Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 26

British Israelism, Young Earth Creationism
Just saw WP:ANI - this looks relevant to a couple of fringe articles on British Israelism and Young Earth Creationism]]. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Category: Paranormal places
See Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 4. This category is very old. I think it's a safe bet that the conclusion will result in retention of the category but there might be reason to argue for a les credulous name. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found a lot of articles in that category are entirely cited to unreliable sources such as Weird NJ. Example: Articles for deletion/Clinton Road (New Jersey) (it seems this article was created by an admin who doesn't believe in the WP:NPA policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain
This article has just been brought to my attention -- can't work out if it's completely off-the-wall, or simply impenetrably written -- though discussion in the article body, about proposals made in the French Wikipedia, aren't exactly promising. Enjoy! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this one. Searching in JSTOR is not promising; GBooks returns a few hits. At the very least it probably should be Somatosensory rehabilitation if it is retained. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is legitimate medical stuff relating to a relatively new method for treatment of neuropathic pain, but the article was written by somebody whose native language is French, and the rendering into English is at the Google-Translate level. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong gravitational constant
The article Strong gravitational constant appears to be a non-notable fringe theory in which the strong interaction should be treated like gravity. On the notable hand, there are one or two mainstream articles on this (mainly Salam & Sivaram 1993) which got a few citations before interest dried up. On the fringe hand, this vague strong/gravity connection is apparently a component of User:fedosin's previously-AfD'ed cosmology ideas (see Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter). I voted against my own AfD on this article (Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant) because of the Salam connection, thinking there might be a worthwhile article about that; but Fedosin wants the article to continue being about his own theory. See the AfD page for details on Fedosin's sources. Bm gub (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to repeat my call for help.  Can a third party with WP:FRINGE experience come take a look at this article?  Bm gub (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked the closing admin on the AFD for an explanation, but I think we're headed for DRV on this one. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem is, I don't think the article is an obvious WP:FRINGE deletion candidate, because there's a stub's worth of notable content.  Unfortunately the notable content has the same name as the pet theory of four or five fringe authors, including the COI editor.Bm gub (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake light
Several IPs editing this today adding either copyvio videos showing what they think are earthquake lights (but not mentioned in the video) or blogs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States
After looking at the section above on the article on race & crime, I had a look at the US version of the article, and it badly needs work. For example, this section consists entirely of some dubious statistics sourced to a publication of the New Century Foundation ("dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation"). The New Century Foundation publication is also repeatedly used as a source in other sections. The article also gives fringe views like this one WP:UNDUE weight. These are just a couple of glaringly obvious problems I noticed from glancing at the article; there are likely to be many other problems that need work. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does look bad. New Century Foundation is an advocacy group so should not be used in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went by and quickly removed the bits that had been sourced to the New Century Foundation pub. The article is still badly in need of work.  Among other things, this section, this section, and this section sound like really flaky theories...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The report, from the New Century Foundation, as a source have been removed from the article. Please explain why. Reports from advocacy groups are not prohibited. It certainly passes a relevancy and notability criteria since it is widely cited in this area. The statistics of the report are from official statistics and reports in the scientific literature. If there is disagreement with a figure, then an opposing view should be stated with a source. Just attacking the author and not the content is a not valid ad hominem attack. As such, I propose the report should be added back. Not as WP:Truth but as notable view in this area.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was not used to present a white supremacist view but to source facts. The report is obviously not a reliable source for facts since it is published by a group thatr has a vested political interest in making those facts appear in a particular way. This is really very basic.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The views of political advocacy groups are of course not prohibited in WP. As a notable view in this area it should be included. Making it clear where the report are citing official statistics and scientific studies and where it argues for a policy. The New Century Foundation considers Asians to have higher inteligence than whites and welcomes Jews so it certainly does not fit any standard stereotype of white supremacism or neo-nazism.Miradre (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Asian/Jew argument is really bad - on par with the classic "Im not a racist many of my friends are Jews/black". First you'd have to argue that the view is notable, as anything other than a fringe POV. ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is for example a figure regarding the risk of being in prison, based on official statistics, a fringe view? Miradre (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the statistics are 'official', find them in a mainstream source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The raw numbers are for not obvious, or maybe for obvious, reasons difficult to interpret. They are not adjusted for the population sizes of different groups, and clump whites and Hispanics together, and so on. What the report does in this regard is simply to make the numbers clearer. Only the US seems to present to the public such difficult to understand crime figures. All other countries I have looked at report crime rates so that they can be understood easily, like crimes/year/100,000 people in a group.Miradre (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't want to present the official statistics, but instead the New Century Foundation's interpretation of them? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they are qualified to make such interpretations of "difficult to understand crime figures"? Do you have evidence that they do this in a way that ensures an accurate presentation of the data, rather than in a way that suits their 'advocacy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of special interest groups, think-thanks, and similar organizations include research in their reports. That is not disallowed in Wikipedia. The articles contain numerous such reports. The attribution should have been clearer but otherwise I see no reason for excluding this view.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of special interest groups do research. Whether this research is of sufficient credibility to use in an article comes down to edit-page consensus, and failing that there is WP:RSN and other appropriate sections of Wikipedia. That you see no reason to include research that supports the POV you are clearly pushing is neither here nor there. This isn't an advocacy website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither should views be excluded per WP:NPOV. If you are scientifically right, would it not be better to show that the report is wrong instead of simply excluding is? Miradre (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a contentious area so sources should be of good quality, i.e. peer reviewed academic or similar. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Miradre, there is no requirement to provide scientific refutations of the fringe arguments of random racist websites. That you continue to support such self-evidently biased sources says little for any claims you once had to be editing in a neutral manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider the case closed. I have already started adding other sources for the data and arguments that should be less susceptible to being rejected simply because who the author is. I will no longer argue for this source.Miradre (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People will be keeping close watch on it, at least I'm sure Cordelia and Andy will although I will be on wikibreak. Too much prominence to Jensen's views is an issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Another major problem with the article, it seems to me, is its very narrow focus. There are a lot of other very important topics that one might expect to find covered in an article on Race and crime in the United States; a historical perspective on the topic is completely missing for example. (Some relevant topics missing from the article include: People v. Hall, slave codes, lynchings, segregation, the American mafia, and undoubtedly many others). Also, a number of the sections in the current article still present egregiously fringe theories. I'm also going to be mostly wikibreaking, so I hope that there will be some more eyes on this article...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

George Chapman (healer)
POV article written as though he was genuine. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it as lacking neutrality/balance, but frankly I have doubts that Chapman meets WP:N in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton
is working very hard to make it look like the racist theories of J. Philippe Rushton as laid out in his self-published Race, Evolution and Behavior have scholarly currency outside of the small group of scholars who have received funding from the Pioneer Fund for which Rushton is president. Miradre is currently pushing a source written by a graduate student in criminology who describes evidence in favor of the theory as "mixed" when researchers with expertise in the area have in fact unanimously rejected it as a prime example of scientific racism and pseudo science. This needs immediate attention by editors willing to read abit about the backgrund of Rushton and the reception of his theories about human evolution by scholars who actually know about evolution. The articles affected are Race and crime, Race and crime in the US and Race, Evolution and Behavior. This is egregious pov pushing that needs to be kept in check.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you have against the Encyclopedia. Here are the lead editors: Certainly not a proven theory, and very controversial, but there are several peer-reviewed articles supporting the theory. No, not all of the researchers are connected to Pioneer Fund.Miradre (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Certainly not a proven theory, and very controversial..." It sounds like you agree that this is a fringe theory. aprock (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say the same regarding the theory that racial differences in IQ are partly genetic. This does not preclude that this the the most common theory among IQ researchers when they are asked anonymously.Miradre (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Has there been any anonynmous surveys of whether people agree with Rushton? No? Then this is a red herring. It is possible thta a majority of astronomers secretly believe the moon is made of green cheese, but untill they say so in public it remains a fringe view.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you substantiate this claim, Miradre? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look here Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior. Many peer-reviewed studies have found support for various aspects of the theory. Even for the studies where Rushton is the lead author, there are usually several other different co-authors, so there is a rather large group of people of who have researched and found support for the theory.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing editors to a part of the article on Rushton's book that you have selectively written or rewritten from your own point of view. Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is, I added to the criticisms sections also....Miradre (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Miradre, try to focus. I'm talking about the claim you made here on this noticeboard that, racial differences in IQ being partly genetic is "the most common theory among IQ researchers when they are asked anonymously." The link you posted says nothing about that. Do you have any facts to substantiate your claim that this is the most common theory. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book).Miradre (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A survey from 1984? Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one ever done. My point is not that this proves what the scientific consensus is currently. What is shows is that the partially genetic theory is not fringe.Miradre (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The study you link to refutes your claim. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How? " "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation"Miradre (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So later university textbooks on this subject by experts are irrelevant in your view? They somehow do not represent the mainstream? Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What textbooks? There is no consensus in this area but an ongoing debate regarding the role of genetics.Miradre (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The textbooks are in the references of many of the articles that you have been editing, and I'm sure you must have noticed the authors—Loughlin, Mackintosh, Flynn, Sternberg, Jencks, etc Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are talking about articles and books, not textbooks. There are as many such articles and books by hereditarians.Miradre (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mackintosh's book is a textbook, "Human intelligence"; the "Handbook of intelligence" is an encyclopedia. Your responses seem just to illustrate Maunus' point. Anyway Newyorkbrad is going to propose a motion on the Requests for clarification page which could clear all of this up. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. Even Sternberg and Mackintosh agree there is controversy and differing opinions on this.Miradre (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we now have differing opinions which are controversial. It seems that such ideas when held up as explanatory theories might well be considered WP:FRINGE. aprock (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously if you are talking with a proponent he/she will think his theory is the right one. Again, the only poll done found that the most common theory among IQ researchers were the paritally genetic one.Miradre (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre is misrepresenting the sources. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No.Miradre (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just not seeing how a single question from a survey lends substantial insight into a book published 11 years later. aprock (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One author, one view, one researcher. A survey, many views. many researchers. The last give a better understanding of the what it more common view in the field.Miradre (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Loughlin and Mackintosh wrote that there is insufficient evidence to make any claim about genetics. Their work is published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The second abridged edition of Rushton's book was self-published and 50 pages long. The survey you mention was originally just a short paper of less than 10 pages. On wikipedia editors are asked to be very careful about evaluating sources. That's why we have WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two things here. Rushton's r/K theory and the theory that IQ is partially genetic. Regarding the first, again see Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior. Regarding the second, see for example this: Miradre (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Confused or not, my own feeling at the moment is that it is best to wait for Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators to formulate a motion that clarifies discretionary sanctions, including topic bans. That would apply in particular to WP:ARBR&I. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead of this article appears to be some of the worst WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time, in a rather bald attempt to mitigate the widespread condemnation of the topic's claims. This does not appear to be WP:DUE and therefore is not WP:NPOV. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again see Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior. Consdiering all the authors there are a considerable group of researchers agreeing with the theory.Miradre (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That section does not demonstrate "a considerable group of researchers agreeing with the theory" -- it shows that Rushton and his collaborators, Figueredo (in conjunction with assorted collaborators) & a single paper paper by Kanazawa agrees with the theory. "considerable"? I don't think so. In any case this is utterly irrelevant to the WP:WEASEL in the lead -- which does not discuss these "Later favorable studies". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget some lead names. Anyhow, if one count all the researchers who have written these papers, not just the lead name, you get a considerable group who agrees with Rushton in peer-reviewed papers. But I agree, the lead should be changed to mention the favorable research, it seems unduly biased by only mentioning criticism against the book.Miradre (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets look at the last names of the researchers who have written peer-reviewed papers agreeing with the theory: Around 39 researchers, 11 lead authors. Hardly fringe.Miradre (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kanazawa *Templer *Veselka *Schermer *Petrides *Cherkas *Spector *Vernon *Erdle *Irwing *Booth *Bons *Ando *Hur *Barbaranelli *Figueredo *Vasquez *Brumbach *Schneider *Sefcek *Tal *Hill *Wenner *Kirsner *Jacobs *Charles *Egan *Voracek *Linden *Scholte *Cillessen *Nijenhuis *Segers *Amigó *Caselles *Micó  *Jensen *Lynn *Črovović
 * It's done by counting, is it? Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A high count certainly helps.Miradre (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you counted how many have rejected it as nonsensical pseudoscience?
 * But that is WP:OR. It is not possible to evaluate primary sources and that is not how wikipedia is edited. Please read this. ARBR&I. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Presence amply demonstrated.Miradre (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this article falls under far more stringent rules than other wikipedia articles, because of the ArbCom case. You have been given an official notification of those special rules, which include in particular WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already replied regarding SPA at the AE case. Since you are now diverting to other issues, I take it that you are no longer wish to argue that this is a fringe theory?Miradre (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this thread is not to establish whether a theory is fringe or not. Maunus' initial statement seems correct on all points. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the Fringe theories noticeboard. If we have concluded that the theory is not fringe the maybe we should discuss other matters elsewhere?Miradre (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have not so concluded, so your point (like much of the rest of what you have said here) is irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many of those 25 are prominent in their own right? I could put together larger numbers, and more prominent names, supporting all sorts of lunacy. And as NONE OF THIS IS CITED IN THE LEAD IT IS STILL UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO MY ORIGINAL POINT! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Hrafn, please don't shout :) Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reply immediately above. But I agree the lead should be changed. It should also mention these supporting studies.Miradre (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre appears to be proposing tendentious edits to an article covered directly by WP:ARBR&I, breaking several of the principles laid down by ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which principles?Miradre (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ARBR&I. Please read it carefully as you appear not to be using primary sources carefully or, as recommended, through a secondary source. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned one secondary source. Please read my first reply in this thread.Miradre (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the editor that has included statements about these racent papers, primary sources, in the article, making the evaluation yourself. You need that evaluation to be made by a secondary source. Here is the principle of ArbCom in full: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The last sentence says that what you are attempting to do at the moment cannot be done on wikipedia by a wikipedia editor. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not making any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources" in the article. I just cite what they say. Now, regarding if it is a fringe theory, look at the encyclopedia, if you want a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are not in a position to "cite what they say". That is an assessment, because in creating a summary, or even selecting one sentence, a wikipedia editor is making a subjective choice. That is why secondary sources are required, particularly in a controversial area. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not disallowed according to your own quote. By the way, I hope that if you are consistent you are also arguing for removing all primary criticisms of Rushton.Miradre (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you ignore my original point while wittering on and on and on about the IRRELEVANT Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior, then I WILL SHOUT AT YOU! I discussed problems in the lead, you replied "Again see Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior." I may as well "see" the Matrix trilogy for all the relevance it has to my point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: how many of Miradre's much ballyhooed "25" even have PhDs (let alone in relevant subjects)? Hill doesn't. How many of them are, like Hill, are just grad students performing research under the direction of others? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Refining my point, the real issue is not how many authors have got their names attached to papers supporting Rushton but how many established scholars in the field of psychology find merit in his work? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is 33 researchers at moment. I think the point of the theory not being a fringe theory is demonstrated. Now, regarding the lead, do you have a suggestion for how it can be restated? Miradre (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many of those 33 (or whatever other number) are merely grad students doing what their prof told them to do? I would remove the weasel-word "although", the cherry-picked Knudson fragment and the parading of honors in attempting to make him look respectable -- particularly the Guggenheim fellowship (as Knudson points out that Rushton's application for it omitted all mention of his work on racialism). I would suggest attempting to find reliable (preferably authoritative) secondary sources that weigh the balance between Rushton's detractors and defenders. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. We are misunderstanding one another. I thought we are talking about his theories since this is the fringe theory noticeboard. In particular the article on the book on the rK theory. But you are talking about the article about him. Should not this be in the WP:BLPN noticeboard?Miradre (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course this is about the article on him! See the title of this thread -- which explicitly links to that article. The use of WP:WEASEL-wording in the lead of that article in order to make him and his WP:FRINGE claims look more respectable is fully within the brief of this forum. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the text states "The articles affected are Race and crime, Race and crime in the US and Race, Evolution and Behavior." I have never been involved in the Rushton Article but in the others together with Maunus who created this thread. I think we should definitely mention the many others reserachers supporting his rK theory. But the rK theory is only one part of Rushton's research. Another aspect is IQ research. Another is ethnic nespotism. Neither of these are fringe theories so I think this should fall under WP:BLPN. Miradre (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: and I would note that Miradre has not even attempted to address my question about her "25" "33" (or whatever). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have. "I think the point of the theory not being a fringe theory is demonstrated." But I can clarify. WP:FRINGE states "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." and "Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds." The many sources demonstrates that this does not apply. Regardless of if not all of the researchers are PhD.Miradre (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No you had not! Your statement was an invalid conclusion based upon the very same faulty argument that my question was challenging -- your claim that your "25" "33" (or whatever) in some was demonstrates that Rushton's claims are not WP:FRINGE, when a number of those named were (i) not independent (as they were working under the direction of others) & (ii) in any case not sufficiently well-qualified to act as independent sources of confirmation. What you have is a small number of papers, most of which seem to be centered around Figueredo or Rushton himself -- that is very thin evidence of respectability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And at least some of those papers were published in Personality and Individual Differences, whose peer review process Knudson(1991) impugns. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are talking about Rushton now and not the rK theory now? Rushton has done research in several other areas that are definitely not fringe like IQ. Regarding rK theory, the numbers are not small. There are 500 citations in Google scholar for the book. 70 for "general factor of personality" and "Rushton" which is the more specific personality theory which has only been in existence since 2008.Miradre (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am talking about your statement "Around 33 researchers. Hardly fringe." -- as should be blindingly obvious (and which argument you still have failed to adequately defend). Mere citation does not indicate endorsement, so your "500 citations" argument is likewise invalid. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both critical and supporting scientific sources indicate notability if nothing else. I am certainly not trying to claim that the theory is the mainstream consensus. Only that is not a personal, fringe theory restricted to Rushton. The many papers and researchers I have cited, and there are others that could be added, indicate that it is a theory that is taken seriously but certainly not proved. I hope we can agree on this? Miradre (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that this is WP:FTN, not WP:N/N -- so your point is irrelevant (YET AGAIN). "not personal" ≠ not WP:FRINGE, by a long shot. You have not even come close to meeting the burden of proof of "a theory that is taken seriously but certainly not proved". All you have is a small number of papers, published by a small circle of lead-researchers, some of them in a questionable journal. That leaves us on the WP:FRINGE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it somewhat strange that you summarily reject peer-reviewed papers by many different researchers as fringe. I count 8 different lead authors at the moment.Miradre (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will stop for now at 11 lead researchers and a total of 39 researchers who have found support for the theory in 26 peer-reviewed studies. See Race, Evolution, and_Behavior. I hope that this, as well as the Encyclopedia mentioned in my first post in this thread, should be enough.Miradre (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to exactly what part of WP:FRINGE is the theory a fringe theory? The text states that a single peer-reviewed source may not be enough. As I have pointed out there are many more.Miradre (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The hereditary position is not fringe. Rushton's theory about Blacks being sex hungry, criminal morons because of different evolutionary trajectories from whites is. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on the partially-genetic theory for racial IQ differences. Regarding Rushton's theory, why is it fringe (apart from the theory being emotionally unpleasant and I just don't like it)?Miradre (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in this field, but based upon what I've read to date, it is fringe because (i) it takes a very superficial and mutable evolutionary feature (skin colour), and attempts to show that they explain differences in far deeper and more complex features (such as intelligence) & (ii) because African genetics is far more heterogeneous than European, rendering any comparison largely meaningless. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On my first point, it is no more reasonable than to test that eye color is related to intelligence -- and probably about as likely to result in a false positive. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you are misrepresenting the theory. It talks about averages group difference. Furthermore, personality differences are not necessarily bad. For example, excessive conformity to others may prevent creativity and new ideas. Aggressiveness may often be good for getting things done. And so on.Miradre (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it has been uniformly rejected by the scientific community as junk science motivated by racism. And oh, so he only say that blacks are on average more stupid, more sexhungry and more prone to crime. Thats a lot better...·Maunus· ƛ · 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating that it is uniformly rejected is simply false. At moment the article have 26 peer-reviewed studies by 11 lead researchers and a total of 39 researchers who have found support for the theory. See Race, Evolution, and_Behavior. As well as the Encyclopedia mentioned in my first post in this thread.Miradre (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets dwell on this for a second and see whether fringe science bells ring: Rushton has been reprimanded by his own university for requiring students to submit measurements of their penis size and ejaculation length as required part of coursework... His science has been called "This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton’s racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the “science” of Rushton’s trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists" by the editor of American Anthropologist, an Evolutionary anthropologist when Rushton tried to advertise his book there. His own dean has said that by publishing the book has "lost his scientific credibility", members of his own department at UWO have published denouncements of his scientific methods, his own publisher backed out and had the remaining copies of the book destroyed after Rushton mailed it to every anthropologiost in America...fringe?·Maunus· ƛ · 12:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks are not relevant for validity of research. Let me just say they are misrepresentations, especially your biased description. Rushton have many times written that Jews are the group with highest IQ so I find the claims of neo-Nazi particularly weird. Anthropologists do not decide truth in all branches of science. As an anthropology student yourself you should know that not all US anthropologists agree that races do not exist. Outside the US even more so.Miradre (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably also has many black friends.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this had to do with his research... Are you really sure that the opponents of Rushton have the moral high ground? Lets look at IQ. If there are average genetic IQ differences, then the groups with a lower average will have increasing trouble functioning in the complex world of today. Unemployment, crime, drug use, and so on will be what happens to many. This problem is hard to fix so long there is a denial of what causes it. Those with lower IQ needs help.Miradre (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the problem is denial of the actual cause of the IQ gap, but that doesn't matter here.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus has done various mass deletions and insertions of unsourced materials and material not in the sources so the list of studies is not complete. See the old list before Maunus's deletions for all the studies.Miradre (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dating Creation
This article has accumulated quite a bit of material based upon WP:FRINGE, WP:SELFPUB and/or very-outdated sources (some old, but quite a bit newly introduced). I've attempted to prune much of it out, but further scrutiny may be desirable. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

