fringe science as mainstream. The currant major contributor is asking for others to offer mainstream alternatives to the theory, but personally I think that this would be giving it more credibility than it deserves. It uses the term 'race' in a widely-varying (but never defined) manner, assumes that 'IQ' is a real measure of an objective 'intelligence', and generally lacks any objectivity in its presentation of data. In short, it is pushing a minority POV based on dubious racist biologically-determinist theories, wile taking no account of the overwhelming scientific consensus that such theories are unsupportable, and not based on valid science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not alternative becuase there is no connection between race and crime. Correlations between socioeconomic status and ethnicity tied into crime yes. This article as it stand an utterly unacceptable Fringe View point not even notable as fringe. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let differentiate between crime rates and theories. That crime rates differ is not disputed. The theories explaining them are disputed.Miradre (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is classic WP:SYNTH the article is picking very selective in it presention of data to advance a none-existent viewpoint. This is not one of those articles. Race and Crime in the United States works. Race and Crime in the United Kingdom works. The social construction of race cross cultrally does not work. This material duplicates existing material any way. There is no cohesive topic of Crime and Race to merit its own article because no one takes the idea seriously  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many studies on worldwide racial crime rates and proposed explanations. Obviously an important and notable topic.Miradre (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, no there arent really becuase cohesive idea of "race" outside of America ::it get much more murky. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also studies (such as the UK Home Office one which you conveniently ignore) that disprove this theory. If the topic is notable, then provide neutral reliable sources that say so. In any case, a 'notable theory' isn't necessarily a notable scientific one, as this purports to be - it isn't recognised by mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * meant Euro-america. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to see more information on this topic rather than less. Liberals like me aren't afraid of race-crime statistics because we can show how powerful culture is in determining behavior (e.g. crime). Let's just balance the information we don't like with information we do like, and let the best explanation of the race-crime correlation win. I'm confident that it's the liberal, egalitarian, cultural explanation that gets the best coverage in reliable sources. Leadwind  (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to demonstrate that a race-crime correlation exists, you first have to demonstrate the 'race' exists. Since it is clearly a social construct rather than a biological fact (actually, 'crime' is as well), there is no reason to even discuss the topic as science. If one wishes to discuss it as politics, I'd suggest that the best explanations aren't 'liberal, egalitarian, cultural' so much as 'Marxist, egalitarian, economic' ones. The issue is actually largely about the one thing that nobody seems to acknowledge - social class - which in turn largely determines what both 'race' and 'crime' are. You cannot discuss such subjects in a way that assumes any of the correlations are 'objective' in such a context. Hence, any article treating 'race and crime' as a legitimate scientific subject is doomed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One can certainly study statistics for purely social constructs. One example being income and occupations. No one would argue that these concepts are biologically real. But it is still possibly to study differences in income for different occupations. So even if race as concept was rejected as a biologically reality, it would still be possible to discuss crime differences for different races, just as one can for other groups, and have an article on this. Let us also note that the topic is discussed here: Miradre (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We could start by writing the lead based on reliable sources rather than no sources as at present. Then we could establish whether this is a scientific or fringe view.  TFD (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)