is back in action on this article, restoring citations to Helene Blavatsky, the Christian YEC journal Creation (for Arabic creation dates), a book published in 1830 (employed as a secondary source), the self-published webpage of Barry Setterfield, and a Wiki, among others. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

-All lies above, from a biased evolutionist who is deleting any material linked to creationism or christianity. For starters the YEC journal quoted, was itself quoting Robert Young Concordance, a source which has been ACCEPTED as valid and not-biased on the Young Earth Creationism page. Also note, it was virtually me who has spend hours of my own time researching and i put up the ancient greek and roman, egyptian, sumerian, septuagint, masoretic etc dates to the dating creation article. All was fine and it was left up untouched until Harafn (who is clearly biased against creation) started stalking me (leaving abuse on my page) and secondly reverting all my edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be solely a dispute about the reliability or not of certain sources, and I don't see anyone proposing or making significant changes to the article's content or balance. So I think this discussion should stay on Talk:Dating Creation. Or take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want a third opinion about the sources in question. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll add this to my report at ANI concerning Anglo Pyramidologist's personal attacks (he was blocked last week for them but continues). As for this particular issue, I've removed the sources and added a fact tag. You'd think we could find something reliable from say the last half-century, and if not I doubt that it should be there. We certainly should not be using 2nd hand sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids
Issues raised at WP:RSN but needs attention (including all the honorifics probably). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Marrs
I'm currently in an edit war over a number of JFK related articles with a user who wishes to extensively cite conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs, who writes on a wide number of conspiracy topics promoting JFK plots, bigfoot, psychic powers, 911 plots, etc. "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008) This seems to me exactly the type of material RS was designed to keep out of Wikipedia and that's what the consensus is on the main articles involving the JFK assassination. But I'm not sure how to illustrate that to this new and apparently pro-conspiracy user. He also removed citations to a conspiracy debunking RS in response to my removal of Marrs citations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Illyrians and Illyria
and an IP that's likely him are single-mindedly pushing the familiar "Illyrians=Albanians" POV  on that and several articles. Discussion with user seems pointless ("According to me..."). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Measuring rod
This new article was being used as a vehicle for Egyptian measurements being used to build megalithic monuments, can others please keep an eye on it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Egyptology is weak point but I thinks its correct for the most part as is; though I can see it going down hill fast. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see some one more knowledgeable is raising points on the talk page The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've proposed that this be merged into ruler as historical material - seems like the right move to me. feel free to comment over at talk:ruler.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [now at ANI]
COI linkspammer making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * UH I am posting to Ani sinc its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Intelligent Design‎
appears to wish to see all scientific criticism of this organisation's views, all mention of its fundamentalist ties, and all mention of the UK government's prohibition of teaching ID (all of which is sourced to mainstream newspaper articles specifically on the topic of the Centre) expunged. Further oversight may be fruitful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This case has currently been referred to the Mediation Cabal for review. Thanks, AnupamTalk 08:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DISPUTE, it is premature to attempt "Formal mediation" before an attempt is made to resolve it on a noticeboard such as this one. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should provide examples. I haved looked through recent edits and saw that Anupam removed, "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution promoted by intelligent design advocates are invalid."  That statement is taken from a comment in a Guardian article.  The way it was presented was POV.  It would be better to write that the Centre was criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth.  Any criticism must be specific to the Centre rather than ID in general.  TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the Centre was not explicitly "criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth" in the Guardian article. We had a science educator saying that these would be bad things, but did not explicitly say that C4ID had "asked" for them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam is an SPA. His edits at Atheism over the last few months have been solely to insert information that shows that atheists are somehow inferior to religious people, or that secular nations are inferior to religious nations.  I think TFD makes a good general point, but I think the situation is more complicated than that.  WP:FRINGE states that, Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.  I think that applies here.  The entry contains statements about intelligent design and as such the current level of acceptance of that theory should be stated in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor is continuing to be a real headache at Atheism and at Irreligion ... consistently pushing an anti-secular pro-religious agenda. I'm unsure of where to turn for help.  Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll put those two articles on my watchlist, though I expect they may both be minefields. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Griswaldo has perceived an agenda rather than assume good faith, which saddens me as a longstanding editor here. I have kindly explained my insertions well on talk pages and have provided several sources for my insertions, while User:Griswaldo has provided none in favor of synthesizing information to fit his point of view. User:Griswaldo has removed much content from articles despite being referenced by reputable organisations such as the Pew Research Center. As a result of his actions, he was given a warning by an administrator who was going to block him on the spot for his actions. Rather than trusting in either of our words, however, I encourage all of you to actually examine the issues at the talk page of the Irreligion article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please do have a look. Anupam is trying to add information that is not actually about the topics of the entries.  For instance, at Irreligion he keeps trying to add a reference to recent research by Robert Putnam.  The sources is a very short piece from Religious News Service and is hosted on the Pew website.  Putnam's research looks at the correlation between levels of civic participation and levels of participation in a moral community.  Where the source refers to "secular" individuals it is not refering to the "irreligious" at all, but to those who are at the lowest levels of participation in a moral community.  It simply doesn't relate to irreligion, but instead to things like church attendance.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will explain the situation here and respond to User:Griswaldo's concern's above. With regards to the Harvard University study by Prof. Robert Putnam, the respected sources state that the dichotomy is between religious individuals and nonreligious individuals. I will demonstrate this through the titles and quotes of the sources:

Pew Research Center</U> The title of this reference is "Religious people make better citizens, study says." The following quote is taken from the article: The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones.

USA Today</U> The title of this reference is "Religious citizens more involved -- and more scarce?" The following quote is taken from the article: The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones.

It is evident that these sources do discuss nonreligious individuals. Not only the Pew Research Center, but also USA Today states that "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones." I have not made any interpretation or synthesis of information but have rather, presented the information in both references, which openly present a dichotomy between religious and nonreligious individuals. I have only simply repeated this original quote, which is given in both the Pew Research Center and USA Today articles. User:Griswaldo has unfairly characterized me of pushing a position despite the fact that I have simply repeated the same quote given in both references. User:Griswaldo is confusing the premise with supporting examples. The article clearly states that: The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it's the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism. Putnam calls them "supercharged friends" and the more people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is: if someone from your "moral community" asks you to volunteer for a cause, it's really hard to say no. "Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league," Putnam said. The effect is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don't have any friends there look more like secularists than fellow believers when it comes to civic participation. "It's not faith that accounts for this," Putnam said. "It's faith communities." The premise of the article discusses the behaviour of religious and nonreligious individuals, which is given in the first two quotes from the Pew Research Center and USA Today. As the references mention, church/mosque/temple attendance may be the reason for this behaviour, but it is not the finding of the study. The issue should not be with me here, but with USA Today and the Pew Research Center. As a result the information should be restored to the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * About Irreligion article - Not sure how this un-comprehensive  - narrowly focused  study merits inclusion in an article that deals with a concept as a whole (meaning world wide). Perhaps there is an American article that this would be more appropriate in. It would need some balance in its approach however - as there are many "American focused studies" that would contradict this statements.  Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy, thank you for your comments. In my opinion as well, placing the information in the article on Irreligion in the United States does seem to be a good idea. Also, I agree that if we are to place the information in the main article, we should add some balance, such as a clause that states "In the United States" or a similar phrase. I would appreciate if you could also address my previous comment above. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New and possibly fringe articles


Both are recent creations by, who appears to be a WP:SPA on the topic. Both are cited purely to (generally related-party) unreliable sources (PR releases, Nature Preceding articles, blogs, etc), and I cannot find much in the way of substantive coverage in mainstream sources (this 25yo New Scientist article was the best I could find). I thought I'd post them here for comment, prior to AfDing them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * afd'd Periannan. lots of edits after requests for reliable sources, none found.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Megalithic Yard
This was a redirect to Pseudoscientific metrology. The redirect has been removed and it now is asserting its existence as fact, worse than that as based on an Egyptian measurement based on what I don't believe to be a reliable source. It says "A Megalithic Yard is the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 2 by 1 Remens..... Objective studies by statisticians have now established it as a fully accepted unit of measurement." - one of the sources for this last sentence says, on the page cited, "Ihc some ideas can be applied to Thorn's concept o£ the prehistoric unit of length, the 'megalithic yard';   to accept it says Heggie (1981, 39) one must find out how well a 'quantum hypothesis' (the idea that a certain unit of length exists) fits a random set of data and then see whether the same unit fits the set of diameters of stone circles better.      If it docs the prehistoric 'yard' is acceptable. The alternative practical scientific test of this hypothesis is to look for measuring rods of the right length on archaeological sites, and for historical evidence of the use of the same or a similar unit elsewhere (MacKie 1977a, 53)." and then on p.263 "Professor Thorn's geometric designs and megalithic yard are, in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence available. ..." Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same editor as Measuring rod by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also need some referencing on Alexander Thom. And not by a skeptic, or so we are ordered in the edit summaries. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rothschild family
I hope this is the right place. So, I had no clue what was special about Rothschild family when I first began reverting an IP editor who claimed the article to be one big racist conspiracy theory. Since then the article has drawn IP attention saying that it's a whitewashed piece of propaganda, and saying that there's a cabal protecting the article. Because the article seems to have a fair potential to attract extreme opinions, I'd like a few extra eyes to ensure it stays neutral. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone
I've taken this to AfD (I should be asleep). It's one of 3 articles about very minor artefacts, all created to promote the Megalithic Yard (now at DYK which is being used to promote fringe ideas). Dougweller (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Apostle
Does the section in our article go too far towards endorsing the tradition that Thomas evangelised India? The tradition seems not to be accepted by historians and now not by the Catholic Church either. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not fringe issue per se It could probably use trimming and add a little more "traditionally believed to have." Its outdated theory but not terribly serious as most secular historians and secular religious studies scholars postulate. However it is widely believed enough especially by Christians in India and many other groups refuse to give and defend it frequently. This is difficult type of thing to cover neutrally. I would seeking help from Wikiproject Christianity with some one who is more knowledgeable about ancient Biblical nuances. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking: Modern banking methods makes the money multiplier a very unsatisfactory economic tool
Is the following fringe?

A number of highly respected central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier is a very unsatisfactory way of describing how credit is created in the real world, mainly because it ignores the influences of prices , and the way that modern central banking manages the money supply.

From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. In essence central bankers gave up attempts to directly control the amount of money in the economy and instead moved to indirect methods by targeting interest rates.

Additionally, although when you look at a banks balance sheet, it appears new deposits are causing loans to be created, in reality banks create credit so that new loans create new deposits in the banking system. (Howells P. Page 33)

Therefore banks do not as a policy 'lend their customers money' but rather as a policy 'they lever, their balance sheet' by creating commercial bank money, while simultaneously managing the liquidity risk this creates for them.

In practice, rather than lending available "excess reserves" as a customer lending policy, as described in the base money multiplier model, banks tend to lend their "excess reserves" to other financial institutions - often on an overnight basis, so that they have these deposits available earning interest, while still being available to meet customer withdrawal requests. (Howells P, Page 36)

Seth B. Carpenter, a monetary policy and financial markets researcher at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Selva Demiralp concluded the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States.

Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists, including for example the former chief economist of the Bank of England and current Governor, Mervyn King, and the UK's foremost central banking economist Charles Goodhart. In 2007, Goodhart said, "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post-Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this."

Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

In 1994, Mervyn King said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake'

Goodhart, formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' Ten years later he said ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’

Because of these modern banking systems, banks are not truelly lending existing central bank money, but are instead creating money while managing the liabilities this creates for them by having lines of credit, and access to a highly liquid money market - at rates near to those targeted by the central bank. It is true the banks are continually getting deposits of central bank money, and they are most certainly paying out central bank money as required, but deposits do not create loans but rather demand for loans creates deposits. After a loan is demanded, and existing sources of central bank money are sought, as required, whatever additional Central bank money necessary to achieve a banking system balance, at the prevailing central bank policy rate, is supplied on demand, at a price, by the central banks (King 1994).

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is fringe or not, but I can say that it is written in essay form, and uncritically presents a particular viewpoint on the topic. It is therefore unsuitable for use as an encyclopaedia article in its present state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment the main page uncritically presents an alternative viewpoint supported by so called mainstream economists and refuses to include a neutral wiki voice. It simply says here is how it works without demonstrating there is a long standing dispute. So the other point of view is already presented elsewhere.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Juddward, if you have that in your userspace, I could try and help edit it there. Ocaasi c 13:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks i tried contacting you but could not find a method......and then got side tracked. All of my stuff is currently in my user space as of yesterday.  The issue really is are you able to edit the existing "deposit multiplier" 'how it works' section to show NPOV without your work being reverted?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Example_of_deposit_multiplication


 * For example i altered the text of the link for that table to show the second paragraph of citation 20 from NYFED where previously in wiki discussion it was pointed out the first paragraph was highly misleading without the second paragraph that i added.   And now that citation is no longer valid on the internet but cannot be edited without a revert.  The main text however continues to present the relending model as a fact.  To be honest if you alter my user space it will not be very helpful unless we get together and decide what should be present to begin with.  If you edit the current main page and then observe what happens i think it would be more helpful?Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Fringe? Unlikely.  Minority view?  Probably.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. Also, while all the statements are sourced, it is not clear whether they represent academic, or whether the way they are put together reflects anyone's opinions but the writer's.  It has the appearance of advocating a specific interpretation.  TFD (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As i indicated above, the main page talks about the relending model as fact. The alternative view area is the only place allowed to attempt to get a balanced NPOV. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * For more context, User:Andrewedwardjudd originally attempted to rewrite the Fractional reserve banking article from this perspective, while every indication (even from his own sources) shows this to be a minority view. After attempting to do so, he was informed that he had a burden of proof to meet if he wanted to alter the long-standing coverage of the article so radically.  I believe he has now ended those efforts, but recently seems to have a desire to fill the "alternative views" section of the article with an overwhelming amount of material about this viewpoint, even after being cautioned about WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE.  BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bigk here is one of the major problems at the moment for editors wanting to create NPOV. In black and white he has demanded that i show the minority view is widely accepted by the so called mainstream view before it is allowed to be included on wiki or by definition it is fringe.  Bigk does nothing useful at all to assist in understanding why he deletes citations other than repeating endlessly fringe undue weight etc etc and demanding i prove my citations are not fringe.  Even when the formost central banking economist in the english speaking world was shown to object in very strong terms to the way wiki is written, via his quoted comments, it changed nothing at all - the relending model is shown as fact.    Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Conspiracy theory proposed at WP:ITN/C for the main page
Some helpful eyes would WP:ITN/C for the Obama rebuttal to the Birther conspiracies The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical articles discussed in the latest Association for Skeptical Enquiry newsletter
The Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry discusses Levitation (paranormal), and other articles, our policy on sources, problems editing fringe articles, etc. advising skeptics not to edit Wikipedia. A pdf file can be found at. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that this noticeboard goes unmentioned. Some of what Buckner says is, I'm afraid, true. Somewhere along the line the project is going to have to make commitments to cut off editing much more quickly in defending articles against cranks; it can't be that neutral without allowing the processes Buckner describes to gain the upper hand. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, you are seriously deserved mention in the article as one the top fighters. Its true though the lack of motivation in fighting psudeo science is certainly an issue. We need more tools and admistrators willing to impose sanctions in the topic area when civil point of view pushing breaks out! I dont have time to argue with white nationalists who spend 12 hours a day inserting their crap on here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was so good it almost convinced. Who is the former ArbCom member who they say had an economic interest in NLP and who did he/she ban? Has this been sorted out since?·Maunus· ƛ · 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never believe anything you read in the Skeptical Enquiry newsletter ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ? Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear as if this editor is still editing Wikipedia articles. Their last 50 edits - spanning 2 years - are all to user talk pages.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless a former member of ArbCom. He also created History of neuro-linguistic programming. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that that particular part of the article is probably garbled. They might conceivably be thinking of, but that's just a guess. Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. It appears I looked at the wrong page history.  I have struck thru my above comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that though the article accurately expressed a basic problem with fringe pages, it was seriously garbled and a bit alarmist. It quoted selling prices for an adminship ($1000?) and an article ($200?) as though this was an established practice, and ended on a sour "don't bother editing" note. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me note that I just placed a pointer to that article on Jimbo's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is going to be one of those megabyte threads on his talk page that goes nowhere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note lets make this entire thing a productive discussion... What can we do to reform the Fringe topic area to cut out these problems? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors of this board may interest themselves in the following discussion regarding truth in our policy on WP:V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fringe topic area is less the problem than individual editors with in it. Both 'true believers' and 'skeptics'.  If we who frequent this board keep at the nitty gritty of it and keep our personal feelings about both 'true believers' and 'skeptics' mostly to ourselves we can get articles that are not crap.  This topic area always runs into problems when we veer away from en.wikipedia's 5 pillars, and when we personalize the issues.  I think the author of that piece didn't mention this board as it is working to make the problem better, and doesn't fit into the overall theme of 'wikipedia is evil and full of cranks'.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree it seems its deliberate assault on us in the topic area by Banned user. According to WP:OUTING we cant say his user name and two mentions of such have been oversighted just today. Go on Google (S)he is quite proud of the ruckus. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I certainly don't care who. There are more than a few people who feel that way, I'd imagine.  There have been lots of users banned for their own behavior and inability to play well with others.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia review: . Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * wow. some people have way more time on their hands, and way more emotional investiment in wikipedia than I do.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations
This case has been brought up for RfC/U here where it's about to die for lack of a second certifier. However, there are several Wikipedians who have had similar problems with the same editor over a period of several years on 9/11 related articles. And they have endorsed the discussion of the behavior of WLRoss without being able to certify it.

The fact that RfC/U is about to die for lack of a second will be understood by WLRoss to be an official endorsement of his behavior by the Wikipedia community. This result must be avoided. The number of people who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and  POV-pusher is significant. Perhaps the RfC/U is the wrong venue and I should have started here.

Essentially, in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations there are two opinions:


 * The grand jury ruled properly by not indicting anyone for child prostitution and kidnapping, and declaring it was all a "carefully crafted hoax." The principal accuser, Alisha Owen, was appropriately found guilty on eight counts of perjury for making these false accusations. The chief investigator, Gary Caradori, died in an aircraft accident when the small plane he was piloting broke up in mid-air.
 * The grand jury proceedings and the perjury trial of Alisha Owen were rigged. The accused really did run an elaborate child prostitution ring reaching from Omaha to Washington DC, and sacrificed child prostitutes in satanic rituals. The chief investigator, Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. Dozens, if not hundreds of people ranging from the grand jury to the trial court judge and prosecutor have participated in the cover-up and not one of them has leaked in all these years.

I think #1 is the majority opinion, and #2 is a minority/fringe opinion per WP:FRINGE. The only official government body that has not adopted or endorsed #1 is the "Franklin Committee" of five Ohio state legislators, who also refused to endorse #2. They just said that some more investigating should have been done. Opinion #2 is, however, embraced enthusiastically by known conspiracy theorists and political extremists such as Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

The article's Talk page and its Archive 2, and the aforementioned RfC/U provide sufficient discussion although more discussion here may be chosen as appropriate. But my suggestion is that WLRoss should receive a topic ban from all articles where a conspiracy theory has been alleged, specifically including all 9/11 related articles and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. The length of the topic ban should be determined by the community but I suggest one year. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that this falls within the remit of the fringe theories noticeboard, and even if it did, making suggestions as to how it should be dealt with (i.e. advocating topic bans etc) might possibly be seen as canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Phoenix and Winslow is hardly shy about canvassing; he does so regularly. Apostle12 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll get a decision here from the community on whether #2 is a fringe theory, a minority opinion, or as WLRoss claims, simply "one of several significant opinions." Then if it isn't the third of these, and he continues to push it like a bulldozer, I'lll seek sanctions against him at WP:ANI. Fair enough, Andy? But the remit of WP:FTN specifically states that this is the venue to "Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories." And in my opinion, that's what is happening here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You have framed the two opinions incorrectly, further tainting the second opinion by linking it to Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin--I agree that these three do support fringe theories, and I have advocated removal of their mention in the article; it is you who have insisted that they remain, even that LaRouche be highlighted in the lede, despite objections by ALL the other current editors.


 * You have been invited to participate in our ongoing discussion of the disputed sections of the article, based on sourcing that you yourself accept, yet you have consistently declined participation, most recently insisting that it is a waste of your time. After experiencing continual reverts of very thoughtful editing, we attempted to limit our discussion to specific sections of the article--the lede, for example, where we were close to consensus--so that we might make some progress. Without participating in such targeted discussions AT ALL, you wrote the following:


 * I have no trouble at all with discussion. I have trouble with completely pointless and unproductive discussions; my time is valuable and if I'm going to waste it, I'd much rather be playing a computer game than arguing with the two of you over your latest WP:FRINGE violation. It appears that WLRoss has a long and colorful history of POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory, and unfortunately, presenting his behavior in an RfC may be the most productive way to finally resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no possible way to characterize our targeted discussion of two specific points in the lede (the party affiliation of Lawrence King, and whether or not to include LaRouche) as "POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory."


 * You seem to have unlimited time to invest in a search and destroy mission to unfairly eliminate your chief adversary, WLRoss, first through a now-failed RfC/U (which you threatened me with also) and now by seeking sanctions against him at WP:ANI. For now you have successfully distracted all of us from further development of the article, because we have needed to mount a defense against your unwarranted attacks. And you have asserted ownership of the article, constantly reverting to the version you prefer in violation of WP:OWN.


 * My time is limited today and tomorrow; even penning this short response has made me late for a scheduled appointment. Come the weekend I will reframe the dispute as I, and I am sure others, see it. No one--neither WLRoss, myself, or the other involved editors--are "pushing fringe/minority theory."  You, however, are relentlessly pushing your own point of view, and you have amply demonstrated your unwillingness to participate in discussion, despite our every attempt to engage you.  Your constant, wholesale, sterile reverts constitute disruptive editing at its worst.  More later. Apostle12 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This notification as well as the Rfc should hopefully be indication to WLRoss that there are multiple editors in various arenas that have had issues with some of his focus. My perspective on WLRoss is in regards to 911 related articles where his editing overall seems to try to enhance, lets say, the skeptical or fringe viewpoint. I have never bothered to see where else WLRoss has been editing, so to find out that he has been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911 indicates to me that WLRoss has a pretty sleptical nature...that in itself is fine...where it isn't fine is where this skeptical nature leads one to try and manipulate articles to jive with that trait...especially when it begins to violate NPOV policy and in particular the section regarding due weight. Apostle12, I have looked over the editing history of the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations as well as some of the talkpage history and I don't see that your rebuttal is supported by the facts.--MONGO 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If MONGO has not "bothered to see where else" I have been editing, how can he claim I have "been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911"? A look at my editing history will show my original involvement with the Franklin article was in a RFC to determine a name for the article. My next involvement was seeing the article turn up in my watchlist three months ago indicating deletion of material. I believe this is the only article containing "conspiracy" claims, apart from 911, that I have edited since joining Wikipedia. Claiming that Apostle12's rebuttal is not supported is unbelievable and I'm beginning to wonder if his involvement here is due to a personal animosity towards me.


 * Phoenix and Winslow has yet to provide any diffs that support that I have promoted conspiracy theory in this article and I believe he will never be able to do so as I have never added anything to the article implying that children were sacrificed in satanic rituals or that Caradori was murdered as he is implying. I also have not edited that the jury was rigged despite evidence (signed affadavits from jurors and other parties) supporting that it was compromised. A perusal of Phoenix and Winslow's edits will show that he is objecting to including all the Grand Juries findings (because to do so would require including mention of what else they investigated), some of the Franklin Committees findings, the Franklin Committees brief, mention that Caradori died and basically anything that may cast the slightest doubt on the Grand Jury. He has even insisted that the text say that the Grand Jury threw out all of the allegations despite the jury finding that some were proven and reccommending that some of the accused be charged. It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow is aggresively supporting the inclusion of fringe theories despite efforts by editors, including myself, to minimise mention to avoid the implication that the Franklin Committee endorses them. Phoenix and Winslow states that the article is only about the Grand Jury findings and that everything else is WP:UNDUE. Phoenix and Winslow also insists that all edits have 100% consensus with the exception of deletion for WP:UNDUE which in effect gives him ownership of the article and is the source of the dispute. Phoenix and Winslow has been invited to participate in consensus building many times by several editors yet continually declines which is not constructive. Phoenix and Winslow appears to have a battleground mentality which is shown clearly in the first two paragraphs of his opening statement. He brings up my 911 editing despite me having no significant involvement in those articles for almost two years and he considers partisan support that he has personally canvassed as "significant" proof that I should be banned. The fact that Phoenix and Winslow failed to find a second certifier for the RFC should be a sign that my editing was not the root problem with the article. Wayne (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely refuting all the inaccuracies presented by Apostle12 and WLRoss would take an enormous amount of time and words. I have already linked the article, its Talk page, and the RfC/U which was well supported by a half dozen editors, but only one certifier where two are required. At the RfC/U plenty of diffs are provided. As a subtle POV-pusher with many years of experience, WLRoss has been careful to avoid creating more than one certifier for RfC/U, and has skillfully stopped at a point just short of what he believes would alert the Wikipedia community to his agenda. Nevertheless, the pattern is clear. He steadily and relentlessly — give him an inch, he'll ask for another — increases the amount of space and weight devoted to details that support fringe theories, and seeks to introduce sources that are not reliable so that he can add even more of such details, even though they're unreliably sourced. He removes material that tends to undercut the credibility of fringe theories or support the majority opinion, and demands rock solid sourcing for it.


 * WLRoss added material about Caradori telling some other person that he suspected his plane would be sabotaged, and demanded rock solid sourcing for the official NTSB finding that the plane crash was an accident, so his claim that he has not "[implied] that Caradori was murdered" is false. If he chooses to deny it, I'll find the diffs and post them.


 * WLRoss seeks to remove any mention of Lyndon LaRouche, Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley from the lede, reduce any mention of them in the body of the article, and remove the entirely appropriate description of them as conspiracy theorists. The logical inference, in light of his other behavior, is that he believes association with these gentlemen and properly identifying them would discredit the fringe theory he seeks to promote. So his claim that he has never "promoted conspiracy theory in this article" is false; removing any indication that it is, in fact, conspiracy theory is a form of promotion. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.


 * WLRoss has repeatedly added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors, claiming that the jury "was compromised." So his claim that he has never "edited that the jury was rigged" is false. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.


 * The "partisan support" that I have allegedly "canvassed" consists of editors whom I have noticed in the edit histories as having dealt with him in the past. I did not notice any position for or against him. To completely destroy any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation, for several hours I was careful to notify only those editors who spoke out supporting him at RfC/U. Only after Apostle12 had posted (at substantial length) in his defense here did I notify anyone else.


 * Along the trail, such bedrock Wikipedia policies as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and of course WP:FRINGE lay broken. His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN even though WLRoss simply "[couldn't] see that happening." I ask only that anyone reviewing this take all of the facts into account before deciding what to do about all of this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious and is wasting not only my time but that of other editors. If Phoenix and Winslow was supported by " a half dozen editors" why could he not find a second certifier for the RFC/U? Phoenix and Winslow has linked the article and its Talk page as proof? Please provide diffs for my edits only without including those that were the reversion of everyones edits to an earlier page as you did for the RFC. Concerning your specific claims:
 * The reference to my editing 911 articles is a straw man argument. I have made only three edits to 911 articles over the past 18 months. The "several Wikipedians" Phoenix and Winslow claims had similar problems is false as I have had disputes with only one of those named (three years ago) and three of those named dont even edit 911 articles so cant have any experience with my behaviour.
 * I did not add any material about Caradori. I actually deleted some of the existing material about him, for example, I deleted that the plane crash was unexplained and also deleted mention of the sabotage and death threats against him.
 * Phoenix and Winslow claiming to read my mind (which he calls a "logical inference") is not evidence of anything. I gave my reasoning for not mentioning LaRouche in the lead and was supported by four editors. Phoenix and Winslow was the only editor opposing and due his continual reverting of its removal the edit is currently under discussion in Talk. Rather than reduce mention of LaRouche in the article body I expanded it by adding a sentence. I only mentioned in Talk that the mention may be too detailed. Is Phoenix and Winslow seriously claiming that removing conspiracy theory from an article is a form of conspiracy theory promotion?
 * I have not "added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors" to the article. I mentioned in Talk that the affadavits existed, Quote:Claims of a some form of "coverup" are supported by affidavits from reliable sources (including jurors from the Grand Jury).. If Phoenix and Winslow has any interest he could easily find photocopies of those affidavits.
 * Phoenix and Winslow claims to have canvassed editors who have dealt with me in the past stating I did not notice any position for or against him. Is it then merely coincidence that he only canvassed those who opposed me and neglected to canvass those who supported me? Claiming that by now including in this new noticeboard those who supported me, destroy[s] any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation is rather transparent and a bit too late to mitigate his original canvassing of editors he could count on to support him.
 * I ask only that anyone reviewing this actually read the edit diffs instead of taking Phoenix and Winslow's word on my editing.
 * Edit conflict; I just noticed that Phoenix and Winslow has added, Quote:His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN. In the first place I rarely used that source in the article (I'm not even sure if I actually did use it) and only argued that the author was reliable. There was originally no consensus (I believe it was 4 for yes and 3 for no) at the RSN on whether the publisher, which is used in many other articles, was a reliable source after which Phoenix and Winslow canvassed for more editors to comment. The result was five more votes for unreliable. I also point out that the diff Phoenix and Winslow posted proving I did not accept the RSN was written by me eight days before the RSN concluded. Wayne (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As it may be confusing to uninvolved editors as to what Phoenix and Winslow considers WP:UNDUE that supports conspiracy theories, this diff shows the disputed text that Phoenix and Winslow deleted which initiated his filing of the earlier WP:RFC and this WP:FTB. Wayne (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WLRoss or Wayne...it does appear he is trying to keep the innuendo at bay, whereby you're trying to add to it. This is the same pattern you have attempted on 911 articles....as I explained earlier, but will rephrase now, it was a revelation to me that fringe issues for you extended beyond the scope of 911 articles.--MONGO 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of interpretation - from my reading, mostly WLRoss was providing greater context, while P&W was removing that. It doesn't necessarily look like a fringe theories problem. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your interpretation, Bilby. Mongo's attempt to reframe it, below, is not accurate.  Sufficient context for the story to be discernible to Wikipedia readers; that is WLRoss' only goal, as it is mine. Apostle12 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Greater context in the sense of innuendo and fringe theories...yes, that is what WLRoss was trying to add.--MONGO 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a tad confused - which specific changes do you have a problem with? From what I can tell, the additions being disputed are sourced as well as other material in the article and often seem to be part of the Grand Jury findings. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you're missing is that the details which WLRoss and Apostle12 always seek to add tend to support WP:FRINGE theory. See my first post on this thread. Two theories are presented. Notice how Theory #2 sounds like a fringe theory, and notice how Apostle12 and WLRoss consistently add more and more and more material that tends to support the fringe theory. MONGO has had extensive previous experience with WLRoss on articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and has confirmed that this is the modus operandi of WLRoss: subtle POV-pushing in favor of a fringe theory, also known as a conspiracy theory, in violation of WP:FRINGE.
 * One detail of the fringe theory claims that the chief investigator, Gary Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. WLRoss and Apostle12 have consistently introduced material tending to support this ludicrous sabotage claim, and exclude material showing that the National Transportation Safety Board explicitly found that the plane crash was an accident. For example, Apostle12 added material reporting that Caradori told someone he thought his private plane might be sabotaged. It doesn't prove anything, but it tends to support the WP:FRINGE theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenix and Winslow is going too far. I have requested he post diffs to prove his claims regarding my editing yet he repeats the claims without providing them. I already posted that I have never added Caradori material to the article and I provided these two diffs showing that I deleted the sabotage and "murder" implications. The Transportation Board finding was only deleted (inadvertantly) when I reverted the page to an earlier version (three days older) in an attempt to stop the edit war, that page version also had no mention of sabotage or murder. Can he explain how adding the Grand Jury finding supports a fringe theory. Can he explain how naming the Webbs supports a fringe theory, especially when it was the Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board's investigation of the Webb case that was the primary reason that the Grand Jury was eventually called with the Webbs being one of the few people actually determined to be guilty by the Grand Jury. Note:Phoenix and Winslow not only wants mention of the Webbs excluded but the text changed to state that the Grand Jury threw out ALL the allegations. As Jarred Webb was subsequently charged on the basis of those allegations as were several others, this is obviously untrue. This dispute has nothing to do with numbered theories, it is just Phoenix and Winslow's way to put a spin on what are NPOV and non fringe edits that he doesn't like. I've already detailed my unrelated 911 editing yet Phoenix and Winslow continues to bring it up out of context. MONGO may have "extensive previous experience" with me but that is primarily in content disputes with me that he often loses. I stand by my record, most of my 911 edits are still in the articles despite my not being active in 911 articles for almost two years. I expect an apology for his false claims regrding my editing, his behaviour in this noticeboard, overall attitude in the previous dismissed noticeboard and yes...for his undisguised claims of page ownership. Phoenix and Winslow is the only editor of the four editing the article that is arguing for exclusion of those edits, he asserts that every edit must have his approval or go to mediation, this is clearly WP:OWN and inappropriate, it is time for an admin to bring this waste of time to an end. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay...we can do that...consider any further conspiracy theory POV pushing on your part to result in arbitration...we'll let the arbs decide it.--MONGO 04:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be turned down, as there seems to be a lack of evidence. Is there a diff which shows this? So far there are a lot of claims of conspiracy pushing, but looking at the diffs provided I don't see examples, except as explained by Wayne above. Lots of hand waving and accusations, but nothing concrete to look at. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not if that view is based on innuendo and speculation...you're bordering on BLP violations by adding such innuendo and you're making this article a coatrack with your constant POV pushing of such stuff.--MONGO 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)" I dont believe any of the proposed edits contain any BLP violations (Jarred Webb was charged so you can say he was), the accusations are tendentious and it seems likely that MONGOs decision to now edit the article may prevent constructive editing if he maintains this attitude. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite Bilbys statement MONGO now posts the following in the Franklin article Talk:
 * It's an odd coincidence I live in Omaha...I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not.--MONGO 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re MONGO. I rest my case. Wayne (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And now MONGO has begun to edit war in the article and edit disruptively, such as adding cite tags then deleting several hours later for no cite and deleting findings made by the Franklin Committe. He is also threatening editors with 3rr if they revert him and asks for the page to be locked which wasn't even needed when the original dispute was at it's worst. Such behavviour is unacceptable. Wayne (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the temporary locking of this page, as this may inspire some constructive dialogue. I now understand that editor Mongo's aggressively disruptive editing was likely inspired by his residence in Omaha, Nebraska where events connected with the Franklin case occurred. His statement, "I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not," makes it clear we are in for a tough time here, since dispassionate editing is already in short supply on this article.

I would suggest that we take this opportunity to look carefully at what constitute's "fringe" and what does not.

This is not a typical case, because we have two official bodies--the Franklin Committee, composed of five Nebraska state senators, and a Douglas county grand jury--who offered diametrically opposing views regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse and child prostitution as they affected average citizens, children, and prominent community leaders in Omaha, Nebraska. To accurately relate what happened in the Franklin case, the viewpoints of BOTH official bodies must find full expression in the article; neither viewpoint can be considered "fringe theory."

Because of Lawrence King's role as a prominent Republican, both in Omaha and in Washington D.C., some mention of his role as a high-rolling host of the Washington D.C. party scene, including connections to the Washington D.C. prostitution rings that came to light during the late 1980s, is probably legitimate. There were connections between what happened in Omaha and what happened in Washington D.C., and well-sourced description of these connections cannot be considered fringe theory.

That there ARE fringe theories associated with the Franklin case is undeniable. Mostly these have been associated with the larger implications of the case as it affected national events, especially in Washington D.C., extending into CIA involvement and international espionage. Allegations of child abduction for the purpose of recruitment into national and international child prostitution rings for the purpose of political extortion, espionage, and blackmail have dogged the Franklin case from the beginning. Some space in the article is already devoted to mention of several primary promoters of such fringe theory, specifically the Schiller Institute and authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, all of whom are associated with Lyndon LaRouche. I would propose that mention of these fringe-theory promoters be reduced or, preferably, eliminated altogether.

I have seen no indication that anyone editing this article wants to promote "fringe theory." Just presenting the facts of this very complex case will be challenge enough. Apostle12 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The NTSB finding of the airplane crash being an accident must be accepted as the last word. There is no need to add conjecture about sabotage as the NTSB determined that was not the case. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But conjecture is what they thrive on...that is the point here...Apostle12 and WLRoss have shown they are mostly interested in overemphasizing the conspiracy theory even to the point where the real facts are lost in the shuffle...the page is now protected till May 1, so we'll see if they are capable of figuring out what the undue weight parameter of NPOV policy means..but I'm not holding my breath...this article is a horrible disaster thanks to Apostle12 and WLRoss....best thing might be to delete it and start over.--MONGO 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Does that represent your best effort, Mongo? To delete the article and start over?  Is that what you intend to do, rather than discuss the various issues on the talk page?Apostle12 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As usual MONGO is all talk and no substance. Where are the diffs showing promotion of conspiracy theory? I'll give him a helping hand by posting the relevant diff and requesting that MONGO (or anyone else) point out the WP:UNDUE or anything romotely resembling a "horrible disaster" in the state of the article now compared to when Apostle12 and myself began editing the article. Go for it MONGO...we are all waiting. Wayne (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary
Ever since being exposed as a POV-pusher and fringe theorist in the 9/11 ArbCom, WLRoss has learned how to be more subtle and incremental. But POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and fringe theory is still fringe theory. The grand jury issued indictments against some defendants, but not against others. They called the case a "carefully crafted hoax." The accused child prostitution ringleaders, kidnappers and Satan worshippers were indicted on precisely none of those charges. However, the only two accusers who did not recant were indicted on multiple counts of perjury. One was found incompetent to stand trial, and the other was found guilty on all eight counts and sent to prison.

For those of us who believe in the rule of law, that says it all.

On the other hand we have the Franklin Committee, which did not take a "diametrically opposing view" as claimed. Instead, they merely questioned some of the grand jury's findings. They felt that indicting King on child prostitution charges would lead to more investigation and find "The Truth" of the matter. They realized that the accusers were lying, but simply couldn't be sure of the extent of their lies. The governor of the state of Nebraska did not pardon the convicted perjuror, Alisha Owen, or commute her sentence. The appellate court upheld her conviction. Neither the Nebraska Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court intervened in any way. The Nebraska state legislature did not pass a resolution condemning or denouncing the grand jury findings, or the trial verdict against Owen.

Actions, and inactions, speak much louder than words. By their inactions, all of these official government bodies support the grand jury and its results. So believing the Franklin Committee was opening the door to "The Truth" is a fringe theory.

WLRoss couldn't envision his favorite unreliable source being declared an unreliable source and yet that's exactly what happened. Each and every editor at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard who was previously uninvolved with the article agreed that the Bryant book was an unreliable source.

WLRoss and Apostle12 are engaged in pushing a fringe theory. I've described their methods many times. Any material which tends to advance the fringe theory is added and expanded, regardless of weak sourcing or BLP concerns. No detail is too small. But any fact which undercuts the fringe theory gets deleted, sometimes "inadvertently." Reliable sourcing for any such detail is then demanded. These two editors are using the long, convoluted, multi-venue nature of all the related discussions as camouflage.

I think that the many discussions at the article's Talk page, the NPOV Noticeboard, the Content Noticeboard, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, RfC/U and here have gone on long enough. These discussions would fill a book. I ask the previously uninvolved editors to consider how these two editors were refuted at WP:RSN, and deny them this alternative avenue for promotion of their conspiracy theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A remarkably self-serving "summary" that describes, in reverse, the character of Phoenix and Winslow's own tactics. Apostle12 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenix and Winslow's continual repetition of already proven lies and exaggerations (and previous canvassing in violation of WP:canvass) is outrageous and is sailing close to RL defamation charges as my Wikpipedia identity is widely known in my home city. How could the 9/11 ArbCom expose anything if I was not involved in it other than being invited to comment. I have no "favourite source" and rarely used Bryant at all and then only when he was supported by a primary RS, as he well knows. I seriously suggest that Phoenix and Winslow modifies his tendentious and inappropriate behaviour. The ONLY reason Phoenix and Winslow supports that "these discussions" at various noticeboards (a violation of WP:ADMINSHOP) have "gone on long enough" is because Phoenix and Winslow has failed to get support. I have supplied a diff that shows the edits disputed for this noticeboard and also a diff for the entire page since I started editing yet despite several requests Phoenix and Winslow declines to support his written accusations. I again challenge Phoenix and Winslow to produce diffs to support his claims or apologise for his behaviour. Wayne (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WLRoss: Be careful of what you say. Making legal threats can get someone blocked.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Phoenix and Winslow has gotten the idea in his head that he can ignore noticeboards that dont go his way and say whatever he likes without the need to support his claims. I have warned him several times over the last few months in regards to this behaviour, but no one with authority seems to be warning him so I await your suggestions on how we can stop Phoenix and Winslow's personal attacks. Wayne (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WLRoss: Post something at WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont want him blocked (yet) as he does sometimes make a good point and an article benifits from having editors with different views, if they can discuss edits intelligently. Cant an admin just request he behave? The fact that none have so far has resulted in him falsly believing that he has succeeded in having the disputed edits declared fringe. We also now have MONGO posting threats based on that false premise. Wayne (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

additional summary
The conspiracy theory discussed here is a fringe theory. It seems to be a notable fringe theory and therefore should be covered. WLRoss and similar folks really need to stick to that. There are plenty of folks who want all fringe theories out of the encyclopedia altogether, please don't give them more fuel for their fires. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are BLP concerns...as well as the issue with Wikipedia being a reliable witness and the issues regarding due weight as part of the NPOV policy. The fringe theory here revolves around the supposed coverup, which is all smoke and mirrors perpetuated by conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP is not a concern when the subject is named in court as long as we keep to what the court said and the media reported. NPOV policy requires that the Franklin Committee report be given weight in accordance with it's notability. This is the second notice board to have failed to support that the Committees official report is a fringe view. No material is sourced from Tarpley or Chaitkin and I agree that their view is fringe. Wayne (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Franklin Committee, in their final report, roundly disagreed with your "smoke and mirrors" assertion. The Franklin Committee met for much longer than the Douglas County grand jury.  Based on the testimony they heard and the evidence they reviewed, they recommended that Douglas County convene a grand jury.  After the grand jury issued its report, the Franklin Committee took great exception to the grand jury's methods and the conclusions they reached;  the Franklin Committee took the unprecedented step of sharply criticizing the grand jury's report by issuing a final report of their own.  Their objections are on record, and we have an impeccable source for exactly what they said.


 * Would that we had such an impeccable source for the Douglas County grand jury report itself. Initially it was released to the public, then after this release it was sealed, supposedly "for procedural violations"--no copies of the Douglas County grand jury report are presently available.  We do know, however, that the grand jury did not even call Lawrence King as a witness, despite the fact that many of the nearly 60 children, whose sexual child abuse complaints the Franklin Committee reviewed, identified him as involved in their abuse.  We also know that the grand jury did not review the vast archive of information compiled by Gary Cardiori, whose records were seized by the FBI; these records became unavailable to the Douglas County grand jury, and they never reviewed them.


 * This story "has legs," as the saying goes, precisely because it is NOT all "smoke and mirrors." The least we can do, a quarter of a century after sexual child abuse complaints first began to appear before Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board, and more than twenty years after the Douglas County grand jury decided not to indict most of the alleged offenders, declaring that the whole matter was "a carefully crafted hoax," is to make it known that Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmidt went public, calling  the grand jury report--"a strange document."  After fully reviewing the grand jury report, the Franklin Committee took the unprecedented stop of of issuing its own final report in response to the grand jury.  In this final report, FIVE duly-elected Nebraska State Senators UNANIMOUSLY denounced the central conclusion of the Douglas County grand jury, stating categorically in the Franklin Committee's final report:


 * “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”


 * Full exposition of the known facts is as close to justice as we are likely to get with respect to the Franklin case, and this has nothing to do with supporting "fringe theories," which go much, much further. ALL INFORMATION THAT WE WANT TO USE IN THE ARTICLE IS IMPECCABLY SOURCED, and there can be no justification for deleting it


 * The Franklin Committe perspective was that there was NO "carefully crafted hoax" and that the allegations of sexual child abuse were covered up for reasons we do not know and cannot speculate about. The committee's perspective became a MAJORITY perspective among Nebraska citizens who witnessed this drama unfold.  In writing our Wikipedia article, we have no right to bury this perspective.  To call their perspective a "fringe theory" is to insult the five courageous Nebraska State Senators who took the unprecedented step of going public and unanimously denouncing the grand jury proceedings. Apostle12 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * At last you have acknowledged that Tarpley and Chaitkin present a fringe theory. DeCamp also presents precisely the same fringe theory. All three of them base their fringe theory on the Franklin Committee report (as you have done), pretending that it differs more sharply from the GJ findings than it actually does (as you have done). The only area where the committee was 180 degrees removed from the GJ was Caridori's honesty and whether he had been "duped" by Michael Casey, who was clearly a con artist looking to make a fast fortune from these false allegations.


 * In direct contradiction to your claim, the Franklin Committee did not deny that it was "a carefully crafted hoax." They just "failed to see" it. They couldn't tell how much was true, and how much was a hoax. And they said exactly that, so you shouldn't try to misunderstand them. Like Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp, you are spin doctoring the committee report by cherry picking only those quotes and segments that most strongly support fringe theory.


 * The Franklin Committee agreed that the accusers were lying. They just couldn't be sure how much was true and how much was a lie. They believed that indicting King for child prostitution would produce more investigation resources, and perhaps uncover a real child prostitution ring. They forgot that even King has constitutional rights, and therefore could not be indicted without probable cause. The only person or group with the power, the legal authority and the resources to determine whether probable cause existed was the GJ, not the Franklin Committee. The possibility of political motivation also arises whenever a political body like the Franklin Committee takes any action at all. And of course, you forget that King not only had a right to refuse to testify before the GJ but that the prosecutor had the power to refuse to call him as a witness. You seek to infer some sort of sinister motive or incompetence on the GJ's part from this.


 * The fringe theory that you have finally acknowledged gets all of its fuel and oxygen from the Franklin Committee report, the Bonacci default judgment and all of the tiny, cherry-picked details from those documents that you have constantly, relentlessly campaigned to stuff into an encyclopedia article that by its very nature is supposed to be neutral and concise. Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of providing a resource pool for conspiracy theorists. It exists to provide a clear, concise and above all neutral exposition of the most salient facts.


 * It is not the goal of Wikipedia to "get justice" or "provide a fair hearing" and editors who come here seeking that often run into not only frustration, but serious trouble. Even with good sourcing, there are WP:WEIGHT concerns; and what we have seen in this article is certainly not "impeccable sourcing."


 * Regardless of the conduct of Apostle12 and WLRoss, it is obvious that Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp present a fringe theory; that the Franklin Committee provides the fuel and oxygen for that theory; and that anyone who seeks to include more and more details from the committee's report is therefore using Wikipedia to encourage and develop a fringe theory. Therefore I ask previously uninvolved editors and admins who read this to share my determination that there must be a bare minimum of details from the Franklin Committee report, or anything else that would tend to promote or propagate this admitted fringe theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When does Phoenix and Winslow intend to stop his POV pushing manipulation and bad faith editing? I apologise for the length of the following but Phoenix and Winslow can not be allowed to lie unchallenged. Apostle12 and I have both argued from day one that they were fringe and shouldn't be given weight. Phoenix and Winslow is the only editor pushing for an exapanded mention. Phoenix and Winslow should provide a RS for this claim. Unbelievable. The "failed to see it" quote is the quote we have consistently supported for the section and we did not edit to say the Committee denied anything, we used the exact quote for what they said. It was Apostle12 and myself that wanted to change the text denounced the grand jury findings to something less all encompassing. Apparently English is not your native tongue, the Franklin Committee saying that the evidence seen by the GJ does not support it being a hoax is the same as denying. That is called a tautology. The Committee was comprised of both Republican and Democrat senators. The Committee was in fact an investigative body appointed by a political body. It is not up to editors to decide on motivation beyond what the sources say. Phoenix and Winslow, despite repeated requests, declines to provide diffs to support this claim. HUH? I repeat. Neither Apostle12 or myself have used Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp as a source, ever. As Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp are not used as a source, the Franklin Committee inadvertantly providing "the fuel and oxygen" for "thier" theories is totally irrelevant. It is dishonest to delete nuetrally worded material solely because it has been used by them.
 * Quote:At last you have acknowledged that Tarpley and Chaitkin present a fringe theory.
 * Quote:Michael Casey, who was clearly a con artist looking to make a fast fortune from these false allegations.
 * Quote:In direct contradiction to your claim, the Franklin Committee did not deny that it was "a carefully crafted hoax." They just "failed to see" it...And they said exactly that. you are spin doctoring the committee report by cherry picking only those quotes and segments that most strongly support fringe theory.
 * Quote:The Franklin Committee agreed that the accusers were lying. They did not. They agreed that the accusers exaggerated and misremembered some points but accepted the basic truth of their claims. Regardless, neither Apostle12 or myself have edited to say they were not lying and neither have we edited to say there was any truth in the accusers claims. Phoenix and Winslow on the other hand continually edits to reinforce that they were lying. For example, Owens appeal was denied on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to hearsay evidence being presented in court. Phoenix and Winslow edited this to read "Owen appealed her sentence on multiple counts of judicial, prosecutorial, and jury misconduct, but all of her appeals were denied." As all the counts were based on the use of hearsay evidence, the deletion of the reason the judge dismissed the appeals reinforces the implication that she was lying beyond what the source allows. The reader should be left to make up their own mind. Phoenix and Winslow's justification for the deletion was that if a reader wants to know they can follow the links.
 * Quote:The possibility of political motivation also arises whenever a political body like the Franklin Committee takes any action at all.
 * Quote:You seek to infer some sort of sinister motive or incompetence on the GJ's part.
 * Quote:you have finally acknowledged [the fringe theory] gets all of its fuel and oxygen from the Franklin Committee report.
 * Quote:Regardless of the conduct of Apostle12 and WLRoss, it is obvious that Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp present a fringe theory; that the Franklin Committee provides the fuel and oxygen for that theory; and that anyone who seeks to include more and more details from the committee's report is therefore using Wikipedia to encourage and develop a fringe theory. Therefore I ask previously uninvolved editors and admins who read this to share my determination that there must be a bare minimum of details from the Franklin Committee report, or anything else that would tend to promote or propagate this admitted fringe theory.

The above accusations have failed before two separate notice boards now. Phoenix and Winslow's continuous long winded personal attacks without supplying any proof for his claims are tendentious. For someone who repeatedly claims ad nauseam to follow the letter of WP policies to justify his deletions, this behaviour only displays his contempt for those policies. Time for Phoenix and Winslow to now work with the community to improve the article and accept that his claims may have been an over reaction or incorrect. Wayne (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point?--MONGO 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What the Franklin Committee actually said
Perhaps instead of arguing endlessly about terminology (e.g. “Did the Franklin Committee ‘partially accept,’ ‘partially reject,’ ‘reject,’ or ‘denounce’ the grand jury report?"), we might best concentrate on what the committee actually said in their final written report, which was signed by all the committee members. With full access to this written report (especially since the Douglas County grand jury report has been sealed, and the records of Alisha Owen’s perjury trial have been “lost”), this remains our best hope of arriving at consensus.  Here’s what I get from the Franklin Committee report:

1./ The grand jury was charged with investigation of the Franklin Community Credit Union, alleged illegal activities by Lawrence E. King and others associated with the credit union, and activities involving drug use, drug trafficking, child pornography, illicit sexual activity and sexual child abuse.

2./ A primary reason for the empowerment of the Franklin Committee were the longstanding (since 1985) allegations that matters involving child sexual abuse were not being adequately investigated by the authorities normally charged with such investigations. The Franklin Committee was concurrently charged with investigating matters associated with the credit union’s collapse.

3./ The Franklin Committee and its chief investigator, Gary Caradori, did everything in their power to keep the investigation confidential. Mr. Caradori did share the results of his investigation with law enforcement.

4./ After the Douglas County grand jury made its report public, the Franklin Committee commented that this was “unprecedented” and no longer saw merit in keeping matters associated with the investigation confidential.

5./ The Franklin Committee investigated matters under their purview for 540 days; the grand jury investigation lasted 82 days. Given this fact, the Franklin Committee considered itself qualified to comment on matters included in the grand jury report.

6./ The Franklin Committee agreed with the report as follows:


 * a./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding of probable cause with respect to Lawrence King’s solicitation of men in their late teens and early 20s to engage in acts of prostitution and other illicit sexual activities. The Franklin Committee agreed that it might be expensive to prosecute King for these and other crimes, however they disagreed with the grand jury’s decision not to prosecute him.  The Franklin Committee thought King should have been indicted.


 * b./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Washington County district attorney should have filed criminal charges against Jarrett Webb in connection with his sexual abuse of foster children in his care. They also agreed with the decision of the new Washington County district attorney to file such charges.


 * c./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Omaha Police Department did not adequately follow up on allegations of sexual abuse and cult activity, which led to a lack of public confidence in the Omaha Police Department. They agreed that the Omaha Police Department handling of continued complaints of sexual abuse against children was “flawed” and marked by “indifference.”


 * d./ They agreed with the grand jury that the media had been irresponsible in printing material leaked to them about the Franklin case and the personalities associated with the case.


 * e./ They agreed with the grand jury finding that more than 500 pedophiles lived in the Omaha, Nebraska area and regularly preyed on young children. Here the Franklin Committee raised a critical question:  “Why, given all this illicit sexual activity with children, were there so few complaints  registered, why was so little attention given to the sexual abuse complaints that were submitted, and why was the rate of conviction so low?”


 * f./ They were disappointed that so few victims of childhood sexual abuse were willing to cooperate with the authorities, however they agreed with the decisions, following the grand jury’s recommendations, to prosecute Jarrett Webb, Alan Baer and Peter Citron.


 * g./ They agreed with the grand jury recommendations for constructive changes in the laws governing child sexual abuse.

7./ The Franklin Committee expressed “profound disappointment” with the grand jury conclusions with respect to the following:


 * a./ Their stated conclusions about the Franklin Committee.


 * b./ Their stated conclusions about the integrity of individual Franklin Committee members.


 * c./ Their stated conclusions regarding the integrity of investigator Gary Caradori.


 * d./ Their stated conclusions regarding the videotaped testimony of three witnesses interviewed by investigator Gary Caradori.


 * e./ The overall tone of the grand jury report and its apparent eagerness to find fault with the Franklin Committee, even to the point of questioning the validity of the committee’s existence.

8./ The Franklin Committee was particularly appalled that the grand jury criticized them for “straying” in pursuing allegations of child sexual abuse, and it pointed out that the committee had specifically been charged by the Nebraska Legislature with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse; they stated that the committee would have been derelict in its duties had it not done so.

9./ The Franklin Committee expressed consternation that the grand jury criticized them for lack of due diligence, with the grand jury going so far as to claim that had the committee done its work it would not have been necessary to convene the grand jury.

10./ The Franklin Committee went to great lengths to clarify that grand jury criticism was groundless, especially with respect to the committee not following proper protocol in conducting its meetings.

11./ The Franklin Committee reserved its strongest condemnation for the grand jury’s stated opinion that the Nebraska State Legislature, and its appointed committee, should not be involved in the investigation of alleged crimes, citing as national precedents the Watergate investigation, RICO investigations into organized crime, investigations that centered on the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional investigation of the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy. They rejected completely the grand jury’s assertion that "The Legislature is not in the business of investigating alleged crimes.”

12./ Most relevant to our discussion here were the Franklin Committee statements regarding the grand jury’s conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” With regard to this conclusion the Franklin Committee, in its typically understated (and sometimes droll) way, said the following:


 * a./ They said they were “puzzled by the choice of words and the basis for the conclusion.”


 * b./ Quoting the Franklin Committee report: “As Committee members who viewed the tapes, interrogated our investigator (Caradori), and looked at other corroborating circumstances, we wonder how the grand jury was able to differentiate between “a carefully crafted hoax” and the truth.  To the extent that the grand jury relied on allegations against Mr. Casey and the claims of movie rights to the ‘scandal,’ these allegations were known to the (Franklin Committee), and we found them unsubstantiated and unpersuasive.  Apparently the grand jury did not take testimony from Mr. Casey.  To the extent the (grand jury) conclusion was based on the now famous recantation by Troy Boner, perhaps it was the grand jury that was the victim of the hoax.  Mr. Boner has now betrayed himself as a pathological liar.  If the grand jury believed Mr. Boner over Alisha Owen, who stands by her story, the hoax may well have been perpetrated on the grand jury.”

Please note that taking certain sections out of context from the above-quoted text (b./) of the Franklin committee report cannot support an argument stipulating that the Franklin Committee agreed that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee went on to say “We assume from their choice of words—“a carefully crafted hoax”—that the grand jury was persuaded that the testimony of the witnesses corroborated each other, and included facts and circumstances that were readily verifiable and attested to by other witnesses. Otherwise it could not logically be deemed “carefully crafted.” If it was “carefully crafted,” who crafted it and when?” The Franklin Committee continued its commentary before issuing a final rejection/condemnation/denunciation of the grand jury’s most central finding—that  the Franklin case was “a carefully crafted hoax.”  Lest there be any doubt as to where the committee stood, it stated unequivocally “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee closed by showing a certain faith in the judicial process, with Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen standing by their videotaped testimony (even as Boner and King had recanted) and Owen facing her perjury trial. The committee roundly criticized the grand jury's choice to award Boner and King for having recanted. And their faith in the judicial process turned out to be unwarranted; Paul Bonacci, prior to his death (which occurred under suspicious circumstances), stated that the FBI pressured him with threats to recant his testimony just before the perjury trial (he swore in an affadavit that his videotaped statement, and Owen's, were absolutely true), leaving Owen alone and defenseless before prosecutors who had much to lose if she were found innocent. Apostle12 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion
How many words was that? Is there any doubt remaining in anyone's mind that these two are as obsessed with this conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's almost as long as the article itself...but even more poorly sourced.--MONGO 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Obsessed? Poorly sourced? What in the world are Phoenix and Windslow/Mongo talking about?!! I put this summary together using the actual text of the Franklin Committee report so we could properly edit that section of the article and stop arguing about terminology--e.g. whether the Franklin Committee ‘partially accepted,’ ‘partially rejected,’ ‘rejected,’ or ‘denounced’ the grand jury report. Apparently you feel free to comment on the Franklin Committee report without ever having read it; no wonder your misrepresentations are so egregious.

Full text of the Franklin Committee response to the Grand Jury report. Scanned pages from Omaha World Herald Pgs 12-13 July 30, 1990


 * No one is suggesting including all of that. Only the main points for context. The edits being specifically discussed here are these. Please post evidence to show which of these edits are conspiracy theories or accept that they are not. Wayne (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The evidence is in the two books published by DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin, and in related articles published in Executive Intelligence Review. I've read both of the books. They focus exclusively on any details, reported anywhere by anyone, no matter how badly they lack credibility, that tend to undercut the findings of the GJ, the Owen perjury trial, and the appellate court. And these are precisely the details that the two of you have chosen to add and expand in the article mainspace. When the two of you started putting in suggestions that Caradori's Cessna was sabotaged, that was a huge red flag for me because both DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin dwell on that at some length. The single "main point for context" is that the Franklin Committee disagreed with several aspects of the GJ's findings. One paragraph and one blockquote would normally be sufficient, since the source for that is one — count it, one — article in the OWH, a small circulation daily newspaper. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How many times do you have to be told that DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin ARE NOT USED AS SOURCES so are not evidence of anything! POST EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times do you have to be told not to lie! No one suggest Caradori's Cessna was sabotaged. Apostle12 added only that he had received threats and I deleted that. Would you like me to tell you this a fourth time? The Omaha World Herald is NOT a small circulation daily newspaper, it is the primary daily newspaper of Nebraska and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. It has the highest subscription rate of any newspaper in America and more than 85% of the population of Omaha read it. Do you believe that if you repeat unsupported garbage long enough people might believe you? Do you honestly believe anything you write here? Wayne (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to state the obvious, but neither the article nor this noticeboard discussion is about the books authored by DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin--nor are they about article published in Executive Intelligence Review. That you would dwell on sources that we are not using to bolster your claim that we are pushing conspiracy theory is quite absurd. Apostle12 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My point (which both of you are so careful to avoid) is that the material you keep adding is precisely what the books by DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin (and conspiracy theory websites) prefer to dwell upon at great length and with such ludicrous, connect-the-dots claims. In other words, even as you deny and condemn DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin, you are making the article mimic their conspiracy theory work. And yes, compared to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post, the Omaha World-Herald has a small circulation. Would you care to respond directly, or show us another shiny object? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a joke right? Are you seriously suggesting that any reliable source that is cited by conspiracy theorists cant be used? I notice that DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin also use the Grand Jury findings in their "ludicrous, connect-the-dots claims" so why have you exempted them from your rediculous conditions? The only "shiny object" around is the tin foil hat you are wearing. Wayne (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that when a particular reliable source — in this particular case, a newspaper article entitled "Franklin Panel Faults Grand Jury's Conclusion" — is the centerpiece of two books by conspiracy theorists, as well as a number of CT websites such as Wikispooks.com and FranklinScandal.com, using it as the centerpiece in the related Wikipedia article and writing half of the WP article in a manner that strongly resembles those two books and those CT websites is reasonably inferred to be a promotion of fringe theory.


 * That particular newspaper article is cited as a source in the article mainspace no less than 12 times. Another favorite of the conspiracy theorists, "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit," is cited three times. No other source is cited more than twice.


 * And when two editors keep adding material from those two sources, and edit warring to keep it in, and adding other material from other sources that (not so coincidentally) was also used by conspiracy theorists for their books and websites, it rises from a reasonable inference to a near certainty. It's this innuendo you and your friend constantly labor to build, Wayne, by adding all of these little marginally-notable details from marginally-reliable sources. Given your personal history with the 9/11 related articles that MONGO has mentioned, it becomes even more certain.


 * The grand jury findings and the results of the criminal trials represent the majority opinion. The Franklin Committee didn't even present the fringe theory, as much as you've tried to spin doctor the facts into "proof" that they did. They merely expressed a certain degree of skepticism about the majority opinion in some areas, and disagreement with it in one other area (Caradori's credibility), thereby leaving the door open for the fringe theory to develop in the minds of such people as DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin. Elements supporting the fringe theory shouldn't be carefully inventoried in this article. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of sources is a straw man arguement. You know very well that one of only two sources that has published copies of the primary sources has been found at the RSN not to be a RS, by a slim majority after you canvassed editors after failing to get consensus that it was not a RS. Being the state newspaper for the location of the case, the OWH has the most comprehensive cover and is also one of very few sources available online. Be that as it may, you have now presented your arguments on two noticeboards (RFC and FTN) and still have not recieved support to keep the [disputed edits out of the article. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss and I want to discuss the article. We have proposed doing it section by section, arguing the points so that we can arrive at consensus with the other editors. We began by discussing the lede and the sections called "Franklin Committee Report." Rather than discuss the points within these sections, as proposed, we have been met with a barrage of accusations that have become endless. NOT A SINGLE CONTESTED POINT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN GOOD FAITH!!!

My questions are these: "Do you intend EVER to discuss the article in good faith? Or do you intend to distract us from our purpose forever, making editing of the article impossible?" Apostle12 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that uninvolved editors have long ago given up the thought of engaging with this debate, which impossible to follow without immersing oneself in endless detail, so I suggest that you now take it away from this board and return it to the talk page where it belongs. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. It was actually taken back to article Talk several days ago but Phoenix and Winslow is still asserting ownership of the page, citing support from one editor as a mandate to ignore the failure of the two noticeboards he himself filed. This FTN can be closed. Wayne (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything that could be said has been said by now. Apostle12 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the two of you have buried the thread under such a mountain of details that nobody who's uninvolved wants to become involved. It's just too much work for uninvolved editors like Paul B to dig you out of your entrenchment. And it's the same tactic that has worked so well for you previously. But now that MONGO has become involved with the article, his experience with your personal WP:FRINGE history at the 9/11 articles and his presence in Omaha should prove very useful. Two against one wasn't consensus; two against two definitely won't be consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My intent has never been to obfuscate, and I have seen no indication that WLRoss intends that either; there is no "tactic" involved here, and it is not necessary or appropriate to frame this as a war. Why don't we discuss the article, section-by-section and point-by-point so we can arrive at appropriate compromises in language and content?  The goal is to present the topic so that readers can understand the Franklin case. Apostle12 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
In the article on Race and intelligence a group of SPA editors dedicated to pushing a pro-hereditarian viewpoint are arguing that the statement of C. Loring Brace, a respected authority on evolutionary biology who is arguing that there is no plausible evolutionary scenario that could have lead to blacks becoming less intelligent than whites (a POV also publically held by the professional organizations of anthropologists and physical anthropologists in america as well as by UNESCO) should either be removed or "balanced" by statements to the contrary effect, by researchers publishing in the racialist journal Mankind Quarterly. I have tried to argue civilly but am loosing patience as they are barraging me with WP:IDIDDNTHEARTHAT, strawmen and personal aspersions. It should be noted that the section from which they want to remove the only non-hereditarian viewpoint is already heavily biased towards the hereditarian side citing several fringe studies such as J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with some aspects of this, but I question using Brace in this way. He may be respected, but he is in his 70s and best known for arguing vociferously for controversial theories that have turned out to be wrong (most importantly, that modern humans descended from Neanderthals).  A statement by a professional organization of anthropologists would seem to me to carry a lot more weight. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the Neandethal question, he may have been more right than he has been credited with - the Neanderthal genome project has published data supporting the notion of geneflow between neanderthal and human lineages recently. In anycase Brace is easily the most wellrespected scholar cited in the entire section. Removing him or adding racist scientists to balance him out does not improve the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its worth noting to that its 1962 theory in which he proposed it was widely accepted at the time. Our understanding of human evolution has significantly shifted since then in alot of ways 1960s data would not have supported. I am not familiar with his contemporary views on the issue but I would suspect they to have evolved along with the data. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * American Anthropological Association,, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, UNESCO, and the American Psychological Association enough for you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a new crop of SPA's operating at the page. left the fray after he was unable to convince ANI that he wasn't an POV pushing SPA. Now a new group of editors are targeting the same range of pages connected to Race and Intelligence:  and  are pushing the same racialist viewpoints. Rrrr5 is for example now arguing that the view that race is a social construction that does not reflect biological reality is a Marxist fringe viewpoint - if that is the casethe organizations mentioned by Resident Anthropologist above are all Marxist. The page is under discretionary sanctions with special provisions regarding SPA's, but noone seems willing to enforce them. I am soon going to leave wikipedia for a couple of omnths doing field work and if nobody else takes an interest in the topic that will likely mean that wikipedia's coverage of race related issues will turn into a mirror of stormfront within a couple of weeks. I'm just saying...·Maunus· ƛ · 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"There was no slavery in ancient India"
User:Thisthat2011 is insisting on using Arrian, an ancient historian, to make the claim that there was no slavery in ancient India, and edit-warring over it. Yet, this claim is flatly contradicted by modern, secondary sources. This editor tried the same exact thing once before using another ancient author, Menander, and was similarly rebuffed. Any help in dealing with this would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality claims another victim
This time it is the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptizes in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps it has become the case that every outing of a historical figure by a queer theorist is notable, but the article spends almost half its length on this extra-textual speculation and doesn't even mention that this is traditionally claimed as the origin of Ethiopian Christianity. So assistance on this would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd advise also bringing this up on the Oriental Orthodoxy Project Page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First) The header of this section is extremely offensive, and the OP should change it; Second) Here are the WP descriptions of the two authors cited for this interpretation, which does not fit the definition of "fringe theory":

Jack Bartlett Rogers is a Presbyterian minister, seminary professor emeritus, and author. He taught at Westminster College,Pennsylvania, at Fuller Theological Seminary, and at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He also served as moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).[1][2]

Publications

Worldcat lists 48 published works by Rogers.[3] Among them are:

The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, (with Donald McKim) [4] Biblical Authority Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical Introduction to Philosophy: A Case Method Approach (with Forrest Baird) Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church [5] Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions Presbyterian Creeds: Suplement on the Brief Statement of Faith Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way

John J. McNeill was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1959 and now is a psychotherapist and an academic theologian, with a particular reputation within the field of Queer Theology. He obtained a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1964 and has taught at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, NY and Fordham University in NYC. In 1972, he joined the combined Woodstock Jesuit Seminary and Union Theological Seminary faculty as professor of Christian Ethics, specializing in Sexual Ethics.

Published works The Church and the Homosexual Taking a Chance on God Freedom, Glorious Freedom Both Feet Firmly Planted in Midair Honours Grand Marshal of the New York City Gay Rights Parade in 1987; The National Human Rights Award in 1984 for his contributions to lesbian and gay rights; The 1989 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Blanton-Peale Institutes of Religion and Health; The Humanitarian Award in 1990 from the Association of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists; The 1993 Distinguished Contribution Award of the Eastern Region American Association of *Pastoral Counselors for outstanding contribution to pastoral counseling; The United Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches Special Award for his "dedicated work in spreading the Gospel to the lesbian/gay community"; The 1997 Dignity/USA Prophetic Service Award "In Recognition of over 25 years of extraordinary work on behalf of the Catholic Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenered Community"; The 1999 Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco "Living Saint" Award. 63.17.61.86 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Queer Theology, eh? I am not a homophobe, but it is no secret that Wikipedia has a bad case of systemic bias towards "queer theorists" and gay rights activism. I have no problem with gay activism being covered for what it is and for what it is worth, just as another notable point of view. But the fact is that gay rights activism has deeply subverted our entire coverage of homosexuality topics, down to the categroy structure. Nobody dares to clean this up because of the flak anyone daring to touch it is going to get from our resident activists, and because nobody wants to be bashed as anti-gay. So it simply stays in place. This is probably one of the worst cases of systemic bias on Wikipedia, because any other bias, such as pro-Israeli vs. pro-Palestinian, or pro-Muslim vs. anti-Muslim, is going to be challenged by the opposite faction. This mechanism so far has almost completely failed to work in the "LGBT" area, I assume mostly because nobody except gay activists is going to bother even reading through the countless "LGBT" articles on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Uhuh. You could say Wikipedia also has a systemic bias towards racists then, eh? Man, I think white supremacists should have an equal say right? What about creationists and those poor flat-earthers? That said, what does Homosexuality have anything to do with the whole thing? A vast majority of us want nothing to do with your religions. If you think the information is dubious, tag it with or remove it based on WP:DUE, don't blanket blame everyone and do that 'I'm not a homophobe or anything, I just hate gays' BS.  And no, I am not an activist but the title is deliberately provocative, please change it.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  08:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had my WP:TEA now. Apologies for the temper.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Marriage
The lead of Marriage also reflects what Dab is describing. I'm 100% in support of gay marriage becoming legal everywhere, but historically and cross-culturally the institution of gay marriage has been virtually insignificant, yet as far as I understand it is impossible to change the lead of that entry to reflect the fact that heterosexual monogamy has been the most prevalent form of marriage in recorded history.Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To quibble, heterosexual polygyny may be the most prevalent form of marriage in recorded history, if we take into account the Sinosphere and the Islamic world. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that. One doesn't need to be a mathematical genius to work out that it is impossible for polygyny to to be the "most prevalent form of marriage" given the proportion of men to women in the world. Paul B (talk)
 * Judith I was anticipating a response like that from someone :), but what I meant was that in practice monogamy has always been most prevalent. The anthropological record does show more (I believe it is in fact more) cultures who practiced polygyny than monogamy.  But because polygyny often requires a high degree of wealth, it is therefore often is an ideal in cultures that allow it, but is rarely found in practice.  The anthropological record also rarely takes into account group size.  You migth have 10 separate groups on the same southeast Asian island all practicing polygyny and being listed as seperate "cultures" engaging in that practice.  Though to your point I'm also a supporter of mentioning the form of prevalence that polygyny has had -- in other words that it has been a an acceptable if not desirable practice in most cultures on record.Griswaldo (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, what I really meant was that polygyny has been the social norm in a great number of societies. Nevertheless, in some times and places it has been the case that most men could not afford to marry at all, while most of those who did marry, married more than once. Griswaldo's suggestion for highlighting the prevelance of polygyny is good, as is her/his approach to the presentation of gay marriage in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not been the norm. It's been acceptable, or desirable as a sign of status, but not the norm. Marrying more than once is not necessarily the same as polygany, of course, since death was also very very common. I suspect that the number of societies in which most men never married, but most who did had more than one wife is very small, for all sorts of reasons. But I don't have the statistics on that. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more broadly than the issue discussed here, I think, is that the lead for the marriage entry is written from a modern human rights oriented perspective that also presupposes the central role of romantic love in marriage. Of course neither modern notions of human rights nor romantic love have had much to do with marriage for most of its history.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lede is really a problem. It never mentions gay marriage, but is structured to avoid mentioning gender/sex difference at all, so we get odd formulations like the opening sentence "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship", which, though strictly true, tells us almost nothing about the reality of what the term means (and in any case "kinship" can be created in other ways). i've no objectionm to the concept of gay marriage being included in the lede, but the genderlessness of the whole thing is confusing. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a really good point. Since marriage between men and women has been overwhelmingly more common in history (even in polygyny/polyandry, it's often formulated as multiple separate marriages each between two people, rather than as a group marriage), and even in the modern case same-sex marriages attract a lot of controversy simply because they're not a marriage between man and woman, how can Marriage have a lede which never mentions the social norm? bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) A central issue is the near complete lack of any citations in the lede. There are only two, the first of which is not germane. The second citation is to this law journal article, and it presents two theories about marriage. The first is more clearly reproduced in our article, because it is more obviously same-sex-friendly; the second, however, seems to better reflect the institutional history: "Marriage is everywhere the word we use to describe a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union between a man and woman which creates rights and obligations between the couple and any children the union may produce. Marriage as a public tie obligates not only fathers, but fathers’ kin to recognize the children of this union. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged. Marriage is the way in which every society attempts to channel the erotic energies of men and women into a relatively narrow but highly fruitful channel—to give every child the father his or her heart desires. Above all—normal marriage is normative. Marriage is not primarily a way of expressing approval for infinite variety of human affectional or sexual ties; it consists, by definition, of isolating and preferring certain types of unions over others. By socially defining and supporting a particular kind of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves." The "problem" with this definition is that it plainly puts same-sex marriage in the same position as other non-fruitful arrangements as something of an analogue to or extension of the central model, and therefore it is likely to be fought. But we really need something that at least is cited. WHat we have not is, in a sense, OR. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Health of Paul Robeson: a potential conspiracy theory coatrack?
Found this page doing wp:NPP. I think it might be a fringe theory coatrack, there are few sources, most are offline, some I can't find evidence of actually existing but that just might be my google-fu failing me. Has anyone else had any experience with the topic? I'll admit I'm sort of out of my depth on this one but I don't think it'd be very responsible to just leave it unreviewed for some other sap to sort out, it's already been unreviewed for months. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was created when we took material out of the main Paul Robeson article, partly on grounds of length, partly on quality. There are two main sources for the story of Robeson's later years. One is the well regarded biography by Duberman. Duberman tracks how Robeson fell ill while on a visit to Moscow, was transferred to a private clinic in London, given many courses of ECT and then remained out of the limelight until his death. I don't think there should be too much problem with that factual account. Then the other source is Robeson's son, who speculated that the initial illness might have been part of the USA's MK Ultra project, perhaps also that the clinic was also acting for the US government. (Sadly, UK clinics were quite capable of prescribing ECT on their own account, for another musical genius see Peter Green (musician)). There we're in conspiracy land, or to put it generously, in pure speculation. Duberman notes the allegations without endorsing them. So, basically, if we follow the standard biography we should be OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What initially raised my concern were the sections on FBI and MI6 surveilance (FBI in London? that's explicitly against their remit isn't it?), and the same source (#8) is tagged for seemingly contradictory statements. Also the claim of MK-ULTRA involvement was what set off my BS-o-meter, the MK-ULTRA program is a notorious for attracting all sorts of wild conspiracy theories on top of the (admittedly pretty wild) truth of the CIA's shadowy mind control experiments.  Ironically the section on MK-ULTRA is probably the most neutrally written of all of them. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I used editorial discretion and redirected the page to the main article. The main article more that adequately covers the his health problems. A whole article on his health problems and the conspiracy theories give too much coverage to it. We need to balance it with the rest of the information that we have on site about him by putting it together in a single article. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you, I was sort of leaning that way but I wasn't bold enough to do it myself. It's appreciated. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, that works OK. If anyone would like to check what is said in the main article, that would be good, because the article has had a peer review, and quality of sourcing needs addressing. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax
Someone has once again applied a neutrality template to this article and another editor has simultaneously chimed in on the talk page complaining that we're unfairly rejecting "exoscientific explanations for something beyond [our] comprehension". Since there are two editors involved here right from the get go, I decided to seek more eyes here first before proceeding. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I proceeded . I removed the tag. It's been discussed in depth before, and I've removed the forum style comment by someone posting from Lowes Companies, Inc. whose other edits have been clearly vandalism. The IP who added the tag didn't comment on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Proceed" you did. Thanks Doug. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Turkish people
The usual genetics train wreck. Salvageable in principle, but we don't have enough editors with genetics expertise to keep up with the patriotic kids adding this "genetics of $MY_ETHNICITY" trash. --dab (𒁳) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network
RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. —<b style='color:#464646'>[d'oh]</b> 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything "Fringe" here. Did you post this to the correct noticeboard? Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I went a bit overboard posting here. The WP:NPOV dispute mentions this noticeboard, but I should have read up on what is fringe theories before posting. Feel free to close and archive. —<b style='color:#464646'>[d'oh]</b> 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe science discussion at ANI
There's a discussion going on (well, actually getting stale now) at WP:ANI regarding what appears to be a fringe scientist by the name of Luis González-Mestres and a theoretical subatomic particle he has proposed called a Superbradyon. No one but González-Mestres seems ever to have taken notice of this particle's existence. The article on the particle (hey, I rhymed) has been nominated for deletion. The one on González-Mestres - well, it seems very long with a lot of references (a great deal of them to his own work) for a bio of someone of what seems to be marginal notability, although I haven't reviewed it in detail. Both of them have been heavily edited by someone who refers to himself as "our collective." I'm cross-posting here because I think both articles (and the deletion discussion) could benefit from the attention of editors who are familiar with fringe science. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Falkland Islands
A section has been added to this article "Secret Service Trap" by User Hubertgrove which claims that false orders were broadcast to the German Squadron by British Intelligence. This claim is supported in a book Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926. The issue here is that while the citation might be valid, this German officer is relaying something that was told to him by a friend. Search as I might, I can not find a single other source for this claim. In point of fact, at least two of the Historians Massie and Halpern give views quite to the contrary of this assertion. I have searched the online British Archives without finding a single supporting piece of evidence. User USER Simon Harley's research list here:


 * As far as I can tell the basis for Mason being the stellar witness Hubertgrove claims him to be is this sentence from the introduction to The Dark Invader: "The conversations which he records depend, of course, upon his memory; the main facts we are able to check, and we know them to be exact." A very dubious assertion for an overseas R.M.L.I. staff officer to make.  Rintelen's claims regarding his conversations with Hall and Herschell are absurd.  Tirronan, have a google and you'll find a copy of von Rintelen's book available from an Australian version of Project Gutenberg.  I've been through a good number of the Room 40 material in Britain and so far have come across nothing to do with the Falkland Islands.  In March I picked up the official reports of the Falkland Islands battle and there's no mention in there.  Last week I copied both post-war Naval Staff Monographs (official histories) of the battle.  There's nothing in those to substantiate von Rintelen's allegation, even though those works do deal with SIGINT and Room 40. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, finding something contrary to a single assertion presents its typical difficulty but at some point common sense has to play a part here as well. An Intelligence service broadcasting false orders in a broken naval code would be announcing the fact that their codes had indeed been broken, inviting the enemy to change codes immediately. The base problem is that unsupported claims like this do much to undermine the project's credibility and user trust.Tirronan (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tirronan has been harassing me and abusing me on this subject now for a month. His unwonted intervention can be seen here in the section "Secret Service Section". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section I really urge some senior editor to please come to my assistance here. I must make a longish reply to outline the issue - I will try to be as succinct as possible.


 * The section in the article itself is NOT a fringe theory at all - and it IS supported. It is verified by three primary sources and two secondary sources. Tirronan simply denies all this because, without any primary or secondary evidence, he speculates it's 'unlikely'.


 * In the Battle of the Falkland Islands (1914), the German squadron under Admiral Spee attacked a British coaling station in the Falklands. There, they were ambushed by a superior British naval squadron and almost destroyed. During the war, there was bafflement on the part of the German navy as to how the British had managed to find the Germans in many thousands of miles of open water and to ambush them on the date of their arrival. Kaiser Wilhelm himself wrote on the official copy of the incident report: "It remains a mystery what made Spee attack the Falkland Islands. See 'Mahan's Naval Strategy'."


 * After the war, one possible explanation came to light. In 1925, Korvettenkapitan (Captain) Franz von Rintelen, a former intelligence officer of the Nachrichtenabteilung (Information Department) German Admiralty interviewed Admiral Sir William Reginald Hall who had headed the British Naval Intelligence Division (NID) during the conflict. Admiral Hall confirmed to him in the interview that the British codebreaking department - nicknamed Room 40 - had broken the German naval codes early in the war. Moreover, he said that the German naval sqadron had been deliberately lured to the Falkland Islands by means of a 'fake' signal sent in the German code to the German consul in Valparaiso and then transmitted from there to the German squadron at sea. It is now accepted fact by academic historians that the british had broken and trafficked in German naval codes throughoout the war.


 * The specifics of this assertion are contained von Rintelen's memoir, "Dark Invader" This memoir was published in 1933 by reputable publishers, (in London by Lovat Dickson Ltd. in 1933, and in Penguin Books in 1936, and in America by the Macmillan Company of New York). and republished again in the late 90s by Routledge.


 * The English translation of Rintelen's memoirs contains a personal endorsement by Admiral Hall himself plus a preface by the playwright and politician Major AEW Mason (who was also an officer in the NID during the war). These two men, primary sources, attest to the contemporary credibility of von Rintelen's account. The incident itself is attested to in Thomas Boghardt's "Spies of the Kaiser" (2004)


 * In other words, I have cited credible primary sources, credible secondary sources, contemporaneous accounts, personal memoirs and later academic histories in support of my edit. Tirronan has not done any of this. He simply says "he doesn't believe it". "it's not likely" and then goes on to threaten me, both on my own talk page and on the discussion page of the article itself, that he will ban me. This guy's driving me nuts. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 May 2011


 * As posted on the talk page you have exactly one citation and an endorsement on the preface. It would seem that all your claimed citations are at variance with your citations.  I don't consider the endorsement of an entire work to be the endorsement of a single claim.  Opposition to an edit is not a personal attack.  Unfortunately you have directed at me many times, various personal attack by you on the talk page despite repeated warnings by me about this.  You are correct that I have posted on your talk page a warning about your behavior and I shall do so again if you repeat said violation of Wikipedia guidance.  There are real historians that refute your singular claim, please provide actual evidence that you have any other real support by an actual historian or document.  If you are claiming to use primary sources you are in violation of Original research.Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope other editors reading Tirronan's post can now see what I am having to deal with. He says that I am abusing him - this is not true. However, he has constantly threatened to have me banned and to vandalise my edit.


 * As to his argument: it's bizarre. "All your claimed citations are at variance with your citations" literally makes no sense. He says that he doesn't "consider the endorsement of an antire work to be the endorsement of a single claim". This is bananas. The head of the British secret service provides a preface to Franz von Rintelen's book. I genuinely can't think of a more ringing endorsement. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe it or not - Admiral Hall and AEW Mason - who were there - endorse Rintelen's claim; Patrick Beeslsy and Thomas Boghardt, academic historians, attest to it too. I hope I am not being too blunt, but I don't think he understands what "primary sources" means. They are certainly allowable by wikipedia, being verified first person contemporary reports and eyewitness accounts.


 * I have now had to put up with six weeks of his circular arguments which boils down to 'I don't believe it'. Well, I'm sorry, primary sources, secondary sources. eyewitness accounts and academic historians support my edit.


 * Tirronan has posted threats to ban me on my Talk page. He has also started posting similar abuse on the page of another editor who previously looked over the dispute over my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jezhotwells#The_Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 May 2011


 * Rintelen's book is not a fringe source. Rather, his view of the trap theory is a very minor opinion which is not supported by mainstream historians. His version can be mentioned briefly but with very little weight given it, per WP:NPOV. It cannot be augmented to make it appear more plausible.
 * Editor behavior is not a matter for this noticeboard. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Noted and agreed.Tirronan (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Singularitarianism
I can't make head nor tail of whether this article is about a fringe cult, a satire, or a monopoly capitalist conspiracy. I think it needs looking at though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yes it needs more eyes, I fear that some other fringe sources are being used in the article to criticise this fringe movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like it might be a bona fide academic neologism that has not really caught on. Perhaps it could be merged with transhumanism. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Global brain
Seems full of original research, especially the latest edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I started deleting stuff, but it is all just an essay, little rescuable. Perhaps it could be a section in superorganism. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps a better solution is just to mention it as a synonym in collective intelligence. (That article itself needs attention.) Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be a good solution. Or just stub it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Starchild skull - note it is already covered thoroughly in Lloyd Pye
Additional eyes may be needed for a while at Starchild skull and perhaps at the related Lloyd Pye. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help here, it's always been a problem.
 * However, I've just realised we have two articles on this, see Lloyd Pye and particularly a recent set of edits (which ended up with some duplicated material in his article. Perhaps the Starchild Skull article should be turned into a redirect to Pye's article with anything useful merged? Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy
The article Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy seems to present some new medical insights (not reported in scholarly sources at first glance) as reality. It seems to be more like "alternative medecine", but I have no idea how fringey it actually is. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe fringe and it might not, I can't tell what it is talking about at all which is typically a Redflag of Fringe. See Articles for deletion/Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear
Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear are two fringe creationists for the CSM (Creation Science Movement). I collected references for them both, but a user has claimed they are not third party sources (i partly agree on some but not all). See here: WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden‎

It comes down to three options:


 * 1.These articles are going to be deleted
 * 2.These articles are going to be kept
 * 3.Both articles (Bowden and Rosevear) to be moved to the Creation Science Movement article

I tried the third option, but a user has deleted it all. - When we had third party sources from the BBC etc. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Current references for Malcolm Bowden:

Liveintheforests (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.csm.org.uk/speakers.php - Profile at the csm website
 * ThirdWay Feb 9, 1978 - Article with review of Bowden's Book
 * http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/MalcolmBowden - Profile at the bcse website
 * Malcolm Bowden "APE-MEN: FACT OR FALLACY?" 2nd enlarged edition, 3rd reprint ISBN 0950604216 - Bowden's book
 * http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/bkape.htm - Bowden's website
 * http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm - Bowdens website describing his book
 * http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf - Review from a Creationist organization of Bowden's work
 * http://www.bmj.com/content/1/6175/1407.extract - British Medical journal - Describing Bowden's book
 * http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sheets.html - Talk.origins review of Bowden's book
 * Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2010, p. 255 - Philip E Johnson - Describing Bowden and his book
 * Article in the ThirdWay Magazine Dec 1982 - Jan 1983 - Report of Bowden claiming he is a creationist
 * Malcolm Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, 1982, p. 87 italics his - Quote from Bowden's book
 * Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation, 2009, p. 290 - Description from Hugh Ross on Bowden

References for David Rosevear:

Liveintheforests (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/rosevear-d.html Profile at Christian Answers
 * Profile at Creation Ministries http://creation.com/david-rosevear
 * http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/DavidRosevear Profile at British Centre for Science Education
 * http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-313.pdf - David Rosevear's paper on Chemical evolution
 * Creation Science: Confirming that the Bible is Right, by David Rosevear. 1991, New Wine Press ISBN 9780947852917 - Rosevear's book
 * http://www.csm.org.uk/speakers.php - Speakers for the Creation Science Movement
 * http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/index.html - Genesis expo website mentioning rosevear
 * Julian Joyce (15 September 2008). "Who are the British creationists?". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm. Retrieved 30 November 2009. - BBC Interview and article mentioning Rosevear
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4757357.stm - BBC Interview and article mentioning Rosevear
 * Stephen Tomkins (1 April 2005). "Would you Adam and Eve it?". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4398345.stm. BBC Interview and article mentioning Rosevear
 * There isn't enough detail to evaluate these sources. BMJ is usually reliable, whether it is for this depends on whether it is a proper review. BBC is reliable, but not everything briefly mentioned on the BBC is worth an article here. His own website, websites of organisations he's associated with and political magazines/websites aren't enough to establish notability. Merger would seem to be a good idea. If you merged and then someone else deleted the text, it is still there in the history of one or the other article, to be recuperated if there is consensus for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See here Talk:Creation Science Movement - I have found three more sources which mention Bowden. Also there have been three BBC news (as mentioned) articles which mention Bowden and Rosevear in those articles it explains what their beliefs are who they are and even quotes from them in an interview. This is third party reliable sources, so both Bowden and Rosevear should be merged to the Creation Science Movement article with a paragraph explaining their beliefs and what their books are about. Liveintheforests (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The BMJ piece seems to be more of a reader-contribution than an editorial review.
 * The BBC pieces are on the subject of creationism, and so feel obliged to seek a quote-from-a-creationist, who tends to be Rosevear. The content of the quotes tends to be fairly standard creationist anti-evolution boilerplate, so not really worthy of mention.
 * Most of the sources that Liveintheforests cites are WP:PRIMARY, affiliated and/or unreliable.

Articles Deleted close case
As you can see from above, many third party references for Both Rosevear and Bowden - Including in total three BBC articles, two Thirdway magazine, profiles at bcse, a review of Bowden at talk.origins etc etc, nobody even bothered to look or help out. - If Rosevear and Bowden were two mainstream evolutionists they would of been given a warm welcome at wikipedia even without references, but being two "crackpot" creationists who own a creationist museum (one retired engineer) and one (PHd biochemist) - they are not suitable for wikipedia. Articles deleted, case closedLiveintheforests (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Olan Hyndman
Continuing Liveintheforests' creation of articles on WP:FRINGE figures of questionable notability:

An obscure Iowan neurosurgeon whose book propounding his idiosyncratic theory of evolution/philosophy of science received a pair of reviews (in The Philosophical Forum and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, not in any journal that specialises in evolutionary biology, or philosophy of science). Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * American Heart Journal, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 1942, Pages 43-58 "Department of Surgery, Neurosurgical Service, College of Medicine, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA"
 * THE HISTORY OF NEUROSURGERY IN COLORADO
 * Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 1935;34(3):643-648
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/.../pdf/annsurg00497-0052.pdf
 * http://archneurpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/45/3/446
 * http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/jns.1948.5.6.0521
 * Olan Hyndman, The Origin of Life and the Evolution of Living Things: An Environmental Theory, Philosophical Library, New York, 1952
 * Soil Science Journal: September 1952 - Volume 74 - Issue 3 - ppg 261
 * http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC195525 Reviewed by John J. Biesele, Ph.D.
 * http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pdf_extract/110/9/720 Reviewed by Norman Ford Walker Ph.


 * As shown above
 * Hyndman is quoted in the American Heart Journal, the Neurology and psychiatry archives, Soil Science Journal Magazine, psychiatry journal, two reviews from third party sources etc etc. Again Hrafn makes unsuitable edits and wants the article deleted not becuase of the sources but becuase it goes against his own beliefs WP:COI.


 * Hrafn has broken WP:NPOV, he is now on a crusade to vandalise any article i create even when it is well sourced. Hrafn has clearly fallen into WP:VAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs) 11:22, 19 May 2011


 * And how many of these (other than the two reviews I identified above) were NOT written by Hyndman himself -- i.e. might be third party sources? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Liveintheforests, you need to STOP accusing Hrafn of vandalism simply for disagreeing with you. You are completely wrong about what is and is not vandalism. These accusations poison the discussion. You have recently created a number of articles about people who subscribe to a fringe theory and Hrafn has every right to oppose, question, and comment on your work. Your responsibility now is to engage in discussion, not make accusations toward other editors. Oh and by the way, SIGN YOUR EFFIN POSTS. Also linking to what you say is Hrafn's blog my have problems where WP:OUTINGis concerned, I'm not sure because I don't know if he's openly identified it as his. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's just some comments I made, using the exact-same nick (so no real WP:OUTING risk), years ago on some Brit Ider's blog. Utterly irrelevant, and no worse than the well-deserved derision hundreds of others have heaped on the head of Mickey-the-Astrologist Behe. :) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack removed by KillerChihuahua. Liveintheforests; you are welcome to comment on the subject at hand. You are not welcome to make personal attacks. If you have concerns about the editing or behavior of another editor, you are welcome to open an Rfc, where you are welcome to describe in civil and concise terms how you feel his or her editing violates Wikipedia policy. Puppy has spoken; do not continue down this path. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Liveintheforests: (i) you have not substantiated your repeated claim that I have "broken WP:NPOV". Arguing against the notability of topics does not count. (ii) The "looney bin" was for people who (a) claimed I was in fact not a single person but some weird Kansas-based conspiracy & (b) a creationist. (iii) The post you are complaining about are from five years ago -- hardly "spends his time". (iv) "DarWIKInist" you less-than-observant individual -- the viewpoint that Wiki articles are subject to socially Darwinistic pressures -- nothing to do with Dawkins. (v) "universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community" (not my words) is a reasonably approximation for considered "a 'crank' 'crackpot' etc". Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn you are saying Richard Goldschmidt one of the worlds most successful evolutionists was a "crackpot". Nothing else needs to be said!!Liveintheforests (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Futher research has shown their are 4 third party references which mention Hyndman and his book, this is more than enough:
 * 1) Soil Science Journal: September 1952 - Volume 74 - Issue 3 - ppg 261 - Review of his book
 * 2) http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC195525 Reviewed by John J. Biesele, Ph.D.
 * 3) http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pdf_extract/110/9/720 Reviewed by Norman Ford Walker Ph.D
 * 4) http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/621.1.extract - His book reviewed in a journalLiveintheforests (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, taking a look. NOTE that none of these are peer reviews, they are all book reviews, a very different item.
 * No access.
 * "the book is a philosophical, not a scientific, work. The reviewer would not recommend that it be given any serious consideration by the student of biology."
 * "To this reviewer the book is most disappointing, being based mainly on armchair philosophy and full of biological inaccuracies."
 * "Altogether, an odd, philosophically mixed and unsound argument for the effectiveness and directive influence of environment is elaborated and applied to both embryogenesis and evolution."
 * In short, all three of the links you provided support the view that this is fringe at least, if not complete nonsense and fluff. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So what if his book was poorly reviewed? Does that matter? He was a surgeon not a biologist, he developed his own evolutionary theory. They are still reliable sources. - By the way the first source is online, il try and find it. That's four sources describing him and his book, well over enough considering the lack of sources on some articlesLiveintheforests (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources clearly state his book is unacceptable; and his "theory" is not a scientific theory but - and this is according to the reviews! is rather poorly formed philosophy. You have shown the book is unacceptable fringe philosophy and no scientific theory of evolution or anything else is contained therein. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what the sources say, the sources could say his theory came out of a dustbin that is irrelevant, what remains is that they are third party sources which describe his theory, they are still there, we have sources all over wikipedia giving negetive reviews, even if his theory was opposition to most accepted biological thought, it's still a theory, secondly you have cherry picked through those three articles, there were lines in there which claimed Hyndmans book was well reseached, doing further research online will reveal that Hyndman was a well respected surgeon, he was not a biologist and yes he wrote on a subject outside of his field, but that it not the first time a scientist has done that. His wikipedia article is nowhere near the lines of deletion, it's silly even putting it on here. Liveintheforests (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you serious??? It doesn't matter what the sources say? Please go start a blog and stop wasting our time. On Wikipedia, it matters what the sources say. Please see WP:V, WP:RS. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Hfran, I suggest you list the article on Afd. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When i said it doesn;t matter what the souces say, i meant it doesnt matter which side they take, of course it matter what the sources say i did not clarify, my comment was expressing that the sources that either are for or against is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. - The 4 references for his book (either negetive or positive) are still third party sources - so no the article will not go on Afd, also note the writing i wrote was in line of exactly what the reviews of his book said.Liveintheforests (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article will indeed go on Afd if someone lists it on Afd. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

lol there are HUNDREDS of wikipedia pages like this: John Foster (philosopher) with no references at all on - they stay on wikipedia for years, untouched, hey are you gonna tag this one? Why do you only tag evolutionist pages?. I can list you another 40 articles of living people - no references all left on wiki. - These pages won't be touched becuase they do not mention "evolution" they have no third party references on them. As soon as someone proposes a new mechanism for evolution it is looked down upon and those peoples wikipedia pages are put into the "fringe watch" even when they are well sourced, "one law for them another for us". Liveintheforests (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OSE; also I have no idea who you're saying "only tag(s) evolutionist pages" - please see todays page for Afd and I assure you there will be hundreds of pages on subjects other than evolution for every one which is even tangentially related to that subject. We are done here, now. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reference - Hemispheric communication: mechanisms and models By Frederick L. Kitterle p. 20 claims he was a neurosurgeon at the institute.


 * The soil science journal, medical library association, American Psychiatric Association, Oxford Journal all reviewed his book. We also have reliable sources which show he was a surgeon and the University he worked at. No idea why you want to delete this. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The existence of reliable sources that someone did a particular job, for example, does not prove notability. In the modern world there is reliable accessible information about millions of people, giving facts about their career histories and other details. That does not mean that they deserve an article about themselves. The fact that someone has written a book and got some (overwhelmingly negative) reviews is also not sufficient. Lots and lots of people have written a book. See WP:PROF for discussion of what makes authors of non-fiction notable. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: Articles for deletion/Olan Hyndman KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article has been deleted close case
Anyone with a decent pair of eyes could of seen that there were many references for Olan Hyndman, - also searching Dr. Hyndman MD or Olan Hyndman Iowa University brings up many other references in a search engine. Case closed, article deleted, if Olan hadn't of written his own evolutionary theory, his article would be left up on wiki without anyone at all caring who or what he was. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science
I've removed some BLP violations which I suspect will reappear. There's still a problem with original research. It's a pretty poor article in any case. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yukky article, will tag for an expert in Islam and also post on WikiProject Islam. There are some good editors interested in Islam who can sort it. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete 4 of my Fringe articles
I dont care anymore, just delete the articles I created: Delete the following:

Soren Lovtrup Malcolm Bowden David Rosevear Olan Hyndman

It isnt worth the bother - All articles have both a mixture of primary and third party references but they will not be aloud on wikipedia becuase apparently they challenge the mainsteam view of evolution and according to members here they are all "cranks". Hrafn will not give up until they are tagged and deleted so no matter which references i put up they will not be good enough. So may aswell delete them all anyway, users are not even reading the references. Cheers. Liveintheforests (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want the articles deleted, tag them with ONE of the following:, , , . KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? WTF? No one has even proposed the articles for deletion. Hrafn could easily have nominated them if he wanted them gone. Instead all he did was raise questions about notability and this is your response? Really? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has lots of articles on people who challenge maintream views - in evolutionary theory and in lots of other areas. It also has articles on people who are considered to be "cranks" (e.g. P.N. Oak). If these get deleted it will be because the individuals are not sufficiently notable, not because their alternative views are being censored. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrafn Talk owns evolution and creationism, intelligent design articles at wikipedia, no joke he is found editing every article from young earth creationists, to intelligent design groups, everyone knows that, he spends his life on it, he is the user to put almost every creationist with tags on the articles claiming sources are not reliable - He has never tagged an article which fits his own beliefs on evolution however. Hes been on wikipedia many years only to tag articles which oppose the main view of evolution, in his spare time he publicly on forums and blogs swears and calls intelligent design, creationist or anyone who challenges the mainstream view of evolution "crackpots" or "idiots", he has broken WP:NPOV. Everyone on wikipedia knows who he is, doing a search of his name on wikipedia reveals over 20 user pages who secretly have compained about his non-neutal stance to evolution and "bating tactics", sad thing is nothing will be done about this. - I have nothing further to say, he wins, articles will be deleted, evolution is a no go area, it's a heated zone if you are not for the mainstream synthesis you are discredited, ignored, dimmed a "crackpot" (even if you have a phd) or called a secret creationist. Sad but true story! I quit wikipedia articles relating to this now i will edit other stuff.Liveintheforests (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how these complaints can be "secret" if they are found by "a search of his name". Sounds like they are quite visible. People who come up with theories that depart wildly from the mainstream of scholarship are often labelled 'crackpots'. That's just par for the course. Hrafn has no power to delete articles without consensus. He has the right to tag them, but they are only deleted after they are discussed by the community as a whole. Also WP:NPOV does not apply to expressions of ones personal views. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WHAT???!!! He swears in forums and blog posts? Say not so! Has anyone called the police? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "WP:NPOV does not apply to expressions of ones personal views." No, but WP:BLP does if they're calling any living person an "idiot". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence refers to Hrafn's statements on "forums and blogs", so, no, WP:BLP does not apply. WP:anythingwhatever does not apply (thanks Steven for restoring my lost corrections. I thought I'd dreamed I'd done that). Paul B (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. As long as he's not doing that on Wikipedia, it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further, but, uh, I will anyway. Calling a living person an "idiot" on Wikipedia is not a BLP violation, since it's clearly a statement of personal opinion. On the other hand, saying that someone robbed a bank or (oh, I don't know) participated in the assassination of JFK without evidence is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, calling living person an "idiot" on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, material on living people in articles still needs to be meticulously sourced, but people are still allowed to express opinions in talk pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages.  (However, in practice BLP violations in article space are taken more seriously than BLP violations on talk pages, but the policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the term "idiot" is being used in its obsolete medical sense, I really don't see how it could ever be "sourced", except as a quotation. A person's idiocy is not something that can ever be proven, because the term can be used in many ways. If I say "the President is an idiot", that may mean his actions in some aspect of his policies are foolish. Alternatively I may mean he is deeply unintelligent. The meaning changes according to the context. On reflection, I don't think BLP policy is this area can be applied in any meaningful way. It would be like asking for sources that someone is a "jerk". However, this is, admittedly the wrong board to be discussing this. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Final summary:


 * 1. The Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear - Can be fully deleted, i have requested this.
 * 2. Olan Hyndman can be deleted fully, i have requested this. Maybe a mention on the neolamarckist article however? You decide.
 * 3. Soren Lovtrup can be deleted fully, i have requested this, i have merged the third party referenced section to the saltationism article.
 * 4. There are no references to be found on the Otto Schindewolf article so you may aswell delete him aswell, he is already mentioned on the saltationism article.
 * 5. I wasted 18 hours of my life writing these articles, why a certain other user (guess who) tags the page in less than one minute and as usual makes no effort into trying to find references to improve the article, he didnt even try for one second! Didn't even look, (as usual on all of the creationist, and or non-darwinian evolutionist articles hes done this for years, tag but not help out).
 * 6.I am staying away from the evolution articles so don't worry, too heated, a no go area. It reminds me of a fascist dictatorship. All sorted. The end. I will avoid the user Hrafn and any articles he has been on and sorry for any personal attacks i may have made. Peace.Liveintheforests (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All articles deleted case closed
All 4 articles have been deleted. Party anyone? Get your Darwin banners out!! You win. Any scientist who questions natural selection is a "crackpot" and not is not reliable to be on wikipedia even if they are well sourced!!. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You asked for them to be deleted, so congratuate yourself. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have congratuated myself. Also im going to delete many other articles on wikipedia now which appently have "no or little sources", condidering that's what the latest trend is (just tagging articles instead of improving them). These creationists have little sources and need to be deleted:


 * Carl Wieland - No third party sources
 * Two citations to The Creationists -- the gold standard of third party sources on creationism. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Monty White - little third party sources
 * Already tagged for notability. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Woodmorappe - tiny souces
 * Already tagged for notability. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan Puric - hardly any sources
 * No indication that he's a creationist, article not part of WP:WikiProject Creationism -- somebody else's problem. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edwin Poots - Poorly sourced
 * Passes WP:BIO as a MLA. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Ankerberg - No third party sources
 * Already tagged for notability, merger proposed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay Van Andel - Little sources
 * Clearly notable -- but does require better sourcing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Norman Geisler - Little sources
 * Clearly notable -- but does require better sourcing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It must be pointed out all the above are creationists, and all of those articles have far less sources on them, and i mean far less than the articles i created. Only fair that they are deleted. Deletion tags will be added to them soon. I am also going through the creationist list, i believe there are another 30 articles we can delete. Cheers. Liveintheforests (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't seem to understand the concept of notability. There may be lots of sources available on someone without that making a person notable. Also, read WP:POINT. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Liveintheforests: Please don't. You need to familiarize yourself with our notability policy.  Tagging a bunch of articles for deletion may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT and could lead to you getting blocked.  I don't want that to happen so I recommend that you just chill out and familiarize yourself with how things work around here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * lol, i wasn;t really going to delete any of those articles, i was making a WP:POINT, besides i do not know how to delete or tag an article. Also i am a "secret creationist" and a "crackpot" remember? so i wouldn't want to delete any of those fellow "creationist crackpot" buddie articles would i. I think all these cases are now closed. So i will not be posting here anymore. Thank you. Liveintheforests (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer
The Energy Catalyzer ('cold fusion') article needs more eyes on it. It is attracting SPAs who seem to have some odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Soren Lovtrup
This embryologist appears to have written a lot of rather WP:FRINGE-sounding material about evolution, including in the notorious pseudoscience-peddling journal Rivista di Biologia. Most of the article is cited to primary sources. I'm probably looking at AfDing it, but thought I'd post it for comment here first. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. His work is well sourced from many science journals. He suscribes to the macromutation theory of evolution similar to Richard Goldschmidt, it is a shame he has been quoted mined by creationists, but his work is not Fringe, it may not be mainstream but he is a well respected scientist. Also note he wrote the book Epigenetics : A treatise on theoretical biology which even C. H. Waddington claimed was a "refreshing" and "rewarding" book which will reward the reader with a "great deal of information" concerning evolution. Stephen Gould also had positive things to say about Lovtrup's work and Lovtrup is mentioned in 100s of articles and books on evolution. Liveintheforests (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If he didn't want to be quotemined by creationists, then why did he submit his work to a creationist rag like Rivista di Biologia? You have failed to address the lack of third-party sourcing (though from WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden‎, I'd question whether you know what "third-party sourcing" means). Hopeful Monster notes that "Goldschmidt's thesis however was universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, is wholly unsourced, and probably deserving of closer attention. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability needs to be established, then after that it needs reducing to what can be established from good sources. Good for biography doesn't necessarily equate to good for science. For example, articles in science magazines would be appropriate. Even if we think he is a pseudoscientist he could still be notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rivista di Biologia is not a creationist journal, well respected evolutionists have written in it such as Goodwin and P. Saunders. They are evolutionists who question Neo-Darwinism, in the late 80's a number of scientists questioned the role of Neo-darwinism and some of them proposed new mechanisms for evolution instead of natural selection and micromutations, this has nothing to do with creationism. The fact that you call Rivista di Biologia a "creationist rag" shows your non-neutral side of this discussion, you know alot about wikipedia rules, but the one you never seem to apply to is WP:NPOV. Considering i created and wrote the Soren Lovtrup article, il deal with it, i already spent 12 hours on it, Hrafn you have a history of adding notability tags to wikipedia articles without trying to improve them yourself. Please look at the current sources on the Lovtrup article, you will see third party sources there, il put up another four later. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more rigorous with your sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Further references for Lovtrup


 * UTILIZATION OF PYRIMIDINES AND PYRIMIDINE DEOXYNUCLEOSIDES BY THERMOBACTERIUM ACIDOPHILUM (LACTOBACILLUS ACIDOPHILUS) - American Society For MicroBiology
 * Synthesis of Desoxyribonucleic Acid in Lethal Amphibian Hybrids
 * Lovtrup's membership at the Swedish Developmental Biology Organization
 * On the Classification of the Taxon Tetrapoda - Oxford Journals
 * On von Baerian and Haeckelian recapitulation
 * On the rate of water exchange across the surface of animal cells - Journal of Theoretical Biology
 * Water Balance in the Salmon Egg - Journal of Experimental Biology
 * The morphogenesis of molluscan shells: A mathematical account using biological parameters - Journal of Morphology
 * Zoologica Scripta, Volume 2, Issue 2-3, pages 49-61, March 1974
 * A physiological interpretation of the mechanism involved in the determination of bilateral symmetry in amphibian embryos - Journal of Embryology
 * Design, purpose and function in evolution: meditations on a classical problem


 * As you can see Hardly a "Fringe" "Pseudoscientist" or "Creationist" he has many scientific papers printed in many respected scientific journals. Liveintheforests (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The user Hrafn is a self-described "darwikinist" (whatever that is) Im guessing something to do with Dawkins.


 * Here he is:


 * Hrafn's abusive posts about intelligent design


 * "Hrafn - "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." So Hrafn has not even read Michael J. Behe's Darwin's black box but claims Behe is an "incompetent crank", nothing else needs to be said, this user has broken WP:NPOV he is not neutral regarding anything to do with evolution, and i strongly suggest he stays away from some of these articles. It must be pointed out Lovtrup is not a "Creationist" or "Intelligent design" proponent, he simply challenges the micromutation theory of evolution, he is an evolutionist with a PHD not a "crank".


 * Here is your hereo Richard Dawkins - "Even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in prefering it over all rival theories" - Close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, Darwin said it so it must be right! All other theories of evolution are false and thought up by "cranks"! Sound familiar?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 May 2011

Thank you Liveintheforests for this: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Further pile of WP:PRIMARY sources, that do nothing to establish notability
 * 2) Furious defence of Rivista di Biologia, whose editor was until recently, creationist Giuseppe Sermonti, whose contributors have included ID creationists Jonathan Wells & John A. Davison, as well as WP:FRINGE figures such as Rupert Sheldrake. I would also note that I'm not alone in having a low opinion of it.
 * 3) Equally furious, and mostly highly irrelevant, set of ad hominem attacks against me.


 * Hrafn has broken WP:NPOV, he spends his time deleting any scientist on wikipedia who opposes neo-darwinism. "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." - Anyone who opposes the modern evolutionary synthesis is a "crank" to him, he refuses to accept any evidence, his eyes are closed - Hes made his mind up. Biased user. Topic ban on these related topics? Who does this user think he is? He seems to think he owns wikipedia and is an authority on evolution, look how well referenced the Lovtrup article is. Hrafn is now taking part in WP:VAN.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Liveintheforests clearly has no understanding of the meaning of WP:NPOV, WP:VAND or WP:AGF to be making such ludicrous accusations. I have challenged the notability of some of their pet projects and have made the blindingly obvious point that material written by the topics themselves are not third party sources. Neither is in violation of Wikipedia policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete Macromutation as an unsourced WP:CFORK of Hopeful Monster
 * 2) Rename Hopeful Monster to Macromutation
 * 3) Merge the small amount of third-party sourced material in Soren Lovtrup into that article.

(Actually, we might be able to achieve 1&2 by a WP:USURPTITLE procedure. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )


 * More than enough information on the Lovtrup article, you only want it deleted becuase of your agenda you have broken WP:NPOV, Macromutation is not the same as Hopeful monster. You have a poor undertanding of evolution. And this is boring now. Lovtrup is referenced in many science journals, an a level genetics textbook, a newscientist magazine article and book from peter bowler etc all third party references. You may dislike Lovtrup becuase of your own personal beliefs, but it really is showing now and this is in violation of wikipedia rules.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Hopeful Monster is (i) a subtopic of Macromutation & (ii) the most well-known subtopic of it.
 * 2) Macromutation is currently wholly unsourced -- so needs to be replaced with sourced material.
 * 3) The only sourced material we have is Hopeful Monster. The logical conclusion is therefore to replace Macromutation with Hopeful Monster (under the former title)
 * 4) The only third-party information we have on Soren Lovtrup is on his Macromutation claims. It therefore makes sense to roll this material into the new Macromutation article.

Lovtrup is well referenced
Many reliabled third party sources here:


 * Synthesis of Desoxyribonucleic Acid in Lethal Amphibian Hybrids, John R. Gregg and Soren Lovtrup, "Department of Zoology, Columbia University, New York and Cytochemnical Department, Carlsberg Laboratory, Copenhagen" Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cyclic AMP and Cell Differentiation in Amphibian Embryonic Explants "Søren Løvtrup, Department of Zoophysiology, University of Umeå, Sweden" Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sune Larsson and Soren Lovtrup "AN AUTOMATIC DIVER BALANCE" University of Goteborg Sweden, 9th July 1965 Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Science magazine, Cartesian Diver Balance Soren Lovtrup and Erik Zeuthen, Science 8 June 1951: 661-662 Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, Croom Helm, ISBN 0-7099-4153-6 Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'On progressive evolution and competitive extinction ', guest editorial, Soren Lovtrup, Environmental Biology of Fishes, Volume 17, Number 1, 3-12, DOI: 10.1007/BF00000396 Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kathryn E. Hood, Carolyn Tucker Halpern, Gary Greenberg, Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics, 2010, p. 70 Two whole sentences -- NOT "significant coverage" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Review of Lovtrup's book in the New Scientist, Oct 15, 1988
 * Lovtrup, 1987 Not third party <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf
 * Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin: the man and his influence, 1996, p. 4 One sentence and a couple of passing mentions -- NOT "significant coverage" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does Hrafn deny all of this? And keep putting notability tags on the page? Liveintheforests (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Liveintheforests for confirming that you don't "know what 'third-party sourcing' means" -- Lovtrup's own writings CANNOT be a third-party source on the topic of Lovtrup himself. Hood et al and Bowler barely mention Lovtrup, which leaves just the Journal of Evolutionary Biology & New Scientist reviews as potentially substantive third party coverage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course there are Lovtrups own writings included (own writings are found on almost every wiki page) - All which have been peer reviewed from journals in the case of lovtrup. They may be some primary sources but reliable ones, third party references include:


 * Review of Lovtrup's book in the New Scientist, Oct 15, 1988 - Probably the most detailed review on the internet, from a respected evolutionist.
 * Kathryn E. Hood, Carolyn Tucker Halpern, Gary Greenberg, Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics, 2010, p. 70, This source mentions Lovtrups and his macromutation theory of evolution and how it is similar to the hopeful monster theory. Two whole sentences -- NOT "significant coverage" <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * onlinelibrary reference
 * http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho28.htm - by Gert Korthof - (lol) you just deleted this reference from the article (to try and make out there are less third party references). WP:SPS, not appropriate for WP:BLP <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovtrup is also referenced by the geneticists Waddington and P. Saunders, Waddington reviewed Lovtrups book
 * There are other references for Lovtrup on Google books, you refuse to look.
 * Looking on google scholar will reveal Lovtrup has published 100s of scientific papers, peer reviewed by many well known scientific journals. You have been proven wrong, there are both primary and third sources on the article, what you are doing, needs to stop now and you just have to accept this. Liveintheforests (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

- WP:GNG

Significant third-party coverage is REQUIRED for notability. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
KillerChihuahua has removed a third party reference claiming:

"Remove reference which is not about subject at all, but about work on finches by Grant"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf

Click on the link above, scroll down to page 3 of 5.

Soren lovtrups book and work is reviewed in great detail with much description about Lovtrups theory of macromutation by W.Dohle in the Journal of evoltionary biology on page 3. What does this show? It shows that Killer is not even reading the references (he hasn't gone further than the first line which is actually a seperate review of another book), hes just eager to get these sources deleted. It also appears that this edit can not be undone now either and has done be done manually, i am not happy about what is going on here, no respect at all, users here are not even reading the references, they are making big mistakes, the source was third party. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this is a duplicate complaint of one made, and answered, on Talk:Soren Lovtrup. Please place any additional comments there. Liveintheforests, please don't spam the same thing on multiple pages; this is difficult for others to follow and may be a violation of Forumshopping. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article has been deleted close case
This article has been deleted now and you can close this case, but as you can see there was actually other third party sources out there, nobody bothered to look though except me:

http://ep.physoc.org/content/59/3/261.full.pdf+html - Review of Lovtrup's work from C. H. Waddington a developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology - not at all a "crank", though Hrafn would probably call him a "crank" as outside of science he was influenced by the process philosophy of Whitehead.Liveintheforests (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I just left you a message on your talk page but also wanted to comment here that you should really avoid making this a personal issue. Hrafn is a long term experienced contributor to Wikipedia and I would ask that you assume good faith that he is doing his best to make Wikipedia articles as good as they can be.  You can both disagree over what the article/Wikipedia should be like but it does not have to get personal.  There are rules here and he is simply pointing them out to you. Noformation (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)